New Problems—Old Solutions

1974 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 91-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunnar Skagestad ◽  
Kim Traavik
Keyword(s):  
Final Section ◽  
The Novel ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Past ◽  
International Court ◽  
Solution Models ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Opening Up ◽  
General Regulation

The verdict in 1933 by the Permanent International Court of Justice in the so-called ‘Eastern Greenland Case’ brought to the fore the dilemma of adapting the traditional sovereignty concept to the novel political/legal problems characterizing the ‘new territories’. With the opening up of other ‘new territories’ for exploration and subsequent exploitation, this dilemma has grown ever more acute in recent years. This chapter highlights some general regulation problems in ‘new territories’, gives a description of attempts made to solve such problems in the past, and identifies the key elements in the various ‘solution models’ (notably the Svalbard Treaty, the Antarctic Treaty and the Continental Shelf Convention). These elements are described and analysed comparatively, with a certain emphasis on the somewhat divergent preconditions prevalent in the three separate examples. In the final section, the authors proceed to discuss the applicability of the old solution models to the present and emerging regulation problems in the new territories.

ICJ Halts Antarctic Whaling – Japan Starts Again

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cymie R. Payne
Keyword(s):  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Margin Of Appreciation ◽  
International Court ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
The Antarctic

AbstractThe International Court of Justice (ICJ) judgment inWhaling in the Antarctic, a dispute brought by Australia against Japan, found that Japan had violated the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW) moratoria on all commercial whaling and the use of factory ships to process whales, and also the prohibition on whaling in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary. In the course of analyzing whether special permits issued by Japan qualified for the scientific whaling exemption under Article VIII ICRW, the Court benefited from a more robust scientific fact-finding process than at times in the past. The judgment emphasized the mutual obligations of this multilateral agreement by taking the view that the provisions of the ICRW’s scientific whaling exemptions are neither self-judging nor subject to a ‘margin of appreciation’ in favour of a state party claiming the exemption. The case was driven by conflicting attitudes towards commercial whaling, and also towards global common spaces. The ICJ’s decision and Japan’s response indicate the limits of the ICRW in resolving those differences.

Sovereignty and the Antarctic Treaty

Polar Record ◽  
2009 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Rothwell
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Geophysical Year ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
Crucial Component ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Territorial Claims ◽  
The Antarctic

Sovereignty was and still remains one of the principal reasons for human endeavour in Antarctica. The ‘Heroic Era’ of Antarctic exploration was designed principally to seek out not only new lands including the South Pole, but also to assert territorial claims on behalf of the sovereign who sponsored these expeditions. The ‘planting of the flag’ was therefore just as much a crucial component of Antarctic discovery, as also was the conduct of science. Sovereignty and science remained twin pillars of Antarctic endeavour throughout the early part of the twentieth century, and whilst the region escaped the horrors of World War II, it did not take long after the war for Antarctic endeavours to resume on both fronts. In a decade of frantic diplomatic activity during the 1950s, which was highlighted by the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year and the 1959 Washington Conference, there was also the prospect in 1956 of a case before the International Court of Justice between Argentina, Chile and the United Kingdom over the contested status of territorial claims on the Antarctic Peninsula. Notwithstanding that by this time all of the current claims to the continent had by then been asserted, there had also been moves made by India in 1956 and then again in 1958 to reconsider the management of the continent with a view to its internationalisation under a framework created by the United Nations General Assembly.

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (4) ◽  
pp. 855-887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
International Agreement ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Past ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Technical Basis

Many governments are reluctant to submit disputes voluntarily to the International Court of Justice for binding adjudication. Only a few disputes are brought to the Court with the current agreement of all the parties. When that happens, no matter what the technical basis for the Court’s jurisdiction may be—a compromis, compulsory jurisdiction, or a compromissory clause in a substantive international agreement or an optional protocol—the Court’s jurisdiction is unlikely to be questioned. When the respondent state does not wish the dispute to be submitted to the Court, however, the applicant state must compel adjudication by relying on jurisdiction founded upon the respondent state’s consent given in the past. Consent may be found in declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court provided for in Article 36(2) of its Statute. Alternatively, such consent may be found under Articles 36(1) or 37, which permit jurisdiction to be based on compromissory clauses.

scholarly journals Systemic Judicial Authority: The “Fourth Corner” of “The Judicial Trilemma”?

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 349-353
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Judicial Decision ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Empirical Social Science

Jeffrey Dunoff and Mark Pollack's Judicial Trilemma is a refreshing challenge to prevailing narratives about judicial decision-making in international courts and tribunals and is part of a growing wave of scholarship deploying empirical, social science-driven methodology to theorize the place of judicial institutions in the international legal field. Seeking to peek behind the black robes and divine the reasoning behind judicial decisions without descending into speculation and actively trying to thwart considerations of confidentiality is a fraught endeavor on which I have expressed skepticism in the past. The Judicial Trilemma admirably seeks to overcome these challenges, and I commend the authors for tackling the hard question as to whether one can truly glance behind the black robe.

scholarly journals Management and remediation of contaminated sites at Casey Station, Antarctica

Polar Record ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 37 (202) ◽  
pp. 199-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Snape ◽  
Martin J. Riddle ◽  
Jonathan S. Stark ◽  
Coleen M. Cole ◽  
Catherine K. King ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Priorities ◽  
Contaminated Sites ◽  
Sufficient Information ◽  
Monitoring Site ◽  
The Past ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
Technical Capability ◽  
Operational Plan ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Casey Station

AbstractThe Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty requires that past and present work sites be cleaned up unless removal would result in greater adverse environmental impact than leaving the contaminant in its existing location. In the early 1990s Australia began the documentation of contaminated sites associated with its research stations, which resulted in an extensive record of contamination at abandoned stations and waste-disposal sites. Currently the technical capability to remediate these sites does not exist because of environmental challenges that are unique to the cold regions. Investigations indicate that clean-up operations in the past have proceeded without adequate precautions and without effective monitoring. To address these problems, three research priorities have been identified to assist meeting international and national obligations to clean up these sites. They are: understanding contaminant mobilisation processes; development of ecological risk assessment for use in monitoring and setting priorities; and development of clean-up and remediation procedures. This study provides sufficient information to guide the completion of a clean-up at Casey Station and to indicate how other similar sites should be managed. The next stage is to develop the theory into an operational plan to include detailed protocols for clean-up, monitoring, site remediation, and management of the waste stream from site to final repository. To achieve this, the Australian Antarctic Division has established a contaminated sites taskforce to facilitate the transition from research and development of techniques to implementation of suitable clean-up options.

scholarly journals Antarctic climate change and the environment: an update

Polar Record ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 237-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Turner ◽  
Nicholas E. Barrand ◽  
Thomas J. Bracegirdle ◽  
Peter Convey ◽  
Dominic A. Hodgson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
Intergovernmental Panel ◽  
Assessment Report ◽  
The Past ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Form Part ◽  
Antarctic Research ◽  
Antarctic Treaty ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Relevant Material

ABSTRACTWe present an update of the ‘key points’ from the Antarctic Climate Change and the Environment (ACCE) report that was published by the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) in 2009. We summarise subsequent advances in knowledge concerning how the climates of the Antarctic and Southern Ocean have changed in the past, how they might change in the future, and examine the associated impacts on the marine and terrestrial biota. We also incorporate relevant material presented by SCAR to the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings, and make use of emerging results that will form part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report.

Conceptions and (Mis)conceptions of Science in International Treaties; the ICJ Whaling Case in Context

2015 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 607-622 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan Gogarty
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Commercial Whaling ◽  
The Antarctic

The recent judgment in the International Court of Justice case Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) determined that Japanese ‘special permit’ whaling in the Southern Ocean was not ‘for the purposes of scientific research’. This is the only exemption permitted under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling’s current moratorium on commercial whaling. The Court made its determination by characterising the Japanese research program as a scientific program, but failing to define what scientific research actually was or was not. This paper presents the background to the decision, and challenges the reasoning of the Court and its standard of review test. It concludes that the Court failed to take the opportunity to offer a clear determination to states on their legal–scientific obligations within international law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document