Third Party Intervention at the International Court of Justice: Challenges and Prospects

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gosego Rockfall Lekgowe
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Third Party Intervention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

Third-Party Intervention Before the International Court of Justice

1986 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 495-531 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. M. Chinkin
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
El Salvador ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Third Party Intervention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Academic Discussion ◽  
Judicial Authority

Until lately, the procedure of third-party intervention before the International Court of Justice provided for by Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the Court had been underutilized; as a result, there was scant judicial authority and comparatively little academic discussion on its use and limitations. This situation has now dramatically changed, as three recent cases before the Court have involved claims of third-party intervention: that between Tunisia and Libya, where Malta made the request to intervene; that between Libya and Malta, where Italy was the requesting state; and, most recently, the case between Nicaragua and the United States, where El Salvador made a declaration of intervention.

The Francis Deák Prize

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (3) ◽  
pp. 640-640
Author(s):  
Joseph Modeste Sweeney
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Senior Lecturer ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Third Party Intervention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The University

The AJIL Board of Editors is pleased to announce that the Francis Deák Prize for 1987 has been awarded to C. M. Chinkin for her article, Third-Party Intervention before the International Court of Justice, which appeared in the July 1986 issue at p. 495. Ms. Chinkin is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the University of Sydney.

Part III The Major Cases and Controversies: A Survey of State Practice, 6 The Major Cases

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
McCaffrey Stephen C
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
The Other ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Other Hand ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The World ◽  
International Profile

This chapter explores cases bearing on the field of international watercourses that have been decided by the International Court of Justice or its predecessor. States have submitted only a few disputes concerning international watercourses to the International Court of Justice or its predecessor, though the pace is clearly picking up. There are doubtless many factors that explain this phenomenon, including reluctance to give a dispute a high international profile, reluctance to trust dispute resolution to a third party over whom states have no control, hesitancy about submitting a dispute to a tribunal composed of judges, the expense of litigating before the World Court, and the like. On the other hand, states are bringing an increasing number of cases of all kinds, including those concerning international watercourses, to the Court, indicating that it is becoming a more popular forum for the resolution of disputes.

The Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) – Preliminary Objection

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-551
Author(s):  
Roger S. Clark
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

The case-law of the International Court of Justice (Court) is replete with arguments about whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the particular dispute (or request for advisory opinion) with which the Court is faced. These arguments are framed at one level as matters of interpretation of the relevant instruments. But they typically play out as well a multiplicity of variations on the overlapping themes of sovereignty (the extent to which states have been prepared to concede decision-making to third-party settlement mechanisms) and justiciability (the extent to which they will accept that an issue may be governed by ‘law’ and thus be susceptible to resolution by judicial actors).

Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
George Barrie
Keyword(s):  
State Intervention ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Modern World ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Multilateral Treaty ◽  
Party State

which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has attempted to accommodate such an eventuality. Article 62 provides for intervention by a third state if it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the ICJ’s decision in the case. Article 63 allows for member states of a multilateral treaty to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of such a treaty. Intervention under Article 62 is in the discretion of the ICJ. Intervention under Article 63 is a right. Applications to intervene under Article 62 have only been successful in three instances and, applications to intervene under Article 63 have only been successful in two instances. It is submitted that the ICJ should be more flexible in allowing third-party interventions by interpreting Articles 62 and 63 less strictly. This is more in accordance with the greater interdependence of states in the modern world and can prevent the duplication of proceedings. Such flexibility can only enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ in achieving its mandate.

Progress in International Maritime Boundary Delimitation Law

1994 ◽  
Vol 88 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan I. Charney
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Maritime Boundary Delimitation

Judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and awards of ad hoc arbitration tribunals carry special weight in international maritime boundary law. On its face, the international maritime boundary law codified in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea is indeterminate. For the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone, the legal obligation of coastal states is to delimit the boundary “by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, in order to achieve an equitable solution.” The article on the delimitation of maritime boundaries in the territorial sea is no more determinative despite the fact that it makes direct references to the equidistant line, special circumstances and historic title. In spite of this indeterminacy, if not because of it, coastal states have found that third-party dispute settlement procedures can effectively resolve maritime boundary delimitation disputes. As a consequence, there are more judgments and awards on maritime boundary disputes than on any other subject of international law, and this trend is continuing.

12. International dispute settlement and the ICJ

2019 ◽  
pp. 299-322
Author(s):  
Gleider Hernández
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Principal Characteristics ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Prior Consent ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Icj

This chapter examines the various political or diplomatic methods available for international dispute settlement. These methods include negotiation, mediation or ‘good offices’, inquiry, and conciliation. The array of diplomatic techniques available to parties to resolve a dispute is complemented by various means of settling disputes through the application of binding solutions based on the law. Two in particular, arbitration and adjudication, principally developed from earlier forms of non-binding settlement. Though these are different, they are linked by two principal characteristics. Foremost, they allow for a third party to issue a decision that is binding on the parties. Second, resorting to these methods requires the prior consent of the parties. The chapter then considers the International Court of Justice, the ‘principal judicial organ’ of the United Nations. The ICJ’s structure was frequently utilized as a model for later judicial institutions, making an enormous contribution to the development of international law.

32. Third party settlement of international disputes

2019 ◽  
pp. 692-716
Author(s):  
James Crawford
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Investment ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Wto Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Third Party

This chapter discusses the third party settlement of international disputes. It covers arbitration and the origins of international dispute settlement; the idea of judicial settlement of international disputes; the International Court of Justice, interstate arbitration, dispute settlement under UNCLOS, the WTO dispute settlement body, and international investment tribunals.

International Procedural Regulation in the Common Interest: The Role of Third-Party Intervention and Amicus Curiae before the ICJ

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-188
Author(s):  
Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Third Party ◽  
Common Interest ◽  
Amicus Curiae ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Third Party Intervention ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Common ◽  
Substantive Law

Abstract By adjudicating inter-State claims, international courts can also contribute to the protection and promotion of community interests. However, the main obstacle faced by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relates to the existing tension between the bilateral nature of its own proceedings and the multilateral nature of the conflicting substantive law. As procedure may guide and shape the application of substantive law, it should itself be interpreted and developed in a manner to ensure community interests. By using its power to “frame rules for carrying out its functions”, the Court should assume expanded procedural powers in order to ensure the effective application of substantive law whenever community interests are at issue. Most procedural rules can be adjusted for multiparty aspects, notably the rules on third-party intervention, with the aim of protecting community interests and enhancing the Court’s legitimacy. It is up to the Court to find the balance between States’ rights and commonly aspired goals.

Adjudication of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine

1980 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 292-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
D.M. McRae
Keyword(s):  
North Atlantic ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Gulf Of Maine ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Third Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary

On March 29, 1979 Canada and the United States signed a treaty to submit their dispute over the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine to binding settlement. The event is worthy of note not only because it is the first occasion since the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, in 1910, that the two countries have submitted a dispute over their offshore jurisdiction to third party settlement but also because it constitutes the first reference by any state of a question to a chamber of the International Court of Justice. However, this reference to the Court is only conditional and the parties have provided for the possible removal of the case from the Court and for its submission to an ad hoc court of arbitration. Thus, as well as providing a further opportunity for an international tribunal to consider the law relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, the treaty raises some interesting questions about recourse to a chamber of the International Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document