scholarly journals INTERPRETASI INTERNATIONAL COURT of JUSTICE (ICJ) PADA PASAL VI PERJANJIAN NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY 1968 (NPT)

Arena Hukum ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-367
Author(s):  
Taufik Nugraha
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Nuclear Weapon ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Early Date ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Nuclear Weapon State ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race

It has been 50 years since the Non-Proliferation Treaty was made by America, England, and the Soviet Union to prevent the nuclear arms race in the future. However, Article VI of NPT consisted of ambiguity and has sparked long-lasting debate questioning NPT electiveness. Article VI at least has been examining twice by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1996 and 2014. Unfortunately, those examinations were unsatisfied regarding when Nuclear Weapon State (NWS) should cease and disarmament their nuclear weapon? If referring to “an early date,” it should be done years long ago and not taking more than 50 years with pathetic achievement. Finally, this article will examine the current development of NWS using a normative juridical method according to existing nuclear regulation, ICJ Commentary, which resulting in a suggestion when NPT 1968 parties should fulfil their obligation under Art VI NPT 1968.

The Thirty—Third Year of the World Court

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

Functional Justiciability and the Existence of a Dispute: A Means of Jurisdictional Avoidance?

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 599-621
Author(s):  
Manuel Casas
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
International Law ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race ◽  
International Adjudication

Abstract In the recent Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament string of cases the International Court of Justice declined jurisdiction by holding that there was no dispute between the parties. This Article examines the Court’s treatment of the existence of a dispute (‘EoD’) jurisdictional objection; it does not purport to analyze the Court’s broader reliance on jurisdictional doctrines as a general means of avoiding cases. From a doctrinal perspective, this Article argues that the Court's interpretation of the EoD objection in those cases is unpersuasive. Instead, the Article contends that the Court has relied on the existence of a dispute objection as a covert or functional justiciability doctrine. That is, as a ground for discretionarily declining jurisdiction or, to borrow a term from private international law, as an escape device. The Article considers that such jurisdictional avoidance may be normatively justified as a form of principled avoidance. Normatively, the decision to rely on a procedural technicality to avoid going into the merits of a potentially explosive case may be seen as a valid exercise of judicial self-restraint—something that can aid the Court navigate the tensions created by increased skepticism of international adjudication. And policy-wise, avoiding a case on a sensible subject-matter, that touches on core aspects of defense and national security, could be accepted as a way of side-stepping potential backlash.

International Court of Justice

1959 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 630-634 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese Island ◽  
Fighter Aircraft ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of November 7, 1954 (United States v. Soviet Union): On July 7, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against die Soviet Union was filed in the Registry of the Court by the government of the United States. In its application the government of the United States alleged that on November 7, 1954, one of its aircraft was attacked and destroyed over the Japanese island of Hokkaido by fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union. It requested the Court to find that the Soviet Union was liable for the damages caused and to award damages in the sum of $756,604. It also stated that it had submitted to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and that it was open to the government of the Soviet Union to do likewise. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the application was thereupon communicated by the Registry to the government of the Soviet Union.

MULTILATERAL DISPUTES IN BILATERAL SETTINGS: INTERNATIONAL PRACTICE LAGS BEHIND THEORY

2017 ◽  
Vol 76 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Federica I. Paddeu
Keyword(s):  
Arms Race ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Customary Law ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Nuclear Arms

ON 5 October 2016, the International Court of Justice handed down its decision in the three parallel proceedings involving the Marshall Islands (as applicant) and India, Pakistan and the UK (as respondents): Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v India). The Marshall Islands claimed that the respondent states had failed to meet their obligation to negotiate the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament in good faith, either under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (claim against the UK) and/or customary law (against all three respondents). All three respondents formulated objections to jurisdiction and admissibility. In all three cases, they objected that a “dispute” did not exist between them and the applicant. The Court, by a narrow majority (extremely narrow in the case against the UK: by the casting vote of the President), declined to exercise jurisdiction on the basis that no dispute existed between the parties.

scholarly journals Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 53
Author(s):  
Devesh Awmee
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Nuclear Disarmament ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament. The case concerned three parallel claims brought by the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom for their alleged failure to fulfil obligations concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament under art VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. The Court in all three proceedings dismissed the claims at the preliminary objections phase on the sole ground that a legal dispute did not exist between the parties. In determining whether a legal dispute existed, the Court appears to have deviated from the objective determination taken in its previous jurisprudence by introducing, for the first time, a new requirement of "awareness". The Court also failed to address the other preliminary objections brought by the United Kingdom such as the Monetary Gold principle, which appears to have been a more credible avenue for the Court to dismiss the case. The case illustrates the failure by the Court to yet again confront the issue of nuclear weapons.

International Court of Justice

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-557
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court

Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America: On March 3, 1954, the United States filed with the Registry of the International Court of Justice Applications dated February 16, 1954, instituting proceedings against the governments of Hungary and the Soviet Union in the matter of the treatment in Hungary of aircraft and crew of the United States. In two orders of July 12, 1954, the Court removed the cases from its list, since neither Hungary nor the Soviet Union had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter.

A Changing Attitude Towards International Adjudication in the Soviet Union

1990 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 59-66
Author(s):  
G. Shinkaretskaya
Keyword(s):  
Soviet Union ◽  
Special Role ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Adjudication

Russia (at that time still Tsarist Russia), its science and its government played a special role in the preparation of the two Hague Peace Conferences. One cannot but appreciate what Russian scientists, like Kachenovski, Nezabitovsky and others have done for the development of the idea to apply formalized, juridical methods in disputes between nations; one cannot but see that it was Kamarovsky who suggested that very scheme of building an international court of justice which is used up to now.Let us also give F.F. Martens, who took part in the preparation of the acts adopted by the Conferences, his due.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1960 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denys P. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fighter Aircraft ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
Contemporary Practice

The press release issued by the Department of State in announcing the filing of an application with the International Court of Justice on July 7, 1959, in a damage suit for the destruction of an aircraft by a fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union stated:The present proceedings have been instituted in accordance with the well-established United States policy of resolving such disputes, whether of fact or law, in the International Court of Justice. The Court is the judicial organ of the United Nations for this purpose and is the appropriate international body before which such cases can be heard and decided.

International Obligations Concerning Disarmament and the Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race: Justiciability over Justice in the Marshall Islands Cases at the International Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 449-472
Author(s):  
Jonathan Black-Branch
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
Marshall Islands ◽  
Sufficient Evidence ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Obligations ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race ◽  
The Uk

Abstract The International Court of Justice rulings in cases from the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the UK not only failed to answer important questions regarding obligations to negotiate a nuclear cessation treaty and to disarm, but also raise new questions relating to the existence of a dispute under general international law. The Respondents objected to the Court’s jurisdiction to hear the case on the grounds that there was no justiciable dispute between them and the Marshall Islands, arguing that the issues should not be adjudicated within this forum. The Court agreed, finding there was not sufficient evidence of a dispute, per se, and consequently did not have jurisdiction to hear these cases on their merits as the Respondents were not aware of contentious issues. In the case of the UK, in particular, it was decided by a narrow majority, raising important questions about the Court’s strictly formalistic, and more importantly, unprecedented, approach regarding the existence of a dispute under international law. More significantly, the ruling avoided answering important questions relating to long-standing international obligations regarding disarmament and negotiations toward a treaty to cease the arms race pursuant to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, 1968. This article provides an overview and analysis of the Marshall Islands cases, examining the main legal issues and arguments, focusing on the Court’s reasoning and highlighting the division within the Court on substantive matters pertaining to obligations of nuclear-armed states.

scholarly journals Public Interests in the International Court of Justice—A Comparison Between Nuclear Arms Race (2016) and South West Africa (1966)

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 68-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Venzke
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
West Africa ◽  
Arms Race ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
Nuclear Arms Race ◽  
Nuclear Arms

In the present essay I compare the 2016 judgment of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Nuclear Arms Race (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom) with the Court's 1966 judgment in South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa). A series of similarities between the two judgments are obvious: They are two of the three cases in the history of the Court in which the judges were equally split and the President had to cast his tie-breaking vote. The critique of the judgments has been exceptionally strong, in 2016 as in 1966. The core of the critique, then as now, has practically been the same—the Court retreats into an excessive formalism that protects great powers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document