The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clauses of the Charter

1972 ◽  
Vol 66 (2) ◽  
pp. 337-351 ◽  
Author(s):  
Egon Schwelb

The Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), contains a veritable tour d’horizon of contemporary international law and of the law of international organizations. It ranges over provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations and over many articles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Author(s):  
Livia Meret

In 1971 The International Court of Justice in an Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia concluded that the mandate for South-West Africa had been validly terminated by the General Assembly in Resolution 2145 (XXI) of October 27, 1966, and that “the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia being illegal, South Africa is under an obligation to withdraw its administration from Namibia immediately and thus put an end to its occupation of the Territory.” Further, the Court said that:States Members of the United Nations are under obligation to recognize the illegality of South Africa’s presence in Namibia and the invalidity of its acts on behalf of or concerning Namibia, and to refrain from any acts and, in particular, any dealings with the Government of South Africa implying recognition of the legality of or lending support or assistance to, such presence and administration.


1966 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 375-380
Author(s):  
Sol Picciotto

The judgment of the International Court of Justice of 18 July 1966 in the South-West Africa case throws revealing light on the role of that Court in the international community. A proper analysis of this case may also help to dispel some of the mystification about international law and the attitude of the new nations to it.


Author(s):  
Jan Klabbers

This chapter reflects on the uncertainties regarding the question of why international organizations would be bound by international law. It places these uncertainties in the broader framework of a vague and ill-defined ‘turn to accountability’. As the chapter shows, international organizations are often held to account for wrongdoing without it being clear whether they have also violated an international legal obligation resting upon them. The chapter then discusses in some detail the 1980 WHO–Egypt advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding whether the WHO could close their Alexandria office and move it to Jordan. Afterwards, the chapter reviews several recent attempts to overcome the ‘basis of obligation’ problem in the law of international organizations, such as the putative constitutionalization of international law or international organizations, the adoption of accountability models, and the emergence of Global Administrative Law.


2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard A. Folk

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued its advisory opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s construction of a security wall on occupied Palestinian territory, declaring that the wall was in violation of international law. The advisory opinion also indicated that Israel should forthwith cease construction of the wall, dismantle what had been so far constructed, and make reparations to the Palestinians for all damages caused by the project. On July 20, 2004, at the Tenth Emergency Session of the General Assembly, Resolution ES-10/15 was adopted by a vote of 150 in favor, 6 opposed, and 10 abstentions, demanding that Israel comply with the legal obligations as specified by the advisory opinion.


Author(s):  
Leyh Brianne McGonigle

The Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia touches upon the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in exercising review over the factual and legal determinations of other principal UN organs, including the UN General Assembly (GA) and Security Council (SC). The relevance of the case, with regard to international organizations and legal acts, hinges on the findings related to the role of the ICJ as a judicial institution vis-à-vis its more political counterparts within the UN organization, the dissolution and succession of international organizations, and the power and limits of international organizations to ensure compliance with their rules and standards.


1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

On April 6, 1955, during its thirty-fourth year, the International Court of Justice decided one case brought on December 17, 1951, by Liechtenstein against Guatemala—the Nottebohm Case—in favor of Guatemala. It also gave an Advisory Opinion to the General Assembly of the United Nations on June 7, 1955, on the Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa.


1969 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 767-787 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander J. Pollock

The South West Africa Cases presented the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with a choice not only between the parties to the suit but also between rival claims about the nature of international law itself. Perhaps every case presents the Court with a choice of some degree between jurisprudential foundations, but in the South West Africa Cases the choice is striking.


1985 ◽  
Vol 20 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 341-361
Author(s):  
Chava Shachor-Landau

The second half of the twentieth century is witnessing a tremendous development of the concept of international organizations as “subjects” of international law. These “subjects” are endowed with international legal personality and with powers—express or implied—to achieve their declared objectives.The corner-stone to this new edifice was erected as long ago as 1949 by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. The Court examined the purposes and principles set out in the Charter of the U.N. and concluded that the Organization is an international person.… [I]t is a subject of international law and capable of possessing international rights and duties, and… it has capacity to maintain its rights by bringing international claims.… . Under international law, the Organization must be deemed to have those powers which, though not expressly provided in the Charter, are conferred upon it by necessary implication as being essential to the performance of its duties.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document