The 1996 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 554-555
Author(s):  
Peter H. F. Bekker
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Maritime Boundary ◽  
Health Organization

This Note summarizes the judicial work of the International Court of Justice during 1996, using the updated General List, pleadings filed, Orders and Judgments given and hearings held at the Peace Palace in The Hague to describe the Court’s current record.During the calendar year 1996, the Court was seized of one new contentious case: Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia). In 1996 a total of eleven cases appeared on the General List. Besides the new case referred to, the contentious proceedings before the full Court were Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. United States), Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v. United Kingdom) and (Libya v. United States), Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), and Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria). Advisory proceedings were concluded in Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (request for an advisory opinion by the World Health Organization) and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (request for an advisory opinion by the General Assembly of the United Nations).

International humanitarian law and nuclear weapons

1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (313) ◽  
pp. 500-502
Author(s):  
The Review
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Health Organization

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion in response to two enquiries as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Whilst the Court did not examine in detail the request put forward by the World Health Organization, it did give very close attention to the question presented by the General Assembly:“Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”

Case Analysis: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the WHO Nuclear Weapons Case: A Critique

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Amerasinghe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
World Health ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Health And Environmental Effects ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) had, among other things, been examining and deliberating the hazardous effects to health by the use of nuclear weapons. These discussions culminated in a resolution which requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons in the following terms: [i]n view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a Stare in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?

2 Legal Powers, 2.4 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep 66

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burci Gian Luca ◽  
Quirin Jakob
Keyword(s):  
International Organizations ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Division Of Labour ◽  
World Health ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
Health Organization

The International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 that responded to a request from the World Health Organization contains important guidance on the delimitation of competence and co-ordination of international organizations, in particular those forming part of the UN system. The Court held by eleven votes to three that it did not have jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion ‘which was requested of it’. The opinion marks an important step in the Court’s jurisprudence in that it focusses not on an expansion of competence of international organizations as previous ICJ jurisprudence, but rather on the limits of this competence. The opinion is a succinct reminder of the tension between the goal to effectively and efficiently ‘divide labour’ between the mandates of the UN and the specialized agencies and the relative lack of mechanisms to enforce this division of labour.

The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases — A first appraisal

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. McNeill
Keyword(s):  
World Health ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinions

There were two requests for advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice — the first from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the second from the United Nations General Assembly.

The Opinions of the International Court of Justice on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinions

On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) responded to requests by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for advisory opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. These opinions deserve careful attention, and have already been the subject of considerable scholarly commentary.

scholarly journals Comment on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996: التعليق على فتوى محكمة العدل الدولية في مدى مشروعية التهديد  باستخدام الأسلحة النووية عام 1996م

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Elden Mohammed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to establish the principles of international humanitarian law and restrict the use or threat of nuclear weapons, on the occasion of its fatwa, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after realizing that the continued development of nuclear weapons exposes humanity to great risks, and its request It states, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permissible under the rules of international law" (Atalm, 1996), (Shahab, 2000), Therefore, the comment seeks to answer the question: What is the legality of possession, production and development of nuclear weapons? What is the extent of the legality of the threat to use it in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in this regard? Was the decision of the International Court of Justice in favor of documenting the principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law? Or was it biased in its decision to the interests of a particular class itself? The researcher used in that descriptive, descriptive and critical analytical method, and the results that lead to criticism of the work of the International Court of Justice in this regard were reached on the premise that they tended towards tipping the political nature of the issue presented to it under the pressures and directions of the major nuclear states and this strengthens my criticism to the United Nations that I see It only works for the benefit of the major powers under the auspices of the Security Council by veto (right to veto) at a time when the Security Council itself is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, just as it can be said that the United Nations does not work for the benefit of mankind but works for the five major countries Even with regard to nuclear weapons Regardless of whether or not there was a threat to international peace and security. From this standpoint, the researcher reached several recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of the independence of the International Court of Justice in its work from the political considerations of member states, especially the major countries, as a step to establish and support international peace and security in a practical way in practice. The United Nations should also reconsider what is known as a veto, which is and it is rightly one of the most important and most important measures that truly threaten international peace and security.

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).

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 56-64
Author(s):  
Hisakazu Fujita
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Second World War ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Fundamental Interest ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Second World

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996 concerning the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons contains many elements that are of fundamental interest from the standpoint of international humanitarian law. Indeed, humanitarian law, which has developed to a remarkable extent since the Second World War, has always lacked an express ruling on nuclear weapons.

Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons: Preliminary remarks

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 6-8
Author(s):  
Yves Sandoz
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

There are some questions which one would prefer not to raise. The legality of the use of nuclear weapons in war is surely a case in point.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document