scholarly journals Territory of state as indivisible whole and the norms of Constitution

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonid TYMCHENKO ◽  
Valerii KONONENKO
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Grounds

In the study of the substantive legal grounds for the resolution of territorial disputes, the judicial form is characterized by the priority of the grounds of legal title (agreemental title, uti possidetis) based on international treaties, or legal acts of the state possessing sovereignty over the grounds of actual title (effective occupation and governning of the territory, tacit recognition, prescriptional acquisition). Like the initial occupation, the acquisition of territory on the basis of prescription has a long and effective occupation of territory as a prerequisite. The possession of alien or contested territory without a treaty may be legal and enforceable only when there is an inviolable, uninterrupted and undisputed exercise of possession. Where the disputable territory is in fact administrated by a state other than that which holds title, the International Court of Justice gives preference to the title holder.

Judgment No. 238 – 2014 (IT. Const. Ct.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 471-506
Author(s):  
Alessandro Chechi
Keyword(s):  
The State ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Constitutional Legitimacy

On October 22, 2014, the Italian Constitutional Court rendered a decision on the constitutional legitimacy of certain domestic norms that required Italy’s compliance with the rule on state immunity sanctioned by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) with the Judgment Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening). The Constitutional Court declared that the international customary obligations on state immunity from jurisdiction can be applied automatically within the Italian legal order only as long as they are in conformity with the fundamental rights contained in the Constitution.

I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY v ITALY) JUDGMENT OF 3 FEBRUARY 2012

2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (3) ◽  
pp. 741-752
Author(s):  
J Craig Barker
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
German Armed Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Vexed Question ◽  
German Reich

The vexed question of State immunity and the extent and application thereof has once again found its way to the International Court of Justice (the Court) in the form of the Case Concerning Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy).1 On this occasion, the precise question concerned the so-called ‘territorial tort exception’ to State immunity and involved an assessment of the immunity to be granted to Germany, by Italy, in relation to compensation claims brought in Italy by Italian claimants against German armed forces and the organs of the German Reich during the Second World War.2

The Conceptualization (Construction) of Territorial Title in the Light of the International Court of Justice Case Law

2006 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 1041-1075
Author(s):  
GIOVANNI DISTEFANO
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Theoretical Approach ◽  
Case Law ◽  
International Agreements ◽  
Territorial Disputes ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Territorial Sovereignty ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Processes

The present article aims to examine a set of legal constructions related to the concept of legal title in territorial disputes. Any international jurist cannot but strongly feel the need of a theoretical approach and framework explaining the acquisition and loss of territorial sovereignty. This conceptualization will be put to the test in the light of the ICI's case law, especially, but not exclusively, the most recent ones. To this end, the article is structured in three main parts in addition to introduction: the first will be devoted to the building of a comprehensive concept of territorial title while rejecting the traditional ‘modes of acquisition’ of territorial sovereignty (part 2). Part 3 will deal with the legal processes through which territorial titles are actually created, extinguished, or modified: roughly speaking, this happens by an international agreements (legal acts) or by virtue of norm-creating facts. Last, but not least, we shall examine – in part 4 – the highly debated and sensitive topic of the relations between effectiveness and formal legal title from the standpoint of the establishment or loss of territorial sovereignty. As we have endeavoured to show in this writing the concept of legal title reunites and resolves the tension between fact (effectiveness) and formal gegal title (law). In this respect four situations will be put under scrutiny in order ultimately to test our construction of a new concept of territorial title.

The International Court of Justice and International Arbitration

1993 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
International Arbitration ◽  
Concrete Case ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Arbitration Process ◽  
International Court

The purpose of this article is to examine the attitude of the International Court of Justice toward questions concerning different aspects of the international arbitration process. This relates in particular to disputes over the obligation to submit an alleged dispute to arbitration, disputes over the validity or nullity of an award rendered in an international arbitration process, and appeals to the International Court from other bodies with a power of dispositive decision. These questions have arisen in many different circumstances. The matter is also important having regard to the presence of compromissory clauses in international treaties conferring jurisdiction on the International Court itself, but only after it is clear that a process of arbitration, as the preferred method of dispute settlement, is not going to be successful in the concrete case.

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.

scholarly journals State Immunity Before the International Court of Justice: Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy)

2013 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew McMenamin
Keyword(s):  
World War Ii ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
The State ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
State Immunity ◽  
German Armed Forces ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Jus Cogens

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State. The case concerned German state immunity from civil claims brought in Italian courts by victims of serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by German armed forces during World War II. The Court offered a valuable clarification of the relationship between state immunity and jus cogens norms at customary international law. The conservative reasoning was thorough and extensive and the decision is likely to ossify the evolution of state immunity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document