scholarly journals MARITIME DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN EL SALVADOR AND HONDURAS BY INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE: AN EXPERIENCE FOR VIETNAM

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nguyễn Bá Diến ◽  
Hùng Cường Nguyễn ◽  
Văn Minh Đinh Phạm
Keyword(s):  
El Salvador ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

On December 11th 1986, Honduras and El Salvador sumitted a copy of the Special Agreement requesting to settle their disputes over land and sea to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case was resolved by the ICJ in a final judgment on September 11th1992. Through the Judgement, ICJ clarified the legal status of the historic bay and application of the principle ofeffective occupation;which becomes experiences for Vietnam in settling disputes of sovereignty over islands and delimitation of the sea, as well as using evidences and interventing in the International Court of Justice.

scholarly journals Notes on the International Court of Justice (Part 8)—Interim Accord (FYROM v. Greece) and the Settlement of the Macedonian Name Dispute: Knowing and Seizing upon Many Things or One Big Thing in Treaty Interpretation and International Dispute Settlement in General

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 473-502
Author(s):  
Sienho Yee
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
State Party ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Dispute ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
Final Agreement ◽  
The One

Abstract During the lead-up to the Final Agreement settling the Macedonian name dispute, apparently no or scant mention was made of the Interim Accord (FYROM v. Greece) case that FYROM brought in 2008 and won overwhelmingly in 2011 against Greece at the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or the “Court”). This paper highlights the structure and main points of the ICJ judgment in the Interim Accord case and analyzes the part of the judgment on the main substantive issue. The paper argues that, even on its own terms, the Court’s judgment did not conduct the interpretation exercise to the full and further that the experience with the Court’s judgment in this case does flash a warning light to any decision-maker that it must not lose sight of “the one big thing”, which may vary from case to case, in a dispute settlement endeavor if it wants to have its decision implemented. This experience also teaches any State party in a dispute that it may have to know and unyieldingly seize upon the one big thing in the dispute settlement effort in order to achieve its goal.

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.

Reflections on the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia before the International Court of Justice

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
pp. 909-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
YOSHIFUMI TANAKA
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Impact

AbstractOn 19 November 2012, the International Court of Justice gave its judgment concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. This judgment includes several important issues which need serious consideration, such the as legal status of maritime features, the interpretation and application of Article 121 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, the methodology of maritime delimitations, the role of proportionality in maritime delimitations, and the impact of the judgment upon third states and effect of Article 59 of the ICJ Statute. Focusing on these issues, this contribution aims to analyse the judgment of 2012 from a viewpoint of the international law of the sea, in particular, the law of maritime delimitation.

Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application to Intervene

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 680-686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Ratner
Keyword(s):  
El Salvador ◽  
Central America ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Pacific Coast ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Pacific ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Land Frontier

In this case before a Chamber of the International Court of Justice, El Salvador and Honduras, by a Special Agreement dated May 24, 1986, requested that the Chamber delimit the land frontier and determine the legal status of certain islands and waters in the general area of the Gulf of Fonseca. The gulf, located on the Pacific coast of Central America, is bordered by El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. Nicaragua filed an application for permission to intervene in the case on November 17, 1989, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, which permits a state to request intervention if the state considers “that it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case.”

Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) (I.C.J.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-96
Author(s):  
Péter Kovács
Keyword(s):  
Legal Status ◽  
Equatorial Guinea ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Charles De Gaulle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
De Gaulle

On December 11, 2020, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) delivered by majority its judgment on the merits of the litigation between Equatorial Guinea and France concerning the legal status of a building at 42 Avenue Foch, situated in Paris, in the very elegant 16th district, close to the Arc de Triomphe (Place de l'Étoile/Place Charles de Gaulle).

Forum Prorogatum Returns to the International Court of Justice

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIENHO YEE
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
National Interests ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
General Acceptance ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Peaceful Settlement ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

The ICJ interpreted Article 36(1) of its Statute – more specifically, the phrase ‘all cases which the parties refer to it’ – as permitting it to adopt the doctrine of forum prorogatum as a jurisdictional principle and to adapt this doctrine to the circumstances of international judicial process, as an informal way of founding its jurisdiction over the merits of a dispute. The resort to this doctrine has given rise to some concerns and has not received the general acceptance of states. The Certain Criminal Proceedings in France case marks the successful return of the doctrine to the ICJ and shows that the doctrine is a valuable tool for nationalists seeking to protect national interests and for internationalists seeking to promote the peaceful settlement of international disputes.

The International Court of Justice in Asia: Interpreting the Temple of Preah Vihear Case

2014 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon CHESTERMAN
Keyword(s):  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
General Preference ◽  
Preah Vihear ◽  
The Temple

This essay examines the 2013 Decision by the International Court of Justice interpreting its 1962 Judgment in the Temple of Preah Vihear case between Cambodia and Thailand, situating the more recent decision in the context of the Court's evolving role in Asia. Only eight Asian states have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court; only nine have ever appeared before it. The narrowness of the recent decision is of interest in part because of the modest role it ascribes to judicial institutions, but also for what this modesty heralds for the Court's status in Asia. A key conclusion is that Asian states are likely to retain a general preference for bilateral resolution of disputes. For smaller disputes, however, especially those concerning subjects that cannot be divided or traded—such as a temple (and, as we shall see, an island)—the ICJ may play an important role.

scholarly journals States’ Mouthpieces or Independent Practitioners? The Role of Counsel before the ICJ from the Perspective of the Legal Value of their Oral Pleadings

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-76
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Treaty Interpretation

Abstract This article explores the role of counsel before the International Court of Justice, taking into account their tasks under the Statute of the Court and the legal value of their pleadings in international law. Pleadings of counsel constitute State practice for the formation of customary international law and treaty interpretation, and they are attributable to the litigating State under the law on State responsibility. Accordingly, in principle, counsel present the views of the litigating State, which in practice approves in advance the pleadings. This consideration is relevant in discussing the role of counsel assisting States in politically sensitive cases, where there is no necessary correspondence between the views of the States and those of their counsel. Especially when less powerful States are parties to the relevant disputes, the availability of competent counsel in politically sensitive cases should not be discouraged since it advances the legitimacy of the international judicial function.

scholarly journals Custom as a Source Under Article 21 of the Rome Statute

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Amit KUMAR
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Rome Statute ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Principle Of Legality

Abstract The adoption of the Rome Statute is a significant moment for international criminal law. Before its formulation, the criminal law was governed by the sources mentioned in their statute or Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice [ICJ Statute]. Custom is one of the important sources within the ICJ Statute. The ad hoc tribunals applied custom and even formulated certain customs. The formulation of custom is considered as against the principle of legality. To avoid such criticism, the State Parties inserted Article 21 in the Rome Statute. The provision clarifies the law which the court can apply. The parties chose not to include custom explicitly. However, the wordings of the provision indicate that the custom is still a source for the court. Apart from the wording of Article 21, other provisions of the Statute give ample scope for the application of custom.

scholarly journals Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice in International Environmental Law Cases

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Franziska Liebelt
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Environmental Issues ◽  
State Intervention ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
The Antarctic

<p>Third state intervention before international institutions originated in international arbitration around 1875 and has been included in the statute of the International Court since the foundation of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) and is therefore no new phenomenon. Today, most systems of international dispute settlement provide for the possibility of third state intervention. Nevertheless intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been used by states sparsely and seems underdeveloped. The statute of the ICJ provides for two ways of intervention in its arts 62 and 63. There have been few applications under these provisions. Looking at the court’s orders in these few cases, the court seems to have adopted a restrictive approach towards allowing applications to intervene. This paper looks at the institution of intervention in the area of international environmental law disputes. There have been two relevant disputes of this kind before the ICJ: the Nuclear Tests litigation and the recent litigation of Whaling in the Antarctic. Both of these cases dealt with the question of state obligations towards the protection of the environment. The applications to intervene in Nuclear Tests failed for reasons that will be explained in more detail below. New Zealand’s application to intervene in Whaling in the Antarctic was authorized by the ICJ on the 6 February 2013 under art 63 of the Statute of the ICJ. The case is exceptional in that it is only the second time the ICJ allowed intervention under art 63. Both cases demonstrate that there are environmental issues that concern more than only the nations that are parties to the dispute. They indicate that intervention plays a particularly strong role in environmental issues because these issues by their nature often affect more than just two states. This paper analyses how the shared environmental concern of the international community might lead to an extension of intervention before the ICJ. It further more looks at the issues that arose before the court in connection with the intervention in Whaling in the Antarctic and how these issues were dealt with.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document