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>

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>

THE PRINCIPLES OF DUE DILIGENCE AND PREVENTION IN INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW

2016 ◽  
Vol 75 (3) ◽  
pp. 445-448 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rumiana Yotova
Keyword(s):  
Costa Rica ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Pulp Mills ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
San Juan River ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Antarctic

ON 16 December 2015, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its judgment in the joined cases of Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), ICJ Reports 2015. These are the latest in a line of cases raising key principles of international environmental law before the ICJ, following Pulp Mills (2010), Aerial Herbicide Spraying and Whaling in the Antarctic (2014).

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.

Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
George Barrie
Keyword(s):  
State Intervention ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Modern World ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Multilateral Treaty ◽  
Party State

which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has attempted to accommodate such an eventuality. Article 62 provides for intervention by a third state if it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the ICJ’s decision in the case. Article 63 allows for member states of a multilateral treaty to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of such a treaty. Intervention under Article 62 is in the discretion of the ICJ. Intervention under Article 63 is a right. Applications to intervene under Article 62 have only been successful in three instances and, applications to intervene under Article 63 have only been successful in two instances. It is submitted that the ICJ should be more flexible in allowing third-party interventions by interpreting Articles 62 and 63 less strictly. This is more in accordance with the greater interdependence of states in the modern world and can prevent the duplication of proceedings. Such flexibility can only enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ in achieving its mandate.

The International Legal Effects of Unilateral Declarations

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred P. Rubin
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Force ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
International Legal Order ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Nuclear Tests ◽  
Future Policy

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and its judgments are usually considered highly persuasive as to propositions of international law. Thus, when the ICJ formulates a rule of international law giving binding force to a unilateral declaration of a state’s future intentions, statesmen may be expected to refer to that formulation for guidance whenever they consider the possibility of issuing a declaration of future policy. Moreover, the ability of the ICJ to support its formulation of a rule of international law in terms of the international legal order and legal logic affects the perceptions of statesmen as to the probity of the Court, as well as the willingness of states to refer real cases to it. The Judgment of the ICJ in the Nuclear Tests cases raised both these issues in a particularly pointed way.

Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) (I.C.J.)

2015 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacqueline Peel
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Southern Ocean ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Scientific Merit ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Antarctic ◽  
Environmental Decision

On March 31, 2014, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued its judgment in the case of Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening) (Whaling Decision). In what is perhaps its most important environmental decision to date, the ICJ ordered Japan to halt its whaling program in the Southern Ocean, finding the program lacked scientific merit and breached requirements of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW).

Sources of International Environmental Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Redgwell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Customary International Law ◽  
Innovative Methods ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Environmental Norms

This chapter considers the applicability to environmental problems of the traditional sources of international law, using as the starting point the formal sources enumerated in Article 38 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute. It notes that leading treatises on international environmental law (IEL) and the account of the formal sources of IEL will likely start along the traditional positivist lines of Article 38. This chapter adheres to this practice to an extent—by discussing treaties, customary international law, and general principles. However, the discussion also moves on to, amongst other things, innovative methods of law creation, the dynamic evolution of environmental treaty texts, and the specific role played by soft law in the development and application of international environmental norms. The chapter concludes that, nonetheless, as a branch of general international law, the sources of international environmental law are the same.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document