scholarly journals Trickle-down assurances: Could the central authority, treaty, or judiciary alleviate extradition issues amongst non-traditional treaty partners?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jack Wong
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Central Authority ◽  
Mutual Respect ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Trickle Down

<p>As New Zealand is facing its first extradition matter with China, it is becoming an increasingly cumbersome matter for the Crown. The current set of diplomatic assurances offered by the Crown in Kim lacks efficient post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms. It also lacks accountability for the Crown if a requested-person’s assurance rights have been breached. This thesis suggests that new post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms should be introduced, such as the induction of the Ombudsman to perform their duties in off-shore prison facilities. This thesis is of the view that, contrary to the general opinions of NGOs, an extradition treaty with China is necessary (and perhaps long overdue). Not only for New Zealand’s commitment against transnational crimes, but also to protect stringent monitoring mechanisms for pre-and post-sentencing while addressing any future breaches by the Requesting-State under the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, especially when there is an option of adjudication under the International Court of Justice. This thesis concludes the Courts should also be more involved in the extradition process. While balancing the need for comity and mutual respect, but allowing the Courts to be able to assess assurance-related evidence if absolutely necessary.</p>

scholarly journals Trickle-down assurances: Could the central authority, treaty, or judiciary alleviate extradition issues amongst non-traditional treaty partners?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Jack Wong
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Central Authority ◽  
Mutual Respect ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Trickle Down

<p>As New Zealand is facing its first extradition matter with China, it is becoming an increasingly cumbersome matter for the Crown. The current set of diplomatic assurances offered by the Crown in Kim lacks efficient post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms. It also lacks accountability for the Crown if a requested-person’s assurance rights have been breached. This thesis suggests that new post-sentencing monitoring mechanisms should be introduced, such as the induction of the Ombudsman to perform their duties in off-shore prison facilities. This thesis is of the view that, contrary to the general opinions of NGOs, an extradition treaty with China is necessary (and perhaps long overdue). Not only for New Zealand’s commitment against transnational crimes, but also to protect stringent monitoring mechanisms for pre-and post-sentencing while addressing any future breaches by the Requesting-State under the Vienna Convention on the Laws of Treaties, especially when there is an option of adjudication under the International Court of Justice. This thesis concludes the Courts should also be more involved in the extradition process. While balancing the need for comity and mutual respect, but allowing the Courts to be able to assess assurance-related evidence if absolutely necessary.</p>

Rethinking the Meaning of Ordinary Meaning in Light of the ICJ’s Jurisprudence

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 267-288
Author(s):  
Katayoun Hosseinnejad
Keyword(s):  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Ordinary Meaning ◽  
Objective Standard ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legal Meaning

Abstract Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties calls for consideration of the ordinary meaning as the starting point in the process of interpretation. Although the linguistic concept of ordinary meaning is founded on the idea that the meaning of a sentence is directly imposed by the norms of language so that interpreters are provided with an objective standard which is external to their subjectivity, this article demonstrates that the interpretive jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice has departed from the imperatives of the ordinary meaning doctrine. Rather, the Court, mindful of the problem that no mere sequence of words can represent actual legal meaning, has moved towards construction of ordinary meaning.

The 2004 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2005 ◽  
Vol 99 (2) ◽  
pp. 450-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
John R. Crook
Keyword(s):  
The United States ◽  
State Court ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Court Proceedings ◽  
Crown Prince ◽  
Palestinian Territory

During 2004 the International Court of Justice decided three important matters. In March the Court found that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations with respect to a number of Mexican nationals sentenced to death in U.S. state court proceedings. In a much-noted advisory opinion, the Court concluded in July that Israel's construction of a security wall or fence in occupied Palestinian territory violated international law. And in December it found that it did not have jurisdiction over Serbia and Montenegro's claims against eight NATO countries regarding NATO's 1999 bombing campaign aimed at halting the conflict in Kosovo. In other developments, the Court heard and had under deliberation Germany's preliminary objections to Liechtenstein's suit regarding certain property of Crown Prince Adam. Finally, Judge Gilbert Guillaume, a member of the Court since 1987 and its former president, announced that he would resign in February 2005.

The Holistic Interpretation of Treaties at the International Court of Justice

2018 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-343 ◽  
Author(s):  
Liliana E. Popa
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Main Argument ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Extended Analysis ◽  
Holistic Interpretation ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
Interpretative Approach

This article revises the topic of treaty interpretation at the International Court of Justice and focuses on what judges at this Court do in terms of treaty interpretation. The main argument developed in the article, based on an extended analysis of case-law at the ICJ, prior to and after the adoption of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, is that the ICJ’s approaches to interpretation after the VCLT was adopted are consistent with the canons of treaty interpretation which this Court has greatly developed and applied with consistency since its inception. The case-law analysis reveals a preference of the PCIJ/ICJ for holistic interpretation, and thus for the use of more rules and methods of interpretation than initially declared by the Court as sufficient to solve the issue of interpretation before it, in an interpretative approach which could be termed ‘overbuilding’.

Final Clauses

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denza Eileen
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
The Other ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
Diplomatic Relations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Article 50

This chapter looks into Articles 48 to 53 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Article 48 states that the Convention shall be open for signature by all States Members of the UN or any of the specialized agencies or Parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and by any other State invited by the General Assembly of the United Nations to become a Party to the Convention. Article 49 on the other hand states that the present Convention is subject to ratification, while Article 50 expresses that the Convention shall remain open for accession by any State. Article 51 enumerates the date of the enforcement of the ratifications submitted to the UN, and Article 52 states that the Secretary-General shall inform all States the deposit of instruments of ratification and the date of enforcement. Lastly, Article 53 states that the original texts of the Convention shall be deposited with the Secretary-General, who shall send certified copies thereof to all States.

scholarly journals Palestine Brings a Case Against the United States in the International Court of Justice at a Fraught Time for U.S.-Palestinian Relations

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 143-149
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Palestine Liberation Organization ◽  
Optional Protocol ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Settlement Of Disputes ◽  
The Relationship

While Palestine considers itself a state, the United States does not currently recognize it as such. The relationship between the two has continued to deteriorate following the December 2017 announcement that the United States would recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move its embassy there. Alleging that the embassy relocation violates international law, Palestine brought a case against the United States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in September of 2018. The United States reacted by announcing its withdrawal from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes (Optional Protocol). Also in the fall of 2018, the Trump administration closed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington, curtailed its own Palestinian-focused mission in Jerusalem, and sharply cut U.S. funding focused on Palestinian interests.

scholarly journals La aplicación de las reglas sobre interpretación de los tratados a la luz de la sentencia sobre excepciones preliminares en el caso entre Somalia v. Kenia

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Lertora Pinto
Keyword(s):  
Important Task ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Law

The judgment on preliminary objection was pronounced by the International Court of Justice on 2 February 2017. In this sentence, the Court rejected all the preliminary objections presented by Kenya. One of the most important task realized by the Court in every judgment is the work of interpretation of treaties. In the present case, the interpretation was relevant for the purpose of determinate both, why the Court has jurisdiction and why all the preliminary objections should be rejected. The interpretation according to the rules of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, in particular the Articles 31 and 32, are the purpose of the present study in relationship to its application in this case, particularly in the interpretation of the MOU.

International Court of Justice Rules in Favor of Germany and Against the United States in the LaGrand Case

2001 ◽  
Vol 2 (12) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Vienna Convention ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Binding Effect ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The U.S

In its judgement from June 27, 2001, in the LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), the International Court of Justice made a number of watershed rulings: (a) The Court established that Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations creates individual rights for foreign nationals abroad, and not just rights protecting the interests of states that are a party to the Convention; (b) The Court ruled that, beyond the undisputed failure on the part of the U.S. to take the measures required by the Convention, the application of an American provision of criminal procedure in the LaGrand brothers' cases (a provision that prevented the domestic courts from reviewing the implications of the Convention violation admitted by the Americans) itself constituted a violation of Article 36(2) of the Convention; (c) The Court, as a remedy in the case of future violations of the Convention, ordered the United States to provide a procedure for the review and reconsideration of convictions secured in circumstances in which the obligations of the Convention had not been observed; and (d) as a separate matter the Court ruled that its provisional orders, issued pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, have binding effect.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document