scholarly journals Protection Rohingyas through International Adjudication-Decoding Provisional Measures of International Court of Justice in The Gambia vs. Myanmar.

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Swargodeep Sarkar
Keyword(s):  
The Gambia ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
Language And Culture ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication

United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres acknowledged Rohingya, “one of, if not the, most discriminated people in the world”. In Myanmar, a country with a Buddhist majority, around a million Rohingya who is the minority having their language and culture, have been persecuted for decades. In the year 2014 census, Myanmar excluded Rohingya by denying basic citizenship. Thousands of Rohingya have fled to neighbouring States after facing persecution orchestrated by Myanmar security forces with the help of local Buddhist mobs. In this background, the Gambia with the help of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation filed the case in the International Court of Justice, alleging that the actions perpetrated by Myanmar violated the provisions of Genocide Convention 1948 to which both States are the parties. Myanmar rightly questioned the standing of Gambia as the interest of Gambia was not threatened or at stake. So, in the absence of a cause of action or rights of the Gambia not affected even remotely, the International Court of Justice should not entertain the case. One of the major issues before the Court whether the Gambia has stood without being affected directly from the violations alleged to have been committed on the Rohingya. The present author will discuss the provisional measures rendered by the ICJ on 23rd January 2020 and the challenges such as jurisdiction, admissibility, urgency or irreparable prejudice condition, faced by the Court with a special focus on the “Plausibility requirement” in provisional measures.

The International Court of Justice and the Responsibility to Protect: Learning from the Case of The Gambia v. Myanmar

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-25
Author(s):  
Martin Mennecke
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Court ◽  
The Gambia ◽  
Responsibility To Protect ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Unique Contribution ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Accountability Measures ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Central Actor

Abstract It is a commonplace in the R2P discourse to describe accountability measures as key means to implement the responsibility to protect. In particular, the International Criminal Court is regularly highlighted as a central actor, both in the literature, the annual R2P reports issued by the UN Secretary-General, and the subsequent debates in the UN General Assembly. Conspicuously absent from this conversation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (icj). This article examines the potential role of the ‘World Court’, as The Gambia in November 2019 started a new case under the UN Genocide Convention against Myanmar before the icj. Analysing the limitations and prospects and existing icj case-law, the article concludes that the International Court of Justice can make an important and unique contribution to the responsibility to protect.

A Legal Journey Through the UN, Academia, and the ICJ: Conversations with Dame Rosalyn Higgins DBE, JSD, FBA, QC

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lesley Dingle
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Formative Period ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Depth Interview ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Global Peace ◽  
International Adjudication

AbstractThis article, written by Lesley Dingle, is based upon an in-depth interview with Dame Rosalyn Higgins in March 2014. It highlights particular elements that characterise her contribution to legal scholarship and international adjudication, and should be read in the context of the biography presented in the Eminent Scholars Archive: http://www.squire.law.cam.ac.uk/eminent_scholars/dame_rosalyn_higgins.php. Dame Rosalyn Higgins was born in Kensington in 1937. She grew up in London during the Blitz and her matter-of-fact account of these times epitomised her later career: application to the task in hand, and a lack of a sense of expectation. After the War, she passed successively through grammar school, Girton College, Yale and the Royal Institute of International affairs, steadily immersing herself over fifteen years in the work of the United Nations during its formative period. It was on the UN's role as the global peace-keeper and international law-maker that she became the acknowledged authority. There followed a long period of formal academia (1978–95: Kent and LSE), during which she rose to high office. This experience further honed her scholarly and administrative instincts, and she was honoured in 1995 with a DBE. Later that year Dame Rosalyn was appointed to the Bench of the International Court of Justice – the first woman to rise to this position, and in 2006 was elected its President. She retired in 2009.

When Ethnic Cleansing is not Genocide: A Critical Appraisal of the ICJ's Ruling in Croatia v. Serbia in relation to Deportation and Population Transfer

2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 937-944
Author(s):  
MARTIN STEINFELD
Keyword(s):  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Population Transfer ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Judicial Recognition

AbstractThis article critically examines the concept of ethnic cleansing in light of the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Croatia v. Serbia. It suggests that the lack of overt reference to it in the Genocide Convention constitutes a significant lacuna in judicial recognition and protection of atrocities committed in both the Former Yugoslavia and more generally, which the ICJ categorically refused to address. Having examined how the ICJ attempted to conceptualize ethnic cleansing as evidence of both the actus reus of genocide (particularly in relation to Article II(c) of the Convention) and its mens rea, the article then critically assesses the Court's reasoning in its refusal to rule that a violation of the Convention had taken place in relation to deportation and forcible transfer. The article then concludes by contending that the Court simply failed to provide a much-needed and workable precedent to properly include ethnic cleansing within the legal and factual matrix of genocide.

scholarly journals Precarious Finality? Reflections on Res Judicata in the Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Case

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niccolo Ridi
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Rare Situation

This article considers the approach to the res judicata principle taken by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and, specifically, its application in its 2016 judgment on preliminary objections in the latest dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. The judgment joins the small number of ICJ decisions in which the Court was evenly split, an altogether rare situation, which, at the time of the decision, had not occurred since the Nuclear Weapons Avisory Opinion. Intriguingly, such a fracture seems to have been prompted by differences over the operation of a procedural principle the understanding of which is comparatively uncontroversial. Upon closer analysis, however, the disagreement reveals that more significant questions were at stake, with members of the minority issuing a vocal joint dissent and several individual declarations. This study will move in three parts: first, it will provide an overview of the nature and purpose of the principle of res judicata, its application in international adjudication, and its use by the ICJ; second, it will analyse the Court’s reading of the principle in the case at issue; third, it will expose the broader implications of one such approach for the role and authority of the World Court and the international judiciary.

scholarly journals Precarious Finality? Reflections onRes Judicataand theQuestion of the Delimitation of the Continental ShelfCase

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 383-401 ◽  
Author(s):  
NICCOLÒ RIDI
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Rare Situation

AbstractThis article considers the approach to theres judicataprinciple taken by the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court) and, specifically, its application in its 2016 judgment on preliminary objections in the latest dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia. The judgment joins the small number of ICJ decisions in which the Court was evenly split, an altogether rare situation, which, at the time of the decision, had not occurred since theNuclear WeaponsAdvisory Opinion. Intriguingly, such a fracture seems to have been prompted by differences over the operation of a procedural principle the understanding of which is comparatively uncontroversial. Upon closer analysis, however, the disagreement reveals that more significant questions were at stake, with members of the minority issuing a vocal joint dissent and several individual declarations. This study will move in three parts: first, it will provide an overview of the nature and purpose of the principle ofres judicata, its application in international adjudication, and its use by the ICJ; second, it will analyze the Court's reading of the principle in the case at issue; third, it will expose the broader implications of one such approach for the role and authority of the World Court and the international judiciary.

Islamic Law States and the International Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
pp. 202-238
Author(s):  
Emilia Justyna Powell
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
Legal Tradition ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Adjudication ◽  
Advisory Opinions

This chapter focuses on the main judicial organ of the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and its relation to the Islamic milieu. It examines the Islamic milieu’s views of the Court’s compulsory and compromissory jurisdictions. The Court has been constructed according to the secular Western legal logic, and its jurisprudence rarely refers to the Islamic legal tradition. The chapter presents an analysis of the ICJ’s jurisprudence—judgments and advisory opinions—and the position of Islamic law-based arguments in the Court. Empirical analyses show that the Islamic milieu does not project a uniform attitude toward the ICJ. Depending on their domestic legal systems, some ILS are likely to accept the jurisdiction of the Court and some shy away from international adjudication. In particular, the presence of a secular court system and constitutional mentions of peaceful resolution of disputes promote a favorable attitude toward the ICJ among its Islamic audience.

Case Analysis: Counterclaims Before the International Court of Justice: The Genocide Convention and Oil Platforms Decisions

1999 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-229 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh Thirlway
Keyword(s):  
Subject Matter ◽  
Case Analysis ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Direct Connection ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Subject

The provisions of the ICJ Rules of Court concerning counter-claims have fallen to be applied in two recent cases, in circumstances such the Court has had to examine the nature of a counter-claim and the conditions for its admission as such, and in particular the nature of the ‘direct connection’ with the subject-matter of the application, required by the Rules. In each case the counter-claim was admitted, over the dissent of some judges: these decisions are probably justified, even though some aspects of the reasoning may be criticised.

scholarly journals The Standing of Indirectly Injured States in the Litigation of Community Interests before the ICJ: Lessons Learned and Future Implications in Light of The Gambia v. Myanmar and Beyond

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-31
Author(s):  
Marco Longobardo
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
The Gambia ◽  
Special Interests ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Legal Challenges ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Law Commission

Abstract This article explores the legal challenges related to the standing of indirectly injured states before the International Court of Justice in relation to violations of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes. After an examination of the emergence of these kinds of obligations, the article addresses the evolution of the approach of the Court in relation to the issue of standing, in light of the works of the International Law Commission on state responsibility. Especially after the 2012 Belgium v. Senegal case, the Court does not hesitate to recognise the standing of indirectly injured states. Yet, some aspects related to standing – such as the requirement of a special interests and the coordination between the reaction of the directly injured state and the indirectly injured ones – are still imprecise. The Court should take the opportunity to elaborate on these issues in the merits phase of The Gambia v. Myanmar case.

Ethnic Cleansing as Genocide – Assessing the Croatian Genocide Case before the icj

2015 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 147-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maja Munivrana Vajda
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Population Transfer ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Genocidal Intent

This article considers whether and if so, under what conditions, the practice of forced population transfer can be regarded a form of genocide, notwithstanding its formal exclusion from the Genocide Convention. This is particularly relevant in the context of the pending genocide case before the International Court of Justice between Croatia and Serbia since both states essentially base their claims on acts of ethnic cleansing. International case law on this matter is far from clear, yet it points to the conclusion that ethnic cleansing may rise to genocide when carried out with genocidal intent. In contrast, Croatian courts seem to have simply equated the intent to ethnically clean a given area with the intent to destroy. Following a brief overview of Croatian case law, this article considers the viability of the pending genocide allegations and whether the Croatian claim and Serbian counter-claim have any prospects of success.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document