Representation of Future Generations through International Climate Litigation: A Normative Framework

2018 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 639-666
Author(s):  
Peter Lawrence ◽  
Lukas Köhler
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Future Generations ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Intergenerational Justice ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Normative Framework ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Climate ◽  
International Tribunals ◽  
Paris Climate Agreement

International climate litigation is an important supplement to the global United Nations negotiating process. Establishing a normative basis for such litigation is important in terms of its legitimacy. Rehfeld’s concept of representation is used in this article to argue that it is coherent to talk about representation of future generations in relation to climate change-related claims brought by States on behalf of their citizens and future generations before international tribunals. The article argues that international law ought to promote justice (following Buchanan and Ratner) – but extended to include intergenerational justice defined as an obligation on current generations to ensure subsistence enjoyment of core human rights by future generations. It is further argued that international tribunals ought to represent future generations as a vehicle for promoting intergenerational justice, given the massive bias against future generations in current law-making and institutions. How this would translate into a concrete case is illustrated by discussion of a potential advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. The normative framework is utilised to illustrate how the Court should 1) interpret some selected general principles of international environmental law in relation to the Paris Climate Agreement and 2) take a liberal interpretation of its procedural rules to allow amicus curiae briefs by international organisations purporting to represent or highlight the interests of future generations in the climate context.

scholarly journals Mara’abe v. Prime Minister of Israel

2006 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 895-901
Author(s):  
Daniel Bodansky ◽  
Geoffrey R. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Israeli Government ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Mara'Abe v. Prime Minister of Israel. Case No. HCJ 7957/04. At <http://elyonl.court.gov.il/eng/home/index.html> (English translation).Supreme Court of Israel, sitting as the High Court of Justice, September 15, 2005.In Mara ‘abe v. Prime Minister of Israel, the Israeli Supreme Court held that the routing of a portion of Israel's “security fence” in the northern West Bank violated international humanitarian law. The Supreme Court, sitting as the High Court of Justice, ordered the Israeli government to consider alternative paths for the barrier. The Mara'abe decision expanded on the Court's earlier ruling in Beit Sourik Village Council v. Israel, in which the Court ordered the rerouting of another segment of the obstacle. Mara ’abe also revealed some of the Israeli Court's views on Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in Occupied Palestinian Territory— the 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) holding that construction of the barrier anywhere in occupied territory violates international law.

Consolidation of Statehood through Membership in the UN: Some Remarks on Kosovo, Democracy and International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-349
Author(s):  
Iliriana Islami ◽  
Remzije Istrefi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Building ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Building Process

Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008. Subsequently, one of the aims of Kosovo’s foreign policy was to further consolidate this position and to justify Kosovo’s prospective membership in the United Nations. This article examines the issue of recognition, elucidating how Kosovo is different from other countries and comparing it with the case of the former Yugoslavia. Other aspects in the state-building process such as ‘building constitutionalism’ will be presented as a step toward justifying recognition and membership. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 8 October 2008 will be presented as evidence of Kosovo’s strengthening international position in its quest for further recognition. Thus, the article will discuss and analyze the arguments in favor of Kosovo being admitted to the UN.

Capacities and Inadequacies: A Look at the Two Separation Barrier Cases

2005 ◽  
Vol 38 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 230-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuval Shany
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Legal Proceedings ◽  
Analysis Process ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Fact Finding ◽  
Israeli Supreme Court

Comparison between the two decisions of the International Court of Justice and the Israeli Supreme Court on the legality of Israel's West Bank controversial separation barrier illustrates some of the inherent differences between national and international legal proceedings. The note critically assesses these differences and advocates a more comity based framework of cooperation between national and international courts. Specifically, the note argues that the fact-gathering and fact-analysis process demonstrated in the Hague Advisory Opinion is problematic, as were the Court's refusal to show any deference to the Israeli authorities and empathy towards the Israeli public. These deficiencies reduce the persuasiveness of the Opinion and render its acceptance by Israel less likely. At the same time, the failure of the Israeli Supreme Court to address the link between the route of the barrier and the alleged illegality of the settlement detracts from the normative value of the judgment and highlight the political constrains in which domestic courts operate. As a result, resort to a comity-based framework in which the national and international courts strive to draw upon each other's institutional advantages in the fields of fact-finding, compliance-pull and international law expertise would have been beneficial.

scholarly journals Comment on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996: التعليق على فتوى محكمة العدل الدولية في مدى مشروعية التهديد  باستخدام الأسلحة النووية عام 1996م

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Elden Mohammed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to establish the principles of international humanitarian law and restrict the use or threat of nuclear weapons, on the occasion of its fatwa, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after realizing that the continued development of nuclear weapons exposes humanity to great risks, and its request It states, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permissible under the rules of international law" (Atalm, 1996), (Shahab, 2000), Therefore, the comment seeks to answer the question: What is the legality of possession, production and development of nuclear weapons? What is the extent of the legality of the threat to use it in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in this regard? Was the decision of the International Court of Justice in favor of documenting the principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law? Or was it biased in its decision to the interests of a particular class itself? The researcher used in that descriptive, descriptive and critical analytical method, and the results that lead to criticism of the work of the International Court of Justice in this regard were reached on the premise that they tended towards tipping the political nature of the issue presented to it under the pressures and directions of the major nuclear states and this strengthens my criticism to the United Nations that I see It only works for the benefit of the major powers under the auspices of the Security Council by veto (right to veto) at a time when the Security Council itself is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, just as it can be said that the United Nations does not work for the benefit of mankind but works for the five major countries Even with regard to nuclear weapons Regardless of whether or not there was a threat to international peace and security. From this standpoint, the researcher reached several recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of the independence of the International Court of Justice in its work from the political considerations of member states, especially the major countries, as a step to establish and support international peace and security in a practical way in practice. The United Nations should also reconsider what is known as a veto, which is and it is rightly one of the most important and most important measures that truly threaten international peace and security.

scholarly journals Advisory competence on international law of the International Court of Justice: theoretical and practical issues

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Huu Phuoc Him ◽  
Thi Kim Kook Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This article analyses, clarifi es the theoretical and practical issues of the advisory capacity of the International Court of Justice. Thereby, highlighting the role of the International Court of Justice in the development compliance and enforcement of international law from 1945 to now. Keywords: Jurisdiction, advisory opinion, International Court of Justice, international law.

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 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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document