State Responsibility for Breach of Interim Protection Orders of the International Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Orders ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

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 Responsibility of Serbia for genocide: Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide

Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 33-42
Author(s):  
Mirjana Tejic
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Reconciliation Process

On February 26th 2007, International Court of Justice claimed Serbia responsible for failing to prevent genocide and punish perpetrators underlining its' responsibility to cooperate with International Criminal Tribunal for former Yugoslavia. Although it was confirmed genocide has been committed in Srebrenica 1995, Serbia is not obliged to pay financial reparations. Judgment makes distinction between individual and three-fold state responsibility for genocide, based on Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and other sources of international law. There are evident disagreements among judges on jurisdiction, interpretation rules, even on meritum of the case. Many questions still remain open especially what precedent effects will have on establishment of state's dolus specialis and how it will influence the reconciliation process in the region.

GHOSTS OF GENOCIDES PAST? STATE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GENOCIDE IN THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA

2015 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-201 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Paddeu
Keyword(s):  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Past State

IN Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v Serbia), the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “Court”) dealt with a claim by Croatia that Serbia was responsible for the commission of genocide against ethnic Croatians in contravention of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (“the Convention”), and with Serbia's counter-claim that Croatia had committed genocide against ethnic Serbs also in breach of the Convention. In its judgment of 3 February 2015, the Court dismissed both the claim and counter-claim. While many of the acts complained of constituted the actus reus of genocide, there was no evidence that they had been perpetrated with the required mens rea, namely the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, the targeted group as such.

Private Rights, the Use of Maps, State Responsibility, and Other Issues in the International Court of Justice’s Boundary Jurisprudence: 2000-10

2012 ◽  
Vol 49 ◽  
pp. 177-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Alvarez-Jimenez
Keyword(s):  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Terra Nullius ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Boundary Disputes ◽  
International Court ◽  
Private Rights ◽  
Significant Interest ◽  
State Succession ◽  
New Millennium

SummaryBoundary disputes constitute one of the most delicate issues for states, such that it is not surprising that frontier issues are among the most recurrent before the International Court of Justice (IC J) and have given rise to a rich jurisprudence. This jurisprudence comprises traditional areas: consent in boundary treaties, the principle ofuti possidetis juris, the notion ofeffectivités, and maritime delimitation. However, it also includes other topics that usually receive less attention, but which are nonetheless important to states and sometimes underlie their significant interest in boundary disputes. This article deals with such topics in order to show how the IC J has handled them in its boundary jurisprudence of the first decade of the new millennium. The author discusses IC J decisions addressing types of territory that cannot be appropriated,terra nullius, private rights, state succession, unilateral donations as sources of title to territory, irrelevant criteria in establishing title to territory (particularly historical consolidation), the use of maps, and state responsibility in connection with boundary disputes.

‘By Means of its Own Choosing’: Is the Court Refashioning the Remedies of State Responsibility?

2013 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 459-481
Author(s):  
Stephen Tully
Keyword(s):  
Free Choice ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Obligation ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Constraints ◽  
Effective Remedy

Abstract The International Court of Justice (the Court) can formulate appropriate orders whilst being sufficiently attune to the domestic constraints confronted by States. In the Consular Notification cases, the United States was ordered, ‘by means of its own choosing’, to undertake a ‘review and reconsideration’ of the convictions and sentences of certain named individuals whose rights to consular notification were denied. The Court revived a distinction between obligations of conduct and obligations of result but refrained from indicating when a violation of an international obligation occurred, in this case, potential non-compliance with its earlier judgment in Avena. This article argues that the Court need not attempt to remodel the doctrine of State responsibility in order to provide an adequate and effective remedy. Juridical restitution, as evidenced in its prior jurisprudence, contemplates intrusion into the municipal legal order of States. This article also considers the free choice of means principle and the appropriate judicial function in these circumstances. It concludes that the remedial orders declared by the Court can be made by reference to the particular obligation at issue and the circumstances of each case. Furthermore, the litigation context and the claims made by the disputants cannot be overlooked by the Court when determining the degree of specificity required by those orders.

The Declaratory Judgment in Recent Jurisprudence of the ICJ: Conflicting Approaches to State Responsibility?

2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 177-195
Author(s):  
JULIETTE MCINTYRE
Keyword(s):  
State Responsibility ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Proper Role ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj

AbstractAs the list of contentious cases concerning issues of state responsibility brought before the International Court of Justice (the Court) continues to grow, a closer consideration is demanded of the most common remedy granted by the Court – the declaratory judgment. In particular, while the Court continues to issue declarations intended to constitute ‘appropriate satisfaction’, it also appears that the Court is – or is attempting – to use declarations more creatively in certain circumstances. This immediately provokes a question as to not only the proper role of declaratory judgments, but also whether and to what extent variations in the nature of the obligations owed by states, or the nature of their internationally wrongful acts, gives rise to a coherent differentiation in the remedies granted by the Court.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document