The State of International Law in The Hague: Much Activity at the International Court of Justice

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-178
Author(s):  
Harry Post
1920 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 540-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. W. Armstrong

The Hague Conference of 1907 had for one of its objects the formation of an international court of justice, the decisions of which were to systematize international law and resolve its inconsistencies. Such an international court, the “Court of Arbitral Justice,” was approved in principle by the Conference, but failed to be established because the Conference was unable to agree on the composition of the court.


2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 89-114
Author(s):  
Tran Thang Long

AbstractIn international relation, estoppel is a principle whereby a state is not able to say or act against what it said or did before. The theory of estoppel was originated in the past from the English law system, which was later incorporated into international law. Its main purpose is to prevent a State from benefiting from its inconsistent attitudes, and thus, causing damage to another State. Therefore, estoppel must meet the main conditions. First, the expression of the said State leads to the assumption of the estoppel must be clear and non-ambiguous. Second, this expression must be expressed voluntarily, unconditionally and must be well authorized. Third, there must be a goodwill trust from another State into the expression of a State giving that expression, resulting in damage to the State with this trust or to the benefit of the expressive side. The paper examines the principle of estoppel in international law and the practice of applying this principle in cases tried at the International Court of Justice. On that basis, the paper discusses explaining the factors that constitute an estoppel situation for Vietnam in order to reject the China’s wrong interpretation of the 1958 Diplomatic Note of the late Prime Minister Pham Van Dong.


1961 ◽  
Vol 55 (4) ◽  
pp. 825-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne

When the late Sir Hersch Lauterpacht became a member of the International Court of Justice in February, 1955 (a position he was to fill effectively for barely five years, until the fall of 1959), he went to The Hague with some thirty years of devoted study and practice of international law behind him. As teacher and student of international law, as a most highly qualified publicist (in the words of Article 38(1) (d) of the Statute of the Court) of recognized universal authority, he had devoted himself both to the law in general and in particular to the problems of the judicial settlement of international disputes, whether by the Permanent Court of International Justice and its present-day successor, the International Court of Justice, or by ad hoc arbitration tribunals. Indeed, his writings as a whole display a rare preoccupation with the entire philosophy and the practical problems of the judicial settlement of international disputes, together with a deep understanding of its limitations and a satisfying freedom both from putting forward extravagant claims in its behalf and from purely theoretical speculations.


Polar Record ◽  
1956 ◽  
Vol 8 (53) ◽  
pp. 125-151 ◽  

In an attempt to settle the dispute between the United Kingdom, Argentina and Chile over sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies, the United Kingdom made unilateral Applications to the International Court of Justice at The Hague on 4 May 1955. The Applications set out the British title, and asked the Court to declare that the Argentine and Chilean encroachments in British Antarctic territory were illegal and invalid under international law.Both the Argentine and Chilean Governments refused to accept the jurisdiction of the Court.* The United Kingdom Government subsequently expressed its regret at these refusals, and placed on record the fact that it had now taken every step open to it to bring about a peaceful and amicable determination of this question of sovereignty in accordance with the letter and spirit of the Charter of the United Nations. On 18 March 1956 the International Court announced that since neither Argentina nor Chile was prepared to accept the Court's jurisdiction, both cases had been removed from its list.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 951-962
Author(s):  
Nur Rohim Yunus ◽  
Latipah Nasution ◽  
Siti Nurhalimah ◽  
Siti Romlah

The state is a subject of international law who has power or power, so that the state is required not to abuse its authority. State obligations have been regulated in various international legal instruments. The protection of human rights has implications for the emergence of the fulfillment of human rights as a form of state responsibility. The state in this case must ensure to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Therefore, all acts of the state that discriminate against citizens of a certain ethnicity by committing genocide are serious human rights crimes that must be prosecuted by the International Court of Justice. This study uses qualitative research with a sociological and juridical approach. The results of the study state that the State of Indonesia has also regulated the behavior of preventing the crime of genocide in order to protect human rights.Keywords: Genocide; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Abstrak:Negara merupakan subjek hukum internasional yang memiliki kekuasaan atau power, sehingga negara dituntut tidak melakukan penyalahgunaan wewenang. Kewajiban negara telah diatur dalam berbagai instrumen hukum internasional. Perlindungan terhadap HAM berimplikasi terhadap munculnya pemenuhan HAM sebagai wujud tanggungjawab negara. Negara dalam hal ini harus memastikan to protect, to ensure, and to fulfill the human rights. Oleh karenanya, segala tindakan negara yang melakukan diskriminasi kepada warga negara dari etnis tertentu dengan melakukan genosida merupakan kejahatan HAM berat yang harus dituntut oleh Mahkamah Internasional. Penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian kualitatif dengan pendekatan sosiologis dan yuridis. Hasil penelitian menyatakan bahwa Negara Indonesia juga telah mengatur perilaku pencegahan tindak kejahatan Genosida guna menjaga HAM.Kata Kunci: Genosida; HAM; Extraordinary Crime Абстрактный:Государство является субъектом международного права, обладающим властью или властью, поэтому от государства требуется не злоупотреблять своей властью. Обязательства государства регулируются различными международно-правовыми документами. Защита прав человека имеет значение для возникновения реализации прав человека как формы ответственности государства. Государство в этом случае должно гарантировать защиту, обеспечение и соблюдение прав человека. Следовательно, все действия государства, дискриминирующие граждан определенной этнической принадлежности путем совершения геноцида, являются серьезными преступлениями в области прав человека, которые должны преследоваться Международным Судом. В данном исследовании используются качественные исследования с социологическим и юридическим подходом. Результаты исследования показывают, что государство Индонезия также регулирует действия по предотвращению преступления геноцида в целях защиты прав человека.Ключевые слова: Геноцид; Ветчина; Чрезвычайное Преступление


1952 ◽  
Vol 46 (4) ◽  
pp. 609-630 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jens Evensen

On December 18, 1951, the International Court of Justice at The Hague rendered its judgment in the Fisheries Case between the United Kingdom and Norway. By ten votes to two the International Court declared “that the method employed for the delimitation of the fisheries zone by the Royal Norwegian Decree of July 12, 1935 is not contrary to international law.”


2005 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-24 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Lynk

In June 2004, the High Court of Israel (HCI) ruled on the ““Beit Sourik”” case in which Palestinian villagers challenged the legality of Israel's separation wall, which had been routed through their villages causing great hardship. This article examines the HCI decision---which upheld the legality of the wall under international law but mandated changes in its route---and the argumentation used. In the process, the article shows how the HCI, despite some disagreements with the state on narrow issues of administrative application, broadly supports the government's policies of occupation, and it explains how the court interprets international law in order to do so. The article also contrasts the HCI's ruling with the nearly simultaneous ruling of the International Court of Justice, highlighting the two courts' very different approaches to international law.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document