1. Proposals of the United States of America on the Problem of Voting in the Security Council Submitted to the Interim Committee of the General Assembly, March 10,1948.

1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 402-404
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

A. The Interim Committee should study the categories of decisions which the Security Council is required to make in carrying out the functions entrusted to it under the Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and should report to the General Assembly those categories of decisions which in its judgment, in order to ensure the effective exercise by the Security Council of its responsibilities under the Charter, should be made by an affirmative vote of seven members of the Security Council, whether or not such categories are regarded as procedural or non-procedural. (A provisional proposed list of such categories is attached.)

The Thirty—Third Year of the World Court

1955 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

Impartiality and Neutrality in Humanitarian Law and Practice

1989 ◽  
Vol 29 (273) ◽  
pp. 516-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frits Kalshoven
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
The United States ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On 27 June 1986, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) gave judgment in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua. The case, involving Nicaragua against the United States of America, is remarkable in many respects, and so is the judgment. I should like to single out two special features: it deals with a situation of armed conflict, and it mentions the Red Cross.

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.

Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights; (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)

2021 ◽  
Vol 192 ◽  
pp. 1-83
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Prima Facie ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

1International Court of Justice — Provisional measures — Conditions for the indication of provisional measures — Prima facie basis for jurisdiction — Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Whether acts of which Iran complained falling within material scope of the 1955 Treaty — Article XX, 1(c) and 1(d) of the 1955 Treaty — Whether Article XX restricting the Court’s jurisdiction — Plausibility of rights asserted — Whether Article XX making Iran’s asserted rights not plausible — Whether rights invoked by Iran arising under the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action — Defence available to United States of America — Link between measures requested and rights whose protection Iran seeking — Real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice — Evidence of irreparable prejudice — Continuing character of irreparable prejudice — Urgency in the circumstances — Humanitarian concerns — Non-aggravation and non-extension of the dispute — Binding character of provisional measuresEconomics, trade and finance — Economic sanctions — Sanctions imposed by the United States of America against Iran — Territorial extent — Whether capable of affecting rights under the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, 1955, between Iran and the United States of America — Provisional measures jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

International Court of Justice

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 555-557
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court

Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America: On March 3, 1954, the United States filed with the Registry of the International Court of Justice Applications dated February 16, 1954, instituting proceedings against the governments of Hungary and the Soviet Union in the matter of the treatment in Hungary of aircraft and crew of the United States. In two orders of July 12, 1954, the Court removed the cases from its list, since neither Hungary nor the Soviet Union had accepted the jurisdiction of the Court in the matter.

scholarly journals Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Diane A. Desierto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

3 Institutional Structure and the Position of Members, 3.1 Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie ( Libya Arab Jamahiriya v United States of America ), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992 , [1992] ICJ Rep 114

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Davies-Bright Lydia ◽  
White Nigel D
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Security Council ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Institutional Structure ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Us

The case presented the International Court of Justice with the possibility of reviewing the legality, or at least the legal effects, of a Chapter VII resolution of the Security Council in contentious proceedings brought by Libya arising out of its refusal to extradite two Libyan agents suspected by the US and UK of being responsible for the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am plane over Lockerbie in Scotland. The case did not reach the merits state but the earlier judicial stages, highlighted in this chapter, suggested that the judicial arm of the UN might have been prepared to review the actions of the executive arm.

International Court of Justice

1947 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 116-116
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Executive Committee ◽  
Vice President ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague

On January 12, 1946, a list of candidates nominated for membership on the International Court of Justice was submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with invitations issued by the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission.As a result of elections held on February 6, the following were elected: Alvarez (Chile), Azevedo (Brazil), Badawi (Egypt), Basdevant (France), de Visscher (Belgium), Fabela (Mexico), Guerrero (Salvador), Hackworth (United States), Hsu (China), Klaestad (Norway), Krylov (USSR), McNair (United Kingdom), Read (Canada), Winiarski (Poland), and Zoricic (Yugoslavia).The first meeting of the Court was held on April 3 at the Peace Palace at the Hague, and the inaugural sitting on April 18. On April 6 the Court elected Mr. J. G. Guerrero as President and M. J. Basdevant as Vice-President. Mr. Edvard Hambro was appointed Registrar and M. J. Garnier-Coignet, Deputy Registrar. On May 3 the Court formed the Chamber for Summary Procedure, provided for by Article 29 of the Statute, composed of the following members: Guerrero (President), Basdevant, McNair, Krylov, Hsu, with Fabela and de Visscher as substitute members.

I. Lagrand Case (Germany v United States of America)

2002 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 449-455 ◽  
Author(s):  
Malcolm D. Evans ◽  
Martin Mennecke ◽  
Christian J. Tams
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Death Penalty ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Foreign Nationals ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

In the LaGrand case, the United States found themselves for the second time within three years before the International Court of Justice dealing with the death penalty imposed on foreign nationals in the United States.1 In contrast to the earlier case filed by Paraguay, the German-sponsored LaGrand case survived the provisional measures phase and went on to the merits stage. In its judgment of 27 June 2001, the Court largely affirmed all four German submissions and ruled that the United States had violated international law.

Vacancies on ICJ Filled by Election

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 200-200
Author(s):  
T. M. F.
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Sri Lanka ◽  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On February 5, 1991, the terms of five members of the International Court of Justice expired: those of President J. M. Ruda (Argentina) and Judges K. Mbaye (Senegal), Sir Robert Jennings (United Kingdom), G. Guillaume (France) and R. S. Pathak (India). In conformity with Articles 4 and 13 of the Statute of the Court, the General Assembly and the Security Council, on November 15, 1990, elected five persons to nine-year terms of office. Judges Mbaye, Ruda and Pathak did not stand for reelection. Judges Jennings and Guillaume were reelected. The newly elected judges are Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley (Venezuela), Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) and Christopher Gregory Weeramantry (Sri Lanka).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document