Questionnaire on the topic of reservations to treaties addressed to states members of the United Nations or of a specialized agency or parties to the ICJ Statute

2009 ◽  
pp. 97-106
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

Part 4 Adjudication Within the United Nations System, 29 The International Court of Justice

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Higgins Dame Rosalyn, DBE, QC ◽  
Webb Philippa ◽  
Akande Dapo ◽  
Sivakumaran Sandesh ◽  
Sloan James
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The Hague ◽  
Rules Committee ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
United Nations System ◽  
Nations System

This chapter begins by discussing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as a principal organ of the UN. The ICJ is the only UN principal organ that has its seat in The Hague. It consists of a Bench, a Registry, and a modest but important staff. All judges, who have to be able to work in French or English, are expected to sit on one of the Court’s two major committees, the Rules Committee, and the Budgetary and Administrative Committee. The chapter covers the Bench of the ICJ, the Court’s functions, the ICJ as distinct from other principal organs; ICJ financing and the UN; the ICJ and other courts and tribunals; methods of work of the ICJ; and ICJ efficiency.

Poland Accepts the Optional Clause of the ICJ Statute

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (2) ◽  
pp. 374-375
Author(s):  
Renata Szafarz
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Eastern Europe ◽  
Secretary General ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

On September 25, 1990, Poland deposited a declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2 of the Statute of the Court. It is the first country from Central or Eastern Europe to have done so and the fifty-second state now maintaining an effective declaration.

‘Killing Three Birds with One Stone’? The Preliminary Objections Judgments of the International Court of Justice in the Legality of Use of Force Cases

2005 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
SIMON OLLESON
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

The ICJ in its judgments on the preliminary objections in the Legality of Use of Force cases held that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claims. Despite the unanimous concurrence in that result, it is clear that there were deep divisions within the Court as to the ground on which that decision should have been reached; only a bare majority subscribed to the reasoning that the Court was required to rule on the question of its jurisdiction ratione personae in relation to Serbia and Montenegro's uncertain status within the United Nations prior to 2000. The minority judges were highly critical of the choice of that basis of decision, in particular given its apparent implications for other cases pending before the Court.

The Recommendations Made by the International Court of Justice

2007 ◽  
Vol 56 (1) ◽  
pp. 185-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean D' Aspremont
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Democratic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The United Nations

Any observer of the practice of the International Court of Justice (hereafter the ICJ or the Court) may have noticed the growing tendency of the United Nations judicial body to formulate recommendations to the parties that have appeared before it. Indeed, the Court is more and more inclined to recommend that the parties allay their dispute and alleviate all ensuing human sufferings. This leaning is particularly observable when the Court simultaneously dismisses a request for the indication of provisional measures. For instance, in the recent order rendered by the Court in the case concerning the Armed Activities on the Territory of Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), the Court made the following declaration:

scholarly journals Impact of Shimla Agreement on the Application of UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir: A Critical Analysis under International Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 285-302
Author(s):  
Adnan Rahman ◽  
Sania Muneer ◽  
 Muhammad Mumtaz Ali Khan
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Research Work ◽  
United Nations Security Council ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Jammu And Kashmir ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Effective Analysis

The purpose of this paper is to explore and analyze the impact of the Shimla Agreement on the application of the United Nations’ resolution on Jammu and Kashmir with special reference to the International law. The conflict of Jammu and Kashmir has been a longstanding conflict for right to self-determination for people of Jammu and Kashmir. There are almost twenty resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP on Jammu and Kashmir and the issue is still pending in the United Nations Security Council. However, there has been a debate on the impact of the Shimla agreement on the applicability and validity of the resolutions of the United Nations in post 1972 scenario. This paper will critically analyze and objectively review the various legal dimensions of the Shimla Agreement in juxtaposition with the leading principles of International law as well as decisions of the ICJ on similar matters. Moreover, this paper will also analyze the nature, scope and applicability of the resolutions of the UNSC and UNCIP in the light of the International law. The findings of this research work are based upon the critical review of the existing literature on the Shimla Agreement and its impact on the UN Resolutions.  This study will suggest the effective analysis and will address all the questions pertaining to the nature, scope and legal impact of the Shimla Agreement on the nature and scope of applicability of UN Resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir. This study can be very useful and relevant in future to analyze the nature of the Shimla agreement and the binding nature and applicability of the resolutions of the United Nations on Jammu and Kashmir.

Continuation of Membership in the United Nations Revisited: Lessons from Fifteen Years of Inconsistency in the Jurisprudence of the ICJ

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 315-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fernando Lusa Bordin
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Genocide Convention ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractThe judgment on preliminary objections in Croatia v. Serbia provided closure to fifteen years of controversy as to whether Serbia had access to the ICJ from 1992 to 2000, a period in which Serbia was involved in three sets of cases before the Court. At the heart of the controversy lay the question of the status of Serbia vis-à-vis the United Nations following the disaggregation of the former Yugoslavia. Taking as a starting point the series of cases relating to the application of the Genocide Convention and the legality of use of force by NATO states, this article revisits the issue of continuation of membership in the United Nations. It begins by discussing the problems posed by the “horizontal inconsistency” among the Court’s jurisdictional findings, which implied that Serbia had and did not have access to the Court in the relevant period. It then offers a critique of the ICJ’s decision in Legality of Use of Force, and proposes an approach to continuation of membership in the UN that would have allowed the Court not only to avoid inconsistency, but also to clarify an important question of UN law. The argument to be advanced is that, according to the soundest interpretation of the UN Charter, a de facto exercise of membership may produce valid legal effects.

Waiting for Godot: An Analysis of the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2011 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 331-353 ◽  
Author(s):  
DOV JACOBS ◽  
YANNICK RADI
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Waiting For Godot ◽  
The Icj ◽  
International Responsibility ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Way

AbstractThe Kosovo Advisory Opinion gave rise to responses that suggest that the Court went too far, or not far enough, depending on one's perspective. In this article, the authors argue that the Court should either have done nothing or gone all the way. By accepting an inadequately drafted question, the Court was necessarily going to give an inadequate answer. This article adopts a strict approach to the legal nature of the question and considers that the ICJ should have declined its competence, not as an exercise of its discretion, but as a preservation of its core judicial function, which does not include primarily the conduct of non-state entities. Going further, the authors suggest that the Court could have rephrased the question and sought to establish the international responsibility of the United Nations, and, ultimately, of Kosovo, which, it is argued, is in fact implicitly recognized by the Court, both politically and legally.

scholarly journals Wpływ opinii doradczych Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na postępowanie przed Trybunałami Administracyjnymi w systemie ONZ

2016 ◽  
pp. 5-37
Author(s):  
Edyta Lis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Main Task ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Advisory Opinions ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is a principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The main task of ICJ is to settle disputes submitted to it by the states and is also entitled to give advisory opinions which are given on the motion of some United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The expression that ICJ is a “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” doesn’t mean that it is the only one judicial organ within the framework of the United Nations. The United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) was established by the legal force of the General Assembly resolution 351 A(IV) of 9 December 1949 r. The main purpose of the UNAT was to decide legal employment disputes between United Nations staff and the Organization. In 1955 the Statute of UNAT was amended and the Committee on Application for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgement was competent to seek advisory opinion form ICJ and this opinion was binding. However Committee only in three cases requested the ICJ to give advisory opinion. Those opinions concerned inter alia the competence of ICJ to respond to the question, the right of Committee to submit such motion, the principle of equality of arms. In spite of that since of the 1st of July 2009 the new system of administration of internal justice was established – the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeal Tribunal, which consider the appeals against judgments rendered by the United Nations Dispute Tribunal, the issues discussed in advisory opinions of ICJ on the matters of appealing against a judicial decision of UNAT are still highly topical, especially in the context of the maintained in force competence of ICJ to review judgement of The Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation.

From Advisory Opinions to Binding Decisions: The new Appeal Mechanism of the Un system of Administration of Justice

2010 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Vargiu
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Due Process ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
International Court ◽  
Tier System ◽  
Administration Of Justice ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Review Mechanism ◽  
The United Nations

AbstractIn 2009 the United Nations launched a new two-tier system of administration of justice. The system is composed of two standing bodies, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal (UNDT) and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal (UNApT), the latter acting as an appeals mechanism against decisions of the UNDT. The former system foresaw the United Nations Administrative Tribunal (UNAT) as the sole body of administration of justice within the UN, while the International Court of Justice (ICJ) acted as review mechanism on the decisions of the UNAT. However, this review system was abolished in 1995 and, since then, no option was available to unsuccessful (or partially successful) staff members for having a UNAT judgment reviewed. The lack of any option for review led to criticisms and instances for reform of the whole system, which eventually led to the establishment of a Redesign Panel, which suggested the establishment of a two-tier system of administration of justice, with the aim of meeting the 'basic standards of due process established in international human rights instruments'. The recently established Appeals Tribunal should fill the gap created by the abolition of the ICJ competence to review the judgments rendered by the UNAT. This article evaluates the improvement to the system represented by the establishment of the United Nations Appeals Tribunal in three main steps. The first is the identification of the shortcomings of the previous review mechanism before the ICJ. The second is the overview of the problems of the former system of administration of justice within the UN. The third and final step is the analysis of the scope of jurisdiction of the new UNApT.

On membership of the United Nations and the State of Palestine: A critical account

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-24
Author(s):  
Ardi Imseis
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Main Driver ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Judicial Proceedings ◽  
The United Nations

Abstract Against the context of pending judicial proceedings between the State of Palestine and the United States of America (US) at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), this article critically examines the United Nations (UN) commitment to the international rule of law through an examination of its consideration of Palestine’s 2011 application for membership in the organization. The universality of membership of the UN is a foundation upon which the organization rests. The international law governing UN admission has accordingly been marked by a liberal, flexible and permissive interpretation of the test for membership contained in the UN Charter. In contrast, an assessment of the UN’s consideration of Palestine’s application for membership demonstrates that it was subjected to an unduly narrow, strict and resultantly flawed application of the membership criteria. An examination of the contemporaneous debates of the Council demonstrates that the main driver of this was the US, which used its legal authority as a permanent member of the Council to block Palestine’s membership. The principle argument used against membership was the US’s view that Palestine does not qualify as a state under international law. Notwithstanding, the State of Palestine has been recognized by 139 member states of the UN and has acceded to a number of treaties that furnish it with access to the ICJ. While a number of articles have been written about Palestine’s statehood, little has been written on the UN’s consideration of Palestine’s 2011 application for membership. Palestine v. USA provides a renewed opportunity to do so.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document