The Twenty-Eighth Year of the World Court

1950 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

Substantial contributions to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice were made during its twenty-eighth year—in two judgments in the Corfu Channel Case, and in an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. The prospect for the greater activity of the Court improved notably during the year, as a result of the institution of proceedings in three contested cases—between the United Kingdom and Norway, France and Egypt, and Colombia and Peru, respectively; and as a result of three requests emanating from the General Assembly for advisory opinions—concerning questions arising under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania; the competence of the General Assembly to admit new Members of the United Nations; and the international status of South West Africa. On the other hand, the year has not been marked by a great increase in the jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Article 36 (2) of the Statute or otherwise.

Author(s):  
Wouters Jan ◽  
Odermatt Jed

The International Court of Justice’s 1962 Advisory Opinion Certain Expenses of the United Nations relates to a relatively narrow legal question. The Court was asked to decide whether expenses authoriszed by the UN General Assembly relating to peacekeeping missions constituted ‘expenses of the organization’ according to art. 17(2) of the UN Charter. In deciding this question, the Court elaborates on some important issues for international law and the law of international organizations including the doctrine of implied powers, treaty interpretation in the context of the UN Charter, the doctrine of ultra vires, and the Court’s relationship with other UN organs. The opinion also has consequences for the UN General Assembly, including its role in the system of collective security, its budgetary powers, and its relationship with the UN Security Council. The chapter not only examines the Court’s reasoning but also discusses the wider significance of the case for international law.


Author(s):  
Rosa Riquelme ◽  
Juan Soroeta

Western Sahara is the only non-self-governing territory on the African continent still awaiting the completion of its process of decolonization and, as such, it has been listed by the committee established for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples for half a century. While Spain and France were responsible for the delineation of land borders between 1900 and 1912, the delimitation of maritime boundaries is a pending issue. Spain began its colonization of the territory shortly before the Berlin Conference (1884–1885). Despite the fact that since 1961 it had been providing the UN General Assembly with the information required under Article 73 (e) of the UN Charter, it was only in 1974 that it assumed proper responsibility for its obligations as administering power, when it decided to organize a referendum on self-determination, to be held in the first half of 1975 under the auspices of the United Nations. As a result of a series of events, that plan was ultimately frustrated. The first such obstacle was the postponement of the referendum by the General Assembly, after it had decided to ask the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on the relationship between the Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco. The court’s ruling confirmed the international status of Western Sahara as a non-self-governing territory. The second obstacle was the so-called Marcha Verde (Green March) on Sahara, organized by the King of Morocco, Hassan II, to demonstrate his intentions with regard to Western Sahara. Soon afterwards, Spain, Morocco, and Mauritania issued a declaration of principles on 14 November 1975 (also known as Madrid Agreements) whereby Spain not only ratified the decision to decolonize the territory and abandon its active presence on the territory but also committed itself to establishing a temporary administration together with Morocco and Mauritania and the collaboration of the Yemáa (Assembly of Sahrawi notables). For its part, Morocco occupied northern Western Sahara, which led to the conflict between Mauritania and Morocco and the Frente Popular para la Liberación de Saguía el Hamra y de Río de Oro (Frente Polisario—Polisario Front), the Sahrawi national liberation movement created in 1973, which in turn proclaimed the Saharan Arab Democratic Republic (SADR) in 1976, which has been recognized by more than eighty states and has been a member of the African Union since 1984. The conflict with Mauritania ended in 1979, but the war with Morocco dragged on nearly a decade. The ceasefire agreement came into force in 1991. That same year Security Council Resolution 690 adopted the settlement plan agreed by the two parties and established the United Nations Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO). Once MINURSO had published a provisional electoral list for the holding of the referendum (February 2000), Morocco accused the members of the mission of bias and abandoned the peace plan. The core of the conflict lies in the fact that Morocco will only accept an autonomy formula for Western Sahara, which would remain an integral part of its national territory and under its sovereignty, whereas the Frente Polisario holds that the only acceptable solution to the conflict is holding a referendum on self-determination in which independence is an option.


1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Ago

The advisory opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice on December 15, 1989, Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, has revived the topicality of the possible dual application of the Court’s advisory procedure. This procedure, provided for in Article 96 of the Charter, is governed by Articles 65-68 of the Statute of the Court.


1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-256

Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal: On December 9, 1953, the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution requesting the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following questions: 1) has the General Assembly the right to refuse to give effect to an award of compensation made by the Administrative Tribunal in favor of a United Nations staff member whose contract of service had been terminated without his assent? and 2) if the Court's answer to the first question was in the affirmative, what were the principal grounds on which the Assembly could lawfully exercise such a right? After copies of this resolution were transmitted to the Court by a letter of the Secretary-General (Hammarskjold) dated December 16, the Court fixed March 15, 1954, as the time-limit within which written statements might be submitted by any state entitled to appear before it or any international organization considered by the president as likely to be able to furnish information on these questions, and reserved the rest of the procedure for further decision. Members of the United Nations and the International Labor Organization were then notified that, in accordance with Article 66 (2) of the Statute, the president considered them likely to be able to furnish such information.


1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 519-522

Advisory Opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations: A General Assembly resolution of November 17,1947, requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question: “Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to theadmission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?”


1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

On April 6, 1955, during its thirty-fourth year, the International Court of Justice decided one case brought on December 17, 1951, by Liechtenstein against Guatemala—the Nottebohm Case—in favor of Guatemala. It also gave an Advisory Opinion to the General Assembly of the United Nations on June 7, 1955, on the Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa.


1950 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169

The General Assembly,Considering its request to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion, formulated in resolution 258 (III) of 3 December 1948 concerning reparation for injuries incurred in the service of the United Nations,Having regard to the advisory opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice on 11 April 1949.Considering that it is highly desirable that reparation be secured for injuries incurred in the service of the United Nations,Considering that the Secretary-General has submitted in his report of 23 August 1949 (A/955) a number of proposals relating to the aforementioned advisory opinion,


1949 ◽  
Vol 3 (3) ◽  
pp. 569-579

On December 3rd, 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following resolution:“Whereas the series of tragic events which have lately befallen agents of the United Nations engaged in the performance of their duties raises, with greater urgency than ever, the question of the arrangements to be made by the United Nations with a view to ensuring to its agents the fullest measure of protection in the future and ensuring that reparation be made for the injuries suffered; andWhereas it is highly desirable that the Secretary-General should be able to act without question as efficaciously as possible with a view to obtaining any reparation due; thereforeThe General Assembly


1948 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 568-573

On November 17, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following Resolution:“The General Assembly,Considering Article 4 of the Charter of the United Nations,Considering the exchange of views which has taken place in the Security Council at its Two hundred and fourth, Two hundred and fifth and Two hundred and sixth Meetings, relating to the admission of certain States to membership in the United Nations,Considering Article 96 of the Charter,Requests the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on the following question:Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article? In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?Instructs the Secretary-General to place at the disposal of the Court the records of the above-mentioned meetings of the Security Council.”


1957 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson

During the year 1956, the International Court of Justice gave two Advisory Opinions to assist in the work of the United Nations. On June 1, 1956, it met a request from the General Assembly for an opinion on the Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa. On October 23, 1956, it responded to a request from the Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization of the United Nations by giving an opinion on the Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation upon Complaints Made Against the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. It also gave a series of orders, some of which denied the jurisdiction of the Court.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document