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.

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.

International Court of Justice

1959 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 630-634 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Japanese Island ◽  
Fighter Aircraft ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Government

Case concerning the Aerial Incident of November 7, 1954 (United States v. Soviet Union): On July 7, 1959, an application instituting proceedings against die Soviet Union was filed in the Registry of the Court by the government of the United States. In its application the government of the United States alleged that on November 7, 1954, one of its aircraft was attacked and destroyed over the Japanese island of Hokkaido by fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union. It requested the Court to find that the Soviet Union was liable for the damages caused and to award damages in the sum of $756,604. It also stated that it had submitted to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and that it was open to the government of the Soviet Union to do likewise. In accordance with Article 40 of the Statute of the Court, the application was thereupon communicated by the Registry to the government of the Soviet Union.

Contemporary Practice of the United States Relating to International Law

1960 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 632-672 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denys P. Myers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fighter Aircraft ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Department Of State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court ◽  
Contemporary Practice

The press release issued by the Department of State in announcing the filing of an application with the International Court of Justice on July 7, 1959, in a damage suit for the destruction of an aircraft by a fighter aircraft of the Soviet Union stated:The present proceedings have been instituted in accordance with the well-established United States policy of resolving such disputes, whether of fact or law, in the International Court of Justice. The Court is the judicial organ of the United Nations for this purpose and is the appropriate international body before which such cases can be heard and decided.

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.

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 2003 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

2004 ◽  
Vol 98 (2) ◽  
pp. 309-317
Author(s):  
John R. Crook
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Vice President ◽  
The United States ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Territorial Dispute ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Republic Of The Congo ◽  
The Republic

The International Court of Justice again completed a substantial program of work during 2003, with old and new cases involving the United States figuring prominendy. In a decision that will find Hide favor in official Washington, the Court dismissed Iran's 1992 Oil Platforms case against the United States, but in doing so firmly rejected U.S. positions regarding the scope of self-defense. Libya withdrew its venerable Lockerbie cases against the United States and the United Kingdom, in parallel with its acceptance of responsibility for the Lockerbie bombing and the final lifting of UN sanctions. And Mexico sued the United States, claiming failures of consular notification for fifty-four Mexican nationals sentenced to death in U.S. proceedings, the third such ICJ case against the United States.In other significant developments, the General Assembly in December asked die Court for an urgent advisory opinion on die legal consequences of the Israeli construction of a wall in occupied Palestinian territory. Malaysia and Singapore brought a new territorial dispute by special agreement; France consented to jurisdiction over a suit by the Republic of the Congo; and the Court rejected requests by Yugoslavia and El Salvador to revise earlier judgments. Finally, the Court elected Judge Shijiuyong of China as its president and Judge Raymond Ranjeva as vice president.

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

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.”

International Court of Justice

1955 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 532-533
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Soviet Union ◽  
Air Force ◽  
United States Air Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Fighter Aircraft ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Soviet Government ◽  
The Soviet Union ◽  
International Court

ApplicationsAerial Incident of October y, 1952 (United States v. Soviet Union): On June 2, 1955, the United States filed with the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against the Soviet Union, on the grounds of certain willful acts said to have been committed by Soviet fighter aircraft against a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft andits crew off Hokkaido, Japan, on October 7, 1952. The United States claimed that a Soviet fighter aircraft, unlawfully overflying the territory of Japan at the instigation of the Soviet government, had without any provocation attacked and destroyed the United States Air Force B-29, causing it to crashinto the sea at a point between Yuri Island and Akiyuri Island in territory rightfully belonging to Japan; that the crew of eight, all members of the United States Air Force and nationals ofthe United States, had failed to return, and that the Soviet government had concealed from the United States government information as to the fate of the crew, and had notmade provision for the prompt return of any crew members whom it might still be holding or of whose whereabouts itwas informed. The United States application stated that the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case was accepted by the United States. The damages the United States claimed to have suffered and for which it claimed the Soviet Union to beliable were specified in a note annexed to the application; the United States claimed that the actions withwhich it charged the Soviet government constituted serious violations of international obligation for which it demanded monetary and other reparation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document