The International Court of Justice: Its Role in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security. By Oliver J. Lissitzyn. Foreword by H. Lauterpacht. New York: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1951. pp. xvi, 118. $1.75.

1953 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 340-342
Author(s):  
Myres S. McDougal
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security

scholarly journals Comment on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996: التعليق على فتوى محكمة العدل الدولية في مدى مشروعية التهديد  باستخدام الأسلحة النووية عام 1996م

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Elden Mohammed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to establish the principles of international humanitarian law and restrict the use or threat of nuclear weapons, on the occasion of its fatwa, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after realizing that the continued development of nuclear weapons exposes humanity to great risks, and its request It states, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permissible under the rules of international law" (Atalm, 1996), (Shahab, 2000), Therefore, the comment seeks to answer the question: What is the legality of possession, production and development of nuclear weapons? What is the extent of the legality of the threat to use it in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in this regard? Was the decision of the International Court of Justice in favor of documenting the principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law? Or was it biased in its decision to the interests of a particular class itself? The researcher used in that descriptive, descriptive and critical analytical method, and the results that lead to criticism of the work of the International Court of Justice in this regard were reached on the premise that they tended towards tipping the political nature of the issue presented to it under the pressures and directions of the major nuclear states and this strengthens my criticism to the United Nations that I see It only works for the benefit of the major powers under the auspices of the Security Council by veto (right to veto) at a time when the Security Council itself is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, just as it can be said that the United Nations does not work for the benefit of mankind but works for the five major countries Even with regard to nuclear weapons Regardless of whether or not there was a threat to international peace and security. From this standpoint, the researcher reached several recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of the independence of the International Court of Justice in its work from the political considerations of member states, especially the major countries, as a step to establish and support international peace and security in a practical way in practice. The United Nations should also reconsider what is known as a veto, which is and it is rightly one of the most important and most important measures that truly threaten international peace and security.

scholarly journals He Got It Almost Right

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 116-117
Author(s):  
Frederic L. Kirgis
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Icj

Larry Johnson’s answer to his own question is a qualified “no.” Surely he is correct when he says that the General Assembly does not need the Uniting for Peace resolution in order to consider a matter that is on the UN Security Council’s agenda. The International Court of Justice made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. It is only when the Security Council is actively pursuing the matter that UN Charter Article 12(1) requires the General Assembly to defer to the Council.Johnson is also correct when he says that Uniting for Peace does not serve to enhance the authority that the UN Charter itself supplies to the Assembly to adopt non-binding resolutions intended to keep or restore peace. The ICJ also made that clear in its Advisory Opinion on the Construction of a Wall. Without relying on the Uniting for Peace resolution, the ICJ in paragraphs 27 and 28 of its Opinion approved the practice of the General Assembly to deal with matters concerning maintenance of international peace and security. The Court turned to the Uniting for Peace resolution only in the ensuing paragraphs of its Opinion, dealing with procedural matters related to the Assembly’s request for an Advisory Opinion.

The Charter Travaux Préparatoires and United Nations Powers to Use Armed Force

1966 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 81-101
Author(s):  
C. F. Amerasinghe
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Armed Forces ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security

The powers of the General Assembly and Security Council of the United Nations to take collective measures for the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly to maintain armed forces for that purpose, and the power of the General Assembly to finance these activities were much discussed during the recent crisis in the Organization when certain members refused to contribute to the support of the UNEF and Congo Operation. Various aspects of the matter have been discussed by writers; they have also been dealt with by the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of June 1962 where it held that the UNEF and Congo Operation undertaken by the General Assembly and Security Council were intra vires the powers of these organs and that the expenses incurred by the Organization in the execution of those ventures were “expenses of the Organization” for the purposes of Article 17 (2) of the Charter. The Court and some of the judges who gave separate opinions further made a definite contribution to the interpretation of certain aspects of the Charter in the course of arriving at these conclusions.

The Continuing Contributions of Ronald St. J. Macdonald to UN Charter and Peace and Security Issues

2003 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
pp. 265-285
Author(s):  
John H. Currie
Keyword(s):  
Security Council ◽  
Judicial Interpretation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Security Issues ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un Security Council ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The Relationship

SummaryIn this article, the author focuses in particular on Macdonald’s writings on the relationship between the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council. After considering the continuing uncertainties in that relationship, the author argues that the emerging practice of “evolving reinterpretation” of Security Council Chapter VII resolutions suggests yet another important role for the court — that of guardian of Security Council authority through authoritative, judicial interpretation of purported Security Council authorizations to use force.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document