The International Court of Justice : Its Role in the Maintenance of International Peace and Security

1952 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-208
Author(s):  
Bentwich Norman
Keyword(s):  
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.

Analysis of the Opinion of the International Court of Justice on Certain Expenses of the United Nations

1963 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 272-297
Author(s):  
A. Donat Pharand
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Basic Purpose ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
World Organization

On July 20, 1962, the International Court of Justice handed down its Advisory Opinion concerning the expenditures of the United Nations for peace-keeping operations in the Middle East and in the Congo. This Opinion is of the utmost importance, since it deals with a question affecting the very survival of the World Organization. The Court was asked to pronounce on the financial obligations of members in the fulfilment of the first purpose of the United Nations: the maintenance of international peace and security. The Opinion also involves the constitutional question of the division of powers between the General Assembly and the Security Council in the attainment of this basic purpose.

scholarly journals EXAMINING THE INTERNATIONAL LAW RIGHT OF SELF-DEFENCE: THE CASE OF RUSSIA AND GEORGIA; ISRAEL AND GAZA

Obiter ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
FT Abioye
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
International Peace ◽  
Armed Attack ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Self Defence

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter establishes the doctrine of the prohibition of the use of force amongst member states of the UN. Article 51 lays down exceptions to this rule in terms of the fact that there can be an individual and/or collective use of force in self-defence in the case of an armed attack. This individual or collective use of force is permitted to continue until such a time as the Security Council takes such actions as are necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has further confirmed this prohibition of the use of force in the Nicaragua case, Congo v Uganda and Oil Platforms cases. This area ofinternational law has seen a lot of discussions and developments over the years. The purpose of this article is to examine the efficacy of the use of force between Russia and Georgia; and Israel and Gaza in 2008. It would be examined if these armed attacks are justifiable by the doctrine of self-defence and the recent developments in the field in international law, or if they in fact constitute a breach of the international law prohibition on the use of force. 

The Dispute between Greece and Turkey Concerning the Continental Shelf in the Aegean

1977 ◽  
Vol 71 (1) ◽  
pp. 31-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gros
Keyword(s):  
Continental Shelf ◽  
Aegean Sea ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Dangerous Situation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Interim Measures ◽  
Of Greece

On August 10, 1976, Greece addressed a communication to the President of the Security Council requesting an urgent meeting of the Council on the ground that “following recent repeated flagrant violations by Turkey of the sovereign rights of Greece in the continental shelf in the Aegean, a dangerous situation has been created threatening international peace and security.” On the same day, by unilateral application, Greece instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against Turkey in “a dispute concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey in the Aegean Sea, and concerning the respective legal rights of those States to explore and exploit the continental shelf of the Aegean.” Also on the same day Greece filed a request for interim measures of protection asking the Court to direct that both Greece and Turkey

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document