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.

“Binding” Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice

1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (3) ◽  
pp. 439-451 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Ago
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinions

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.

International Court of Justice

1954 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-256
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Labor Organization ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

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.

Participation of Individuals in Advisory Proceedings Before the International Court of Justice: Question of Equality Between the Parties

1958 ◽  
Vol 52 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo Gross
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Labour Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations Educational ◽  
Cultural Organization ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

In its Advisory Opinion of October 23, 1956, in the matter of Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon Complaints made against the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization.

The Thirty-Fifth Year of the World Court

1957 ◽  
Vol 51 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-17
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Labour Organisation ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Cultural Organization ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
South West ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinions

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.

The Twenty-Eighth Year of the World Court

1950 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manley O. Hudson
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
New Members ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
International Court ◽  
South West Africa ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinions

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.

2 Legal Powers, 2.2 Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal Advisory Opinion [1954] ICJ Rep 47

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Kenneth
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Case Note ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Administrative Tribunal

This case note relates to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in which the Court ruled that the General Assembly of the United Nations had the power to establish the Tribunal to decide disputes between UN staff members and the UN Secretary-General, their employer, and that its awards were binding on the General Assembly when it came to adopt the UN budget. Underlying these rulings is the principle of the independence of the international civil service. The case note also records the changes that were made to the Statute of the Tribunal as a consequence, changes which presented procedural issues for the Court which was given a review power in respect of awards of the Tribunal.

3 Institutional Structure and the Position of Members, 3.3 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations ( Article 4 of the Charter ), Advisory Opinion, [1948] ICJ Rep 57; Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations , Advisory Opinion, [1950] ICJ Rep 4

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fry James D ◽  
Chong Agnes
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
The Political ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Important Lesson ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
The Icj ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Advisory Opinions

Statehood traditionally has been determined by reference to the Montevideo Convention criteria. However, more recently, many commentators have come to see collective recognition through UN membership as the main avenue to statehood, a view supported by the extraordinary efforts taken by emerging states to gain UN membership. Only states can be UN members, and so UN membership is the ‘badge’ of statehood, or so the argument goes. In light of this shift to collective recognition through UN membership, the two ICJ advisory opinions gain particular importance. In responding to the political stalemate in the Security Council over admission of new UN members, the ICJ insisted on adhering to the legal rules of the UN Charter concerning admission, which is one of the main lessons of these advisory opinions. However, politics ultimately prevailed over the law when resolving the stalemate, which might be the more important lesson.

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.

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

House Approves Proposal Permitting ICJ to Advise Domestic Courts

1983 ◽  
Vol 77 (2) ◽  
pp. 338-340
Author(s):  
Jack M. Goldklang
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
National Court ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
The Icj ◽  
Advisory Opinions

On December 17, 1982, the House of Representatives adopted a resolution supporting an expansion of the advisory opinion jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The resolution (H.R. Con. Res. 86) urges the President to explore the appropriateness of establishing a United Nations committee to seek advisory opinions from the ICJ. The committee would act when asked by a national court seeking advice regarding any international law question under the national court’s jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document