No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Publications of the International Court of Justice
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 February 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Current Developments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987
References
1 The JIU, whose members serve in their personal capacity, was established by General Assembly Resolution 2360A (XXH)of Dec. 19, 1967. It now operates under a statute annexed to General Assembly Resolution 31/192 of Nov. 22, 1976. The functions, powers and responsibilities of the JIU are governed by Articles 5 to 8 of that statute. The inspectors have the broadest powers of investigation into all matters having a bearing on the efficiency of services and the proper use of funds. The JIU submits an annual report to the General Assembly (and to other organizations) and special reports as required, normally examined in the Fifth Committee. Its report under consideration was originally issued as UN Doc. JIU/REP/86/7, and was reissued for the General Assembly as UN Doc. A/41/591 (Sept. 12, 1986). The comments of the Secretary-General in Annex I and the observations of the Court in Annex II were issued as UN Doc. A/41/591/Add.1 (Dec. 5, 1986) after all the substantive work of the main committees was completed. The General Assembly took no action and in its Decision 41/448 of Dec. 5, 1986 deferred consideration of the JIU item .until its 1987 session.
2 For convenience, the expression “judicial pronouncement” is used to indicate generically judgments, advisory opinions and orders customarily published in the Court’s Reports.
3 It is not clear what effect this would have on the annual volumes of the Court’s Reports. If they were produced in one or the other official language of the Court exclusively, that would lead to a hodgepodge of authoritative and nonauthoritative texts, of limited value to the potential professional user. If, on the other hand, one volume were to contain all the authoritative texts, and the other the nonauthoritative texts, it is doubtful if any real purpose would be served. This observation does not apply to versions in other languages produced otherwise than by the Court.
4 The practice is for the authoritative text to appear on the verso, or left-hand page, and the nonauthoritative text on the recto, or right-hand page, each page carrying the same number, and the first line of each paragraph being parallel. The recto text is only a translation if it is actually headed Translation or Traduction. Otherwise, it is as much an original as the verso text. Individual opinions are treated in the same way, and both versions are signed by their authors.
5 ICJ, , The International Court of Justice 59 (3d ed. 1986)Google Scholar. This practice is based on the resolution of the Court concerning its internal judicial practice of Apr. 12, 1976. Text in 1975–1976 ICJ Y.B. 119; ICJ, Acts and Documents Concerning the Organization of the Court [hereinafter ICJ Acts and Documents], NO. 4, at 165 (1978); and my Documents on the International Court of Justice 289 (2d ed. 1979). The relevant passage has appeared in all editions of the brochure since the first (1976).
6 Goddi Case, 76 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1984).
7 The only exception known to me is the award of Feb. 14, 1985 in the Guinea I Guinea-Bissau Maritime Delimitation case, which was issued in French and Portuguese in accordance with the special agreement. The arbitral tribunal consisted of three Members of the International Court; the tribunal’s registrar was a retired official of the Court’s Registry; the proceedings themselves took place in the Peace Palace at The Hague; and the tribunal had adopted the Rules of Court as its rules of procedure. Although the special agreement was silent on the matter, the tribunal decided that the French text of the award was authoritative. The official print of the award is presented en regard, and thus is similar to the Court’s judicial pronouncements. For an English translation, see 25 ILM 251 (1986). I have doubts whether some passages of that translation, notably paragraph 49, adequately convey the delicate nuance of the authoritative text.
8 Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of its Eighth Session, ch. II (law of the sea), Art. 5, Commentary para. 1, [1956] 2 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 267 n.12, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1956/Add. 1; 1956–1957 ICJ Y.B. 125–26 n.l. The erratum was formally communicated to the parties at the same time.
9 See discussion at the Commission’s 736th meeting, [1964] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n 80, 84, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1964. For the passage in the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex case, see 1932 PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 46, at 147 (Judgment of June 7).
10 See discussion at the Commission’s 840th meeting (paras. 19–44), [1966] 1 Y.B. Int’l L. Comm’n, pt. 1 at 115,116, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1966;and the Report of the Commission on the Work of its Eighteenth Session, ch. II (the law of treaties), Art. 45, Commentary para. 8, 2 id. at 244, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add. 1. The passage in question is found in 1962 ICJ Rep. 6, 26 (Judgment of June 15). The English text is authoritative.
11 See UN Doc. A/41/591/Add. 1 (1986), supra note 1.
12 See Jhabvala, , Declarations by Judges of the International Court of Justice, 72 AJIL 830 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jhabvala, , Individual Opinions under the New Rules of Court, 73 AJIL 661 (1979)Google Scholar; Hussain, I., Dissenting and Separate Opinions at the World Court (1984)Google Scholar.
13 See note 5 supra.
14 Thirlway, H., Non-Appearance Before the International Court of Justice 107 (1985)Google Scholar (emphasis added).
15 UN Doc. A/41/591/Add. 1 (1986), supra note 1 (footnote omitted).
Note that in its letter to the Security Council of July 11, 1986, Nicaragua requested circulation only of the collegiate Judgment on the merits of the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case. That required the United States to request similar circulation of all the individual opinions separately, in its letter of July 18, 1986. UN Docs. S/18221 and S/18227 (1986). To each letter was attached the mimeographed text as made public by the Court on June 27. In neither case was further translation into the other official languages requested. The printed text, consisting of a total of 1,072 pages (or 536 en regard), was entirely typeset from discs produced in the Court’s Shorthand and Typewriting Department, which is equipped with word processors compatible with the printers’ typesetting equipment. For that Judgment, see 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 (Judgment of June 27).
16 Agreement on German External Debts, Feb. 27, 1953, 4 UST 443, TIAS No. 2792, 333 UNTS 3.
17 PCIJ, ser. D, No. 1 was first issued in 1926, the fourth and last edition appearing in 1940. It had been preceded by The Permanent Court of International Justice, Statute and Rules, issued by that Court’s publishers in 1922 under the sponsorship of the International Intermediary Institute at The Hague, which apparently served in place of an official edition. (1925 PCIJ, ser. E, No. 1, at 125 n.1.) This is the first publication as such dealing with the Court’s documentation to have been printed en regard.
The 1978 Rules of Court have been translated into Arabic, Chinese, German, Russian and Spanish. Except for the German and Spanish, these translations were prepared by the United Nations Secretariat. The German translation was undertaken through the good offices of the Max Planck Institute, and the Spanish translation was undertaken in 1986 by the then Registrar and Deputy Registrar, both Spanish–speaking lawyers who had previously served in the Codification Division of the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN Secretariat. These translations were published in separate brochures, except the German, which appears in the Court’s booklet Der Internationale Gerichtshof 129 (1978).
18 See ICJ Statute, Arts. 40 and 66, and Rules of Court, Arts. 42, 83 and 104, ICJ Acts and Documents, supra note 5.
19 1 Hunter Miller, D., The Drafting of the Covenant 126, 506 (1928)Google Scholar; and certain documents annexed to his privately printed My Diary of the Conference of Paris (entries for Mar. 18, 19, 20, 22 and 24, Apr. 2, 16, 17 and 23, and May 3, 1919, concerning Conf. Docs. 547, 847 and 892, and others annexed to the Diary). Article 37 of the draft scheme prepared by the Advisory Committee of Jurists proposed that French only be the official language of the Court. That led to a powerful objection by Arthur James Balfour on behalf of the British Government. He insisted on putting English “on an equality” with French. See League of Nations, Permanent Court of International Justice, Documents Concerning the Action Taken by the Council of the League of Nations Under Article 14 of the Covenant and the Adoption by the Assembly of the Statute of the Permanent Court 38, 39 (1921); Hudson, M. O., The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942, at 118 (1943)Google Scholar.
20 1922 PCIJ, ser. B, No. 1 (Advisory Opinion of July 31). This is contemporaneous with the 1922 publication mentioned in note 17 supra.
21 See 1925 PCIJ, ser. E, No. 1, at 273.
22 A notable exception is ICAO Doc. 7300/4 (1969), presenting the three authentic texts of the 1944 Convention on Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), 84 UNTS 389, en regard in columnar form.
23 UN Doc. A/41/591/Add. 1 (1986), supra note 1.
24 15 Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea, Official Records 42 (UN Pub. No. E.83.V.4). This concordance text was presented en regard in six columns.
25 Review of the Multilateral Treaty-Making Process, UN Doc. ST/LEG/SER.B/21, at 131 (1985).
26 See my The Meaning of “Authentic Text” in Modern Treaty Law, in Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung—internationale Gerichtsbarkeit—Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler 758, especially at 761 (1983).
27 Inter-Am. Ct. H.R., ser. A: Judgments and Opinions No. 5, para. 28, at 16 (Spanish), and 98 (English) (1985).
28 Id., No. 7, para. 20, at 10 (Spanish), and 86 (English) (1986).
29 The award is authentic in English and French. 90 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 713, 748 (1986). The English text has not yet been published.
It is noteworthy that in the Certain Expenses case, the United States in its written statement interpreted and pleaded Article 19 of the Charter in the five authentic texts, but the Court did not consider that issue. See 1962 ICJ Pleadings (Certain Expenses of the United Nations) 180, 194 (Written Statement of February 1962).
30 See also, in this regard, the resolution adopted by the American Society of International Law (ASIL) at its Annual Meeting on Apr. 9, 1987, which reads in pertinent part:
[The ASIL,] Having considered the Report of the United Nations Joint Inspection Unit entitled Publications of the International Court of Justice (JIU/REP/86/7—A/41/591), as well as the Observations of the International Court of Justice on that Report, submitted to the 41st session of the General Assembly (A/41/591 /Add. 1, Annex II),
Resolves strongly to oppose recommendations to the effect that:
1. Certain translations and publications of the Court’s judgments and advisory opinions omit separate and dissenting opinions;
2. The Court’s system of publishing English and French en face be curtailed; and
3. The cost of translation and publication in additional languages be financed out of the current budget of the Court.