No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
1 [1964] ι I.G.J. Rep. 6. Judgment of July 24, 1964.
2 Ibid., 61–62 (Separate Opinion of Judge Wellington Koo).
3 “If, at the time when the notice of discontinuance is received, the respondent has already taken some step in the proceedings, the Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, shall fix a time-limit within which the respondent must state whether it opposes the discontinuance of the proceedings. If no objection is made to the discontinuance before the expiration of the time-limit, acquiescence will be presumed and the Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, will make an order officially recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the list. If objection is made, the proceedings shall continue.”
4 “If at any time before judgment has been delivered, the parties conclude an agreement as to the settlement of the dispute and so inform the Court in writing, or by mutual agreement inform the Court in writing that they are not going on with the proceedings, the Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, shall make an order officially recording the conclusion of the setdement or the discontinuance of the proceedings; in either case the order shall direct the removal of the case from the list.”
5 Supra note ι, at 48.
6 Ibid., 21.
7 Ibid., 19.
8 Ibid., 82.
9 Ibid., 23 (Italics added).
10 Ibid., 24.
11 Ibid.
12 Ibid., 25.
13 “Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to a tribunal to have been instituted by the League of Nations, or to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice.“
14 Loc. Cit., 27 “… either Party may, on the expiry of one month’s notice, bring the question directly before the Permanent Court of International Justice.”
15 [1959] I-C.J. Rep. 127.
16 [1961] I.C.J. Rep. 17.
17 “Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms.”
18 Supra note 1, at 29.
19 Ibid.
20 Ibid., 31.
21 Ibid., 34.
22 “All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the International Court of Justice.”
23 Supra note 1, at 36.
24 Ibid., 54.
25 [1949] I.G.J. Rep. 174.