Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T18:49:33.809Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Rule or Not to Rule

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

René Lefeber
René Lefeber
Affiliation:
Editor Current Legal Developments
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

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.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1995 , pp. 243 - 247
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See ICJ Communique No. 95/22 of 21 August 1995.

2. See NRC Handelsblad, 8 August 1995,9 August 1995, and 23 August 1995.

3. Id.

4. Nuclear Tests case (New Zealand v. France), Judgment, 1974 ICJ Rep. 457.

5. See Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance With Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France), Order of 22 September 1995 (not yet published), especially paras. 62–63.

6. See ICJ Communiqué No. 95/23 of 23 August 1995, No. 95/24 of 24 August 1995, and No. 95/25 of 28 August 1995.

7. Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.United States of America), Merits, 1986ICJ Rep. 14.

8. CaseconcerningQuestionsoflnterpretationand Applicationofthe 1971 Montreal Convention Arising From the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom and Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order, 1992 ICJ Rep. 3 and 114, respectively.

9. Case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment (not yet published).

10. Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, Order, 1993 ICJ Rep. 4.

11. Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, 1948 ICJ Rep. 57, at 61.

12. Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ Rep. 391, at 434 (para. 95).

13. See Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance With Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France),supra note 5, para. 64.

14. See M. Lailach, The General Assembly's Request for an Advisory Opinion From the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, infra, at 401.

15. See UN Doc. A/RES/47/1 (1992).

16. See case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, supra note 10, at 15 (para. 18).

17. See case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, supra note 8.

18. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,1992 ICJ Rep. 240.

19. Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom, and United States of America), Preliminary Objections, 1954 ICJ Rep. 19.

20. See case concerning East Timor, supra note 9.

21. See also C. Cerna, Hugo Princz v. Federal Republic of Germany: How Far Does the Long-Arm Jurisdiction of US Law Reach?, infra, at 377.

22. See case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), supra note 9, para. 29.

23. See ICJ Communique No. 94/11 of 21 March 1994.