Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T09:07:48.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Report by Chester Brown

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 May 2017

Chester Brown
Chester Brown*
Affiliation:
International Arbitration, University of Sydney
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
Mock Debate: Is the Primacy of the International Court of Justice in International Dispute Settlement Under Threat?
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 110 , 2016 , pp. 191 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

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 UN Charter Art. 92: “The International Court of Justice shall be the principal judicial organ or the United Nations. It shall function in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is based on the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an integral part of the present Charter;” Art 94: “(1) Each Member State undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party. (2) If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.”

2 See, e.g., Antonio Cassese, The International Court of Justice: It's High Time to Restyle the Respected Old Lady, in Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law 329 (Antonio Cassese ed., 2012).

3 United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Art. 66(2), opened for signature Oct. 31, 2003, 2349 U.N.T.S. 41 (entered into force Dec. 14, 2005).

4 See, e.g., Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, U.S.-Nicar., Art. XXIV(2), Jan. 21, 1956, 367 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered into force May 24, 1958).

5 See, e.g., Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, ch. 28, opened for signature Feb. 4 2016 (not yet in force) (Art. 28.17(32): “The panel shall present an initial report to the disputing Parties no later than 150 days after the date of the appointment of the last panellist;” Art. 28.18(1): “The panel shall present a final report to the disputing Parties, including any separate opinions on matters not unanimously agreed, no later than 30 days after presentation of the initial report, unless the disputing Parties agree otherwise.”).

6 See, e.g., ASEAN-Austl.-N.Z. Free Trade Agmt., ch. 17, Arts. 8–14, opened for signature Feb. 27, 2009 (entered into force Jan. 1, 2010).

7 Paolo Palchetti, Article 26, in The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary 474 (Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams eds., 2d ed., 2012).

8 See, e.g., Railway Land Arbitration (Malay. v. Sing.), Award, paras. 26–30 (Perm. Ct. Arb. Oct. 30, 2014). Arbitral tribunals have also exercised powers regarding access to and production of documents in the Abyei arbitration (Gov't of Sudan v. Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, Final Award, paras. 46–62 (Arb. Trib. July 22, 2009) and the Guyana v. Suriname arbitration (Guy. v. Surin., Award, paras. 32–102 (Arb. Trib. Sept. 17, 2007)).

9 See, e.g., Thomas Franck, Fact-Finding in the International Court of Justice, in Fact-Finding Before International Tribunals 1 (Richard Lillich ed., 1992).

10 Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening), Judgment, 2014 ICJ Rep. 226, 236, para. 21 (Mar. 31).

11 International Convention on the Regulation of Whaling, opened for signature Dec. 2, 1946, 161 U.N.T.S. 72 (entered into force Nov. 10, 1948).

12 The hearing commenced on June 26, 2013 and concluded on July 16, 2013.

13 Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment ( Int'l Ct. Just. Jan. 27, 2014).

14 See, e.g., id. paras. 22–23.

15 Id. paras. 99–151.

16 Id. paras. 177–95.

17 Id. (“[N]either Party put forward the possibility that the initial segment of the maritime boundary had been settled by agreement of the Parties, but that delimitation seaward of that segment would proceed in accordance with customary international law” (Declaration of Judge Donoghue)).

18 See, e.g., Carlos Esposito, Article 64, in The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary 1598 (Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams eds., 2d ed., 2012).; Robert Kolb, The International Court of Justice 1002–03 (2013).

19 Certain Activities Carried out in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Order, 2011 ICJ Rep. 6, para. 86 (Mar. 8).

20 Certain Activities Carried out in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Order, 2013 ICJ Rep. 354, para. 59 (Nov. 22).

21 Certain Activities Carried out in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Judgment, para. 144 (Int'l Ct. Just. Dec. 16, 2015).

22 Id. at sep. op. Judges Tomka, Greenwood, Sebutinde, and Judge ad hoc Dugard.

23 See, e.g., Spain, Anna, Integration Matters: Rethinking the Architecture of International Dispute Resolution, 32 U. Penn. J. Int'l L. 1, 6 (2010)Google Scholar.

24 Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States of America (U.S. v. Hung.), Order, 1954 ICJ Rep. 99 (July 12); Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of the United States of America (U.S. v. U.S.S.R.) Order, 1954 ICJ Rep. 103 (July 12).

25 Certain Questions Concerning Diplomatic Relations (Hond. v Braz.), Order (Int'l Ct. Just. May 12, 2010).

26 For example, Germany filed an optional clause declaration accepting the ICJ's jurisdiction on April 30, 2008, and Timor-Leste filed an optional clause declaration accepting the ICJ's jurisdiction on September 21, 2012.

27 See, e.g., Spain, Anna, Examining the International Judicial Function: International Courts as Dispute Resolvers, 34 Loyola L.A. Int'l Comp. L. Rev. 5 (2011)Google Scholar.

28 Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad), Judgment, 1994 ICJ Rep. 6 (Feb. 3).

29 Agreement on the Implementation of the ICJ Judgment Concerning the Territorial Dispute, Apr. 4, 1994, 33 ILM 619 (1994).

30 S.C. Res. 910 (Apr. 14, 1994); S.C. Res. 915 (May 4, 1994).

31 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Eq. Guinea Intervening), Judgment, 2002 ICJ Rep. 303 (Oct. 10).

32 See, e.g., Press Release, Nigeria, Cameroon Sign Agreement Ending Decades-Old Border Dispute; Sets Procedures for Nigerian Withdrawal from Bakassi Peninsula: Secretary-General Says Accord, Which Will Complete Implementation of 2002 ICJ Judgment, “Crowns a Remarkable Experiment in Conflict Prevention,” U.N. Press Release AFR/1397 (June 12, 2006).

33 Government of Sudan v. Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, Final Award.

34 See, e.g., Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), Judgment, 1974 ICJ Rep. 253 (Dec. 20); Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), Judgment, 1974 ICJ Rep. 457 (Dec. 20); Fisheries Jurisdiction (U.K. v. Ice.), Merits, 1974 ICJ Rep. 3 (July 25); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Ger. v. Ice.), Merits, 1974 ICJ Rep. 175 (Feb. 2, 1973).

35 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Judgment, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 (June 27).

36 The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Neth. v. Russ.), Award on the Merits (Perm. Ct. Arb. Aug. 14 2015).

37 South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility (Perm. Ct. Arb. Oct. 29, 2015).

38 Hans Kelsen, Peace through Law (1944).

39 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.), Judgment, 1978 ICJ Rep. 3 (Dec. 19).

40 Case Concerning a Dispute Between Argentina and Chile Concerning the Beagle Channel, Award, XXI RIAA 57 (Perm. Ct. Arb. Feb. 18, 1977).

41 Case Concerning a Dispute Between Argentina and Chile Concerning the Beagle Channel, Papal Proposal in the Beagle Channel Dispute, XXI RIAA 243 (Dec. 12, 1980).

42 U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 U.N.T.S. 3, Art. 287(3) (entered into force Nov. 16, 1994).

43 The “Enrica Lexie” Incident (It. v. India), Order on Provisional Measures (Perm. Ct. Arb. Apr. 29, 2016); The Duzgit Integrity Arbitration (Malta v. São Tomé & Príncipe) (Perm. Ct. Arb.); Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Neth. v. Russ.), Award on the Merits; The South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. China), Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility.

44 Palchetti, supra note 7, at 474, 496–99.

45 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), Judgment, 2010 ICJ Rep. 14, 72, para. 167 (April 20); see especially sep. op. Judge Greenwood, paras. 27–28.