Chapter 4 focuses on how ownership of immovables and movables are transferred (that is, whether registration is not needed, necessary, or creating opposability to third parties), whether registration creates absolutism (public faith principle), whether a real agreement is conceptually separate from a sale contract, and whether an invalid sale contract always leads to the invalidity of a real agreement (non-causa principle), and whether delivery or certain intentions are required to transfer ownership of personal properties or the sale contract itself is sufficient. This is where the traditional idea of legal families is conspicuous. Transfer doctrines involve how notice is given. The choice of registration system demonstrates how states, given path dependence, trade off transaction costs and third-party information costs. Which type of conveyance doctrine regarding immovables is efficient is contingent on factors outside of the law. It is easier to reform conveyance doctrine regarding movables, and lawmakers should provide alternative default rules (“menus”) more frequently and establish clear opt-out procedures (“altering rules”).

Chapter 8 addresses the manner in which the International Court of Justice interprets and applies satisfaction as a remedy of international law. The definition, function and categories of satisfaction are issues that this chapter addresses, along with its relationship to other remedies of international law, in particular to declaratory judgments. The differences between the manner in which satisfaction is prescribed by the International Law Commission through the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts and the mechanisms through which the Court grants this remedy generate controversy regarding its availability and applicability before the Court. The Corfu Channel Case is the most often quoted in situations in which satisfaction is considered as granted through the issuance of a declaration of illegality. As such, even if states often request satisfaction as formal apologies to be given by responding states the Court undertakes a different approach.

The book seeks to determine the manner in which the International Court of Justice interprets and applies the remedies generally accepted by the international community and codified by the International Law Commission in its Articles on State Responsibility. As such, it seeks to answer the following questions: i) Whether the International Court of Justice adopts a specific approach towards the remedies of international law? and ii) If yes, what are the justifications for this approach? The survey of theoretical perspectives, canvassing academic writings and subjective perspectives featured in the pleadings of the parties to the disputes, and the judgments of the Court, illustrates relevant results. The systematic analysis demonstrates that the Court has a distinct approach to the interpretation and application of remedies available in international law. While the Court is cautious in ordering precise actions from the parties, it appears to prioritise declarations regarding issues of legality.

Chapter 2 addresses the competence of the International Court of Justice to grant the remedies of international law through its orders containing provisional measures. This issue is assessed, first, through the determination of the binding character of said orders, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court. Second, the jurisprudence of the Court related to the substance of its provisional measures is addressed, in order to determine if the judicial body has the competence to give remedies of international law, which would contribute to the preservation of the rights of states, pending the issuance of its judgments on merits. This chapter shows that the Court has jurisdiction to grant remedies of international law through its orders for provisional measures. However, presently, only a handful of remedies have the potential to preserve the rights of states, in accordance with the case-law of the Court. As such, it is for its future judgments to establish a framework of remedies, capable of being included within its orders for provisional measures.

Chapter 3 addresses the main controversies related to the interpretation and application of declaratory judgments as a remedy of international law before the International Court of Justice. The definition of the declaratory judgment and its availability, as a veritable remedy of international law, are preliminary issues clarified through this chapter. The categorisation of this remedy into declarations of rights, declarations of applicable law and declarations of responsibility and the effects of its interaction with other remedies of international law, such as satisfaction or specific performance, are relevant for addressing its application. The subject matters of disputes influence the reasons for which states request, and the Court grants, declaratory judgments. As such, certain arguments exist for the disputes regarding sovereignty rights or territorial delimitation, and different arguments exist for other disputes. Further, the manner in which states seize the International Court of Justice is also relevant for determining the applicability of declaratory judgments before the judicial body.