Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:33:03.710Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America) (“Breard”) and Lagrand (Germany v. United States of America), Applications for Provisional Measures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Michael K. Addo
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
International Court of Justice: Recent Cases
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , July 1999 , pp. 673 - 686
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1999

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. There was a similar provision in the Statute of the PCIJ, the predecessor to the ICJ. For a review of the provisional measures of the PCIJ see Mendelson, M. N., “Interim Measures of Protection in Cases of Contested Jurisdiction” (1972–1973) 46 B.Y.I.L. 259.Google ScholarSee also Shigeru, Oda, “Provisional Measures. The Practice of the International Court of Justice”, in Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice. Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings (1996), p.542.Google Scholar

2. So far, the Court has granted provisional measures in ten cases and denied them in five others. Another two became passé Eight of the decisions relating to provisional measures were made between 1990 and 1999 alone, representing 53% of all the Court's decisions in the matter.

3. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, order of 9 Apr. 1998, I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 248.Google Scholar

4. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 Mar. 1999, I.C.J. Rep 1999, 9.Google Scholar

5. The Breard case has now been discontinued at the request of Paraguay. See order of 10 Nov. 1998 (I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 426). LaGrand is still pending before the Court.Google Scholar

6. Art.5 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) provides inter alia, that: “Consular functions consist in: (a) protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, both individuals and bodies corporate, within the limits permitted by international law;… (i) subject to the practices and procedures obtaining in the receiving State, representing or arranging appropriate representation for nationals of the sending State before the tribunals and other authorities of the receiving State, for the purpose of obtaining, in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving State, provisional measures for the preservation of the rights and interests of these nationals, where, because of absence or any other reason, such nationals are unable at the proper time to assume the defence of their rights and interests.”

7. Art.36(1)(b) provides: “1. With a view to facilitating the exercise of consular functions relating to nationals of the sending State: (a) if he so requests, the competent authorities of the receiving State shall, without delay, inform the consular post of the sending State if, within its consular district, a national of that State is arrested or committed to prison or to custody pending trial or is detained in any other manner. Any communication addressed to the consular post by the person arrested, in prison, custody or detention shall also be forwarded by the said authorities without delay. The said authorities shall inform the person concerned without delay of his rights under this sub-paragraph.”

8. Done on 24 Apr. 1963, 596 U.N.T.S. 262.Google Scholar

9. In the German application, this claim was restricted to Walter LaGrand because Karl LaGrand had already been executed.

10. Paraguay claimed restilutio in integrum while Germany focused on compensation for the execution of Karl LaGrand on 24 Feb. 1999.

11. Art.36(1) of the Statute embodies the so–called compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and it provides: “The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and Conventions in force.”

12. Done at Vienna, 24 Apr. 1963. 596 U.N.T.S. 488 (1963).Google Scholar Art.1 of the Optional Protocol provides that: “Disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of the Convention shall lie within the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and may accordingly be brought before the Court by an application made by any party to the dispute being Party to the present Protocol.”

13. The Paraguayan application was filed on 3 Apr. 1998 and Angel Breard was scheduled to be executed on 14 Apr. 14. Walter LaGrand was scheduled to be executed on 3 Mar. 1999, a day after Germany initiated its litigation against the US.

14. Breard, supra n.3, at para.8. See also LaGrand, supra para. 8.

15. The Court decided, Breard, idem, para.41: “The United States should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings, and should inform the Court of all measures which it has taken in implementation of this Order.”

16. Art.75(1) of the Rules of Procedure provides: “The Court may at any time decide to examine proprio motu whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures which ought to be taken or complied with by any or all of the parties.”

17. See LaGrand para.12. The proposal not to hear argument was originally made by Germany.

18. Breard, supra n.3, at para.28.

19. See, generally, idem para.20.

20. Idem para.28.

21. Idem paras.18 and 20.

22. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Interim Protection, order of 17 Aug. 1972, I.C.J. Rep. 1972, 30, para.16.Google Scholar

23. See e.g. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey), Interim Protection, order of 11 Sept. I.C.J. Rep. 1976, 3Google Scholar and Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, order of 10 May 1984, I.C.J. Rep. 1984, 169.Google Scholar

24. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) Interim Protection, order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Rep. 1973, 99, para.13.Google Scholar

25. Breard, supra n.3, at para.23, where the Court concluded: “on a request for the indication of provisional measures the Court need not, before deciding whether or not to indicate them, finally satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, but… it may not indicate them unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded”.

26. Idem, para.33.

27. Idem, para.31.

28. Idem, paras.31 and 34.

29. Idem, para.21.

30. In Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, supra n.23, the Court rejected the Greek application for provisional measures because the Court reasoned that the harm alleged in the Greek application might be capable of reparation by appropriate means.

31. The application by Switzerland in Interhandel, Interim Protection, order of 24 Oct. 1957, I.C.J. Rep. 1957, 105 was dismissed on account of a lack of urgency.Google Scholar

32. Separate Opinion of President Schwebel in LaGrand, supra n.4, at p.21.Google Scholar

33. The relevant provision in the Rules of Procedure is Art.74(3) which provides: “The Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, shall fix a date for a hearing which will afford the parties an opportunity of being represented at it. The Court shall receive and take into account any observations that may be presented to it before the closure of the oral proceedings.”.

34. Breard, supra n.3, at para.22.

35. Idem, para.38.

36. For a discussion of this issue, see Higgins, R., “Interim Measures for the Protection of Human Rights”, in Jonathan, Charney, Donald, Anton and Mary, O'Connell (Eds), Politics, Values and Functions. International Law in the 21st Century Essays in Honor of Professor Louis Henkin, p.87.Google Scholar

37. Untied States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Provisional Measures, order of 15 Dec. 1979, I.C.J. Rep. 1979, 7.Google Scholar

38. Provisional Measures, order of 8 Apr. 1993, I.C J. Rep. 1993, 3 and order of 13 Sept. 1993, idem, p.325.Google Scholar

39. Separate opinion of Judge Oda, LaGrand, supra n.4, at p.18.Google Scholar

40. On this point see, Shigeru, Oda, “Provisional Measures. The Practice of the International Court of Justice”, in Lowe and Fitzmaurice, op. cit. supra n.1, at p.541.Google Scholar

41. “Frontier Dispute, Provisional Measures, order of 10 Jan. 1986, I.C.J. Rep. 1986, 3Google Scholar and Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measures, order of Mar. 1996, I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 13.Google Scholar

† As at 29 April 1999.

1. I.C.J. Rep. 1994, 112.Google Scholar

2. I.C.J. Rep. 1995, 6.Google Scholar

3. See Evans, M. D., “ICJ Cases” (1995) 44 I.C.L.Q. 691.Google Scholar

4. I.C.J. Rep. 1995, 83.Google Scholar

5. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 6.Google Scholar

6. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 800.Google Scholar

7. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 243.Google Scholar

8. I.C.J. Rep. 1999, 3.Google Scholar

9. I.C.J. Rep 1992, 3, 14.Google Scholar See Beveridge, F., “The Lockerbie Affair” (1992) 41 I.C.L.Q. 907.Google Scholar

10. I.C.J. Rep. 1992, 231, 234.Google Scholar

11. See Beveridge, Case Note, supra.

12. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 237, 240.Google Scholar

13. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/45.

14. I.C.J. Rep. 1992, 763.Google Scholar

15. I.C.J. Rep. 1993, 35.Google Scholar

16. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 803.Google Scholar

17. See Evans, M. D., Case Note (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 693.Google Scholar

18. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 902.Google Scholar

19. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 190.Google Scholar

20. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 269.Google Scholar

21. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/42.

22. I.C.J. Rep. 1993, 325.Google Scholar

23. I.C.J. Rep. 1993, 325.Google Scholar

24. See Gray, C., Case Note (1994) 43 I.C.L.Q. 705.Google Scholar

25. I.C.J. Rep. 1993, 29.Google Scholar

26. I.C.J. Rep. 1993, 470.Google Scholar

27. I.C.J. Rep. 1995, 80.Google Scholar

28. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 595.Google Scholar See Gray, C., Case Note (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 688.Google Scholar

29. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 797.Google Scholar

30. I.C.J. Rep. 1997, 243.Google Scholar

31. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 3.Google Scholar

32. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/44.

33. I.C.J. Rep. 1997, 7.Google Scholar

34. See Okowa, P. N., Case Note (1998) 47 I.C.L.Q. 688.Google Scholar

35. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/28.

36. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/31.

37. I.C.J. Rep. 1994, 105.Google Scholar

38. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 13.Google Scholar See Merrills, J. G., Case Note (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 676.Google Scholar

39. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 275.Google Scholar

40. See J. G. Merrills, Case Note, supra.

41. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 420.Google Scholar

42. I.C.J. Rep. 1999, 24.Google Scholar

43. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/34.

44. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.99/14. See Merrills, J. G., Case Note, supra p.651.Google Scholar

45. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 63.Google Scholar

46. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 6.Google Scholar

47. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.99/10.

48. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/35.

49. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 429.Google Scholar

50. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/46.

51. I.C.J. Rep. 1999, 9.Google ScholarSee Addo, M., Case Note, supra p.673.Google Scholar

52. I.C.J. Rep. 1999, 28.Google Scholar

53. I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 423.Google Scholar

54. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.98/43.

55. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.99/16.

56. I.C.J. Press Communiqué No.99/4.