Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:37:45.151Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 1995 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Peter H. F. Bekker
Peter H. F. Bekker*
Affiliation:
Winthrop, Stimson, Putnam & Roberts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This Note briefly analyzes the judicial work of the International Court of Justice from November 1994 until December 1995,’ deriving the Court’s current record from the updated General List, pleadings filed, orders and judgments given, and hearings held at the Peace Palace.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 90 , Issue 2 , April 1996 , pp. 328 - 330
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1996

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.)

Footnotes

*

The author was a staff lawyer for the International Court of Justice during the years 1992-1994.

References

1 A summary of the judicial work of the ICJ during 1991–1992 may be found in 87 AJIL 429 (1993). The period 1993–November 1994 was covered in my note in 89 AJIL 213 (1995). For a description of all of the cases pending before the Court as of March 1995, see my note in ASIL Newsletter, Mar.-May 1995, at 1.

2 According to paragraph (3) of the operative clause, the Court” [d] ecides to afford the Parties the opportunity to submit to the Court the whole of the dispute,” and in paragraph (4), the Court “[f]ixes 30 November 1994 as the time-limit within which the Parties are, jointly or separately, to take action to this end.” See 1994 ICJ Rep. 112, 127 (July 1).

3 See ICJ Communiqué No. 94/24 (Dec. 23,1994). The request is embodied in General Assembly Resolution 49/75K, adopted on December 15, 1994, and was transmitted to the Court by the UN Secretary-General in a letter dated December 19, 1994. In Resolution 49/75K, the General Assembly decided, acting on the basis of Article 96, paragraph 1 of the UN Charter, to ask the ICJ “urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question: ‘Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?’”

4 The Court is marking its 50th judicial year in 1996, the inaugural public sitting having taken place on April 18, 1946. In 1995 the Court celebrated the 50th anniversary of its creation as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations with the entry into force of the Charter and the ICJ Statute annexed to it on October 24, 1945.

5 Application of March 28, 1995. For a summary of the Application, see my note in ASIL Newsletter, June-Aug. 1995, at 3, 4.

6 Request of August 21, 1995, accompanied by a request from New Zealand for the indication of provisional measures. Australia filed an Application for Permission to Intervene on August 23, followed by Applications for Permission to Intervene, under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute, and Declarations of Intervention, under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, by Samoa, the Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, on August 24 and 25.

7 1995 ICJ Rep. 3.

8 Id. at 83.

9 Id. at 282 (Libya v. UK) and 285 (Libya v. U.S.).

10 Id. at 423. By letters of November 2 and 6, 1995, respectively, the Agents of Guinea-Bissau and Senegal informed the President of the Court that they “agreed to the discontinuance of proceedings.” See ICJ Communique No. 95/36 (Nov. 14, 1995).

11 1995 ICJ Rep. 80 and 279, respectively.

12 Id. at 87.

13 Id. at 89.

14 See ICJ Communique No. 95/13 (June 9, 1995).

15 1995 ICJ Rep. 6. For a summary of this decision, see my note in ASIL Newsletter, supra note 5, at 3–4.

16 1995 ICJ Rep. 90. For a summary of this decision, see my case note in 90 AJIL 94 (1996).

17 1995 ICJ Rep. 288, 307, para. 68. For a summary of this decision, see my case note, supra p. 280.