Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T07:15:54.598Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 2013 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Sienho Yee
Sienho Yee*
Affiliation:
Wuhan University, China
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
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 109 , Issue 2 , April 2015 , pp. 339 - 368
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2015

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 preparation of this report benefited from Research Project No. 08&ZD055 of the China Social Sciences Foundation and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities in China.

References

1 For a list of the judicial work products issued in 2013 (thirteen in total) by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), see ICJ, Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders by Chronological Order (2013), at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=5&p3=-1&y=2013. Not included in this list were the presidential urgent communication to Australia on December 20, 2013, in Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia) and the Court’s denial around March 11, 2013, of a request for proprio motu indication of provisional measures in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua (Costa Rica v. Nicar.). But see text accompanying infra notes 98–99. For general information about the Court in 2013, see ICJ, Press Releases (2013), at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/index.php?p1=6&p2=1&p3=-1&pt=&y=2013 (listing forty-three press releases in 2013). All materials of the Court cited in this report are available on its website, http://www.icj-cij.org.

2 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), 2013 ICJ Rep. 44 (Apr. 16) [hereinafter Frontier Dispute].

3 Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thai.), 2013 ICJ Rep. 281 (Nov. 11) [hereinafter Temple of Preah Vihear (2013)].

4 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Joinder of Proceedings, 2013 ICJ Rep. 166, para. 1 (Apr. 17) [hereinafter Certain Activities, Joinder]; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Joinder of Proceedings, 2013 ICJ Rep. 184 (Apr. 17) [hereinafter Construction of a Road, Joinder].

5 Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bol. v. Chile), Fixing of Time Limits, 2013 ICJ Rep. 223 (June 18) (time limits for filing of a memorial by Bolivia and a countermemorial by Chile); Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf Between Nicaragua and Colombia Beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicar. v. Colom.), Fixing of Time Limits, 2013 ICJ Rep. 395 (Dec. 9) (time limits for filing of written pleadings by Nicaragua and Colombia).

6 These orders were issued during phases of the proceedings labeled as “incidental proceedings” in accordance with Articles 73–89 of the Rules of Court.

7 See ICJ Press Release 2013/42, Urgent Communication to Australia from the President Under Article 74, Para graph 4, of the Rules of Court (Dec. 20, 2013).

8 Frontier Dispute, supra note 2.

9 Id., para. 19.

10 Id., para. 24.

11 Id., para. 28.

12 Id., para. 29.

13 Id., para. 38 (analyzing Article 2 of the Special Agreement).

14 Id., para. 32.

15 Id., paras. 35–39.

16 Id., para. 35.

17 Id., paras. 35, 38.

18 Id., para. 46 (citing Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. UK), Preliminary Objections, 1963 ICJ Rep. 15 (Dec. 2)).

19 ICJ Statute, Art. 38(1).

20 Frontier Dispute, supra note 2, para. 48.

21 Id. (quoting Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 ICJ Rep. 253, para. 55 (Dec. 20); Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 ICJ Rep. 457, para. 58 (Dec. 20)).

22 Id., para. 49 (citation omitted).

23 Id., para. 50. It may be of interest to note the use of the word nor (line 5, word 2, in the English version): the double negative might result in the opposite of what was intended.

24 Id., para. 52.

25 Id., para. 53. The Court also distinguished two cases from the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) on the ground that they implicated agreements reached by the parties during the proceedings. Id., paras. 54–58 (analyzing Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Fr./Switz.), 1930 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 24, at 14 (Dec. 6); Société Commerciale de Belgique (Belg. v. Greece), 1939 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 78, at 178 (June 15)).

26 Id., paras. 60–69.

27 Id., para. 61 (citing ICJ Statute, Art. 38(1)).

28 Id., para. 64.

29 Id., para. 66 (quoting Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger), 2005 ICJ Rep. 90, para. 140 (July 12)).

30 Id.

31 Id., para. 69.

32 Id., para. 77.

33 Id., para. 78.

34 Id., para. 80.

35 Id., para. 85.

36 Id., para. 88.

37 Id., para. 93.

38 Id., para. 96.

39 Id., para. 98.

40 Id., Sep. Op. Daudet, J. ad hoc, at 156.

41 Id., para. 100 (Judgment of the Court).

42 Id., para. 101.

43 Id.

44 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), Nomination of Experts, 2013 ICJ Rep. 226 (July 12).

45 Frontier Dispute, supra note 2, Sep. Op. Cançado Trindade, J., para. 101.

46 Id., Sep. Op. Daudet, J. ad hoc, at 164.

47 Id., Sep. Op. Mahiou, J. ad hoc, paras. 12–13, 16, 18–19.

48 Id., para. 56 (Judgment of the Court) (quoting Free Zones of Upper Savoy, supra note 25, at 14).

49 Id., Decl. Bennouna, J.

50 Id., Sep. Op. Yusuf, J.

51 See id., para. 66 (Judgment of the Court).

52 Sahara, Western, Advisory Opinion, 1975 ICJ Rep. 12, 122 (Oct. 16) (Dillard, J., sep. op.)Google Scholar.

53 Temple of Preah Vihear (2013), supra note 3.

54 Ciorciari, John D., Case Report: Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case Concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand), 108 AJIL 288 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the interpretation of judgments generally, see 3 Rosenne, Shabtai, The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920 –2005, at 1611(4th ed. 2006)Google Scholar;Zimmermann, Andreas & Thienel, Tobias,Article 60, in The Statute of the International Court of Justice:A Commentary 1469(Zimmermann, Andreas,Tomuschat, Christian, Oellers-Frahm, Karin & Tams, Christian J. eds., 2d ed. 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar) [hereinafter ICJ Statute Commentary].

55 Certain Activities, Joinder, supra note 4, para. 1 (quoting Application Instituting Proceedings (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), paras. 1, 4 (Int’l Ct. Justice Nov. 18, 2010)); see also Construction of a Road, Joinder, supra note 4.

56 Certain Activities, Joinder, supra note 4, para. 9 (quoting Application Instituting Proceedings (Nicar. v. Costa Rica) (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 22, 2011)).

57 Id., para. 14.

58 Id., para. 24.

59 Id., para. 18 (citations omitted).

60 Id.

61 Id.

62 Id., para. 23.

63 Id., para. 24.

64 Id., Sep. Op. Cancçado Trindade, J.

65 Id., para. 2.

66 For a thorough treatment of joinder of proceedings, see 3 Rosenne, supra note 54, at 1209–19.

67 Id. at 1209.

68 Id. at 1219 (footnote omitted).

69 Id. at 1210 & n.9. The “additional application” filed in Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Order, 1994 ICJ Rep. 105, 106 (June 16), was explained as an amendment to the earlier application without objection and treated as such.

70 See, e.g., Legality of Use of Force (Serb. & Montenegro v. Belg.), Preliminary Objections, 2004 ICJ Rep. 279 (Dec. 15); Legality of Use of Force (Serb. & Montenegro v. Port.), Preliminary Objections, 2004 ICJ Rep. 1160 (Dec. 15); Legality of Use of Force (Yugo. v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 1999 ICJ Rep. 916 (June 2).

71 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v.Nicar.); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), Counter-Claims, 2013 ICJ Rep. 200, para. 9 (Apr. 18) [hereinafter Certain Activities, Counter-Claims].

72 Id., para. 19.

73 Id.

74 Id., para. 20.

75 The order of the counterclaims followed was the order used by Costa Rica. Id., paras. 16, 21.

76 Id., para. 22.

77 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogotá), Apr. 30, 1948, OASTS Nos. 17 & 61, 30 UNTS 55.

78 Certain Activities, Counter-Claims, supra note 71, para. 23 (quoting Pact of Bogotá, supra note 77).

79 Id., para. 24.

80 Id., para. 32 (citations omitted).

81 Id., para. 34.

82 Id.

83 Id., para. 35.

84 Id.

85 Id., para. 36.

86 Id., paras. 36–37.

87 Id., para. 38.

88 Id., para. 40 (quoting LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), 2001 ICJ Rep. 466, para. 45 (June 27)).

89 Id.

90 Id.

91 Id., Decl. Guillaume, J. ad hoc.

92 Id., para. 1.

93 See Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Provisional Measures, 2013 ICJ Rep. 230, para. 1 (July 16) [hereinafter Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (July 16)].

94 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by the Republic of Costa Rica (Int’l Ct. Justice Nov. 18, 2010).

95 Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (July 16), supra note 93, para. 3 (citations omitted).

96 Application Instituting Proceedings (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), para. 2 (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 22, 2011).

97 Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (July 16), supra note 93, para. 7 (discussing Nicaragua’s filing of its memorial in Construction of a Road).

98 Id.

99 See list of orders in Construction of a Road, available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=7f&case=152&code=ncr2&p3=3.

100 ICJ, Rules of Court, Art. 75(1).

101 LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), Provisional Measures, 1999 ICJ Rep. 9, paras. 8, 21, 24 (Mar. 3).

102 Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Port. v. India), Preliminary Objections, 1957 ICJ Rep. 125, 152 (Nov. 26) (in which the Court declined to accede to a request in the nature of a provisional measures request while disclaiming to invoke Article 41 of the ICJ Statute).

103 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Request by Costa Rica for Modification of the Court’s Order Indicating Provisional Measures, para. 2 (Int’l Ct. Justice May 23, 2013) [hereinafter Costa Rica Request for Modification].

104 Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (July 16), supra note 93, paras. 9–11.

105 See 3 Rosenne, supra note 54, at 1411–12; Karin Oellers-Frahm, Article 41, in ICJ Statute Commentary, supra note 54, at 1060 (margin note 73).

106 ICJ, Rules of Court, Art. 76.

107 Costa Rica Request for Modification, supra note 103, para. 7.

108 Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (July 16), supra note 93, para. 25.

109 Id., para. 30 (citations omitted).

110 Id., para. 35.

111 Id., paras. 37, 38.

112 Certain Activities, Written Observations of Nicaragua and Request by Nicaragua for the Modification of the Order in Light of the Joinder of the Proceedings in the Two Cases (Int’l Ct. Justice June 14, 2013).

113 Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (July 16), supra note 93, para. 27.

114 Id., para. 28.

115 Id., para. 29.

116 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v.Nicar.); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, 2013 ICJ Rep. 354, para. 15 (Nov. 22) [hereinafter Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (Nov. 22)].

117 Id., para. 26.

118 Id., para. 23.

119 On forum prorogatum, see Sienho Yee, Towards an International Law of Co-Progressiveness 85 (2004) (discussing forum prorogatum in ICJ jurisprudence); 2 Rosenne, supra note 54, at 672.

120 Certain Activities, Provisional Measures (Nov. 22), supra note 116, para. 28 (citation omitted).

121 Id., paras. 36, 44.

122 Id., paras. 49, 50.

123 Id., para. 59.

124 Id. (reaffirming the provisional measures of March 8, 2011); see also id., paras. 51–56; cf. id., para. 15. The Court cited Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court and its case law. Id., para. 52.

125 Id., Sep. Op. Cancçado Trindade, J.

126 Id., Decl. Guillaume, J. ad hoc.

127 Id., Decl. Dugard, J. ad hoc.

128 See Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica); Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area(Costa Rica v.Nicar.), Provisional Measures, 2013 ICJ Rep. 398, para. 5 (Dec. 13).

129 Id.

130 Id., para. 14.

131 Id., para. 21.

132 Id.

133 Id., para. 34.

134 Id., paras. 35–37.

135 For further commentary, see 3 Rosenne, supra note 54, at 1416–17 (§III.347A).

136 For general treatment of intervention, see id. at 1439–505; Christine Chinkin, Article 62, in ICJ Statute Commentary, supra note 54, at 1529; Christine Chinkin, Article 63, in id. at 1573.

137 Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand, 2013 ICJ Rep. 3 (Feb. 6).

138 ICJ Statute, Art. 63.

139 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 UNTS 74.

140 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 137, para. 10.

141 Id., para. 14.

142 Id., para. 17 (quoting written observations of Japan).

143 Id., para. 18.

144 Id., para. 19.

145 Id., para. 21.

146 Id., Decl. Owada, J.

147 Id., Decl. Gaja, J.

148 Id., Sep. Op. Cançado Trindade, J., para. 76.

149 Report of the International Court of Justice Aug. 1, 2012–July 31, 2013, UN GAOR, 68th Sess., Supp. No. 4, para. 149, UN Doc. A/68/4 (2013) [hereinafter ICJ Report].

150 Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuadorv.Colom.), Removal from List, 2013 ICJ Rep. 278,279 (Sept. 13) (quoting letter from agent of Ecuador filed in the case).

151 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicar. v. Colom.), 2012 ICJ Rep. 624 (Nov. 19).

152 Application Instituting Proceedings (Timor-Leste v. Austl.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 17, 2013).

153 ICJ, Rules of Court, Art. 74(3).

154 Id., Art. 74(4).

155 ICJ Press Release 2013/42, supra note 7.

156 3 Rosenne, supra note 54, at 1392.

157 See ICJ Practice Directions, as amended Mar. 21, 2013; ICJ Press Release 2013/6, The Court Adopts Practice Direction IXquater for Use by States (Apr. 11, 2013).

158 ICJ, Statements by the President (2013).

159 Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, Address to the Sixty-Eighth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations 8 (Oct. 31, 2013), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/2/17672.pdf [hereinafter Tomka, General Assembly Address].

160 Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, Address to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly (Nov. 1, 2013), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/4/17684.pdf [hereinafter Tomka, Sixth Committee Address].

161 Id. at 6.

162 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 61 (Feb. 3).

163 Tomka, Sixth Committee Address, supra note 160, at 5.

164 Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, Address to the Asian-African Legal Consultative Organization 6 (Oct. 30, 2013), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/8/17718.pdf [hereinafter Tomka, AALCO Address].

165 Id.

166 Tomka, General Assembly Address, supra note 159, at 7.

167 Tomka, Sixth Committee Address, supra note 160, at 6.

168 Id. at 1.

169 Tomka, AALCO Address, supra note 164, at 4.

170 Territorial and Maritime Dispute, supra note 151.

171 According to one account, the Court “granted Nicaragua a maritime economic exclusion zone extending 200 nautical miles (370 km) from its Caribbean coast, with the exception of the waters immediately surrounding the [disputed] islands,” which “constituted a transfer of about 30,000 square miles (75,000 square km) of sea previously controlled by Colombia.” Colombia and Nicaragua: Hot Waters, Economist, Nov. 29, 2012, at http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2012/11/colombia-and-nicaragua.

172 Press Release, Gobierno de Colombia Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores [Government of Colombia Ministry of Foreign Affairs], Alocución del Presidente Juan Manuel Santos sobre el fallo de la Corte Internacional de Justicia [Address by President Juan Manuel Santos on the ruling of the International Court of Justice] (Nov. 19, 2012), at http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/newsroom/news/2012-11-19/4661 (“Inexplicably, after recognizing the sovereignty of Colombia over all the archipelago and after affirming that this, as a unit, generates rights to the continental shelf and to the exclusive economic zone, the Court adjusted the delimitation line, leaving the keys of Serrana, Serranilla, Quitasueno and Bajo Nuevo separate from the rest of the archipelago. This is inconsistent with what the Court itself had recognized and is not compatible with the geographic conception of what an archipelago is. All of these are in reality omissions, errors, excesses, inconsistencies, that we cannot accept” (translation by José E. Alvarez).).

173 Id.

174 Santiago Wills, Colombia Will Challenge Maritime Border with Nicaragua, ABC NEWS (Sept. 10, 2013), at http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/colombia-challenge-maritime-border-nicaragua/story?id=20217370 (“‘At no time are we disregarding the jurisdiction of the court at the Hague,’ Foreign Minister María Angela Holguín told Caracol Radio on Tuesday. ‘We’re not disregarding the ruling either. We’re saying that our constitution does not permit its applicability.’”).

175 Press Release, Gobierno de Colombia Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Declaración de la Canciller Holguín frente al fallo proferido por la Corte Internacional de Justicia [Foreign Minister Holguin statement against the ruling handed down by the International Court of Justice] (Nov. 28. 2012), at http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/newsroom/news/2012-11-28/4641.

176 Colombia Rejects Court of Justice Ruling on Caribbean Islands Disputed with Nicaragua, MercoPress, Nov. 21, 2012, at http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/21/colombia-rejects-court-of-justice-ruling-on-caribbean-islands-disputed-with-nicaragua; Colombia Withdraws from UN Justice Court Angry at Latest Ruling on Caribbean Islands, MercoPress, Nov. 28, 2012, at http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/28/colombia-withdraws-from-un-justice-court-angry-at-latest-ruling-on-caribbean-islands.

177 Press Release, Gobierno de Colombia Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, Colombia manifestó ante el Secretario General de la ONU su preocupación por las pretensiones expansionistas de Nicaragua en el Caribe [Colombia expressed to the UN Secretary General concern about the expansionist ambitions of Nicaragua in the Caribbean] (Sept. 23, 2013), at http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/newsroom/news/2013-09-23/7299.

178 Press Release, Gobierno de Colombia Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, En companñía de la Canciller Holguín, Presidente Santos firmó la demanda de inconstitucionalidad del Pacto de Bogotá y confirmó que Ecuador desistió de demanda contra Colombia [Accompanied by Foreign Minister Holguin, President Santos signed the unconstitutionality claim regarding the Bogotá Pact and confirmed that Ecuador withdrew suit against Colombia] (Sept. 12, 2013), at http://www.cancilleria.gov.co/newsroom/news/2013-09-12/7221 [hereinafter September 12 Press Release].

179 See Colombia Constitutional Court, Expediente D-9852 AC, Sentencia C-269/14 (May 2, 2014), available at http://www.corteconstitucional.gov.co/comunicados/No.%2015%20comunicado%2002%20de%20mayo%20de%202014.pdf; Colombia Court Backs Santos in Sea Boundary Dispute with Nicaragua, Reuters, May 3, 2014, at http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/03/colombia-nicaragua-dispute-idUSL2N0NP03L20140503.

180 The arbitral award in Beagle Channel (Arg./Chile), 52 ILR 93 (1979), comes to mind, but the territorial (land) component ofthat award appeared to have played a greater role in that controversy. See Barboza, Julio, The Beagle Channel Dispute: Reflections of the Agent of Argentina, 13 Chinese J. Int’l L. 147, 147 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (“The crisis after the award brought the States to the brink of war.”). Usually the reception of judicial or arbitral decisions is calmer, despite misgivings. For example, in the maritime boundary dispute between Peru and Chile, although Chile appeared to have lost the case not insignificantly, both parties expressly stated that they would implement the judgment. See Caffi, María Teresa Infante, Peru v. Chile: The International Court of Justice Decides on the Status of the Maritime Boundary, 13 Chinese J. Int’l L. 741, 761 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

181 See supra text accompanying note 172.

182 See Territorial and Maritime Dispute, supra note 151, para. 234 (applying a 3:1 ratio between Nicaraguan and Colombian base points).

183 September 12 Pressc Release, supra note 178 (“‘I believe that with today’s act, we have no complaint before the Court and expect not to have any such complaints before the International Court of Justice in the future,’ the head of state emphasized” (translation by José E. Alvarez).).

184 For an analysis of the “interplay” effect triggered by Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nica ragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 (June 27), see 1 Rosenne, supra note 54, at 22–23. The Court’s interpretation of Security Council resolutions in the Kosovo advisory opinion may also trigger a similar kind of interplay, but with wider implications. See Yee, Sienho, The Dynamic Interplay Between the Interpreters of Security Council Resolutions, 11 Chinese J. Int’l L. 613 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

185 For example, the recent judgment of the Court in Territorial and Maritime Dispute was criticized by the Chinese government. Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, Position Paper on the Matter of Jurisdiction in the South China Sea Arbitration Initiated by the Republic of the Philippines, para. 25 (Dec. 7, 2014), available at http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/zxxx_662805/t1217147.shtml (English), http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_chn/zyxw_602251/t1217143.shtml (Chinese); Yee, Sienho, The South China Sea Arbitration (The Philippines v. China): Potential Jurisdictional Obstacles or Objections, 13 Chinese J. Int’l L. 663 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

186 ICJ Report, supra note 149, at 3.

187 Id. ; see also ICJ Press Release 2013/6, supra note 157.