Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:37:58.289Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 2001 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

John R. Crook
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 96 , Issue 2 , April 2002 , pp. 397 - 411
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2002

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 Highet, Keith, The Peace Palace Heats Up: The World Court in Business Again? 85 AJIL 646 (1991)Google Scholar.

2 For a similar report for 2000, see R, John. Crook, , The 2000Judicial Activity of the International Court of justice, 95 AJIL 685 (2001)Google Scholar. This year’s report again makes heavy use of the Court’s excellent Web site, <http://www.icjcij.org>, where the cases discussed can be found. The ICJ Web site is a splendid demonstration of the contribution that technology can make to the increased diffusion and understanding of international law.

3 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits (Int’l Ct. Justice Mar. 16, 2001), reprinted in 40 ILM 847 (2001) [hereinafter HawarIslands].

4 LaGrand Case (Ger. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001), reprinted in 40 ILM 1069 (2001).

5 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indon./Malay.), Application by the Philippines for Permission to Intervene (Int’l Ct. Justice Oct. 23, 2001) [hereinafter Philippines Intervention].

6 ICJ Statute Art. 38(1).

7 J, William. Aceves, , Case Report: LaGrand (Germany v. United States), in 96 AJIL 210 (2002)Google Scholar; Glen Plant, Case Report: Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), in id. at 198.

8 Letters to the ICJ Registrar from H. E. Jawad Salim A1 Arayed, Agent for Bahrain (Mar. 19, 2001), and Dr. Abdullah bin Abdulatif A1-Muslemani, Agent for Qatar (Mar. 27, 2001), reprinted in 40 ILM 898, 899 (2001); see Saad, Rasha, Gulf Emirates Settle Dispute, AL-Ahramwkly. On-Line (Mar. 22-28, 2001)Google Scholar, at <http://www.ahram.org.eg/weekly/2001/526/re3.htm>.

9 Secretary-General Congratulates Bahrain and Qatar on Resolution of Territorial Disputes, UN Doc. SG/SM/7751 (Mar. 23, 2001), reprinted in 40 ILM 897 (2001).

10 Crook, supra note 2, at 688. Judge ad hoc Fortier’s separate opinion noted that these documents were the main support for the initial formulation of Qatar’s claim to the Hawar Islands, and expressed concern at the damage to international justice and to the position of the Court had Qatar not decided to disregard them. Hawar Islands, supra note 3, Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Fortier, para. 6.

11 The islands host many migratory birds, and are being promoted as a destination for nature tourism. Hawar Islands Become Dream Destination for Tourists, Bahrain Trib. (Manama) (Apr. 29, 2001), at <http://www.middleeastwire.com/bahrain/stories/20010429-4-meno.sht>. The islands also have significant oil and gas potential, Saad, supra note 8, further illustrating “Hodgson’s Law.” This principle is named after the late Dr. Robert Hodgson, the U.S. State Department’s distinguished geographer, who wryly observed that “where there is jurisdictional uncertainty, there tends to be oil.”

12 Judges Bedjaoui, Koroma, Ranjeva, Vereshchetin, and Judge ad hoc Torres Bernárdez voted against this holding.

13 Hawar Islands, supra note 3, paras. 120, 137, 139.

14 In dissents or separate opinions, Judges Bedjaoui, Koroma, Ranjeva, Vereshchetin, Torres Bernárdez, A1- Khasawneh, and Kooijmans all concluded that Qatar had not consented to have Britain determine title. (Judges A1-Khasawneh and Kooijmans agreed with the majority that the Hawars were Bahrain’s, but on different grounds.)

15 Hawar Islands, supra note 3, para. 148.

16 Id,, Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, and Koroma, paras. 13-14.

17 Id., Separate Opinion of Judge A1-Khasawneh, para. 3.

18 Hawar Islands, supra note 3, paras. 83-97.

19 Id., para. 84.

20 Id., paras. 89-91.

21 Id., paras. 92-94.

22 Id., paras. 164-65. Judges Oda, Higgins, Kooijmans, and Judge ad Aoc Fortier voted against this finding. British official documents were not always conclusive. The Court disregarded 1947 documents describing a particular feature as a shoal, not an island, paras. 191-92, and a 1947 British decision allocating portions of the seabed, para. 239. 23 Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, Koroma, and Judge ad hoc Torres Bernárdez voted against.

24 Id., paras. 167, 173.

25 Rules of Court, Arts. 49, 60(2), 79(2), 80(2), 95(1) (1978), as amended Dec. 5, 2000. The Rules are available online at the Court’s Web site, supra note 2. For views on the relative legal weight of the dispositif and the Court’s underlying reasoning, see Judge Koroma’s separate opinion and Judge Parra-Aranguren’s declaration in Philippines Intervention, supra note 5.

26 Hawar Islands, supra note 3, para. 181.

27 Id., para. 183.

28 Plant, supra note 7, at 202.

29 Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Bedjaoui, Ranjeva, and Koroma, supra note 16, para. 8.

30 Id., para. 178.

31 Id., paras. 40-42.

32 Judge Oda dissented from the Court’s Judgments in LaGrand and Philippines Intervention.

33 For Judge Fortier’s position on the eighty-two disputed documents submitted by Qatar, see note 10 supra.

34 There have been press reports that the United Arab Emirates has encouraged Iran to agree to ICJ jurisdiction over a dispute concerning three small islands in the southern Persian Gulf. Saad, supra note 8.

35 The United States admitted that it had violated the basic obligation under the Convention to notify the LaGrands of their right to contact German consular officials and had apologized to Germany for that breach. LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 67; see Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Apr. 24,1963, Art. 36(1) (b), 21 UST 77, 596 UNTS 261.

36 LaGrand, supra note 4, paras. 90-91.

37 Id., para. 98.

38 Id., para. 99.

39 Id., para. 101. The English text of Article 41 states that the Court may indicate “any provisional measures which ought to be taken,” whereas the French speaks of “quelles mesures conservatoires du droit de chacun doivent être prises á titre provisoire” (emphasis added).

40 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

41 LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 102. The Court disclaimed reliance on the preparatory work of the Permanent Court’s Statute in interpreting Article 41. Nevertheless, it included a substantial discussion of that history to show that it “does not preclude” the Court’s conclusion. Id., paras. 104-07. This discussion helps show why interpretation of Article 41 remained controversial both in the literature and in practice.

42 Guillaume, Gilbert, ICJ president, Speech to the General Assembly (Oct. 30, 2001)Google Scholar. The speech is available online at the ICJ Web site, supra note 2.

43 LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 45.

44 The case was filed on the evening of March 2, 1999, and the Court issued its order indicating provisional measures a little less than twenty-four hours later, without written or oral proceedings. Id., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Buergenthal, paras. 3-7; id., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, paras. 16-17.

45 LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 53.

46 Id., para. 57.

47 Id., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Buergenthal, para. 24.

48 Id., para. 7.

49 Shelton, Dinah, Remedies in International Human Rights Law 95–96, 129 (1999)Google Scholar; Brownlie, Ian, Remedies in the International Court of Justice, in Fifty Years of The International Court of Justice 557 (Vaughan Lowe & Malgosia Fitzmaurice eds., 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 E.g., Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), 1985 ICJ Rep. 13 (June 3).

51 E.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 (June 27).

52 E.g., United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (U.S. v. Iran), 1980 ICJ Rep. 3, para. 95 (3) (May 24) (stating in the dispositive that “the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran must immediately take all steps to redress the situation resulting from the events of 4 November 1979”).

53 LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 117.

54 Id., para. 124.

55 Id., para. 128(7) (dispositif). The Court has not previously directed a state to take particular actions in future cases in its domestic criminal justice system. The Court did not address the implications of this requirement for other parties to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. In formal terms, the Judgment binds only the parties with respect to the particular case. ICJ Statute Art. 59. Nevertheless, the Vienna Convention is a widely accepted multilateral treaty, and the Court’s view of the requirements it places on national legal systems is apt to be carefully examined by other parties.

56 See, e.g., R, John. Dugard, , First Report on Diplomatic Protection, UN Doc. A/CN.4/506, at 32–33, 57-60 (2000)Google Scholar.

57 There was much discussion in the written and oral proceedings whether the right to receive consular notification was a human right. The Court concluded that it need not decide this issue. LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 78.

58 Id., para. 42; see Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations Concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 24, 1963, 21 UST 325, 596 UNTS 487.

59 LaGrand, supra note 4, para. 60.

60 Id., Declaration of President Guillaume; cf. ICJ Statute Art. 59 (“The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”).

61 Judge Oda dissented. See text at note 79 ìnfra.

62 Philippines Intervention, supra note 5.

63 ICJ Press Release 2001/7 (Mar. 15, 2001). The Court’s press releases are available online at the ICJ Web site. Under Article 62(1) of the Court’s Statute, if a state considers itself to have “an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene.” Under Article 81 of the Court’s Rules, such applications must be filed “as soon as possible, and not later than the closure of the written proceedings.” Under Article 84 of the Rules, such applications are normally decided as a matter of priority.

64 ICJ Press Release 2001/13 (May 22, 2001).

65 Philippines Intervention, supra note 5, para. 38.

66 Id., paras. 44, 64-66.

67 Id., para. 40.

68 Id., para. 21.

69 Id., paras. 25-26.

70 Id., para. 29.

71 Id., paras. 35-36.

72 Id., paras. 59, 67.

73 Id., para. 47.

74 Id., para. 55.

75 Id., para. 82.

76 Id., para. 66.

77 Id., paras. 69, 73, 78, 80.

78 Id., para. 94.

79 Id., Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, paras. 11, 14.

80 Id., Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma, para. 4.

81 Id., Declaration of Judge Kooijmans, paras. 8, 16.

82 Id., Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Weeramantry, para. 1.

83 Id., Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Franck, para. 2.

84 Id., para. 3.

85 Id., para. 4.

86 See, e.g., D, Sean. Murphy, , Contemporary Practice of the United States, 95 AJIL 387 (2001)Google Scholar.

87 On October 27, 2000, President Kostunica wrote the Secretary-General requesting the FRY’s admission to the United Nations “[i]n the wake of fundamental democratic changes that took place in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.” UN Doc. A/55/528-S/2000/1043. The Security Council recommended admission, SC Res. 1326 (Oct. 31, 2000), and the General Assembly admitted the FRY to membership the next day. GA Res. 55/12 (Nov. 1, 2000).

88 Legality of Use of Force (Yugo. v. Belg.), (Yugo. v. Can.), (Yugo. v. Fr.), (Yugo. v. Ger.), (Yugo. v. Italy), (Yugo. v. Neth.), (Yugo. v. Port.), (Yugo. v. UK) (Int’l Ct. Justice filed Apr. 29, 1999).

89 ICJ Press Release 2001/5 (Feb. 23, 2001).

90 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Dec. 9, 1948, Art. IX, 78 UNTS 277.

91 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugo.), Preliminary Objections, 1996 ICJ Rep. 595 (July 11).

92 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugo. v. Bosn. & Herz.) (Int’l Ct. Justice filed Apr. 24, 2001); ICJ Press Release 2001/12 (Apr. 24, 2001).

93 In 1985 the Court found inadmissible Tunisia’s request to revise the Judgment in Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya).

94 In February 2002, after the period covered by this note, the Court reaffirmed that the circumstances existing on the date a case is filed determine jurisdiction. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Congo v. Belg.), para. 26 (Feb. 14, 2002).

95 ICJ Press Release 2001/12, supra note 92.

96 See, e.g., D, Sean. Murphy, , Contemporary Practice of the United States, 94 AJIL 677 (2000)Google Scholar; C, Michael. Wood, , Participation of Former Yugoslav States in the United Nations and in Multilateral Treaties, 1997 Google Scholar MAX Planck Y.B. UN L. 231. For differing views on the FRV’s previous claim to be a UN member based on Yugoslavia’s prior membership, compare Z, Yehuda. Blum, , UN Membership of the “New” Yugoslavia: Continuity or Break? 86 AJIL 830 (1992)Google Scholar, with Correspondents’ Agora: UN Membership of the Former Yugoslavia, 87 AJIL 240 (1993).

97 On March 8, 2001, Yugoslavia filed a notice of accession to the Genocide Convention, but with a reservation to Article IX.

98 ICJ Press Release 2001/22 (Sept. 13, 2001).

99 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugo.), Counter-Claims, 1997 ICJ Rep. 243 (Dec. 17).

100 Certain Property (Liech. v. Ger.) (Int’l Ct. Justice filed June 1, 2001); ICJ Press Release 2001/14 (June 1, 2001). Liechtenstein created a multilingual Web site giving information about its claim: <http://www.liechtenstein-icj-case.li> (visited Apr. 17, 2002).

101 For example, following the Court’s dismissal of Iran’s other claims in 1996, the sole issue over which the Court retains jurisdiction in the Oil Platforms case is whether the 1988 destruction of Iranian offshore oil platforms allegedly used for military purposes violated a clause in the Iranian-U.S. Treaty of Amity requiring “freedom of commerce” between the parties. Similarly, the ultimate legal issue in Libya’s Lockerbie cases against the United Kingdom and the United States is whether the respondents violated Libya’s claim to have a superior right under the Montreal Convention to prosecute the two alleged offenders.

102 ICJ Press Release 2001/14, supra note 100.

103 Convention on the Settlement of Matters Arising out of the War and the Occupation, May 26, 1952, 6 UST 4411, 332 UNTS 219.

104 Szene an einem romischen Kalkofen by Pieter van Laer.

105 Prince of Liechtenstein v. Federal Supreme Court, Case 2 BvR 1981/97, 36 Archiv Des Völkerrechts 198 (1998).

106 Prince Hans-Adam II of Liechtenstein v. Germany, App. No. 42527/98 (Eur. Ct. Hum. Rts. July 12, 2001), at <http://www.echr.coe.int>.

107 European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, Apr. 29, 1957, 320 UNTS 243.

108 The Convention does not apply to disputes “relating to facts or situations prior to the entry into force” of the Convention between the parties. Id., Art. 27(a).

109 See Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Austl.), Preliminary Objections, 1992 ICJ Rep. 240, 261, para. 55 (June 26); Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, Preliminary Question, 1954 ICJ Rep.19, 32 (June 15).

110 ICJ Press Release 2001/19 (June 29, 2001).

111 ICJ Press Release 2001/34 (Dec. 6, 2001).

112 Sec Bell, Judith, Colombia-Nicaragua, in Border and Territorial Disputes 358 (Alan Day ed., 1982)Google Scholar.

113 Maritime Delimitation Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 8, 1999).

114 ICJ Communiqué 2000/10 (Mar. 23, 2000).

115 The United States once had claims to three of the keys at issue (Roncador, Quita Sueňo, and Serrana) under the U.S. “guano laws.” The United States withdrew these claims through a treaty with Colombia signed in 1972. Treaty Concerning the Status of Quita Sueno, Roncador and Serrana, Sept. 8,1972,33 UST1405,1307 UNTS 379. The U.S. Department of State’s testimony supporting the Treaty stressed that it was not intended to affect the dispute between Nicaragua and Colombia: “The U.S.-Colombia treaty does not refer to, nor does it affect, nor is it intended to affect the merits of any Nicaraguan claim or difficulty with Colombia. . . . We desire only to relinquish any rights we may have gained . . . .”Judicial Settlement, 1975 Digest §3, at 769. U.S. Senate action on the Treaty was delayed for years by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee’s belief that the U.S. claims should be resolved through adjudication in the ICJ. Judicial Settlement, 1974 Digest §3, at 669; id., 1975 Digest, at 768. On the “guano laws,” and related U.S. claims in the Pacific, see State Territory, 1980 Digest §1, at 439-40.

116 Bell, supra note 112, at 358.

117 Id.

118 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement, Apr. 30, 1948, 30 UNTS 55.

119 Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicar. v. Hond.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1988 ICJ Rep. 69 (Dec. 20, 1988).

120 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984 ICJ Rep. 392, 397-411 (Nov. 20); see Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law 725 (4th ed. 1990).

121 UN J., Dec. 6, 2001, at 21.

122 ICJ Press Releases 2001/8 (Mar. 16, 2001), 2001/11 (Apr. 17, 2001), 2001/17 (June 29, 2001).

123 ICJ Press Release 2001/17, supra note 122. The Court issued its Judgment in the Arrest Warrant case in February 2001. See supra note 94.

124 Crook, supra note 2, at 687-88; see Simons, Marlise, Human Rights Cases Begin to Flood into Belgian Courts, N.Y. Times, Dec. 27, 2001 Google Scholar, at A8.

125 ICJ Press Release 2001/27 (Oct. 19, 2001).

126 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda) (Int’l Ct. Justice Nov. 29, 2001); ICJ Press Release 2001/36 (Dec. 14, 2001).

127 Agreement for a Cease-fire in the Democratic Republic of Congo, July 10, 1999, Armed Congolese Rebellion-Angola, Congo, Namibia, Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe.

128 ICJ Press Release 2001/25 (Oct. 12, 2001).

129 ICJ Press Release 2001/3 (Feb. 20, 2001).

130 ICJ Press Release 2001/31 (Oct. 31, 2001); Guillaume, supra note 42.

131 ICJ Press Release 2001/30 (Oct. 30, 2001).

132 ICJ Press Release 2001/1 (Jan. 12, 2001). Under section D of the Court’s Rules, “incidental proceedings” include those on requests for interim protection, preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility, counterclaims, intervention, special references to the Court, and discontinuance of cases.

133 Crook, supra note 2, at 691.

134 Substantial counterclaims figure in several cases on the Court’s current docket, including Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States); Genocide (Bosnia v. Yugoslavia), counterclaims withdrawn in September 2001, ICJ Press Release 2001/22, supra note 98; Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria); and Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda).

135 See D, Sean. Murphy, , Amplifying the World Court’s Jurisdiction Through Counter-Claims and Third-Party Intervention, 33 Geo.Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 5, 16–20 (2000)Google Scholar.

136 ICJ Press Release 2001/4 (Feb. 22, 2001).

137 ICJ Press Release 2001/21 (Aug. 30, 2001).

138 ICJ Press Release 2001/36 (Dec. 14, 2001).

139 ICJ Press Release 2001/32 (Oct. 31, 2001).

140 ICJ Communiqué 2000/5 (Feb. 15, 2000).

141 ICJ Press Release 2001/2 (Feb. 1, 2001).

142 It was decided in February 2002, see note 94 supra.

143 The eight NATO bombing cases and the two Genocide Convention cases, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia and Croatia v. Yugoslavia.

144 Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.: Eq. Guinea intervening) (Int’l Ct. Justice Oct. 21, 1999); ICJ Press Release 2002/1 (Jan. 28, 2002).