We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
The three disparate cases decided by the International Court of Justice (Court or ICJ) in 2014 may not contribute much to the development of substantive international law, but they are instructive about the operations of the Court. Perhaps the Court was not at its finest in terms of coherent legal reasoning in these three cases; it certainly avoided difficult questions in all of them. Yet each of the three cases had significant numbers of separate and dissenting opinions, which sometimes reveal more about the Court’s reasoning than is apparent from the judgment or order itself.
1 Application Instituting Proceedings (Timor-Leste v. Austl.), para. 3 (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 17, 2013). All the materials of the Court cited in this report are available on its website, http://www.icj-cij.org.
2 Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Austl.), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Submitted by the Government of Timor-Leste, para. 10 (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 17, 2013).
3 Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Austl.), Provisional Measures, para. 55 (Int’l Ct. Justice Mar. 3, 2014) [hereinafter Seizure and Detention]; see also Bettauer, Ronald J., Case Report: Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), Provisional Measures Order, 108 AJIL 763 (2014)Google Scholar.
4 Case View, Arbitration Under the Timor Sea Treaty (Timor-Lestev. Australia) (Perm. Ct. Arb. 2013), at http://pcacases.com/web/view/37 (providing general overview, including arbitrators and counsel, but no specific details about the case).
5 Treaty on Certain Maritime Arrangements in the Timor Sea, Timor-Leste–Austl., Jan. 12, 2006, 2483 UNTS 359 (entered into force Feb. 23, 2007) [hereinafter 2006 Treaty].
6 Timor Sea Treaty, E. Timor–Austl., May 20, 2002, [2003] Austl. Ts 13, 2258 UNTS 3 (entered into force Apr. 2, 2003).
7 Id., Art. 3.
8 2006 Treaty, supra note 5, Art. 12.
9 This reservation was invoked by Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, see infra text accompanying notes 82–83.
10 Verbatim Record (corrected), Seizure and Detention, ICJ Doc. CR 2014/1, at 17–18 (Jan. 20, 2014) [here inafter Verbatim Record, Cr 2014/1] (statement of Elihu Lauterpacht, counsel for Timor-Leste); Mitchell, Kate & Akande, Dapo, Espionage and Good Faith in Treaty Negotiations, Ejil: Talk! (Jan. 20, 2014)Google Scholar, at http://www.ejiltalk.org/espionage-fraud-good-faith-in-treaty-negotiations-east-timor-v-australia-in-the-permanent-court-of-arbitration (noting that “Australian intelligence services inserted listening devices into the wall of Timor-Leste’s negotiating room under the guise of an Australian aid program concerning renovation and construction of cabinet offices”).
11 Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, para. 27.
12 See Verbatim Record, CR 2014/1, supra note 10, at 19.
13 See Verbatim Record (corrected), Seizure and Detention, ICJ Doc. CR 2014/2, at 16–17 (Jan. 21, 2014) [hereinafter Verbatim Record, Cr 2014/2].
14 Written Observations of Australia on Timor-Leste’s Request for Provisional Measures, Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Austl.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 13, 2014).
15 Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, paras. 36, 46; Verbatim Record (corrected), Seizure and Detention, ICJ Doc. Cr 2014/4, at 10, 13–14 (Jan. 22, 2014) [hereinafter Verbatim Record, Cr 2014/4].
16 See Verbatim Record, CR 2014/2, supra note 13, at 15, 20; Verbatim Record, CR 2014/4, supra note 15, at 14–18.
17 See Verbatim Record, CR 2014/1, supra note 10, at 45.
18 Id. at 13–15, 17–20.
19 Treaty on the Zone of Cooperation in an Area Between the Indonesian Province of East Timor and Northern Australia [Timor Gap Treaty], Austl.-Indon., opened for signature Dec. 11, 1989, 1654 UNTS 105 (entered into force Feb. 9, 1991).
20 Verbatim Record, CR 2014/1, supra note 10, at 13–14, see also East Timor (Port. v. Austl.), 1995 ICJ Rep. 90, paras. 20, 21, 35, 38 (June 30); Application Instituting Proceedings (Port. v. Austl.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 22, 1991).
21 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Art. 41, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001).
22 Id.
23 Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 2004 ICJ Rep. 136 (July 9).
24 See Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, para. 18.
25 Id., para. 19 (citing ICJ Statute, Art. 36(2)).
26 Id., para. 20.
27 Australia made this argument even though it was contesting the jurisdiction of the PCA Tribunal. See Verbatim Record, CR 2014/2, supra note 13, at 40.
28 Timor-Leste argued that Australia’s position showed a certain lack of respect for the Court. Verbatim Record (corrected), Seizure and Detention, ICJ Doc. CR 2014/3, paras. 8–10 (Jan. 22, 2014) [hereinafter Verbatim Record, CR 2014/3].
29 Application of the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geor. v. Russ.), Preliminary Objections, 2011 ICJ Rep. 70 (Apr. 1) [hereinafter Georgia v. Russia, Preliminary Objec tions].
30 Application of the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geor. v. Russ.), Provisional Measures, 2008 ICJ Rep. 353, para. 149 (Oct. 15).
31 Georgia v. Russia, Preliminary Objections, supra note 29, paras. 115–84.
32 See Verbatim Record, CR 2014/2, supra note 13, at 43–47.
33 In an earlier order dated January 28, 2014, the Court had already rejected Australia’s claim for a stay of proceedings until the Pca tribunal could decide the Arbitration Under the Timor Sea Treaty case. Question Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Austl.), Fixing of Time Limits (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 28, 2014); see also Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, paras. 16–17.
34 See Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, paras. 22–23.
35 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), Provisional Measures, 2009 ICJ Rep. 139, paras. 57–60 (May 28) [hereinafter Belgium v. Senegal].
36 Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, para. 25.
37 Application Instituting Proceedings, supra note 1, para. 10.
38 Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, para. 28.
39 Id., para. 27.
40 Id., Diss. Op. Callinan, J. ad hoc, paras. 25–28.
41 Id., Diss. Op. Greenwood, J., para. 12 (noting “a general principle of law”).
42 Id., para. 30 (Order).
43 Id.
44 Id., paras. 31–48.
45 Id., paras. 38, 42, 47.
46 Passage Through the Great Belt (Fin. v. Den.), Provisional Measures, 1991 ICJ Rep. 12 (July 29).
47 Belgium v. Senegal, supra note 35.
48 For a strong argument against this practice, see Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, Sep. Op. Canc¸ado Trindade, J., paras. 13–25.
49 Question Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Austl.), Written Undertaking by Senator the Hon. George Brandis Qc, Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 21, 2014) [hereinafter Written Undertaking].
50 Verbatim Record, CR 2014/4, supra note 15; Verbatim Record, CR 2014/3, supra note 28.
51 Written Undertaking, supra note 49; see also Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, para. 45.
52 Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, para. 42.
53 Id., paras. 47–48.
54 Id., para. 47.
55 Id., para. 49.
56 See id., para. 55.
57 Id.
58 Id., para. 51.
59 See Brennan, Frank, Finding a Just Oil and Gas Settlement Between Australia and Timor-Leste, Eureka Street Extra, Sept. 24, 2014 Google Scholar, at http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=42040#VekH3PlVhBc (“The day after the decision was delivered, the Australian stable of Murdoch newspapers carried the headline: Australia wins East Timor UN court fight.’ This was no win for Australia; it was a humiliating defeat.”).
60 It is interesting to note—without, of course, casting any aspersions on the individual judges—that these four states are closely linked in intelligence cooperation. For example, the UK-U.S. Communications Intelligence Agreement (Mar. 5, 1946), available at https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/ukusa/agreement_outline_5mar46.pdf, setup an arrangement subsequently joined by Australia, New Zealand, and Canada. This agreement was secret until 2005, and it was published in 2010. National Security Agency/Central Security Service, Ukusa Agreement Release, 1940–1956 (June 24, 2010), at https://www.nsa.gov/public_info/declass/ukusa.shtml.
61 Seizure and Detention, supra note 3, Diss. Op. Callinan, J. ad hoc.
62 See id., Sep. Op. Cançado Trindade, J., paras. 46–58; id., Diss. Op. Greenwood, J., para. 30; id., Sep. Op. Donoghue, J., paras. 5, 23.
63 ICJ Press Release 2014/28, The Court Decides to Grant the Parties’ Request to Postpone the Oral Proceedings Due to Open on 17 September 2014 (Sept. 5, 2014); see also Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Austl.), Preliminary Objections 1992 ICJ Rep. 240 (June 26); ICJ Press Release 93/29, Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia): Discontinuance (Sept. 13, 1993) (noting settlement of that case after Australia lost at the pre liminary objections stage). [Editor’s note: On June 11, 2015, the Court issued an order directing the discontinuance of the case from the Court list, following Australia’s return of the seized documents and data to Timor-Lesteon May 12, 2015. Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Lestev. Austl.), Removal from List (Int’l Ct. Justice June 11, 2015).]
64 Whaling in the Antarctic (Austl. v. Japan; N.Z. Intervening) (Int’l Ct. Justice Mar. 31, 2014). For an excellent case note, see Rolland, Sonia E., Case Report: Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening), 108 AJIL 496 (2014)Google Scholar.
65 International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling, Dec. 2, 1946, 62 Stat. 1716, 161 UNTS 74 [here inafter Whaling Convention].
66 at https://iwc.int/home.
67 See Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 100.
68 Verbatim Record (corrected), Whaling in the Antarctic, ICJ Doc. CR 2013/12, at 42, 63 (July 2, 2013).
69 Id. at 63.
70 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 101; see also Memorial of Australia, Whaling in the Antarctic, para. 5.122 (Int’l Ct. Justice May 9, 2011) (“Japan lacks the requisite good faith in its implementation of Article VIII.”); Verbatim Record (corrected), Whaling in the Antarctic, ICJ Doc. CR 2013/11, at 24–40(June 28, 2013).
71 See infra text accompanying notes 73–74; see also Verbatim Record (corrected), Whaling in the Antarctic, ICJ Doc. CR 2013/18, at 28 (July 9, 2013) [hereinafter Verbatim Record, CR 2013/18].
72 Counter-Memorial of Japan, Whaling in the Antarctic, para. 13 (Int’l Ct. Justice Mar. 9, 2012).
73 Verbatim Record (corrected), Whaling in the Antarctic, ICJ Doc. CR 2013/13, at 73 (July 3, 2013).
74 Verbatim Record, CR 2013/18, supra note 71, at 28, 33 (citing Belgium v. Senegal, supra note 35); see also Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, Advisory Opinion 1951 ICJ Rep. 15 (May 28). New Zealand intervened under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute as a party to the Whaling Convention, and, in its Written Observations to the Court, it stressed the collective nature of the Convention regime. New Zea land left the IWC in 1968 because of its concern that the Iwc was insensitive to conservation; New Zealand rejoined the Iwc in 1976. Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 44.
75 This reserve is understandable because of Australia’s domestic political focus on the Southern Ocean. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd had given an election pledge to seek the end of Japan’s whaling in the Southern Ocean. See Stephens, Tim, International Environmental Disputes: To Sue or Not to Sue?, in Litigating International Disputes 284, 287 (Klein, Natalie ed., 2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The extension of the case to cover Jarpn Ii would also have meant a significantly more preparation. Australia’s memorial concerning Jarpa Ii alone was already 1,251 pages long. However, this omission was to have serious consequences, and the exclusive focus on Jarpa Ii weakened Australia’s claim to be acting to uphold the collective interest.
76 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20 (1988), 1465 UNTS 113.
77 See Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belg. v. Sen.), 2012 ICJ Rep. 422, paras. 68, 69 (July 20).
78 Articles on Responsibility of States, supra note 21, Art. 48.
79 See James Crawford, The International Law Commission’S Articles on State Responsibility: Introduction, Text and Commentaries 279 (2002).
80 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company (Belg. v. Spain), Second Phase, 1970 ICJ Rep. 3 (Feb. 5). Such a right had earlier been rejected by the Court in the South West Africa cases brought by Ethiopia and Liberia against South Africa for its violation of the mandate in its treatment of South West Africa (now Namibia). South West Africa (Eth. v. S. Afr.; Liber. v. S. Afr.), Second Phase, 1966 ICJ Rep. 6 (July 18).
81 Application Instituting Proceedings (Marsh. Is. v. Uk) (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 24, 2014) (alleging violations of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, July 1, 1968, 21 Ust 483, 729 UNTS 161); Application Instituting Proceedings (Marsh. Is. v. India) (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 24, 2014) (same); Application Instituting Proceedings (Marsh. Is. v. Pak.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 24, 2014) (same).
82 Counter-Memorial of Japan, supra note 72, para. 9.1.
83 Alexander John Gosse Downer, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Australia, Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory (Mar. 22, 2002), available at http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2= 1&p3=3&code=Au.
84 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, paras. 34–35.
85 Id., paras. 32–33.
86 Id., para. 36 (quoting Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (Uk v. Iran), Jurisdiction, 1952 ICJ Rep. 93, 104 (July 22)).
87 Id. (quoting Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Can.), 1998 ICJ Rep. 432, para. 49 (Dec. 4)).
88 Id., para. 39.
89 Id., paras. 42–47.
90 Id., para. 45.
91 Id.
92 Id., para. 48.
93 Id., paras. 46–47.
94 Id., para. 45.
95 Id., paras. 46, 83.
96 Id., para. 79.
97 Id., para. 83. Judge ad hoc Hilary Charlesworth (Australia) agreed with the Court’s position on this point but suggested that resolutions passed by a majority could be “relevant to the duty of co-operation.” Id., Sep. Op. Charlesworth, J. ad hoc, para. 4; see also infra text accompanying notes 182–83.
98 See, e.g., Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 30.
99 Id., paras. 100–01.
100 Whaling Convention, supra note 65, Art. VIII (emphasis added).
101 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 55; Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Art. 31(1), May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.
102 Counter-Memorial of Japan, supra note 72, para. 2.28 (quoting Whaling Convention, supra note 65, pmbl.).
103 Id., para. 2.29.
104 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 57.
105 Id.
106 Id.
107 Id., para. 56.
108 Id., para. 58.
109 Id.
110 Id., para. 59. Japan initially argued that the Court’s power of review was limited “to ascertaining whether the determination was ‘arbitrary or capricious,’ ‘manifestly unreasonable’ or made in bad faith.” Id., para. 65. Judge Hisashi Owada (Japan), in his dissenting opinion, said that the Court was wrong to assert that the parties had agreed on the standard of review. He asserted that the Court had adopted a standard of review that was derived from the jurisprudence of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization but that the ICJ had gone much further than the Appellate Body and had engaged in a de novo assessment of Japan’s activities. Id., Diss. Op. Owada, J., paras. 29–48.
111 Id., paras. 63, 64 (Judgment).
112 Id., para. 65.
113 Id., Diss. Op. Abraham, J.; id., Diss. Op. Bennouna, J.; id., Diss. Op. Owada, J.; id., Diss. Op. Yusuf, J.; see also Sep. Op. Xue, J., para. 16 (stating that the Court had gone “beyond its judicial purview”).
114 Verbatim Record (corrected), Whaling in the Antarctic, ICJ Doc.Cr2013/8, para. 68 (June 26, 2013). New Zealand took a simpler approach: it asserted that the Court should consider whether whaling is for purposes of scientific research, which could be ascertained from the methodology, design, and characteristics of proposed whaling program. Written Observations of New Zealand, Whaling in the Antarctic, paras. 61–63 (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 4, 2013).
115 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, paras. 73–86.
116 Id., paras. 87–97.
117 Id., para. 68.
118 Id., paras. 70–72.
119 Judge Owada rejected the Court’s approach: “To me such a distinction is so artificial that it loses any sense of reality when applied to a concrete situation.” Id., Diss. Op. Owada, J., para. 23. Judge Xue Hanqin (China) declared that the distinction “unduly complicates the meaning of the phrase.” Id., Sep. Op. Xue, J., para. 16. Judge Kenneth Keith (New Zealand), in his very clear separate opinion, did not make any use of this distinction. Id., Sep. Op. Keith, J.
120 See infra text accompanying note 199.
121 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, para. 74.
122 Id., para. 86.
123 Id.
124 Id., para. 83.
125 Id.
126 Id.
127 Id., para. 86.
128 Id., paras. 87–97.
129 Id., para. 88.
130 Id.
131 See Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 ICJ Rep. 14 (Apr. 20).
132 Id., para. 167. Judge Christopher Greenwood (United Kingdom), in his separate opinion in Pulp Mills, discussed the problems caused by the parties’ use of experts as counsel. Id., Sep. Op. Greenwood, J., paras. 27–28. Judges Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) and Bruno Simma (Germany), in their joint dissenting opinion, went further and claimed that the use of experts as counsel had meant that the Court’s method of evaluating the scientific evidence was flawed. Id., Diss. Op. Al-Khasawneh & Simma, Jj., para. 2. They also criticized the Court’s practice of using “experts fantoˆmes” as temporary Registry staff members on grounds of lack of transparency and procedural fairness. Id., para. 14. They called on the Court, in the future, to appoint its own experts under Article 50 of its Statute. Id., para. 8. Judge Keith, in his separate opinion, argued against this suggestion. Id., Sep. Op. Keith, J., paras.8–11; see also Peat, Daniel, The use of Court-Appointed Experts by the International Court of Justice, 2014 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 271 Google Scholar.
133 Whaling in the Antarctic, supra note 64, paras. 90–97.
134 Id., para. 91.
135 Id., para. 94.
136 Id., para. 95.
137 Id., para. 97.
138 Id.
139 Id., paras. 98–227.
140 Id., para. 101.
141 Id., para. 104.
142 Id., para. 105.
143 Id., para. 113.
144 Id., para. 123.
145 Id., para. 127.
146 Id., para. 130.
147 Id., para. 135.
148 Id., paras. 136–41.
149 Id., para. 144.
150 Id., para. 145.
151 Id., paras. 145–212.
152 Id., para. 149.
153 Id., para. 153.
154 Id., para. 154.
155 Id., para. 158.
156 Id.
157 Id., para. 159.
158 Id. (quoting Japan’s expert on this issue).
159 Id., paras. 160–98.
160 Id., para. 194.
161 Id., para. 179.
162 Id., para. 180.
163 Id., para. 184.
164 Id., paras. 180–81.
165 Id., para. 181.
166 Id., paras. 199–212.
167 Id., para. 201.
168 Id., para. 209.
169 Id., para. 226.
170 Id.
171 Id., para. 227.
172 Id.
173 Id., paras. 228–33.
174 Id., para. 230.
175 Id., para. 243 (noting that “the Court does not need to address other arguments invoked by Australia in support of its claims”).
176 Id., paras. 234–42.
177 Id., paras. 47, 234.
178 Id., para. 234.
179 Id., para. 236.
180 Id., para. 247.
181 Id., para. 239.
182 Id., para. 240.
183 Id., Sep. Op. Bhandari, J., paras. 11–19;id., Sep. Op. Sebutinde, J., paras. 15–20; id., Sep. Op. Charlesworth, J. ad hoc, paras. 11, 14–17.
184 Id., paras. 244–47 (Judgment).
185 Id., para. 244.
186 Id., para. 247.
187 Id., para. 245.
188 Id., para. 247.
189 Id., para. 246.
190 Id.
191 Id., Diss. Op. Owada, J., para. 42; id., Diss. Op. Abraham, J., paras. 28—31; id., Diss. Op. Yusuf, J., para. 54; id., Sep. Op. Greenwood, J., para. 29.
192 See International Whaling Committee, Chair’s Report of the 65th Meeting, sec. 7.5 (Oct. 31, 2014), available at https://archive.iwc.int/pages/terms.php?ref=3683&search=%21collection49&k=&url=pages%2Fdownload_progress.php%3Fref%3D3683%26size%3D%26ext%3Dpdf%26k%3D%26search%3D%2521collection49%26offset%3D0%26archive%3D0%26sort%3Ddesc%26order_by%3Drelevance [hereinafter Chair’s Report] (outlining proposed resolution on whaling under special permit).
193 International Whaling Commission, Resolution 2014-5, Whaling Under Special Permit 19—21 (2014), available at https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3600&search=%21collectionllO&order_by=relevance&sort=DeSc&offset=0&archive=0&k=&curpos=2 [hereinafter Iwc Resolution 2014-5] (noting passage of Resolution 2014 —5 by thirty-five votes to twenty); see also Chair’s Report, supra note 192, paras. 141—59, 253.
194 IWC Resolution 2014-5, supra note 193, at 24.
195 See Fensom, Anthony, Japanese Whaling: The Saga Continues, Diplomat, Aug. 26, 2014 Google Scholar, at http://thedip-lomat.com/2014/08/japanese-whaling-the-saga-continues.
196 Government of Japan Press Release, Policy Towards the Future Whale Research Programs, Statement by Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Apr. 18, 2014), at http://webcache.googleusercontent-.com/search?q=cache:http://www.jfa.maff.go.jp/e/pdf/danwa.pdf; see also Chair’s Report, supra note 192, sec. 15-3.
197 McCurry, Justin, Japan Likens Anti-whaling Campaign to Attempt to Ban Kimono, Guardian, Nov. 26, 2014 Google Scholar, at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/20l4/nov/27/australia-whaling-campaign-likened-to-ban-japan-kimono.
198 Id.
199 Simpson, Jack, Japan Kills 30 Minke Whales in First Hunt Since ICJ Ruling, Independent, June 14, 2014 Google Scholar, at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/japan-kill-30-minke-whales-in-first-hunt-since-ICJ-ruling-9537063.html.
200 See International Whaling Commission, IWC/65/09, Agenda Item 5: Japan’s Proposal and Its Background for Schedule Amendment to Permit the Catching of Minke Whales from the Okhotsk Sea-West Pacific Stock by Small-Type Coastal Whaling Vessels (July 14, 2014) (submitted by Japan), available at https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3445. This plan was rejected by thirty-nine against, nineteen in favor, and two abstentions.
201 International Whaling Commission, Iwc/65/08, The South Atlantic: A Sanctuary for Whales (Submitted by Argentina, Brazil, South Africa, and Uruguay) (June 5, 2014), available at https://archive.iwc.int/pages/view.php?ref=3418.
202 See McCurry, Justin, Japan Set to Wade into Diplomatic Row by Bypassing Ban on Whaling, Guardian, Sept. 4, 2014 Google Scholar, at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/04/japan-diplomatic-row-bypassing-whaling-ban-antarctic.
203 Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), para. 1 (Int’l Ct. Justice Jan. 27, 2014) [hereinafter Maritime Dispute].
204 Id., para. 14.
205 Id.
206 Id., paras. 14, 22.
207 Id., para. 151.
208 Id., para. 181.
209 Id., Decl. Donoghue, J.
210 Id., Decl. Tomka, P.; id., Decl. Sepúlveda-Amor, V.P.; id., Sep. Op. Owada, J.; id., Decl. Skotnikov, J.; id., Diss. Op. Xue, Gaja, Bhandari, JJ., & Orrego Vicuña, J. ad hoc; id., Decl. Donoghue, J.; id., Decl. Gaja, J.; id., Diss. Op. Sebutinde, J.; id., Decl. Guillaume, J. ad hoc; id., Sep. Op. Orrego Vicuña, J. ad hoc.
211 Id., para. 198 (Judgment) (noting votes against the delimitation from President Peter Tomka (Slovakia), Judges Xue, Gaja, Sebutinde, and Bhandari, and Judge ad hoc Francisco Orrego Vicuña (Chile)).
212 For an account of the historical background, see id., paras. 17–21.
213 Id., paras. 19, 25, 26.
214 See id., para. 26.
215 Id., para. 20.
216 Declaration on the Maritime Zone, Chile-Ecuador-Peru, Aug. 18, 1952, 1006 Unts 326 (Santiago Declaration), available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/volume%201006/volume-1006-I-14758-English.pdf.
217 Maritime Dispute, supra note 203, para. 51.
218 Id., paras. 78–99.
219 On the positions of the parties, see id., paras. 22–23.
220 Id., paras. 25–44.
221 Id., paras. 45–48.
222 Id., para. 49.
223 Id., para. 51.
224 Id., para. 57.
225 Id., paras. 57–70.
226 Id., para. 63.
227 Id., para. 66.
228 Id., para. 70.
229 Id., para. 91 (emphasis added).
230 Id.
231 Id., para. 92.
232 Id., paras. 100–02.
233 Id., Diss. Op. Sebutinde, J., para. 7.
234 Id., para. 6 (citing Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), 2007 ICJ Rep. 659, para. 253 (Oct. 8)).
235 Id., Sep. Op. Owada, J., para. 25.
236 Id., Decl. Sepulveda-Amor, J., paras. 5, 18.
237 See id., para. 103 (Judgment).
238 Id., para. 23.
239 Id., paras. 103–17.
240 Id., para. 89.
241 Id., para. 111.
242 Id.
243 Id., para. 116 (“As the Court has noted previously, in this period the concept of an exclusive economic zone of 200 nautical miles was ‘still some long years away.’”).
244 Id., paras. 119–48.
245 Id., paras. 108, 117.
246 Id., para. 149.
247 Id., paras. 151, 198.
248 Id., Diss. Op. Xue, Gaja, Bhandari, Jj. & Orrego Vicuña, J. ad hoc, paras. 2, 9, 34; id., Diss. Op. Sebutinde, J., para. 14; see also id., Decl. Tomka, P., paras. 1, 3, 4, 25. Judge Leonid Skotnikov (Russian Federation) said that no evidence supported the 80 nm point, but, because the parties’ treatment of the extent of the maritime boundary lacked “clarity,” he could join the majority. Id., Decl. Skotnikov, J., paras. 6–7.
249 Id., paras. 152–76 (Judgment).
250 Id., paras. 164–74.
251 Id., para. 198; id., Decl. Gaja, J.
252 Id., paras. 177–95 (Judgment).
253 Id., para. 179 (quoting UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Arts. 74(1), 83(1), opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 397, 21 ILM 1261 (1982)).
254 Id., para. 180.
255 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 61, paras. 115–22 (Feb. 3) [hereinafter Black Sea Delimitation]. In Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), 2012 ICJ Rep. 624, para. 194 (Nov. 19), the Court said that this three-stage process was not to be applied in a mechanical fashion.
256 See Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangl./Myan.), Itlos Case No. 16, paras. 227–34 (Mar. 14, 2012), available at https://www.itl os.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_16/C16_Judgment_14_03_2012_rev.pdf (discussing ICJ maritime-boundary jurisprudence).
257 Maritime Dispute, supra note 203, para. 180.
258 Id., para. 198.
259 Id., paras. 14, 182, 188.
260 Id., para. 189.
261 Id., para. 177.
262 Id., para. 183 (citing Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can./U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 246, para. 212 (Oct. 12); Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Eq. Guinea Intervening), 2002 ICJ Rep. 303, paras. 268–69 (Oct. 10); Black Sea Delimitation, supra note 255, para. 218).
263 Id.
264 Id., para. 186.
265 Id., para. 191.
266 Id., paras. 192–94.
267 Id., para. 193.
268 Id., para. 194.
269 See, e.g., Continental Shelf (Tunis./Libya), 1982 ICJ Rep. 18 (Feb. 24) (noting that the Court created the doctrine of giving half effect to islands without any argument from the parties on this point).
270 Id., Decl. Donoghue, J.
