Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:05:01.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

R. Y. Jennings
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases—the ancestor of the International Law Reports—was first published “under the direction” of the Department of International Studies of the London School of Economics. The “chief inspirers”, to use Fitzmaurice's phrase, were Arnold McNair and Hersch Lauterpacht, the latter then on the teaching staff of the School. There was also an Advisory Committee of Sir Cecil J. B. Hurst, a former President of the Permanent Court of International Justice and later Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office; W. E. Beckett, also of the Foreign Office; A. Hammarksjöld, the Registrar of the Permanent Court of International Justice, and Sir John Fischer Williams of Oxford and the Reparation Commission.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 45 , Issue 1 , January 1996 , pp. 1 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative 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.)

References

1. The volumes were not given numbers until 1958; the volumes then numbered 1 and 2 were edited by Fischer Williams and Lauterpacht. The present Vol.3 was the first published and edited by McNair and Lauterpacht.

2. Vol.X, pp.65–95.Google Scholar

3. France v. Turkey, P.C.I.J. Rep. Ser.A, No. 10.

4. R v. Keyn (1876) 2 Ex. Div. 63, 202.

5. Festschrift für Rudolf Bernhardi (1995), pp.289–306, at p.294 (notes omitted).

6. Fachiri (1930) XI B.Y.I.L. 244.

7. Loizidou v. Turkey Ser.A, No.310 (23 Mar. 1995).

8. In his recent Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures, shortly to be published by Cambridge University Press.

9. I.C.J. Rep. 1954, 19.Google Scholar

10. Idem, p.35.

11. I.C.J. Rep. 1992, 351.Google Scholar

12. I.C.J. Rep. 1985, p.13Google Scholar, paras.21 ff; see also Judge Schwebel at pp.172 ff.

13. “De I'evolution de la Cour” (1992) 96 R.G.D.l.P. 273.Google Scholar

14. “Some Problems Regarding the Formal Sources of International Law”, in Symbolae Verzijl, Présentées au Professeur J. H. W. Verzijl à l'occasion de son LXXième Anniversaire (1958), pp. 153–176.Google Scholar

15. I.C.J. Rep. 1951, 116.Google Scholar

16. Op. cit. supra n.14, at p.170.Google Scholar

17. Idem, p.172.Google Scholar

18. I.C.J. Rep. 1987, 65–66.Google Scholar

19. P.C.I.J. Ser.A, No.2, p.11.

20. See his dissenting opinion in South Wat Africa (Preliminary Objections) I.C.J. Rep. 1962, 560 et seq.

21. Essays in Honour of Professor Morelli (1975), p.179.

22. I.C.J. Rep. 1995, p.90 at p.99.

23. Cross, and Harris, , Precedent in English Law (4th edn, 1991), p.178.Google Scholar

24. Supra n.19, at p.12.

25. P.C.I.J. Ser.A, No.13, p.23.

26. Judge Shahabuddeen also cites the PCIJ in Postal Services to Danzig Ser.B, No.11, pp.29–30: “It is certain that the reasons contained in a decision, at least in so far as they go beyond the scope of the operative part, have no binding force as between the Parties concerned.” But are any reasons binding on the parties as res judicata in the sense of Art.59?

27. Lauterpacht, , The Development of International Law by the International Court (2nd edn, 1958), p.61.Google Scholar

28. Idem, p.37.

29. I.C.J. Rep. 1970, 3, 162.

30. Idem, p.65.