Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T18:47:18.173Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), International Court of Justice, Provisional Measures Order, January 23, 2007

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Pieter H.F. Bekker
Pieter H.F. Bekker*
Affiliation:
McDermott, Will & Emery LLP in New York City
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
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , March 2007 , pp. 311 - 336
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2007

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

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the International Court of Justice website (last visited March 16, 2007) < .http://www.icj-cij.org >

1 The text of the 2006 Order is reproduced in 45 ILM 1025 (2006). In each case, the judge ad hoc appointed especially for the case by each party was the sole judge voting against the Order denying the request of the party having appointed him. Under the ICJ Statute, States parties to an ICJ case that have no judge of their nationality sitting on the regular bench are entitled to appoint a judge ad hoc of their choosing. Both Argentina and Uruguay have exercised this right.

2 See 2006 Order, Paras. 74-75.

3 Id., Para. 78.

4 Id., Para. 82.

5 A three-member ad hoc arbitral tribunal convened, at Uruguay's request, under the auspices of the Treaty of Asunción establishing the Southern Common Market (better known as“Mercosur“) unanimously condemned Argentina in connection with earlier blockading actions in a decision dated September 6, 2006.See <http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/merco-sur/Laudo060906_s.pdf> (Spanish text).

6 2007 Order, Para. 41.

7 Id., Para. 40.

8 Id., Para. 50.

9 Id., Para. 53. Strictly speaking, this call is non-binding as it does not appear in the operative paragraph of the Order. The Order itself does not impose any obligation on either party.

10 Id., Para. 40.

11 See Art. 79(1), ICJ Rules of Court. The Court's decision in the2006 and 2007 Orders on the parties’ requests for provisional measures ‘ ‘in no way prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application, or relating to the merits themselves.” 2006 Order, Para. 85; 2007 Order,Para. 54. S4