Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T18:21:34.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Declaratory Judgment in Recent Jurisprudence of the ICJ: Conflicting Approaches to State Responsibility?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2016

JULIETTE MCINTYRE
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As the list of contentious cases concerning issues of state responsibility brought before the International Court of Justice (the Court) continues to grow, a closer consideration is demanded of the most common remedy granted by the Court – the declaratory judgment. In particular, while the Court continues to issue declarations intended to constitute ‘appropriate satisfaction’, it also appears that the Court is – or is attempting – to use declarations more creatively in certain circumstances. This immediately provokes a question as to not only the proper role of declaratory judgments, but also whether and to what extent variations in the nature of the obligations owed by states, or the nature of their internationally wrongful acts, gives rise to a coherent differentiation in the remedies granted by the Court.

Keywords

declaratory judgmentsInternational Court of Justicestate responsibilityremediessatisfactioninjunction
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Court of Justice
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , March 2016 , pp. 177 - 195
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2016 

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 Art. 1 of the 2001 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), UN Doc. A/RES/56/83 (2001): ‘[e]very internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State.’ Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001 YILC, Vol. II (Part I) (ARSIWA Commentary), 32. See also Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims (Spain v. United Kingdom), (1925) II RIAA 615, at 641.

2 Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Merits, Judgment of 20 April 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 14.

3 Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Merits, Judgment of 20 July 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 422.

4 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 3 February 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 99.

5 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Merits, Judgment of 4 June 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 177.

6 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 31 March 2014 (not yet published).

7 Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Jurisdiction, PCIJ Rep Series A No 9, at 21—-2; Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Merits, PCIJ Rep Series A No 17, at 47. See also ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 91; J. Crawford, The International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility (2011), 201; D. Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2005), 20; Shelton, D., ‘Righting Wrongs: Reparation in the Articles on State Responsibility’, (2002) 96 AJIL 833, at 844CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Chorzów (Jurisdiction), supra note 7, at 47.

9 Their origin may be traced back as far as Vattel, for whom every state has the right to obtain complete reparation when an injury is done: E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1811), 155. Likewise Grotius observed that ‘From . . . a Fault or Trespass, there arises an obligation by the Law of Nature to make Reparation for the Damage, if any be done’: H. Grotius, Bk. 2, Ch. 17, para. 1, in H. Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace: Including the Law of Nature and of Nations, translated by A.C. Campbell (2011).

10 C. Brown, A Common Law of International Adjudication (2007), 186.

11 ARSIWA, supra note 1, Art. 37(2).

12 See, SS ‘I’m Alone’ (Canada/USA), (1935) III RIAA 1609, at 1618.

13 Graefrath, B., ‘Responsibility and Damages Caused: Relationship between Responsibility and Damages’, (1984-II) 185 Recueil des Cours 19, at 85Google Scholar.

14 Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, [1949] ICJ Rep. 4, at 114, paras. 44–5 (Judge Azevedo, Dissenting Opinion).

15 Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), Application Instituting Proceedings, 17 December 2013, 6. Since withdrawn: Order, 11 June 2015.

16 Wyler, E. and Papaux, A., ‘The Different Forms of Reparation: Satisfaction’, in Crawford, J., Pellet, A. and Olleson, S. (Eds.), The Law of International Responsibility (2010), 625Google Scholar.

17 C.F. Amerasinghe, Jurisdiction of International Tribunals (2003), 417; E. Wyler and A. Papaux, supra note 16, at 623; Dumberry, P., ‘Satisfaction as a Form of Reparation for Moral Damages Suffered by Investors and Respondent States in Investor-State Arbitration Disputes’, (2012) 3 JIDS 205Google Scholar.

18 Jørgensen, N., ‘A Reappraisal of Punitive Damages in International Law’, (1997) 68 British Yearbook of International Law 247, at 264CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 106; Crawford, supra note 7, at 233.

20 Borchard, E.M., ‘The Declaratory Judgment in the United States’, (1931) 37 (2)West Virginia Law Quarterly 127, at 128Google Scholar.

21 Ibid.

22 S. Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920–2005 (2006), 1580.

23 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Merits, Judgment of 20 December 1974, [1974] ICJ Rep. 253, at 321, para. 21.

24 R. Zakrzewski, Remedies Reclassified (2009), 158.

25 Milano, E., ‘Territorial Disputes, Wrongful Occupations and State Responsibility: Should The International Court Of Justice Go The Extra Mile?’, (2004) 3 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 509, at 522–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

26 For a comprehensive review of the contexts in which a declaratory judgment may be granted, which include declarations of title, right or applicable law, see McIntyre, J., ‘Declaratory Judgments of the International Court of Justice’, (2012) 25 Hague Yearbook of International Law 107Google Scholar.

27 Gray, C., ‘Remedies in International Dispute Settlement’, in Romano, C., Alter, K. and Shany, Y. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (2013), 876Google Scholar.

28 Corfu Channel, supra note 14, at 36.

29 Brown, supra note 10, at 210.

30 E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (1934), vii; see also Borchard, E., ‘The Declaratory Judgment – A Needed Procedural Reform’, (1918) 28 Yale Law Journal 105, at 149CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Stair's treatise described declaratory actions as ‘those, wherein the right of the pursuer is craved to be declared, but nothing is claimed to be done by the defender’: Viscount Stair, The Institutions of the Law of Scotland deduced from its Originals, and collated with the Civil, Canon and Feudal Laws and with the Customs of Neighbouring Nations (1832), 4.1.46, cited in The Rt. Hon. The Lord Woolf and J. Woolf, Zamir & Woolf: The Declaratory Judgment (2002), 298. See also L. Sarna, The Law of Declaratory Judgments (1978), 1.

31 See generally Couvreur, P., ‘The Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice in the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes’, in Muller, A.S., Raič, D. and Thuránszky, J.M, The International Court of Justice – Its Future Role After Fifty Years (1997), 106Google Scholar; Wright, Q., ‘The International Court of Justice and the Interpretation of Multilateral Treaties’, (1947) 41 (2)AJIL 445, at 448CrossRefGoogle Scholar; 1945 Charter of the United Nations, 1 UNTS 16, Art. 94. O’Connell, M.E., ‘The Prospects for Enforcing Monetary Judgments of the International Court of Justice: A Study of Nicaragua's Judgment against the United States’, (1989) 30 Virginia Journal of International Law 891, at 902–5Google Scholar. On enforcement, see Jennings, R., ‘The Judicial Enforcement of International Obligations’, (1987) 47 Zeitschrift für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 3Google Scholar; Sloan, F.B., ‘Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice’, (1950) 38 California Law Review 830CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On compliance, see Paulson, C., ‘Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987’, (2004) 98 (3)AJIL 434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

32 Woolf, supra note 30, at 1.

33 E.g., S.S. Wimbledon (United Kingdom, France, Italy et al. v. Germany), PCIJ Rep Series A No 1, at 30; Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Assessment of the amount of compensation due from the People's Republic of Albania to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Judgment of 15 December 1949, [1949] ICJ Rep. 244.

34 E.g., Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Merits, Judgment of 14 February 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 3, where the Court ordered Belgium to cancel the warrant (paras. 72–6); Congo viewed this remedy as restitution (para. 73), as did the Court, (para. 76). See also Jurisdictional Immunities, supra note 4, at 51; and arguably the order to conduct ‘review and reconsideration’ in LaGrand (Germany v. USA), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 466, to wit, see Orakhelashvili, A., ‘The Concept of International Judicial Jurisdiction: A Reappraisal’, (2003) 2 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 501, 543CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Borchard, supra note 20, at 128.

36 Brownlie, I., ‘Remedies in the International Court of Justice’, in Lowe, V. and Fitzmaurice, M., Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice – Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings (1996), 560Google Scholar.

37 Jennings, supra note 31, at 15; Borchard, supra note 30, at 8.

38 C. Gray, Judicial Remedies in International Law (1987), 97–8; Brownlie, supra note 36, at 560; Borchard, supra note 30, at 49.

39 1945 Statute of the International Court of Justice, 33 UNTS 993, Art. 59. See also Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v. Poland), Preliminary objections), PCIJ Rep Series A No 6, at 19; Chorzów (Merits), supra note 7, at 20; Interpretation of Judgments Nos. 7 and 8 (Factory at Chorzów) (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ Rep Series A No 13, at 23 (Judge Anzilotti, Dissenting Opinion); Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary objections, Judgment of 2 December 1963, [1963] ICJ Rep. 15, at 33, 37. On the principle of res judicata as a general principle of law, see B. Cheng, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), 336; J. Collier and V. Lowe, The Settlement of Disputes in International Law, Institutions and Procedures (1999), 177; Lowe, V., ‘Res Judicata and the Rule of Law in International Arbitration’, (1996) 8 African Journal of International and Comparative Law 38Google Scholar, at 39; Scobbie, I., ‘Res Judicata, Precedent and the International Court: A Preliminary Sketch’, (1999) 20 Australian Year Book of International Law 299CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Bray, S.L., ‘Preventive Adjudication’, (2010) 77 The University of Chicago Law Review 1275, at 1293Google Scholar.

41 Brown, supra note 10, at 208. As the Court's decision in Colombian-Peruvian asylum case (Colombia/Peru), Merits, Judgment of 20 November 1950, [1950] ICJ Rep. 266, at 288, demonstrates.

42 Borchard, E.M., ‘Editorial Comment – Declaratory Judgments in International Law’, (1935) 29 American Journal of International Law 488, at 489CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See The Minquiers and Ecrehos case (France/United Kingdom), Merits, Judgment of 17 November 1953, [1953] ICJ Rep. 47; Case concerning Sovereignty over certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands), Merits, Judgment 20 June 1959, [1959] ICJ Rep. 209; Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Merits, Judgment of 23 May 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 12; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (IndonesialMalaysia), Merits, Judgment of 17 December 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 625; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Merits, Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624.

43 Collier and Lowe, supra note 39, at 178.

44 Kelsen, H., ‘Compulsory Adjudication of International Disputes’, (1943) 37 AJIL 397, at 402CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Gray, supra note 38, 101–2; Ritter, «L’affaire des Essais nucléaires et la notion de jugement déclaratoire», (1975) 21 Annuaire français de droit international 278. See also Northern Cameroons, supra note 39, and Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Merits, Judgment of 5 December 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep. 644.

45 Chorzów (Interpretation), supra note 39, at 4.

46 Ibid., at 20.

47 E. Borchard, supra note 30, at 8.

48 See Gray, supra note 38, at 97–8. In an example of this, in Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, the Permanent Court issued a declaratory judgment in which it only decided that Norway's declaration of occupation constituted a violation of the existing legal situation, and was accordingly unlawful and invalid (Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Denmark v. Norway), PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 53, at 75). While Denmark reserved its right to ask for a decision on the nature of the reparation (at 23), following the declaratory judgment, Norway withdrew its claim to the territory and the case was terminated without reparation being decided: Legal Status of the South-Eastern Territory of Greenland, Order of 11 May 1933, PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 55, at 157.

49 ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 126 (Art. 48); Crawford, supra note 7, at 276. Scobbie, I., ‘The invocation of responsibility for the breach of “obligations under peremptory norms of general international law”’, (2002) 13 (5)EJIL 1201CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 McIntyre, supra note 26.

51 It was for this reason that the declaratory judgment was removed from the list of modes of satisfaction in Art. 37 during the International Law Commission's 52nd session: J. Crawford, ‘Third Report on State Responsibility’, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/2000/Add.1 (Part 1) (2000), 54–5; ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, 105; International Law Commission, ‘Report on the work of its fifty-second session (1 May–9 June and 10 July–18 August 2000)’, General Assembly Official Records, Fifty-fifth Session, Supplement No. 10 (A/55/10), 35; Crawford, supra note 7, at 233.

52 Chorzów (Jurisdiction), supra note 7, at 47.

53 ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 34 (Art. 2), 36; Crawford, supra note 7, at 84. See also Wittich, S., ‘Non-Material Damage and Monetary Reparation in International Law’, (2004) 15 Finnish Yearbook of International Law 321, at 324Google Scholar.

54 Wyler, E., ‘From “State Crime” to Responsibility for “Serious Breaches of Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law”’, (2002) 13 (5)EJIL 1147, at 1152CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 See ARSIWA Arts. 42 and 48. Invocation of responsibility is understood as encompassing formal measures such as the commencement of proceedings before an international court or tribunal: ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 117; Crawford, supra note 7, at 255–6; B. Cheng, supra note 39, at 236.

56 Amerasinghe, supra note 17, at 417.

57 Or at least, taking a pragmatic view, the Court is not going to cease awarding declarations as satisfaction any time soon.

58 McIntyre, supra note 26.

59 Wyler and Papaux, supra note 16, at 636.

60 Shelton, supra note 7, at 54.

61 Grotius, Bk 2, Ch 20 (Para. 1(1)), in H. Grotius, supra note 9.

62 Chorzów (Jurisdiction), supra note 7, at 22.

63 Shelton, supra note 7, at 91.

64 Wyler and Papaux, supra note 16, at 623.

65 Ibid., 625.

66 Brown, supra note 10, at 186–7.

67 Shelton, supra note 7, at 12.

68 McIntyre, supra note 26.

69 E.g., Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, [1986] ICJ Rep. 14.

70 Cf. Gray, supra note 38, at 64–8; Brownlie, supra note 36, at 561–3; Brown, supra note 10, at 193. Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia/Peru), Merits, Judgment of 13 June 1951, [1951] ICJ Rep. 71, at 79.

71 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 187–8.

72 1986 Convention Concerning Judicial Assistance in Criminal Matters, 1695 UNTS 287.

73 Ibid., Art. 2(c); Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 192, para. 28.

74 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 192, para. 29.

75 Ibid., at 193, para. 116.

76 1986 Convention, supra note 72, Art. 17; Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 231, para. 152.

77 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 246–7, para. 205(2a).

78 Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 432.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid., at 439.

81 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, 1465 UNTS 85.

82 Ibid., Art. 6(2); Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 428 and 454, para. 88.

83 Ibid., Art. 7(1); Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 428–9 and 461, para. 117.

84 CR 2008/3, at 33, para. 51 (van den Biesen); CR 2012/3 (translation), at 45, para. 7 (Rietjens).

85 Ibid., at 463, para. 6.

86 C. Gray, ‘The Different Forms of Reparation: Restitution’, in Crawford, Pellet and Olleson (eds.), supra note 16, at 592.

87 Chorzów (Interpretation), supra note 39, at 20.

88 Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 461, para. 121.

89 Pellet, A., ‘Article 38’, in Zimmermann, A., Tomuschat, C. and Oellers-Frahm, K. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary(2006), 695–6Google Scholar. See for example Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, supra note 69, 149, para. 292(12). See also Nuclear Tests, supra note 23, at 494–502, paras. 2–18 (Judges Onyeama et al., Joint Dissenting Opinion); Arrest Warrant, supra note 34, at 33, para. 78(3).Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Merits, Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, at 79; Société Commerciale de Belgique (Belgium v. Greece), PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 78, at 178. Cf. Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (France v. Switzerland), PCIJ Rep Series A/B No 46, at 169; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. USA), Merits, Judgment of 31 March 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 12; LaGrand, supra note 34.

90 Arrest Warrant, supra note 34, at 33, para. 78(D3).

91 ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1.

92 Arrest Warrant, supra note 34, at 33, para. 78(D2).

93 Cf. Haya de la Torre, supra note 70.

94 ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 88 (Art. 30). See discussion in Crawford, supra note 51, at 196–8.

95 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 246–7, para. 205(2a).

96 Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 461.

97 Pulp Mills, supra note 2.

98 Ibid., at 31, para. 24.

99 1295 UNTS 331.

100 Pulp Mills, supra note 2, at 32, para. 27.

101 Ibid., at 51, para. 81.

102 Ibid., at 73–5, paras. 170–7.

103 Ibid., at 47, para. 68.

104 Ibid., at 29, para 23.

105 CR 2009/21, at 48, para. 9 (Pellet).

106 Memorial of Argentina, 15 January 2007, paras. 8.2, 8.6. Save for in respect of one relatively minor incident related to the announced intention to construct a mill ‘elsewhere in Uruguay’ but in an unspecified location.

107 Pulp Mills, supra note 2, at 48, para. 73.

108 Rejoinder of Uruguay, 29 July 2008, para. 1.36.

109 Pulp Mills, supra note 2, at 106, para. 282(1).

110 Ibid., at 102, para. 269.

111 Chorzów (Jurisdiction), supra note 7, at 21–2; ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 91 (Art. 31); Crawford, supra note 7, at 201.

112 Interim Accord, supra note 44, at 644.

113 Ibid., at 666, para. 67.

114 Ibid.

115 Reply of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, 9 June 2010, para. 6.15.

116 Shelton, supra note 7, at 54; F.V. Garcia-Amador, The Changing Law of International Claims, Vol. 2 (1984), 575.

117 Whaling, supra note 6, at 18, para. 31.

118 161 UNTS 2125.

119 Whaling, supra note 6, at 25, para. 51.

120 The obligation to respect the moratorium setting zero catch limits for the killing of whales from all stocks for commercial purposes (para. 10 (e)); the obligation not to undertake commercial whaling of fin whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary (para. 7 (b)); and the obligation to observe the moratorium on the taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships (para. 10 (d)). See Whaling, supra note 6, at 24–5, para. 48.

121 Whaling, supra note 6, at 25, para. 48.

122 On the concept of ‘legal damage’, see C. Hoss, ‘Satisfaction’, Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Law, paras. 6–7; Fasoli, E., ‘Declaratory Judgments and Official Apologies as Forms of Reparation for the Non-Material Damage Suffered by the State: the Djibouti-France Case’, (2008) 7 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 177, at 179CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tanzi, A., ‘Is damage a distinct condition for the existence of an internationally wrongful act?’, in Spinedi, M. and Simma, B. (eds.), United Nations Codification of State Responsibility (1987), 9Google Scholar. Contra Wittich, supra note 53.

123 Whaling, supra note 6, at 15, para. 25.

124 Ibid., at 6, para. 228.

125 Ibid., at 72, para 247(6).

126 Ibid., at 70, para. 245.

127 Ibid., at 72, para 247(7).

128 Ibid., at 70, para. 246.

129 For example, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, supra note 69, at 149, para. 292(12). See also Nuclear Tests, supra note 23, at 312–19; Arrest Warrant, supra note 34, at 33, para. 78(D3).

130 Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 461, para. 121, and at 463, para. 122(6). See also ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 88, and discussion in Crawford, supra note 7, at 196–8.

131 Supra note 4.

132 Gray, supra note 86, at 591.

133 Jurisdictional Immunities, supra note 4, at 153–4, para. 138.

134 Gray, supra note 86, at 592, referring to Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962, [1962] ICJ Rep. 6; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v. Iran), Merits, Judgment of 24 May 1980, [1980] ICJ Rep. 3; and Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening), Merits, Judgment of 10 October 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 303.

135 Whaling, supra note 6, at 70, para. 246.

136 Notes 31 and 36, supra.

137 McIntyre, supra note 26, at 156.

138 Cf. Brownlie, supra note 36, at 560–3.

139 Note 48, supra.

140 Corfu Channel, supra note 14.

141 Ibid., at 25–6.

142 Interim Accord, supra note 44.

143 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment of 26 February 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 43.; Milanović, M., ‘State Responsibility for Genocide: A Follow-up’, (2007) 18 EJIL 669, at 689–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Milanović, M., ‘State responsibility for acts of non-state actors: a comment on Griebel and Plucken’, (2009) 22 (2)LJIL 307, at 323CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

144 CR 2006/31, 18 April 2006, 9, para. 23 (Pellet).

145 Ibid., at 234, para. 463, and at 239, para. 471(9). See further S. Sivakumaran, ‘Case Concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia And Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007’, in Barker, J.C. (ed.) ‘Decisions of International Tribunals’, (2007) 56 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 695CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 706; Tomuschat, C., ‘Reparation in Cases of Genocide’, (2007) 5 Journal of International Criminal Justice 905, at 910–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

146 Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 461.

147 Counsel for Argentina emphasized that satisfaction (the form of which was not specified) would only be appropriate ‘insofar as [the injury] cannot be made good by restitution or compensation’: CR 2009/15 (translation), 46, para. 23 (Pellet).

148 Whaling, supra note 2, at 72, para. 247(7).

149 On this, see Tomuschat, supra note 145, at 909.

150 Gray, supra note 86, at 593.

151 Milano, supra note 25, at 510. See also Mosler, H., ‘The Area of Justiciability: Some Cases of Agreed Delimitation in the Submission of Disputes to the International Court of Justice’, in Makarczyk, J. (ed.), Essays in International Law in Honour of Judge Manfred Lachs (1984), 411Google Scholar. It is also possible that an adjudicatory body might be vested with the power to determine only questions of reparation and not any underlying question of legality: see for example Alabama Claims Arbitration (1872) 1 Moore 495.

152 LaGrand, supra note34, at 485, para. 48. As Orakhelashvili argues, the Court's remedial jurisdiction should be interpreted expansively because ‘the notion of remedies is wider than reparation’: Orakhelashvili, A., ‘Questions of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the LaGrand Case’, (2002) 15 LJIL 105, at 115CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

153 In Certain German Interests, supra note 39, the Permanent Court relied on the broader terms of Art. 36 (‘[t]he jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force’), along with Art. 63 (‘every State . . . has the right to intervene in the proceedings: but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it’), and a reference to Art. 14 of the 1920 Covenant of the League of Nations, LNTS 1, (‘[t]he Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the Parties thereto submit to it’) to conclude that the award of declaratory judgments was not excluded from its jurisdiction. See also Northern Cameroons, supra note 39, at 170 (Judge Bustamante, Dissenting Opinion); Rosenne, supra note 22, at 524; generally Scobbie, supra note 49; H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1958), 205–6.

154 Northern Cameroons, supra note 39, at 37.

155 Crawford, supra note 51, at 55.

156 E.g., ‘In Belgium's opinion, the finding by the Court of the breaches attributable to Senegal constitutes appropriate satisfaction’: Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, Memorial of Belgium, para. 5.27 (translation); CR 2012/3 (translation), 45, para. 7 (Rietjens).

157 See e.g., Dupuy, P.M., ‘A General Stocktaking of the Connections between the Multilateral Dimension of Obligations and Codification of the Law of Responsibility’ Relations’, (2002) 13 (5)EJIL 1053CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

158 ARSIWA, supra note 1, Art. 12; see also ARSIWA Commentary, supra note 1, at 125–7.

159 Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, supra note 5, at 231, para. 152; Pulp Mills, supra note 2, at 102, para. 269; Interim Accord, supra note 44, at 668–70.

160 Pulp Mills, supra note 2, at 102, para. 269.

161 Ibid., at 104, para. 275.

162 Interim Accord, supra note 44, at 662–3, para. 50.

163 1951 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 78 UNTS 277.

164 Milanović, supra note 143, at 669–70.

165 Genocide, supra note 143, at 221, para. 430.

166 Cf. Milanović, supra note 143, at 669; and generally Gattini, A., ‘Breach of the Obligation to Prevent and Reparation Thereof in the ICJ's Genocide Judgment’, (2007) 18 (4)EJIL 695CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

167 Prosecute or Extradite, supra note 3, at 461, para. 121; Whaling, supra note 6, at 70, para. 245.

168 Pellet, A, ‘Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely, Yes!’, (1999) 10 (2)EJIL 425, at 434CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

169 Rejoinder, supra note 108, paras. 2.137 and 7.17.

170 Ibid., at para. 7.17.

171 Tomuschat, supra note 145, at 910. Cf. Amerasinghe's hierarchy of remedies, in which the declaratory judgment is the least ‘important’: Amerasinghe, supra note 17, at 164–5 and 168.

172 Bray, S., ‘The Myth of the Mild Declaratory Judgment’, (2014) 63 Duke Law Journal 1091, at 1105Google Scholar.

173 Carthage and Manouba (1913) XI RIAA 449 and 463 respectively; Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand/France), (1994) XX RIAA 215, at 273, para. 123.

174 Bray, supra note 172, at 1108.