Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Introduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The International Court of Justice

  • 1294 Accesses

Abstract

The drafters of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) Statute envisaged the new Court as an institution structurally different from inter-State arbitral tribunals. However, the Court was not endowed with compulsory contentious jurisdiction—nor did this aspect change when the International Court of Justice (ICJ) replaced the PCIJ. The aim of this book is to assess how the Court’s judicial features and its status as a principal organ of the United Nations mould its contentious jurisdiction and whether they lead it to depart from principles established in international arbitration out of consideration for its judicial function.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    PCIJ, Advisory Committee of Jurists, procés verbal of the first meeting, Annex No. 2 (1920), Procés Verbaux of the Meetings of the Committee. van Langenhuysen Brothers, The Hague, p. 8. Bourgeois was delegate of the Council of the League of Nations to the Advisory Committee of Jurists.

  2. 2.

    See Article 33 of the Draft-Scheme adopted by the Committee at its 32nd meeting, ibid., p. 679.

  3. 3.

    Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, judgment of 25 May 1926, Series A, No. 7, p. 19. See also ICJ, Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), judgment of 9 April 1948, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 4 at 35.

  4. 4.

    See Hudson (1943), p. 112. For a different view, Fachiri (1932), p. 330.

  5. 5.

    Resolution of 18 April 1946, reproduced in (1946/1947) ICJ Yearbook, pp 28–29, fn. 2.

  6. 6.

    Jennings, Higgins (2012), pp. 4–5. Cf. also Arangio-Ruiz (1962), p. 1048; Gowlland-Debbas (2012), p. 232.

  7. 7.

    Scelle, ‘Rapport sur la procédure arbitrale’, doc. A/CN.4/18, (1950) ILC Yearbook, vol. II, p. 114 at 138, para. 80.

  8. 8.

    Jenks (1964), p. 121.

  9. 9.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, judgment of 26 November 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392 at 418, para. 60; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), judgment of 4 December 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432 at 453, para. 46. This assumption was never cast in doubt in the debate concerning the legal nature of the mechanism set forth by Article 36(2), on which see only Starace (1970), pp. 153ff.

  10. 10.

    See Corfu Channel Case. Judgment on Preliminary Objection (United Kingdom v. Albania), 25 March 1948, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 15 at 26; Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of Congo v. France), struck out of the list by order of 16 November 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 635; Questions of Mutual Assistance (Dijbuti v. France), judgment of 4 June 2008, ICJ. Reports 2008, p. 177 at 206; and Article 38(5) of the Rules of Court.

  11. 11.

    Santulli (2005), p. 145.

  12. 12.

    Arangio-Ruiz (1958), p. 975. A unitary vision of inter-State arbitration and adjudication is purported also by Morelli (1937), pp. 311ff.; and, implicitly, by Carlston (1946); Cavaré (1956), p. 496; Santulli (2005), p. 4.

  13. 13.

    Cassese (2012), p. 241.

  14. 14.

    In this and other contexts hereinafter, the term ‘Court’ encompasses both the PCIJ and the ICJ, relying on the generally accepted assumption that there is continuity between these two judicial institutions: see only Rosenne (2006), pp. 73ff. This continuity is not, of course, to be taken for granted in all respects: cf. Bedjaoui (1997), pp. xxi–xxiii.

  15. 15.

    On the different phases of the Court’s jurisprudence see only Abi-Saab (1987), pp. 258ff.; Dupuy (2002); Kolb (2013), pp. 1144ff.

  16. 16.

    For a discussion of the notion of ‘international judicial body’ see Cavaré (1956); Ascensio (2003); Santulli (2000); Kolb (2013), pp. 69ff.

  17. 17.

    See above, note 12, and below, Sect. 1.2.

  18. 18.

    Wittich (2008), p. 981.

  19. 19.

    This seems typical of international jurisdiction. As was aptly noted, moreover, specifically in international law it is difficult to provide a general definition of this concept, since judicial functions are “tailored to meet the specific needs of the relevant court or tribunal”: Wittich (2008), p. 987.

  20. 20.

    Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), advisory opinion of 28 May 1948, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 57 at 61; Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), judgment of 2 December 1963, ICJ Reports 1963, p. 15 at 30. On the assimilation of the Court’s advisory and judicial functions see Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints Made against UNESCO, advisory opinion of 23 October 1956, dissenting opinion of Judge Winiarski, ICJ Reports 1956, p. 104. at 105. On the relationship between the two functions in the framework of the ICJ, as compared to the PCIJ, cf. also the individual opinions of Judge Azevedo in Admission of a State to the United Nations, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 72, par. I, and in Interpretation of Peace Treaties, advisory opinion of 30 March 1950, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 79. See also Hudson (1943), p. 511; Abi-Saab (1999), p. 41; Cot (2012) pp. 1670ff.

  21. 21.

    Cf. Gross (1967), p. 320.

  22. 22.

    See Caron (1990); Kolb (2013), p. 45.

  23. 23.

    Abi-Saab (1987), p. 245.

  24. 24.

    On this extra-judicial function performed by the Court’s judges see below, Sect. 11.4. Also ITLOS judges are often appointed as arbitrators, especially in proceedings initiated under Annex VII UNCLOS.

  25. 25.

    The Ethiopia–Eritrea Claims Commission was composed mainly of individuals with experience in international commercial arbitration and this probably had an influence on their handling of claims: see Gray (2006), p. 707; De Guttry et al. (2009) (cf. especially the contributions of Ponti, p. 269, and Sommario).

  26. 26.

    Respectively CTS 187:410 and CTS 205:533.

  27. 27.

    (1958) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, pp. 83ff.

  28. 28.

    Effective since 20 October 1992 (hereinafter, the Inter-State Optional Rules). As the introduction to this text recalls, the Inter-State Optional Rules are based on the UNCITRAL Rules 1976, while taking into account the public international law character of inter-State disputes and diplomatic practice relating to such disputes. The same applies to the PCA Optional Rules for Arbitration Involving International Organisations and States, effective since July 1, 1996 (hereinafter, IOS Optional Rules). This is why no specific reference is made here to the UNCITRAL Rules. The texts of the PCA Rules are available on the Permanent Court’s website, www.pca-cpa.org, last visited 20 December 2013.

  29. 29.

    These Rules, effective since 17 December 2012, are for use in arbitrating disputes involving at least one State, State-controlled entity, or intergovernmental organisation. They do not replace previously adopted PCA Rules, which remain a valid and available alternative; they do, however, constitute a consolidation of previously existing sets of rules ‘in light of the 2010 revisions to the UNCITRAL Rules and the PCA’s experience with its existing procedural rules and the UNCITRAL Rules 1976’ (see PCA, Annual Report 2012, p. 19).

  30. 30.

    This is the stance taken by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic, decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction of 2 October 1995, ICTY Judicial Reports 1995–1995, p. 353 at 389, paras 34ff. For a critical view see Arangio-Ruiz (1996). Cf. however Dupuy (2002), pp. 330ff.

  31. 31.

    See only Arangio-Ruiz (1996), pp. 34ff. De Wet (2004), pp. 362ff.; Krisch (2012), p. 1323.

  32. 32.

    On 26 May 1998 and on 1 September 2012, respectively.

  33. 33.

    See Dubisson (1964), p. 13.

  34. 34.

    On the Summit’s Decision of 17 August 2012 see http://www.sadc.int/about-sadc/sadc-institutions/tribun/, accessed 10 October 2013. See further Cowell (2013), p. 153.

  35. 35.

    This provision states: ‘The Court of Justice shall have jurisdiction in any dispute between Member States which relates to the subject matter of the Treaties if the dispute is submitted to it under a special agreement between the parties’.

  36. 36.

    See Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol establishing the African Court, OAU Doc. OAU/LEG/EXP/AFCHPR/PROT (III).

  37. 37.

    At the moment when this book goes in press, no case on the docket was initiated by special agreement. See, by contrast, Higgins (1991), pp. 244ff.

  38. 38.

    The withdrawal was decided after the ICJ judgments in LaGrand (Germany v. United States) and Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States). See Quigley (2009).

  39. 39.

    See www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-42.html#Colombia, visited on 10 October 2013. The denunciation followed the ICJ judgment of 19 November 2012 in the case of the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), ICJ Reports 2012, p. 624. The day before the denunciation became effective, on 26 November 2013, Nicaragua submitted a new case to the ICJ challenging the refusal by Colombia to execute the judgment (see Press Release No. 2013/36 of 27 November 2013).

  40. 40.

    ICJ Yearbook, 1994–1995, p. 89. This limitation was critical in excluding the Court’s jurisdiction over the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) case: see the judgment of 4 December 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432.

  41. 41.

    ICJ Yearbook, 2001–2002, p. 125. The new clause is subject to further limitations; for instance, it does not apply ‘where the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other party to the dispute was deposited less than 12 months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court’. It was specifically intended to avoid the possibility of an unilateral application by Timor-Leste seeking the delimitation of the maritime areas between the two countries: see Triggs and Bialek (2002).

  42. 42.

    Giegerich (2012), p. 154.

  43. 43.

    Judgment on Preliminary Objection, ICJ Reports 1948, p. 26. See the joint separate opinion of Judges Basdevant, Alvarez, Winiarski, Zoričič, De Visscher, Badawi Pacha and Krylov, ibid., pp. 31–32, and the dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Daxner, ibid., pp. 33ff.

  44. 44.

    Kolb (2013), p. 393.

  45. 45.

    Kolb (2013), p. 373.

  46. 46.

    See the critical remarks of Judge Simma in Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), judgment of 5 December 2011, separate opinion, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 695 at 697, para. 6. Cf. also Abi-Saab (1996), pp. 11ff.

  47. 47.

    LaGrand (Germany v. United States), judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466 at 516. See Oellers-Frahm (2012), pp. 390, 407–408. Cf. Le Floch (2008), pp. 431ff., generally on the attitude of international judicial bodies.

  48. 48.

    Cf. for instance Interpretation of Peace Treaties, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 65 at 71; Certain Expenses of the United Nations, advisory opinion of 20 July 1962, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 151 at 155; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, in ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226 at 235, para. 14; Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, advisory opinion of 22 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 403 at 416, para. 29, and p. 417, para. 33. See however Nottebohm (Lichtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objection, judgment of 18 November 1953, ICJ Reports 1953, p. 111 at 119.

  49. 49.

    Northern Cameroons, ICJ Reports 1963, p. 29.

  50. 50.

    Northern Cameroons, ICJ Reports 1963, p. 38; Nuclear Tests (Jurisdiction) (Australia v. France) and (New Zealand v. France) judgments of 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, respectively p. 253 at 271, para. 56, and p. 457 at 476, para. 58. When not otherwise specified, reference will be made hereinafter to the case concerning Australia.

  51. 51.

    Kosovo advisory opinion, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 416, para. 29. See already the advisory opinions on Status of Eastern Carelia, 23 July 1923, PCIJ, Series B, No. 5, p. 29; Application for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, 12 July 1973, ICJ Reports 1973, p. 175, para. 24; Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, 20 July 1982, ICJ Reports 1982, p. 325 at 334, para. 22; and Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004 (I), pp. 156–157, paras. 44–45.

  52. 52.

    See PCIJ, Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, order of 6 December 1930, Series A, No. 24, at 14: ‘there seems nothing to prevent the Court from embodying in its judgment an agreement previously concluded between the Parties; (…) a “judgment by consent”, though not expressly provided for by the Statute, is in accordance with the spirit of that instrument’. The same principle is reflected in Article 88(2) of the Rules of Court. See on the issue Giardina (1975) and Salerno (2013), p. 525ff.

  53. 53.

    See Article 23 of the ILC Model rules on arbitral procedure, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, II (1958), 854; Article 34 of the PCA Inter-State Optional Rules and the corresponding provision of the IOS Optional Rules; Article 36 of the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012. Cf. also, recently, the award on agreed terms issued on 1 September 2005 in the dispute concerning the Land Reclamation by Singapore in and around the Straits of Johor (Singapore v. Malaysia), RIAA 27, pp. 133–145.

  54. 54.

    Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger), judgment of 16 April 2013, para. 53.

  55. 55.

    See above, Sect. 1.1.

  56. 56.

    See below, especially Part I.

  57. 57.

    See only, with reference to the binding character of provisional measures, Brown (2007), pp. 146–147.

  58. 58.

    See the speech of Descamps at the fourth meeting of the Third Commission, 7th July 1899, in Conférence internationale de la paix, La Haye 18 mai–29 July 1899 (Nijhoff, La Haye, 1907), pp. 10–11. Cf. further above, Sect. 1.1.

  59. 59.

    Mauritius v. United Kingdom, reasoned decision on challenge of 30 November 2011, (2012) ILM 51, pp. 350ff, para. 168. Admittedly, this stance may be influenced by the fact that UNCLOS sets forth a ‘comprehensive dispute settlement framework’ (ibid.), of which Arbitration under Annex VII is only one element.

  60. 60.

    Mox Plant (Ireland v. United Kingdom), Order No. 3, 24 June 2003, www.pca-cpa.org accessed 20 October 2013.

  61. 61.

    Trail Smelter (United States of America/Canada), final award of 11 March 1941, RIAA 3, p. 1938 at 1954.

  62. 62.

    Brown (2007), pp. 4–5.

  63. 63.

    See Jennings (2002), p. 894.

  64. 64.

    See the PCA press release of 13 April 2012, available online at www.pca-cpa.org. Another singular example is the case concerning the Arbitration for the Brčko Area (The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina v. The Republika Srpska), that concerned non-State entities but was established under the Dayton Agreements: see the awards of 15 February 1997, (1997) ILM 36, p. 428; 15 March 1998, available at www.ohr.int, last accessed 15 Nov 2013; 5 March 1999, (1999) ILM 38, p. 536.

  65. 65.

    Nottebohm, Preliminary Objection, ICJ Reports 1953, p. 119.

  66. 66.

    See Chinkin (1997), p. 46; Brower (2012), p. 532; Kolb (2012), p. 876; and, in a slightly different perspective, Wittich (2008).

  67. 67.

    See for instance ECtHR, Karner v. Austria, No. 40016/98, judgment of 24 July 2003, para. 26; Rantsev v. Cyprus and Russia [GC], No. 25965/04, judgment of 7 January 2010, para. 197.

  68. 68.

    Kolb (2013), pp. 45ff.

  69. 69.

    See again Kolb (2013), pp. 80ff., noting that the Statute is, in this specific sense, peremptory—but making clear that the notion is not used in the same sense as in Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. See further below, Chap. 2 and Sect. 10.4.

  70. 70.

    See below, Sect. 10.4.

  71. 71.

    Salvioli (1928), p. 13: ‘A mio avviso questo è il punctum pruriens del noto problema sulla natura giuridica della Corte: organo arbitrale o giurisdizionale?’ (translation by the author).

  72. 72.

    Salvioli envisaged this possibility in an earlier essay: Salvioli (1923b), p. 490.

  73. 73.

    Cf. Kawano (2009a), pp. 286ff.

  74. 74.

    See below, especially Sect. 10.2.

  75. 75.

    Condorelli (1987), p. 308, note 50; see also ibid., p. 307. Cf. Schachter (1983), p. 814.

  76. 76.

    Gaja (1995), p. 236; Shahabuddeen (1996) p. 107; and more recently the contributions included in Bannelier et al. (2012) (specifically on the impact of the Corfu Channel Case); Tams and Sloan (2013).

  77. 77.

    See the speech of Louis Bourgeois quoted above, note 1, p. 8. Cf. further Kolb (2013), p. 1139.

  78. 78.

    Cf. Gaeta (2003); Brown (2007), p. 55 ff.

  79. 79.

    Bedjaoui (1997), p. xxii. See also Kolb (2013), p. 61.

  80. 80.

    The reference is to the restrictive interpretation of Article 35(2) of the ICJ Statute adopted in the Legality of Use of Force cases: see Serbia v. Belgium, judgment of 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 279 at 324, para. 113.

  81. 81.

    See especially below, Chap. 7 and Sect. 11.4.

  82. 82.

    See below, Chap. 13.

  83. 83.

    See again Scelle, ‘Rapport’, (1950) ILC Yearbook, II, p. 138; the English version of the relevant excerpt is reproduced in Rosenne (1993), p. 9. Contra, Santulli (2005), p. 301.

  84. 84.

    Cf. Article 15 of the 1899 Hague Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

References

  • Abi-Saab G (1987) Cours général de droit international public. Collected Courses 207:9–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Abi-Saab G (1996) The International Court as a world court. In: Lowe V, Fitzmaurice M (eds) Fifty years of the International Court of Justice, essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 3–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Abi-Saab G (1999) On discretion – reflections on the nature of the consultative function of the International Court of Justice. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International law, the International Court of Justice and nuclear weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 36–50

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1958) Arbitrato. In: Enciclopedia del diritto, vol II. Giuffré, Milano, pp 975–994

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1962) Corte internazionale di giustizia. In: Enciclopedia del diritto, vol X. Giuffré, Milano, pp 1037–1048

    Google Scholar 

  • Arangio-Ruiz G (1996) The establishment of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former territory of Yugoslavia and the doctrine of implied powers of the United Nations. In: Lattanzi F, Sciso E (eds) Dai tribunali internazionali penali ad hoc ad una Corte permanente. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 31–47

    Google Scholar 

  • Ascensio H (2003) La notion de juridiction internationale en question. In: La juridictionnalisation du droit international. Pedone, Paris, pp 163–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannelier K, Kristakis T, Heathcote S (eds) (2012) The ICJ and the evolution of international law. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Bedjaoui M (1997) Preface. In: Muller AS, Raič D, Thuránszky JM (eds) The International Court of Justice – its future role after fifty years. Nijhoff, The Hague, pp xxi–xxiii

    Google Scholar 

  • Brower CH (2012) Arbitration. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck encyclopedia of public international law, vol I. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 531–549

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown C (2007) A common law of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Carlston KS (1946) The process of international arbitration. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Caron D (1990) The nature of the Iran–United States claims tribunal and the evolving structure of international dispute resolution. Am J Int Law 84:104–156

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2012) The International Court of Justice: it is high time to restyle the respected old lady. In: Cassese A (ed) Realizing Utopia – the future of international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 239–249

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Cavaré L (1956) La notion de juridiction internationale. Ann fr dr int 2:496–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin C (1997) Increasing the use and appeal of the Court. In: Peck C, Lee RS (eds) Increasing the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. Nijhoff/UNITAR, The Hague, pp 43–56

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli L (1987) L’autorité de la décision des juridictions internationales. In: Société française de droit international, La juridiction internationale permanente. Pedone, Paris, pp 277–313

    Google Scholar 

  • Cot J-P (2012) Article 68. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1669–1684

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowell F (2013) Death of the Southern African Development Community Tribunal’s human rights jurisdiction. Hum Rights Law Rev 13:153–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Guttry A, Post HHG, Venturini G (eds) (2009) The 1998–2000 war between Eritrea and Ethiopia: an international legal perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • De Wet E (2004) The Chapter VII powers of the United Nations Security Council. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubisson M (1964) La Cour internationale de Justice. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuy P-M (2002) L’unité de l’ordre juridique international. Collected Courses 297:9–490

    Google Scholar 

  • Fachiri AP (1932) The Permanent Court of International Justice – its constitution, procedure and work, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (2003) Inherent powers of international courts and tribunals. In: Vorhah LC et al (eds) Man’s inhumanity to man. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 353–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (1995) Sul ruolo della Corte internazionale di giustizia nell’accertamento del diritto internazionale generale. In: Salerno F (ed) Il ruolo del giudice internazionale nell’evoluzione del diritto internazionale e comunitario. CEDAM, Padova, pp 233–238

    Google Scholar 

  • Giardina A (1975) Arrangements amiables ed estinzione del processo di fronte alla Corte internazionale di giustizia. Comunicazioni e Studi 14:337–364

    Google Scholar 

  • Giegerich T (2012) Article 36 UN Charter. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 134–162

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlland-Debbas V (2012) Article 7 UN Charter. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 90–118

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2006) The Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission oversteps its boundaries: a partial award? Eur J Int Law 17:699–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross L (1967) The International Court of Justice and the United Nations. Collected Courses 120:313–440

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (1991) International law and the avoidance, containment and resolution of disputes. General course on public international law. Collected Courses 230:9–342

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson MO (1943) The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942. Macmillan, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Jenks CW (1964) The prospects of international adjudication. Stevens, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R (2002) The differences between conducting a case in the ICJ and in an ad hoc arbitration tribunal – an inside view. In: Ando N, McWhinney E, Wolfrum R (eds) Liber amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 893–909

    Google Scholar 

  • Jennings R, Higgins R (2012) General introduction. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 3–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Kawano M (2009a) The administration of justice by the International Court of Justice and the parties. In: Yee S, Morin J-Y (eds) Multiculturalism and international law. Brill, The Hague, pp 285–300

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2012) General principles of procedural law. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – A commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 871–908

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2013) The International Court of Justice. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Krisch N (2012) Article 41. In: Simma B, Khan DE, Nolte G, Paulus A (eds) The Charter of the United Nations, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1304–1329

    Google Scholar 

  • Le Floch G (2008) L’urgence devant les juridictions internationales. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Morelli G (1937) La théorie générale du procès international. Collected Courses 61:253–374

    Google Scholar 

  • Oellers-Frahm K (2012) Expanding the competence to issue provisional measures – strengthening the international judicial function. In: von Bodgandy A, Venzke I (eds) International judicial lawmaking. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 389–409

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Quigley J (2009) The United States’ withdrawal from International Court of Justice jurisdiction in consular cases: reasons and consequences. Duke J Int Comp Law 19:263–305

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (1993) Intervention in the International Court of Justice. Nijhoff, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2006) The law and practice of the International Court of Justice 1920–2005. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno F (2013) Diritto internazionale – principi e norme, 3rd edn. CEDAM, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvioli G (1923b) La Corte permanente di giustizia internazionale. Riv dir int 2(third series):450–509

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvioli G (1928) La Corte permanente di giustizia internazionale. Anonima Editoriale Romana, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Santulli C (2000) Qu’est-ce qu’une juridiction internationale? Des organes répressifs internationaux à l’O.R.D. Ann fr dr int 46:58–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Santulli C (2005) Droit du contentieux international. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Schachter O (1983) Creativity and objectivity of international tribunals. In: Bernhardt R, Geck WK, Jaenicke G, Steinberger H (eds) Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung – Internationale Gerichtsbarkeit – Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler. Springer, Berlin, pp 813–821

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shahabuddeen M (1996) Precedent in the World Court. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Starace V (1970) La competenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia in materia contenziosa. Jovene, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams CJ, Sloan J (eds) (2013) The development of international law by the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Triggs G, Bialek D (2002) Australia withdraws maritime disputes from the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the international tribunal for the law of the sea. Int J Mar Coast Law 17:423–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittich S (2008) The judicial functions of the International Court of Justice. In: Buffard I, Crawford J, Pellet A, Wittich S (eds) International law between universalism and fragmentation: Festschrift in honour of Gerhard Hafner. Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 981–1000

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Serena Forlati

Authors
  1. Serena Forlati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forlati, S. (2014). Introduction. In: The International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06179-5_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation