Conclusions to Part I

Abstract

The analysis of the interplay between the parties and the Court in ICJ contentious proceedings shows that many features of these proceedings closely reflect established arbitral practice. This is apparent especially, albeit not exclusively, in the management of strictly procedural aspects of contentious cases. Other elements distinguish the Court from its arbitral counterparts: notably the latitude of its power to adopt rules for the exercise of its functions is broader; judges ad hoc perform a role that is in some respects different from the one of party-appointed arbitrators; the Court at times uses greater flexibility than arbitral tribunals in managing cases and in applying Rules of procedure, to foster the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the sound administration of justice; specifically, its competence to adopt provisional measures is often exercised by bearing mind its role as UN principal organ.