Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Procedure

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice

  • 649 Accesses

Abstract

The procedural steps that a respondent is required to take in order to present a counterclaim are provided in Article 80, paragraphs 2 and 3, of the Rules of the International Court of Justice. Moreover, other aspects of procedure are regulated by applying other provisions of the Rules of the Court by analogy. In this chapter the present author shall deal with certain procedural aspects of counterclaims that have arisen in the practice of the Court: (1) the presentation of counterclaims in the Counter-Memorial of the respondent State; (2) the question of the equality of the parties in the course of the counterclaims procedure; (3) the issue of holding or not oral hearings in case of objections to the admissibility of counterclaims; (4) the possible delay in the main proceedings because of the presentation of counterclaims; (5) the notification of counterclaims to third States; and (6) the withdrawal of counterclaims.

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 Ser. D Third Addendum to No 2 (1936), 440.

  2. 2.

    Id., 441.

  3. 3.

    Ibid.

  4. 4.

    See Anzilotti 1930, 875.

  5. 5.

    Rosenne 2000, 458.

  6. 6.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) (Counter-Claim), Order of 6 July 2010, ICJ General List No 143 www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16027.pdf, 6, para 13.

  7. 7.

    Asylum Case (Colombia-Peru), ICJ Rep. 1950, 266, at 280.

  8. 8.

    Id., 280 et seq.

  9. 9.

    Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France), Pleadings, CR 2008/7 (translation), Public Sitting of 28 January 2008, 43–44, paras 26, 28.

  10. 10.

    ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 197 para 15.

  11. 11.

    Namely, the Bosnian Genocide Case, the Oil Platforms Case and the Cameroon v. Nigeria Case.

  12. 12.

    Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia) (Counter-Claims) Order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, 258 para 32; Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v. USA) (Counter-Claim), Order of 10 March 1998, ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, 203 para 32; Case Concerning the Land and maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Order of 30 June 1999, ICJ Rep. 1999, 983, 985; Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) (Counter-Claim), Order of 6 July 2010, ICJ General List No 143 www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16027.pdf, 6, para 13.

  13. 13.

    Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (D. R. Congo v. Uganda), Order of 29 November 2001, ICJ Rep. 2001, 660, 665 paras 5–7. It appears that the principal reason for this objection was that the counterclaims of Uganda were not analytically included in the submissions but in Section C, Chapter XVIII of the main text of its Counter-Memorial.

  14. 14.

    Id. para 7.

  15. 15.

    Id., 677 para 33.

  16. 16.

    Case Concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa-Rica v. Nicaragua), Reply of Costa-Rica, vol. 1, 15 January 2008, 7, para 1.16, notes 35, 36.

  17. 17.

    Id. para 1.17.

  18. 18.

    Id. 7 (n. 37): “Quite apart from the requirement of timeliness, Article 80 requires a counter-claim to be “directly connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party”: see Article 80 (1). Nicaragua’s “reservations” even if they had been timely presented as counter-claims would not have satisfied this requirement”.

  19. 19.

    Case Concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa-Rica v. Nicaragua), CR 2009/3, Public Sitting held on 3 March 2009, 69 para 26.

  20. 20.

    Case Concerning the Dispute Regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa-Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 13 July 2009, para 153.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    Id. para 155. Also see Reply of Costa-Rica, vol. 1, 15 January 2008, 203–206, paras 5.26–5.31.

  23. 23.

    Id. para 155.

  24. 24.

    Ibid.

  25. 25.

    Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Order of 16 June 1994, ICJ Rep. 1994, 105.

  26. 26.

    ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 202 para 28.

  27. 27.

    Cf. id., 215, para 8 (Judge Oda dissenting opinion). Judge Oda expressed the view that the principle of the equality of the parties might not be observed even in the case where the respondent’s counterclaim “is broadened beyond the original contention in the claim of the applicant State. While an applicant State is not itself allowed to bring additional claims, why then may a respondent State be permitted to bring a new claim if this counter-claim is not directly connected with the subject-matter of the Applicant’s claim?”

  28. 28.

    Kolb 2006, 799.

  29. 29.

    PCIJ Ser. D Third Addendum to No 2 (1936), 107.

  30. 30.

    Emphasis added. The relevant paragraph 2 of Article 80 prior to the amendment read: “2. A counter-claim shall be made in the Counter-Memorial of the party presenting it, and shall appear as part of the submissions of that party.”

  31. 31.

    ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, at 253 para 15.

  32. 32.

    Id., 260 para 42.

  33. 33.

    Id., 296.

  34. 34.

    ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 199 para 20.

  35. 35.

    Id., 206. Also see p. 216 (Judge Oda dissenting opinion); p.223 (Judge Higgins sep. opinion).

  36. 36.

    ICJ Rep. 1999, 983, 986.

  37. 37.

    ICJ Rep. 2001, 660, at 681–682, para 50.

  38. 38.

    ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 199 para 19 [Emphasis in the original].

  39. 39.

    Id., 222.

  40. 40.

    See Bosnian Genocide Case, ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, at 256 para 25; Also see Oil Platforms Case, ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 203 para 31; Congo v. Uganda Case, ICJ Rep. 2001, 660, at 676 para 26. In Cameroon v. Nigeria Case there was no need to hold hearings because the original Applicant, Cameroon, raised no objections to Nigeria’s counterclaims with regard to either the jurisdiction of the Court or their direct connection with the subject-matter of the original applications.

  41. 41.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) (Counter-Claim), Order of 6 July 2010, ICJ General List No 143 www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16027.pdf, 4, para 7.

  42. 42.

    ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, at 267. Also see 276 (Judge Koroma sep. opinion).

  43. 43.

    Id., 279–280, paras 6–7.

  44. 44.

    ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 215 para 9.

  45. 45.

    Id. p. 223.

  46. 46.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy) (Counter-Claim), Order of 6 July 2010, ICJ General List No 143 www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/143/16027.pdf, Judge Cançado Trindade (diss. op.), para 30.

  47. 47.

    Id. Judge ad hoc Gaja (declaration).

  48. 48.

    Cf. Thirlway 1999, 227 who maintains (with respect to the 1978 version of Article 80) that the formulation of the Rules expressly provides that the Parties must be heard and that “it is not for the Court to determine whether it is sufficiently well-informed” but “it is for each Party to determine whether it is satisfied that it has been given sufficient opportunity of enlightening the Court.”

  49. 49.

    See Rosenne 2001, 86; Salerno 1999, 371–374; Murphy 2000, 19.

  50. 50.

    S. Rosenne , 469.

  51. 51.

    ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, at 276 (Judge Koroma, separate opinion).

  52. 52.

    Id. 284 para 19 but cf. 285 para 20.

  53. 53.

    Id., 294–295.

  54. 54.

    Id., 295.

  55. 55.

    Id. 259–260 para 40; see also Oil Platforms case, ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 205 para 42; Congo v. Uganda case, ICJ Rep. 2001, 660, at 681 para 48. Cf. Thirlway 1999, 224.

  56. 56.

    PCIJ Ser. D Third Addendum to No 2 (1936), 105.

  57. 57.

    Id., 106.

  58. 58.

    ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, at 253 para 15.

  59. 59.

    ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 199 para 20.

  60. 60.

    ICJ Rep. 1997, 243, at 259 para 39; see also Oil Platforms case, ICJ Rep. 1998, 190, at 205 para 42; Cameroon v. Nigeria case, ICJ Rep. 1999, 983, at 986; Congo v. Uganda case, ICJ Rep. 2001, 660, at 681 para 47.

  61. 61.

    See Thirlway 1999, 227.

  62. 62.

    See supra Chap. 4.

  63. 63.

    ICJ Rep. 2001, 572, at 572–573.

  64. 64.

    PCIJ Ser. D Third Addendum to No 2 (1936), 110–111.

  65. 65.

    Cf. Anzilotti 1930, 876–877; Thirlway 1999, 210.

References

  • Anzilotti D (1930) La Demande Reconventionelle en Procédure Internationale. J du Droit International vol. 57, p 857

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2006) General Principles of Procedural Law. In: Zimmermann A et al (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SD (2000) Amplifying the World Court’s Jurisdiction through Counter-claims and Third-Party Intervention. 33 Geo. Wash. Int’l L. Rev. 5

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2000) Counter-Claims in the International Court of Justice Revisited. In: Armas Barea CA et al (eds) Liber Amicorum ‘In Memoriam’ of Judge José Maria Ruda. Kluwer

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2001) The International Court of Justice: Revision of Articles 79 and 80 of the Rules of Court. 14 LJIL 77

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno F (1999) La Demande Reconventionelle dans la Procédure de la Cour Internationale de Justice. RGDIP 103, p 329

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (1999) Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice: the Genocide Convention and the Oil Platforms Decisions

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Democritus University of Thrace, University Campus, 69100, Komotini, Greece

    Constantine Antonopoulos

Authors
  1. Constantine Antonopoulos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Constantine Antonopoulos .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2011 T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Antonopoulos, C. (2011). Procedure. In: Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-790-6_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation