Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The International Court of Justice and the non-appearing respondent

  • Chapter
The International Court of Justice and some contemporary problems

Abstract

Probably the most worrying fact today about the International Court of Justice has been its comparative non-use to the extent expected of it under the Charter of the United Nations. The reasons for the incidence of fewer and fewer cases being brought before the Court in recent years has engaged the attention of the General Assembly itself within the last two decades. If it is considered that the South West Africa cases (1962–1966)1 have induced in the Member States, particularly the new two-thirds of the Members that have come into the international community since 1945, a feeling of understandable reluctance in coming before the Court, the fact remains that the situation has not shown any improvement despite the somewhat more encouraging judgment in the Namibia case, 1971.2

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 319; Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  3. In the Report of the 1920 Committee of Jurists it is stated that in formulating this Article the Commission “drew its inspiration from the example set by English national legal practice, and the legal practice of the American Supreme Court in inter-State litigation” (Minutes of the 1920 Committee of Jursits, p. 740). See M.O. Hudson, Permanent Court of International Justice: A Treatise, New York, 1943, pp. 203–204.

    Google Scholar 

  4. The Court must… always be satisfied that it has jurisdiction, and must if necessary go into that matter proprio motu“ — Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the I. CA. O. Council, I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 52.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Series A/B, No. 77, pp. 102–103.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Judgment No. 14, 1929. P.C.1.J. Series A, No. 20 (111).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Series A, No. 20, p. 16. In the Wimbledon case (P.C.I.J. 4923, Series A, No. 1, p. 20) no objection was made but the respondent left certain questions of jurisdiction to the appreciation of the Court.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Order of 2 December 1933, P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 59, p. 194; Series A/B, No. 52, pp. 15–16.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Series C, No. 68, pp. 262–292.

    Google Scholar 

  10. P.CLJ. 1926, Series D, No. 2 (add.), pp. 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 244, at p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.CLJ. 1933, Order of 29 July 1933, Series AIB, No. 58, p. 175; Order of 2 December 1933, Series A/B, No. 60, p. 201.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 93.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 111; 2nd Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 3; Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Judgment, LCJ. Reports 1978, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1979, p. 7.

    Google Scholar 

  20. In certain cases, the applicant State has asked the Court for discontinuance of the proceedings for one reason or another. If there are no compelling reasons why this should not be granted, the Court has always allowed such express discontinuance to take place at the appropriate stage of the proceedings, and in circumstances that would be fair to both parties to the case. This has happened in Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 between China and Belgium (Order of 25 May 1929, P.C.I.J. 1929, Series A, No. 18), Polish Agrarian Reform and German Minority (Footnote No. 3, p. 6), Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Judgment, 1939, P.CLJ. Series A/B, No. 77, p. 64), and Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Interim Protection Order of 13 July 1973, ICJ. Reports 1973, p. 328; Order of 15 December 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 347 ).

    Google Scholar 

  21. See also Electricity Company of Sofia case (Rosenne: The Law and Practice of the International Court, Leiden, 1965, p. 590 ).

    Google Scholar 

  22. See Rosenne, ibid, p. 684.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Order of 12 July 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 103.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Order of 14 March 1956, I.C.J. Reports 1956, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Order of 16 March 1956, I.C. J. Reports 1956, pp. 12 and 15.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Order of 14 March 1956, I.C.J. Reports 1956, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Order of 7 October 1959, I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 276, Order of 9 December 1959, I.C.J. Reports 1958, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Order of 13 July 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Order of 29 July 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Order of 14 March 1956, LGJ. Reports 1956, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Order of 14 March 1956, I.C.J. Reports 1956, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Order of 29 July 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p. 107.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Order of 30 May 1960, I.C.J. Reports 1960, p. 146.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Order of 7 October 1959, I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 276.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Order of 9 December 1959, I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Order of 13 July 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 347.

    Google Scholar 

  37. The ghost of the Status of Eastern Carelia (Advisory Opinion 1923, P.C.I.J. Series B, No. 5) would seem to be still haunting us in this matter of jurisdiction, and this must be so as long as the Consent of States remains the cornerstone of inter-State relations.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Judgment No. 10, 1927, P. C.I.J. Series A, No. 11; Judgment No. 5, 1925, P. C I. J. Series A, No. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Judgment No. 12, 1928, P.C.1.J. Series A, No. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  40. CJ. Reports 1949, p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid., p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid., p. 248.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  44. I.CJ. Reports 1973, at p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  45. I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 3, at p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Merits, Judgment, LC.J. Reports 1974, p. 3, at p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Merits, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 9.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Idem, p. 9 (para. 17).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Idem, p. 10.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid, p. 259.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid, p. 260.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid., p. 261.

    Google Scholar 

  55. I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 262.

    Google Scholar 

  56. I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 263.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Ibid, p. 271.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid, at pp. 271–272.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Judgment, LC.J: Reports 1978, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  61. I.GJ. Reports 1978,p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ibid., p. 13.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid., p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  64. I.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 25.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Mavromatis Palestine Concessions, P. C.I.J. Series A, No. 2, p. 34.

    Google Scholar 

  66. I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 18.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Ibid., p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1979, p. 7; Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1980, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Provisional Measures, I.C.S. Reports 1979, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Taslim O. Elias
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Elias, T.O. (1983). The International Court of Justice and the non-appearing respondent. In: The International Court of Justice and some contemporary problems. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4865-0_3

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-4865-0_3

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-247-3044-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-4865-0

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation