Chapter 7 addresses the manner in which the International Court of Justice interprets and applies compensation as a remedy of international law. The definition, function and categories of compensation are issues that this chapter addresses, along with its relationship to other remedies of international law, in particular to restitution in kind. Further, the requests that states submit before the Court demonstrate that two main types of requests regarding compensation are usually included in pleadings: requests for determined compensation and requests for undetermined compensation. The mechanisms used by the Court to address compensation for material and/or moral damages and for damages caused directly to states and/or damages caused to individuals are relevant for clarifying this remedy of international law. Through cases such as the Corfu Channel Case, the Diallo Case and the Chorzow Factory Case, the Court has shaped the manner in which compensation is assessed for disputes relating to damages caused to the environment or to addressing moral damages caused to individuals through equitable considerations.

Chapter 2 addresses the competence of the International Court of Justice to grant the remedies of international law through its orders containing provisional measures. This issue is assessed, first, through the determination of the binding character of said orders, in accordance with the jurisprudence of the Court. Second, the jurisprudence of the Court related to the substance of its provisional measures is addressed, in order to determine if the judicial body has the competence to give remedies of international law, which would contribute to the preservation of the rights of states, pending the issuance of its judgments on merits. This chapter shows that the Court has jurisdiction to grant remedies of international law through its orders for provisional measures. However, presently, only a handful of remedies have the potential to preserve the rights of states, in accordance with the case-law of the Court. As such, it is for its future judgments to establish a framework of remedies, capable of being included within its orders for provisional measures.

Chapter 3 addresses the main controversies related to the interpretation and application of declaratory judgments as a remedy of international law before the International Court of Justice. The definition of the declaratory judgment and its availability, as a veritable remedy of international law, are preliminary issues clarified through this chapter. The categorisation of this remedy into declarations of rights, declarations of applicable law and declarations of responsibility and the effects of its interaction with other remedies of international law, such as satisfaction or specific performance, are relevant for addressing its application. The subject matters of disputes influence the reasons for which states request, and the Court grants, declaratory judgments. As such, certain arguments exist for the disputes regarding sovereignty rights or territorial delimitation, and different arguments exist for other disputes. Further, the manner in which states seize the International Court of Justice is also relevant for determining the applicability of declaratory judgments before the judicial body.

Chapter 4 addresses the justifications for which specific performance is a remedy of international law before the Court. It focuses on the controversial issues regarding this remedy, which range from determining the power of the Court to order it, to analysing the effects of its relationship with other remedies, such as restitution in kind or declaratory judgments. The differences of opinion expressed by commentators regarding its availability before the International Court of Justice originate from a series of misunderstandings that gravitate around the effects of qualifying this remedy as a form of injunctive relief. A consequence of this conceptual confusion influences the relationship and interaction between specific performance, declaratory judgments, cessation and restitution in kind and the main features of this remedy. Further, the interpretation and application of specific performance is also influenced by differences in terminology between scholars and practitioners originating from different legal systems.

The Chagos Archipelago of fifty-four islands, formerly administered from Port Louis as a dependency of the British Colony of Mauritius, was excised from that territory by the UK in 1965, three years before Mauritius was granted independence. It was renamed the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) and its inhabitants (about 1,500) were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles between 1968 and 19731 to make way for a US military base on the largest island, Diego Garcia. Depopulation enabled the British government to avoid having to administer the islands and to report annually to the UN via the Decolonisation Committee of Twenty Four on its latest colony.