Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T00:42:57.066Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice٭

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga
Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga*
Affiliation:
International Court of Justice
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

When the Court began the revision of its rules of procedure in 1967, the approach then followed was to attempt a systematic revision of the Rules in their entirety and as an integrated whole. However, in 1972, the Cour suspended the full-scale and complete revision it had initiated and decided instead simply to amend certain articles of the existing Rules of Court.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 67 , Issue 1 , January 1973 , pp. 1 - 22
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

٭

The text of the new rules can be found in the Official Documents section of this issue of the Jootnal. Also in 11 ILM 899 (1972).

References

1 A/Res/2723 (XXV), Dec. 15, 1970.

2 To Form a More Perfect United Nations, 129 Recueh. des Cours 21 (1970).

3 Cf. suggestion by Sweden in UN Doc. A/8382, para 137; and observations by United Kingdom, ibid., Add. 1, para 9.

4 Jessup, supra note 2. Cf. also James N. Hyde, A Special Chamber of the International Court of Justice 62 AJIL 439 (1968).

5 Cf. observations by United Kingdom, UN Doc. A/8382/Add. 1.

6 The Permanent Court interpreted the Rules as entitling any party to have a Reply or a Rejoinder, except when there was “an agreement between the parties to waive the right to present a Reply.” Lighthouse Case between France and Greece, Order of July 28, 1933. PCIJ, ser. C, No. 74 at 435 (emphasis added).

As to the present Court, cf. Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan), [1972] ICJ 3, where a Reply and Rejoinder were allowed, despite the disagreement of the parties and the special nature of the case, merely because one of the parties “indicated that it wishes to submit a Reply.”

7 Cf. [1970] Proc., ASEL 258, 84 AJIL, No. 4. (1970). Cf. observations of the United States, UN Doc. A/8382, para. 338.

8 See, for instance, observations by Canada, id. para. 344 and by New Zealand ibid., Add. 4, Part IV.

9 Cf. observations by United States, UN Doc. A/8382, para. 339 and United Kingdom ibid., Add. 1, para. 22.

10 Cf. observations by Switzerland, UN Doc. A/8382, para 341.

11 Ambatielos case (Jurisdiction), [1952] ICJ 45.

12 Cf. observations by Switzerland and Sweden, UN Doc. A/8382, paras. 342 and 349 respectively.

13 Owada in [1971] Proc. ASIL 274, 65 AJIL, No. 4 (1971).

14 13 UNCIO 217.

15 S/Res 248 (1970), [1971] ICJ 17.

16 [1922] PCIJ, ser. B, No. 1.

17 [1956] ICJ 77 at 86.

18 [1936] PCIJ, ser. D, No. 2, Add. 3 at 415.

19 Id. 700.

20 Gross, Leo, The International Court of Justice: Consideration of Requirements for Enhancing its Role in the International Legal Order , 65 AJIL 278 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. observations by Switzerland, UN Doc. A/8382, para. 180.

21 Observations by Canada id., para. 334; United Kingdom, ibid., Add. 1, para. 22; and New Zealand, ibid., Add. 4.

22 Observations by United States, Switzerland, and Sweden, UN Doc. A/8382, paras. 322, 326–27, and 333, respectively.

23 [1957] ICJ 125.

24 [1959] ICJ 24.

25 Abi-Saab, Georges, Les Exceptions Preéltminaires dans la Procédure de la Cour Internationale 198 (1967)Google Scholar.

26 Cf. observations of United States, UN Doc. A/8382, para. 322, and United Kingdom ibid., Add. 1, para. 22.

27 As the Permanent Court observed in the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case:

. . . though it is true that an objection disputing the national character of a claim is in principle of a preliminary character, this is not so in the actual case before the Court For these reasons the Court cannot regard the first Lithuanian objection as one which in the particular circumstances or the case can be decided without passing on the merits. The Court cannot therefore admit the objection as a preliminary objection within the meaning of Article 62 of the Rules of Court. [1939] PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 76 at 17–18.

28 Eur. Court H.R., 1 Linguistic Case, Pleadings 492, 510 (1966).

29 ICJ Pleadings 235 (1952).

30 [1938] PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 74 at 16.

31 [1955] ICJ 4.

32 [1952] ICJ 93.

33 [1954] ICJ 29.

34 [1937] PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 72.

35 Case concerning the administration of the Prince von Pless, [1933] PCIJ, ser. A/B, No. 52 at 14; the Pajzs, Csáky, Esterházy Case, [1936] ibid., No. 66 at 9; The Losinger & Co. Case, ibid., No. 67 at 23; the Paneveczys-Saldutiskis Railway Case [1938] ibid., No. 75 at 5.

36 [1957] ICJ 9.