Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:08:53.871Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ad Hoc Chambers of the International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Stephen M. Schwebel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The International Court of Justice formed its first Chamber for dealing with a particular case in 1982; its second, in 1985; and, in 1987, its third and fourth ad hoc Chambers. This article examines what appears to be an accelerating trend toward recourse to ad hoc Chambers in the light of the provisions of the Statute and Rules of the Court and of its pertinent practice to date. The discussion seeks to elucidate four principal questions:

  1. • What is the subject matter that such a Chamber may properly dispose of?

  2. • Must such a Chamber be representative of the main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world?

  3. • How many judges shall constitute an ad hoc Chamber?

  4. • Shall the parties to the case have a voice in determining the composition of the Chamber as well as in the number of judges constituting it?

Finally, this article appraises the record and potential of recourse to Chambers for dealing with a particular case.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 81 , Issue 4 , October 1987 , pp. 831 - 854
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1987

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

*

This article encompasses an analysis that will be elaborated for later publication in a Festschrift in honor of Shabtai Rosenne. Portions of the article were delivered in April 1987 at the Annual Dinner of the American Society of International Law in Boston. The views expressed are those of the author and do not engage the responsibility of the Court.

References

1 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Arts. 26–28, 1926 PCIJ (ser. D) No. 1.

2 Or, more precisely, two linked cases: Treaty of Neuilly, Article 179, Annex, Paragraph 4 (Interpretation), .1924 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 3 (Judgment of Sept. 12), and Interpretation of Judgment No. 3, 1925 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 4 (Judgment of Mar. 26).

3 Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 26, para. 1, 59 Stat. 1055 (1945), TS No. 993.

4 Initially drafted to read: “The Court may from time to time form one or more chambers for dealing with particular cases or with particular categories of cases.” The United Kingdom proposed replacing the Chamber provisions of the PCIJ Statute with “a general faculty . . . to constitute special chambers in such cases as may seem appropriate.” U.S. Dep’t of State, Pub. No. 2491, The International Court of Justice, Selected Documents Relating to the Drafting of the Statute 63, 78 (1946). For a still earlier draft in the State Department of provisions respecting Chambers, which would have accorded the Court’s President particular powers in their constitution, and which would have permitted appeal of Chamber decisions to the full Court, see U.S. Dep’t of State, Pub. No . 3580, Postwar Foreign Policy Preparation 1939–1945, at 487–88 (1949). See also Russell, R. & Muther, J., A History of the United Nations Charter 381–84, 872–73, 1011–12(1958)Google Scholar.

5 Doc. Jurist 86, G/73, 14 UNCIO Docs. 821, 834 (1945).

6 Id.

7 Docs. Jurist 57, G/45, id. at 189, 199–202; Jurist 64, G/51, id. at 217, 221–23; Jurist 32, G/24, id. at 255, 271–73; Jurist 24, G/18, id. at 274, 278–79; and Jurist 23, G/17, id. at 282, 282–83.

8 Doc. Jurist 32, G/24, supra note 7, at 273. See also Doc. Jurist 57, G/45, supra note 7, at 199–200. However, the use of the word “judges” in Article 26, paragraph 2 imports a Chamber of more than one judge.

9 Doc. Jurist 57, G/45, supra note 7, at 199.

10 At the same time, in interpretation of the same provision, Ambassador Córdova (Mexico) “pointed out that the Court was to be given the power to fix the number to sit in the Chambers and the parties given the opportunity to approve this arrangement.” Id. See also, to the same effect, Mr. Fitzmaurice (United Kingdom), id. at 202.

11 Permanent Court of International Justice, Advisory Committee of Jurists, Procès-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, June 16th-July 24th, 1920, with Annexes, at 184, 524 (1920). See also id. at 111, 171, 173, 175–81, 183–84, 186, 516–17, and 524–26.

12 Id. at 526.

13 Hyde, , A Special Chamber of the International Court of Justice—An Alternative to ad hoc Arbitration, 62 AJIL 439 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Poulantzas, , The Chambers of the International Court of Justice and the Judicial Settlement of Disputes: The Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area Case, 63 Revue de Droit International 323 (1985)Google Scholar.

14 Hyde, , Part III, Jessup: Memorials and Reminiscences, 80 AJIL 903, 905 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 UN Doc. A/CONF.39/C.1/L.355(1968), United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties, Official Records, Documents of the Conference 190, UN Doc. A/ CONF.39/1 1/Add.2. It should be noted that the Washington Committee of Jurists apparently construed Article 26, paragraph 2 of the Statute to exclude the rendering of an advisory opinion by an ad hoc Chamber, because it can be formed only with the approval of “the parties” (of which there are none in advisory proceedings). See Doc. Jurist 64, G/51, supra note 7, at 223.

16 Rogers, , The Rule of Law and the Settlement of International Disputes, 64 ASIL Proc. 285, 288 (1970)Google Scholar.

17 Jessup, , To Form a More Perfect United Nations, 129 Recueil des Cours 1, 21 (1970 I)Google Scholar. This proposal of Judge Jessup resembles that supported by Professor Golunsky (adviser of the Soviet Union) at the Washington Conference of Jurists. See Doc. Jurist 32, G/24, supra note 7, at 273. Judge Jessup was a vigorous advocate of ad hoc Chambers. See P. C. Jessup, The Price of International Justice 62–66 (1971).

18 The Future of the International Court of Justice (2 vols., Gross, L. ed. 1976)Google Scholar.

19 Review of the Role of the International Court of Justice, Report of the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/8382, at 6 (1971). See also Review of the role of the International Court of Justice, Report of the Sixth Committee, UN Doc. A/8568, at 6 (1971).

20 Report of the Secretary-General, supra note 19, at 46.

21 Id. at 46–47.

22 Id a t 4 7

23 Id.

24 Id. at 50.

25 Id. at 48–49. (It may be presumed that these prescient lines were prepared by a distinguished international lawyer who was to occupy the highest national and international offices.) See also the comments of Canada, id. at 49–50.

26 UN Doc. A/8382/Add.1, at 5 (1971).

27 1970–1971 ICJ Y.B. 114.

28 ICJ Acts & Docs., No. 4, at 151–52 (1978).

29 Hambro, , Will the Revised Rules of Court Lead to Greater Willingness on the Part of Prospective Clients?, in 1 Gross (ed.), supra note 18, at 365, 369Google Scholar.

30 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can. v. U.S.), Constitution of Chamber, 1982 ICJ Rep. 3, 11–13 (Order of Jan. 20) [hereinafter Gulf of Maine Order].

31 Id. Article 13, paragraph 3 of the Court’s Statute, supra note 3, provides: “The Members of the Court shall continue to discharge their duties until their places have been filled. Though replaced, they shall finish any cases which they may have begun.” Article 33 of the Rules of Court generally interprets “begun” to mean that phase of a case in respect of which the Court has convened for oral proceedings. However, Article 17, paragraph 4 of the Rules, relating only to ad hoc Chambers, interprets “begun” to embrace “all phases of the case, whatever the stage it has then reached.” Both interpretations are within the scope of the Statute. The exceptional provision for the immutability of the composition of an ad hoc Chamber gives continuing effect to the wishes of the parties in .its initial composition.

32 Jiménez, de Aréchaga, The Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 67 AJIL 1, 2–3 (1973)Google Scholar.

33 Id. at 4.

34 Hambro, supra note 29, at 365.

55 Id. at 369.

36 Id.

37 Id.

38 Petrén, , Some Thoughts on the Future of the International Court of Justice, 6 Neth. Y.B. Int’l L. 59, 61–62 (1975)Google Scholar. See also Baxter, , Two Cheers for International Adjudication, 65 A.B.A.J. 1185, 1189 (1979)Google Scholar.

39 Petrén, supra note 38, at 63.

40 Hambro, supra note 29, at 369. For a close analysis of the Court’s revision of the Rules of Court in respect of Chambers, see Rosenne, S., Procedure in the International Court: A Commentary on the 1978 Rules of the International Court of Justice 39–47 (1983)Google Scholar. See also Rosenne, , Some Reflections on the 1978 Revised Rules of the International Court of Justice, 19 Colum. J. Transnat’l L. 235, 248–49 (1981)Google Scholar; Guyomar, G., Commentaire du Règlement de la Cour Internationale de Justice 67–71 (1983)Google Scholar; Dupuy, R.J., La Reforme du reglement de la Cour Internationale de Justice, 18 Annuaire Français de Droit International 265, 270–74 (1972)Google Scholar; and Pillepich, , Les Chambres, in Société Française pour le Droit International, La Juridiction Internationale Permanente 45 (1987)Google Scholar.

41 GA Res. 3232, 29 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 31) at 141–42, UN Doc. A/9631 (1974).

42 Robinson, Colson & Rashkow, , Some Perspectives on Adjudicating before the World Court: The Gulf of Maine Case, 79 AJIL 578, 581–82 (1985)Google Scholar (footnote omitted).

43 Id. at 583 (footnote omitted).

44 Gulf of Maine Order, 1982 ICJ Rep. 3.

45 Those of Judge Richard R. Baxter, Professor Max Sorensen and Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock.

46 For examples of such criticism (in addition to that of Judges Morozov and El-Khani referred to in the text at notes 51–54 infra), see Green, , Is There a Universal International Law Today?, 23 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 3, 27 (1985)Google Scholar; McWhinney, , Special Chambers within the International Court of Justice: The Preliminary, Procedural Aspect of the Gulf of Maine Case, 12 Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 1 (1985)Google Scholar; and Stern, , Chronique de jurisprudence de la Cour Internationale de Justice (1975–1983), 111 Journal du Droit International 652–54 (1984)Google Scholar.

47 Gulf of Maine Order, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 4.

48 Id. at 5–8.

49 See, in particular, Zoller, , La Première Constitution d’une Chambre Spéciale par la Cour Internationale de Justice: Observations sur l’Ordonnance du 20 Janvier 1982, 86 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 305 (1982)Google Scholar. See also McRae, , Adjudication of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine, 17 Can. Y.B. Int’l L. 292, 294–97 (1979)Google Scholar; and Guyomar, , La Constitution au sein de la Cour Internationale de Justice d’une Chambre Chargée de Régler le Différend de Frontières Maritimes entre les Etats-Unis et le Canada, 27 Annuaire Francois de Droit International 213 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 Gulf of Maine Order, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 8–9.

51 Id. at 11 (Morozov, J., dissenting).

52 Id. at 13 (El-Khani, J., dissenting).

53 Id.

54 Id.

55 Zoller, supra note 49, at 311. See also Pillepich, supra note 40, at 69.

56 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Can. v. U.S.), 1984 ICJ Rep. 246, 360 (Judgment of Oct. 12) (Gros, J., dissenting) [hereinafter Gulf of Maine Judgment].

57 Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), 1985 ICJ Rep. 13, 165–69 (Oda, J., dissenting) [hereinafter Libya/Malta].

58 Opinions in that case expressly cited the Gulf of Maine case: Libya/Malta, 1985 ICJ Rep. at 62–63, 65–67, 83, 87–88, 89, 91, 106, 110, 112, 115, 121, 125, 129, 165–69, 179, 185, 186–87.

59 Gulf of Maine Judgment, 1984 ICJ Rep. at 361–62, 366, 372–73, 377, 378, 379, 380, 382, 385, 388–89; Libya/Malta, 1985 ICJ Rep. at 131, 164–69.

60 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Constitution of Chamber, 1985 ICJ Rep. 6, 7 (Order of Apr. 3).

61 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), 1986 ICJ Rep. 554 (Judgment of Dec. 22).

62 Article 92 of the Rules, supra note 28, in part provides:

Written proceedings in a case before a Chamber shall consist of a single pleading by each side. . . .

. . . The Chamber may authorize or direct that further pleadings be filed if the parties are so agreed, or if the Chamber decides, proprio motu or at the request of one of the parties, that such pleadings are necessary. . . .

. . Oral proceedings shall take place unless the parties agree to dispense with them, and the Chamber consents.

In the Frontier Dispute case, the parties each filed two pleadings, rather than the three which normally are filed.

63 Case Concerning Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (U.S./Italy), Constitution of Chamber, 1987 ICJ Rep. 3 (Order of Mar. 2) [hereinafter ELSI].

64 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal./Hond.), Constitution of Chamber, 1987 ICJ Rep. 10, 11–12 (Order of May 8)Google Scholar [hereinafter Land, Island and Maritime Frontier].

65 ELSI, 1987 ICJ Rep. at 4.

66 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier, 1987 ICJ Rep. at 12. Thirteen judges were present and voting in the adoption of this unanimous decision.

67 Id. at 13 (Oda, J., declaration).

68 UN Doc. A/40/682 (1985).

69 Id. at 27.

70 Id. at 31–32.

71 See supra note 7 and accompanying text.

72 See supra note 8 and accompanying text.

73 Doc. Jurist 57, G/45, supra note 7, at 199; and text at note 9 supra.

74 Article 17, paragraph 2 of the Rules of Court, supra note 28, in force since 1978.

75 GA Res. 3232, supra note 41.

76 ELSI, 1987 ICJ Rep. at 4; and Land, Island and Maritime Frontier, 1987 ICJ Rep. at 12.

77 ICJ Statute, supra note 3, Art. 26, paras. 2 and 3.

78 Gulf of Maine Order, 1982 ICJ Rep. at 6.

79 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier, 1987 ICJ Rep. at 13 (Oda, J., declaration).

80 Id.

81 The Agent of Canada in the Gulf of Maine case later wrote that the parties “were fortunate to have available to them a mechanism combining some of the flexibility of an ad hoc tribunal with the authority and prestige of the World Court.” Legault, , A line for all uses: The Gulf of Maine boundary revisited, 40 Int’l J. 461, 477 (1985)Google Scholar.