Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:57:04.755Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: A Myth?

A Statistical Analysis of Contentious Cases

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Shigeru Oda
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is my intention to appeal to scholars of a younger generation to undertake research on the thesis which, on the basis of my experience at the International Court of Justice–and I have been a serving Member for almost a quarter of a century–I shall be presenting in this paper. In my view, one subject missing from contemporary studies on the function and work of the International Court of Justice is a pragmatic examination of the manner in which certain contentious cases presented to the International Court of Justice have disappeared from view and of whether a judgment, once handed down, has actually been complied with by the parties to the dispute.

Type
Articles
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , April 2000 , pp. 251 - 277
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

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.)

References

1. A/RES/3232 (XXIX)

2. Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to the Statement adopted by the Summit Meeting of the Security Council on 31 January 1992.

3. Communiqué 94/1 of 13 January 1994.

4. Rules of Court, Art. 26, para. 1(b).

5. See also Art 35, para. 2 of the 1946 Rules of Court as amended in 1972.

6. See Section II.B.2 of this examination.

7. See Section II.B.3.

8. Indicated in Table 1 by means of square brackets enclosing the folio numbers.

9. Statute, Art. 40(1): Rules of Court, Art. 39(1).

10. See Table IIB.

11. Case No. 76: Elettronica Sicula S.p.A (ELSI).

12. Statute, Art. 40(1).

13. Statute, Art. 36(2).

14. Statute, Art. 36(1).

15. See Section 11.C above.

16. Sec the ELSI case.

17. See Table IIA.

18. See Table IIB.

19. See Table IIIB.

20. Case No. 64, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran and Case No. 70, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America).

21. See Table IIIB.