Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T05:19:29.005Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

International Court of Justice: Judgment on Preliminary Objections in Case concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

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

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Judicial and Similar Proceedings
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , January 1993 , pp. 46 - 100
Copyright
Copyright © 1993

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

* [Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice. By the Court's Order of June 29, 1992, the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Australia was fixed at March 29, 1993.]

1 See, as to English law, The Supreme Court Practice, 1979, Vol. 1, tondon, 1978, pp. 282-284, Order 18/11/1-4. And see Northern Cameroon*. I.C.J. Reports 1963, separate opinion of Judge Fitzmaurice, pp. 106-107; Nuclear Tests (Australiav. France), Interim Protection, I.CJ. Reports 1973, dissenting opinion of Judge Gros, p. 121; and Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), I.CJ. Reports 1974, separate opinion of Judge Gros, p. 292.

2 See, generally, and compare Judge Morelli, in Rivista di diritto internazionale. Vol. 47, 1964, p. 3; Vol. 54, 1971, p. 5; Vol. 58, 1975, pp. 5 and 747; Giuseppe Sperduti, ibid., Vol. 53, 1970, p. 461; Vol. 57, 1974, p. 649; Vol. 58, 1975, p. 657; Roberto Ago, Comunicazioni e studi, Vol. 14,1975, p. 1, at p. 11, footnote 22; Ugo Villani, Italian Year book of International Law, 1975, Vol. 1, p. 206, at p. 207; and S. Rosenne, op. cit., p. 160,as to Article 79 of the new Rules “implying a re-definition of the qualification preliminary”.

1 See generally, D. P. O'Connell, “The Evolution of Australia's International Personality”, in International Law in Australia, ed. D. P. O'Connell, 1965, Chap. 1, and the foreword by Sir Garfield Barwick; D. P. O'Connell and James Crawford, “The Evolution of Australia's International Personality”, in International Law in Australia, 2nd ed. by K. W. Ryan, 1984, p. 21: and W. A. Wynes, Legislative, Executive and Judicial Powers in Australia, 5th ed., p. 56.

1 As to the last point, however, compare, in English law, Archbold, Pleading, Evidence and Practice in Criminal Cases, 40th ed., p. 1898, para. 4136; Halsbury 's Laws of England, 4th ed., Vol. 11(1), pp. 49-50, para. 50; and R v. Howe [1987] 1 All ER 771 HL.

1 Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons, Ltd. [1956] 1 All ER 273, at pp. 286-287.