Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:00:26.675Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acceptance, and Withdrawal or Denial, of World Court Jurisdiction: Some Recent Trends as to Jurisdiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

Edward McWhinney
Get access

Extract

The political attacks being mounted today against international organisation—the United Nations General Assembly, and especially UNESCO—are paralleled by some differences and challenges to the International Court of Justice, and this on the part of some of the Court's erstwhile most enthusiastic supporters. It used to be almost an act of political faith for Western, or Western-influenced, para-professional legal associations, meeting in the immediate post-War era and up to the 1960s, to reaffirm their support for the principle of international adjudication as the prime method of peaceful settlement of international disputes, and for the acceptance by all States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court as the most affirmative and concrete way of demonstrating their endorsement of that principle. It was once a key element in the instructions of Western delegations to international legal conferences to insist upon the primacy of judicial settlement in any formal legal affirmation of the principle of peaceful settlement and in any listing of the alternative modes of its exercise.

Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 20 , Issue 2-3 , Spring–Summer 1985 , pp. 148 - 166
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 1985

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 See, for example, “Declaration of General Principles for a World Rule of Law”, in The Four Steps at Athens toward World Peace through Law (World Peace through Law Centre, Washington, D.C., 1963) 2–3.

2 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2625 (XXV), 24 October 1970.

3 See, generally, the author's United Nations Law Making (Holmes & Meier Publishing Co., New York, 1984) 84 et seq.

4 U.N. General Assembly Resolution 377A (V), 3 November 1950.

5 Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 151, at 268.

6 South West Africa, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 6, at 237.

7 ibid., at 323.

8 North Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3.

9 18–19 Elizabeth II, ch. 47 (Canada).

10 Livre Blanc sur les expériences nucléaires (Paris, 1973).

11 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 99.

12 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment of 20 December 1974, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253.

13 See, generally, the author's The World Court and the Contemporary International Law-Making Process (Sijthoff & Noordhoff, The Netherlands, 1979) 45 et seq.

14 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.A.) Provisional Measures, Order of 10 May 1984, I.C.J. Reports, 1984, p. 169; ibid., Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392.

15 United Nations, New York, Press Release, WS/11, 13 April 1984.

16 American Society of International Law, Washington, D.C., Newsletter, May–June 1984.

17 I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 169.

18 ibid., at 186–7.

19 I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392.

20 ibid., at 442.

21 United States Embassy, Ottawa, News Release, 85–06, 18 January 1985; International Herald Tribune, Paris, 19–20 January 1985.

22 American Society of International Law, Newsletter, January–February–March 1985.

23 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 246.

24 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, Constitution of Chamber, Order of 20 January 1982, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 3; and see infra at n. 32.

25 Lachs, M., “The Revised Procedure of the International Court of Justice,” in Essays on the Development of the International Legal Order (1980) 21, at 42Google Scholar.

26 M. Lachs, op. cit., at 43.

27 Supra n. 8.

28 de Aréchaga, E. Jiménez, “The Amendment to the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice,” (1973) 67 Am. J.Int'l L. 1 at 2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mosler, H., “Aktuelle Aspekte des Verfahrensrechts des Internationalen Gerichtshofes,” in Völkerrecht und Rechtsphilosophie, Internationale Festschrift für Stephan Verosta zum 70 Geburtstag, Fischer, P., Köck, H.F., Verdross, A. (eds.) (1980) 249, at 255Google Scholar.

29 Lachs, op. cit., supra n. 25 at 43.

30 Ibid.

31 Ibid., at 44.

32 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Constitution of chamber, Order of 20 January 1982, I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 3.

33 Cf. however, Jiménez de Aréchaga, op. cit., supra n. 28.

34 I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 246.

35 I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 3, at 10.

36 Ibid., at 11.

37 Ibid., at 12–13.

38 Jiménez de Aréchaga, op. cit., supra n. 28. And see, also, Zoller, E., “La première constitution d'une Chambre spéciale par la Cour internationale de justice.” (Observations sur l'Ordonnance du 20 janvier 1982). (1982) 86 Revue Générale de Droit International Public 305Google Scholar.

39 Jiménez de Aréchaga, op. cit., supra n. 28 at 3.

40 I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 3, at 10.

41 Ibid., at 11.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid., at 12.

44 See Judge Elias' views, as expressed in Elias, , New Horizons in International Law (Sijthoff and Noordhoff, 1979) 78Google Scholar: “…There does not appear to be any likelihood of a return to the old order in which Europe dominated the Bench.… Western European candidates in the future would stand a far better chance of being elected if they had or were thought to have liberal or progressive views vis-à-vis the problems of the Third World”.