1 See P. Sands, ‘Reflections on International Judicialization’, (2017) 27 EJIL 885.

2 Kingsbury, B., ‘Foreword: Is Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals a Systemic Problem?’, (1999) 31 NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 679, at 687.Google Scholar

3 See A. Pellet, ‘Article 38’, in A. Zimmermann et al. (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2012), at 858; de Brabandere, E., ‘The Use of Precedent and External Case Law by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea’, (2016) 15 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 24, at 31–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar (outlining the reasons for the particular authority of the Court’s judgments).

4 See, for example, M/V ‘Saiga’ (No 2) (Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea), Judgment of 1 July 1999, [1999] ITLOS Rep. 10, paras. 133, 170; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar), Judgment of 14 March 2012, [2012] ITLOS Rep. 4, paras. 90, 95, 117.

5 See, for example, Cyprus v. Turkey, Just Satisfaction, Judgment of 12 May 2014 (2014) 59 EHHR 16, paras. 24, 41, 45–6; The Environment and Human Rights, Advisory Opinion OC-23/17 of 15 November 2017, paras. 40, 54, 97, 135, 153, 158 and others.

6 See, for example, Indus Waters Kishenganga (Pakistan v. India), Partial Award of 18 February 2013, (2013) 31 RIAA 1, at 216–17, paras. 450, 452; Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Delimitation (Bangladesh v. India), Award of 7 July 2014, PCA Case No 2010-16, paras. 216, 246, 252, 261–3, 278–9, 345 [hereafter Bangladesh v. India].

7 See, for example, Ambiente Ufficio SpA and others v. Argentina, Decision on Jurisdiction and Admissibility of 8 February 2013, ICSID Case No ARB/08/9, paras. 579–81; Venezuela Holdings, BV and others v. Venezuela, Decision on Revision of 12 June 2015, ICSID Case No ARB/07/27, paras 3.1.16–3.1.17; CEMEX Caracas Investments BV and CEMEX Caracas II Investments BV v. Venezuela, Decision on Jurisdiction of 30 December 2010, ICSID Case No ARB/08/15, paras. 78–87. See also A. Pellet, ‘The Case Law of the ICJ in Investment Arbitration’, (2013) 28 ICSID Review 223.

8 WTO, United States—Import Prohibitions of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (12 October 1998) WT/DS58/AB/R, reprinted in (1999) 38 ILM 121, paras. 130, 158.

9 See, for example, L. Condorelli, ‘L’autorité de la décision des juridictions internationales permanentes’, in SFDI (ed.), La juridiction internationale permanente (1987), at 278–313.

10 K. Alter, L. R. Helfer and M. R. Madsen, ‘International Court Authority in a Complex World’, in K. Alter, L. R. Helfer and M. R. Madsen (eds.), International Court Authority (2018), at 5.

11 H. Thirlway, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, Vol. I (2013), at 248 (noting ‘the existence, at the time the writer entered the service of the Court [1968], of an unwritten rule of drafting that the Court only referred specifically to its own jurisprudence, never to arbitral awards. This rule now appears to have been abandoned’).

12 C. de Visscher, Theory and Reality in Public International Law (1968), at 391.

13 See, for example, Kasikili/Sedudu (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 December 1999, [1999] ICJ Rep. 1045, at 1060, para. 20; Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 625, at 682, para. 135; Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3 February 2009, [2009] ICJ Rep. 61, paras. 149 and 198; Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment of 19 June 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 324, at 334–5, para. 24; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 691, paras. 178–9.

14 H. Waldock, ‘General Course on Public International Law’, (1962) 106 RCADI 1, at 93.

15 C. Gray and B. Kingsbury, ‘Developments in Dispute Settlement: Inter-State Arbitration Since 1945’, (1992) 63 BYIL 97, at 99.

16 See de Brabandere, supra note 3; Gray and Kingsbury, supra note 15, at 119–33; V. Coussirat-Coustère and P. Eisemann, Repertory of International Arbitral Jurisprudence (1989-1991) (1991), at xix–xxv; Pellet, supra note 3; G. Guillaume, ‘The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators’, (2011) 2 JIDS 5, at 19; P. Palchetti, ‘The Authority of the Decisions of International Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Bodies in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice: Dialogue or Competition?’, (2018) 2 International and European Papers - Gaetano Morelli Lectures Series 107.

17 See, for example, B. Jia, ‘International Case Law in the Development of International Law’, (2015) 382 RCADI 175, at 268–70 (distinguishing between authoritative [binding] and persuasive [non-binding] precedents, but conceding that ‘[t]here may be persuasive precedents that are so powerful that they are authoritative in effect, approximating to binding precedents in all but name’).

18 See Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Application to Intervene, Judgment of 21 March 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 3, at 26, para. 42.

19 See, for example, Barcelona Traction Light and Power Company Limited (Second Phase) (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3, at 315, para. 21 (Judge Ammoun, Separate Opinion) (‘International case-law is itself only an auxiliary source of law and does not take the place of the principal sources, which are treaties and custom’). See also G. Schwarzenberger and E. Brown, A Manual of International Law (1976), at 18 (judicial and arbitral decisions are ‘merely evidence of international law or, to be more exact, law-determining agencies for ascertaining the contents of the actual rules of international law’).

20 Jia, supra note 17, at 211; G. Fitzmaurice, ‘Some Problems Regarding the Formal Sources of International Law’, in F. van Asbeck (ed.), Symbolae Verzijl (1958), at 154 (‘the essence of the distinction there is between the thing which inspires the content of the law, and the thing which gives that content its obligatory character as law’).

21 For various references see Jia, supra note 17, at 200; for older sources in the scholarship on the scope of Art. 38(1)(d) of the Statute see M. Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court (1996), at 35–9.

22 For a rare citation of doctrine in the Court’s decisions see Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras; Nicaragua intervening), Judgment of 11 September 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep. 351, at 593, para. 394.

23 Fitzmaurice, supra note 20, at 171–2.

24 R. Jennings, ‘General Course on Principles of International Law’, (1967) 121 RCADI 323, at 342.

25 See, for example, J. d’Aspremont, Formalism and the Sources of International Law: A Theory of the Ascertainment of Legal Rules (2011); S. Besson and J. d’Aspremont, The Oxford Handbook of the Sources of International Law (2017).

26 See, for example, G. Marceau et al., ‘The WTO’s Influence on Other Dispute Settlement Mechanisms: A Lighthouse in the Storm of Fragmentation’, (2013) 47 Journal of World Trade 481; Pellet, supra note 3; U. Šadl and H. Olsen, ‘Can Quantitative Methods Complement Doctrinal Legal Studies? Using Citation Network and Corpus Linguistic Analysis to Understand International Courts’, (2017) 30 LJIL 327; S. Steininger, ‘What’s Human Rights Got To Do With It? An Empirical Analysis of Human Rights References in Investment Arbitration’, (2017) 31 LJIL 33; L. Lo Giacco, ‘Swinging between Finding and Justification: Judicial Citation and International Law-Making’, (2017) 6 Cambridge International Law Journal 27; D. Charlotin, ‘The Place of Investment Awards and WTO Decisions in International Law: A Citation Analysis’, (2017) 20 JIEL 279; W. Alschner and D. Charlotin, ‘The Growing Complexity of the International Court of Justice’s Self-Citation Network: Institutional Achievement or Access-to-Justice Concern?’, (2018) 29 EJIL 83.

27 Shahabuddeen, supra note 21, at 43.

28 See M. Sørensen, Les sources du droit international: étude sur la jurisprudence de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale (1946), at 175.

29 M. Shaw, Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court 1920-2015, Vol. 1 (2016), at 1609.

30 J. Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law (2012), at 37; see also League of Nations, Procès-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee: June 16th - July 24th 1920 with Annexes (1920), at 332, 336, 584 (Descamps).

31 Crawford, supra note 31, at 38; see also Waldock, supra note 14, at 91; M. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920-1942: A Treatise (1943), at 207. See also German Interests in the Polish Upper Silesia, Judgment of 25 May 1926, [1926] PCIJ Series A No 7, at 19 (‘the object of [Article 59] is simply to prevent legal principles accepted by the Court in a particular case from being binding upon other states or in other disputes’).

32 See Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Application to Intervene, Judgment of 21 March 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 3, para. 27 (Judge Jennings, Dissenting Opinion) (‘the slightest acquaintance with the jurisprudence of this Court shows that Article 59 does by no manner of means exclude the force of persuasive precedent’). See also M. Balcerzak, ‘The Doctrine of Precedent in the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights’, (2004) 27 Polish Yearbook of International Law 131, at 133.

33 A. McNair, The Development of International Justice (1954), at 13–14 (concluding that ‘[i]t requires no doctrine of judicial precedent to explain that inevitable practice’).

34 See, for example, Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 15 December 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 279, paras. 2–3 (Judges Ranjeva, Guillaume, Higgins, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal and Elaraby, Join Declaration). See also de Visscher, supra note 12, at 390 (‘Though Article 59 of its Statute frees it [the Court] from any strict obligation to follow precedents, the concern to ensure continuity in its decisions is apparent in all of them. As they increase in number, the Court invokes them more and more, now to corroborate the decision it is about to render, by comparing it with its previous judgments or opinions, now, on the contrary, to distinguish the case and to forearm itself against the reproach of illogicality or contradiction’).

35 Question of the Monastery of Saint-Naoum, Advisory Opinion of 4 September 1924, [1924] PCIJ Series B, No 9, at 15.

36 Readaptation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions (Greece v. Great Britain), Jurisdiction, Judgment of 10 October 1927, [1927] PCIJ Series A No 11, at 18; see also Jurisdiction of the European Commission of the Danube between Galatz and Braila, Advisory Opinion of 8 December 1927, [1927] PCIJ Series B, No 14, at 36.

37 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of Charter), Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1948, [1948] ICJ Rep. 57, at 63.

38 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 24 July 1964, [1964] ICJ Rep. 6, at 41.

39 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Pleadings [1962] ICJ Rep, vol. II, Minutes of the Public Hearings, at 122.

40 See, for example, Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 December 1999, [1999] ICJ Rep. 1045, at 1076, para. 50; Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, [2004] ICJ Rep. 136, paras. 44, 88.

41 See Alschner and Charlotin, supra note 26, at 111 (analysing 1,865 citations in more than 120 ICJ judgments rendered between 1948 and 2013).

42 See, for example, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 12 December 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 803, at 811, para. 20.

43 See, for example, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo), Merits, Judgment of 30 November 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 639, at 653, paras. 41–2.

44 See, for example, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 18 November 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 412, at 429, para. 54.

45 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 12, at 101, para. 297.

46 C. Brown, ‘Article 59’, in A. Zimmermann et al. (ed.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2012), at 1444.

47 G. Hernández, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (2014), at 158.

48 Shahabuddeen, supra note 21, at 2; see also A. von Bogdandy and I. Venzke, ‘The Spell of Precedents: Lawmaking by International Courts and Tribunals’, in C. Romano, K. Alter and Y. Shany (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (2014), at 505–7.

49 H. Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (1982), at 14.

50 For references to the Court’s ‘settled jurisprudence’ see, for example, United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Islamic Republic of Iran), Judgment of 24 May 1980, [1980] ICJ Rep. 3, at 18, para. 33; Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1980, [1980] ICJ Rep. 73, at 87, para. 33; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 18 November 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 412, at 435, para. 71.

51 See Guillaume, supra note 16, at 11; see also A. Gattini, ‘Le rôle du juge international et du juge national et la coutume internationale’, in D. Alland et al. (eds.), Unité et diversité du droit international: Ecrits en l’honneur du professeur Pierre-Marie Dupuy (2014), at 254–9.

52 See, for example, Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment of 5 October 2016, [2016] ICJ Rep. 255, at 517, para. 10 (Judge Crawford, Dissenting Opinion); ibid., at 284, para. 10 (Judge Yusuf, Declaration) (‘It is indeed the first time that such a subjective condition is introduced into the assessment by the Court of the existence of a dispute. As pointed out above, the Court’s jurisprudence has always viewed the existence of a dispute as an objective matter’); ibid., at 300, para. 2 (Judge Tomka, Separate Opinion) (‘I am not convinced by the approach taken by the Court, despite many references to its case law. In my view, other decisions of the Court, and its predecessor, point in a different direction’); ibid., at 315 (Judge Bennouna, Dissenting Opinion) (‘The introduction of this criterion, linked to the subjective views of the Respondent and of those conducting the analysis, clearly goes against the entire case law of the ICJ and PCIJ, according to which the existence of a dispute is determined objectively by the Court on the basis of the evidence available to it, when it adopts its judgment’).

53 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 June 1998, [1998] ICJ Rep. 275, at 292, para. 28.

54 Hernández, supra note 47, at 159.

55 Jia, supra note 17, at 196.

56 See Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, paras. 125, 178, 241 (referring to Bangladesh/Myanmar case); Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)/Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 2 February 2018, paras. 135, 153 (referring to Bangladesh/Myanmar case).

57 See, for example, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Merits, Judgment of 3 February 2015, [2015] ICJ Rep. 3 and Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 43 (referring to various judgments of the ICTY).

58 See, for example, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Compensation, Judgment of 19 June 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 324, paras. 18, 24, 33, 40, 49 (referring to various judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)). In para. 13 of its judgment, the Court acknowledged that it had considered the practice of other international courts, tribunals and commissions, including that of ITLOS, ECtHR, IACtHR, the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and the UN Compensation Commission.

59 See, for example, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 422, at 457–8, para. 101 (referring to the following decisions of the Committee against Torture: O.R.M.M. and M.S. v. Argentina, decision of 23 November 1989 and Guengueng and others v. Senegal, decision of 17 May 2006); see also Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2002, [2004] ICJ Rep. 136, paras. 109–13 and 136 (referring to the ‘constant practice of the Human Rights Committee’ in relation to the possibility of extraterritorial application of the ICCPR, including specific decisions of the Human Rights Committee and its General Comment No 27).

60 See, for example, Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624.

61 Guillaume, supra note 16, at 20.

62 For a rare reference to an investment treaty award in the Court’s jurisprudence see Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [2007] ICJ Rep. 582, at 615, para. 90 (citing Biloune v. Ghana Investments Centre).

63 See, for example, Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Judgment of 1 October 2018, para. 162.

64 See, for example, Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 99, at 122–3, para. 55; Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), Judgment, [2002] ICJ Rep. 3, at 24, para. 58.

65 See, for example, Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile), Judgment of 27 January 2014, [2014] ICJ Rep. 3 (containing no express references to arbitral awards cited by the parties); see Memorial of the Government of Peru of 20 March 2009, paras. 5.31, 6.14–6.15 (referring to numerous arbitral awards, including the Beagle Channel (Argentina v. Chile) (1977) 21 RIAA 53 [hereafter the ‘Beagle Channel’ award]; Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago Tribunal Award of 11 April 2006 (2006) 27 RIAA 147, at 222, para. 269 [hereafter the ‘Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago’ award]; Award in the Arbitration Regarding the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Guyana and Suriname (Guyana v. Suriname) (2007) 30 RIAA 1, at 65, para. 242 [hereafter the ‘Guyana v. Suriname’ award]; see also Counter-Memorial of Chile of 9 March 2010, paras. 2.125 and 3.45, referring to The Grisbådarna Case (Norway v. Sweden) (1909) 11 RIAA 147 [hereafter ‘Grisbådarna’ award] and Guyana v. Suriname award, at 97–8, paras. 307–8).

66 See, for example, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), Judgment of 3 February 2015, [2015] ICJ Rep. 3, at 53, para. 107 (Croatia relying on the Lighthouses Arbitration (France v. Greece), Claims No 11 and 4, (1956) 12 RIAA 155 for the question of succession to responsibility); see also Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40, at 70, para. 100 (Bahrain relying on the Island of Palmas award for the proposition that the title of contiguity, as a basis of territorial sovereignty, has no foundation in international law); Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, at 346, para. 58 (Nigeria relying on Argentine-Chile Frontier Case (‘Palena Case’) (1966) 16 RIAA 109 [hereafter ‘Palena’ award] for the importance of length, size of drainage area and discharge in determining the mouth of the river) or para. 228 (Nigeria relying on Maritime Delimitation (Eritrea v. Yemen) (Second Stage) (1999) 22 RIAA 335 [hereafter ‘Maritime Delimitation (Eritrea v. Yemen)’ award] for the proposition that the Court has no jurisdiction to the extent it affects areas claimed by third states).

67 See, for example, Arbitral Award made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 18 November 1960, [1960] ICJ Rep. 192; Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), Judgment of 12 November 1991, [1991] ICJ Rep. 53; Certain Activities Carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)/Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment of 16 December 2015, [2015] ICJ Rep. 665.

68 See, for example, Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), Jurisdiction, Judgment of 26 July 1927, [1927] PCIJ Series A, No 9, 31; Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, Judgment of 5 April 1933, [1933] PCIJ Series A/B, No 53, 46; Appeal from a Judgment of the Hungaro-Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral Tribunal (The Peter Pázmány University v. The State of Czechoslovakia), Judgment of 15 December 1933, [1933] PCIJ Series A/B, No 61, at 243. For the only exceptions where specific arbitral awards were referred to see Polish Postal Service in Danzig, Advisory Opinion of 16 May 1925, [1925] PCIJ Series B, No 11, at 30 (on the question of res judicata, referring to Pious Fund (United States v. Mexico) (1902) 9 RIAA 1)); SS ‘Lotus’ (France v. Turkey), Judgment of 7 September 1927, [1927] PCIJ Series A, No 10, at 26 (on the flag state principle, referring to Costa Rica Packet (Great Britain v. Netherlands) (1897) 5 Moore Intl Arbitration 4948).

69 The scope of the research undertaken by the author was limited to judgments and advisory opinions, which are referred to in the present article as decisions of the Court. This excludes the Court’s orders (e.g., fixing the time-limits, provisional measures or counterclaims).

70 Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 18 November 1953, [1953] ICJ Rep. 111, at 119 (referring to the Alabama award (1871) 29 RIAA 125).

71 Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment of 24 February 1982, [1982] ICJ Rep. 18, paras. 66 and 109; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States), Judgment of 12 October 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 246, paras. 25, 92, 117, 123, 146 and 187; Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947, Advisory Opinion of 26 April 1988, [1988] ICJ Rep. 12, at 34–5, para. 57.

72 See Annex to this article.

73 de Brabandere, supra note 3, at 43.

74 See, for example, Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 December 1999, [1999] ICJ Rep. 1045, at 1060, para. 20; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 707, para. 227.

75 See, for example, Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgment of 2 February 2018, para. 35; Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment of 19 June 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 324, paras. 18, 24; Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, at 55, para. 83.

76 See, for example, Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment of 5 December 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep. 644, at 685, para. 132; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 11 June 1998, [1998] ICJ Rep. 275, at 296, para. 38.

77 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, [2010] ICJ Rep. 14, at 115, para. 15 (Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma, Joint Dissenting Opinion), referring to Iron Rhine Railway (Belgium v. Netherlands) (2005) 27 RIAA 35, at 120, para. 235 (hereafter ‘Iron Rhine Railway’) and Guyana v. Suriname.

78 Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment of 3 February 1994, [1994] ICJ Rep. 6, at 81, paras. 108–9 (Judge Ajibola, Separate Opinion).

79 See, for example, Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 17 March 2016, [2016] ICJ Rep. 100, paras. 2, 5 (Judge Greenwood, Separate Opinion), referring to Trail Smelter case (1941) 3 RIAA 1905 and Company General of the Orinoco Case (1905) 10 RIAA 184.

80 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 47, at 349–50, para. 70 (Judge Tomka, Separate Opinion), referring to Southern Bluefin Tuna (New Zealand v. Japan and Australia v. Japan) (2000) 23 RIAA 1, paras. 66–7, 72.

81 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States), Judgment of 6 November 2003, [2003] ICJ Rep. 161, at 234, para. 33 (Judge Higgins, Separate Opinion), referring to Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission–Partial Award: Prisoners of War–Eritrea’s Claim 17 (2003) 26 RIAA 23, paras. 43–53.

82 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, at 575 (Judge Koroma, Dissenting Opinion), referring to Eastern Extension, Australasia and China Telegraph Company Ltd (Great Britain v. United States) (1923) 6 RIAA 112.

83 See, for example, Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 13 July 2009, [2009] ICJ Rep. 213, at 291, para. 3 (Judge ad hoc Guillaume, Declaration), citing Faber (1903) 10 RIAA 438.

84 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, at 408 (Judge Shahabuddeen, Dissenting Opinion), referring to Naulilaa (Portugal v. Germany) (1928) 2 RIAA 1013.

85 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 14, 27, 61 (Judge Fitzmaurice, Separate Opinion), referring to El Triunfo (1902) 15 RIAA 467; I’m Alone (Canada v. United States) (1935) 3 RIAA 1609; Stevenson (1903) 9 RIAA 494.

86 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3, para. 35 (Judge Fitzmaurice, Separate Opinion), citing Cayuga Indians (Great Britain v. United States) (1926) 6 RIAA 173 and British Claims in the Spanish Zone of Morocco (Great Britain v. Spain) (1925) 2 RIAA 615.

87 See, for example, South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Judgment of 21 December 1962, [1962] ICJ Rep. 319, at 425 (Judge Jessup, Separate Opinion), referring to Manouba (France v. Italy) (1913) 11 RIAA 463 and I’m Alone (Canada v. United States) (1935) 3 RIAA 1609.

88 Request for an Examination of Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of Court’s Judgment of 20 December 1974 in Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v. France) Case, Order of 22 September 1995, [1995] ICJ Rep. 288, at 346 (Judge Weeramantry, Separate Opinion), referring to Trail Smelter (United States v. Canada) (1938) 3 RIAA 1905.

89 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, at 111–12 (Judge Weeramantry, Separate Opinion), referring to Trail Smelter Arbitration (United States v. Canada) (1938) 3 RIAA 1905, at 1907, 1934–37.

90 Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States), Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 21 March 1959, [1959] ICJ Rep. 6, at 87 (Judge Armand-Ugon, Dissenting Opinion), referring to Finnish Vessels During War (Finland v. Great Britain) (1934) 3 RIAA 1479.

91 See Gray & Kingsbury, supra note 15, at 119–24.

92 S. Bastid, ‘La jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice’, (1951) 78 RCADI 575, at 631; see also G. Scelle, ‘Les sources des diverses branches du droit, Essai sur les sources formelles du droit international’, in Recueil d’études sur les sources du droit en l’honneur de François Gény (1934), at 427.

93 M. Shaw, Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court 1920-2015, Vol. 3 (2016), at 1610.

94 Jia, supra note 17, at 188.

95 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States), Judgment of 12 October 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 246, at 302–3, para. 123.

96 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 690–1, paras. 178–9 (referring to Dubai-Sharjah Border Arbitration, Award (1981) 91 ILR 543 (hereafter ‘Dubai-Sharjah’ award) and Maritime Delimitation (Guinea v. Guinea-Bissau), Award (1985) 19 RIAA 190 (hereafter ‘Guinea v. Guinea-Bissau’ award)).

97 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment of 3 February 2009, [2009] ICJ Rep. 61, at 125, para. 198; Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 706, para. 223.

98 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment of 8 October 2007, [2007] ICJ Rep. 659, paras. 288, 311.

99 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment of 17 December 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 625, at 682, para. 135.

100 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, Judgment of 16 March 2001, [2001] ICJ Rep. 40, at 114–5, para. 247 (referring to the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf (United Kingdom v. France) award).

101 Ibid., para. 248.

102 Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 December 1999, [1999] ICJ Rep. 1045, at 1060, para. 20 (referring to the Laguna del desierto award (1994) 22 RIAA 3). See also ibid., at 1113–14 (Judge Higgins, Declaration) (explaining that the dictum from the Laguna del desierto award ‘retains a certain relevance, notwithstanding that the fact situation in the Laguna case is somewhat different from ours’).

103 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment of 19 June 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 324, at 334–5, para. 24 (referring to the Lusitania award (1923) 7 RIAA 40).

104 See Jia, supra note 17, at 219.

105 R. Jennings, ‘What Is International Law and How Do We Tell It When We See It?’, (1981) 37 Annuaire suisse de droit international 59, at 74 (emphasis added).

106 See S. Talmon, ‘Determining Customary International Law: The ICJ’s Methodology between Induction, Deduction and Assertion’, (2015) 26 EJIL 417, at 437–40.

107 Oppenheim’s International Law, Vol. 1 (1992), at 41.

108 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment of 23 May 2008, [2008] ICJ Rep. 12, at 36–7, paras. 67–9.

109 Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment of 10 October 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, at 447–8, para. 304.

110 Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)/Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 2 February 2018, para. 135.

111 Project Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment of 25 September 1997, [1997] ICJ Rep. 7, at 55, para. 83 (referring to Air Service Agreement of 27 March 1946 (United States v. France), Award of 9 December 1978 (1978) 18 RIAA 417, at 443 ff).

112 Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece), Judgment of 5 December 2011, [2011] ICJ Rep. 644, at 685, para. 132.

113 Ibid., paras. 133–8.

114 Shahabuddeen, supra note 21, at 16.

115 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (Second Phase), Judgment of 5 February 1970, [1970] ICJ Rep. 3, at 40, para. 63.

116 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Merits, Judgment of 10 October 2002, [2002] ICJ Rep. 303, at 445, para. 297.

117 Ibid., at 415, para. 222.

118 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States), Judgment of 12 October 1984, [1984] ICJ Rep. 246, at 309, para. 146.

119 Ibid.

120 Jia, supra note 17, at 189. See also de Visscher, supra note 12, at 390 (‘The gradual elaboration of the law through the accumulation of a body of homogeneous decisions is a condition of order and stability’).

121 Ibid., at 188.

122 Guillaume, supra note 16, at 23.

123 A. von Bogdandy and I. Venzke, ‘Beyond Dispute: International Judicial Institutions as Lawmakers’, (2011) 12 German Law Journal 979, at 979.

124 Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)/Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment of 2 February 2018, paras. 108, 135.

125 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment of 19 November 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 624, at 691, para. 179; see also de Brabandere, supra note 3, at 45.

126 See, for example, Barbados v. Trinidad and Tobago, paras. 199, 226, 232, 235, 304–5, 327, 377; Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom), Award of 18 March 2015, (2015) 31 RIAA 359, paras. 202, 208, 379, 427, 436–7; Arbitration between the Republic of Croatia and the Republic of Slovenia, Final Award of 29 June 2017, PCA Case No 2012-04, paras. 867, 887, 889, 1000, 1012; South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v. China), Award of 12 July 2016, PCA Case No 2013-19, paras. 215–25, 309, 480, 538, 552, 989 [hereafter ‘Philippines v. China’].

127 See, for example, Guyana v. Suriname, paras. 302–3, 332–4, 381–90; Bangladesh v. India, para. 423; Philippines v. China, para. 799.

128 See, generally, H. Ruiz Fabri and L. Gradoni, ‘La hiérarchisation des précédents’, in SFDI (ed.), Le précédent en droit international (2016), at 191.

129 A. Clapham, Brierly’s Law of Nations (2012), at 65.

130 See, for example, B. Simma, ‘Fragmentation in a Positive Light’, (2004) 25 Michigan Journal of International Law 845; N. Miller, ‘An International Jurisprudence? The Operation of ‘Precedent’ Across International Tribunals’, (2002) 15 LJIL 483.

131 Enabulele, A., ‘Judicial Lawmaking: Understanding Articles 38(1)(d) and 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice’, (2015) 33 Australian Yearbook of International Law 15, at 36–7.Google Scholar

132 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation, Judgment of 19 June 2012, [2012] ICJ Rep. 324, at 394, para. 8 (Judge Greenwood, Declaration).

133 Thirlway, H., The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, Vol. II (2013), at 1207Google Scholar.

134 Jia, supra note 17, at 352 (’in the case of persuasive precedents, their effect upon the development of international law is varying in proportion to their persuasiveness for both state and courts and tribunals’).

135 See G. Abi-Saab, ‘La métamorphose de la fonction juridictionnelle internationale’, in D. Alland et al. (ed.), Unité et diversité du droit international (2014), at 378–9; cf. J. Charney, ‘Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?’, (1998) 271 RCADI 101.

136 See generally J. Crawford, ‘Continuity and Discontinuity in International Dispute Settlement: An Inaugural Lecture’, (2009) 1 JIDS 3, at 22 (concluding that international law expands ‘through processes of accumulation and accretion, rather than of displacement, as domestic legal systems commonly develop’).