
The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1946, its main functions are to settle disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by the UN General Assembly or UN Security Council, or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/Basetext/istatute.htm Statute of the International Court of Justice]is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court. This court is different from the International Criminal Court and the War Crimes Law (Belgium), both of which have been confused with the International Court of Justice. The seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands. It is composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is elected every three years. Each of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, the People's Republic of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court. Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges present. Article 38 of the Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations". It may also refer to academic writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions. If the parties agree, the Court may also decide ''ex aequo et bono'', or "in justice and fairness", in which the Court makes a decision based on general principles of fairness rather than specific law. There are two distinct types of cases upon which the court may rule: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court, and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do. ==Jurisdiction== Numerous international treaty specify the Court as the arbiter of disputes over interpretation and application of the agreement. For instance, Article 32(2) of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides for mediation and other dispute resolution options, but also states that "[a]ny such dispute which cannot be settled . . . shall be referred, at the request of any one of the States Parties to the dispute, to the International Court of Justice for decision"[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1988/articles.htm#32]. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/articles_II.htm?#48] and Convention on Psychotropic Substances[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/articles.htm#31] contain similar provisions. Some treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ include[http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/ibbook/Bbookchapter3.HTM]: *American treaty on pacific settlement, Bogota, 30 Apr. 1948 *Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, Paris, 9 Dec. 1948 *Revised act for the pacific settlement of international disputes, Lake Success, 28 Apr. 1949 *Convention relating to the status of refugees, Geneva, 28 Jul. 1951 *Treaty of peace with Japan, San Francisco, 8 Sep. 1951 *Treaty of friendship (India/Philippines), Manila, 11 Jul. 1952 *Universal copyright convention, Geneva, 6 Sep. 1952 *European convention for the peaceful settlement of disputes, Strasbourg, 29 Apr. 1957 *Single convention on narcotic drugs, New York, 30 Mar. 1961 *Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes, Vienna, 18 Apr. 1961 *International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, New York, 7 Mar. 1966 *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969 *Convention on the suppression of the unlawful seizure of aircraft, The Hague, 16 Dec. 1970 *Treaty of commerce (Benelux/USSR), Brussels, 14 Jul. 1971 *Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, Montreal, 23 Sep. 1971 *International convention against the taking of hostages, New York, 17 Dec. 1979 *General peace treaty (Honduras/El Salvador), Lima, 30 Oct. 1980 *Convention on treaties concluded between States and international organizations or between international organizations, Vienna, 21 Mar. 1986 *United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, Vienna, 20 Dec. 1988 *United Nations framework convention on climate change, New York, 9 May 1992 *Convention on biological diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 Jun. 1992 *Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and their destruction, Paris, 13 Jan. 1993 ==Contentious Issues== Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the International Court of Justice. This does not preclude private interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party fail "to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court", the UN Security Council may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the security council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the Court's powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court's ruling, and by the Security Council's unwillingness to enforce consequences. However, in theory, "so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal," and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party". For example, in Nicaragua v. United States the United States had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. In a split decision, the majority of the Court ruled the United States was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered the US pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did. Examples of cases include: *A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law; *A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them *A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area *A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December, 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the FRY was not a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application. The last example can be used as evidence of the Court's failure to take on politically controversial cases; as the Court has no means to enforce its rulings, its survival is dependent on its political legitimacy. That would be endangered if it constantly came with rulings which states have no interest of taking into consideration (which would have been the case in the event of a ruling in favour of FRY). This is one of the Court's major shortcomings: its rulings must be considered in a political context. ==Advisory Opinion== An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. The Court's advisory procedure is otherwise modelled on that for contentious proceedings, and the sources of applicable law are the same. In principle the Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character and as such do not generally result in judgments that aim to resolve specific controversies. Certain instruments or regulations can, however, provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states. The advisory opinions of the court are influential and widely respected interpretations of the law, but they are not authoritative, and they are inherently non-binding under the Statute of the Court. Examples of cases include: *Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Israeli West Bank Barrier *Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 . *The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara on Western Sahara, issued in 1975. == Current Composition == === President === *Shi Jiuyong (People's Republic of China) === Vice-President === *Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) === Judges === In addition to President Shi Jiuyong (China) and Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar), the ICJ judges as of 2005 are: *Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) *Thomas Buergenthal (United States) *Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) *Ronny Abraham (France) *Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom) *Pieter Kooijmans (Netherlands) *Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) * Hisashi Owada 小和田恒 (Japan) *Gonzalo Parra Aranguren (Venezuela) *Francisco Rezek (Brazil) *Bruno Simma (Germany) *Peter Tomka (Slovakia) *Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russia) == See also == *United Nations *United Nations Charter *UN General Assembly *UN Security Council *UN Economic and Social Council *UN Secretariat *UN Trusteeship Council *International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia *International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda *International Criminal Court *LaGrand Case ==Reference== *[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/cover.htm Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971], International Narcotics Control Board. *[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961], International Narcotics Control Board. *[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1988/index.htm? United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances]. == External links == *[http://www.icj-cij.org/ International Court of Justice], Official site *[http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm List of cases] ruled upon by the ICJ since its creation in 1946 International courts United Nations International Law International Court of Justice zh-min-nan:Kok-chè Hoat-têng th:ศาลยุติธรรมระหว่างประเทศ vi:Tòa án Quốc Tế vì Công Lý
see http://www.icj-cij.org/ ---- ==Copyright issues== deleted copyrighted text, which was copied from http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html please ask for permission before copying material from someone else's website, and if they give permission please include a notice to that effect in the article, so we don't delete it thinking you don't have permission :There are certain criteria that can make copying of content more likely to be considered fair use, e.g. if the information is factual in nature (as opposed to highly creative), etc. Probably a lot of icj-cij's content could fall in that category, including the list of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ. See [http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.pdf the checklist]. User:24.54.208.177 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ---- I replaced the blank entry with information from the address given on the main page, which is in the public domain (like the rest of the entries at the U.S. Dept State site, unless they're explicitly listed as being under copyright). --KQ ---- ==US withdrawal from the ICJ== If the USA withdrew from the Court in 1986, why were they involved in the Le Grand case in 1999? --rmhermen :Also currently on the docket (in October 03) are ''Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)'' and ''Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)'', which seem to have been argued, hence the USA seems to be participating. ---- ==Slobodan Milosevic== If only states are participants, what about the Slobodan Milosevic war crimes trial? : He is not before that court. As simple as that. --User:JensMueller 14:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Milosevic is before the ICC, rather, a precursor of the ICC, and not under the ICJ. This is one of the reasons I put the differentiation paragraph at the top of ICC, ICJ and War Crime Law (Belgium) -User:Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) == CrucifiedChrist's edit == I find that the version of this article after edit by CrucifiedChrist was in substantial contradiction with the old one, which was nearly entirely copied from the US State State department site. I would like to get some additional information about which one is better.
The old version copied from the US site was "While jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of the parties, any judgments reached are binding." CrucifiedChrist changed this to "Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party choose not to comply with the decision of the court, the UN Security Council may be called upon to decide if any further action is required." The latter seems unlikely to me, given that there are five veto powers in the UN Security Council which like this could render all judgements they consider inconvenient senseless. :Here is the actual text from the charter - ''If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give to the judgment.'' ::I actually find some of CrucifiedChrist's version clearer than the US State Department version. For exacmple, the security council issue is what I understood, and was wondering about the wording in the article. However, like GBWR, I have not found another circumstance in which the party decided against "withdrew its acceptance". Not that Nicaragua has any real recource, even under the charter, because the US has veto power on the sec council. -User:Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) CrucifiedChrist's version also said "All states maintain the right to exempt themselves from rulings of the ICJ, and particular states that have availed themselves of this right include Argentina, China, France, Israel, Russia, and the United States." Could we cite the examples? The only mentioned case is Nicaragua against the US, and given this one I find unlikely that the official US site would choose the wording which sheds a less favourable light on the US: "The U.S. accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's decision in a 1986 case involving activities in Nicaragua." User:Get-back-world-respect 23:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Instead of doing a wholesale revert of my edits, and justifying that revert by claiming we should quote verbatum some other website, could you please just edit the parts you disagree with? I tweaked the article in multiple places, and your revert wasn't helpful in understanding what exactly you thought should be phrased differently. Additionally, when you revert, if someone else later mades changes to the article, it makes it harder for me to merge my edits back in. Thanks! --User:CrucifiedChrist :: Sorry, that was a mistake caused by editing the wrong version. Now I have changed just the part that I am questioning. If you have reason to believe that the ICJ's own description of the bindingness of advisory decisions is wrong, you need to justify this claim. --User:Zero0000 03:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Thanks! I wasn't trying to say that the ICJ's description was wrong, I was trying to clarify what they were saying. As I understand, in no case whatsoever is an advisory opinion binding upon the parties being judged. Additionally, in general, the advisory opinion is not binding upon the requesting parties, unless those parties agree ahead of time to be bound by the agreement. They way the ICJ phrased it, the distinction between the requesting parties and the judged parties was hard to pick out. Am I making any sense? --User:CrucifiedChrist :::The wording I used was stolen from the ICJ site and we shouldn't change it unless we are sure we know what we are doing. Your first change from "not binding as such on the requesting bodies" to "binding on the parties being judged" is doubtful because advisory opinions do not need to be judging any parties. They can be just answering some question of law, perhaps in the abstract. The second change you made, from "shall be binding" to "shall be binding upon the parties requesting the opinion" is also doubtful. The only thing I can find that this sentence may refer to is a provision of the CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (see Section 30 in Article VIII in [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicotherdocuments.html this document]). It allows for some ICJ advisory opinions to be binding on the UN and a member state, but only the UN can request the opinion (member states are not allowed to request advisory opinions). So your change is doubtful there too. Unless we can find an authoritative account of this matter, I suggest we leave the ICJ's wording alone. --User:Zero0000 07:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::I think we should differentiate between theory and practice. ICJ's wording says that its decisions are binding (what organization thinks that its own decisions are just hot air, anyways?) But in practice, people can ignore the decisions and what can other nations do? I mean, what exactly DID Nicaragua do after the US told the ICJ that it decided not to agree to the arbitration? -User:Vina 16:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Further research, the following is from Article 36 of the UN charter, which (apparently) the US invoked after disagreeing with the Nicaragua decision: 2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties. 3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court. But since the US has veto power on the sec council, 36(2) basically died. and the decisions were never executed. -User:Vina 17:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Typical time elapsed in resolving a dispute== I heard somewhere that the ICJ takes several years to hear and decide a case. Is that true? That would be a weak point, as far as making the court relevant to pressing issues is concerned, wouldn't it? User:Rad Racer 06:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :That is correct, but you might want to have a look at the "LaGrand-case" [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/igus/igusframe.htm], where "The Court finds, for the first time in its history, that orders indicating provisional measures are legally binding". You do however have a point, but this is also politics, and the ICJ is not your avarage court. But do you think this should be reflected in the article somehow? --User:Cybbe 18:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
International courts
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with International_Court_of_Justice:
International_Court_of_Justice
International_Court_of_Justice
International_Court_of_Justice
International_Court_of_Justice_Advisory_Opinion_on_Western_Sahara
International_Court_of_Justice_judges
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1946, its main functions are to settle disputes submitted to it by states and to give advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by the UN General Assembly or UN Security Council, or by such specialized agencies as may be authorized to do so by the General Assembly in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/Basetext/istatute.htm Statute of the International Court of Justice]is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court. This court is different from the International Criminal Court and the War Crimes Law (Belgium), both of which have been confused with the International Court of Justice. The seat of the Court is in The Hague, Netherlands. It is composed of fifteen judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Judges serve for nine years and may be re-elected. No two may be nationals of the same country. One-third of the Court is elected every three years. Each of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, the People's Republic of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court. Questions before the Court are decided by a majority of judges present. Article 38 of the Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions, international custom, the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations". It may also refer to academic writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions. If the parties agree, the Court may also decide ''ex aequo et bono'', or "in justice and fairness", in which the Court makes a decision based on general principles of fairness rather than specific law. There are two distinct types of cases upon which the court may rule: contentious issues between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court, and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly. Advisory opinions do not have to concern particular controversies between states, though they often do. ==Jurisdiction== Numerous international treaty specify the Court as the arbiter of disputes over interpretation and application of the agreement. For instance, Article 32(2) of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides for mediation and other dispute resolution options, but also states that "[a]ny such dispute which cannot be settled . . . shall be referred, at the request of any one of the States Parties to the dispute, to the International Court of Justice for decision"[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1988/articles.htm#32]. The Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/articles_II.htm?#48] and Convention on Psychotropic Substances[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/articles.htm#31] contain similar provisions. Some treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ include[http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/ibbook/Bbookchapter3.HTM]: *American treaty on pacific settlement, Bogota, 30 Apr. 1948 *Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, Paris, 9 Dec. 1948 *Revised act for the pacific settlement of international disputes, Lake Success, 28 Apr. 1949 *Convention relating to the status of refugees, Geneva, 28 Jul. 1951 *Treaty of peace with Japan, San Francisco, 8 Sep. 1951 *Treaty of friendship (India/Philippines), Manila, 11 Jul. 1952 *Universal copyright convention, Geneva, 6 Sep. 1952 *European convention for the peaceful settlement of disputes, Strasbourg, 29 Apr. 1957 *Single convention on narcotic drugs, New York, 30 Mar. 1961 *Optional protocol to the Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, concerning the compulsory settlement of disputes, Vienna, 18 Apr. 1961 *International convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination, New York, 7 Mar. 1966 *Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Vienna, 23 May 1969 *Convention on the suppression of the unlawful seizure of aircraft, The Hague, 16 Dec. 1970 *Treaty of commerce (Benelux/USSR), Brussels, 14 Jul. 1971 *Convention for the suppression of unlawful acts against the safety of civil aviation, Montreal, 23 Sep. 1971 *International convention against the taking of hostages, New York, 17 Dec. 1979 *General peace treaty (Honduras/El Salvador), Lima, 30 Oct. 1980 *Convention on treaties concluded between States and international organizations or between international organizations, Vienna, 21 Mar. 1986 *United Nations convention against illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, Vienna, 20 Dec. 1988 *United Nations framework convention on climate change, New York, 9 May 1992 *Convention on biological diversity, Rio de Janeiro, 5 Jun. 1992 *Convention on the prohibition of the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons and their destruction, Paris, 13 Jan. 1993 ==Contentious Issues== Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the International Court of Justice. This does not preclude private interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another. Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party fail "to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court", the UN Security Council may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the security council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the Court's powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court's ruling, and by the Security Council's unwillingness to enforce consequences. However, in theory, "so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal," and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party". For example, in Nicaragua v. United States the United States had previously accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the United States to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. In a split decision, the majority of the Court ruled the United States was "in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state" and ordered the US pay reparations (see note 2), although it never did. Examples of cases include: *A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law; *A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them *A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area *A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December, 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the FRY was not a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application. The last example can be used as evidence of the Court's failure to take on politically controversial cases; as the Court has no means to enforce its rulings, its survival is dependent on its political legitimacy. That would be endangered if it constantly came with rulings which states have no interest of taking into consideration (which would have been the case in the event of a ruling in favour of FRY). This is one of the Court's major shortcomings: its rulings must be considered in a political context. ==Advisory Opinion== An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. The Court's advisory procedure is otherwise modelled on that for contentious proceedings, and the sources of applicable law are the same. In principle the Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character and as such do not generally result in judgments that aim to resolve specific controversies. Certain instruments or regulations can, however, provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states. The advisory opinions of the court are influential and widely respected interpretations of the law, but they are not authoritative, and they are inherently non-binding under the Statute of the Court. Examples of cases include: *Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Israeli West Bank Barrier *Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 . *The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Western Sahara on Western Sahara, issued in 1975. == Current Composition == === President === *Shi Jiuyong (People's Republic of China) === Vice-President === *Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar) === Judges === In addition to President Shi Jiuyong (China) and Vice-President Raymond Ranjeva (Madagascar), the ICJ judges as of 2005 are: *Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh (Jordan) *Thomas Buergenthal (United States) *Nabil Elaraby (Egypt) *Ronny Abraham (France) *Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom) *Pieter Kooijmans (Netherlands) *Abdul G. Koroma (Sierra Leone) * Hisashi Owada 小和田恒 (Japan) *Gonzalo Parra Aranguren (Venezuela) *Francisco Rezek (Brazil) *Bruno Simma (Germany) *Peter Tomka (Slovakia) *Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russia) == See also == *United Nations *United Nations Charter *UN General Assembly *UN Security Council *UN Economic and Social Council *UN Secretariat *UN Trusteeship Council *International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia *International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda *International Criminal Court *LaGrand Case ==Reference== *[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1971/cover.htm Convention on Psychotropic Substances 1971], International Narcotics Control Board. *[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1961/ Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs 1961], International Narcotics Control Board. *[http://www.incb.org/e/conv/1988/index.htm? United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances]. == External links == *[http://www.icj-cij.org/ International Court of Justice], Official site *[http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm List of cases] ruled upon by the ICJ since its creation in 1946 International courts United Nations International Law International Court of Justice zh-min-nan:Kok-chè Hoat-têng th:ศาลยุติธรรมระหว่างประเทศ vi:Tòa án Quốc Tế vì Công Lý
International Court of Justice
see http://www.icj-cij.org/ ---- ==Copyright issues== deleted copyrighted text, which was copied from http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html please ask for permission before copying material from someone else's website, and if they give permission please include a notice to that effect in the article, so we don't delete it thinking you don't have permission :There are certain criteria that can make copying of content more likely to be considered fair use, e.g. if the information is factual in nature (as opposed to highly creative), etc. Probably a lot of icj-cij's content could fall in that category, including the list of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ. See [http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.pdf the checklist]. User:24.54.208.177 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC) ---- I replaced the blank entry with information from the address given on the main page, which is in the public domain (like the rest of the entries at the U.S. Dept State site, unless they're explicitly listed as being under copyright). --KQ ---- ==US withdrawal from the ICJ== If the USA withdrew from the Court in 1986, why were they involved in the Le Grand case in 1999? --rmhermen :Also currently on the docket (in October 03) are ''Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)'' and ''Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)'', which seem to have been argued, hence the USA seems to be participating. ---- ==Slobodan Milosevic== If only states are participants, what about the Slobodan Milosevic war crimes trial? : He is not before that court. As simple as that. --User:JensMueller 14:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC) :Milosevic is before the ICC, rather, a precursor of the ICC, and not under the ICJ. This is one of the reasons I put the differentiation paragraph at the top of ICC, ICJ and War Crime Law (Belgium) -User:Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) == CrucifiedChrist's edit == I find that the version of this article after edit by CrucifiedChrist was in substantial contradiction with the old one, which was nearly entirely copied from the US State State department site. I would like to get some additional information about which one is better.
The old version copied from the US site was "While jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of the parties, any judgments reached are binding." CrucifiedChrist changed this to "Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party choose not to comply with the decision of the court, the UN Security Council may be called upon to decide if any further action is required." The latter seems unlikely to me, given that there are five veto powers in the UN Security Council which like this could render all judgements they consider inconvenient senseless. :Here is the actual text from the charter - ''If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give to the judgment.'' ::I actually find some of CrucifiedChrist's version clearer than the US State Department version. For exacmple, the security council issue is what I understood, and was wondering about the wording in the article. However, like GBWR, I have not found another circumstance in which the party decided against "withdrew its acceptance". Not that Nicaragua has any real recource, even under the charter, because the US has veto power on the sec council. -User:Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC) CrucifiedChrist's version also said "All states maintain the right to exempt themselves from rulings of the ICJ, and particular states that have availed themselves of this right include Argentina, China, France, Israel, Russia, and the United States." Could we cite the examples? The only mentioned case is Nicaragua against the US, and given this one I find unlikely that the official US site would choose the wording which sheds a less favourable light on the US: "The U.S. accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's decision in a 1986 case involving activities in Nicaragua." User:Get-back-world-respect 23:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC) :Instead of doing a wholesale revert of my edits, and justifying that revert by claiming we should quote verbatum some other website, could you please just edit the parts you disagree with? I tweaked the article in multiple places, and your revert wasn't helpful in understanding what exactly you thought should be phrased differently. Additionally, when you revert, if someone else later mades changes to the article, it makes it harder for me to merge my edits back in. Thanks! --User:CrucifiedChrist :: Sorry, that was a mistake caused by editing the wrong version. Now I have changed just the part that I am questioning. If you have reason to believe that the ICJ's own description of the bindingness of advisory decisions is wrong, you need to justify this claim. --User:Zero0000 03:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::Thanks! I wasn't trying to say that the ICJ's description was wrong, I was trying to clarify what they were saying. As I understand, in no case whatsoever is an advisory opinion binding upon the parties being judged. Additionally, in general, the advisory opinion is not binding upon the requesting parties, unless those parties agree ahead of time to be bound by the agreement. They way the ICJ phrased it, the distinction between the requesting parties and the judged parties was hard to pick out. Am I making any sense? --User:CrucifiedChrist :::The wording I used was stolen from the ICJ site and we shouldn't change it unless we are sure we know what we are doing. Your first change from "not binding as such on the requesting bodies" to "binding on the parties being judged" is doubtful because advisory opinions do not need to be judging any parties. They can be just answering some question of law, perhaps in the abstract. The second change you made, from "shall be binding" to "shall be binding upon the parties requesting the opinion" is also doubtful. The only thing I can find that this sentence may refer to is a provision of the CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (see Section 30 in Article VIII in [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicotherdocuments.html this document]). It allows for some ICJ advisory opinions to be binding on the UN and a member state, but only the UN can request the opinion (member states are not allowed to request advisory opinions). So your change is doubtful there too. Unless we can find an authoritative account of this matter, I suggest we leave the ICJ's wording alone. --User:Zero0000 07:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :::I think we should differentiate between theory and practice. ICJ's wording says that its decisions are binding (what organization thinks that its own decisions are just hot air, anyways?) But in practice, people can ignore the decisions and what can other nations do? I mean, what exactly DID Nicaragua do after the US told the ICJ that it decided not to agree to the arbitration? -User:Vina 16:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Further research, the following is from Article 36 of the UN charter, which (apparently) the US invoked after disagreeing with the Nicaragua decision: 2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties. 3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court. But since the US has veto power on the sec council, 36(2) basically died. and the decisions were never executed. -User:Vina 17:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC) ==Typical time elapsed in resolving a dispute== I heard somewhere that the ICJ takes several years to hear and decide a case. Is that true? That would be a weak point, as far as making the court relevant to pressing issues is concerned, wouldn't it? User:Rad Racer 06:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) :That is correct, but you might want to have a look at the "LaGrand-case" [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/igus/igusframe.htm], where "The Court finds, for the first time in its history, that orders indicating provisional measures are legally binding". You do however have a point, but this is also politics, and the ICJ is not your avarage court. But do you think this should be reflected in the article somehow? --User:Cybbe 18:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
International Court of Justice
International courts
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
I
IA | IB | IC | ID | IE | IF | IG | IH | IJ | IK | IL | IM | IN | IO | IP | IR | IS | IT | IU | IW | IX | IY | IZ |Words begining with International_Court_of_Justice:
International_Court_of_Justice
International_Court_of_Justice
International_Court_of_Justice
International_Court_of_Justice_Advisory_Opinion_on_Western_Sahara
International_Court_of_Justice_judges
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
