IDS Revision Topics 1 – 3
Article 2(3) UN Charter:
“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
(1) Diplomatic means
1. Negotiation
Principal issue is that negotiation is unlikely to occur when the interests of
each party are very divided as was the case in Lake Lanoux
Also, problematic where there is a significant power imbalance between the
parties
2. Inquiry
Where States wish to have aspects of the dispute investigated i.e. Dogger Bank
Inquiry
This prevents the situation from getting out of hand
3. Mediation
Conciliation or Good Offices
Requires the intervention of a third party but allows the parties to retain
control
4. Conciliation
Requires a third party/ a commission to be set up
(2) Adjudication (legally binding before the ICJ)
What is it?
Binding resolution of international disputes by a permanent judicial body such as the
ICJ // Binding on the parties in that particular case – ICJ Statute Article 59
Contentious cases are international disputes adjudicated by the ICJ; the Court’s
decision is legally binding on the parties to the dispute
Preliminary Objections:
The parties can raise preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and/or the
admissibility of the case
Article 79 Rules of Court allows the ICJ to consider these objections before proceeding to
the merits of the case
Jurisdiction of the ICJ: Can the ICJ hear a case between the two states?
Article 36(6) confers on the Court the competence de la competence; the power to decide
whether it has jurisdiction
1. Subject matter
2. Parties must be States
3. Consent by the States must be provided
4. There must be a dispute in existence between the parties
,1. Subject matter
The ICJ has General jurisdiction thus the subject matter of a case does not determine
jurisdiction.
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary activity (Nicaragua v USA) 1984
[93] The Court referred to the case of US Diplomatic Tehran, stating that as the
principal judicial organ of the UN, it has competence “to resolve any legal questions
that may be in issue between the parties to the dispute”
2. Parties must be States
Article 34(1) ICJ Statute
Only States may be parties in contentious proceedings before the ICJ
Article 35 ICJ Statute
Allows non-parties to the Statute to become parties in contentious cases before the
ICJ
this raises issues with regards to Statehood // Palestine v US
Argument that legal status for ICJ jurisdictional purposes does not necessarily
require a decision on statehood with regards to montivideo criteria // it is
functional and does not require substantive decision on Stathood – Jure Vidmar
3. Consent by the States must be provided
Jurisdiction before the ICJ is non-compulsory which means that being a member of
the UN and a party to the ICJ Statute does not provide consent to the Court’s
jurisdiction; positive consent is required.
Article 36 ICJ Statute
Consent can be provided in three main ways
a. Special agreement
The Court is seized where the Court is notified of an agreement between
the States to have their dispute settled by the ICJ
Article 36(1) ICJ Statute
b. Comrpomissory clause
Certain treaties concluded between parties contain Comrpomissory
clauses, clauses providing consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction in the event of a
dispute
These clauses can be invoked unilaterally by one party
c. Optional Clause
Provided for in Article 36(2); States can opt into the Court’s jurisdiction
by making an Article 36(2) declaration
States may attach a reservation to their declaration excluding the Court’s
jurisdiction over disputes with certain States or over certain subject matters
Per Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v Nigeria) 1998 [25],
optional clauses represent a unilateral “standing offer” to accept the
Court’s jurisdiction which when met with another State’s optional clause
, “accepting the same obligation” (Article 36(2) ICJ Statute), establishes a
“jurisdictional link”/ “consensual bond” (Fishers Jurisdiction (Spain v
Canada) 1998 [46])
It is reciprocal – Do the States have reservations that render their
obligations different?
Declarations can be made “at any time”
Nicaragua v USA 1984 – there is no requirement that the party be aware of
the others declaration [48]
4. There must be a dispute in existence between the parties
Marshall Islands (2016)
[38] “The Court’s determination of the existence of a dispute is a matter of substance
and not a question of form or procedure”
[39] “Whether a dispute exists is a matter for objective determination of the Court”
[37] Court refers to Mavrommatis (1924)-
“a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of
interests” p 11
And to South West Africa (1962) -
“it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the
other” p 13
[45] “The Court’s jurisprudence treats the question of the existence of a dispute as a
jurisdictional one that turns on whether there is, in substance, a dispute, not on what
form that dispute takes or whether the respondent has been notified.”
Decision: The Court found in Marshall Islands that the statements and conduct of
Marshall Islands did not amount to a dispute because on the basis of those statements
it could not be said that the UK was “aware, or could not have been unaware” [57] of
the existence of a dispute.
Dissent: Marshall Islands
Judge Crawford highly disputed the findings of the majority in this case.
a. The dissent argued that the majority focused too heavily on the form; form
over substance
b. The dissent argued that notification of a dispute can be done via the filing of
an application and need not be done before
c. The claims of the majority “impose too high a threshold for determining the
existence of a dispute”
d. The dispute was self-evident
Andrea Bianchi (2017) Critique: Marshall Islands
The writer argues that the decision deliberately avoided taking a stance on the
subject matter of the case
The writer also argues that the Court’s use of the “awareness” test is not very
convincing
The writer argues that the judgement is actually contradictory as it claims not
to rely on form but then dismisses the case for formalistic reasons
“Structural Bias”
Formalism is “the vehicle by which these stances are transformed into legal
reasoning and judicial outcomes”
Article 2(3) UN Charter:
“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner
that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.”
(1) Diplomatic means
1. Negotiation
Principal issue is that negotiation is unlikely to occur when the interests of
each party are very divided as was the case in Lake Lanoux
Also, problematic where there is a significant power imbalance between the
parties
2. Inquiry
Where States wish to have aspects of the dispute investigated i.e. Dogger Bank
Inquiry
This prevents the situation from getting out of hand
3. Mediation
Conciliation or Good Offices
Requires the intervention of a third party but allows the parties to retain
control
4. Conciliation
Requires a third party/ a commission to be set up
(2) Adjudication (legally binding before the ICJ)
What is it?
Binding resolution of international disputes by a permanent judicial body such as the
ICJ // Binding on the parties in that particular case – ICJ Statute Article 59
Contentious cases are international disputes adjudicated by the ICJ; the Court’s
decision is legally binding on the parties to the dispute
Preliminary Objections:
The parties can raise preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and/or the
admissibility of the case
Article 79 Rules of Court allows the ICJ to consider these objections before proceeding to
the merits of the case
Jurisdiction of the ICJ: Can the ICJ hear a case between the two states?
Article 36(6) confers on the Court the competence de la competence; the power to decide
whether it has jurisdiction
1. Subject matter
2. Parties must be States
3. Consent by the States must be provided
4. There must be a dispute in existence between the parties
,1. Subject matter
The ICJ has General jurisdiction thus the subject matter of a case does not determine
jurisdiction.
Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary activity (Nicaragua v USA) 1984
[93] The Court referred to the case of US Diplomatic Tehran, stating that as the
principal judicial organ of the UN, it has competence “to resolve any legal questions
that may be in issue between the parties to the dispute”
2. Parties must be States
Article 34(1) ICJ Statute
Only States may be parties in contentious proceedings before the ICJ
Article 35 ICJ Statute
Allows non-parties to the Statute to become parties in contentious cases before the
ICJ
this raises issues with regards to Statehood // Palestine v US
Argument that legal status for ICJ jurisdictional purposes does not necessarily
require a decision on statehood with regards to montivideo criteria // it is
functional and does not require substantive decision on Stathood – Jure Vidmar
3. Consent by the States must be provided
Jurisdiction before the ICJ is non-compulsory which means that being a member of
the UN and a party to the ICJ Statute does not provide consent to the Court’s
jurisdiction; positive consent is required.
Article 36 ICJ Statute
Consent can be provided in three main ways
a. Special agreement
The Court is seized where the Court is notified of an agreement between
the States to have their dispute settled by the ICJ
Article 36(1) ICJ Statute
b. Comrpomissory clause
Certain treaties concluded between parties contain Comrpomissory
clauses, clauses providing consent to the ICJ’s jurisdiction in the event of a
dispute
These clauses can be invoked unilaterally by one party
c. Optional Clause
Provided for in Article 36(2); States can opt into the Court’s jurisdiction
by making an Article 36(2) declaration
States may attach a reservation to their declaration excluding the Court’s
jurisdiction over disputes with certain States or over certain subject matters
Per Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v Nigeria) 1998 [25],
optional clauses represent a unilateral “standing offer” to accept the
Court’s jurisdiction which when met with another State’s optional clause
, “accepting the same obligation” (Article 36(2) ICJ Statute), establishes a
“jurisdictional link”/ “consensual bond” (Fishers Jurisdiction (Spain v
Canada) 1998 [46])
It is reciprocal – Do the States have reservations that render their
obligations different?
Declarations can be made “at any time”
Nicaragua v USA 1984 – there is no requirement that the party be aware of
the others declaration [48]
4. There must be a dispute in existence between the parties
Marshall Islands (2016)
[38] “The Court’s determination of the existence of a dispute is a matter of substance
and not a question of form or procedure”
[39] “Whether a dispute exists is a matter for objective determination of the Court”
[37] Court refers to Mavrommatis (1924)-
“a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of
interests” p 11
And to South West Africa (1962) -
“it must be shown that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the
other” p 13
[45] “The Court’s jurisprudence treats the question of the existence of a dispute as a
jurisdictional one that turns on whether there is, in substance, a dispute, not on what
form that dispute takes or whether the respondent has been notified.”
Decision: The Court found in Marshall Islands that the statements and conduct of
Marshall Islands did not amount to a dispute because on the basis of those statements
it could not be said that the UK was “aware, or could not have been unaware” [57] of
the existence of a dispute.
Dissent: Marshall Islands
Judge Crawford highly disputed the findings of the majority in this case.
a. The dissent argued that the majority focused too heavily on the form; form
over substance
b. The dissent argued that notification of a dispute can be done via the filing of
an application and need not be done before
c. The claims of the majority “impose too high a threshold for determining the
existence of a dispute”
d. The dispute was self-evident
Andrea Bianchi (2017) Critique: Marshall Islands
The writer argues that the decision deliberately avoided taking a stance on the
subject matter of the case
The writer also argues that the Court’s use of the “awareness” test is not very
convincing
The writer argues that the judgement is actually contradictory as it claims not
to rely on form but then dismisses the case for formalistic reasons
“Structural Bias”
Formalism is “the vehicle by which these stances are transformed into legal
reasoning and judicial outcomes”
