PDA

View Full Version : International Court of Justice :: Points to Remember


mahesh
03-01-2010, 07:09 AM
The International Court of Justice normally mentioned to as the World Court or ICJ is the prime judicial part of the United Nations. It is founded in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its major purposes are to resolve legal arguments submitted to it by states and to give advisory attitudes on lawful inquiries submitted to it by duly authorized worldwide organizations, bureaus, and the UN General Assembly. The ICJ should not be mistaken with the International Criminal Court, which furthermore possibly has "global" jurisdiction.


Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the Court started work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, alike to that of its predecessor, is the major legal article constituting and regulating the Court.
The Court's workload is distinguished by a broad variety of judicial activity. The ICJ has dealt with somewhat couple of cases in its history, but there has apparently been an expanded desiredness to use the Court since the 1980s, particularly amidst developing countries. The United States withdrew itself from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so acknowledges the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis. Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce World Court rulings, but such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent constituents of the Council. Presently there are twelve cases on the World Court's docket.
The ICJ is of fifteen judges voted into agency for a nine year period by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of individuals nominated by the nationwide assemblies in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election method is set out in Articles 4-12 of the ICJ statute. Judges assist for nine year term and may be re-elected for up to two further terms. Elections are held every three years, with one-third of the judges retiring (and probably standing for re-election) each time, in order to double-check the continuity inside the court.
Should a judge die in office, the perform has usually been to vote into agency a judge of the identical nationality to complete the term. No two may be nationals of the identical country. According to Article 9, the members of the Court is presumed to comprise the "main types of civilization and of the primary lawful schemes of the world". Essentially, this has intended common law, civil law and socialist law (now post-communist law). Since the 1960s four of the five permanent constituents of the Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have habitually had a judge on the Court. The exclusion was China (the Republic of China until 1971, the People's Republic of China from 1971 onwards), which did not have a judge on the Court from 1967-1985, because it did not put ahead a candidate. The rule on a geopolitical composition of the bench lives regardless of the fact that there is no provision for it in the Statute of the ICJ.

mahesh
03-01-2010, 07:09 AM
Article 2 of the Statute presents that all judges should be "elected despite of their nationality amidst individuals of high moral character", who are either qualified for the largest judicial agency in their dwelling states or renowned as solicitors with adequate competence in worldwide law. Judicial independence is dealt expressly with in Articles 16-18. Judges of the ICJ are not allowed to contain any other post, neither proceed as counsel. Usually, the Members of the Court have their own understanding of these rules. This permits them to be engaged in out-of-door arbitration and contain professional posts also as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be brushed aside only by an unanimous vote of other constituents of the Court. Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has always been questioned. For example, throughout the Nicaragua Case, the USA handed out a communiqué proposing that it could not present sensitive material to the Court because of the occurrence of judges from Eastern bloc states.
Judges may give joint judgments or give their own distinct opinions. Decisions and Advisory Opinions are by majority and, in the happening of an identical division, the President's vote becomes decisive. Judges may furthermore give distinct dissenting opinions.
Article 31 of the statute sets out a method whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious situations before the Court. This scheme permits any party to a contentious case to nominate a judge of their likely that as numerous as seventeen judges may sit on one case.
This scheme may appear odd when compared with domestic court methods, but its aim is to boost states to submit more and more cases to the Court. For example, if a state understands that it will have a judicial agent who can take part in deliberation and offer other judges local information and an understanding of the state's viewpoint, that state may be more eager to submit to the Court's jurisdiction. Although this scheme does not sit well with the judicial environment of the body, it is generally of little functional consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not always) vote in support of the state which nominated them and therefore cancel out each other.
Generally, the Court is seated as full bench, but in the last fifteen years it has on ocassions sat as a chamber also. Articles 26-29 of the statute permit the Court to form smaller chambers, generally consisting of 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two kinds of chambers are considered by Article 26: foremost, chambers for exceptional classes of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear specific disputes. In 1993 a exceptional chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal expressly with environmental affairs (although this chamber has not ever been used).
Ad hoc chambers are more often convened. For example, chambers were utilised to hear the Gulf of Maine Case (USA v Canada).In that case, the parties made clear that they would withdraw the case except the Court nominates judges to the chambers who were acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may have less authority than full Court judgments, or may weaken the correct understanding of universal worldwide regulation acquainted by a kind of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might boost larger recourse to the Court and therefore enhance worldwide dispute resolution.

mahesh
03-01-2010, 07:11 AM
Current Composition of ICJ:

Name Country Position
Hisashi Owada Japan President
Peter Tomka Slovakia Vice-President
Shi Jiuyong China Member
Abdul G. Koroma Sierra Leone Member
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh Jordan Member
Thomas Buergenthal United States Member
Bruno Simma Germany Member
Ronny Abraham France Member
Sir Kenneth Keith New Zealand Member
Bernardo Sep ú lveda Amor Mexico Member
Mohamed Bennouna Morocco Member
Leonid Skotnikov Russia Member
Ant ô nio Augusto Cancado Trindade Brazil Member
Abdulqawi Yusuf Somalia Member
Sir Christopher John Greenwood United Kingdom Member