The 2005 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Mathias, Stephen

doi:10.1017/s0002930000031109

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[A] state in a position analogous to that of Uganda in this case might well seek to include in such an agreement either a provision to the effect that the presence of its troops during the agreed withdrawal period had been consented to by all parties or a provision that the presence of its troops during the agreed withdrawal period shall not engage its international legal responsibility. 107 Turning to the Sedji´c and Finci judgment, it seems at first glance as if the ECtHR did what the other tribunals refused to do: it checked the compatibility of a peace agreement with an international treaty, namely the European Convention on Human Rights. Taking a closer look, the ECtHR made an important distinction: it considered that this case fell within its jurisdiction, as it was asked to check the compatibility between the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Convention, and not the compatibility of the Dayton Accord with the said Convention.…”

Section: Substantive Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies

Solomou¹

2014

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article compares and contrasts the interpretation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement 1999 by the International Court of Justice, the Peace Agreement between the Government of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone by the Special Court for Sierra Leone, and the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina by the European Court of Human Rights. In doing so, it critically analyses the approach of the three different tribunals and attempts to explain the differences identified on the basis of the jurisdictional scope of each tribunal and the substantive law each has been tasked to apply. This comparison is both substantive and procedural. The article then examines the impact of these three tribunals on two specific aspects of the rule of law: legal accountability and legal certainty, both internationally and in the countries under examination. It is argued that, while these tribunals have enhanced legal certainty and accountability on the international level, any contribution they have made to the domestic rule of law has been questionable.

show abstract

Section: Substantive Comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies

Solomou¹

2014

Leiden Journal of International Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Case of Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction)

Ioffe

2019

Am. j. int. law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction), the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) ordered the Russian Federation to pay Georgia EUR 10 million as reparation for Russia's “coordinated policy of arresting, detaining and expelling Georgian nationals” in the autumn of 2006 (paras. 51, 80). In so doing, the Court reaffirmed its position from Cyprus v. Turkey (IV) (Just Satisfaction) that financial compensation for non-pecuniary damage can be awarded in interstate cases. Although Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction) marks the development of a new line of ECtHR jurisprudence, it is unlikely that the decision will effectively prevent further mass violations of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or Convention) by the states parties or offer fair compensation to the victims of such violations.

show abstract

Private Rights, the Use of Maps, State Responsibility, and Other Issues in the International Court of Justice’s Boundary Jurisprudence: 2000-10

Alvarez-Jimenez¹

2012

Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de dro

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SummaryBoundary disputes constitute one of the most delicate issues for states, such that it is not surprising that frontier issues are among the most recurrent before the International Court of Justice (IC J) and have given rise to a rich jurisprudence. This jurisprudence comprises traditional areas: consent in boundary treaties, the principle of uti possidetis juris, the notion of effectivités, and maritime delimitation. However, it also includes other topics that usually receive less attention, but which are nonetheless important to states and sometimes underlie their significant interest in boundary disputes. This article deals with such topics in order to show how the IC J has handled them in its boundary jurisprudence of the first decade of the new millennium. The author discusses IC J decisions addressing types of territory that cannot be appropriated, terra nullius, private rights, state succession, unilateral donations as sources of title to territory, irrelevant criteria in establishing title to territory (particularly historical consolidation), the use of maps, and state responsibility in connection with boundary disputes.

show abstract

The 2005 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Cited by 3 publications

References 1 publication

Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies

Comparing the Impact of the Interpretation of Peace Agreements by International Courts and Tribunals on Legal Accountability and Legal Certainty in Post-Conflict Societies

Case of Georgia v. Russia (I) (Just Satisfaction)

Private Rights, the Use of Maps, State Responsibility, and Other Issues in the International Court of Justice’s Boundary Jurisprudence: 2000-10

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About