The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court and the Settlement of Disputes between States

Abstract

WHEBEAS the contentious jurisdiction of the International Court can only be used against a respondent State which has at some time submitted to the Court's jurisdiction, whether expressly by agreement or through a declaration under the so-called " Optional Clause," or impliedly by failing to contest the Court's jurisdiction under the principle of forum prorogatum, prima facie all that is required in order to obtain an advisory opinion from the Court is a favourable majority in a political organ with authority to set in motion the advisory procedure. In an international society in which advance acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction has never been widespread, and, if anything, is becoming gradually more restricted, it would seem, in theory at any rate, that a judicial pronouncement, even though technically one not binding on the parties, on an interState dispute could more easily be obtained through an advisory opinion than by the claimant State making application to the Court in the normal way. Stated so broadly, the suggestion that the Court's advisory function could be used to avoid irksome restrictions on its compulsory jurisdiction might well be unacceptable to most lawyers. Nevertheless, as this paper will attempt to demonstrate, there is a danger, discernible particularly in the Expenses Case, 1 that the advisory procedure has been employed in a role inconsistent both with the intended consensual basis of the Court's jurisdiction and with the proper function of a judicial tribunal. The power to give an advisory opinion was granted both to the Permanent Court and to the present International Court in the widest terms: Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations referred to " an advisory opinion on any dispute or question," and under the present Statute an advisory opinion may be given on " any legal

Wpływ opinii doradczych Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości na postępowanie przed Trybunałami Administracyjnymi w systemie ONZ

“…Ponadto wiele umów z zakresu międzynarodowego systemu ochrony praw człowieka, chociaż nie zawsze wprost, gwarantuje prawo do sądu 28 . Twierdzi się nawet, iż prawo jednostki do sądowych lub 10 Edyta Lis quasi-sądowych środków dochodzenia roszczeń stanowi wyraz ogólnej zasady prawa lub normy zwyczajowej 29 .…”

“…TAONZ powinien działać nie tylko w interesie skutecznej administracji, ale także w imię sprawiedliwości 37 . Natomiast w opinii doradczej z 1954 r. dotyczącej 29 30 Ibidem, s. 70-71. Zob.…”

The Advisory Function of the International Court of Justice 1946-2005

“…See League of Nations, Advisory Committee of Jurists 1920, 27 th meeting, p. 584. 55 Permanent Court oflnternational Justice Advisory Committee of Jurists, Proces-Verbaux a/the Proceedings o/the Committee (1920), 27 th meeting p. 584. 56 Ibid, p. 584.…”

“…54 On reception of this opinion, South Africa's representative maintained that he would not accept the 1955 opinion as it was merely an interpretation of the 1950 opinion which his Government did not accept either. 55 Nevertheless, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 934 (X), of 3 December 1955, accepting and endorsing the opinion. 52 The League Council in accordance with Article 5 of the Covenant, could only take decisions by a unanimous vote.…”