The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua

Gray, Christine

doi:10.1093/ejil/14.5.867

Cited by 27 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Čini se da je u stvarnosti došlo upravo do suprotnog razvoja događaja. 74 Kritike MSP u smislu njegove pristrasnosti ka zapadnim zemljama su se utišale i nekoliko država je iznelo predmete pred ovaj sud koji se direktno tiču upotrebe sile, ili se odnose na granične sporove u uslovima oružanog sukoba. 75 Da li će se isto dogoditi i sa MKS, pokazaće vremena koja dolaze.…”

Section: Zaključakunclassified

Aggression as an international crime

Vučić¹

2017

Medjunar probl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Zaključakunclassified

Aggression as an international crime

Vučić¹

2017

Medjunar probl

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…McMahan's court proposal is weaker, as weak as a 'congress of experts', 14 The large power inequalities among states make many people reasonably fear that a global court would be co-opted by some states, whose particular interests and alliances would override the pursuit of justice. However, fundamental issues regarding the overlapping competences of the ICJ and the UN Security Council remain largely unresolved, and it is far from clear whether the Court will take a more active role in the future (Gray 2014(Gray , 2003. For critical accounts of its operation in Africa, see Mamdani (2009) and Clark (2009), and on the fact-finding limitations of international criminal tribunals, see Cogan (2002).…”

Section: Adjudication Of Just Causes Of Warmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law

Kalmanovitz

2015

Int Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent scholarship in just war theory has challenged the principle of symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This revisionist work, which is increasingly dominating the field of contemporary war ethics, rejects the idea that the rules of conduct of war (jus in bello) should be agnostic about the justice of the decision to go to war (jus ad bellum). Just wars are perceived to be inherently at odds with the principle of symmetrical application of IHL, which appears to create a hard choice between justice and legality. I show that this challenge to IHL is misplaced. It derives from a widespread view among just war theorists according to which only one side in a just war can be justified in using force. By looking closely at the nature of adjudication of just causes of war, I show that there can be cases of war in which both sides are justified in using force, and cases in which, though not objectively justified, both sides may be excused for fighting. On the basis of this understanding of jus ad bellum, I argue that the principle of symmetrical application of IHL in fact best reflects the uncertainty and complexity that should characterize the practical doctrine of jus ad bellum.

show abstract

“…States' ability to add new reservations on their optional clause declarations continues to limit the Courts' ability to act as a legitimate adjudicator. For example, following the controversial 1984 ICJ judgment on jurisdiction and admissibility in the Nicaragua case, several states, including El Salvador, Israel, and India, placed new reservations on their declarations attempting to exclude disputes concerning the use of force from the Court's jurisdiction (Gray :886). Interestingly, some government representatives have openly admitted their motives standing behind the decision to further limit the Court's jurisdiction.…”

Section: Legitimacy As a Function Of Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Interestingly, some government representatives have openly admitted their motives standing behind the decision to further limit the Court's jurisdiction. For example, in the oral proceedings of the Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) case, Honduras argued that its intention in placing an additional reservation immediately after the 1984 Nicaragua case “had been to exclude the type of application made by Nicaragua” (Gray :887).…”

Section: Legitimacy As a Function Of Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Two Courts Two Roads: Domestic Rule of Law and Legitimacy of International Courts

Powell

2012

Foreign Policy Anal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) constitute two prominent international courts. However, there exists considerable variation in states' support for these two institutions. The Rome Statute, which recognizes the jurisdiction of the ICC has been ratified by over half the states in the world; only a third of states accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. How are we to understand this variation in state support for these two courts? I argue that there is an inherent link between the quality of a state's domestic legal system (rule of law) and perceived legitimacy of an international court. Empirical analyses of states' support for the ICJ and the ICC show that rule‐of‐law states lend support to the ICC, a court perceived by the international community as legitimate. Alleged bias of the ICJ has, on the other hand, substantially weakened support for this court among rule‐of‐law states.

show abstract

The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua

Cited by 27 publications

References 0 publications

Aggression as an international crime

Aggression as an international crime

Aggression and the symmetrical application of International Humanitarian Law

Two Courts Two Roads: Domestic Rule of Law and Legitimacy of International Courts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About