The World Court's Jurisdictional Formalism and Its Lost Market Share: The Marshall Islands Decisions and the Quest for a Suitable Dispute Settlement Forum for Multilateral Disputes

Proulx, Vincent-Joël

doi:10.2139/ssrn.3000213

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…205 In these new proceedings, the previously unmet condition of awareness would be satisfied because the respondent would be aware its view were opposed from the previous proceedings. 206 The consequences of this would create inefficiencies and may run the risk of the Court wasting its time hearing an identical case which could have been addressed much earlier. The Court has also stated in its jurisprudence that it should not penalise an applicant for a defect in procedure which can easily be remedied "by the date when the Court decides on the jurisdiction".…”

Section: Impact Of Awareness On Future Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Awmee¹

2018

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The International Court of Justice recently gave judgment in Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament. The case concerned three parallel claims brought by the Marshall Islands against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom for their alleged failure to fulfil obligations concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament under art VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. The Court in all three proceedings dismissed the claims at the preliminary objections phase on the sole ground that a legal dispute did not exist between the parties. In determining whether a legal dispute existed, the Court appears to have deviated from the objective determination taken in its previous jurisprudence by introducing, for the first time, a new requirement of "awareness". The Court also failed to address the other preliminary objections brought by the United Kingdom such as the Monetary Gold principle, which appears to have been a more credible avenue for the Court to dismiss the case. The case illustrates the failure by the Court to yet again confront the issue of nuclear weapons.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Awareness On Future Casesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Awmee¹

2018

VUWLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critque of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Awmee

2018

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Court's Jurisdictional Formalism and Its Lost Market Share: The Marshall Islands Decisions and the Quest for a Suitable Dispute Settlement Forum for Multilateral Disputes

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critque of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About