International Court of Justice Part 26

 

Australia-Australia Withdraws Maritime Disputes from the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea
Gillian Triggs and Dean Bialek
International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law
Volume 17, Number 3, September 2002 p.423

The Globalization of Justice: The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Lieutenant Colonel Bruce D. Landrum, U.S. Marine Corps
Army Lawyer
September 2002 p.1

Decisions of International Tribunals: The International Court of Justice
Malcolm D Evans
International and Comparative Law Quarterly
Volume 51, Number 3, July 2002 p.709-718

Judicial Activities of the International Court of Justice in the First Half of Year 2001 – ?imal ?. Patel
Indian Journal of International Law
Volume 42, Number 3, July-September 2002 p.370

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)
Alexander Orakhelashvili
American Journal of International Law
Volume 96, Number 3, July 2002 p.677

International Court of Justice judgment on immunity of incumbent foreign minister from arrest on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed before taking office.

The Protection of Human Life Through Provisional Measures Indicated by the International Court of Justice
Yoshiyuki Iwamoto (Lee)
Leiden Journal of International Law
Volume 15, Number 2, June 2002 p.345-366

International Court of Justice Rules in Favor of Germany and Against the United States in the LaGrand Case
German Law Journal
Volume 2, Number 12, July 16, 2001

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE: FROM PAPER TO PRACTICE-A CONTRIBUTION FROM THE International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE International Criminal Court
Adama Dieng
Fordham International Law Journal
Volume 25, Number 3, March 2002 p.688

USING INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINIONS TO ADJUDICATE SECESSIONIST CLAIMS
David Sloss
Santa Clara Law Review
Volume 42, Number 2, 2002 p.357

This article suggests that the International Court of Justice’s (I.C.J.’s) advisory opinion procedure could be a useful mechanism for adjudicating some disputes between recognized states and secessionist groups within those states. The article does not contend that all, or even most, secessionist disputes can be resolved by adjudication. Rather, it suggests that there are two distinct benefits to be gained from international adjudication of secessionist claims. First, there is a need to clarify the international legal rules governing the relationship between the right of peoples to self-determination and the right of states to preserve their territorial integrity; case-by-case adjudication of secessionist claims is likely to be a better mechanism for clarifying those legal rules than adoption of U.N. declarations or conventions. Second, international adjudication by means of an I.C.J. advisory opinion may, in some cases, facilitate political resolution of secessionist disputes.

Decisions of International Tribunals: the International Court of Justice
International and Comparative Law Quarterly
Volume 51, Number 2, April 2002

The Clash Between U.S. Criminal Procedure and the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations : An Analysis of the International Court of Justice Decision in the LaGrand Case
Jennifer Lynne Weinman
American University International Law Review
Volume 17, Number 4, 2002 p.857

The 2001 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice
John R. Crook
American Journal of International Law
Volume 96, Number 2, April 2002 p.397

 

Author: international

Mentioned in these Entries

International Criminal Court, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.