Suchergebnisse

Corfu Channel Case: At a public hearing on December 15, 1949 the International Court of Justice gave judgment in the last stage of the Corfu Channel Case between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of Albania. The two experts appointed by the Court to examine the figures and estimates of damages produced by the United Kingdom had reported on December 2, 1949 and had been further questioned by the judges. Because the Albanian government had failed to defend its case, procedure in default of appearance was brought into operation. After finding that the figures given by the United Kingdom government for the replacement of the destroyer Saumarez and for the damage sustained by the destroyer Volage were an exact and reasonable estimate of the damage sustained, and after finding the documents produced by the United Kingdom regarding deaths and injuries of naval personnel sufficient proof, the Court gave judgment in favor of the claim of the United Kingdom and ordered Albania to pay that country a total compensation of £843,947.

Case concerning the Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on December 23rd, 1906(Honduras v. Nicaragua): On July 1, 1958, Honduras filed an application instituting proceedings against Nicaragua concerning an arbitral award made by the King of Spain with regard to the demarcation of the limits between the two countries. According to Article 5 of the Bonilla-Gamez Treaty which determined the limits, certain points in dispute might, in certain circumstances, be referred to the decision of the government of Spain. Thus an arbitration was requested from the King of Spain in October 1904, and the award was made on December 23, 1906. The application stated that, when the time came to proceed to the delimitation, Nicaragua contended that the arbitral award was a nullity and that it was not possible to resolve the dispute by diplomatic means or through the mediation of friendly nations and governments. Under the resolution adopted by the Organization of American States on July 5, 1957, the governments of Honduras and Nicaragua concluded an agreement at Washington on July 21, 1957, by virtue of which their dispute should be referred to the International Court of Justice. In its application Honduras requested the Court to declare that Nicaragua's failure to give effect to the arbitral award of 1906 constituted a breach of an international obligation and that Nicaragua was under an obligation to carry out the award.

Intro -- Supporting the Prosecution of International Crimes in National Courts -- Contents -- Foreword -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- The Universe of International Justice -- Global Support for International Justice -- Recommendations for U.S. Strategy -- Conclusion -- Endnotes -- About the Author -- Advisory Committee for Justice Beyond the Hague -- Council Special Reports.

Justice systems in selected countries / Philip Reichel -- The role of international justice organizations / Donna Vandiver and J.D. Jamieson -- International law enforcement organizations / Mathieu Deflem and Shannon -- Policing in selected countries : organization and structure / Harry Dammer -- Policing subordinate sovereignties : policing in democratic societies / L. Edward Wells -- Correctional systems, philosophies, and innovations : a comparative perspective / Sesha Kethineni, Sarah McCullough and Tinu Neha Miriyam -- Juvenile justice : a comparative perspective / Sesha Kethineni, Sarah McCullough and Richard Charlton -- The global normative order : a call fo international individual rights in a world of states / Gabriel Rubin -- International human rights movement / Satenik Margaryan -- War crimes : international response to genocide / Ralph Weisheit -- Specific crimes against humanity : groups and minority rights / Sesha Kethineni, Colette B. Harris, and Gail Humiston -- International terrorism / JeffreyIan Ross and Michael Stohl -- Wildlife crime / Monique Sosnowski and William D. Moreto -- The war on migration and the crisis of nationalism / Gabriel Rubin and Ira Rosenberg -- International drug trafficking / Melanie-Angela Neuilly -- Human trafficking and policing in an international context / Gail Humiston and Roberto Hugh Potter -- International crimes : "Jus Cogens" and "Obligatio Erga Omnes" / Jessie L. Krienert, Jeffrey A. Walsh, Kevin Matthews, Meghan, and Peuterbaugh -- Cryptocurrency and crime / Sesha Kethineni and Dayanand Sundaravadivelu -- Overall conclusion.

Following the judgments of the International Court of Justice on November 20, 1950 and November 27, 1950 (the request for an interpretation of the judgment), the government of Colombia filed a new claim requesting the Court to adjudge and declare the manner in which effect should be given to the judgment of November 20, and in particular whether Colombia was bound to deliver to the government of Peru Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre. As an alternative claim Colombia requested that the Court declare whether in accordance with the law in force between the parties and particularly American international law Colombia was or was not bound to deliver the refugee to the government of Peru. In a letter the Colombian agent informed the Court that his government relied on the Convention on Asylum signed at Havana on February 29, 1928; under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court, the government of Cuba as a signatory to that convention submitted a declaration of intervention which contained Cuba's views on the construction of the Convention of Havana of 1928 as well as its general attitude on asylum. A public hearing was held by the Court on May 15 to determine the admissibility of the Cuban intervention to which the government of Peru had objected on the ground that the Court had given a judgment on the construction of the Havana Convention of 1928, and that it was an attempt by a third state to appeal against the judgment of November 20.

On January 12, 1946, a list of candidates nominated for membership on the International Court of Justice was submitted to the General Assembly and the Security Council, in accordance with invitations issued by the Executive Committee of the Preparatory Commission.As a result of elections held on February 6, the following were elected: Alvarez (Chile), Azevedo (Brazil), Badawi (Egypt), Basdevant (France), de Visscher (Belgium), Fabela (Mexico), Guerrero (Salvador), Hackworth (United States), Hsu (China), Klaestad (Norway), Krylov (USSR), McNair (United Kingdom), Read (Canada), Winiarski (Poland), and Zoricic (Yugoslavia).The first meeting of the Court was held on April 3 at the Peace Palace at the Hague, and the inaugural sitting on April 18. On April 6 the Court elected Mr. J. G. Guerrero as President and M. J. Basdevant as Vice-President. Mr. Edvard Hambro was appointed Registrar and M. J. Garnier-Coignet, Deputy Registrar. On May 3 the Court formed the Chamber for Summary Procedure, provided for by Article 29 of the Statute, composed of the following members: Guerrero (President), Basdevant, McNair, Krylov, Hsu, with Fabela and de Visscher as substitute members.

ApplicationsAerial Incident of October y, 1952 (United States v. Soviet Union): On June 2, 1955, the United States filed with the International Court of Justice an application instituting proceedings against the Soviet Union, on the grounds of certain willful acts said to have been committed by Soviet fighter aircraft against a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft andits crew off Hokkaido, Japan, on October 7, 1952. The United States claimed that a Soviet fighter aircraft, unlawfully overflying the territory of Japan at the instigation of the Soviet government, had without any provocation attacked and destroyed the United States Air Force B-29, causing it to crashinto the sea at a point between Yuri Island and Akiyuri Island in territory rightfully belonging to Japan; that the crew of eight, all members of the United States Air Force and nationals ofthe United States, had failed to return, and that the Soviet government had concealed from the United States government information as to the fate of the crew, and had notmade provision for the prompt return of any crew members whom it might still be holding or of whose whereabouts itwas informed. The United States application stated that the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case was accepted by the United States. The damages the United States claimed to have suffered and for which it claimed the Soviet Union to beliable were specified in a note annexed to the application; the United States claimed that the actions withwhich it charged the Soviet government constituted serious violations of international obligation for which it demanded monetary and other reparation.

Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943: On June 15, 1954, the International Court of Justice rendered a judgment on the preliminary question raised by Italy in the case of the monetary gold removed from Rome in 1943. Italy had asked the Court to declare itself incompetent to determine the first question raised by Italy in its application instituting proceedings; namely, whether or not the United States, United Kingdom, and France should deliver to Italy rather than Albania any share of the monetary gold which might be due to Albania under the Paris Act of January 14, 1946, in partial satisfaction for the damage caused to Italy by the Albanian law of January 13, 1945. Italy felt that the Court could not decide this question without passing judgment upon the international responsibility of Albania to Italy as a result of the Albanian law in question; Italy felt that the Court could not adjudicate such a question without the consent of Albania. Neither the United States nor France deposited formal submissions to the Court on the preliminary question; the United Kingdom, the third defendant in the case, argued that in view of Italy's objection to the competence of the Court, its application instituting proceedings of May 19, 1953, no longer conformed to the conditions or intentions of the tripartite Washington statement of April 25, 1951, and was, therefore, invalid and void. As an alternative, the United Kingdom argued that the action of the Italian government in raising the preliminary question constituted in fact a withdrawal or cancellation of its application.

Advisory OpinionsInterpretation of the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania: Early in May the Secretary-General (Lie) advised the International Court of Justice that neither Bulgaria, Hungary or Rumania had designated its representatives to the commissions provided in the treaties before the deadline of within thirty days from March 30. Therefore the United Kingdom and United States deposited their written statements within the time limit of June 5 for the second phase of the case.1 The two questions under consideration were: 1) "If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania where that party is obligated to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized to appoint the third member of the Commission upon the request of the other party to a dispute according to the provisions of the respective Treaties?" In the event of an affirmative reply to that question: 2) "Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative of one party and a third member appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a Commission, within the meaning of the relevant Treaty articles, competent to make a definitive binding decision in settlement of a dispute?"

Introduction : the futures of international criminal justice / Emma Palmer and Susan Harris Rimmer -- Rethinking the international criminal court as the court of its state parties / Frédéric Mégret -- The politics of 'the Decider' and the implications of the ICC's response to the Afghanistan and Palestine situations / Shannon Maree Torrens -- Development versus justice : international criminal law and investment in Myanmar / Emma Palmer -- Imagining future reparations for environmental destruction / Rachel Killean -- Unlawful human experimentation in the wake of the trials under control Council Law no 10 at Nuremberg, in the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court and at the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia / Edwin Bikundo -- Testing knowledge : weapons reviews of autonomous weapons systems and the international criminal trial / Eve Massingham and Simon McKenzie -- Creating legal frameworks to afford human accountability for AI decisions in war / Natale J.E. Nunn -- Future-proofing international criminal law : complexity theory perspectives on collective entity accountability / Anna Marie Brennan -- The local resilience, and the future of hybrid courts in international criminal law / Philipp Kastner -- Postscript : international criminal justice futures / Susan Harris Rimmer, Emma Palmer and Edwin Bikundo.