Search results

States are increasingly accepting the idea of compulsory jurisdiction for the International Court of Justice and the Court has more cases on its docket than ever before. This book is the first monograph in English dealing with the topic in a concise and accurate manner. Chapter I deals with basic general problems, such as the notion and bases of and the decisions on the ICJ jurisdiction. Chapter II presents the question of ICJ compulsory jurisdiction based on treaty provisions. The central issue, i.e. the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction based on the optional clause, is dealt with in Chapter III. After presenting specific questions, such as the essence of declarations accepting the optional clause, the principle of reciprocity, reservations, formal conditions, etc., the author concentrates in this chapter on the characteristics of the legal system created on the basis of the optional clause

In this ground-breaking study, taken on the initiative of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Thomas M. Franck, and Gregory H. Fox explore the use of international law decisions by national courts, providing in-depth materials for answers to such critical and practical questions as: To what extent do national judges treat the decisions of their international colleagues as binding or persuasive? Do national judges regard the outcomes of international decisions as res judicata? As evidence of law or fact? Published under the Transnational Publishers imprint

This study examines the reservations to the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction included in declarations made by States under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and discusses the practical application by the Court of the principle of reciprocity to such reservations in contentious cases submitted to it under Article 36(2). It has been considered that, due to acceptance conditioned by so many diverse, and complicated reservations, the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has been declining in significance. The recent trend of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction does not support such a conclusion. Since the practice of making declarations with reservations has continued, further study of the Court's jurisprudence in dealing with such reservations seems necessary. This analysis attempts to show that reservations in unilateral declarations do not contribute to the decline of the Optional Clause. In fact, reservations provide for the flexibility which many States consider essential in accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Thus, the right to include a variety of reservations in unilateral declarations may in fact contribute to the wider acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction

Shortly after the Second World War the community of States, still shocked by the explosion of violence that had torn the world apart for more than five years, ratified an updated version of the Geneva Conventions in the hope of acquiring a sound legal instrument which would preserve human dignity even in times of war. They undertook to respect the fundamental rights of the individual in armed conflicts, whether international or otherwise, and to limit the use of force to what was strictly necessary to place an enemy hors de combat. Their resolve found confirmation in the two Additional Protocols of 1977.