Suchergebnisse

On 30 April 2024, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) rejected a request by Nicaragua for the indication of provisional measures in connection with claims relating to Germany's support for Israel in the ongoing Gaza conflict. In a terse, sparsely-reasoned decision, the Court decided 15-1 that the circumstances were 'not such as to require the exercise of its power under Article 41 of the Statute to indicate provisional measures'. While this outcome was not necessarily surprising to those who had followed the proceedings, the Court's approach—in which it declined to address the usual requirements for the indication of provisional measures—was unusual.

On 12 February 2024, South Africa requested the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to consider exercising its power under Article 75(1) of the Rules of Court to indicate provisional measures proprio motu against Israel. This is an extraordinary request by South Africa, coming less than three weeks after the Court indicated provisional measures against Israel on 26 January 2023. It is also very rare for the Court to act proprio motu, whether prompted by a state's request or otherwise. South Africa's latest request is a response to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's statement on 9 February that Israel is preparing a ground invasion of Rafah in the south of Gaza. How will the ICJ respond to South Africa's request? In this regard, the method by which South Africa seeks the Court's intervention merits attention.

On April 2, 2015, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS or Tribunal) rendered an advisory opinion on the rights and obligations of flag states and coastal states regarding illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fishing within the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). ITLOS confirmed that the full Tribunal—not just its Seabed Disputes Chamber—has jurisdiction to render advisory opinions, a matter of controversy that had previously been untested. The Tribunal also held that under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS or Convention), flag states have a "due diligence" obligation to ensure that vessels flying their flag do not engage in IUU fishing activities, and that the flag state may be held liable if that obligation of due diligence is breached. In addition, the Tribunal clarified that where fisheries competence has been transferred from a state to an international organization, it is the organization, not the flag state, that may face liability for a failure to have taken adequate measures to prevent IUU fishing. Finally, the Tribunal confirmed that coastal states have a duty to consult and cooperate with each other in the sustainable management of shared stocks and highly migratory species.