Suchergebnisse

A Judgment inter partes has two uses in subsequent proceedings: as a defence against a plaintiff whose case is inconsistent with its correctness, or as a weapon of attack against the party condemned by it. The basis of the first use is not that the judgment made any difference to the rights of the parties, still less that the pronouncement of a court, domestic or foreign, is infallible, but that, whether or not their rights are truly as declared, that declaration will not be allowed to be contradicted.

Proposing a systematic analytical framework which assists in understanding and applying the international law regime governing State ocean jurisdiction with a view to improved ocean governance for sustainable development, this book distinguishes between, and focuses on, the form, the ground, the scope and the purpose of State ocean jurisdiction. Defining jurisdiction as the international-law authority of a State to be involved in a factual matter on the basis of a valid legal ground to perform authoritative acts impacting on that matter, it disaggregates the concept the complexity of which often leads to States failing to make full use of their existing ocean jurisdictions. In the process, it identifies when and to what extent there are gaps and overlaps of jurisdictions. Bringing clarity on an inevitably complex and often misunderstood framework that is aimed at striking a universally accepted balance of competing interests, the book lays the foundation for future research, contextualising the position of State ocean jurisdiction not only in terms of ocean governance, but in the whole of public international law. With an original systematic focus on State ocean jurisdiction, the book will be of interest to academics, students and practitioners working in the areas of international law of the sea, ocean governance, human rights and environmental law.

In a litigation between the United States and France and Morocco, the International Court of Justice had to determine not so long ago whether United States consular jurisdiction in the French Zone of the Protectorate of Morocco extended merely to disputes among nationals and protégés of the United States, as provided for in its treaty with Morocco of 1836, or to all cases in which an American citizen or protege is a defendant. The latter—extended—type of consular jurisdiction had accrued to the United States through the operation of most-favored-nation clauses contained in its treaties with Morocco.

189International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Optional Clause — Statute of the Court, Article 36(2) — Declaration accepting jurisdiction of the Court — Reservations — Right of State making declaration to define scope of acceptance of jurisdiction — Whether reservations to be construed restrictively — Distinction between substantive law and rules governing jurisdiction of the Court — Principles to be applied in interpretation of declaration and reservations — Intention of State making declaration — Principle of good faithInternational Court of Justice — Procedure — Preliminary objections — Whether objection possessing an exclusively preliminary character — Duty of the Court in dealing with preliminary objectionsSea — High seas — Jurisdiction — Fisheries — Conservation measures — Arrest of Spanish vessel by Canada outside Canadian waters — Legality — Whether dispute falling within jurisdiction of International Court of JusticeEnvironment — Maritime environment — Fisheries conservation — Limit of conservation measures — Compatibility with regime of the high seas