Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Organisation of Contentious Proceedings

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The International Court of Justice

  • 1259 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter highlights the interplay between the Court and the parties as regards the management of the strictly procedural aspects of contentious cases. The parties’ active cooperation is sought for a smooth management of proceedings, and the arbitral basis of the Court’s competence influences decisions involving the position of States other than the parties to a given case (notably as regards joinders). In other contexts, the Court’s decisions are often based on considerations such as need to foster the sound administration of justice and the peaceful settlement of international disputes, rather than on the parties’ wishes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See above, Sect. 3.1.

  2. 2.

    Arbitration Under the Timor Sea Treaty (Timor-Leste v. Australia), instituted on 23 April 2013. See www.pca-cpa.org.

  3. 3.

    Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), application of 17 December 2013.

  4. 4.

    See, also for further details about the two disputes, Happold (2013).

  5. 5.

    See below, Chap. 13, note 13.

  6. 6.

    ‘The Court may, after ascertaining the views of the parties, decide that copies of the pleadings and documents annexed shall be made accessible to the public on or after the opening of the oral proceedings’ (emphasis added).

  7. 7.

    One of the rare examples of a closed hearing took place when the ICJ dealt with the objections by South Africa to the composition of the Bench in the South West Africa cases: see the order of 18 March 1965, ICJ Reports 1965, p. 4 at 5.

  8. 8.

    Higgins (2001), p. 124.

  9. 9.

    Cf. Kolb (2013), p. 1139ff.

  10. 10.

    On the latter aspect cf. Thirlway (2001), pp. 39–41.

  11. 11.

    See Anzilotti (1929), p. 309. Anzilotti’s views on counter-claims strongly influenced the drafting of the PCIJ’s Rules of Court: see Antonopoulos (2011), pp. 37ff.

  12. 12.

    Award of 6 May 1913, RIAA 11, 449–461.

  13. 13.

    Award of 6 May 1913, RIAA 11, pp. 463–479. See again Antonopoulos (2011), p. 14, qualifying the Italian claim to reimbursement of the expenses related to the seisure of the vessel as a counter-claim. Yet, both the French and the Italian claims were covered by the special agreement and were simultaneously submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal. This scheme is, of course, still used in inter-State arbitration: see for instance Case concerning the audit of accounts between the Netherlands and France in application of the Protocol of 25 September 1991 Additional to the Convention for the Protection of the Rhine from Pollution by Chlorides of 3 December 1976, RIAA 25, pp. 267–344 at 275, para. 12.

  14. 14.

    Interestingly, the current text of Article 80 of the Rules of Court does not exclude counter-claims in cases introduced on the basis of a special agreement. Qatar v. Bahrain confirms that, in cases submitted on the basis of a special agreement, the submission of only part of the issues covered by that agreement might be problematic (see further below, Sect. 6.5). Cf. further Antonopoulos (2011), pp. 82–83; Kolb (2013), p. 664.

  15. 15.

    See The Islamic Republic of Iran v. The United States of America, Case No. B 1(Counterclaim), interlocutory award of 9 September 2004, Award No. ITL 83-B1-FT, available www.iusct.net, visited 29 Dec 2013, paras. 86ff. Cf. further Santulli (2005), p. 316; Pellonpää and Caron (1994), p. 348; Aldrich (1996), pp. 110–120.

  16. 16.

    See notably Article 46 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, Washington, 18 March 1965 (ICSID Convention) and Article 21(3) of the UNCITRAL Model Rules 2010.

  17. 17.

    Cf. already Article 19(3) of the PCA Inter-State Optional Rules and the corresponding provision of the IOS Optional Rules. See also Article 19 of the ILC Model Rules, and the comment by Antonopoulos (2011), p. 34.

  18. 18.

    Award of 17 September 2007, (2008) ILM 47, pp. 166–254, paras. 402ff. and para. 2 of the operative part.

  19. 19.

    Arbitration between Barbados and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, relating to the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf between them, decision of 11 April 2006, RIAA 27, pp. 147–251.

  20. 20.

    This provision reads: ‘Unless the parties to the dispute otherwise agree, the arbitral tribunal shall determine its own procedure, assuring to each party a full opportunity to be heard and to present its case’.

  21. 21.

    See Order No. 2 of 23 August 2004, para. 1: the relevant excerpt is reproduced in the award, RIAA 27, p. 157, para. 12.

  22. 22.

    Article 9(2)(c). This text is available at www.pca-cpa.org, accessed 20 December 2013.

  23. 23.

    See the award, RIAA 27, p. 208, para. 213. More precisely, the counter-claim was deemed admissible because ‘(i) it either forms part of, or is sufficiently closely related to, the dispute submitted by Barbados (ii) record of the negotiations shows that it was part of the subject-matter on the table during those negotiations, and (iii) there is in law only a single “continental shelf” rather than an inner continental shelf and a separate extended or outer continental shelf’.

  24. 24.

    Antonopoulos (2011), p. 19.

  25. 25.

    Santulli (2005), pp. 148ff.

  26. 26.

    According to the order of 17 December 1997 in the case of the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Counter-claims, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 243 at 257, para. 30, incidental claims are allowed ‘merely in order to ensure better administration of justice, given the specific nature of the claims in question; (…) as far as counter-claims are concerned, the idea is essentially to achieve a procedural economy whilst enabling the Court to have an overview of the respective claims of the parties and to decide them more consistently’.

  27. 27.

    See Salerno (1999) pp. 362–363, stressing the ‘connotation nettement “publiciste”’ of the principle of procedural economy, which is applied by international courts ‘en fonction des intérêts collectifs qui sont propres au système procédural qu’il[s] administre[nt]’.

  28. 28.

    Kerbrat (2002).

  29. 29.

    Salerno (1999), p. 331.

  30. 30.

    See Article 40 of the 1922 Rules of Court. The issue is currently regulated by Article 80 of the 1978 Rules.

  31. 31.

    See Torres Bernárdez (2003), p. 228.

  32. 32.

    Torres Bernárdez (2003), p. 232.

  33. 33.

    Article 80(2) of the Rules. The text currently in force (as amended with effect from 1 February 2001) further provides that: ‘The right of the other party to present its views in writing on the counter-claim, in an additional pleading, shall be preserved, irrespective of any decision of the Court, in accordance with Article 45, paragraph 2, of these Rules, concerning the filing of further written pleadings’.

  34. 34.

    Article 80(3) of the Rules of Court: ‘Where an objection is raised concerning the application of paragraph 1 or whenever the Court deems necessary, the Court shall take its decision thereon after hearing the parties’. Also this text was amended in 2001; see further Torres Bernárdez (2003).

  35. 35.

    See recently Certain Activities in the Border Area, order of 18 April 2013, para. 12, and the criticisms raised by Judges ad hoc Lauterpacht in Bosnia v. Serbia (separate opinion, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 278, para. 3) and Gaja in Germany v. Italy (declaration, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 398). Cf. further Antonopoulos (2011), pp. 135ff.

  36. 36.

    Bosnia v. Serbia, order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 256, para. 27. See already Anzilotti (1929), p. 857.

  37. 37.

    Order of 18 April 2013, para. 40.

  38. 38.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy), Counter-Claim, Order of 6 July 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 310 at 316, para. 14.

  39. 39.

    See Torres Bernárdez (2003), p. 231.

  40. 40.

    Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States) Counter-claim, order of 10 March 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, separate opinion of Judge Higgins, pp. 218–219.

  41. 41.

    See Salerno (1999), p. 376. Cf. Torres Bernárdez (2002), p. 532.

  42. 42.

    ICJ Reports 1998, separate opinion, p. 218. Judge Higgins maintained that, contrary to the position of Iran in the case, the counter-claim could be based on different provisions of the same treaty instrument providing the jurisdictional link. Cf. also the discussion by Antonopoulos (2011), pp. 85ff., and Murphy (2012), pp. 1006ff.

  43. 43.

    Kolb (2013), p. 655.

  44. 44.

    Certain Activities in the Border Area—Construction of a Road in Costa Rica, order of 18 April 2013, para. 27.

  45. 45.

    Bosnia v. Serbia, order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 257, para. 30. Cf. also Certain Activities in the Border Area, order of 18 April 2013: Nicaragua’s first counter-claim was declared without object because it was identical to the principal claim raised by Nicaragua in the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica case, which had been joined to the former one.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para. 31.

  47. 47.

    Cf. PCIJ, Chorzow Factory, Merits, judgment of 13 September 1928, Series A, No. 17, p. 38; Waters on the River Meuse, judgment of 28 June 1937, Series A/B, No. 70, p. 28; ICJ, Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru), judgment of 20 November 1950, ICJ Reports 1950, p. 266 at 280–281; Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), order of 10 March 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 190 at 205, para. 38.

  48. 48.

    See Bosnia v. Serbia, order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 258, para. 33; Oil Platforms, order of 10 March 1998, ICJ Report 1998, pp. 204–205, para. 37. Cf. further De Visscher (1966), p. 116; Rigaux (2002), p. 936.

  49. 49.

    Bosnia v. Serbia, order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, pp. 254–255, paras. 19–21. On this aspect of the order see the dissenting opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, ibid., p. 287 at 289. Cf. Lopes Pegna (1998).

  50. 50.

    Bosnia v. Serbia, order of 17 December 1997, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 258, paras. 34–35. However, see the critical remarks of Vice-President Weeramantry’s separate opinion, ibid., p. 287.

  51. 51.

    Order of 18 April 2013, paras. 33ff. Cf., however, the declaration of Judge ad hoc Guillaume: ‘A fluvial basin constitutes a single entity, and the Court could have usefully addressed all of the issues raised in respect of that basin in a single set of proceedings’.

  52. 52.

    Croatia v. Serbia; this excerpt from the counter-memorial is reproduced in the order of 4 February 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 4 at 5.

  53. 53.

    Order of 4 February 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 7: ‘taking account of the absence of objections by Croatia to the admissibility of the above-mentioned counterclaims, the Court does not consider that it is required to rule definitively at this stage on the question of whether the said claims fulfil the conditions set forth in Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court’.

  54. 54.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, order of 30 June 1999, ICJ Reports 1999, p. 983 at 985; Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda), order of 29 November 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 678, para. 35. In Rights of US Nationals in Morocco (France v. United States), no objection to the admissibility of the US counter-claim was raised and the Court dealt with all the submissions, without any express appreciation of the issue: judgment of 27 August 1952, ICJ Reports 1952, p. 176 at 203ff.

  55. 55.

    Kerbrat (2002), p. 344, also noting (p. 352) that this power to address proprio motu the admissibility of counter-claims is now reflected in Article 80(3) of the Rules of Court.

  56. 56.

    See below, Sect. 6.4.

  57. 57.

    See below, Sect. 10.5.

  58. 58.

    See again the dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry in Bosnia v. Serbia, ICJ Reports 1997, p. 297.

  59. 59.

    Antonopoulos (2011), pp. 152ff.

  60. 60.

    Order of 4 February 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, 7.

  61. 61.

    These two aims are apparently put on the same footing by the Court, but Bosnia v. Serbia conveys the impression that the requirements of a sound administration of justice take precedence over judicial economy.

  62. 62.

    Lopes Pegna (1998), p. 234. Precisely the Bosnia v. Serbia case, that this author was discussing, conveys the conclusion that the requirements of a sound administration of justice may prevail, in this context, over the ones of procedural economy and timeliness of decisions.

  63. 63.

    Article 47 was first included in the 1978 Rules of Court. For an account of the developments relating to this issue see the separate opinion by Judge Cançado Trindade appended to the two parallel orders of 17 April 2013 discussed below in the text, paras. 10ff.

  64. 64.

    Santulli (2005), pp. 420ff.

  65. 65.

    Mox Plant case, Order No. 3. See, generally on this topic, Shany (2003).

  66. 66.

    Rosenne (2006), p. 1219. Cf. Guillaume (1999), p. 341, also stressing that any joinder largely depends on the parties’ wishes.

  67. 67.

    Orders of 17 April 2013, paras. 24 and 18, respectively. The nature of joinder ‘as a measure of judicial administration, so as to secure the sound administration of justice’ is stressed also by Judge Cançado Trindade in his separate opinion, para. 11.

  68. 68.

    Ibid., paras. 23 and 17, respectively.

  69. 69.

    See above, Sect. 4.2.5.

  70. 70.

    See again the orders of 17 April 2013, paras. 18 and 12, respectively, noting that also Article 47 of the Rules ‘leaves the Court a broad margin of discretion’.

  71. 71.

    See the order of 5 February 1926, Series A, No. 7, Annex I, p. 95.

  72. 72.

    Order of 2 August 1932, Series A/B, No. 48, whereby the cases were not joined, however, to the one concerning the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland.

  73. 73.

    Order of 26 October 1932, Series C, No. 68, p. 290.

  74. 74.

    See especially North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), order of 26 April 1968, ICJ Reports 1968, p. 9; in the last case, the three parties had agreed to request that the cases be joined through the Bonn Protocol quoted above, Sect. 4.2. No mention of the parties’ consent was made in South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa and Liberia v. South Africa), order of 20 May 1961, ICJ Reports 1961, p. 13 at 14; however, the applicants had filed virtually identical pleadings, shared one of their agents, and the Court found, in the same order, that they were ‘parties in the same interest’ for the purposes of Article 31 of the Statute.

  75. 75.

    Cf. Torres Bernárdez (2002), pp. 1002ff.

  76. 76.

    See again Rosenne (2006), pp. 1211ff.

  77. 77.

    See Torres Bernárdez (2002), p. 1005, noting that this ‘is not good news for the treatment and solution of genuine tripartite or multipartite international legal disputes, which today occur frequently in international relations, unless greater attention is paid to the means whereby proceedings may be instituted’. This author argues, more specifically, that filing a single application as against a plurality of parties should be possible even without the Respondents’ express consent (ibid., p. 1006).

  78. 78.

    See further below, Part III.

  79. 79.

    Order concerning the Request for the Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011 Indicating Provisional Measures, order of 16 July 2013, para. 28. See also North Sea Continental Shelf, judgment of 20 February 1969, ICJ Reports 1969, p. 3 at 19, para. 11.

  80. 80.

    ‘Oversimplifications’ seem to take place, at times, also as regards parallel cases: see for instance the Nuclear Tests cases, where the submissions of Australia and New Zealand were treated in an almost identical way, notwithstanding the potentially significant differences in their formulation. See further below, Sect. 10.2.

  81. 81.

    Above, Sect. 4.2.4.

  82. 82.

    Cf. above, Chap. 3.

  83. 83.

    See for instance Article 7(1) of the Rules of Procedure for the Arbitral Tribunal in Guyana v. Suriname, and Article 1(2) of the Rules of Procedure for the Arbitral Tribunal in Bay of Bengal Maritime Boundary Arbitration between Bangladesh and India. Both documents are available at www.pca-cpa.org.

  84. 84.

    See also above, Sect. 3(1).

  85. 85.

    See the order No. 3, para. 28. The decision was based on Article 8 of the Rules of Procedure, whose para. 1 is identical to Article 17(1) of the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012.

  86. 86.

    Mox Plant, order No. 3, para. 22.

  87. 87.

    Mox Plant, order No. 6, Termination of Proceedings, of 6 June 2008, available www.pca-cpa.org, accessed 20 Aug 2013.

  88. 88.

    See Scerni (1938), p. 591, for an analysis of the reasons underlying this attitude.

  89. 89.

    Cf. Article 48 of the Statute.

  90. 90.

    Guyomar (1983), p. 639.

  91. 91.

    Torres Bernárdez (2012), p. 1088.

  92. 92.

    Notably, Article 44(2) stipulates: ‘In making an order under paragraph 1 of this Article, any agreement between the parties which does not cause unjustified delay shall be taken into account’.

  93. 93.

    Thus, for instance, as regards Gabčikovo/Nagymaros, the ‘oldest’ case currently on the docket, the last Report of the Court indicates that the parties have informed the President that negotiations are been actively pursued (‘Report of the International Court of Justice 2011–2012’, Doc. A/67/4, 24).

  94. 94.

    Cf. the statement delivered by the ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins to the UN General Assembly on 1 November 2007, Doc. A/62/PV.42 at 5, and her remarks in a personal capacity, Higgins (2001), p. 126. Cf. further Peck, Lee (1997), pp. 101ff., specifically the remarks of Pellet.

  95. 95.

    On these changes see Torres Bernárdez (2003).

  96. 96.

    See press release No. 98/14.

  97. 97.

    See press release No. 02/12 of 4 April 2012, para. 3.

  98. 98.

    Ferrari Bravo (1958), p. 49.

  99. 99.

    Series A, No. 21, p. 124. See further ICJ, Fisheries Jurisdiction (Germany v. Iceland), judgment of 25 July 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 175 at 181, para. 18.

  100. 100.

    Cf. Niyungeko (2005), p. 237; Fumagalli (2013), p. 144.

  101. 101.

    See already the Lotus case, judgment of 7 September 1927, Series A, No. 10, p. 31.

  102. 102.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), judgment of 20 April 2010, in ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14ff. at 71, para. 162. See further Sandifer (1975), pp. 127, 468; Kazazi (1996).

  103. 103.

    See for instance Article 27(1) of the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012: ‘Each party shall have the burden of proving the facts relied on to support its claim or defence’. Cf. also, among many examples, North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great Britain, United States), award of 7 September 1910, RIAA 11, pp. 173–202 at 180.

  104. 104.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, judgment of 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, 14ff. at 40, para. 60. Cf., as regards both the burden and the standard of proof, Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, judgment of 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, 4ff. at 18. See further Amerasinghe (2005), pp. 31–32; Brown (2007), p. 84.

  105. 105.

    See Bosnia v. Serbia, Merits, judgment of 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 43 at 129, para. 209: ‘The Court has long recognized that claims against a State involving charges of exceptional gravity must be proved by evidence that is fully conclusive’. However, see the criticism by Higgins (2012).

  106. 106.

    Similar provisions are included by Article 18 of the ILC Model Rules and Article 27(3) of the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012.

  107. 107.

    Island of Palmas (Netherlands, USA), award of 4 April 1928, RIAA 2, pp. 829–871 at 841.

  108. 108.

    On the influence of this principle on matters of evidence see again Cazala (2009).

  109. 109.

    Scerni (1938), p. 601.

  110. 110.

    Benzing (2012), p. 1238.

  111. 111.

    Cf. the discussion on this issue especially by Guillaume and Legal in Ruiz-Fabri and Sorel (2007), pp. 55ff.

  112. 112.

    See below, Sect. 11.2.

  113. 113.

    See for instance PCIJ, Chorzow Factory, Merits, Series A, No. 17, 51; ICJ, Corfu Channel, judgment of 15 December 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, at 247. In Bosnia v. Serbia the Court reserved the right to make use of its ex officio powers of calling witnesses and inviting a party to produce documents (ICJ Reports 2007, p. 57, paras. 42 and 44). See further Cazala (2009), p. 71 (ibid., pp. 64–65, for the treatment the issue in cases of non appearance). For a criticism of this ‘passive’ attitude see Schwebel (1992). On arbitral practice in this regard see Niyungeko (2005), pp. 208ff. An ex officio power to appoint experts is envisaged also by Article 18 of the ILC Model Rules, Article 27 of the Inter-State Optional Rules, Article 29 of the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012.

  114. 114.

    See the critical remarks of Simma (2012).

  115. 115.

    Simma (2012), p. 233, quoting the Iron Rhine, Guyana/Suriname and Kishenganga arbitrations.

  116. 116.

    Oil Platforms, Merits, judgment of 6 November 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 161 at 168–169, para. 15.

  117. 117.

    ICJ Reports 2010 p. 72, para. 167. See also Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia), judgment of 18 November 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 412 at 417, para. 15, where the Court refused to order the exhibition of documents also because of the late submission of Croatia’s request.

  118. 118.

    See Walter (2012), p. 1180, discussing the on-site visit that took place in Gabčikovo/Nagymaros.

  119. 119.

    Walter (2012), pp. 1175ff.; Benzing (2012), p. 1260. The lack of coercive powers is probably one of the reasons underlying the Court’s reluctance to order also the production of documents, which inevitably requires the cooperation of the requested party. See further Brown (2007), pp. 104ff.

  120. 120.

    See, for example, the two site visits conducted in the Kishenganga arbitration (PCA Press Releases of 22 June 2011 and 15 February 2012) and one site visit in Bay of Bengal, that was minutiously regulated by procedural order No. 1 of 28 August 2013 (revised on 11 October 2013): www.cpa-pca.org, last visited 10 Jan 2014.

  121. 121.

    See for instance, on the late request of on-site inspection made by Honduras in the Gulf of Fonseca case, Decaux (1992), p. 406. See also, as regards the use of expert opinion, the treatment of certain emails submitted by Japan in the Whaling in the Antarctic case, that is set out in the Registrar’s letters to the parties of 21 June 2013, available on the Court’s website.

  122. 122.

    Cf. Practice Direction IX bis. See on the issue Brown (2007), pp. 102ff.; Niyungeko (2009).

  123. 123.

    Cf. Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Provisional Measures, order of 15 March 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 13. at 25, para. 4 of the operative part. See also the order of 10 January 1986 in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), ICJ Reports 1986, p. 3 at 13, letter (B) of the operative part.

  124. 124.

    Torres Bernárdez (2012), p. 1083.

  125. 125.

    Activities by Nicaragua in the Border Area, order of 17 April 2013, separate opinion, para. 18.

  126. 126.

    Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, judgment of 30 August 1924, Series A, No. 2, p. 16.

  127. 127.

    See for instance the treatment of documents transmitted by the United States in the merits phase of the Nicaragua v. USA case, on which von Mangoldt and Zimmermann (2012), p. 1347; Kolb (2009), p. 11.

  128. 128.

    Kolb (2009), p. 10, with reference to Barcelona Traction. Other relevant examples are treated specifically above (see Sects. 6.2 and 6.3).

  129. 129.

    See Qatar v. Bahrain, order of 30 March 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 243ff., fixing time limits for the deposit of interim reports on the unfortunate episode concerning the forged documents allegedly submitted by Qatar, on the basis of previous discussions by the President with the representative of the parties; cf. further the narrative included in the judgment on the merits, ICJ Reports 2001, pp. 46–47, paras. 15ff.

  130. 130.

    Kolb (2009), p. 12.

  131. 131.

    Ibid., p. 15, with reference to the anticipation of the assessment of the validity of the 1928 Treaty between Nicaragua and Colombia in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute case, judgment of 13 December 2007, ICJ Reports 2007, p. 857, paras. 73ff.

  132. 132.

    Ibid., 19.

  133. 133.

    Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, judgment of 1 July 1994, ICJ Reports 1994, p. 112 at 124, para. 34.

  134. 134.

    On the historical and political relevance of the issue see Lauterpacht (1996). See also the account of the negotiations in the context of which the ‘Minutes’ were drafted in the 1994 judgment, ICJ Reports 1994, pp. 117–119.

  135. 135.

    Ibid., p. 124, para. 36.

  136. 136.

    Ibid., p. 116, paras. 13–14.

  137. 137.

    ICJ Reports 1994, p. 122, para. 30. As observed by Evans (1995), p. 697, ‘The ICJ’s jurisdiction to make even this preliminary finding remains something of a mystery’.

  138. 138.

    ICJ Reports 1994, p. 125, para. 38.

  139. 139.

    See ICJ Reports 1995, p. 9, para. 12.

  140. 140.

    Ibid., p. 27, para. 50. The Court considered that the ‘Minutes’ did allow both parties to unilaterally seise it (ibid., 21, para. 40). On this aspect of the case see McHugo (1997).

  141. 141.

    Judgment of 16 March 2001, ICJ Reports 2001 p. 40ff.

  142. 142.

    Separate opinion, ICJ Reports 1994, p. 130.

  143. 143.

    Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, ibid., p. 129.

  144. 144.

    Separate opinion, ibid., p. 130.

  145. 145.

    Ibid., 131.

  146. 146.

    Dissenting opinion, ibid. 133ff. at 134–135, para. 3.

  147. 147.

    Dissenting opinion appended to the 1995 judgment, ibid., p. 74 at 77–78, paras. 23–24. Judge ad hoc Valticos resigned from his duties with effect from 15 February 1995, the date when the second judgment on jurisdiction was issued (see the judgment on the merits, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 45, para. 12).

  148. 148.

    See below, Sect. 10.4.

  149. 149.

    See for this suggestion Lauterpacht (1996), p. 467.

  150. 150.

    Anzilotti (1915), p. 104: ‘Le facoltà degli arbitri, in tutto ciò che attiene allo svolgimento del giudizio, non hanno altra base giuridica che il mandato delle parti e si contengono quindi rigorosamente nei limiti di detto mandato’ (translation by the author).

  151. 151.

    See below, Sects. 10.3 and 10.4.

  152. 152.

    Order of 22 September 1995, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 303, para. 53. The conclusion was reached after observing (ibid., para. 52) that

    in expressly laying down, in paragraph 63 of its Judgment of 20 December 1974, that, in the circumstances set out therein, ‘the Applicant could request an examination of the situation in accordance with the provisions of the Statute’, the Court cannot have intended to limit the Applicant’s access to legal procedures such as the filing of a new application (Statute, Art. 40, para. l), a request for interpretation (Statute, Art. 60) or a request for revision (Statute, Art. 61), which would have been open to it in any event[.]

    See critically Daniele (1996).

  153. 153.

    This definition is drawn from Vice-President Schwebel’s declaration, ICJ Reports 1995, p. 309.

  154. 154.

    Ibid., p. 306, para. 65.

  155. 155.

    Ibid., p. 307, para. 68.

  156. 156.

    Ibid., p. 293, para. 15, and p. 296, para. 28.

  157. 157.

    Ibid.

  158. 158.

    Ibid., p. 295, para. 26.

  159. 159.

    Ibid., p. 296, para. 27. The judge ad hoc appointed by New Zealand joined the Court for the purposes of that hearing (ibid.).

  160. 160.

    See the order of 3 March 1999, ICJ Reports 1999, pp. 13, para. 12, and 14, para. 21, and the criticisms in the separate opinion by President Schwebel, ibid., p. 21ff. Cf. further Palchetti (1999).

  161. 161.

    Article 74(3) stipulates: ‘The Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, shall fix a date for a hearing which will afford the parties an opportunity of being represented at it. The Court shall receive and take into account any observations that may be presented to it before the closure of the oral proceedings’.

  162. 162.

    See below, Sect. 10.4.

  163. 163.

    Bonafè (2013).

  164. 164.

    Lauterpacht (2009), p. 430.

  165. 165.

    As Lelarge (2009) observes, the very notion of sound administration of justice ‘n’est pas (…) étrangère à un certain “sens de la justice” qui se rapproche à l’equité’.

  166. 166.

    For another example of apparent disregard for the Rules of Court see the remonstrations of South Africa concerning the order of 20 May 1961 in South West Africa, letter to the Registrar of 9 June 1961, ICJ Pleadings, South West Africa, p. 522.

References

  • Aldrich GH (1996) The jurisprudence of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. Clarendon, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Amerasinghe C (2005) Evidence in international litigation. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonopoulos C (2011) Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice. Asser, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti D (1915) Corso di diritto internazionale – Volume Terzo: I modi di risoluzione delle controversie internazionali. Athenaeum, Roma

    Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti D (1929) La riconvenzione nel processo internazionale. Riv dir int 21:309–327 (French translation: Anzilotti D (1930) La demande reconventionnelle en procédure internationale. Journal du droit international 57:857–877)

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzing M (2012) Evidentiary issues. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1234–1275

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonafè BI (2013) L’adeguamento dei diritti processuali derivanti dall’intervento del terzo ai sensi dell’art. 63 dello Statuto della Corte internazionale di giustizia nel caso della Caccia alla balena nell’Antartico. Riv dir int 96:537–543

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown C (2007) A common law of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cazala J (2009) Adaptation des règles et principes probatoires au nom d’une bonne administration de la justice internationale. L’observateur des Nations Unies 27(2):55–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniele L (1996) L’ordonnance sur la demande d'examen de la situation dans l’affaire des essais nucléaires et le pouvoir de la Cour internationale de Justice de régler sa propre procédure. Rev gÕn dr int pub 100:653–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Decaux E (1992) Le différend terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El Salvador/Honduras), arrêt de la CIJ du 11 septembre 1992 – La delimitation terrestre. Ann fr dr int 38:393–426

    Google Scholar 

  • De Visscher C (1966) Aspects récents du droit procédural de la Cour internationale de Justice. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans M (1995) Case concerning maritime delimitation and territorial questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), jurisdiction and admissibility. Int Comp Law Q 44:691–698

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrari Bravo L (1958) La prova nel processo internazionale. Jovene, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Fumagalli L (2013) Evidence before the International Court of Justice: issues of fact and questions of law in the determination of international custom. In: Boschiero N, Scovazzi T, Pitea C, Ragni C (eds) International courts and the development of international law. Asser, The Hague, pp 137–148

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Guillaume G (1999) La ‘cause commune’ devant la Cour internationale de Justice. In: Yakpo E, Boumedra T (eds) Liber amicorum Mohammed Bedjaoui. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 325–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Guyomar G (1983) Commentaire du Règlement de la Cour internationale de Justice – Adopté le 14 Avril 1978. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Happold M (2013) East Timor takes Australia to the ICJ over documents seised by Australian intelligence. www.ejiltalk.org. Accessed 20 Dec 2013

  • Higgins R (2001) Respecting sovereign States and running a tight courtroom. Int Comp Law Q 50:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (2012) Concluding remarks. Am Soc Int Law Proc 106:241–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Kazazi M (1996) Burden of proof and related issues. A study on evidence before international tribunals. Kluwer, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerbrat Y (2002) De quelques aspects des procédures incidentes devant la Cour internationale de Justice: les ordonnances de 29 novembre 2001 et de 10 juillet 2002 dans les affaires des activités armées sur le territoire du Congo. Ann fr dr int 48:343–361

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2009) La maxime de la ‘bonne administration de la justice’ dans la jurisprudence internationale. L’observateur des Nations Unies 27(2):5–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Kolb R (2013) The International Court of Justice. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht E (1996) ‘Partial’ judgments and the inherent jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In: Lowe V, Fitzmaurice M (eds) Fifty years of the International Court of Justice, essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 465–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Lauterpacht E (2009) Principles of procedure in international litigation. Collected Courses 345:391–530

    Google Scholar 

  • Lelarge A (2009) L’émergence d’un principe de bonne administration de la justice internationale dans la jurisprudence internationale antérieure au 1945. L’observateur des Nations Unies 27(2):23–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Lopes Pegna O (1998) Counter-claims and obligations Erga Omnes before the International Court of Justice. Eur J Int Law 9:724–736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McHugo J (1997) The judgments of the International Court of Justice in the jurisdiction and admissibility phase of Qatar v. Bahrain: an example of the continuing need for ‘Fact-Scepticism’. Neth Yearb Int Law 28:171–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy SD (2012) Counter-claims – Article 80 of the rules. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1000–1025

    Google Scholar 

  • Niyungeko G (2005) La prevue devant les juridictions internationales. Bruylant, Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Niyungeko G (2009) Les faits notoires dans le contentieux international et la bonne administration de la justice. L’observateur des Nations Unies 27(2):75–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (1999) L’indicazione di misure cautelari da parte della Corte internazionale di giustizia in situazioni di estrema urgenza. Riv dir int 82:719–728

    Google Scholar 

  • Peck C, Lee RS (eds) (1997) Increasing the effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellonpää M, Caron D (1994) The UNCITRAL arbitration rules as interpreted and applied. Selected problems in the light of the practice of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. Finnish Lawyers’ Publishing, Helsinki

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigaux F (2002) Les demandes reconventionneles devant la Cour internationale de Justice. In: Ando N, McWhinney E, Wolfrum R (eds) Liber amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 935–945

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2006) The law and practice of the International Court of Justice 1920–2005. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Fabri H, Sorel JM (2007) La prevue devant les juridictions internationales. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno F (1999) La demande reconventionnelle dans la procédure de la Cour internationale de Justice. Rev gÕn dr int pub 103:329–378

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandifer D (1975) Evidence before international tribunals, 2nd edn. University Press of Virginia, Charlottesville

    Google Scholar 

  • Santulli C (2005) Droit du contentieux international. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Scerni M (1938) La procédure de la Cour permanente de justice internationale. Collected Courses 65:561–682

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwebel S (1992) Three cases of fact finding by the International Court of Justice. In: Lillich RB (ed) Fact-finding before international tribunals. Transnational Publishers, Ardsley-on-Hudson, pp 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Shany Y (2003) The competing jurisdictions of international courts and tribunals. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2012) The International Court of Justice and scientific expertise. Am Soc Int Law Proc 106:230–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2001) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989, part twelve. Br Year B Int Law 72:37–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Torres Bernárdez S (2002) Bilateral, plural and multipartite elements in international judicial settlement. In: Ando N, McWhinney E, Wolfrum R (eds) Liber amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda. Kluwer, The Hague, pp 995–1007

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres Bernárdez S (2003) La modification des articles du Règlement de la Cour internationale de Justice relatifs aux exceptions préliminaires et aux demandes reconventionnelles. Ann fr dr int 49:207–247

    Google Scholar 

  • Torres Bernárdez S (2012) Article 48. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1215–1233

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mangoldt H, Zimmermann A (2012) Article 53. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1324–1354

    Google Scholar 

  • Walter C (2012) Article 44. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1172–1181

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Serena Forlati

Authors
  1. Serena Forlati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forlati, S. (2014). The Organisation of Contentious Proceedings. In: The International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06179-5_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation