Provisional measures

Code

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 21 August 1995, the New Zealand Government filed in the Registry a document entitled “Request for an Examination of the Situation” in which reference was made to a “proposed action announced by France which will, if carried out, affect the basis of the Judgment rendered by the Court on 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) case”, namely “a decision announced by France in a media statement of 13 June 1995” by the President of the French Republic, according to which “France would conduct a final series of eight nuclear weapons tests in the South Pacific starting in September 1995”. In that Request, the Court was reminded that, at the end of its 1974 Judgment, it had found that it was not called upon to give a decision on the claim submitted by New Zealand in 1973, that claim no longer having any object, by virtue of the declarations by which France had undertaken not to carry out further atmospheric nuclear tests. That Judgment contained a paragraph 63 worded as follows

“Once the Court has found that a State has entered into a commitment concerning its future conduct it is not the Court’s function to contemplate that it will not comply with it. However, the Court observes that if the basis of this Judgment were to be affected, the Applicant could request an examination of the situation in accordance with the provisions of the Statute . . .”

New Zealand asserted that this paragraph gave it the “right”, in such circumstances, to request “the resumption of the case begun by application on 9 May 1973”, and observed that the operative part of the Judgment concerned could not be construed as showing any intention on the part of the Court definitively to close the case. On the same day, the New Zealand Government also filed in the Registry a “Further Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures” in which reference was made, inter alia, to the Order for the indication of provisional measures made by the Court on 22 June 1973, which was principally aimed at ensuring that France would refrain from conducting any further nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls.

After holding public hearings on 11 and 12 September 1995, the Court made its Order on 22 September 1995. The Court found that, when inserting into paragraph 63 the sentence “the Applicant could request an examination of the situation in accordance with the provisions of the Statute”, it had not excluded a special procedure for access to it (unlike those mentioned in the Court’s Statute, such as the filing of a new application, or a request for interpretation or revision, which would have been open to the Applicant in any event) ; however, it found that that special procedure would only be available to the Applicant if circumstances were to arise which affected the basis of the 1974 Judgment. And that, it found, was not the case, as the decision announced by France in 1995 had related to a series of underground tests, whereas the basis of the Judgment of 1974 was France’s undertaking not to conduct any further atmospheric nuclear tests. Consequently, New Zealand’s Request for provisional measures and the Applications for permission to intervene submitted by Australia, Samoa, Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia as well as the Declarations of Intervention made by the last four States, all of which were proceedings incidental to New Zealand’s main request, likewise had to be dismissed.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

21 August 1995

Available in:

English

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Summary of the Order of 22 September 1995

Available in:

English French

Press releases

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 3 April 1998, the Republic of Paraguay filed in the Registry an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America in a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations of 24 April 1963. Paraguay based the jurisdiction of the Court on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute and on Article I of the Optional Protocol which accompanies the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and which gives the Court jurisdiction as regards the settlement of disputes arising out of the interpretation or application of that Convention. In its Application, Paraguay indicated that, in 1992, the authorities of the Commonwealth of Virginia had arrested a Paraguayan national, charged and convicted him of culpable homicide and sentenced him to death without informing him of his rights as required by Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), of the Convention. Those rights included the right to request that the relevant consular office of the State of which he was a national be advised of his arrest and detention and the right to communicate with that office. It was further alleged by the Applicant that the authorities of the Commonwealth of Virginia had not advised the Paraguayan consular officers, who were therefore only able to render assistance to him from 1996, when the Paraguayan Government learned of the case by its own means. Paraguay asked the Court to adjudge and declare that the United States of America had violated its international legal obligations towards Paraguay and that the latter was entitled to “restitution in kind”.

The same day, 3 April 1998, Paraguay also submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures to ensure that the national concerned was not executed pending a decision by the Court. At a public hearing on 9 April 1998, the Court made an Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Paraguay. The Court unanimously found that the United States of America should take all measures at its disposal to ensure that the Paraguayan national concerned was not executed pending the decision by the Court. By an Order the same day, the Vice-President, acting as President, having regard to the Court’s Order for the indication of provisional measures and the agreement of the Parties, fixed the time-limits for the filing of the Memorial and the Counter-Memorial. Paraguay filed its Memorial on 9 October 1998.

By letter of 2 November 1998, Paraguay indicated that it wished to discontinue the proceedings with prejudice. The United States of America concurred in the discontinuance on 3 November. On 10 November 1998, the Court therefore made an Order placing on record the discontinuance and directing the case to be removed from the List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Written proceedings

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection submitted by the Government of the Republic of Paraguay

3 April 1998

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Memorial of the Republic of Paraguay

9 October 1998

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Orders

Order of 9 April 1998

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 9 April 1998

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of President Schwebel

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Summary 1998/3

Summary of the Order of 9 April 1998

Available in:

English French

Summary 1998/4

Summary of the Order of 10 November 1998

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 20 March 1993, the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina instituted proceedings against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in respect of a dispute concerning alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 9 December 1948, as well as various matters which Bosnia and Herzegovina claimed were connected therewith. The Application invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention as the basis for the jurisdiction of the Court. Subsequently, Bosnia and Herzegovina also invoked certain additional bases of jurisdiction.

On 20 March 1993, immediately after the filing of its Application, Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures under Article 41 of the Statute and, on 1 April 1993, Yugoslavia submitted written observations on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Request for provisional measures, in which it, in turn, recommended the Court to order the application of provisional measures to Bosnia and Herzegovina. By an Order dated 8 April 1993, the Court, after hearing the Parties, indicated certain provisional measures with a view to the protection of rights under the Genocide Convention. On 27 July 1993, Bosnia and Herzegovina submitted a new Request for the indication of provisional measures and, on 10 August 1993, Yugoslavia also submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures. By an Order dated 13 September 1993, the Court, after hearing the Parties, reaffirmed the measures indicated in its Order of 8 April 1993 and declared that those measures should be immediately and effectively implemented. Then, within the extended time-limit of 30 June 1995 for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, Yugoslavia, referring to Article 79, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, raised preliminary objections concerning both the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the case.

In its Judgment of 11 July 1996, the Court rejected the preliminary objections raised by Yugoslavia and found that it had jurisdiction to deal with the dispute on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, dismissing the additional bases of jurisdiction invoked by Bosnia and Herzegovina. Among other things, it found that the Convention bound the two Parties and that there was a legal dispute between them falling within the provisions of Article IX.

By an Order dated 23 July 1996, the President of the Court fixed 23 July 1997 as the time-limit for the filing by Yugoslavia of its Counter-Memorial on the merits. The Counter-Memorial was filed within the prescribed time-limit and contained counter-claims, by which Yugoslavia requested the Court, among other things, to adjudge and declare that Bosnia and Herzegovina was responsible for acts of genocide committed against the Serbs in Bosnia and Herzegovina and for other violations of the Genocide Convention. The admissibility of the counter-claims under Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court having been called into question by Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court ruled on the matter, declaring, in its Order of 17 December 1997, that the counter-claims were admissible as such and formed part of the proceedings in the case. The Reply of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Rejoinder of Yugoslavia were subsequently filed within the time-limits laid down by the Court and its President. During 1999 and 2000, various exchanges of letters took place concerning new procedural difficulties which had emerged in the case. In April 2001, Yugoslavia informed the Court that it wished to withdraw its counter-claims. As Bosnia and Herzegovina had raised no objection, the President of the Court, by an Order of 10 September 2001, placed on record the withdrawal by Yugoslavia of the counter-claims it had submitted in its Counter-Memorial. On 4 May 2001, Yugoslavia submitted to the Court a document entitled “Initiative to the Court to reconsider ex officio jurisdiction over Yugoslavia”, in which it first asserted that the Court had no jurisdiction ratione personae over Serbia and Montenegro and secondly requested the Court to “suspend proceedings regarding the merits of the case until a decision on this Initiative”, i.e., on the jurisdictional issue, had been rendered. On 1 July 2001, it also filed an Application for revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 ; this was found to be inadmissible by the Court in its Judgment of 3 February 2003. In a letter dated 12 June 2003, the Registrar informed the Parties to the case that the Court had decided that it could not accede to the Applicant’s request to suspend the proceedings on the merits.

Following public hearings held between 27 February 2006 and 9 May 2006, the Court rendered its Judgment on the merits on 26 February 2007. It began by examining the new jurisdictional issues raised by the Respondent arising out of its admission as a new Member of the United Nations in 2001. The Court affirmed that it had jurisdiction on the basis of Article IX of the Genocide Convention, stating in particular that its 1996 Judgment, whereby it found it had jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, benefited from the “fundamental” principle of res judicata, which guaranteed “the stability of legal relations”, and that it was in the interest of each Party “that an issue which has already been adjudicated in favour of that party be not argued again”. The Court then made extensive findings of fact as to whether alleged atrocities had occurred and, if so, whether they could be characterized as genocide. After determining that massive killings and other atrocities were perpetrated during the conflict throughout the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Court found that these acts were not accompanied by the specific intent that defines the crime of genocide, namely the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, the protected group. The Court did, however, find that the killings in Srebrenica in July 1995 were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of Bosnian Muslims in that area and that what happened there was indeed genocide. The Court found that there was corroborated evidence which indicated that the decision to kill the adult male population of the Muslim community in Srebrenica had been taken by some members of the VRS (Army of the Republika Srpska) Main Staff. The evidence before the Court, however, did not prove that the acts of the VRS could be attributed to the Respondent under the rules of international law of State responsibility. Nonetheless, the Court found that the Republic of Serbia had violated its obligation contained in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention to prevent the Srebrenica genocide. The Court observed that this obligation required States that are aware, or should normally have been aware, of the serious danger that acts of genocide would be committed, to employ all means reasonably available to them to prevent genocide, within the limits permitted by international law

The Court further held that the Respondent had violated its obligation to punish the perpetrators of genocide, including by failing to co-operate fully with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with respect to the handing over for trial of General Ratko Mladić. This failure constituted a violation of the Respondent’s duties under Article VI of the Genocide Convention.

In respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s request for reparation, the Court found that, since it had not been shown that the genocide at Srebrenica would in fact have been averted if Serbia had attempted to prevent it, financial compensation for the failure to prevent the genocide at Srebrenica was not the appropriate form of reparation. The Court considered that the most appropriate form of satisfaction would be a declaration in the operative clause of the Judgment that Serbia had failed to comply with the obligation to prevent the crime of genocide. As for the obligation to punish acts of genocide, the Court found that a declaration in the operative clause that Serbia had violated its obligations under the Convention and that it must transfer individuals accused of genocide to the ICTY and must co-operate fully with the Tribunal would constitute appropriate satisfaction.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

20 March 1993

Available in:

English French

Supplementary Submission in support of the Application of the Bosnia and Herzegovina instituting legal proceedings against Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) on the basis of the 1948 Genocide Convention and in the support of its Request for an Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection

22 March 1993

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

Document submitted by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina as constituting additional source of jurisdiction

31 March 1993

Available in:

Written proceedings

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection submitted by the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina

20 March 1993

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

22 March 1993

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Written Observations on the Request submitted by the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English

Withdrawal of Counter-claims by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia

20 April 2001

Procedure(s):Counter-claims

Available in:

English

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 8 April 1993

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Kreca

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 11 July 1996

Preliminary Objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 17 May 1991 Finland instituted proceedings against Denmark in respect of a dispute concerning passage through the Great Belt (Storebælt), and the project by the Government of Denmark to construct a fixed traffic connection for both road and rail traffic across the West and East Channels of the Great Belt. The effect of this project, and in particular of the planned high-level suspension bridge over the East Channel, would have been permanently to close the Baltic for deep draught vessels of over 65 m height, thus preventing the passage of such drill ships and oil rigs manufactured in Finland as required more than that clearance. In its Application Finland requested the Court to adjudge and declare (a) that there was a right of free passage through the Great Belt which applied to all ships entering and leaving Finnish ports and shipyards ; (b) that this right extended to drill ships, oil rigs and reasonably foreseeable ships ; (c) that the construction of a fixed bridge over the Great Belt as currently planned by Denmark would be incompatible with the right of passage mentioned in subparagraphs (a) and (b) above and ; (d) that Denmark and Finland ought to start negotiations, in good faith, on how the right of free passage, as set out in subparagraphs (a) to (c) above, should be guaranteed. On 23 May 1991, Finland requested the Court to indicate certain provisional measures aimed, principally, at stopping all construction works in connection with the planned bridge project over the East Channel of the Great Belt which it was alleged would prevent the passage of ships, in particular drill ships and oil rigs, entering and leaving Finnish ports and shipyards.

By an Order dated 29 July 1991, the Court dismissed that Request for the indication of provisional measures by Finland, while at the same time indicating that, pending its decision on the merits, any negotiation between the Parties with a view to achieving a direct and friendly settlement was to be welcomed, and going on to say that it would be appropriate for the Court, with the co-operation of the Parties, to ensure that the decision on the merits was reached with all possible expedition. By a letter dated 3 September 1992, the Agent of Finland, referring to the relevant passage of the Order, stated that a settlement of the dispute had been attained and accordingly notified the Court of the discontinuance of the case. Denmark let it be known that it had no objection to that discontinuance. Consequently, the President of the Court, on 10 September 1992, made an Order recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the Court’s List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

17 May 1991

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of the Government of the Republic of Finland

22 May 1991

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

Written Observations by the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark relating to the Request for indication of Provisional Measures

28 June 1991

Orders

Order of 29 July 1991

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 29 July 1991

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Tarassov

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Vice-President Oda

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Broms

English French Bilingual

Order of 10 September 1992

Removal from list

Procedure(s):Discontinuance

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1991/1

Summary of the Order of 29 July 1991

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 28 July 1986, Nicaragua instituted proceedings against Costa Rica and Honduras, respectively, alleging various violations of international law for which the two States bore legal responsibility, particularly on account of certain military activities directed against the Nicaraguan authorities by the contras operating from their territory.

Honduras informed the Court that in its view the Court had no jurisdiction to deal with the case and, after a meeting with the President, the Parties agreed that the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility would be dealt with at a preliminary stage of the proceedings. Once the Parties had filed their written pleadings and taken part in hearings devoted to those questions, the Court delivered its Judgment in the case on 20 December 1988. Nicaragua had relied, as the basis of the jurisdiction of the Court, both on Article XXXI of the Inter American Treaty for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes (known as the “Pact of Bogotá”) of 1948 and on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the Parties under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute. The Court found that the Pact of Bogotá conferred jurisdiction upon it. It dismissed the two arguments asserted successively by Honduras in that regard, namely that Article XXXI of the Pact had to be supplemented by a declaration of acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction or that it could be so supplemented but need not be. The Court found that the first argument was incompatible with the actual terms of Article XXXI. With regard to the second argument, the Court had to consider the divergent interpretations of Article XXXI that were proposed by the Parties, and set aside the interpretation of Honduras according to which, inter alia, effect should be given to the reservations to Honduras’s acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court that had been introduced into its declaration of 1986. On that point, the Court found that the commitment in Article XXXI of the Pact was independent of the declarations of acceptance of its jurisdiction.

The Court moreover rejected the four objections raised by Honduras to the admissibility of the Application, of which two had a general character and two were derived from the Pact of Bogotá. Subsequently, and after the proceedings on the merits had been initiated and Nicaragua had filed its Memorial, and after the Court, at the request of the Parties, had postponed the date for the fixing of the time limit for the presentation of the Counter Memorial of Honduras, the Agent of Nicaragua, in May 1992, informed the Court that the Parties had reached an out of court agreement and did not wish to go on with the proceedings. On 27 May 1992, the Court made an Order recording the discontinuance of the proceedings and directing the removal of the case from the General List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

28 July 1986

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

English French Bilingual

Order of 31 March 1988

Withdrawal of Request for the indication of Provisional Measures

Judgments

Judgment of 20 December 1988

Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1988

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 9 April 1984 Nicaragua filed an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America, together with a Request for the indication of provisional measures concerning a dispute relating to responsibility for military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua. On 10 May 1984 the Court made an Order indicating provisional measures. One of these measures required the United States immediately to cease and refrain from any action restricting access to Nicaraguan ports, and, in particular, the laying of mines. The Court also indicated that the right to sovereignty and to political independence possessed by Nicaragua, like any other State, should be fully respected and should not be jeopardized by activities contrary to the principle prohibiting the threat or use of force and to the principle of non-intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. The Court also decided in the aforementioned Order that the proceedings would first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and of the admissibility of the Nicaraguan Application. Just before the closure of the written proceedings in this phase, El Salvador filed a declaration of intervention in the case under Article 63 of the Statute, requesting permission to claim that the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain Nicaragua’s Application. In its Order dated 4 October 1984, the Court decided that El Salvador’s declaration of intervention was inadmissible inasmuch as it related to the jurisdictional phase of the proceedings.

After hearing argument from both Parties in the course of public hearings held from 8 to 18 October 1984, on 26 November 1984 the Court delivered a Judgment stating that it possessed jurisdiction to deal with the case and that Nicaragua’s Application was admissible. In particular, it held that the Nicaraguan declaration of 1929 was valid and that Nicaragua was therefore entitled to invoke the United States declaration of 1946 as a basis of the Court’s jurisdiction (Article 36, paragraphs 2 and 5, of the Statute). The subsequent proceedings took place in the absence of the United States, which announced on 18 January 1985 that it “intends not to participate in any further proceedings in connection with this case”. From 12 to 20 September 1985, the Court heard oral argument by Nicaragua and the testimony of the five witnesses it had called. On 27 June 1986, the Court delivered its Judgment on the merits. The findings included a rejection of the justification of collective self‑defence advanced by the United States concerning the military or paramilitary activities in or against Nicaragua, and a statement that the United States had violated the obligations imposed by customary international law not to intervene in the affairs of another State, not to use force against another State, not to infringe the sovereignty of another State, and not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce. The Court also found that the United States had violated certain obligations arising from a bilateral Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 1956, and that it had committed acts such to deprive that treaty of its object and purpose.

It decided that the United States was under a duty immediately to cease and to refrain from all acts constituting breaches of its legal obligations, and that it must make reparation for all injury caused to Nicaragua by the breaches of obligations under customary international law and the 1956 Treaty, the amount of that reparation to be fixed in subsequent proceedings if the Parties were unable to reach agreement. The Court subsequently fixed, by an Order, time‑limits for the filing of written pleadings by the Parties on the matter of the form and amount of reparation, and the Memorial of Nicaragua was filed on 29 March 1988, while the United States maintained its refusal to take part in the case. In September 1991, Nicaragua informed the Court, inter alia, that it did not wish to continue the proceedings. The United States told the Court that it welcomed the discontinuance and, by an Order of the President dated 26 September 1991, the case was removed from the Court’s List.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

9 April 1984

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

29 March 1988

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1984 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 25 and 27 April and 10 May 1984, President Elias presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1984 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 8 to 18 October and 26 November 1984, President Elias presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1985/17 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Merits - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 12 to 20 September 1985 and on 27 June 1986, President Nagendra Singh presiding

Order of 14 May 1984

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial (Jurisdiction and Admissibility)

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 4 October 1984

Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador

Procedure(s):Intervention

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 27 June 1986

Merits

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 14 October 1983 Burkina Faso (then known as Upper Volta) and Mali notified to the Court a Special Agreement referring to a Chamber of the Court the question of the delimitation of part of the land frontier between the two States. This Chamber was constituted by an Order of 3 April 1985. Following grave incidents between the armed forces of the two countries at the very end of 1985, both Parties submitted parallel requests to the Chamber for the indication of interim measures of protection. The Chamber indicated such measures by an Order of 10 January 1986.

In its Judgment delivered on 22 December 1986, the Chamber began by ascertaining the source of the rights claimed by the Parties. It noted that, in that case, the principles that ought to be applied were the principle of the intangibility of frontiers inherited from colonization and the principle of uti possidetis juris, which accords pre-eminence to legal title over effective possession as a basis of sovereignty, and whose primary aim is to secure respect for the territorial boundaries which existed at the time when independence was achieved. The Chamber specified that, when those boundaries were no more than delimitations between different administrative divisions or colonies all subject to the same sovereign, the application of the principle of uti possidetis juris resulted in their being transformed into international frontiers, as in the instant case.

It also indicated that it would have regard to equity infra legem, that is, that form of equity which constitutes a method of interpretation of the law and which is based on law. The Parties also relied upon various types of evidence to give support to their arguments, including French legislative and regulative texts or administrative documents, maps and “colonial effectivités” or, in other words, the conduct of the administrative authorities as proof of the effective exercise of territorial jurisdiction in the region during the colonial period. Having considered those various kinds of evidence, the Chamber defined the course of the boundary between the Parties in the disputed area. The Chamber likewise took the opportunity to point out, with respect to the tripoint Niger-Mali-Burkina Faso, that its jurisdiction was not restricted simply because the endpoint of the frontier lay on the frontier of a third State not a party to the proceedings. It further pointed out that the rights of Niger were in any event safeguarded by the operation of Article 59 of the Statute of the Court.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Agreement (French version only)

16 September 1983

Available in:

French

Special Agreement (French version only)

20 October 1983

Available in:

French

Written proceedings

French

Counter-Memorial of Burkina Faso (French version only)

2 April 1986

Available in:

French

Counter-Memorial of Mali (French version only)

2 April 1986

Available in:

French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1985 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 9 and 10 January 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1986 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings - held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 to 26 June and on 22 December 1986, President of the Chamber, Judge Bedjaoui, presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

English French Bilingual

Order of 9 April 1987

Nomination of Experts

Summary of the Order of 10 January 1986

Available in:

English French

Summary 1986/3

Summary of the Judgment of 22 December 1986

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 10 August 1976, Greece instituted proceedings against Turkey in a dispute over the Aegean Sea continental shelf. It asked the Court in particular to declare that the Greek islands in the area were entitled to their lawful portion of continental shelf and to delimit the respective parts of that shelf appertaining to Greece and Turkey. At the same time, it requested provisional measures indicating that, pending the Court’s judgment, neither State should, without the other’s consent, engage in exploration or research with respect to the shelf in question. On 11 September 1976, the Court found that the indication of such measures was not required and, as Turkey had denied that the Court was competent, ordered that the proceedings should first concern the question of jurisdiction. In a Judgment delivered on 19 December 1978, the Court found that jurisdiction to deal with the case was not conferred upon it by either of the two instruments relied upon by Greece : the application of the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Geneva, 1928) — whether or not it was in force — was excluded by the effect of a reservation made by Greece upon accession, while the Greco-Turkish press communiqué of 31 May 1975 did not contain an agreement binding upon either State to accept the unilateral referral of the dispute to the Court.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

10 August 1976

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1976 (bilingual version)

Oral arguments on the Request for the indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 25 to 27 August and on 11 September 1976, President Jiménez de Aréchaga presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1978 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 9 to 17 October and on 19 December 1978, President Jiménez de Aréchaga presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Stassinopoulos (translation)

English French Bilingual

Order of 14 October 1976

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 18 April 1977

Extension of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Summary of the Order of 11 September 1976

Available in:

English French

Summary 1978/1

Summary of the Judgment of 19 December 1978

Available in:

English French

English French

Press release 1978/9

19 December 1978

Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) - Judgment on the question of the Court's jurisdiction

Available in:

English French

Correspondence

10 August 1976

Correspondence

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 9 May 1973, Australia and New Zealand each instituted proceedings against France concerning tests of nuclear weapons which France proposed to carry out in the atmosphere in the South Pacific region. France stated that it considered the Court manifestly to lack jurisdiction and refrained from appearing at the public hearings or filing any pleadings. By two Orders of 22 June 1973, the Court, at the request of Australia and New Zealand, indicated provisional measures to the effect, inter alia, that pending judgment France should avoid nuclear tests causing radioactive fall-out on Australian or New Zealand territory. By two Judgments delivered on 20 December 1974, the Court found that the Applications of Australia and New Zealand no longer had any object and that it was therefore not called upon to give any decision thereon. In so doing the Court based itself on the conclusion that the objective of Australia and New Zealand had been achieved inasmuch as France, in various public statements, had announced its intention of carrying out no further atmospheric nuclear tests on the completion of the 1974 series.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

9 May 1973

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1973 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Pease Palace, The Hague, on 24 and 25 May 1973, President Lachs presiding, and on 22 June 1973, Vice-President Ammoun presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1974 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on Jurisdiction and Admissibility - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 10 and 11 July and 20 December 1974, President Lachs presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Order of 12 July 1973

Application by Fiji for Permission to Intervene

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Gros (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Petrén (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Onyeama (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

English French

Summary 1974/4

Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1974

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

In 1942 the Government of the United States vested almost all the shares of the General Aniline and Film Corporation (GAF), a company incorporated in the United States, on the ground that those shares, which were owned by Interhandel, a company registered in Basel, belonged in reality to I.G. Farbenindustrie of Frankfurt, or that GAF was in one way or another controlled by the German company. On 1 October 1957, Switzerland applied to the Court for a declaration that the United States was under an obligation to restore the vested assets to Interhandel or, alternatively, that the dispute on the matter between Switzerland and the United States was one fit for submission for judicial settlement, arbitration or conciliation. Two days later Switzerland filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures to the effect that the Court should call upon the United States not to part with the assets in question so long as proceedings were pending before the Court. On 24 October 1957, the Court made an Order noting that, in the light of the information furnished, there appeared to be no need for provisional measures. The United States raised preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, and in a Judgment delivered on 21 March 1959 the Court found the Swiss application inadmissible, because Interhandel had not exhausted the remedies available to it in the United States courts.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application Instituting Proceedings

2 October 1957

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures of Protection

3 October 1957

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Preliminary Objection of the United States of America

11 October 1957

Observations and Submissions of the Government of the Swiss Confederation on Preliminary Objections (French version only)

20 September 1958

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1957 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 12 and 14 October 1957, the Vice-President, Mr. Badawi, acting as President

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1958 (bilingual version)

Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 5 to 17 November 1958, and on 21 March 1959, the President, Mr. Klaestad, presiding

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Judgments

Judgment of 21 March 1959

Preliminary Objections (including the text of the declarations of Judges Basdevant, Kojevnikov, Judge ad hoc Carry, Zafrulla Khan)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1957/1

Summary of the Order of 24 October 1957

Available in:

English French

Summary 1959/1

Summary of the Judgment of 21 March 1959

Available in:

English French

Press release 1959/5

Provisional measures

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Institution of proceedings

21 August 1995

Available in:

Written proceedings

21 August 1995

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

23 August 1995

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

24 August 1995

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

24 August 1995

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

24 August 1995

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

24 August 1995

Procedure(s):Intervention

Available in:

5 September 1995

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

6 September 1995

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

7 September 1995

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Oral proceedings

Public sitting held on Monday 11 September 1995, at 3.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures,Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility,Intervention

Available in:

Public sitting held on Tuesday 12 September 1995, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures,Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility,Intervention

Available in:

Public sitting held on Tuesday 12 September 1995, at 2.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Bedjaoui presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures,Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility,Intervention

Available in:

Other documents

15 September 1995

Available in:

15 September 1995

Available in:

Orders

Request for an examination of the situation - Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures,Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility,Intervention

Available in:

Declaration of Vice-President Schwebel

Declaration by Judge Oda

Declaration by Judge Ranjeva

Separate opinion by Judge Shahabuddeen

Dissenting opinion by Judge Weeramantry

Dissenting opinion by Judge Koroma

Dissenting opinion by Judge ad hoc Sir Geoffrey Palmer

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary of the Order of 22 September 1995

Available in:

Press releases

21 August 1995

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - Provisional Measures Requested

Available in:

23 August 1995

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - Application by Australia for permission to intervene

Available in:

24 August 1995

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - Samoa and Solomon Islands seek to intervene

Available in:

28 August 1995

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - The Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia seek to intervene

Available in:

8 September 1995

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - Public sitting to be held in The Hague on Monday 11 September 1995

Available in:

12 September 1995

Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - Progress and conclusion of the Court's public sittings