Culminated
Latest Developments
13 July 2023
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court delivers its Judgment in the case
Available in:
Available in:
30 June 2023
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Thursday 13 July 2023 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 9 December 2022, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
9 December 2022
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Conclusion of the public hearings The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 7 December 2022, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 6 December 2022, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 5 December 2022, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)
Available in:
25 October 2022
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 5 to Friday 9 December 2022
Available in:
11 October 2022
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court decides that, at the forthcoming oral proceedings in the case, the Parties should present their arguments exclusively with regard to two questions
Available in:
Decision on the organization of the public hearings
Available in:
15 December 2017
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court authorizes the submission of a Reply by Nicaragua and a Rejoinder by Colombia and fixes time-limits for the filing of these pleadings
Available in:
4 May 2016
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Fixing of new time-limits for the filing of pleadings on the merits
Available in:
Preliminary objections
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
17 March 2016
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court finds that it has jurisdiction, on the basis of Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogotá, to entertain the First Request put forward by Nicaragua in its Application, in which it requests the Court to determine "[t]he precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of the continental shelf which appertain to each of them beyond the boundaries determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012", and that that Request is admissible
Available in:
7 March 2016
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - The Court to deliver its Judgments on Preliminary Objections on Thursday 17 March
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 9 October 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
9 October 2015
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Conclusion of public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by the Republic of Colombia - Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 7 October 2015, at 4 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 6 October 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 5 October 2015, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case concerning Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
31 July 2015
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Preliminary Objections - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 5 October to Friday 9 October 2015
Available in:
3 October 2014
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Fixing of time-limit for the filing by Nicaragua of a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by Colombia
Available in:
Fixing of time-limit: Written Statement of Observations and Submissions on Preliminary Objections
Available in:
14 August 2014
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
10 December 2013
Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
17 September 2013
Nicaragua institutes proceedings against Colombia asking the Court to “definitively determine the question of the delimitation of the continental shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia in the area beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan coast”
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
In April 2010, the Court received a request for an advisory opinion from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (“IFAD”), a specialized agency of the United Nations, concerning a judgment of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization (“ILOAT”) rendered on 3 February 2010. In its judgment, the Tribunal had ordered IFAD to pay a former staff member of the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification — which is housed by IFAD — monetary compensation equivalent to two years’ salary, as well as moral damages and costs, on account of the abolishment of her post and refusal to renew her contract.
In its Advisory Opinion rendered on 1 February 2012, the Court first considered whether it had jurisdiction to reply to the request and whether or not it should exercise that jurisdiction in the case in question. With respect to its jurisdiction, the Court, citing its earlier opinions, recalled that its power to review a judgment of the ILOAT by reference to Article XII of the Annex to the Statute of the ILOAT was limited to two grounds : either the Tribunal had wrongly confirmed its jurisdiction or the decision was vitiated by a fundamental fault in the procedure followed. As for whether or not it should reply to the request for an opinion, the Court drew attention to the difficulties arising from the review process in respect of ILOAT judgments, both in terms of equality of access to the Court and equality in the proceedings before the Court, since only the body employing the staff member has access to the Court. It found, in particular, that the principle of equality, which follows from the requirements of good administration of justice, should now be understood as including access on an equal basis to available appellate or similar remedies unless an exception may be justified on objective and reasonable grounds. Although the review system in place at the time did not appear effectively to satisfy the modern principle of equality of access to courts and tribunals, the Court, which is not in a position to reform this system, concluded that it need not refuse to reply to the request on such grounds. Furthermore, in accordance with the practice followed in previous review requests, the Court sought to alleviate the unequal position before it of the employing institution and its official arising from provisions of the Court’s Statute by deciding that the President of the Fund was to transmit to it any statement setting forth the views of Ms Saez García which she might wish to bring to the attention of the Court, and by deciding that no oral proceedings would be held (since the Court’s Statute does not allow individuals to appear in hearings in such cases). The Court thus ruled on these various points, maintaining its concern regarding the inequality of access to the Court but considering nevertheless that, taking account of the circumstances of the case as a whole, and in particular the steps it had taken to reduce the inequality in the proceedings before it, that the reasons that could have led it to decline to give an advisory opinion were not sufficiently compelling as to require it to do so.
As regards the merits of the request, the Court examined and confirmed the validity of the judgment rendered by ILOAT relating to Ms Saez García’s contract of employment. In particular, the Court was asked to give its opinion on the competence of the ILOAT to hear the complaint brought against the Fund by Ms Saez García. The former argued that Ms Saez García was a staff member of the Global Mechanism, which was not an organ of the Fund, and consequently that its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal did not extend to the applicant’s complaint. On this point, the Court ruled that Ms Saez García was an official of the Fund and that the Tribunal was therefore competent ratione personae to consider her complaint. Moreover, it considered that Ms Saez García’s complaints fell within the category of allegations of non-observance of her terms of appointment or of the provisions of the staff regulations and rules of the Fund, as prescribed by Article II, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the Tribunal. Having concluded that the Tribunal was justified in confirming its jurisdiction ratione personae and ratione materiae, the Court considered that it need not reply to the other questions raised by the Fund, either because they sought to ascertain the Court’s opinion on the reasoning of the Tribunal or on its judgment on the merits, in respect of which the Court has no power of review, or because they constituted nothing more than a repetition of the question on jurisdiction, which the Court had already answered.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
26 August 2010
Documents transmitted to the Court by the International Fund for Agricultural Development
Available in:
Written proceedings
29 October 2010
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
11 May 2010
The International Fund for Agricultural Development requests an advisory opinion from the Court on a judgment rendered by the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization
Available in:
28 January 2011
Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a complaint filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Extension of time-limits for the submission of written comments
Available in:
25 January 2012
Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a complaint filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court to deliver its Advisory Opinion on Wednesday 1 February 2012 at 10 a.m.
Available in:
1 February 2012
The Court finds that the decision given by the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization in its Judgment No. 2867 is valid
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case concerns a refusal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to renew the appointment of a staff member of the Secretariat beyond the date of expiry of his fixed-term contract, the reasons given being that the staff member had been seconded from a national administration, that his secondment had come to an end and that his contract with the United Nations was limited to the duration of the secondment. In a judgment delivered on 8 June 1984, the Administrative Tribunal rejected the staff member’s appeal against the Secretary-General’s refusal. The staff member in question applied for a review of the judgment to the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements, which requested the Court to give an advisory opinion on the merits of that decision. In its Advisory Opinion, rendered on 27 May 1987, the Court found that the Administrative Tribunal had not failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not responding to the question whether a legal impediment existed to the further employment in the United Nations of the applicant after the expiry of his fixed-term contract, and that it did not err on any question of law relating to the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. In that regard, the Court found that the Tribunal had established that there had been “reasonable consideration” of the applicant’s case, and by implication that the Secretary-General had not been under a misapprehension as to the effect of secondment, and that the provision of Article 101, paragraph 3, of the Charter must have been present in the mind of the Tribunal when it considered the question. In the view of the Court, those findings could not be disturbed on the ground of error on a question of law relating to the provisions of the Charter.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
10 September 1984
Request for Advisory Opinion (including the dossier of documents transmitted to the Court pursuant to article 65, paragraph 2 of the Statute)
Available in:
Written proceedings
Oral proceedings
Reading of the Advisory Opinion - Public Sitting held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 27 May 1987, the President, Judge Nagendra Singh presiding
Available in:
Orders
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
14 September 1984
Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal - Fixing of the time-limits for the filing of written statements
Available in:
19 May 1987
Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal - The Court will deliver its Advisory Opinion on 27 May 1987
Available in:
27 May 1987
The Court gives its Advisory Opinion on an Application for Review of Judgement No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This case arose out of certain measures adopted by the Lebanese Government with regard to two French companies. France instituted proceedings against Lebanon because it considered these measures contrary to certain undertakings embodied in a Franco-Lebanese agreement of 1948. Lebanon raised preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction, but before hearings could be held the Parties informed the Court that satisfactory arrangements had been concluded. Accordingly, the case was removed from the List by an Order of 31 August 1960.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
20 December 1959
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Orders
Fixing of time-limit: Written Statement of observations and submissions on Preliminary Objections
Available in:
Removal from the list
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections,Discontinuance
Available in:
Press releases
16 February 1959
Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and the Société Radio-Orient - The French Government files an Application instituting proceedings against the Government of the Republic of Lebanon
Available in:
17 October 1959
Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and the Société Radio-Orient - The Court extended to 29 December 1959 the date for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Lebanon
Available in:
8 January 1960
Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and the Société Radio-Orient - The Government of Lebanon files Preliminary Objections
Available in:
8 September 1960
Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and the Société Radio-Orient - The case is removed from the Court's List
Available in:
Correspondence
Latest Developments
19 July 2024
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem - The Court gives its Advisory Opinion and responds to the questions posed by the General Assembly
Available in:
Available in:
12 July 2024
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court to deliver its Advisory Opinion on Friday 19 July 2024 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
26 February 2024
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Conclusion of the public hearings held from 19 to 26 February 2024
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 26 February 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 26 February 2024, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 23 February 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 23 February 2024, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 22 February 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 22 February 2024, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wesdnesday 21 February 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wesdnesday 21 February 2024, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 20 February 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 20 February 2024, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 19 February 2024, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, on the Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for advisory opinion submitted by the General Assembly of the United Nations)
Available in:
9 February 2024
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Public hearings to be held from Monday 19 to Monday 26 February 2024
Available in:
14 November 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Filing of written comments
Available in:
23 October 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Public hearings to open on Monday 19 February 2024
Available in:
7 August 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - Filing of written statements
Available in:
24 July 2023
Available in:
24 July 2023
Available in:
Part II (D): Human rights documentation
22 June 2023
Part II (D): Human rights documentation
22 June 2023
List of Documents Part 2 (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
22 June 2023
Introductory Note Part 2 (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
31 May 2023
Part II (C) - Security Council (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
31 May 2023
Part II (B) - General Assembly Emergency Special Sessions (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
Part II (A) - Material of the United Nations Relating to the Questions before the Court (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
31 May 2023
Part II (A) - Material of the United Nations Relating to the Questions before the Court (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
31 May 2023
Part I - Material relating to the Request by the General Assembly for an Advisory Opinion of the Court (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
31 May 2023
List of Documents (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
31 May 2023
Introductory Note (documents received from the Secretariat of the United Nations)
Available in:
13 April 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court authorizes the African Union to participate in the proceedings
Available in:
31 March 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court authorizes the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation to participate in the proceedings
Available in:
10 March 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court authorizes the League of Arab States to participate in the proceedings
Available in:
8 February 2023
Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Request for Advisory Opinion) - The Court makes an Order organizing the proceedings; it fixes the time-limits for the presentation of written statements and for written comments on those statements
Available in:
Fixing of time-limits: Presentation of the written statements and written comments on those statements
Available in:
20 January 2023
The General Assembly of the United Nations requests an advisory opinion from the Court in its resolution A/RES/77/247 on “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 4 July 2018, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates filed in the Registry of the Court a joint Application constituting an appeal from the decision rendered by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (the “ICAO Council”) on 29 June 2018 in proceedings commenced by the State of Qatar against these four States on 30 October 2017 pursuant to Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
On the same day, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates filed in the Registry of the Court a joint Application constituting an appeal from the decision rendered by the ICAO Council on 29 June 2018 in proceedings commenced by the State of Qatar against these three States on 30 October 2017 pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the International Air Services Transit Agreement.
The Applications stated that, in 2013 and 2014, following years of diplomatic activities, the member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council had adopted a series of instruments and undertakings, referred to collectively as the Riyadh Agreements, under which Qatar “committed to cease supporting, financing or harbouring persons or groups presenting a danger to national security, in particular terrorist groups”. The Applicants further stated that, on 5 June 2017, after Qatar had allegedly failed to abide by its commitments, they adopted a range of countermeasures “with the aim of inducing compliance by Qatar”. These measures included airspace restrictions on aircraft registered in Qatar. On 30 October 2017, Qatar submitted to the ICAO Council two Applications against the above States, which raised two preliminary objections to each of Qatar’s Applications contending that the ICAO Council lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims submitted by Qatar, or, in the alternative, that the claims were inadmissible.
By two decisions rendered on 29 June 2018, the ICAO Council rejected these preliminary objections.
Before the Court, the Applicants advanced three grounds of appeal. Under the first ground of appeal, they contested the decisions of the ICAO Council on the grounds that they had been rendered following a procedure which was “manifestly flawed and in violation of fundamental principles of due process and the right to be heard”. Under the second and third grounds, they claimed that “the ICAO Council erred in fact and in law” in rejecting, respectively, the first and the second preliminary objections to its jurisdiction over Qatar’s Applications.
Public hearings were held in both cases in December 2019, and the Court delivered its Judgment in each case on 14 July 2020.
In both Judgments, the Court rejected the appeal brought by the Applicants on 4 July 2018 from the Decision of the ICAO Council of 29 June 2018. It held that the ICAOA Council has jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted to it by Qatar on 30 October 2017 and that the said application is admissible.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
27 December 2018
Available in:
25 February 2019
Available in:
27 May 2019
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 2 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 2 December 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil , President YusufAviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 3 December 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 5 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 6 December 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
5 July 2018
The Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates submit to the International Court of Justice a joint Application constituting an appeal against a decision rendered by the ICAO Council
Available in:
2 August 2018
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
1 April 2019
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court directs the submission of a Reply by the Applicants and a Rejoinder by the Respondent and fixes the time-limits for the filing of these written pleadings
Available in:
7 October 2019
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 2 to Friday 6 December 2019
Available in:
6 December 2019
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - Conclusion of the public hearings - The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
2 July 2020
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court to deliver its Judgments on Tuesday 14 July 2020 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
14 July 2020
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court rejects the appeal brought by Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates from the Decision of the ICAO Council
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 4 July 2018, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates filed in the Registry of the Court a joint Application constituting an appeal from the decision rendered by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (the “ICAO Council”) on 29 June 2018 in proceedings commenced by the State of Qatar against these four States on 30 October 2017 pursuant to Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation.
On the same day, the Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt and the United Arab Emirates filed in the Registry of the Court a joint Application constituting an appeal from the decision rendered by the ICAO Council on 29 June 2018 in proceedings commenced by the State of Qatar against these three States on 30 October 2017 pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the International Air Services Transit Agreement.
The Applications stated that, in 2013 and 2014, following years of diplomatic activities, the member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council had adopted a series of instruments and undertakings, referred to collectively as the Riyadh Agreements, under which Qatar “committed to cease supporting, financing or harbouring persons or groups presenting a danger to national security, in particular terrorist groups”. The Applicants further stated that, on 5 June 2017, after Qatar had allegedly failed to abide by its commitments, they adopted a range of countermeasures “with the aim of inducing compliance by Qatar”. These measures included airspace restrictions on aircraft registered in Qatar. On 30 October 2017, Qatar submitted to the ICAO Council two Applications against the above States, which raised two preliminary objections to each of Qatar’s Applications contending that the ICAO Council lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims submitted by Qatar, or, in the alternative, that the claims were inadmissible.
By two decisions rendered on 29 June 2018, the ICAO Council rejected these preliminary objections.
Before the Court, the Applicants advanced three grounds of appeal. Under the first ground of appeal, they contested the decisions of the ICAO Council on the grounds that they had been rendered following a procedure which was “manifestly flawed and in violation of fundamental principles of due process and the right to be heard”. Under the second and third grounds, they claimed that “the ICAO Council erred in fact and in law” in rejecting, respectively, the first and the second preliminary objections to its jurisdiction over Qatar’s Applications.
Public hearings were held in both cases in December 2019, and the Court delivered its Judgment in each case on 14 July 2020.
In both Judgments, the Court rejected the appeal brought by the Applicants on 4 July 2018 from the Decision of the ICAO Council of 29 June 2018. It held that the ICAOA Council has jurisdiction to entertain the application submitted to it by Qatar on 30 October 2017 and that the said application is admissible.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
Written proceedings
27 December 2018
Available in:
25 February 2019
Available in:
27 May 2019
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Monday 2 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 2 December 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 3 December 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 5 December 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 6 December 2019, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the cases concerning the Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and the Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)
Available in:
Orders
Judgments
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
5 July 2018
The Kingdom of Bahrain, the Arab Republic of Egypt, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates submit to the International Court of Justice a joint Application constituting an appeal against a decision rendered by the ICAO Council
Available in:
2 August 2018
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
1 April 2019
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court directs the submission of a Reply by the Applicants and a Rejoinder by the Respondent and fixes the time-limits for the filing of these written pleadings
Available in:
7 October 2019
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 2 to Friday 6 December 2019
Available in:
6 December 2019
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - Conclusion of the public hearings - The Court to begin its deliberation
Available in:
2 July 2020
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court to deliver its Judgments on Tuesday 14 July 2020 at 3 p.m.
Available in:
14 July 2020
Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) - The Court rejects the appeal brought by Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates from the Decision of the ICAO Council
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 11 June 2018, Qatar instituted proceedings against the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”) with regard to alleged violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 21 December 1965 (“CERD” or “Convention”).
In its Application, Qatar asserted, inter alia, that on 5 June 2017 the UAE had enacted and implemented a series of discriminatory measures directed against Qataris on the basis of their national origin. The Application was accompanied by a Request for the indication of provisional measures to protect Qatar’s rights under CERD pending a decision on the merits.
To found the jurisdiction of the Court, Qatar invoked Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and Article 22 of CERD.
The Court held public hearings on Qatar’s Request for the indication of provisional measures in June 2018. In an Order of 23 July 2018, the Court concluded that, prima facie, it had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 22 of CERD to deal with the case to the extent that the dispute between the Parties related to the “interpretation or application” of that Convention, and that the conditions required by its Statute for it to indicate provisional measures were met. At the end of its Order, the Court directed the UAE to
“ensure that (i) families that include a Qatari, separated by the measures adopted by the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017, are reunited; (ii) Qatari students affected by the measures adopted by the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017 are given the opportunity to complete their education in the United Arab Emirates or to obtain their educational records if they wish to continue their studies elsewhere; and (iii) Qataris affected by the measures adopted by the United Arab Emirates on 5 June 2017 are allowed access to tribunals and other judicial organs of the United Arab Emirates”.
The Court also ordered both Parties to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve.
On 22 March 2019, the UAE filed in the Registry of the Court a Request for the indication of provisional measures in order “(i) to preserve its procedural rights in th[e] case; and (ii) prevent Qatar from further aggravating or extending the dispute between the parties pending a final decision in th[e] case”. After holding public hearings on this Request in May 2019, the Court delivered an Order on 14 June 2019, in which it rejected the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the UAE.
On 30 April 2019, the UAE raised preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application. In accordance with the Rules of Court, the proceedings on the merits of the case were then suspended. After holding public hearings in August and September 2020, the Court delivered its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the UAE on 4 February 2021. In its Judgment, the Court upheld the first preliminary objection that the dispute fell outside of the scope ratione materiae of CERD, and found that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by Qatar on 11 June 2018.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Institution of proceedings
11 June 2018
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Written proceedings
11 June 2018
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
22 March 2019
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
25 April 2019
Available in:
29 April 2019
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
30 August 2019
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Public sitting held on Wednesday 27 June 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 28 June 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 29 June 2018, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 29 June 2018, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Tuesday 7 May 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 8 May 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 9 May 2019, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Thursday 9 May 2019, at 4.30 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 31 August 2020, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Public sitting held on Wednesday 2 September 2020, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Public sitting held on Friday 4 September 2020, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Public sitting held on Monday 7 September 2020, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Other documents
3 July 2018
Available in:
3 July 2018
Available in:
5 July 2018
Available in:
5 July 2018
Available in:
Orders
Request for the indication of provisional measures of Qatar
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Fixing of time-limit: Written statement of observations and submissions on preliminary objections
Available in:
Request for the indication of provisional measures of the United Arab Emirates
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
Judgments
Preliminary objections
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Summary of the Judgment of 4 February 2021
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
Press releases
11 June 2018
The State of Qatar institutes proceedings against the United Arab Emirates and requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
15 June 2018
Proceedings instituted by the State of Qatar against the United Arab Emirates - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to hold public hearings from Wednesday 27 to Friday 29 June 2018
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
29 June 2018
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures raised by Qatar - The Court to begin its deliberation
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
17 July 2018
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to deliver its Order on Monday 23 July 2018
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
23 July 2018
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - The Court indicates provisional measures to protect certain rights claimed by Qatar and orders the Parties to refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
1 August 2018
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of the initial pleadings
Available in:
25 March 2019
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - The United Arab Emirates requests the Court to indicate provisional measures
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
2 April 2019
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to hold public hearings from Tuesday 7 to Thursday 9 May 2019
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
9 May 2019
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the United Arab Emirates - The Court to begin its deliberation
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
10 May 2019
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Fixing of time-limit for the filing by Qatar of a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by the United Arab Emirates
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
7 June 2019
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to deliver its Order on Friday 14 June 2019 at 3 p.m.
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
14 June 2019
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - The Court rejects the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the United Arab Emirates
Procedure(s):Provisional measures
Available in:
30 July 2020
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Preliminary Objections - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 31 August to Monday 7 September 2020
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
25 August 2020
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Preliminary objections - Schedule for the public hearings to be held from Monday 31 August to Monday 7 September 2020
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
8 September 2020
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by the United Arab Emirates - The Court to begin its deliberation
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
2 February 2021
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - Preliminary objections - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Thursday 4 February 2021 at 3 p.m.
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
4 February 2021
Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) - The Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by Qatar on 11 June 2018
Procedure(s):Preliminary objections
Available in:
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.
Request for Advisory Opinion
21 December 1974
Request for Advisory Opinion (including the dossier of documents transmitted to the Court pursuant to article 65, paragraph 2 of the Statute)
Available in:
Written proceedings
12 February 1975
Available in:
27 March 1975
Available in:
Oral proceedings
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 12 to 16 May 1975, President Lachs presiding
Available in:
Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, from 16 to 30 July and on 16 October 1975, President Lachs presiding
Available in:
Orders
Judge ad hoc
Available in:
Advisory opinions
Available in:
Summaries of Judgments and Orders
Press releases
9 January 1975
Western Sahara - General Assembly requested the Court to give an Advisory Opinion
Available in:
28 March 1975
Sahara occidental - Communications écrites des Etats (French version only)
Available in:
21 April 1975
Sahara occidental - La Cour tiendra audience le 12 mai 1975 (French version only)
Available in:
16 May 1975
Sahara occidental - Composition des délégations présentes aux audiences tenues du 12 au 16 mai 1975 (French version only)
Available in:
23 May 1975
Sahara occidental - La Cour internationale de Justice autorise la désignation d'un juge ad hoc par le Maroc (French version only)
Available in:
5 June 1975
Sahara occidental - La Cour tiendra audience à partir du 25 juin 1975 (French version only)
Available in:
25 June 1975
Sahara occidental - Ouverture des audiences publiques (French version only)
Available in:
3 July 1975
Sahara occidental - Clôture de la procédure orale (French version only)
Available in:
13 October 1975
Sahara occidental - La Cour rendra son avis consultatif le jeudi 16 octobre à 9 heures (French version only)
Available in:
16 October 1975
La Cour internationale de Justice rend son avis consultatif dans l'affaire du Sahara occidental (French version only)
Available in:
Correspondence
OVERVIEW OF THE CASE
On 30 June 2017, Malaysia filed an Application requesting interpretation of the Judgment delivered by the Court on 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore). In that Judgment, the Court had found that (1) sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belonged to the Republic of Singapore, (2) sovereignty over Middle Rocks belonged to Malaysia, and (3) sovereignty over South Ledge belonged to the State in the territorial waters of which it was located.
In a letter dated 28 May 2018, the Co-Agent of Malaysia notified the Court that the Parties had agreed to discontinue the proceedings in the case. A copy of that letter was communicated to the Agent of Singapore who, by a letter dated 29 May 2018, confirmed his Government’s agreement to the discontinuance of the proceedings.
On 29 May 2018, the Court made an Order recording the discontinuance, by agreement of the Parties, of the proceedings instituted on 30 June 2017 by Malaysia against Singapore, and directed that the case be removed from the List.
This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.