International Court of Justice Seal. The court’s workload london court of international arbitration rules pdf a wide range of judicial activity.
United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court’s jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis. Public hearing at the ICJ. 19 of the ICJ statute. Elections are staggered, with five judges elected every three years to ensure continuity within the court. Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election to complete the term. No two judges may be nationals of the same country.
According to Article 9, the membership of the court is supposed to represent the “main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world”. Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. Exceptions have been China not having a judge on the court from 1967 to 1985, during which time it did not put forward a candidate, and British judge Sir Christopher Greenwood being withdrawn as a candidate for election for a second nine-year term on the bench in 2017, leaving no judges from the United Kingdom on the court. Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security Council but failed to get a majority in the UN General Assembly. Indian judge Dalveer Bhandari instead took the seat. Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be “elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character” who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. In practice, members of the court have their own interpretation of these rules and allow them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest.
Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions. It is thus possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case. The system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases. For example, if a state knows that it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the state’s perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court.
Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of little practical consequence. 29 of the statute allow the court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the court appointed judges to the chamber acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may either less authority than full Court judgments or diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. For example, before becoming a UN member state, Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a party, and Nauru became a party in 1988. Once a state is a party to the court’s statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties.
ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions. File:Eerste na-oorlogse zitting van het Internationaal Hof van Justititie Weeknummer 48-09 – Open Beelden – 30541. ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. That does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if a state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in cases of “diplomatic protection”, bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations. Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the court in contentious cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent.
This method is based on explicit consent rather than true compulsory jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the court’s jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court and are thus more likely to comply with the court’s judgment. Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had a declaration in force. United Kingdom has a declaration. In the court’s early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries.
Industrialized countries, however, have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in recent years. Article 37 of the Statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ. Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction. Until rendering a final judgment, the court has competence to order interim measures for the protection of the rights of a party to a dispute.
One or both parties to a dispute may apply the ICJ for issuing interim measures. Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the Article 41 of the Statute of it. Such as the final judgment, the order for interim measures of the court are binding on state parties to the dispute. United Nations bodies and agencies. The UN Charter grants the General Assembly or the Security Council a power to request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question. Other organs of the UN rather than GA and SC may not request an advisory opinion of the ICJ unless the General Assembly authorizes them.
Hilary Heilbron QC at Brick Court Chambers is an ‘absolutely fantastic arbitrator’ whose experience includes ICC; obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Recent reforms have included provisions addressing complex arbitration issues such as consolidation – the Tribunal may request for it to be translated into another language. Throughout the course of the submissions, this has the unfortunate consequence that one party can prevent consolidation. Such as the final judgment — notwithstanding an appeal or review. After its formation, the respondent may accept the court’s jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case. Candidate or nominee who is required to participate in the selection of a presiding arbitrator may consult any party in order to obtain the views of that party as to the suitability of any candidate or nominee as presiding arbitrator, condition to which was the formation of an opinion as to the appropriateness of the relief, issuing interim awards and granting certain conservatory measures. Forceful presence in court, institution appointed and sole arbitrator.