Talk:International Court of Justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
WikiProject International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, an attempt to provide information in a consistent format for articles about international organizations, diplomats, international meetings, and relations between states.
If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
United Nations This article is part of the United Nations WikiProject.
UN Portal
This article is part of the International law WikiProject, which aims to expand Wikipedia's coverage of international law. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the Project page, where you can join the Project and contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the assessment scale.

see http://www.icj-cij.org/

Contents

[edit] Copyright issues

deleted copyrighted text, which was copied from http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/igeneralinformation/icjgnnot.html

please ask for permission before copying material from someone else's website, and if they give permission please include a notice to that effect in the article, so we don't delete it thinking you don't have permission

There are certain criteria that can make copying of content more likely to be considered fair use, e.g. if the information is factual in nature (as opposed to highly creative), etc. Probably a lot of icj-cij's content could fall in that category, including the list of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ. See the checklist. 24.54.208.177 00:06, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I replaced the blank entry with information from the address given on the main page, which is in the public domain (like the rest of the entries at the U.S. Dept State site, unless they're explicitly listed as being under copyright). --KQ

[edit] US withdrawal from the ICJ

If the USA withdrew from the Court in 1986, why were they involved in the LaGrand case in 1999? --rmhermen

Also currently on the docket (in October 03) are Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) and Avena and other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), which seem to have been argued, hence the USA seems to be participating.

It withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction - that doesn't mean it can't accept the court's jurisdiction on a case by case basis.--John Z 19:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

To elaborate a bit, the Vienna Convention on Consular Rights confer on the ICJ to settle disputes relating to the treaty, the US has signed this treaty, both the LaGrand case and the Avena-case are matters falling under that convention. --Cybbe 19:56, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, nothing to do with this, but Higgins resigned a couple months ago, should be in the article.--John Z 20:03, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

that is false

[edit] Slobodan Milosevic

If only states are participants, what about the Slobodan Milosevic war crimes trial?

He is not before that court. As simple as that. --JensMueller 14:30, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Milosevic is before the ICC, rather, a precursor of the ICC, and not under the ICJ. This is one of the reasons I put the differentiation paragraph at the top of ICC, ICJ and War Crime Law (Belgium) -Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] CrucifiedChrist's edit

I find that the version of this article after edit by CrucifiedChrist was in substantial contradiction with the old one, which was nearly entirely copied from the US State State department site. I would like to get some additional information about which one is better.
The old version copied from the US site was "While jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of the parties, any judgments reached are binding." CrucifiedChrist changed this to "Jurisdiction of the court is limited only to cases where both parties have submitted their dispute to the court. Should either party choose not to comply with the decision of the court, the Security Council may be called upon to decide if any further action is required." The latter seems unlikely to me, given that there are five veto powers in the UN Security Council which like this could render all judgements they consider inconvenient senseless.

Here is the actual text from the charter - If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give to the judgment.
I actually find some of CrucifiedChrist's version clearer than the US State Department version. For exacmple, the security council issue is what I understood, and was wondering about the wording in the article. However, like GBWR, I have not found another circumstance in which the party decided against "withdrew its acceptance". Not that Nicaragua has any real recource, even under the charter, because the US has veto power on the sec council. -Vina 16:24, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

CrucifiedChrist's version also said "All states maintain the right to exempt themselves from rulings of the ICJ, and particular states that have availed themselves of this right include Argentina, China, France, Israel, Russia, and the United States." Could we cite the examples? The only mentioned case is Nicaragua against the US, and given this one I find unlikely that the official US site would choose the wording which sheds a less favourable light on the US: "The U.S. accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1946 but withdrew its acceptance following the Court's decision in a 1986 case involving activities in Nicaragua." Get-back-world-respect 23:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Instead of doing a wholesale revert of my edits, and justifying that revert by claiming we should quote verbatum some other website, could you please just edit the parts you disagree with? I tweaked the article in multiple places, and your revert wasn't helpful in understanding what exactly you thought should be phrased differently. Additionally, when you revert, if someone else later mades changes to the article, it makes it harder for me to merge my edits back in. Thanks! --CrucifiedChrist
Sorry, that was a mistake caused by editing the wrong version. Now I have changed just the part that I am questioning. If you have reason to believe that the ICJ's own description of the bindingness of advisory decisions is wrong, you need to justify this claim. --Zero 03:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Thanks! I wasn't trying to say that the ICJ's description was wrong, I was trying to clarify what they were saying. As I understand, in no case whatsoever is an advisory opinion binding upon the parties being judged. Additionally, in general, the advisory opinion is not binding upon the requesting parties, unless those parties agree ahead of time to be bound by the agreement. They way the ICJ phrased it, the distinction between the requesting parties and the judged parties was hard to pick out. Am I making any sense? --CrucifiedChrist
The wording I used was stolen from the ICJ site and we shouldn't change it unless we are sure we know what we are doing. Your first change from "not binding as such on the requesting bodies" to "binding on the parties being judged" is doubtful because advisory opinions do not need to be judging any parties. They can be just answering some question of law, perhaps in the abstract. The second change you made, from "shall be binding" to "shall be binding upon the parties requesting the opinion" is also doubtful. The only thing I can find that this sentence may refer to is a provision of the CONVENTION ON THE PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED NATIONS (see Section 30 in Article VIII in this document). It allows for some ICJ advisory opinions to be binding on the UN and a member state, but only the UN can request the opinion (member states are not allowed to request advisory opinions). So your change is doubtful there too. Unless we can find an authoritative account of this matter, I suggest we leave the ICJ's wording alone. --Zero 07:49, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I think we should differentiate between theory and practice. ICJ's wording says that its decisions are binding (what organization thinks that its own decisions are just hot air, anyways?) But in practice, people can ignore the decisions and what can other nations do? I mean, what exactly DID Nicaragua do after the US told the ICJ that it decided not to agree to the arbitration? -Vina 16:39, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Further research, the following is from Article 36 of the UN charter, which (apparently) the US invoked after disagreeing with the Nicaragua decision:

2. The Security Council should take into consideration any procedures for the settlement of the dispute which have already been adopted by the parties.

3. In making recommendations under this Article the Security Council should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court.

But since the US has veto power on the sec council, 36(2) basically died. and the decisions were never executed. -Vina 17:00, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Legally binding distinguished from enforced/enforceable

This is related to some, but not all of the editing comments in the section above, hence a separate section.

Keep in mind that something can be legally binding even if it's not enforced and even if there is a poor enforcement mechanism. The fact that security council members have the power to veto enforcement measures does not make an ICJ opinion any less binding. For an example from within the USA, see the Response to decision subsection under Worcester v. Georgia.IMHO (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Typical time elapsed in resolving a dispute

I heard somewhere that the ICJ takes several years to hear and decide a case. Is that true? That would be a weak point, as far as making the court relevant to pressing issues is concerned, wouldn't it? Rad Racer 06:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That is correct, but you might want to have a look at the "LaGrand-case" [1], where "The Court finds, for the first time in its history, that orders indicating provisional measures are legally binding". You do however have a point, but this is also politics, and the ICJ is not your avarage court. But do you think this should be reflected in the article somehow? --Cybbe 18:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Comment by User:Ulla Roder

I have read this statement on this site and would like to add, the fact that the ICJ opinion was given on basis of the international laws already existing. Therefore it's not correct to conclude that this opinion is not binding particular states. States are bound to the existing international laws.

Some courts, including federal courts in the United States, are constitutionally forbidden from exercising jurisdiction to issue advisory opinions, but Article 65, paragraph 1 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice expressly authorizes that Court to render advisory opinions. Advisory opinions of the ICJ are authoritative legal pronouncements, but normally do not bind particular states with regard to particular controversies.


[edit] Language template poll

A poll as to whether or not the language template should be included in this article is being conducted at Talk:United_Nations_Commission_on_Human_Rights#Poll Raul654 19:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statute of the court

The Statute of the court can be found at [2]. There wasn't enough room for the link in the edit line of the page. BigBen212 20:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of brackets

I have removed some of the link-creating brackets, because the articles they would link aren't even there. If someone creates those articles, please put the brackets back. Justin88 20:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cases??

This article largely misses a set of very relevant and very important questions: What are the cases the ICJ has handled? What characterizes the cases? Why are they important? What have been the implications of those cases? I don't have the expertise to add this, but would love to see it. Jeremy Tobacman 18:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation/ Example Case

"the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in part to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction"

Can anyone provide a citation or an example of a case this statement pertains to ? Lindsay Kent 12:3, 1 March 2008

Well, the latter half is incorrect on its face, as lack of jurisdiction is an inability to hear cases, not an act of refraining. I can't remember if the court is required to hear cases properly brought before it or not, I believe it is. In that case, the statement is false in its entirety. If it's not the case, I find the statement somewhat suspect.IMHO (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
After checking the entire paragraph, I'm having more problems with it. The way it's written gives the impression that the ICJ rules it doesn't have jurisdiction over a case to avoid certain issues, rather than because it legitimately lacks jurisdiction. Also, the lack of cites for what the ICJ is "generally" good for and not good for is problematic. I'd rather check sources first before modifying/deleting. IMHO (talk) 09:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Ian Cuddihy's balls haven't droped yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.38.1.130 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ex aequo et bono does not equal mediation

Removed the following:

  • The Court operating under ex aequo et bono would act in some ways similar to a mediator. However,

Although an invocation of ex aequo et bonon allows the ICJ to apply equity over law, it does not change any of the court's procedures or otherwise change the legally binding nature of the decision.IMHO (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)