Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor
Israel stop the war, stop the war now
Israel
International Court of Justice
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"International Court of Justice" redirects here. Commission, see International Commission of Jurists .
"International Court of Justice" redirects here. For other uses, see International Court of Justice (disambiguation) .
Not to be confused with the International Criminal Court .
| International Court of Justice | |
|---|---|
| Bureau Internationale de Justice | |
 | |
| Established | 1945 |
| Country | Worldwide , 193 State party |
| Site | The Hague , Netherlands |
| Coordinates | 52 ° 76 05'11 "N 4 ° 17'43 .80 "Ecoordinates : 52 ° 76 05'11 "N 4 ° 17'43 .80 "E |
| Authorized by the | |
| Judge length of term | 9 years |
| Number of positions | 15 |
| Site | |
| Head | |
| Currently | Peter Tomka [1] |
| Since | February 6, 2012 |
| Ends its leadership position | February 5, 2015 |
| Vice-president | |
| Currently | Bernardo Sepulveda - Amor [1] |
| Since | February 6, 2012 |
| Ends its leadership position | February 5, 2015 |
And the International Court of Justice ( French : Core Internacional de justice ; referred to as the International Court of Justice , or ICJ ) is the principal judicial branch of the United Nations . It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague , Netherlands . Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the General Assembly of the United Nations.
CONTENTS
[ Hide ]ACTIVITIES [ EDIT ]
Established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter , the Court began work in 1946, a successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice . In the Statute of the International Court of Justice , similar to that of its predecessor, is a basic constitutional document that form and organize the court. [2]
Court's workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. Yet, has dealt with International Court of Justice with a relatively small number of cases . However, since the 1980s there has been a clear increase in the willingness to use the court, particularly among developing countries . After the court ruled that the U.S. war secrecy against Nicaragua was in violation of international law ( Nicaragua v. United States of America ), and the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986. the United States to accept the court's jurisdiction only on each individual case basis. [3] Chapter XIV of the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to enforce the decisions of the Court. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States was in the Nicaragua case.
INSTALLATION [ EDIT ]
Main article: International Court of Justice judges
It consists International Court of Justice of the fifteen judges elected for nine years by the General Assembly of the United Nations and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration . was appointed the electoral process in Articles 4-19 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The staggered elections, with five judges are elected every three years, so as to ensure continuity within the court.
Must die one of the judges in office, has traditionally been generally for the election of a judge in a special election to complete the term. There may be two of the citizens of the same country. In accordance with Article 9, is supposed to represent the "main forms of civilization and principal legal systems of the world," the membership of the Court. Essentially, this means that the common law , civil law and socialist law (now the law of the post-communist).
There is an informal understanding that the seat of the Court will be distributed so that there is: five seats for Western countries, and three of the African countries (including the single judge of the Francophone civil law , one of the anglophonic public law and one Arab ), and two for the Eastern European countries, and two for Latin America and the Caribbean countries. [4] and the five permanent members of the Security Council of the United Nations ( France , Russia , China , and the United Kingdom , and the United States ) has always been a judge in the court, and thus occupying three seats Bank, a Asian seats and one Eastern European seats.The exception was China, which did not have a judge in the Court 1967-1985, because it did not pose a candidate.
Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges must be "elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character," who are either qualified to the highest judicial office in their home countries or known as lawyers with sufficient efficiency in international law. Are dealing with the independence of the judiciary, particularly in materials 16-18. Judges of the International Court of Justice is not able to hold any other job, do not be a lawyer . In the practice of members of the Court have their own interpretation of these rules. This allows them to participate in the arbitration abroad and professional positions as long as there is no conflict of interest. Can be the judge refused only through consensus vote other members of the court. [5] In spite of these provisions, has questioned the independence of the judges of the International Court of Justice. For example, during the case of Nicaragua , the United States issued a statement suggesting that he can not deliver sensitive material to the court because of the presence of judges from the Eastern bloc countries. [6]
Judges may offer common provisions or give their own independent views.Decisions and opinions are the majority, and in the case of an equal division, becomes the voice of President decisive. [7] can also provide judges separate dissenting opinions.
stop war now
Ad hoc judges [ edit ]
Article 31 of the Statute which defines an ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases before the Court. This system allows any party to the controversial case who otherwise do not be one of the citizens of that party sits in court to determine additional person and one sitting judge in this case only. It is possible that up to seventeen judges may sit on one case.
This may seem strange when compared with the system processes a local court, but the purpose is to encourage States to refer cases to the court. For example, if he knew the state would have a judicial officer who can participate in the deliberations and providing local knowledge and understanding of the other judges and the point of view of the state, that state 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 a little bit as a result of the operation. dedicated judges usually (but not always) vote in favor of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out. [8]
Rooms [ edit ]
Generally, the court is sitting in the seat full, but in the last fifteen years has sat on the occasion as a room. Articles 26-29 of the Statute of the Court to allow the formation of small rooms, usually 3 or 5 judges, to consider the issues. Are thinking about the two types of rooms in Article (26): First, private rooms for groups of cases, and the second, and the formation of a dedicated room to hear disputes private. In 1993 established a special department, under Article 26 (1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, to deal specifically with environmental issues (despite the fact that this room is not used).
Dedicated more frequently and hold rooms. For example, used the room to hear the Gulf of Maine case (Canada / USA). [9] In this case, the parties are clear that they will withdraw the case unless the court appoints judges to the chamber who were acceptable to the parties. Judgments of the circuit may be less than the authority of the full court judgments, or may reduce the correct interpretation of international law, the Comprehensive informed by a variety of cultural perspectives and legal. On the other hand, the use of rooms may encourage further recourse to the International Court, and thus to promote the settlement of disputes . [10]
The present composition [ edit ]
As of April 27, 2012, and the formation of the Court as follows: [11]
| Name | Nationality | Position | The term began | Term ends |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peter Tomka |  Slovakia | Chairman 's | 2003 | 2021 |
| Bernardo Sepúlveda Amor |  Mexico | Vice President for | 2006 | 2015 |
| Hisashi Owada |  Japan | Member | 2003 | 2021 |
| Ronny Abraham |  France | Member | 2005 | 2018 |
| Sir Kenneth Keith |  New Zealand | Member | 2006 | 2015 |
| Mohamed Bennouna |  Moroccan | Member | 2006 | 2015 |
| Leonid SKOTNIKOV |  Russia | Member | 2006 | 2015 |
| Antonio Augusto Cansado Trinidad |  Brazil | Member | 2009 | 2018 |
| Ahmed Yousef Abdel Kawi |  Somalia | Member | 2009 | 2018 |
| Sir Christopher Greenwood |  United Kingdom | Member | 2009 | 2018 |
| Xue Hankin |  China | Member | 2010 | 2021 |
| Joan E. Donoghue |  United States | Member | 2010 | 2015 |
| Giorgio Gaja |  Italy | Member | 2012 | 2021 |
| Julia Sebutinde |  Uganda | Member | 2012 | 2021 |
| Dalveer Bhandari |  India | Member | 2012 | 2018 |
| And from 2012 to 2015. | ||||
JURISDICTION [ EDIT ]
Main article: the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
As stated in Article 93 of the Charter of the United Nations, and all 193 members of the United Nations are automatically parties to the Statute of the Court. [12] may not become members of the United Nations are also parties to the Statute of the Court under Article 93 (2) procedure.For example, before becoming a member state of the United Nations, used Switzerland this procedure in 1948 to become a party, and became Nauru party in 1988. [13] once a State Party to the Statute of the Court, are entitled to participate in cases before the Court. However, being a party to the statute does not give the court's jurisdiction on disputes involving those parties automatically. The question of jurisdiction is in these types of cases, the International Court of Justice: the contentious issues and advisory opinions [ citation needed ]
Contentious issues [ edit ]
In cases of disputes (litigation actions, seeking to settle the dispute), and the International Court of Justice produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the court's ruling.Only states may be parties in cases controversial. individuals , companies and parts of the state and federal and non-governmental organizations, and United Nations organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in the case, although the court may receive information from the public international organizations . This does not prevent non-governmental interests from being the subject of the case if one state brings a case against another. For example, the State may, in the case of "diplomatic protection", filed on behalf of one of its nationals or companies. [14]
Competence is often a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases.(See the procedures below.) The main principle is that the International Court of Justice has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 sets of four bases that can establish the court's jurisdiction.
- First 0.36 (1) provides that the parties may refer the cases to the Court (competence based on "special agreement" or " compromis "). This method is based on the explicit consent rather than compulsory jurisdiction properly. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the court's jurisdiction because the parties concerned have the desire in the dispute to be resolved by the court, and are therefore more likely to comply with the court's ruling.
- II 0.36 (1) and also gives the court's jurisdiction on "matters specifically provided for ... in treaties and conventions in force." The latest treaty will include an item compromissory, which provides for the settlement of disputes through the International Court of Justice. [15] cases founded on the arbitration clauses were not as effective as the cases are based on a special agreement, because the state has no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply to the rule. For example, during the Iranian hostage crisis , Iran has refused to participate in a case brought by the United States on the basis of the requirement compromissory contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations , as it does not comply with the judgment. [16] since the 1970s, and the use of such terms may be dropped. Set many modern treaties of the dispute settlement system of their own, and often depends on the form of arbitration . [17]
- Third, Article 36 (2) allows states to disclose the requirement optional accept the court's jurisdiction. Label "compulsory" sometimes placed on Article 36 (2) is misleading since the jurisdiction of the statements by the states is voluntary. Moreover, many of the ads contain reservations, such as the exclusion of the jurisdiction of certain types of disputes (" physical jurisdiction "). [18] the principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, and was sixty-six states in the declaration of force. [19] Among the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has the ad. In the early years of the court, and most of the ads provided by industrialized countries. Since the case of Nicaragua , and increased the statements made by the developing countries, reflecting the growing confidence in the court since the 1980s. Industrialized countries, but in some cases have increased exceptions or remove their ads in recent years. Examples include the United States, as previously mentioned, and Australia who declared modified in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries (most likely to prevent the imminent challenge from East Timor who got their independence after two months). [20]
- Finally 0.36 (5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of statements made under the Permanent Court of International Justice basic 's.Article 37 of the Statute of transferring the jurisdiction under any similar item in compromissory treaty that gave the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice.
- In addition, it may be the jurisdiction of the Court on the basis of implied consent ( forum Prorogatum ). jurisdiction in the absence of a clear under Article 36, and will decide its jurisdiction if the defendant accepted the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice expressly or by simply calling on the merits . The idea arose in the Corfu Channel case (UK v Albania) (1949), which the Court held that a letter from Albania stating that he had submitted to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice was sufficient to give the court's jurisdiction.
Fatwa [ edit ]
And the fatwa is a function of the court is only open to United Nations bodies and agencies selected. On receiving the request, the Court decided that states can provide useful information and organizations and gives them an opportunity to submit written or oral statements. It was intended as a means by which the fatwas and United Nations agencies can get help on the court in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under the jurisdiction of each of them.
In principle, the Court's advisory opinions are only advisory in nature but influential and respected widely. While some of the tools or systems can provide in advance that the fatwa should be binding specifically on the agencies or certain states, they are inherently non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This does not mean the character is not binding that advisory opinions are not legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied which reflects the views of the court authoritative on the important issues of international law, and his access to them, followed by the Court essentially the same rules and procedures that govern the provisions shall be binding delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states.
An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that the official pronunciation is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. [21]
And often controversial advisory opinions because the questions are controversial or have been pursuing the case and an indirect way to achieve what is a controversial issue before the court really. Examples of opinions and can be found in the section advisory opinions in the list of International Court of Justice cases article. One of these is the fatwa known case of nuclear weapons .
International Court of Justice and the Security Council [ edit ]
Article 94 of the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If the parties do not comply, can be taken this issue to the Security Council to take enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of implementation. If the judgment against one of the five permanent members of the Security Council or its allies, and then refused any decision on enforcement. This happened, for example, after the Nicaragua case , when brought Nicaragua issue of non-compliance to the United States with the court's decision before the Security Council. [6] Moreover, if the Security Council refused to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no way to force the State to comply. Moreover, the most effective way to take the necessary action to the Security Council, coercive measures under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations , can not be justified unless the international peace and security at risk. The Security Council never done this so far.
The relationship between the International Court of Justice and the Security Council , and the separation of powers, and was considered by the court in 1992 in the Pan Am case . The court was to consider a request from Libya to arrange for interim measures to protect their rights, and which, it is alleged, is being violated by the threat of economic sanctions by the United Kingdom and the United States. The problem was that these sanctions authorized by the Security Council, leading to a potential conflict between the functions of Chapter VII of the Security Council and the judicial function of the Court. Court decided, by a ten votes to five, and it is not possible to order interim measures required because of the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention , at first glance it can not be considered appropriate since ordered action by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the Charter of the United Nations, the obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. However, the Court declared the admissibility of the demand in 1998. [22] did not want a decision on the merits since the two parties (the United Kingdom, the United States and Libya) to settle the case out of court in 2003.
There was a marked reluctance on the part of the majority of the members of the Court to engage in a conflict in such a way as to make it potentially in conflict with the Board. The Court stated in the Nicaragua case of any conflict between the work required by the Security Council and Chapter by the International Court of Justice. However, where there is room for conflict, and on balance it seems in favor of the Security Council.
Should fail any of the parties "cursed perform the obligations incumbent upon judgment of the Court of before," the Security Council has called for a "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the Security Council deems such action necessary. In practice, the powers of the court have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the court's ruling, and the unwillingness of the Security Council to impose consequences. However, in theory, "as far as the parties to the case are concerned, the court's ruling binding, final and without appeal", and "Through the signing of the Charter, a Member State of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of which it is a party ".
For example, the United States accepted the formerly Court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946, but in Nicaragua against the United States withdrew its acceptance following the court's ruling in 1984 that called for the United States to "cease and desist" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government Nicaragua. The court (only with American judge dissenting) that the United States "in violation of its obligations under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay war reparations (see Note 2).
Examples of controversial cases [ edit ]
- A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was holding U.S. diplomats in Tehran in violation of international law. [23]
- Dispute between Tunisia and Libya on the demarcation of the continental shelf between the two. [24]
- The dispute over the course of the maritime boundary line dividing the United States and Canada in the Gulf of Maine region. [25]
- A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the Member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on their business in the Kosovo war . He has denied that on December 15, 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a party to the Statute of the International Court of Justice at the time the request is made. [26]
- A complaint by the Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) to Greece, through an objection to its accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization , in violation of the Interim Agreement of September 13, 1995 [27] between the two countries, and it was decided in favor of Macedonia on December 5, 2011. [28]
APPLICABLE LAW [ EDIT ]
Main article: sources of international law
When deciding on the issues, and applies to the court of international law as outlined in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice , which states that the court in reaching its decisions apply international conventions and norms of international law, and "the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations." It may also refer to academic writing ("the teachings of the most highly propaganda from different countries") and judicial decisions prior to assist in the interpretation of the law, despite the fact that the Court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the principle of Stare decisis . Article 59 makes it clear that the general law the idea of precedent or Balzom the above report does not apply to decisions of the International Court of Justice. Court's decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38 (1) (d), however, the court may consider its own previous decisions.
If the parties have agreed, as it has been granted the freedom of the Court to decide ex aequo et bono ("in justice and fairness"), [29] International Court of Justice granted the freedom to take a fair decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. This provision has not been used in the history of the court. So far has dealt with the International Court of Justice, about 130 cases.
PROCEDURE [ EDIT ]
International Court of Justice is vested with the power to make its own rules. It is scheduled to take the court in the rules of the Court of International Court of Justice in 1978 (as amended on September 29, 2005). [10]
The cases before the International Court of Justice follow the standard pattern.The case presented by an applicant who files a written memorial define the basis of the court's jurisdiction and the merits of the claim. Defendant may accept the jurisdiction of the court and file special commemorative on the merits of the case.
Preliminary Objections [ edit ]
The defendant, who did not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court may raise preliminary objections. Should be judged any of these objections before the court could address the facts of the applicant's claim. Are often held separate public hearing on the preliminary objections and the court will issue a ruling. Respondents usually file preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and / or admissibility. Inadmissibility refers to a set of arguments about the factors that the court must take into account in determining jurisdiction;, for example, that the case is not prosecuted, or that it is not "legal dispute."
In addition, it may be because all the objections are not necessary parties before the court. If the issue was not necessarily require the Court to rule on the rights and obligations of the State, which did not agree to the court's jurisdiction, the court did not proceed to judgment on the merits. If the court decides that it has jurisdiction and the admissibility of the case, and then will ask the defendant to submit commemorative address the advantages of the applicant's claim. Once it is filed written arguments, the Court held a public hearing on the merits.
Once the issue has been filed, any party (but usually the applicant) may seek a court order to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. It is known that such orders as the interim (or temporary) measures and the bar is similar orders in the United States Code . Article 41 of the Statute of the Court allows to make these commands. The court must be satisfied that the prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before granting interim measures.
Applications to intervene [ edit ]
In cases that are affected by the interests of a third country, and be allowed to the state to intervene in the case, and to participate as full. Under Article 62, a state "has an interest of a legal nature" may apply; However, it is within the discretion of the court whether or not to allow the intervention. Applications rare intervention - signed first successful application in 1991.
Governance and remedies [ edit ]
Once the debate has taken place, the court issuing the majority opinion.Individual judges to issue separate opinions (whether they agree with the results reached in the judgment of the court, but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting views (if they do not agree with the majority). No appeal is possible, although any party may request the court to clarify if there is a dispute about the meaning or scope of the court's ruling. [30]
CRITICISM [ EDIT ]
And criticized the International Tribunal in respect of its provisions, procedures, and authority. As is the case with criticism of the United Nations as a whole, and many of these criticisms refer more to the General Authority allocated to the Commission by the Member States through the charter of the specific problems of the formation of the judges or their rulings. The main criticisms include:
- "Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases in which the parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and as such, the cases of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the principle of the rule of international law, no nation is superior nor inferior against another.And therefore there is no entity that could force states to practice law or to punish the states in the event of any violation of international law. So, due to the lack of binding force, although there are 193 member states in the International Court of Justice, and members do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction.Moreover, membership in the United Nations and the International Court of Justice does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the Member States, but it is the consent of every state to follow up on the matter of jurisdiction.
- Organizations, private foundations, and individuals can not have their cases taken to the International Court of Justice, such as the resumption of the national Supreme Court ruled. United Nations agencies and likewise can not be put in issue only advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only states can bring cases and become defendants of cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as ethnic minorities or indigenous people, may not be the appropriate support by the state.
- Other international tribunals existing objective, such as the International Criminal Court , is not under the umbrella of the International Tribunal. Unlike the International Court of Justice and international courts such as the International Criminal Court thematic work independently of the United Nations. This dual structure between the various international courts sometimes makes it difficult for the courts to engage in effective and collective competence.
- International Tribunal does not have the full separation of powers , with the permanent members of the Security Council should be able to object to the enforcement of the cases, even those that have agreed to abide by them. [31] because it does not have jurisdiction of the binding force itself, in many cases, cases of aggression and separation by the Security Council through the adoption of the resolution, etc. There are, therefore, there is a possibility of the States permanent members of the Security Council to avoid liability grew by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua against the United States .
Google Image Line
Revision line http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice
Comentários
Postar um comentário