Advertisement

The International Court of Justice and Provisional Measures Involving the Fate of Persons

  • Eva RieterEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter examines the use of provisional measures by the ICJ to protect interests beyond those of states alone. The ICJ has shown sensitivity toward the plight of individuals through its use of provisional measures ordered pending judicial proceedings. The chapter posits that a clarification of this practice is one step toward answering the question whether the ICJ could contribute to the development of human rights law, especially since it is a court of general jurisdiction as opposed to a human rights court. It discusses types of situations in which the ICJ has used provisional measures in the general interest, for example, by often referring to the non-aggravation of the conflict. The chapter examines recent and older examples of the use of provisional measures, moving away somewhat from the traditional principle of consent. It shows how the ICJ has at times been less strict in the application of four traditional aspects of provisional measures when faced with situations involving human beings at risk. The chapter also discusses the ICJ’s confirmation of the binding nature of its provisional measures in the LaGrand judgment (2001). This has had a significant impact on human rights adjudication, at least within Europe. At the same time, its determination that its provisional measures are legally binding has also been argued to require a more cautious approach toward the use of provisional measures, clinging more closely to the traditional principle of consent. The chapter discusses a development involving the requirement to show a ‘plausible case’ already at the stage of provisional measures. This indeed indicates a more limited approach by the Court to ordering provisional measures, also when human rights are involved. The chapter concludes by exploring the question how the ICJ deals with states that ignore its provisional measures.

References

  1. Akande (2011) Recent developments with regard to ICJ provisional measures. Available via EJIL: Talk!. https://www.ejiltalk.org/recent-developments-with-regard-to-icj-provisional-measures/. Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  2. Al Jazeera (2011) Thai, Cambodian troops leave disputed area. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia-pacific/2012/07/201271845840265105.html. Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  3. Benedek W, De Feyter K, Ketteman M, Voigt C (eds) (2014) The common interest in international law. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown C (2007) A common law of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buggenhoudt C (2011) The common interest in international litigation. In: Benedek W, De Feyter K, Ketteman M, Voigt C (eds) The common interest in international law. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 75–92Google Scholar
  6. Cançado Trindade AA (2010) International law for humankind: towards a new jus gentium. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. CNN (2011) Thailand and Cambodia to withdraw troops from around disputed temple. http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/22/world/asia/thailand-cambodia-temple-dispute/index.html. Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  8. Elkind J (1981) Interim measures: a functional approach. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague, Boston, LondonGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaja G (2011) The international community as holder of general interests. In: Gaja G (ed) Collected courses of the Hague academy of international law, vol 364. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  10. Goldie L (1974) The nuclear test cases: restraints on environmental harm. J Marit Law Commerce 5:491–505Google Scholar
  11. Gowlland-Debbas V (2011) An emerging international public policy? In: Fastenrath U, Geiger R, Khan D, Paulus A, von Schorlemer S, Vedder C (eds) From bilateralism to community interest: essays in honour of Bruno Simma. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 241–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. He Z (2010) The ICJ’s practice on provisional measures. Lang, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  13. Hernández G (2014) The International Court of Justice and the judicial function. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Higgins R (1997) Interim measures for the protection of human rights. Columbia J Transnatl Law 36:91–108Google Scholar
  15. Kolb R (2013) The International Court of Justice. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Komori T (2012) Integrating the fragmented international public order. In: Rieter E, de Waele H (eds) Evolving principles of international law. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 105–126Google Scholar
  17. Komori T, Wellens K (eds) (2009) Public interest rules of international law: towards effective implementation. Ashgate, FarnhamGoogle Scholar
  18. Ku J (2011) The ever-expanding “Provisional Measures” authority of the ICJ. http://opiniojuris.org/2011/07/18/the-ever-expanding-provisional-measures-authority-of-the-icj/. Accessed 05 Oct 2017
  19. Lando M (2017) Compliance with provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice. J Int Dispute Settlement 8:1–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Liptak A (2005) U.S. says it has withdrawn from world judicial body. New York Times, edn of 10 Mar 2005. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/10/politics/us-says-it-has-withdrawn-from-world-judicial-body.html. Accessed 18 Dec 2017
  21. Marchuk (2017) Ukraine’s dashed high hopes: predictable and sober decision of the ICJ on indication of provisional measures in Ukraine v Russia. Available via EJIL: Talk!. https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraines-dashed-high-hopes-predictable-and-sober-decision-of-the-icj-on-indication-of-provisional-measures-in-ukraine-v-russia/. Accessed 10 Oct 2017
  22. Medellin v. Texas Symposium (2008) Suffolk Transnatl Law Rev 31:209–470Google Scholar
  23. Miles C (2017) Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oellers-Frahm K (2012) Article 41. In: Zimmerman A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The statute of the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Palchetti P (2008) The power of the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures to prevent the aggravation of a dispute. Leiden J Int Law 21:623–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Paust J (2008) Medellin, Avena, the supremacy of treaties, and relevant executive authority. Suffolk Transnatl Law Rev 31:301–334Google Scholar
  27. Peters (2017) “Vulnerability” versus “Plausibility”: righting or wronging the regime of provisional measures? Reflections on ICJ, Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Order of 19 April 2017. Available via EJIL: Talk!. https://www.ejiltalk.org/vulnerability-versus-plausibility-righting-or-wronging-the-regime-of-provisional-measures-reflections-on-icj-ukraine-v-russian-federation-order-of-19-apr/. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  28. Quigley J (2009) The United States withdrawal from International Court of Justice jurisdiction in consular cases: reasons and consequences. Duke J Comp Int Law 19:263–305Google Scholar
  29. Rao P (2017) The Jadhav case (2017): India and Pakistan before the International Court of Justice. Indian J Int Law 56:379–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rieter E (1998) Interim measures by the world court to suspend the execution of an individual: the Breard case. Neth Q Hum Rights 16(4):475–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Rieter E (2010) Preventing irreparable harm, provisional measures in international human rights adjudication. Intersentia, AntwerpGoogle Scholar
  32. Rieter E (2012) Provisional measures: binding and persuasive? Enabling human rights adjudicators to follow up on state disrespect. Neth Int Law Rev 59:165–198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rosenne S (2005) Provisional measures in international law: the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Schulte C (2004) Compliance with the decisions of the International Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Shelton D (2009) Common concern of humanity. Environ Policy Law 39:83–86Google Scholar
  36. Simma B (1994) From bilateralism to community interest in international law. Recueil des Cours de l’Académie de Droit International 250:217–384Google Scholar
  37. Sztucki J (1983) Interim measures in the Hague Court: an attempt at scrutiny. Kluwer Law International, DeventerGoogle Scholar
  38. Tanaka Y (2011) Protection of community interests in international law: the case of the law of the sea. In: von Bogdandy A, Wolfrum R (eds) Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol 15, pp 329–375Google Scholar
  39. Thirlway H (2013) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice, fifty years of jurisprudence, vol II. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Traviss A (2012) Temple of Preah Vihear: lessons on provisional measures. Chic J Int Law 13:317–344Google Scholar
  41. US Office of the Press Secretary (2005) Memorandum for the Attorney General – SUBJECT: compliance with the decision of the International Court of Justice in Avena. https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/02/20050228-18.html. Accessed 11 Oct 2017
  42. Zyberi G (2015) The role and contribution of international courts in furthering peace as an essential community interest. In: Bailliet C, Larsen K (eds) Promoting peace through international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 342–365Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Radboud UniversityNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations