Admissibility of Counterclaims

Chapter

Abstract

Article 80 (1) of the Rules of the Court introduces two requirements for the admissibility of counterclaims in proceedings before the Court: (1) that the counterclaim comes within the jurisdiction of the Court and (2) that the counterclaim is directly connected with the subject-matter of the principal claim. These requirements must apply cumulatively for a counterclaim to be joined to the proceedings already pending before the Court. The rationale underlying both conditions of admissibility of counterclaims is to counter-balance the right of States to present counterclaims by restricting this right so as to preclude States from presenting any counterclaim they wish.

Keywords

Direct Connection Provisional Measure Vienna Convention Special Agreement Principal Applicant 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. “The Forum Prorogatum before the International Court of Justice: The Resources of an Institution or the Hidden Face of Consensualism”, Address delivered by the President of the ICJ to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly on 4 November 1996, ICJ Yearbook 1996–1997, No 51, p 216Google Scholar
  2. Anzilotti D (1930) La Demande Reconventionelle en Procédure Internationale. J du Droit International 57:857Google Scholar
  3. Collier J, Lowe V (1999) The Settlement of Disputes in International Law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Genet R (1938) Les Demandes Reconventionelles et la Procédure de la Cour Permenente de Justice Internationale. Révue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée 19:145Google Scholar
  5. Hudson MO (1943) The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942. Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Lauterpacht SH (1982) The Development of International Law by the International Court, London 1958. Reprinted by Grotius, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  7. Lopes Pegna O (1998) Counter-claims and Obligations erga omnes before the International Court of Justice. EJIL 9:724CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Murphy SD (2000) Amplifying the World Court’s Jurisdiction through Counter-claims and Third-Party Intervention. Geo Wash Int’l L Rev 33:5Google Scholar
  9. Rosenne S (2000) Counter-claims in the International Court of Justice Revisited. In: Armas Barea CA et al (eds) Liber Amicorum ‘In Memoriam’ of Judge José Maria Ruda. The Hague, KluwerGoogle Scholar
  10. Rosenne S (2001) The International Court of Justice: Revision of Articles 79 and 80 of the Rules of the Court. LJIL 14:77Google Scholar
  11. Rosenne S (2006) The Law and Practice of the International Court 1920–2005 Vol. III (Procedure), 4th edn. M. Nijhoff, BostonGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosenne S (2007) Essays on International Law and Practice. M. Nijhoff, Boston Ch. 16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Salerno F (1999) La Demande Reconventionelle dans la Procédure de la Cour Internationale de Justice. RGDIP 103:329Google Scholar
  14. Thirlway H (1999) Counterclaims before the International Court of Justice: the Genocide Convention and the Oil Platforms Decisions. LJIL 12:197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Thirlway H (2001) The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989, Part Twelve. BYIL 72:38Google Scholar
  16. Yee S (2006) Article 40. In: Zimmermann A et al (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Zimmermann A et al (eds) (2006) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A Commentary. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author  2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of LawDemocritus University of ThraceKomotiniGreece

Personalised recommendations