Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Developing Field of Activity: Reparation for Breaches of Human Rights in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law

Part of the book series: LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law ((LCFSCFL,volume 2))

  • 147 Accesses

Abstract

In the last twenty years, the International Court of Justice has increasingly addressed disputes involving claims of responsibility for breaches of human rights obligations. These cases provide the Court with the opportunity to develop the law of state responsibility in a way that takes adequately into account the specific situation of human rights. This study focuses on the case law of the ICJ dealing with issues of reparations for breaches of human rights. The aim is to assess the Court’s approach in dealing with problems such as the choice of the appropriate form of reparation, the relationship between the position of the state invoking responsibility and the individual who suffered injury, the treatment of claims of reparation submitted by a state other than the state of nationality of the individual injured, as well as some procedural issues arising in connection to the awarding of remedies for breaches of human rights.

This contribution was submitted on January 2021 and does not take into account of the ICJ's case law after that date.

Paolo Palchetti is Professor of International Law at Sorbonne University, Paris, France.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 219.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 279.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Anzilotti (1902), p. 96 (“la responsabilità dello Stato ha carattere riparatorio […] il diritto dello Stato leso si limita al risarcimento del danno ed alle eventuali garanzie per l’avvenire, né può assumere il carattere di una punizione dello Stato colpevole”).

  2. 2.

    See International Law Commission (2001), p. 31.

  3. 3.

    Ibid., p. 130.

  4. 4.

    On the relationship between protection of legality and defence of the interests of the affected state in Anzilotti’s work, see Alland (2013), p. 138.

  5. 5.

    Article 33 (2) of the Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts.

  6. 6.

    Article 48 (2) (b) of the.

  7. 7.

    SeeInternational Law Commission (2001), p. 95.

  8. 8.

    See Pellet (2011), p. 112, who observed that “the law of international responsibility of the State has always been essentially judge-made”. On the role of the ICJ as agent of development of the law of state responsibility, see Tams (2015).

  9. 9.

    For a classic study see Virally (1982). ‘Le champ opératoire du règlement judiciaire international’ (1982) RGDIP 281.

  10. 10.

    For an extensive analysis of the relevant Court’s case law see Simma (2011) and Simma (2014).

  11. 11.

    See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) and Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar).

  12. 12.

    On this issue, see Crawford (2016), p. 707; Marotti and Palchetti (2020), p. 155.

  13. 13.

    Article 43(2)(b) ARS. On the injured state’s right of election see Crawford (2013), p. 508.

  14. 14.

    Article 35 ARS.

  15. 15.

    See International Law Commission (2001), p. 96.

  16. 16.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment of 20 April 2010, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 14, para. 274. But see Pellet (2011), p. 128, who held the view that “[e]ven though the Court does not expressly state it, it is highly probable that the Judges considered that such a dismantling would constitute a disproportionate burden in comparison with the violation found”.

  17. 17.

    Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment of 31 March 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004, pp. 60–61, para. 124.

  18. 18.

    Ibid. On position of the Court on this point see the observations of Simma (2011), p. 585.

  19. 19.

    See also Sorel (2004), p. 2194; Gowlland-Debbas (2015), p. 137.

  20. 20.

    LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment of 27 June 2001, I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 513-514, para. 124.

  21. 21.

    Ibid.

  22. 22.

    See also Palmisano (2002), p. 784.

  23. 23.

    See Shelton (2002), p. 847, who observed that guarantees have been sought and awarded “less often in interstate proceedings than in human rights cases where they can be seen as important protection for the individual applicant still under the jurisdiction of the violating state”.

  24. 24.

    Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 30 November 2010, I.C.J. Reports 2010, p. 691, para. 161.

  25. 25.

    Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Judgment of 17 July 2019, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 418 p. 452, para. 126.

  26. 26.

    Ibid., p. 418 p. 458, para. 145. Judge Robinson and Judge Cançado Trindade strongly supported the view that the obligation under Article 36 of the 1963 Convention is a human right obligation. Ibid., p. 516 and p. 473. According to Judge Cançado Trindade, “the necessary redress is meant to wipe out all consequences of the unlawful act, i.e., in the cas d’espèce, the condemnation of Mr. K. S. Jadhav to death by a military court”. Ibid., p. 489.

  27. 27.

    Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 24 May 2007, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 599, para. 39.

  28. 28.

    Supra note 24, p. 691, para. 161.

  29. 29.

    Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo), Judgment of 19 June 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 344, para. 57.

  30. 30.

    Simma (2014), p. 721.

  31. 31.

    Condorelli (2014), p. 481.

  32. 32.

    Supra note 29, p. 349, para. 5.

  33. 33.

    Cyprus v. Turkey, 25781/94, Judgment on Just Satisfaction of 12 May 2014, Court (Grand Chamber), para. 47.

  34. 34.

    Ibid., para 58.

  35. 35.

    Operative part of the judgment, points 4 and 5.

  36. 36.

    For this view see Gaja (2014), p. 492.

  37. 37.

    Supra note 20, p. 508, para. 116.

  38. 38.

    Supra note 17, pp. 37-38, para. 44.

  39. 39.

    See Gaja (2011), p. 104 who observed that “should a state waive a claim made for the benefit of one of its nationals in relation to the breach of an obligation owed to the international community or to a group of States, the other States’ claims would not be affected by the waiver”. See also Cannizzaro (2014), p. 499. According to Tams (2010), p. 1041, however, “a valid waiver by the individually injured state would also extinguish all claims that ‘other interested states’ have”.

  40. 40.

    International Law Commission (2001), p. 122.

  41. 41.

    Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment of 3 February 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 141, para. 94.

  42. 42.

    Supra note 27, p. 599, para. 39.

  43. 43.

    International Law Commission (2001), p. 127.

  44. 44.

    Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment of 20 July 2012, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 450, para. 69.

  45. 45.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), order of 23 January 2020, para. 41.

  46. 46.

    Supra note 44, p. 450, para. 69.

  47. 47.

    See Simma (2011), p. 599, who observed that in advisory proceedings “traditional inter-state ‘reflexes’, jurisdictional straitjackets and procedural hurdles are much less pronounced and the Court is not confined to the submissions of the States participating in the proceedings as in contentious cases”.

  48. 48.

    Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory opinion of 9 July 2004, I.C.J. Reports 2004, p. 198, para. 153.

  49. 49.

    D’Argent (2005), p. 43.

  50. 50.

    Written statement of the African Union, para. 244 (available at www.icj-cij.org).

  51. 51.

    Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory opinion of 25 February 2019, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 139, para. 181.

  52. 52.

    Declaration of Judge Salam, ibid., p. 339, para. 6.

  53. 53.

    Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, ibid, p. 237, para. 259. See also the separate opinion of Judge Sebutinde, at p. 291, para. 45.

  54. 54.

    Thus, in considering the legal consequences of the unlawful conduct of the United Kingdom, the Court admitted that “the modalities necessary for ensuring the completion of the decolonization of Mauritius fall within the remit of the United Nations General Assembly, in the exercise of its functions relating to decolonization”. Ibid., p. 139, para. 179. On the self-restraint of the Court see Salerno (2019), p. 743.

  55. 55.

    Separate opinion of Judge Gaja, ibid., p. 269, para. 7.

  56. 56.

    It suffices here to mention Higgins (2001).

  57. 57.

    Andenas (2011), p. 815, who adds: “There is all reason to undertake reforms of different kinds to reduce delay, some of which is due to the deference the ICJ procedures show to State parties, and less appropriate where the fundamental rights of a private individual is involved”.

  58. 58.

    Crawford (2016), p. 693 regards this solution as a technique employed by the ICJ “to avoid awarding compensation or at least to avoid determining the quantum of compensation due”.

  59. 59.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 257, para. 260.

  60. 60.

    Supra note 24, pp. 691–692, para. 164.

  61. 61.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 1137.

  62. 62.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Order of 6 December 2016, I.C.J. Reports 2016, p. 1136. It should be observed that, in during the meeting held by the President of the Court a few days before the Court’s order, the Co-Agent of the Democratic Republic of the Congo had emphasized that “almost eleven years had passed since the delivery of the Judgment of 19 December 2005 and that the victims had since been waiting”. Ibid.

  63. 63.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgement of 2 February 2018, I.C.J. Reports 2018, p. 26, para. 33. On the respective role of the Court and of the parties on evidentiary matter see Benzing (2019), p. 1376.

  64. 64.

    Forlati (2014), p. 76, who observes that “there are indeed circumstances where the ICJ would feel bound to rely on its ex officio powers to go into facts that neither of the parties may wish to shed full light on, to safeguard the interests of third parties or of the international community as a whole (for instance when infringements of jus cogens are at stake)”.

  65. 65.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Order of 8 September 2020, para. 16.

  66. 66.

    See Lima (2015).

  67. 67.

    Supra note 65, para. 10.

  68. 68.

    For this expression, see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, I.C.J. Reports (2007), p. 43, para. 403.

  69. 69.

    On the open method adopted by the Court in its relationship with other courts and tribunals, and on the contribution thus provided to the coherence and unity of international law, see Andenas (2015), pp. 567–569.

  70. 70.

    On this issue, see Shelton (2002), p. 854; Bartolini (2009), p. 606; D’Argent (2005), p. 53.

References

  • Alland D (2013) Anzilotti et le droit international public, 2nd edn. Pedone, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Andenas M (2011) International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo) Judgment of 30 November 2010. Int Comp Law Q 60:810–819

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andenas M (2015) Reassertion and transformation of international law. In: Andenas M, Bjorge E (eds) A farewell to fragmentation. reassertion and convergence in international law. CUP, Cambridge, pp 536–569

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Anzilotti D (1902) Teoria generale della responsabilità dello Stato nel diritto internazionale. Lumachi, Firenze

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartolini G (2009) Riparazione per violazione dei diritti umani e ordinamento internazionale. Jovene, Napoli

    Google Scholar 

  • Benzing M (2019) Evidentiary issue. In: Zimmermann A, Tams C (eds) The statute of the International Court of Justice. A commentary, 3rd edn. OUP, Oxford, pp 1370–1414

    Google Scholar 

  • Cannizzaro E (2014) Is there an individual right to reparation? Some thoughts on the ICJ Judgment in the Jurisdictional Immunities case. In: Alland D et alii (eds) Unité et diversité du droit international. Ecrits en l'honneur du Professeur Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Brill, The Hague, pp 495–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Condorelli L (2014) Protection diplomatique réussie et réparation due: une glose, In: Alland D et alii (eds) Unité et diversité du droit international. Ecrits en l'honneur du Professeur Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Brill, The Hague, pp 477–486

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2013) State responsibility: the general part. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2016) Flexibility in the award of reparation: the role of the parties and the tribunal. In: Wolfrum R, Seršić M, Šošić T (eds) Contemporary developments in international law. Essays in Honour of Budislav Vukas. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 690–708

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • D’Argent P (2005) Le droit de la responsabilité internationale complété ? Examen des Principes fondamentaux et directives concernant le droit à un recours et à réparation des victimes de violations flagrantes du droit international des droits de l'homme et de violations graves du droit international humanitaire. Annuaire français de droit international 51:27–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forlati S (2014) The International Court of Justice. An arbitral tribunal or a judicial body? Springer, Heidelberg

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (2011) The protection of general interests in the international community. General course on public international law. Recueil des cours 364:9–185

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaja G (2014) Quel préjudice pour un Etat qui exerce la protection diplomatique? In: Alland D et alii (eds) Unité et diversité du droit international. Ecrits en l'honneur du Professeur Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Brill, The Hague, pp 487–493

    Google Scholar 

  • Gowlland-Debbas V (2015) The ICJ and the challenges of human rights law. In: Andenas M, Bjorge E (eds) A farewell to fragmentation. Reassertion and convergence in international law, CUP, Cambridge, pp 109–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins R (2001) Respecting sovereign states and running a tight courtroom. Int Comp Law Q 50:121–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • International Law Commission (2001) Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Volume II Part Two, United Nations, New York and Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Lima LC (2015) The evidential weight of experts before the ICJ: reflections on the whaling in the antarctic case. J Int Disp Settlement 6:621–635

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marotti L, Palchetti P (2020) Of restoring compliance, lex specialis and intersecting wrongs: the question of ‘remedies’ in Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros. In: Forlati S, Mbengue MM, McGarry B (eds) The Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros Judgment and its Contribution to the Development of International Law. Brill, Leiden-Boston, pp 145–159

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Palmisano G (2002) Les garanties de non-repetition entre codification et réalisation juridictionelle du droit: à propos de l’affaire La Grand. Revue générale de droit international public 106:753–790

    Google Scholar 

  • Pellet A (2011) Some remarks on the recent case law of the International Court of Justice on responsibility issues. In: Kovacs P (ed) International law: A Quiet Strength. Miscellanea in memoriam Géza Herczegh. Pazmany Press, Budapest, pp 111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Salerno F (2019) L’obbligo di non riconoscimento di situazioni territoriali illegittime dopo il parere della Corte internazionale di giustizia sulle isole Chagos. Rivista di diritto internazionale 102:729–752

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2002) Righting wrongs: reparations in the articles on state responsibility. Am J Int Law 96:833–856

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2011) Human rights before the international court of justice: community interest coming to life? In: Hestermeyer H P et alii (eds): Coexistence, Cooperation and Solidarity. Liber Amicorum Rüdiger Wolfrum, Brill, The Hague, pp 577–603

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (2014) Human rights in the International Court of Justice: are we witnessing a sea change? In Alland D et alii (eds) Unité et diversité du droit international. Ecrits en l'honneur du Professeur Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Brill, The Hague, pp 709–737

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorel J-M (2004) L’emergence de la personne humaine en droit international: l’exemple de la jurisdprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice. In: Studi di diritto internazionale in onore di Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz. Editoriale Scientifica, Napoli, pp 2169–2197

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams C (2010) Waiver, acquiescence and extinctive prescription. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. OUP, Oxford, pp 1035–1043

    Google Scholar 

  • Tams C (2015) Law-making in complex processes. The World Court and the modern law of State responsibility. In: Chinkin C, Baetens F (eds) Sovereignty, statehood and state responsibility. Essays in Honour of James Crawford. CUP, Cambridge, pp 287–306

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Virally (1982) Le champ opératoire du règlement judiciaire international. Revue générale de droit international public 87:281–314

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sorbonne Law School, University Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne, Paris, France

    Paolo Palchetti

Authors
  1. Paolo Palchetti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paolo Palchetti .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London, London, UK

    Maren Heidemann

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2024 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Palchetti, P. (2024). A Developing Field of Activity: Reparation for Breaches of Human Rights in the Case Law of the International Court of Justice. In: Heidemann, M. (eds) The Transformation of Private Law – Principles of Contract and Tort as European and International Law. LCF Studies in Commercial and Financial Law, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-28497-7_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-28496-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-28497-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation