Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Adoption of Provisional Measures Under Article 41 of the Statute

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The International Court of Justice

Abstract

Article 41 of the ICJ Statute is the expression of an inherent power of international arbitral tribunals and judicial bodies; also the conditions for the indication of provisional measures by the ICJ are similar with those usually applied in arbitration. Yet, the Court’s competence to act proprio motu and the use of interim measures as a tool fostering international peace and security distinguish the Court’s practice from that of arbitral tribunals.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    See Article 26(1) thereof. The corresponding provisions of the Inter-State and the IOS Optional Rules are drafted in slightly different terms, providing for the power to grant interim measures ‘unless the parties otherwise agree’ (emphasis added; see further below, Sect. 7.3, for a discussion of these texts). Cf. Also Article 1(2) of the ILC Model Rules on Arbitral Procedure and, as regards investor-State arbitration, Article 47 of the ICSID Convention.

  2. 2.

    See Santulli (2005), p. 442; Brown (2007), p. 127. This opinion is not shared by Guggenheim (1932), p. 651, note 1; Thirlway (1998), p. 19.

  3. 3.

    Award of 16 April 1938, RIAA 3, p. 1911 at 1936. For another early example see Oellers-Frahm (2012b), p. 390.

  4. 4.

    See E-Systems, Interim Award No. 13-388-FT. Cf. further Caron (1986), pp. 475ff. Also the European Court of Human Rights has established its power to issue provisional measures in Rule 39 of its Rules of Court, without and express basis in the Convention.

  5. 5.

    See Press Release No. 2013/42 of 20 December 2013. On the previous practice concerning this provision and the previous versions of the Rules see Rosenne (2006), p. 1391; Oellers-Frahm (2012a), p. 1053.

  6. 6.

    See Happold (2013).

  7. 7.

    See above, Sect. 6.5.

  8. 8.

    See Article 290(5) UNCLOS, entrusting either the ITLOS or the Seabed Disputes Chamber with a residual competence to adopt provisional measures in disputes submitted to arbitration, pending the constitution of the arbitral tribunal.

  9. 9.

    See especially the Legality of Use of Force cases: the orders on provisional measures of 2 June 1999, (see ICJ Reports 1999, p. 124 at 132, para. 21, for the Yugoslavia v. Belgium case). On this requirement cf., critically, Bastid (1951), p. 598.

  10. 10.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 6 at 18, para. 53; see further, in the same case (joined with Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), the order of 22 November 2013, para. 24. Cf. already the separate opinion by Judge Abraham appended to the order of 13 July 2006 in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 137 at 140, and Thirlway (2001), pp. 88–89.

  11. 11.

    Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals, Provisional Measures, order of 16 July 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 311 at 328, para. 65.

  12. 12.

    Certain Activities in the Border Area, order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, pp. 21–22, para. 64; cf. also, for example, Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Provisional Measures, order of 28 May 2009, ICJ Reports 2009, p. 139 at 152–153, para. 62.

  13. 13.

    The Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the Republic of India), order on interim measures of 23 September 2011, para. 127. See, also for a very critical appraisal of the Tribunal’s approach to the issue, Bhattacharya (2013).

  14. 14.

    Order of 8 October 2003, paras. 76ff.

  15. 15.

    This document also mentions (letter C of the preamble) another Undertaking relating to the use of the seised material that was submitted to the Arbitral Tribunal constituted under the 2002 Timor Sea Treaty on 19 December 2013. Cf. Belgium v. Senegal, ICJ Reports 2012, p. 155, paras 71, 73.

  16. 16.

    Kishenganga, order on interim measures, 23 September 2011, paras. 128ff. See www.pca-cpa.org, accessed 9 Oct 2013. For the text of Annexure G to the Indus Waters Treaty of 19 Sept 1960, under the authority of which the arbitration is taking place, see UNTS 419, p. 210. See Brown (2007), pp. 135ff.

  17. 17.

    Wolfrum (2001), p. 174. This opinion is not shared by Rosenne (2005), p. 47. Cf. also Treves (2004).

  18. 18.

    Compare the discussion below, Sect. 10.4, concerning the possibility to limit the Court’s competence under Article 61 thereof.

  19. 19.

    Such binding effects are denied, for instance, by Guggenheim (1932), pp. 757–758; Barile (1952), p. 151; Tesauro (1975), pp. 894ff.; Elkind (1981), p. 164; Gaeta (2000), p. 186. An opposite conclusion is purported, among others, by Niemeyer (1932), p. 27; Hammarskjöld (1935), p. 27 (maintaining that interim measures issued by the PCIJ would be binding, but not executory); Hambro (1956), p. 169; Oellers-Frahm (1975), p. 109; Daniele (1993), p. 150.

  20. 20.

    Emphasis added.

  21. 21.

    Emphasis added. For a discussion of these differences see LaGrand, judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 501ff., paras. 99ff.

  22. 22.

    Provisional measures were not executed, notably, in the cases of the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, order of 5 December 1939, Series A/B, No. 79, because of the events of World War II. As regards the ICJ, this fate was met by provisional measures issued against Iran in the case of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran), order of 5 July 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 89 at 100ff.; against Iceland in the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases, orders of 17 August 1972, ICJ Reports 1972, pp. 12 and 30; against France in the Nuclear Tests cases, orders of 23 June 1973, ICJ Reports 1973, pp. 99 and 135; and against the United States in LaGrand.

  23. 23.

    Declaration appended to the order of 1 July 2000, Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda), Provisional Measures, ICJ Reports 2000, p. 132, para. 6.

  24. 24.

    Cf. Tesauro (1975), p. 901.

  25. 25.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia v. Serbia), order of 13 September 1993, separate opinion, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 370 at 374.

  26. 26.

    Judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, pp. 501–502, para. 102:

    The object and purpose of the Statute is to enable the Court to fulfil the functions provided for therein, and, in particular, the basic function of judicial settlement of international disputes by binding decisions in accordance with Article 59 of the Statute. The context in which Article 41 has to be seen within the Statute is to prevent the Court from being hampered in the exercise of its functions because the respective rights of the parties to a dispute before the Court are not preserved. It follows from the object and purpose of the Statute, as well as from the terms of Article 41 when read in their context, that the power to indicate provisional measures entails that such measures should be binding, inasmuch as the power in question is based on the necessity, when the circumstances call for it, to safeguard, and to avoid prejudice to, the rights of the parties as determined by the final judgment of the Court.

    Cf. already the mandatory language used in Congo v. Uganda, order of 1 July 2000, operative part, ICJ Reports 2000, p. 111 at 129, para. 47(3).

  27. 27.

    See Gaeta (2000), pp. 138ff.; Brown (2007), p. 148.

  28. 28.

    See further Rosenne (2005), p. 11, stressing the influence of the ‘important political innovation’ brought about by the Third United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

  29. 29.

    See the authors mentioned above, note 19.

  30. 30.

    Emphasis added. However, compare this with the Trail Smelter provisional award, providing for a temporary regime apparently without any express request by the parties (RIAA 3, p. 1936); neither does Article 1(2) of the ILC Model Rules mention this requirement. Also the Eritrea/Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s extensive interpretation of its power to make interim decisions, discussed below in this section, could have led provisional measures to being adopted proprio motu.

  31. 31.

    Emphasis added. See Treves (2004), p. 1250.

  32. 32.

    The power to indicate provisional measures aimed at preventing the aggravation of a dispute ‘independently of the parties’ requests’ was restated in the Request for Interpretation (Cambodia v. Thailand) case, ICJ Reports 2011, pp. 551–552, para. 59.

  33. 33.

    See above, Sect. 6.5.

  34. 34.

    Cf. Eisemann (2013), p. 123. See for a recent example the order of 22 November 2013 in the joined cases concerning Certain Activities in the Border Area—Construction of a Road in Costa Rica, para. 52.

  35. 35.

    Order of 17 July 2002 made pursuant to Article 20 and Article 27(1) of the Commission’s Rules of Procedure, RIAA 25, pp. 199–203.

  36. 36.

    Emphasis added. No similar indication is included in the texts of the Inter-State and IOS Optional Rules.

  37. 37.

    Certain Activities in the Border Area-Construction of a Road in Costa Rica, Request for the Modification of the Order of 8 March 2011, order of 16 July 2013, para. 17, emphasis added. According to Article 75(3) of the Rules, ‘The rejection of a request for the indication of provisional measures shall not prevent the party which made it from making a fresh request in the same case based on new facts’. New requests may be submitted also when provisional measures have been issued in the first place: see in this respect the new request submitted by Costa Rica in the Certain Activities in the Border Area on 24 September 2013, upheld with the order of 22 November 2013. Cf. already Bosnia v. Serbia, order of 13 September 1993, ICJ Reports 1993, pp. 325ff.

  38. 38.

    Sztucki (1983), p. 1.

  39. 39.

    The corresponding Article of the IOS Optional Rules is framed in similar terms, while Article 26 of the PCA Arbitration Rules 2012 adopts a more nuanced approach to the purpose of provisional measures.

  40. 40.

    See further below, Sect. 11.2.

  41. 41.

    On the doubts raised by the ICJ’s findings in Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Co. (Belgium v. Spain), ICJ Reports 1970, p. 32, paras. 33ff. and p. 47, para. 91, and by the subsequent case law see only Simma (1994), pp. 294ff.; Forteau (2010), pp. 39ff. at 58ff. The present author’s views on the issue are set out in Forlati (2001).

  42. 42.

    Article 290(1) reads:

    If a dispute has been duly submitted to a court or tribunal which considers that prima facie it has jurisdiction (…), the court or tribunal may prescribe any provisional measures which it considers appropriate under the circumstances to preserve the respective rights of the parties to the dispute or to prevent serious harm to the marine environment, pending the final decision.

    (emphasis added). This provision, which could apply also to the ICJ under Article 287(1)(b) UNCLOS, would in keeping with the extensive reading of Article 41 of the Statute suggested above in the text because avoiding serious harm to the maritime environment is an obligation erga omnes, both under UNCLOS and, arguably, under general international law. Cf. however Treves (2004), pp. 1249ff.

  43. 43.

    Available at www.pca-cpa.org.

  44. 44.

    Order of 8 October 2003, in ITLOS Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, vol. 7 (2003). See also the Award on agreed terms mentioned above, Sect. 1.2. Cf. Treves (2009); Churchill (2010), p. 151.

  45. 45.

    See para. 28 thereof: ‘Either Party may request the Court at its first meeting to lay down, pending its Award, such interim measures as, in the opinion of that Party, are necessary to safeguard its interests under the Treaty with respect to the matter in dispute, or to avoid prejudice to the final solution or aggravation or extension of the dispute’. Cf. again the order of 6 June 2011, paras. 131ff.

  46. 46.

    A ‘duty of the Parties to do nothing that would aggravate the dispute’ was identified by the Ethiopia/Eritrea Boundary Commission in its order of 17 July 2002 quoted above, para. 18; see also the ITLOS order in the Land Reclamation case, para. 90. Cf. further Eisemann (2013), p. 127.

  47. 47.

    Order of 5 December 1939, Series A/B, No. 79, 199. See further, e.g., Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., order of 5 July 1951, ICJ Reports 1951, p. 93; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA), order of 10 May 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 187. For the practice of the ITLOS see Treves (2004).

  48. 48.

    Order of 10 January 1986, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 3 at 9.

  49. 49.

    Order of 15 March 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 13 at 22–23, para. 41. Cf. also Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo, order of 1 July 2000, ICJ Reports 2000, p. 128, para. 44. In the case of the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey) the ICJ did not find it necessary to make a determination on this point (order of 11 September 1976, ICJ Reports 1976, p. 3 at 13, para. 36).

  50. 50.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay, order of 23 January 2007, 3ff. at 16, para. 50. As stressed also by Oellers-Frahm (2012a), p. 1037, the Court’s findings are not altogether clear on this point. For a discussion of this decision in the light of previous case law see Palchetti (2008).

  51. 51.

    Kolb (2013), p. 657. See also above, Sect. 7.1. In this respect, there would be no parallel to the case of ‘binding’ advisory opinions analysed below, Sect. 10.4.

  52. 52.

    Below, Sect. 11.4.

  53. 53.

    See recently Construction of a Road in Costa Rica, Provisional Measures, order of 13 December 2013, para. 16. See already Certain Activities in the Border Area, order of 22 November 2013, para. 25; Certain Activities in the Border Area, order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 18, para. 54; Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite order of 28 May 2009, ICJ Reports 2009, p. 151, para. 56. Cf Oellers-Frahm (2012a), p. 1044.

  54. 54.

    Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Préah Vihéar (Cambodia v. Thailand), order of 18 July 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 537 at 545, para. 33.

  55. 55.

    ICJ Reports 2011, p. 551, para. 55. Para. 56 further stresses: ‘there are competing claims over the territory surrounding the Temple; (…) the situation in the area of the Temple of Préah Vihéar remains unstable and could deteriorate; (…) because of the persistent tensions and absence of a settlement to the conflict, there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice being caused to the rights claimed by Cambodia’.

  56. 56.

    ICJ Reports 2011, p. 613 at 613, para. 2. Judge Donoghue further questioned the possibility issuing provisional measures in proceedings instituted under Article 60 of the Statute (ibid., para. 3) and criticized the lack of continuity between the measures indicated in 2011 and the judgment to be interpreted (ibid., p. 621, para. 22). Cf. also the declaration by Judge Oda in Cameroon v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 26 at 27, critically emphasising that ‘loss of life in the disputed area, distressing as it undoubtedly is, does not constitute the real subject matter of the present case’.

  57. 57.

    ICJ Reports 1976, p. 10, para. 23. Cf. further ibid., p. 12, para. 34, for the argument that the request of an order directing the Governments of both States to refrain from taking further military measures or actions did not fall within the provisions of Article 41 because ‘the right so invoked is not the subject of any of the several claims submitted to the Court by Greece in its Application’.

  58. 58.

    ICJ Reports 2011, p. 27, para. 1 of the operative part. Para. 2 sets forth that

    Costa Rica may dispatch civilian personnel charged with the protection of the environment to the disputed territory (…) but only in so far as it is necessary to avoid irreparable prejudice being caused to the part of the wetland where that territory is situated; Costa Rica shall consult with the Secretariat of the Ramsar Convention in regard to these actions, give Nicaragua prior notice of them and use its best endeavours to find common solutions with Nicaragua in this respect[.]

    This part of the order is for the most part restated in the order of 22 November 2013, paragraph E of the operative part, with the exception of the obligation to seek agreed solutions with Nicaragua.

  59. 59.

    See again the order of July 2011.

  60. 60.

    Dissenting opinion appended to the order, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 557. at 561, para. 14. Cf. further Eisemann (2013), p. 131. On the indication of provisional measures in proceedings concerning the interpretation of judgments (that occurred already in the Avena (Request for Interpretation) case, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 311) see Oellers-Frahm (2012a), p. 1056.

  61. 61.

    ICJ Reports 1986, p. 13.

  62. 62.

    See his declaration in Cameroon v. Nigeria, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 29. Cf. further Zyberi (2010), p. 579.

  63. 63.

    Interpretation (Temple of Préah Vihéar) case, dissenting opinion, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 560, para. 11. The opportunity for coordinated action between the ICJ and the Security Council in this regard was emphasised by various speakers, notably Judges Owada and Gaja, at the conference on ‘The ICJ in the Service of Peace and Justice’, The Hague, 23 September 2013.

  64. 64.

    ICJ Reports 1976, p. 13, paras. 38ff. See Papa (2006), pp. 163ff., for a discussion of the order in the broader context of the relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council.

  65. 65.

    Order of 1 July 2000, ICJ Reports 2000, 129, para. 47(2). See also Rosenne (2005), pp. 218ff.; Oellers-Frahm (2012a), pp. 1069–1070, also for the discussion of the Lockerbie case.

  66. 66.

    Cf. Zyberi (2010), p. 579; Eisemann (2013), p. 134, emphasising: ‘C’est sur le terrain de la communication politique que cette procédure incidente trouve sa première utilité’.

  67. 67.

    See below, Sect. 11.4.

References

  • Barile G (1952) Osservazioni sull’indicazione di misure cautelari nei procedimenti davanti la Corte internazionale di giustizia. Comunicazioni e studi 4:143–156

    Google Scholar 

  • Bastid S (1951) La jurisprudence de la Cour internationale de Justice. Collected Courses 78:575–686

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattacharya S (2013) ‘Proceeding at your own risk’: evaluating a new principle of international law for provisional measures. Yale Law J 38:511–524

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown C (2007) A common law of international adjudication. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Caron D (1986) Interim measures of protection: theory and practice in light of the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal. Zeitschrift 46:465–518

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchill R (2010) Trends in dispute settlement in the law of the sea: towards the increasing availability of compulsory means. In: French D, Saul M, White ND (eds) International law and dispute settlement – new problems and techniques. Hart, Oxford, pp 143–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Daniele L (1993) Le misure cautelari nel processo dinanzi alla Corte internazionale di giustizia. Giuffré, Milano

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisemann PM (2013) Quelques observations sur les mesures conservatoires indiquées par la Cour de la Haye. In: Boschiero N, Scovazzi T, Pitea C, Ragni C (eds) International courts and the development of international law. Asser, The Hague, pp 121–135

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Elkind J (1981) Interim protection – a functional approach. Nijhoff, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Forlati S (2001) Azioni dinanzi alla Corte internazionale di giustizia rispetto a violazioni di obblighi erga omnes. Riv dir int 84:69–109

    Google Scholar 

  • Forteau M (2010) La Cour internationale de Justice et les systèmes régionaux. Plaidoyer pour le pluralisme désordonné. In: Dubout E, Touzé S (eds) Les droits fondamentaux: charnières entre ordres et systèmes juridiques. Pedone, Paris, pp 39–64

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaeta P (2000) La giustizia cautelare nel diritto internazionale. CEDAM, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim P (1932) Les mesures conservatoires dans la procédure arbitrale et judiciaire. Collected Courses 40:645–764

    Google Scholar 

  • Hambro E (1956) The binding character of the provisional measures of protection indicated by the International Court of Justice. In: Schätzel W (ed) Rechtsfragen der internationalen Organisation – Festschrift für Hans Wehberg zu seinem 70. Geburtstag. Klostermann, Frankfurt a.M., pp 152–171

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammarskjöld D (1935) Quelques aspects de la question des mesures conservatoires en droit international positif. Zeitschrift 5:5–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Happold M (2013) East Timor takes Australia to the ICJ over documents seised by Australian intelligence. www.ejiltalk.org. Accessed 20 Dec 2013

  • Kolb R (2013) The International Court of Justice. Hart, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Niemeyer G (1932) Einstweilige Verfügungen des Weltgerichtshofes, ihr Wesen und ihre Grenzen. Noske, Leipzig

    Google Scholar 

  • Oellers-Frahm K (1975) Die einstweilige Anordnung in der internationalen Gerichtsbarkeit. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oellers-Frahm K (2012a) Article 41. In: Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice – a commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1026–1077

    Google Scholar 

  • Oellers-Frahm K (2012b) Expanding the competence to issue provisional measures – strengthening the international judicial function. In: von Bogdandy A, Venzke I (eds) International judicial lawmaking. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 389–409

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • 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 21:623–642

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papa MI (2006) I rapporti tra la Corte internazionale di giustizia e il Consiglio di sicurezza. CEDAM, Padova

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2005) Provisional measures in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2006) The law and practice of the International Court of Justice 1920–2005. Nijhoff, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Santulli C (2005) Droit du contentieux international. Montchrestien, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Simma B (1994) Bilateralism and community interest in international law. Collected Courses 254:217–384

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztucki J (1983) Interim measures in the Hague Court. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Tesauro G (1975) Le misure cautelari della Corte internazionale di giustizia. Comunicazioni e studi 14:873–901

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (1998) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–89, part nine. Br Year B Int Law 69:1–83

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlway H (2001) The law and procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960–1989, part twelve. Br Year B Int Law 72:37–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2004) Provisional measures granted by an international tribunal pending the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. In: Studi di Diritto internazionale in onore di Gaetano Arangio-Ruiz. Editoriale scientifica, Napoli, pp 1243–1263

    Google Scholar 

  • Treves T (2009) Les mesures conservatoires au Tribunal du droit de la mer et à la Cour internationale de Justice: contribution au dialogue entre cours et tribunaux internationaux. In: Liber amicorum Jean-Pierre Cot. Bruylant, Bruxelles, pp 341–348

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfrum R (2001) Provisional measures of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. In: Rao C, Khan R (eds) The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: law and practice, Kluwer, The Hague, pp 173–186

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyberi G (2010) Provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in armed conflict situations. Leiden J Int Law 23:571–584

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy

    Serena Forlati

Authors
  1. Serena Forlati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Forlati, S. (2014). The Adoption of Provisional Measures Under Article 41 of the Statute. In: The International Court of Justice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06179-5_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation