Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The International Court of Justice and Diplomatic Protection

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judging International Human Rights

  • 938 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter deals with the legal consequences for States of the recent decisions by the International Court of Justice involving individual rights. It also puts them in perspective by reference case law by the European Court of Human Rights and the ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection. It discusses the legal consequences of the ICJ decisions not only for the States being held responsible but also for the States traditionally referred to as “injured states.” It addresses the substantive remedies that States are to provide for violations attributed to them and also the possible legal effect on the right of diplomatic protection of an “injured state” now that the rights violated are individual rights. The author does so by reference to the ICJ LaGrand and Avena cases, as well as Belgium v Senegal and Diallo. In addition, he discusses Article 19 of the ILC Articles on Diplomatic Protection and the damages judgment by the European Court of Human Rights in Cyprus v Turkey (2014).

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 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
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.

    ICJ, LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), judgment of 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, 466 at 515–516, operative paras (3) and (4) (hereinafter referred to as LaGrand judgment).

  2. 2.

    See Shelton (2005), xi, 502.

  3. 3.

    See the text of Part Two of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted by the ILC in 2001 (hereinafter referred to as ARSIWA). As to the text and commentary of the Draft Articles, see YBILC 2001, Vol II Part 2, 26–143.

  4. 4.

    ICJ, Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America), judgment of 31 Mar 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, 12 (hereinafter referred to as Avena judgment).

  5. 5.

    ICJ, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic of the Congo) (merits), judgment of 30 Nov 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, 639 (hereinafter referred to as Diallo judgment on merits); Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic of the Congo) (compensation), judgment of 19 June 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 324 (hereinafter referred to as Diallo judgment on compensation).

  6. 6.

    PCIJ, The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, judgment of 30 Aug 1924, Publications of the PCIJ, Series A—no 2, Collections of Judgments, 12.

  7. 7.

    Preliminary report on diplomatic protection, by Mr. Mohamed Bennouna, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/484, YBILC 1998, Vol II Part 1, 313, paras 19–20.

  8. 8.

    See the text and commentary on Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, YBILC 2006, Vol II Part 2, 24–55 (hereinafter referred to as DADP).

  9. 9.

    PCIJ, Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig (pecuniary claims of Danzig railway officials who have passed into the Polish Service, against the Polish Railway Administration) (advisory opinion), 03 Mar 1928, Publications of the PCIJ, Series B—no 15, Collection of Advisory Opinion, 17–18.

  10. 10.

    Ibid, 18–21. Through Examination of the wording of Arts 4 and 9 and tenor of the text of the Beamtenabkommen and circumstances attending the execution of the agreement, the Court concluded that “the Danzig officials have … a right of action against the Polish Railway Administration for the recovery of pecuniary claims based on the Beamtenabkommen.” The words in the main text, between square brackets, are added by the author.

  11. 11.

    Akehurst (1991), p. 73.

  12. 12.

    It should be noted that this publication dates from before the 11th Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights entered into force. Ibid, 81.

  13. 13.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 493–494, para 76.

  14. 14.

    IACtHR, The Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantee of the Due Process of Law (advisory opinion), OC-16/99, 01 Oct 1999, reproduced in HRLJ, Vol 23, no 1–3 (2000), 24–58, in particular paras 82–83 (hereinafter referred to as advisory opinion, OC-16/99).

  15. 15.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 494, para 77.

  16. 16.

    Separate opinion of Vice-President Shi, ibid, 520–524, paras 4–15. Judge Oda, agreeing with Judge Shi, opined that Art 36 para 1 (c) had no further meaning than simply mentioning the situation in which an arrested foreign national waived consular notification in order to prevent his criminal conduct or even his presence in a foreign country from becoming known in his home country. Dissenting opinion of Judge Oda, ibid, 536, paras 24–25.

  17. 17.

    IACtHR (advisory opinion), OC-16/99, supra n 14, paras 90–91.

  18. 18.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 497–498, paras 89, 91 and 516, operative para 128 (4).

  19. 19.

    ICJ, Avena judgment, supra n 4, 36, para 40.

  20. 20.

    Ibid, 71, operative paras 153 (4) and (5) of the judgment.

  21. 21.

    Ibid, 71–72, operative paras 153 (6) and (7) of the judgment.

  22. 22.

    Separate opinion of Judge Sepulveda. The judge remarked that “the individual rights of the 52 Mexican nationals may be invoked” by Mexico, and “[a] contrary conclusion is incompatible with the decision of the Court in LaGrand.” Ibid, 106, para 21 and 107, para 24. See also separate opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren, ibid, 92, paras 32–34.

  23. 23.

    ICJ, Avena judgment, ibid, 72, operative para 153 (8) of the judgment.

  24. 24.

    IACtHR (advisory opinion), OC-16/99, supra n 14, para 137 and para 141, operative paras 6–7 of the advisory opinion.

  25. 25.

    Verbatim record CR 2000/27 in LaGrand, 12, para 23 (Simma); LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 494, para 78.

  26. 26.

    The text of the ARSIWA, supra n 3, 51.

  27. 27.

    Ibid, 52.

  28. 28.

    Ibid, 51.

  29. 29.

    Ibid, 234–235, paras (3) and (4) of the commentary on Art 33; Crawford (2013), pp. 548–549.

  30. 30.

    Art 41 ECHR provides that if the Court finds a violation, and “if the internal law of the said party allows only partial reparation to be made for consequences of this decision or measure, the decision of the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.” If the Court finds a violation, Art 63 para 1 of the ACHR provides: “the Court shall rule that the injured party be entrusted the enjoyment of his right or freedom that was violated. It shall also rule, if appropriate, that the consequences of the measure or situation that constituted the breach of such right or freedom be remedied and that fair compensation be paid to the injured party.”

  31. 31.

    See Shelton (2005), pp. 189–192, 216–217.

  32. 32.

    ECtHR (Chamber), Papamichalopoulos and others v Greece, judgment of 31 Oct 1995, no 14556/89, para 36. Available online via http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-57961. Accessed 11 July 2017.

  33. 33.

    IACtHR, Hilaire, Constantine and Benjamin et al v Trinidad and Tobago (merits, reparations and costs), judgment of 21 June 2002, paras 202–203. Available online via www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_94_ing.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2017. See also IACtHR, Caracazo v Venezuela (reparations and costs), judgment of 29 Aug 2002, paras 76–78. Available online via www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/casos/articulos/seriec_95_ing.pdf. Accessed 11 July 2017.

  34. 34.

    See e.g. Art 2 para 3 (a) of the ICCPR; Art 6 of the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD); Art 2 (c) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); Art 14 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment (CAT); Art 13 of the ECHR; Art 25 of the ACHR.

  35. 35.

    The example was taken from the recent views of the HRCtee. See e.g. Viktor Timoshenko v Belarus, No 1950/2010, UN Doc. CCPR/C/114/D/1950/2010, para 9.

  36. 36.

    HRCtee, General Comment No 31 [80] on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add. 13 (2004), paras 15–16. We can see another typical example of detailed enumeration of an effective remedy to a victim in Art 24 of the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. In addition, para 1 of the Art widens the concept of “victim” to include “any individual who has suffered harm as the direct result of an enforced disappearance.”

  37. 37.

    HRCtee, General Comment No 31 [80], ibid, para 16.

  38. 38.

    See Shelton (2005), in particular chapters 5, 7–10; Burgorgue-Larsen and Úbeda de Toress (2011), chapters 10, 26; Leach (2005), chapter 9; Nowak (2005), pp. 62–72, 891–894.

  39. 39.

    Shelton (2005), pp. 184–187, 199, 271–277, 280–289; Leach (2005), pp. 405–407; Burgorgue-Larsen and Úbeda de Toress (2011), pp. 234–238; Mowbray (2007), pp. 877–882; Nowak (2005), pp. 70–71.

  40. 40.

    As to the compensation, see e.g. para 20 of the Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, UN Doc. A/RES/60/147; para 16 of the General Comment No 31 of the HRCtee, UN Doc. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, and paras 9–10 of the Guidelines on measures of reparation under the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, UN Doc. CCPR/C/158; see also Shelton (2005), pp. 183, 294–353; Leach (2005), pp. 398–405; Burgorgue-Larsen and Úbeda de Toress (2011), pp. 228–234.

  41. 41.

    Shelton (2005), pp. 278–280.

  42. 42.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 471–472, para 10. The argument of Germany is similar to that of Paraguay in Breard. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v United States of America) (provisional measures), 09 Apr 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, 248 at 256, para 30.

  43. 43.

    ICJ, Avena judgment, supra n 4, 60–61, para 124.

  44. 44.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 473, para 11. Counter-memorial of the US.

  45. 45.

    IACtHR (advisory opinion), OC-16/99, supra n 14, paras 136–137 and operative para 141 (8).

  46. 46.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 474, para 12; Avena judgment, supra n 4, 60, paras 122–123.

  47. 47.

    Ibid, 60–61, para 124.

  48. 48.

    Ibid, 68, para 148.

  49. 49.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 513–514, para 125.

  50. 50.

    ICJ, Avena judgment, supra n 4, 65, para 138.

  51. 51.

    Ibid, 65–66, paras 139–141.

  52. 52.

    Ibid, 72, operative para 153 (9). This paragraph was decided by fourteen votes to one.

  53. 53.

    Ibid, 66, para 143 and 70, para 152.

  54. 54.

    See Barbier (2010), p. 560; Gray (2010), pp. 594–595.

  55. 55.

    ICJ, LaGrand judgment, supra n 1, 514, para 126.

  56. 56.

    ICJ, Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 Mar 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v United States of America), judgment of 19 Jan 2009, ICJ Reports 2009, 1 at 11–12 and 19, paras 25, 27–28, 52–53.

  57. 57.

    ICJ, Diallo judgment on merits, supra n 5, 692–693, operative para 165 (4) and (7). While the Court acknowledged the Congo’s violation of Art 36 para 1 (b), it did not require Congo of the payment of compensation.

  58. 58.

    PCIJ, Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzów (claim for indemnity; merits), judgment of 13 Sept 1928, Publications of the PCIJ, Series A—No 17, Collections of Judgments, 28.

  59. 59.

    ICJ, Legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territory (advisory opinion), 09 July 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, 136 at 198, para 153.

  60. 60.

    ICJ, Diallo judgment on merits, supra n 5, 692, operative para 165 (2) and (3). As to the reasoning, see 663–671, paras 64–89. The ICJ also found the violation of Art 36 para 1 (b) of the VCCR. Though the case started with Guinea’s claim for diplomatic protection of Mr. Diallo’s business interests in Congo, all claims of an economic nature were declared inadmissible or rejected in the decision on merits. See also joint declaration of 5 judges as well as joint dissenting opinion of two judges. Ibid, 695–699, 700–711.

  61. 61.

    Ibid, 693, operative para 164 (7).

  62. 62.

    Ibid, 691, para 161.

  63. 63.

    Ibid, 691, para 163. See also Diallo judgment on compensation, supra n 5, 331, paras 11, 17.

  64. 64.

    Ibid, 330, para 10 and 345, operative paras 61 (1)–(4).

  65. 65.

    Ibid, 334–335, paras 13–14.

  66. 66.

    Ibid, 334–335, paras 21–25 and 336–338, paras 29–36.

  67. 67.

    Ibid, 339–342, paras 38–50.

  68. 68.

    ECtHR (Chamber), Cyprus v Turkey (just satisfaction), judgment of 12 May 2014, No 25781/94, operative paras 4 (a) and 5 (a). Available at http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-144151. Accessed 11 July 2017. Reproduced in HRLJ, Vol 34 No 1–6 (2014), 77–99. The operative paragraphs mentioned were decided by fifteen votes to two.

  69. 69.

    Ibid, paras 56–57.

  70. 70.

    Ibid, paras 58–59.

  71. 71.

    As to punitive damages, see concurring opinion of Judge Pinto de Albuquerque joined by Judge Vucinic. See also partly concurring and partly dissenting opinion of Judge Casadevall; dissenting opinion of Judge Karakas.

  72. 72.

    With regard to the background of this judgment and of its evaluation, see Risini (2014), p. 25.

  73. 73.

    Art 1 DADP, supra n 8, 24.

  74. 74.

    PCIJ, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions judgment, supra n 6, 12.

  75. 75.

    Para (3) of the commentary on Art 1 DADP, supra n 8, 27.

  76. 76.

    Para (5) of the commentary on Art 1 DADP, ibid, 27.

  77. 77.

    Art 2 DADP, ibid, 24.

  78. 78.

    ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, judgment of 05 Feb 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, 3 at 44, paras 78–79. See also, as one of the typical classic remarks as to the discretional nature of the State’s right, Borchard (1919), pp. 355–380.

  79. 79.

    Para (5) of the commentary on Art 19 DADP, supra n 8, 54.

  80. 80.

    ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Ilascu and others v Moldova and Russia, Reports 2004-VII, 179 at 266–267, paras 333–334. See also ECtHR (Grand Chamber), Catan and others v Moldova and Russia, Reports 2012-V, 309, at 357–358, paras 109–110.

  81. 81.

    Art 19 DADP, supra n 8, 25–26.

  82. 82.

    Para (1) of the commentary on Art 19 DADP, ibid, 53.

  83. 83.

    Paras (3), (4) and (8) of the commentary on Art 19 DADP, ibid, 54–55.

  84. 84.

    EComHR, The Federal Republic of Austria against the Government of the Republic of Italy, No 788/60, decision of 11 Jan 1961, YBECHR 1961 (Vol 4), (Martinus Nijhoff, 1962), 117 at 140, 150.

  85. 85.

    The text of the Art 48 of the ARSIWA, supra n 3, 29.

  86. 86.

    Para (2) of the commentary on Art 16 DADP, supra n 8, 50–51.

  87. 87.

    See Sect. 3.3.2 of this chapter.

  88. 88.

    ECtHR, Cyprus v Turkey (just satisfaction), supra n 74, paras 43–45, 47.

  89. 89.

    Ibid, para 46.

  90. 90.

    ILA Human Rights Committee, Washington Conference (2014)—International Human Rights Law, “Interim report: International Human Rights Law and the International Court of Justice (ICJ),” paras 59–60. Available at www.ila-hq.org/index.php/committees. Accessed 11 July 2017.

  91. 91.

    Tomuschat (2010), pp. 986–990.

  92. 92.

    First Report on Diplomatic Protection, by Mr. John Dugard, Special Rapporteur, UN Doc. A/CN.4/506 and Add. 1, YBILC 2000, Vol II Part 1, 223. Art 4. Report of the ILC on the work of the 52 session, YBILC 2000, Vol II Part 2, 78–79, paras 450–456 (summary of the debate and SR’s concluding remarks on Art 4).

  93. 93.

    ICJ, Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), judgment of 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 422, at 513–514, paras 68–69.

  94. 94.

    Para (12) of the commentary on Art 48 of the ARSIWA, supra n 3, 127.

References

  • Akehurst M (1991) Modern introduction to international law, 6th edn. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Barbier S (2010) Assurances and guarantees of non-repetition. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Borchard EM (1919) The diplomatic protection of citizens abroad or the law of international claims. The Banks Kaw Publishing, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgorgue-Larsen L, Úbeda de Toress A (2011) The Inter-American Court of Human Rights: case law and commentary (Translated by Greenstein R). OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford J (2013) State responsibility: general part. CUP, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2010) The different forms of reparation: restitution. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach P (2005) Taking a case to the European Court of Human Rights. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Mowbray A (2007) Cases and materials on European Convention on Human Rights. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Nowak M (2005) U.N. Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: CCPR Commentary, 2nd edn. N.P. Engel, Kehl am Rhein

    Google Scholar 

  • Risini I (2014) An individual-centered decision seen in the historical and institutional context which led to Cyprus v Turkey (IV)/The 2014 just satisfaction judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Hum Rights Law J 34:18–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Shelton D (2005) Remedies in international human rights law, 2nd edn. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomuschat C (2010) Individuals. In: Crawford J, Pellet A, Olleson S (eds) The law of international responsibility. OUP, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan

    Kimio Yakushiji

Authors
  1. Kimio Yakushiji
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kimio Yakushiji .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Goethe University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany

    Stefan Kadelbach

  2. Faculty of Law, Augsburg University, Augsburg, Germany

    Thilo Rensmann

  3. Faculty of Law, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Eva Rieter

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Yakushiji, K. (2019). The International Court of Justice and Diplomatic Protection. In: Kadelbach, S., Rensmann, T., Rieter, E. (eds) Judging International Human Rights. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94848-5_4

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94847-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94848-5

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation