Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Enhancing the Acceptability of Compulsory Procedures of International Dispute Settlement

  • Chapter
Studies in International Law and History

Part of the book series: Developments in International Law ((DIL))

  • 206 Accesses

Abstract

If peace without law is unthinkable, peace under law is much to be strived for and desired. In the humanity’s long struggle for peace, one of the oldest, most important and appropriate, approaches to peace has been the peaceful settlement of disputes on the basis of law. In all civilized societies, disputes between individuals are settled in courts under the rule of law. But the law of jungle still prevails as the ultimate mechanism to settle disputes between nations. If we want to avoid the bloodbath of continuous warfare we see all around in our international society, we should be prepared to resolve our disputes through impartial third-party settlement, if direct negotiations between parties fail. That is the only civilized way to settle disputes. Supremacy of law within nations insures freedom of individuals. Supremacy of law in the community of nations, it is hoped, will free mankind from the dread of endemic violence and destruction we see and hear everyday all over the world.

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 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. See, Edwin Dewitt Dickinson, Law and Peace (Philadelphia, 1951), p. 113.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Dickinson,ibid. p. 121.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dickinson,ibid. pp. 121–22.

    Google Scholar 

  4. See, Gilbert Guillaume, “The Future of International Judicial Institutions”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (l.C.L.Q), vol. 4 (October 1955), pp. 848–49.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Disputes like the prompt release of vessels and crews under Art. 292 of the L.O.S. Convention and in the matter of provisional measures under Art. 290, paragraph 5, and disputes concerning the international seabed area as provided in Part XÏ of the Convention. See Judge P. Chandrasekhara Rao, “The ITLOS And its Guidelines”, Indian Journal of International Law (IJIL), vol. 38, nos. 3 and 4, pp. 371–72.

    Google Scholar 

  6. R.Y. Jennings, “The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law”, ICLQ, vol. 45 (January 1996), p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Jennings,ibid. p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  8. George M. Abi-Saab, quoted in R.Y. Jennings, “The Role of the International Court of Justice”, British Yearbook of International Law,\ ol. 68 (1997), p. 61. But cf. Shabtai Rosenne who points out that “there is no evidence to support the view that multiplicity of international judicial institutions for the settlement of disputes seriously impairs the unity of jurisprudence (a difficult proposition at the best of times). The Convention requires ITLOS to perform tasks that are beyond the capacity of the International Court under its present Statute. If only for that reason the cautious observer will hesitate before crying redundant.” Shabtai Rosenne, “Establishing the ITLOS”, American Journal of International Law (AJIL), vol. 89 (1995), p. 814; see also Alexander Yankov, “ITLOS: Its place within the dispute settlement system of UN Law of the Sea Convention, IJIL, vol. 37 (1997), p. 304.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Jennings,ibid. p. 60.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See, R.P. Anand, quoting numerous cases in the World Court, International Courts and Contemporary Conflicts (Bombay, 1974), pp. 194 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See R.P. Anand, Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Bombay, 1961), pp. 36–37.

    Google Scholar 

  12. See for an interesting comparison between jurisdiction conferred on the PCIJ and the ICJ, PhilippeCouvreur, m A.S. Muller, D. Raic and J.M. Thuranszky (ed.), International Court of Justice: Its Future Role After Fifty Years (The Hague, 1997), pp. 96–97.

    Google Scholar 

  13. George M. Abi-Saab, “The International Court of Justice as a World Court”, in Vaughan Lowe and Malgosia Fitzmaurice (ed.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings (Cambridge, 1996), p. 4.

    Google Scholar 

  14. See C.H.M. Waldock, “The Decline of the Optional Clause”, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 32 (1955–56), p. 244.

    Google Scholar 

  15. See Anand, n. 11, pp. 53 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Yearbook of the ICJ, 1997–98, p. 83.

    Google Scholar 

  17. See President of the ICJ Judge Bedjaoui, in his address to the General Assembly on 11 October, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  18. See Gudmundur Eiriksson, “The Role of ITLOS in the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes”, Indian Journal of International Law (IJIL), vol. 37, no. 3 (Special Issue on ITLOS) (1997), p. 350.

    Google Scholar 

  19. See Law of the Sea Convention, Part XV, Sections 2 and 3; see also Guillaume, n. 4, p. 855; Shigeru Oda, “Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea”, International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ), vol. 41 (October 1995), p. 863.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Anand, n. 11, p. 39.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Abi-Saab, n. 13, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  22. See R.P. Anand, “Attitude of the ‘new’ Asian-African countries towards the International Court of Justice”, in his Studies in International Adjudication (New Delhi, 1969), pp. 53 ff; Abi-Saab, n. 13, p. 5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. The Court being equally divided 7 votes to 7. See South-West Africa Cases (Second Phase), ICJ Reports 1966, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  24. See R.P. Anand, “International Status of South-West Africa”, n. 22, p.l 19.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Andronico O. Adede, “Judicial Settlement in Perspective”, in A.S. Muller, D. Raic and J.M. Thuranszky (ed.),: The International Court of Justice: Its Future Role after Fifty Years (The Hague, 1997), p. 51.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See R.P. Anand, “Role of International Adjudication”, in Leo Gross, The Future of the International Court of Justice (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. 1976), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See Judge Mohamed Shalabuddeen, “The World Court at the Turn of the Century”, in Muller, Raic and Thuranszky, n. 25, p. 20.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See Abi-Saab, n. 13, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  29. See Guillaume, n. 4, p. 851.

    Google Scholar 

  30. ICJ Reports, 1971, p. 16.

    Google Scholar 

  31. ICJ Reports 1975, p. 12.

    Google Scholar 

  32. ICJ Reports 1984, pp. 415–19.

    Google Scholar 

  33. ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Abi-Saab, n. 13, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  35. See Address by President Bedjaoui to the General Assembly on 11 October, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Quoted in Shahabuddeen, n. 27, p. 24.

    Google Scholar 

  37. See quoted in Adede, n. 25, p. 62.

    Google Scholar 

  38. ICJ Yearbook, 1991–92, p. 207. See also Judge Shahabuddeen, n. 27, p. 22ff; K. Highet, “The Peace Palace Heats up: The World Court in Business Again”,AJIL vol. 85 (1991), p. 646.

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Judge Shahabuddeen, n. 27, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  40. E. Jinenez de Archega, “The Amendments to the Rules of Procedure of the \Cr\AJIL vol. 67 (1973), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  41. See Jennings, n. 8, p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Frontier Dispute (Burkina Fago vs. Mali), ICJ Reports, 1985, p. 6. Elettronica Sicula (United States vs. Italy), ICJ Reports 1987, p. 3. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador Vs. Honduras), ICJ Reports, 1987, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  43. See Anand, n. 36, p. 264.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Jennings, n. 8, pp. 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Jennings, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Free Zones case, Order PCIJ, Series A, No. 22 (1929), p. 13. See also Shahabuddeen, n. 27, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  47. David P. Forsythe, “The International Court of Justice at Fifty”, in Muller, Raic, Thuranszky, n. 12, p. 397.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jennings, n. 8, p. 53.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Anand, n. 10, pp. 231 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  50. R.Y. Jennings, n. 8, p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Jennings, ibid., footnote. Emphasis in original. See for a detailed discussion of this dichotomy of legal and political disputes, Anand, n. 10, pp. 230–241.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See Forsythe, n. 55, p. 401.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Jennings, n. 8, p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  54. See Abi-Saab, quoted by Jennings, ibid. p. 61.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Abi-Saab, n. 13, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  56. See R .P. Anand, “The World Court on Trial”, in R.S. Pathak and R.P. Dhokalia, International Law in Transition: Essays in Memory> of Judge Nagendra Singh (New Delhi, 1992), pp. 253ff.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Charles de Visscher, Theory and Reality in Public International Law (1968), p. 369.

    Google Scholar 

  58. See Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of ICJ, Address to the General Assembly, February 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  59. See Stephen H. Schwebel, “Reflections on the Role of the ICJ”, Washington Law Review, vol. 61 (1986), p. 1061.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Abi-Saab, n. 13, p. 9. See also Jennings, n. 8, p. 38.

    Google Scholar 

  61. CJ. Reports, 1963, p. 29.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See J.L. Brierly, “Vital Interests and the Law”, BY IL, vol. 21(1944), p. 51. See also Louis B. Sohn, “The Jurisdiction of the ICJ”, AJIL, vol. 38 (1944), p. 694ff.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Jennings, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Jennings, ibid., pp. 38–39.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Jennings, ibid. p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. R. P. Anand
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2004 R.P. Anand

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Anand, R.P. (2004). Enhancing the Acceptability of Compulsory Procedures of International Dispute Settlement. In: Studies in International Law and History. Developments in International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_4

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_4

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-90-04-13859-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-017-5600-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation