Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The World Court on Trial

  • Chapter
Studies in International Law and History

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

  • 201 Accesses

Abstract

In spite of its glorious record and the respect which was attached to the name of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) in 1945,1 when a new international organization was formulated at the San Francisco conference, the Court was re-established under a new name, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), for political rather than juristic considerations.2 But in its “reincarnation”, the loose connection of the old World Court with the League of Nations was replaced by the integration of the new Court into the United Nations as its “principal judicial organ” and the Statute of the Court was made part of the United Nations Charter (Art. 92). Thus all members of the United Nations became ipso factoParties to the Statute of the Court (Art. 93). But though it was a new Court with a new name which came into existence in 1945, the chain of continuity was not broken, and the new Court stepped into the shoes of the old Court, with the same organization and virtually the same Statute.3 With a satisfactory record, of PCIJ and its international composition having a body of highly competent and great jurists of the world as its judges, there is little wonder that the ICJ was inaugurated with high hopes and great expectations. As P.H. Spaak, first President of the General Assembly, said at the inaugural sitting of the International Court of Justice on April 18, 1946:

I would not venture to assert that the International Court of Justice is the most important organ of the United Nations...but I am convinced that it is of quite exceptional importance...I am deeply convinced that peace will not be established until countries have recognized the truth that there can be no civilized world nor any lasting peace, if there be not complete and absolute respect for international jurisdiction and its judgments.4

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 Report of the UN Committee of Jurists which said that the Court “had functioned to the satisfaction of the litigants”. UNCIO DOC. vol. 14, p. 822.

    Google Scholar 

  2. See R. P. Anand, International Courts and Contemporary Conflicts, (Bombay, 1972), p. 64.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Report of Subcommittee 1V/1/A, UNCIO DOC. vol. 13, p. 384.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Year Book of the International Court of Justice (1946–47), p. 31.

    Google Scholar 

  5. See Leo Gross, “Compulsory Jurisdiction under the Optional Clause: History and Practice:, in Lori Fisler Damrosch, The International Court of Justice at a Cross-roads, (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y, 1986), p. 21; Shabatai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, (New York, 1965) vol. I, p. 419.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Report of the Rapporteur of Committee IV/1, UNCIO DOC.913, IV/l/74(l), vol. XIII, p. 393.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Since 1951, 11 declarations under the Optional Clause had either lapsed or been terminated. These declarations were made by Bolivia, Brazil, China, France, Guatemala, Iran, Israel, South Africa, Thailand, Turkey and the Untied States. See Year Book of the International Court of Justice (1989–90), p. 63.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Five countries have withdrawn Connally-type reservations but it is still found in five declarations (Liberia, Malta, Mexico, Philippines and Sudan) under the Optional Clause. For details and an analysis of these damaging reservation, See Gross, note 5, pp. 22 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Thus the United States declaration included “Vandenbarg” reservation which excluded all “disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless (1) all parties to the treaty affected by the decision are also parties to the case before the Court or (2) the USA specially agrees to jurisdiction”. This reservation has been included by El Salvador, India, Malta, Pakistan and Philippines in their declarations. See Year Book of the International Court of Justice (1989–90), pp. 62 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  10. See J. Patrick Kelly, “The International Court of Justice: Crisis and Reformation”, Yale J. Int 7, (1987), vol. 12, p. 350.

    Google Scholar 

  11. See C.H.M. Waldock, “Decline of the Optional Clause”, 32 Brit. Year Book Int. L. (1956), p. 269; See also Kelly, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Year Book of the International Court of Justice, (1989–90), p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  13. out of 11 cases were filed by the United States or its Allies against the Soviet bloc countries. SeeYear Book of the International Court of Justice (1984–85), p. 54.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pak v. India), ICJ Reports, 1973, p. 347; Nuclear Tests cases (Australia v. France and New Zealand v. France), ICJ Reports, 1973 pp. 99, 145; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. USA) Merits, ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 14, Hostages case (USA v. Iran) ICJ Reports, 1984, p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Corfu Channel Case, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 244; and Asylum (Second Phase) and H ay a de la Torre Case, ICJ Reports, 1951, p. 71.

    Google Scholar 

  16. See Kelly, note 10, p. 363.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fisheries Jurisdiction cases (Iceland), ICJ Reports 1972, pp. 12, 30; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (Turkey), ICJ Reports 1978, p. 4; Hostages case (Iran), ICJ Reports 1980, p. 3; Nicaragua case, (Merits) ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14.

    Google Scholar 

  18. These cases included the two Fisheries Jurisdiction cases, ICJ Reports 1972, pp. 12 & 30; two Nuclear Test Cases, ICJ Reports, 1973, pp. 99, 135; Pakistani Prisoners of War, ICJ Reports, 1973, p. 347; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (ICJ Reports, 1978, p. 4), Hostages case, ICJ Reports, 1980, p. 3; Nicaragua case, ICJ Reports, 1984, p. 392, Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras) ICJ Reports, 1987, p. 69; Certain Phosphates Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) ICJ Report’, 1989, Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. USA), ICJ Reports, 1989; Boundary and Maritime dispute (Qatar v. Bahrain) ICJ Reports 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  19. E. Foda, The Projected Arab Court of Justice (The Hague, 1957), p. 168.

    Google Scholar 

  20. RC. Jessup, The Use of International Law, (Ann Arbor, 1959), p. 20; See also H.W. Briggs, “Confidence, apprehension and International Court of Justice”,Proc. Am. Soc. Int. L. (1960), pp. 25–28; Arthur Larson, “The Law Structure of Peace”, Tenn. L. Rev. (1960) vol. 27, p. 505.

    Google Scholar 

  21. William Samore, “National Judges v. Impartial Decisions: A Study of World Court Holdings”, Chi.-Kant L. Rev. (1956), vol. 34, p. 194.

    Google Scholar 

  22. John E. Read, “The place for international law and Justice in the years to come”,Report of 48th Conference of the International Law Association held in 1958, London, (1958), p. 663.

    Google Scholar 

  23. See R. R Anand, “The International Court of Justice and Impartiality between nations”, in R. P. Anand, Studies in International Adjudication (New Delhi, 1969), pp. 73, ff; Peter J. Liacorous, The International Court of Justice (Durham, 1962) Vol. II, p. 527; Samore, note 21, p. 201; G. Terry, “Factional behaviour on the ICJ: An analysis of the first and second Courts (1945–51) and sixth and seventh Courts (1961–67), N. U. L. Rev. (1975) vol. 10, p. 59.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Edith Brown Weiss, “Judicial independence and impartiality: A preliminary enquiry”, in Lori Fisler Damrosch (ed), The International Court of Justice at a Cross-roads, (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y, 1986), pp. 128, 129, 133.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Quoted in Edward Gordon, “Observations on the independence and impartiality of the members of the ICJ”, Conn. J. Int. L., (1987) vol. 2, p. 404.

    Google Scholar 

  26. See views of Scholars like Quincy Wright, F.S.C. Northrop, Adda Bozeman discussod by R. ?. Anand, “Attitude of the ‘new Asian-African Countries towards the ICJ”, in R. R Anand, Studies in International Adjudication, (New Delhi, 1969), pp. 53 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  27. See R. P. Anand, ibid, pp. 58–63. It is interesting to note that the position has reversed today because the Western countries are said to have lost confidence in the Court because of the presence of Asian-African judges. See supra.

    Google Scholar 

  28. See James Brown Scott, The Relation of the United States to the Permanent Court of International Justice, (New York, 1923).

    Google Scholar 

  29. A.S. Bustamante,The World Court, (New York, 1925), Introduction, p. (ix).

    Google Scholar 

  30. Interhandel case, dissenting opinion by Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, ICJ Reports 1959, pp. 101–102.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Thomas M. Franck,Judging the World Court. (New York, 1986), p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  32. See quoted in Thorns Franck and Jerome M. Lehrman, “Messianism and Chauvinism in America’s commitment to Peace through Law”, in Damrosch, note 24, p. 17.

    Google Scholar 

  33. See R. P. Anand, “The United States and the World Court”, in R. P. Anand, note 23, pp. 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  34. All these cases were discontinued because the other parties had not accepted the jurisdiction of the Court.

    Google Scholar 

  35. ICJ Reports, 1959, p. 6.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Military and Paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua, ICJ Reports, 1984, pp. 169, 170.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Letter from Secretary of State George Shultz to the UN Secretary General (April 6, 1984) to modify the 1946 Declaration in Damrosch, note 24, p. 471.

    Google Scholar 

  38. ICJ Reports 1984, pp. 415–19.

    Google Scholar 

  39. By a Vote of 11 Votes to 5, the Court decided that Nicaragua had accepted its jurisdiction under the Optional Clause despite its failure to “formally” deposit its ratification, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392. For a valuable critique of the case see B.S. Chimni, “The International Court and the maintenance of Peace and Security. The Nicaragua Decision and the US response” in Int. & Com. L. Q., (1986) vol. 35, pp. 960 ff.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Letter by the Davis R. Robinson, Legal advisor of Deptt. of State, to the Registrar of the Court,Am. J. Int. L. (1985) vol. 79, p. 439.

    Google Scholar 

  41. “US Statement concerning US withdrawal from the Nicaragua case, January 18, 1985” in Damrosch, note 24, p. 473. Also Am. J. Int. L. (1985) vol. 79, p. 439.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid., p. 440.

    Google Scholar 

  44. But see comments by Judge Schwebel in his dissenting opinion against the President of the Court, Judge T.O. Elias. Judge Elias is reported to have said in a press interview in December 1984, that “if a State withdraws its acceptance of our jurisdiction without notice, that leads to anarchy and disorder”. He added: “A State that defies the Court will not get away with it. Although some States try to show that they do not care, they do in reality”. ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 314–15; see also Gordon, note 25, pp. 424–25.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Robinson, note 40, p. 441.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Quoted in Franck, note 31, p. 37.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See Monroe Leigh and Stephen D. Ramsey, “Confidence in the Court: It need not be a ‘Hollow Chamber’”, in Damrosch, note 24, p. 108; see to the same effect Leigh quoted in Franck, note 31, p. 38; Abraham D. Sofaer, “The United States and the World Court”, Proc. of the 80th Annual Meeting of Am. Soc. Int. L. (1986) p. 207.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Leigh and Ramsey, ibid., pp. 108–109. See to the same effect Fred L. Morrison, “Potential Anthony Clark Arend (ed.). The United States and the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ, (Charlottesville, Va. 1985), pp. 29 ff. Michael Reisman ”Termination of the US declaration under Art. 36(2) of the ICJ“, ibid., pp. 71 ff.; Anthony Clark Arend, ”The ICJ, International Law, US Foreign Policy“, ibid., pp. 190–96.

    Google Scholar 

  49. See Damrosch, note 24, p. 477; see also Sofaer, note 48, pp. 207–208.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Keith Highet, “Between a rock and a hard place—the United States, the International Court and the Nicaragua case”, Int. Lawyer (1987) vol. 21 no. 4, p. 1085.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Keith Highet, “Litigation implications of the US withdrawal from the Nicaragua case”, Am. J. Int. I., (1985) vol. 79, p. 1002.

    Google Scholar 

  52. See remarks by Oscar Schachter in discussion on “The United States and the World Court”, Proc. of the 80th Annual Meeting of Am. Soc. Int. L. (1986), p. 212.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Keith Highet, “You can run but you can’t hide’—Reflections on the US position in the Nicaragua case”, Virginia J. Int. L. (1987) vol. 27, p. 571.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Oscar Schachter, note 54, pp. 210–211.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Oscar Schachter, ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Thomas Franck, “Icy day at the ICJ”, Am. J. Int. Z,, (1985) vol. 79, p. 379.

    Google Scholar 

  57. The Soviet Judge, Platon Morozon, had resigned from the Court for reasons of ill health and his successor had not been appointed.

    Google Scholar 

  58. ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 158.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid., p. 159.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Ibid., p. 160.

    Google Scholar 

  61. ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 528.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Judge Manfred Lachs, “A few thoughts on the independence of Judges of the ICJ”, Colum. J. Int. L.t (1987) vol. *25, pp. 596–597.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid., p. 597.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid., p. 594.

    Google Scholar 

  65. See Edvard Hambro, quoted in Gordon, note 25, pp. 406–407.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See H.W. Briggs, “Confidence, apprehension and, the ICJ”, Proceedings of the Am. Soc. Int. L. (1960), pp. 31. See also Professor Dugard in discussion on “Untied States and the World Court”, Proc. of the 80th Meeting of Am. Soc. Int. L. (1986), pp. 217–221;

    Google Scholar 

  67. See Philip C. Jessup.The Use of International Law, (Ann Arbor, Mich. 1959), p. 124.

    Google Scholar 

  68. See quoted by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, “International Law and International Order”, Del Coll. L. Rev. (1984), vol. 4 p. 878.

    Google Scholar 

  69. J.H. Ralston, A Quest for International Order (Washington D.C., 1941) p. 55.

    Google Scholar 

  70. The Court gave its final judgment on merits on 27 June 1986 in favour of Nicaragua. ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 14 The UN Security Council twice addressed the question of enforcement of the Nicaragua judgment on July 31 and October 28, 1986, but the United States vetoed the draft resolutions. On Nov. 6, 1986, the General Assembly passed a resolution (by 93 votes to 3, with 47 abstentions) urgently calling for full and immediate compliance with the judgment of the Court. UN Doc. A/41/PV.53, p. 92 (Nov. 6, 1986). This is the first time that a veto has been used to bar application of Art. 94 of the Charter for enforcement of the Court’s decision. See Keith Highet, note 48, pp. 1092–1095.

    Google Scholar 

  71. These are (1) Maritime delimitation in the areas between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway); (2) Aerial incident of 3 July 1988 (Iran v. USA); (3) Certain Phosphetes Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Austrlia); (4) Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea Bissau v. Senegal; (5) Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad); (6) East Timor (Portugal v. Australia); (1) Maritime Boundary (Guinea Bissau v. Senegal); (8) Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark); (9) Sovereignty over islands. Shoals and Maritime boundary (Qatar v. Bahrain); and Dispute Concerning Crash of Pan Am Flight 103 on December 21, 1988 in Lockerpie (UK) (Libya v. UK/Libya v. USA).

    Google Scholar 

  72. See Keith Highet “The Peace Palace Heats Up: The World Court in business again”,Am. J. Int. L. (Oct. 1991) vol. 86, p. 650.

    Google Scholar 

  73. de Archega, “The amendments to the rules of procedure of the ICJ”, Am. J. Int. L. (1973), vol. 67, p. 2.

    Google Scholar 

  74. See Stephen M. Schwebel, “Reflections on the role of the ICJ”, Wash. L. Rev. (1986) vol. 61, p. 1061.

    Google Scholar 

  75. ICJ Reports, 1984, p. 246.

    Google Scholar 

  76. ICJ Reports, 1986, p. 554.

    Google Scholar 

  77. ICJ Reports, 1991, p. 15.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Judge Shahabuddeen expressed such doubts in his dissenting opinion to the Order of the Court concerning the Nicaragua Intervention in the EL Salvador- Honduras case.ICJ Reports 1990, p. 18. (order of Feb. 28).

    Google Scholar 

  79. See Stephen M. Schwebel, note 75, p. 1061.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Keith Highet, note 73, p. 649.

    Google Scholar 

  81. ICJ Reports, 1962, p. 312.

    Google Scholar 

  82. See quoted in Franck, note 31, p. 23.

    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). The World Court on Trial. In: Studies in International Law and History. Developments in International Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-5600-6_5

  • 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