Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Provisional Measures of Protection in the Jurisprudence of International Courts—Historical Outline

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Jurisprudence of the PCIJ and of the ICJ on Interim Measures of Protection

  • 513 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter presents the historical outline of the provisional measures of protection in the jurisprudence of international courts such as: Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (MATs)/Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes (TAMs), the Court of Justice for Central America, the Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice. It demonstrates the difference between the TAMs and the other international tribunals, because private individuals had access to the TAMs, which is why they were considered more as a mixed court of two states than an international tribunal.

The author uses the English term Mixed Arbitral Tribunals (MATs) and its French counterpart/Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes (TAMs) concurrently.

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 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
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.

    Only three agreements, namely the Anglo-German, Japanese-German and Japanese-Austrian agreements, did not mention protective measures.

  2. 2.

    Cocâtre-Zilgien 1966, p. 23.

  3. 3.

    Hudson 1944, p. 9.

  4. 4.

    Sztucki 1983, p. 20.

  5. 5.

    Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, vol. I, p. 50. See also Article 45 of the Rules of Procedure of 19 October 1920, TAM German-Belgian, ibid., p. 39

  6. 6.

    Dumbauld 1932; Guggenheim 1932, pp. 649–754.

  7. 7.

    Rundstein 1928.

  8. 8.

    ‘‘Le tribunal peut déroger aux règles fixées par le présent règlement, lorsqu'il estime que, dans les circonstances spéciales de la cause, cela est equitable ou necessaire pour la connaissance complète et l’áppréciation exacte des faits. Il peut même admettre des productions nouvelles et une procédure nouvelle”, Article 98

  9. 9.

    E.g. Article 31–33, Franco-German TAM:

    Article 31 - A la requête d'une partie ou d'un agent, le tribunal peut ordonner, en dehors des mesures conservatoires déjà prévues per la traité, toute mesure conservatoire ou provisoire qui lui paraît equitable et necessaire pour garantir les droits des Parties.

    Article 32 – Les mesures conservatoires peuvent être demandées et ordonnées en tout état de cause même avant le dépôt de la requête introductive de l’instance. Dans ce dernier cas, l’instance doit être introduite dans le plus bref délai possible.

    Article 33 – La Partie contre laquelle des mesures conservatoires sont requises doit être entendus, si possible. La Partie qui n’a pas pu être entendue peut demander au tribunal de revenir sur sa décision. Cette demande n’est pas suspensive.

  10. 10.

    TAM Italian-Austrian-Article 70, Italian-Bulgarian-Article 70, Italian-Hungarian-Article 189, Recueil des TAM, vol. 1, p. 612, vol. II, p. 162, vol. II, p. 654, vol. IV, p. 136.

  11. 11.

    TAM Decision of 21 May 1923—Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, vol. 3, p. 596; see also TAM decision of 29 July 1924 in Ellermann v. The Polish State, Recueil des décisions, vol. 5, p. 457.

  12. 12.

    Revue générale de droit international public, vol. 35, 1928, p. 60.

  13. 13.

    De Martens 1935, p. 241; Guggenheim 1932, op. cit., pp. 33–35.

  14. 14.

    ‘‘La Convention sur la Cour de Justice centre-américaine’’, RGDIP, vol. 16, 1909, pp. 101–102; Guggenheim 1932, op. cit., pp. 34–41 and pp. 662–670; Hudson 1936, pp. 44–72; Dumbauld 1932.

  15. 15.

    Guggenheim 1932, pp. 37–41; Hudson 1936, pp. 54–56.

  16. 16.

    Guggenheim 1932, op. cit., pp. 42–44: Hudson 1936, op. cit., pp. 61–70.

  17. 17.

    Denunciation of the Treaty of 2 November 1865 between China and Belgium, (Belgium v. China), PCIJ, Ser. A. No. 8, 1927, p. 5.

  18. 18.

    Op. cit., pp. 6–15.

  19. 19.

    Op. cit., p. 8.

  20. 20.

    Op. cit., p. 10.

  21. 21.

    Case concerning the Factory at Chorzów /Indemnities/, (Germany v. Poland), PCJI, Ser. A. No. 12, 1927, p. 8.

  22. 22.

    German Interest in Polish Upper Silesia Case, PCIJ, Ser. A. No. 7. 1926. p. 4.

  23. 23.

    PCIJ, Ser. A. No. 12, p. 10.

  24. 24.

    Case Concerning the Legal Status of the Southeastern Territory of Greenland, (Norway v. Denmark), PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 48, 1932.

  25. 25.

    Op. cit., pp. 277–281.

  26. 26.

    PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 48, p. 289.

  27. 27.

    Administration of the Prince von Pless, (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 54, 1933, pp. 151–154.

  28. 28.

    Polish Agrarian Reform and the German Minority, (Germany v. Poland), PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 58, 1933, pp. 175–179.

  29. 29.

    Hudson 1943.

  30. 30.

    “...if there ever was a case in which the application of Article 41 of the Statute would be in every way appropriate, it would certainly be so in the case before us... If the summaria cognitio, which is characteristic of a procedure of this kind, enabled us to take into account the possibility of the right claimed by the German Government, and the possibility of the danger to which that right was exposed. I should find it difficult to imagine any request for the indication of interim measures more just, more opportune or more appropriate that one which we are considering.” PCIJ, Serie. A/B, No. 58, p. 181.

  31. 31.

    Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v. Bulgaria), PCIJ, Serie. A/B, No. 79, 1939, pp. 194–200.

  32. 32.

    112 British and Foreign State Papers 781, 848, 1919.

  33. 33.

    Op. cit., p. 196.

  34. 34.

    Op. cit., p. 199.

  35. 35.

    Anglo-Iranian Oil Company Case, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland v. Iran), Order of 5 July 1951. ICJ, Rep. 1951, pp. 89–94; Interhandel Case, (Switzerland v. United States), Order of 24 October 1957. ICJ, Rep. 1957, pp. 105–120; Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland), order of 17 August 1971, I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 12 ; Fisheries Jurisdiction Case, (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Order of 17 August 1972, I.C.J. Reports 1972, p. 30; Nuclear Tests Case, (Australia v. France), Order of 22 June 1973, ICJ, Reports, 1973, s. 99–105; Nuclear Tests Case, (New Zealand v. France), Order of 22 June 1973, ICJ, Reports, 1973, s. 136–143; Case Concerning Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, (Pakistan v. India), order of 13 July 1973, ICJ, Reports, 1973, pp. 328–331; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf Case, (Greece v. Turkey), Order of 11 September 1976, ICJ, Reports, 1976, pp. 3–14; United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, (United States of America v. Iran), Order of 15 December 1979. ICJ, Rep. 1979, p. 18; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, (Nicaragua v. United States of America, Order of 10 May 1984, ICJ, Reports, 1984, pp. 168–207; The Frontier Dispute, (Burkina Faso v. Mali), Order of 10 January 1986, ICJ Reports, 1986, pp. 2–12; Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Order of 31 March 1988, ICJ Reports, p. 9; The Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal), Order of 2 March 1990, ICJ, Reports, 1990, pp. 54–84.

  36. 36.

    ICJ Reports 1951, pp. 89–94, ICJ Reports 1972, pp. 12–18 and pp. 30–36, ICJ Reports 1973, pp. 99–106 and pp. 135–143 ICJ Reports 1979, pp. 7–21, ICJ Reports 1984, pp. 169–207, ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 3–12,

  37. 37.

    ICJ Reports 1951, pp. 89–94; Ford 1954, pp. 1–348; Fartache 1953, pp. 584–612; Fenwick 1951, pp. 723–727; Lalive 1953, pp. 706–722.

  38. 38.

    ICJ Reports 1951, p. 92.

  39. 39.

    Ibid., pp. 93–94

  40. 40.

    ICJ Reports 1957, 105–120; Perrin 1958, pp. 39–92; Pinto 1958, pp. 4–73; Rousseau 1958, pp. 124–132; Grawitz 1961, pp. 495–547; de Visscher 1959, pp. 413–433.

  41. 41.

    ICJ Reports 1957, p. 107.

  42. 42.

    « L’affaire de la compétence en matière de pêcheries”, AFDI, vol. 18, 1972, pp. 291–322; Goy 1974, pp. 279–322; Perrin 1973, pp. 16–34; ICJ Reports 1972, pp. 1–18.

  43. 43.

    ICJ Reports 1973, p. 100 and p. 136, Cocâtre-Zilgien 1974, pp. 173–186; Cot 1973, pp. 252–271; de Lacharrière 1973, pp. 235–251; Lellouche 1975, pp. 614–637; Vignes 1960, pp. 52–74.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., p. 106 and p. 142.

  45. 45.

    ICJ Reports 1973, op. cit., p. 102 and p. 138.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., p. 112.

  47. 47.

    ICJ Reports 1973, op. cit., p. 115 and p. 149.

  48. 48.

    Ibid., p. 124 and p. 159.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., p. 130.

  50. 50.

    ICJ Reports 1973, p. 328.

  51. 51.

    ICJ Reports 1973, p. 117

  52. 52.

    Ibid., p. 121.

  53. 53.

    ICJ Reports 1976, pp. 4–5; Bettati 1976, pp. 99–115; Gross 1977, pp. 31–60.

  54. 54.

    ICJ Reports 1976, p. 13.

  55. 55.

    ICJ Reports 1976, p. 16.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., p. 22–23.

  57. 57.

    Ibid., p. 20.

  58. 58.

    Ibid., p. 17.

  59. 59.

    ICJ Reports 1979, pp. 7–21; Coussirat-Coustere 1979, pp. 297–313.

  60. 60.

    ICJ Reports 1984, pp. 169–207; Rucz 1985, pp. 83–111.

  61. 61.

    ICJ Reports 1986, pp. 3–12

  62. 62.

    Règlement TAM 1920.

References

  • Bettati M (1976) L'affaire du plateau continental de la mer Egée devant la CIJ. Demande en indication des mesures conservatoires. Ordonnance du 11 Septembre 1976. AFDI, vol. 22, pp. 99–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cocâtre-Zilgien A (1966) Les mesures conservatoires decidées par le juge ou par l'arbitre international. 70 RGDIP, p. 23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cocâtre-Zilgien A (1974) La France devant ses juges. Remarques sur la “compétence” de la CIJ dans l’affaire des essais nucléaires. Mélanges offerts à Marcel Waline, I, Paris, LGDJ, pp. 173–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cot J-P (1973) Affaires des essais nucléaires/ Australie c. France et Nouvelle-Zélande c. France et Nouvelle- Zélande c. France/, demandes en indication des mesures conservatoires. Ordonnances du 22 juin 1973. AFDI, vol. 19, pp. 252–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coussirat-Coustere V (1979) Indication des mesures conservatoires dans l' affaire du personnel diplomatique et consulaire des Etats-Unis à Téhéran (Etats-Unis d'Amerique contre Iran). Ordonnance du 15 Décembre 1979, AFDI, (vol. 25), pp. 297–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lacharrière G (1973) Commentaires sur la position puridique de la France à l’égard de la licéité de les experiences nucléaires. AFDI, vol. 19, pp. 235–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Visscher Ch (1959) L'affaire de l'Interhandel devant la CIJ. RGDIP, vol. 30, pp. 413–433.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Martens GF (1935) Nouveau Recueil Général des Traités, 2nd series, vol. 31, p. 241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dumbauld E (1932) Interim Measures of Protection in International Controversies. Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fartache M (1953) De compétence de la CIJ dans l'affaire de l' Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. RGDIP, vol. 24, pp. 584–612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenwick Ch (1951) The Order of the ICJ in the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case. AJIL, vol. 45, pp. 723–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford A W (1954) The Anglo-Iranian Oil Dispute of 1951-1952. University of California Press, Berkeley, pp. 1–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goy R (1974) La nouvelle affaire des pêcheries islandaises. La procédure devant la Cour. JDI, vol. 101, pp. 279–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • 15. Grawitz M (1961) L'ordonnance du 24 octobre: affaire de l'Interhandel Case. ICLQ, vol. 10, pp. 495–547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gross L (1977) The dispute between Greece and Turkey concerning the Continental Shelf in the Aegean. AJIL, vol. 71, pp. 31–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guggenheim P (1932) Les mesures conservatoires dans la procédure arbitrale et judiciaire (Volume 40). In: Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789028607729_08. Last accessed 19 September 2021.

  • Hudson M O (1936) La Cour Permanente de Justice international. Pedone, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson MO (1943) The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, A Treatise. The Macmillan Company, New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson M O (1944) International tribunals. Past and future. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and Brookings Institution, Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Interhandel. Les mesures conservatoires et la réserve de la compétence nationale attachée à la déclaration américaine d' acceptation de la juridication obligatoire de la CIJ. ASDI, vol. XV, pp. 39–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalive J F (1953) Affaire de l' Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. JDI, Vol. 80, pp. 706–722.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lellouche P (1975) The International Court of Justice. The Nuclear Tests Cases: Judicial Silence v. Atomic Blasts. Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 16, pp. 614–637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin G (1958) L’affaire Interhandel. Les mesures conservatoires et la reserve de la competence nationale. XV Annuaire Suisee de droit international, pp. 39–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perrin G (1973) Les mesures conservatoires dans les affaires relatives à la compétence en matière de pêcheries. RGDIP, vol. 77, pp. 16–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinto R (1958) L'affaire de l'Interhandel / Suisse c. Etats – Unis/: Ordonnance de la CIJ du 24 octobre 1957, / Problèmes de compétence/. JDI, vol. 85, pp. 4–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, vol. I, p. 50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recueil des décisions des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes, vol. 3, p. 596, TAM Decision of 21 May 1923.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recueil des TAM, Volume II, p. 612.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recueil des TAM, Volume II, p.162, p. 654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Recueil des TAM, Volume IV, p. 136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Règlement TAM (1920) French-German. TAM decision of 29 July 1924 in Ellermann v. The Polish State. Recueil des décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, vol. 5, p. 457. Sirey, Paris.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousseau Ch (1958) CIJ. Etats-Unis et Suisse. Affaire de l'Interhandel, ordonnance du 24 octobre 1957. RGDIP, vol. 29, pp. 124–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rucz C (1985) L’indication de mesures conservatoires per la CIJ dans l'affaire des activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci. RGDIP, pp. 83–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rundstein S (1928) Arbitrage international en matière privée, volume 23 (1928), pp. 327–462. The Hague Academy of International Law, Collected Courses.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sztucki J (1983) Interim measures in the Hague Court, an attempt at a scrutiny. Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vignes D (1960) Observations sur la nouvelle déclaration française d’acceptation de la juridication obligatoire de la CIJ. RGDIP, vol. 31.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Calisia University, Kalisz, Poland

    Ewa Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn

Authors
  1. Ewa Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ewa Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn, E. (2022). Provisional Measures of Protection in the Jurisprudence of International Courts—Historical Outline. In: Jurisprudence of the PCIJ and of the ICJ on Interim Measures of Protection. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-475-4_1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-475-4_1

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-474-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-475-4

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation