Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020

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

  • 543 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter will present a recent case by the ICJ in which interim measures were sought, and were indicated. This case invoked a relatively new condition for indicating interim measures such as plausibility of rights. Some of the ICJ judges, e.g. Judge Cançado Trindade, have criticized this type of condition as one of the elements taken into account in indicating protective measures, a point the author of this book agrees with.

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.

    https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/178/178-20200123-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.

  2. 2.

    Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Provisional Measures), Order of 3 October 2018, ICJ Reports 2018 (II), p. 645, para 77; see Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, (Provisional Measures), Order of 8 December 2000, p. 182; dissenting opinion of ad hoc Judge Bula-Bula, p 222, quoting the statement in my post-graduate diploma, see Sałkiewicz 1984, about the irreparable prejudice; Zimmermann et al. 2012, p. 1028; Miles 2017a, pp. 225–244.

  3. 3.

    ICJ Reports 1973, p. 103.

  4. 4.

    ICJ Reports 1979, p. 19.

  5. 5.

    ICJ Reports 1993, p. 19.

  6. 6.

    ICJ Reports 1998, p. 36.

  7. 7.

    ICJ Reports 1999, p. 15.

  8. 8.

    ICJ Reports 2000, p. 127, para 39.

  9. 9.

    See Sałkiewicz 1984, p 69, concerning ‘damage not capable of any reparation’, dissenting opinion Judge Bula Bula, p. 222.

  10. 10.

    Iran v. United States of America, op. cit., pp. 645–646, para 78. For the application of the standard of ‘irreparable harm’ see Fisheries Jurisdiction 1972, p. 11 (the power to grant provisional measures ‘presupposes that irreparable prejudice should not be caused to rights which are the subject of a dispute in judicial proceedings’) (at [34]), applied in e.g. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay 2006, p. 113, at [61-2] and ICJ Reports 2007, p. 3, at [32]; case concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River 2013, p. 398, at [24]-[25]); and Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents 2014, p. 147, at [32].

    Irreparable can mean non-compensable: Nuclear Tests 1973, p. 99, [27], [30]); United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran 1979, p. 20, [42]: ‘[with the] continuation of the situation, the subject of the present request exposes the human beings concerned to privation, hardship, anguish and even danger to life and health and thus a serious possibility of irreparable harm’; Frontier Dispute (Burkina-Faso v. Republic of Mali 1986, p. 10, at [21]; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, (Provisional Measures) 1996, p. 13 at [38]; LaGrand 1999, p. 9, at [24]; Avena and others 2003, p. 77, at [55].

  11. 11.

    See, inter alia, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, (Provisional Measures), Order of 3 October 2018, p. 630, para 24.

  12. 12.

    ICJ Reports 1951, p. 89 at [93].

  13. 13.

    ICJ Reports 1972, p. 1, at [16].

  14. 14.

    See e.g. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), ICJ Reports 1984, p. 169 at [179]; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), ICJ Reports 2002, p. 219 at [30]; case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), ICJ Reports 2006, p. 113 at [57]; Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), ICJ Reports 2009, p. 139 at [40]; Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), ICJ Reports 2014, p. 147 at [18].

  15. 15.

    ICJ Reports 1999, p 124 and the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), ICJ Reports 2002, p. 219.

  16. 16.

    Sakai 2009, pp. 231–237.

  17. 17.

    Denunciation of the Treaty of November 2nd, 1865, between China and Belgium, 1927, p. 6; Legal Status of the Southern-Eastern Territory of Greenland, 1932, p. 284; Polish Agrarian Reform and the German Minority, 1933, p. 177.

  18. 18.

    Fisheries Jurisdiction (Interim Protection), p. 12; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Interim Protection), pp. 30, 34.

  19. 19.

    Question relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data, Order of 3 March 2014, para 22.

  20. 20.

    Uchikova 2013, pp. 404–407.

  21. 21.

    Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989, (Provisional Measures) 1990, pp. 64, 70.

  22. 22.

    ICJ Reports 2007, Provisional Measures, pp. 3, 10.

  23. 23.

    Order of 23 January 2020 (Gambia v. Myanmar), p. 14, para 43, Qatar v. United Arab Emirates, (Provisional Measures), Order of 23 July 2018, pp. 421–422, para 43.

  24. 24.

    Order of 23 January 2020, Gambia v. Myanmar, op. cit., p. 18, para 56.

  25. 25.

    See, for example, Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination ( Provisional Measures), Order of 23 July 2018, pp. 421–422, para 43.

  26. 26.

    Questions relating to the obligation to prosecute or extradite, (Provisional Measures), Order of 28 May 2009, p. 139, at [151], para 57.

  27. 27.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, (Interim Measures), Order of 8 March 2011, p. 6 at [18], para 53; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, (Interim Measures), Order of 18 July 2011 p. 537 at [545], para 33; Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River, (Provisional Measures), Order of 22 November 2013, p. 354 at [360], para 27; Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River; Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area, (Interim Measures) Order of 13 December 2013, p. 398 at [403-404], paras 17–19; Questions Relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data, (Interim Measures), Order of 3 March 2014, p. 147 at [152], para 22; Immunities and Criminal Proceedings, (Interim Measures), Order of 7 December 2016, p. 1148 at [1165-1166], para 71; Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Interim Measures), Order of 19 April 2017, p. 104 at [126], para 63; Jadhav case, (Provisional Measures), Order of 18 May 2017, para 35, available at www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/168/168-20170518-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.

  28. 28.

    Separate opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, para 76, p. 18.

  29. 29.

    Miles 2018, pp. 1–46; Lando 2018, pp. 641–668; Sparks and Somos 2021.

  30. 30.

    Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case (Interim Measures), Order of 5 July 1951, p. 93.

  31. 31.

    Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Interim Measures), Order of 23 January 2007, paras 49-50.

  32. 32.

    Palchetti 2008, pp. 627–630; Miles 2018, pp. 209–216.

  33. 33.

    Verbatim record, CR 2019/18, p. 67.

  34. 34.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Interim Measures), Order of 8 April 1993; Frontier Dispute (Interim Measures), Order of 10 January 1986; Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Interim Measures), Order of 5 February 2003.

  35. 35.

    Order of 23 January 2020, p 24, para 83; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Interim Measures), Order of 18 July 2011, pp. 551–552, para 59.

  36. 36.

    Oda 1996, p. 541 at [555].

  37. 37.

    LaGrand, (Judgment), 2001, p. 466 at [506], para 109.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., at para 93 (argument by Germany) and at para 96 (argument by the United States of America).

  39. 39.

    In the Bosnian Genocide case the Court refused to treat violation of the order for protection as a separate ground for compensation reasoning that ‘the question of compensation for the injury caused to the Applicant by the Respondent’s breach of aspects of the Orders indicating provisional measures merges with the question of compensation for the injury suffered from the violation of the corresponding obligations under the Genocide Convention.’ (See Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide), (Judgment), 2007, p 43 at [231], para 458); Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn 2009, pp. 53–71, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=582668.

  40. 40.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, (Interim Measures), Order of 13 September 1993, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry 1993, pp. 325, 374–389; Lando 2017, pp. 22–55; Vucic 2018, pp. 127–142.

  41. 41.

    LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p 506, para 109.

  42. 42.

    Order of 23 January 2020, p. 24, para 84; Miles 2017a, pp. 1–21.

  43. 43.

    31 ICJ, doc. CR 2019/18, of 10 December 2019, p. 51, para 7.

  44. 44.

    Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, p. 20; Cançado Trindade 2011, pp. 1–71.

  45. 45.

    Palchetti 2017, pp. 5–22.

  46. 46.

    Yee 1999, pp. 565–584; Ahmadov 2017, pp. 82–155.

  47. 47.

    Picone 1995, pp. 528, 536; Case Concerning Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Ltd (New Application: 1962), 1970, p. 3; Cassese 2001, p. 182; Borgia 2015, pp. 223–237, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2015.1090217; Longobardo 2015, pp. 1199–1212, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2015.1082834.

  48. 48.

    Karazsia 2018, pp. 20–31, https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.11.4.1676. Available at https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol11/iss4/2.

  49. 49.

    LaGrand 2001, p. 501; Palchetti 2019, pp. 5–20.

  50. 50.

    Mendelson 2004, p. 42; Rosenne 2006, p. 1026.

  51. 51.

    Schachter 1982, p. 178, p. 223.

  52. 52.

    Palchetti 2019, p. 17.

  53. 53.

    ICJ Reports 2015, p. 718.

  54. 54.

    Zyberi 2010, p. 581. See the opposite view in Stein 1982, 528, who says: ‘in a context where rectitude is the primary value at stake, censure by the Court is a significant sanction’.

References

  • Ahmadov FT (2017) The right of actio popularis before international courts and tribunals. St Anne’s College, University of Oxford. A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Trinity, pp 82–155

    Google Scholar 

  • Borgia F (2015) The responsibility to protect doctrine: Between criticisms and inconsistencies. Journal on the Use of Force and International Law 2: 223–237, https://doi.org/10.1080/20531702.2015.1090217

  • Cançado Trindade AA (2011) State Responsibility in Cases of Massacres: Contemporary Advances in International Justice. University of Utrecht, pp. 1–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Cassese A (2001) International law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 182

    Google Scholar 

  • Karazsia ZA (2018) An unfulfilled promise: The Genocide Convention and the obligation of prevention. Journal of Strategic Security 4: 20-31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5038/1944-0472.11.4.1676 Available at https://scholarcommons.usf.edu/jss/vol11/iss4/2

  • Lando M (2017) Compliance with provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 8: 22–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Lando M (2018) Plausibility in the provisional measures. Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law 31(3): 641–668

    Google Scholar 

  • Longobardo M (2015) Genocide, obligations erga omnes, and the responsibility to protect: Remarks on a complex convergence. The International Journal of Human Rights 19(8): 1199-1212, https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2015.1082834.

  • Mendelson M (2004) State responsibility for breach of interim protection orders of the International Court of Justice. In: Fitzmaurice M, Sarooshi D (eds) Issues of state responsibility before international judicial institutions. Hart, Oxford/Portland OR, pp 34–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles C (2017a) Provisional measures and the margin of appreciation before the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement 8: 1–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles C (2017b) Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 209–216 and pp 225–244

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles C (2018) Provisional measures and the ‘new’ plausibility in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Oda S (1996) Provisional measures: The practice of the International Court of Justice. In: Lowe V, Fitzmaurice M (eds) Fifty years of the International Court of Justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 541

    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 Journal of International Law 21: 627–630

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2017) Responsibility for breach of provisional measures of the ICJ: Between protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the judicial function. Rivista di diritto internazionale Vol. 1: 5–22

    Google Scholar 

  • Palchetti P (2019) Making and enforcing procedural law at the International Court of Justice. QIL, Zoom-out 61: 5–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Picone P (1995) Interventi delle Nazioni Unite e obblighi erga omnes. In: Picone P (ed) Interventi delle Nazioni Unite e diritto internazionale. Cedam, Padova, pp 528, 536

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenne S (2006) The law and practice of the International Court, 1920-2005. Nijhoff, Leiden,              p 1026

    Google Scholar 

  • Sakai H (2009) New developments of the Orders of Provisional Measures by the International Court of Justice. Japanese Yearbook of International Law 52: 231–237

    Google Scholar 

  • Sałkiewicz E (1984) Les mesures conservatoires dans la procédure des deux Cours de La Haye. IHEI, Geneva, p 69

    Google Scholar 

  • Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E (2009) Interim Measures of Protection in the two orders of the ICJ Genocide Cases (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), ‘Strani pravni život’, 1: 53–71, https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=582668

  • Schachter O (1982) International law in theory and practice: General course in public international law. Recueil des Cours 178: 223

    Google Scholar 

  • Sparks T, Somos M (2021) The Humanisation of Provisional Measures? Plausibility and the Interim Protection of Rights Before the ICJ. In: Palombino FM, Virzo R, Zarra G (eds) Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein T (1982) Contempt, crisis and the court: The World Court and hostage rescue attempts. American Journal of International Law 76: 528

    Google Scholar 

  • Uchikova I (2013) Provisional measures before the International Court of Justice. LPICT 12: 404-407

    Google Scholar 

  • Vucic M (2018) Binding effect of provisional measures as an inherent judicial power: An example of cross-fertilization. Annals FLB, Belgrade Law Review 4: 127–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Yee S (1999) Forum prorogatum and the indication of provisional measures in the International Court of Justice. In: The reality of international law. Essays in honour of Ian Brownlie. Oxford Scholarship Online, Oxford, pp 565–584

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmermann A, Tomuschat C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tams CJ (eds) (2012) The Statute of the International Court of Justice. A commentary, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 1028

    Google Scholar 

  • Zyberi G (2010) Provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in armed conflict situations. Leiden Journal of International Law 23: 581

    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). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Order of 23 January 2020. 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_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-475-4_11

  • 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