Abstract
Since Judge Abraham’s separate opinion in the first provisional measures order of Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), when he referred at para 7 to LaGrand, the Court introduced some review of the merits of the applicant’s case to enhance its legitimacy. As the Court said at para 11 on the formulation “that there is a plausible case for the existence of the right” claimed to exist by the applicant. In this chapter, we will show other cases where to ICJ maintained ths requirement, in spite of some views of the doctrine, that it is not necessary.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Order on interim measures of protection of 28 May 2009, ICJ Reports 2009, p. 142.
- 2.
Uchkunova 2013, p. 391; Miles 2017, pp. 193–201; Lando 2018, pp. 641–668; Sparks and Somos 2019, pp. 1–20; Palchetti 2008, p. 623. Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011 (I), p. 18, para 53; Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), Provisional Measures, Order of 3 March 2014, ICJ Reports 2014, p. 147, para 22: ‘The power of the Court to indicate measures under Article 41 of the Statute has as its object the preservation of the respective rights claimed by the parties in a case, pending its decision on the merits thereof. It follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by it to belong to either party. Therefore, the Court may exercise this power only if it is satisfied that the rights asserted by the requesting party are at least plausible.’ See also Request for Interpretation-Temple of Preah Vihear, Provisional Measures, Order of 18 July 2011, ICJ Reports 2011, p. 545, para 33: ‘the rights which the party requesting provisional measures claims to derive from the judgment in question, in the light of its interpretation of that judgment, are at least plausible’.
- 3.
ICJ Reports, Order of 17 April 2017; Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn 2018.
- 4.
Immunities and criminal proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), ICJ Reports 2016, p. 1148; Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan), ICJ Reports 2017.
- 5.
Miles 2018, pp. 1–46.
- 6.
PCIJ, Ser. A/B, No. 58, p. 181.
- 7.
Great Belt, ICJ Reports 1991, p. 29.
- 8.
Pulp Mills, ICJ Reports 2006, p. 138.
- 9.
Pulp Mills, op. cit., p. 141.
- 10.
Precautionary Measures Order of 28 May 2009, ICJ Reports, 2009, p. 142.
- 11.
See Certain activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) [2011] ICJ Rep 6, 19; Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Provisional Measures [2011] ICJ Rep 537, 546; Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua); Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v Costa Rica), Provisional Measures [2013] ICJ Rep 354, 360; Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures [2013] ICJ Rep 398, 403–404; Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia), Provisional Measures [2014] ICJ Rep 147, 153; Immunities and criminal proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), 2016, ICJ Rep 1148, 1165-1166; Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan), ICJ Rep. 2017, General Letter No 168, [35]; 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 (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order of 19 April 2017, ICJ Reports 2017, p. 26; Application of the International Convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), Order of 23 July 2018, ICJ Rep. 2018 (II), pp. 421–422, para 43; Application of the Convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), ICJ Rep. (2020), Order of 23 January 2020, p. 14.
- 12.
ICJ Reports 2020, Order of 23 January 2020.
- 13.
Ibid., p. 18.
- 14.
- 15.
Gambia v. Myanmar, Separate Opinion, op. cit., p. 2, para 5.
- 16.
Ukraine v. Russia, op. cit., separate opinion, p. 162. ‘17. It is significant that, in our times, cases pertaining to situations of extreme adversity or vulnerability of human beings have been brought to the attention of the ICJ as well as other international tribunals. This is, in my perception, a sign of the new paradigm of the humanized international law, the new jus gentium of our times, sensitive and attentive to the needs of protection of the human person in any circumstances of vulnerability.’
- 17.
Gambia v. Myanmar, separate opinion, op. cit., p. 18.
- 18.
Op. cit., p. 21.
References
Lando M (2018) Plausibility in the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice. Leyden Journal of International Law 31: 641–668
Miles C (2017) Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 193–201
Miles C (2018) Provisional measures and the ‘new’ plausibility in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. British Yearbook of International Law, pp 1–46
Palchetti P (2008) The power of the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures to prevent aggravation of a dispute. Leyden Journal of International Law 21: 623
Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E (2018) Interim measures of protection (Ukraine v. Russia) – order of 19 April 2017. European & Comparative Law Journal 9(2): 2–16. http://journals.iir.kiev.ua/index.php/pravo/article/view/3641
Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E (2019) Three different actions against Myanmar for genocidal acts and crimes against humanity including deportation (Trzy różne działania przeciwko Myanmar za ludobójstwa i zbrodnie przeciwko ludzkości, w tym deportacje). Głos Prawa, Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda, 2(2). The Voice of Law, Allerhand Law Review – Vol. 2 – No. 2 (4), item 28, pp 360–368, e-ISSN 2657-800X
Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E (2020) Interim measures of protection in the ICJ order of 23.01.2020 in case Gambia v. Myanmar (Tymczasowe środki zabezpieczające w postanowieniu MTS z 23.01.2020 w sprawie Gambia v. Birma [Mjanma]). Głos Prawa, Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda: 3(1), The Voice of Law, Allerhand Law Review Vol. 3 – No. 1 (5), item 2, pp 12–26, e-ISSN 2657-800X
Sparks T, Somos M (2019) The humanisation of provisional measures? Plausibility and the interim protection of rights before the ICJ. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL) Research Paper Series No. 2019-20, pp 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3471141
Uchkunova I (2013) Provisional measures before the International Court of Justice. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 12: pp 391–430
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn, E. (2022). Plausibility Test as a Requirement for the Indication of the Interim Measures. 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_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-475-4_6
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)