ICJ

Somalia and Kenya do not have a tension-free relationship. Many reasons for this lie in the conflict-ridden history. On April 7, 2009, the Kenyan Foreign Minister and the Somali Minister of Planning and International Cooperation signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), which had the goal of clarifying the long maritime border dispute. After years of dispute, Somalia appealed to the ICJ in 2014. The issue  became topical not only because of the current political crisis in Somalia, but also because the ICJ scheduled the first public hearing on March 15, 2021, after several postponements. Kenya cancelled its participation in the hearing at the last moment. Many Somali commentators interpreted this as Kenya’s withdrawal.

El 6 de diciembre de 2016, la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ) dictó una orden sobre la solicitud de medidas provisionales presentada por Guinea Ecuatorial (GE) en el asunto denominado Inmunidades y proceso penal (Guinea Ecuatorial c. Francia), por la que dictaminó que Francia debe garantizar la protección de los locales presentados como sede de la misión diplomática de Guinea Ecuatorial en Francia. Asimismo, la CIJ manifestó carecer de jurisdicción prima facie para analizar en esta etapa del procedimiento las cuestiones relacionadas con la inmunidad de jurisdicción penal del Vicepresidente de la República de Guinea Ecuatorial, Sr. Teodoro Nguema Obiang Mangue (en adelante, Obiang). Este caso presenta aristas particulares dado que se trata del primer caso en que un funcionario africano es juzgado por corrupción por tribunales europeos, lo que motivó la presentación de GE ante la CIJ. Al momento de finalizar la redacción de este trabajo la Corte había concluido la etapa oral del proceso en cuanto a las objeciones preliminares planteadas por Francia, que quedaron para la deliberación del tribunal. Este artículo analiza este fallo de la Corte, siguiendo el orden utilizado por el propio tribunal para expedirse en este caso: esto es, en primer lugar se presentan los antecedentes del caso, seguidos por las cuestiones referidas a la jurisdicción prima facie de la Corte, las medidas provisionales y se esbozan algunas conclusiones. Consecuentemente, no se analizan las cuestiones de fondo, ni las objeciones preliminares planteadas por Francia. Las referencias a las cuestiones de jurisdicción de la Corte se limitan a lo tratado con ocasión del dictado de las medidas provisionales que son el objeto de este análisis.

As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, a key role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is to solve disputes among states. Referred to as the 'World Court', state parties often approach the ICJ in order to seek a final settlement of their disputes. The Court acts as a tool to bring the international community closer to the rule of law without being governed or controlled by the various structures of the community and in order to achieve the same, it works towards having an impartial judicial policy in order to maintain the Court's independence and to showcase its commitment towards the law and principles of the United Nations. However, over the years, questions have been raised regarding the overall effectiveness of the ICJ in terms of reaching a final settlement of disputes. The non-compliance of the Court's decision by the parties is a very big issue in this regard. Nonetheless, it must be borne in mind that the institutional structure of the ICJ is complex and the Court has to function within its limitations. The paper aims to analyze the issues related to the Court's jurisdiction as well as conformity of its decisions by the litigants in order to answer the question as to whether or not the ICJ has been able to substantially contribute to dispute resolution.

This is the world with money, markets, business, trade and investment. These things are changing this world very quickly. In this competitive and progressive world of trade and business, the World Trade Organization (WTO) and its dispute settlement system have a crucial role to play. Dispute settlement system of World Trade Organization (WTO) has become one of the significant international tribunal.

Este ensayo aborda la evolución de la reivindicación marítima boliviana, con relación a tres ejes específicos: los tratados suscritos, los momentos de negociación bilateral con Chile con respecto a una eventual salida marítima desde una revisión histórica y a nivel multilateral ante organismos internacionales. Asimismo revisa la actual demanda planteada ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia.
A raíz de años de negociaciones frustradas entre los gobiernos de Bolivia y Chile, mediante actas y compromisos unilaterales que revisaremos en este ensayo. Como la teoría indica, en cuanto a la negociación, una vez que se acaban todas las instancias, se recurre al arbitraje.
Por dicho motivo, Bolivia, el año 2013, inicia un proceso legal en contra de Chile y recurre al órgano internacional de resolución de controversias, el cual es parte del Organismo de las Naciones Unidas, el objeto de la demanda es de obligar a Chile a negociar: «obligación de Chile de negociar con Bolivia de buena fe y de forma efectiva a fin de llegar a un acuerdo que otorgue a Bolivia un acceso pleno y soberano al océano Pacífico» .  .
Revisaremos los argumentos que Bolivia planteó ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia,  así como el fallo que decidió esta instancia. Pese a un resultado en contra de Bolivia,  revisaremos que alternativas se puede tener para volver a recuperar la cualidad marítima, ya que es un problema que afecta tanto a Bolivia como a la región.

El objetivo de este trabajo es realizar un análisis coyuntural de la presentación efectuada por el Gobierno de facto de Honduras ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia (CIJ), en la que demanda a Brasil por haber violado el principio de no intervención.

Setting out from the basic legal issues in relation to subpoenas, i.e., the normative framework, requirements and meaning this article explores how international institutions have interpreted the relevant rules on compulsory process to obtain evidence from states organs of states and private This essay is not intended as an exhaustive study of compulsory production of evidence in international criminal law. Rather, it is an attempt to focus on certain emerging issues and in particular on the experiences of international organs in terms of subpoenas (and largely the jurisprudential findings on the compulsion of evidence of state officials) reflecting the traditional inter-state community’s evolution towards the redefinition of state sovereignty following the internationalization of human rights, namely, towards the global community.

Chapter 5 membahas mengenai sistem-sistem PBB yang mana dari sistem ini mencakup organisasi internasional lain yang berada dibawah PBB. PBB mengacu pada sekumpulan negara anggota, piagam PBB, dan lima organ utamanya, yakni Majelis Umum (majelis musyawarah utama), Dewan Keamanan (untuk memutuskan resolusi tertentu untuk perdamaian dan keamanan), Dewan Ekonomi dan Sosial atau ECOSOC (untuk menolong dan mempublikasikan kerjasama ekonomi, sosial internasional, dan pembangunan), Sekretariat (untuk menyediakan studi, informasi, dan sarana serta prasarana yang diperlukan PBB), Mahkamah Internasional (organ peradilan primer), serta Dewan Perwalian yang saat ini dewan perwalian ini tidak aktif.

This Article identifies a new trend in the adjudication of international boundary disputes and examines it from a historical and normative perspective. For many years, the resolution of international land boundary disputes was governed exclusively by the principle of the stability and continuity of boundaries. Under this paradigm, the main role of international adjudicators was to determine the exact location of historical boundary lines that had been set forth in colonial-era treaties or decrees. Once these lines were ascertained, they were strictly enforced, and any attempt to challenge them was dismissed. In recent years, however, international adjudicators have been increasingly inclined to deviate from historical boundaries in order to promote " human-oriented " goals such as the protection of borderland populations or the bolstering of peace efforts. After demonstrating this development in several cases, the Article evaluates its normative implications. For that purpose, the Article turns to Critical Border Studies (CBS), an emerging field within political geography that critically explores the sources, functions, and effects of borders. CBS sheds light on the power asymmetries that underlie the traditional paradigm and points to the need to adopt a more dynamic and equitable approach to boundary delineation. Drawing on CBS insights, as well as on recent boundary jurisprudence, the Article maps out several types of human-oriented considerations that international adjudicators should take into account when deciding boundary disputes and examines ways to balance them with the principle of the stability of boundaries. Beyond its contribution to the study and development of international boundary law, this Article

Kıta sahanlığı, coğrafi olarak kara ülkesinin deniz altında devam eden doğal uzantısını, hukuki olarak karasularının ötesinde başlayıp belirli bir uzaklık ve derinliğe kadar süren deniz yatağı ve toprak altındaki bölgeyi ifade etmektedir. Bu bölge, devletlerin deniz yatağı ve toprak altındaki doğal kaynakların araştırılması ve işletilmesine imkan vermekte, devletlere belirli ölçülerde ve kurallarda münhasır haklar tanımaktadır. Fakat, kıyıları bitişik veya karşılıklı olan devletler arasında kıta sahanlığının dış sınırı ile yan sınırının tespit edilmesi ve sınırlandırılması, egemen haklarını kullanabilmeleri açısından komşu devletler arasında uyuşmazlıklara sebep olmaktadır. Kıta sahanlığı konusunda ortaya çıkan uyuşmazlıklar, ya uluslararası sözleşmeler uyarınca taraflar arasında diplomasi yoluyla ya da yargı ve hakemlik kararları tarafından hukuksal yöntemle çözüme kavuşturulmaktadır. Günümüze kadar kıta sahanlığı sınırlandırmasına dair birçok dava çözümlenmiştir. Söz konusu davalar, hem kıta sahanlığına ilişkin ilke ve kuralların uygulanması, hem de bu uygulamalar sonucu yeni ilkelerin yerleşmesi açısından önem arz etmektedir. Kıta sahanlığının coğrafi ve hukuksal açıdan tanımlandığı, kıta sahanlığının sınırlandırılmasına ilişkin uluslararası deniz hukuku kurallarının analiz edildiği bu çalışma, günümüze kadar Uluslararası Adalet Divanı ve hakemlik mahkemelerinde karara bağlanan başlıca kıta sahanlığı davalarını dile getirmektedir. Bu kapsamda, kıta sahanlığı konusunda uluslararası yargı hakemlik kuruluşları önüne gelen uyuşmazlıklar, gerek hukukun genel ilkeleri ve gerekse uluslararası deniz hukuku kuralları temel alınarak incelenmiştir.

Throughout history, human race has witnessed uncountable wars and disputes. Nations have vanished, others have emerged, borders have disappeared, others have been drawn. After a contemporary series of events nothing has changed. Irredentists claiming lost empires and lands are on the rise, initiating holy wars, aiming to challenge both history and geography. On a global level, we can’t but agree with the concept of realism, where states continue to act on an individual basis, linking security with military capabilities and balance of power while differentiating between offensive and defensive realism. No matter how hard liberalism tried to modify this view and regulate states’ activities through international organizations, global dependency and international law, this notion will remain a dream impossible to achieve. By saying impossible, we’re not being pessimistic but realistic, and the 21st century is the latest proof of the ongoing non-regulated anarchy. Regardless of previous wars that occurred recently in that sense, this paper will study the latest unlawful Russian invasion of Ukraine and its consequences on the world stage, while briefing a historical context of the conflicting parties. Moreover, it will highlight the role of the United Nations and other international organizations in this event and in any other conflict where a major power or a permanent Security Council member is/was part of.

Para analizar la cuestión de la prevención del genocidio es menester
definir en primer lugar qué se entiende por prevención y los tipos de
prevención. Seguidamente, se revisan los aspectos relacionados a la
violación de la obligación de prevención en el fallo sub examine, para
posteriormente abordar la consideración de la obligación de prevenir en el marco de la responsabilidad de proteger, lo que requiere una breve explicación previa de este concepto. Finalmente, se esbozan algunas conclusiones que se focalizan en la necesidad de llevar adelante medidas concretas para la prevención del genocidio, que procuren evitar la repetición de estos crímenes en el futuro.

Uluslararası toplum, tarihinde ilk defa Ad Hoc Mahkemeler olarak kurulan mahkemeler aracılığıyla Soykırım Sözleşmesi hükümlerinin yorumlanması ve uygulanmasına tanıklık etmektedir. Şüphesiz ki, uluslararası ceza hukuku alanında soykırım suçunun unsurlarının ve kapsamının belirlenmesi bakımından, adı geçen mahkemelerin uygulamaları önemli bir yere sahiptir. Ad Hoc Mahkemelerin uygulamaları yanında, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı da Bosna Hersek devleti tarafından Sırbistan aleyhine açılan Soykırım Suçunun İşlenmesinin Önlenmesi ve Sorumlularının Cezalandırılması Sözleşmesinin Uygulanmasıyla İlgili Davada (Soykırım Davası), diğer birçok sorunun yanında, soykırım suçunun unsurlarıyla da ilgilenmek zorunda kalmıştır. Ancak, uluslararası ceza hukuku alanında bireysel cezai sorumluluğun tesisiyle görevli Ad Hoc Mahkemelerin, soykırım suçunu diğer uluslararası suçlardan ayırt etmeye yarayan ve suçun en önemli unsurunu oluşturan soykırım kastı olarak ifade edilen özel kasta yönelik görüşü, Uluslararası Adalet Divanı’nın yorum ve uygulamasından farklılık arz etmektedir. Uluslararası düzeyde faaliyet gösteren Ad Hoc Mahkemeler ile Uluslararası Adalet Divanı arasındaki bu farklı yorumlama ve uygulama nasıl açıklanabilir? İçtihat birlikteliği? Ya da İhtilaf?

This article reviews the ICJ judgment on the Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece). It argues that despite the formal separation between the name dispute and the object of the legal dispute before the ICJ, the Court’s judgement can in fact be construed as an intervention in the name dispute. As such, it was perhaps at the limits of the Court’s jurisdiction under the terms of Article 21(2) of the Interim Accord. However, irrespective of the jurisdictional question, the judgment might perform a useful function towards the long-awaited final resolution of the name dispute.

Since the publication of the monograph by Isaac Areco, Titulos de la Republica Argentina a la Soberania y Possession de las Islas Malvinas, published in 1885,1 there have been numerous attempts to survey and resolve the centuries long conflict over the disputed Falklands (Malvinas)2 archipelago. What is noteworthy about many of these studies is that they are firmly based within the parameters of history; history shaped the dispute, therefore there is a presumption that history will resolve the dispute. This modest contribution to the question of the sovereignty over the Falklands (Malvinas) is distinct from these, as it does not peer back into this history in an attempt to answer the legal question as to where sovereignty should reside; instead, it considers the future; it acts to supplement previously produced literature by assessing the contemporary role of law in the pacific settlement of the Falklands (Malvinas) dispute.

The paper which this presentation is based upon is comprised of three primary components. The first is, as is typical in works reflecting the Falklands (Malvinas) dispute, an overview of the contemporary status of the dispute. The second aspect presents the mechanisms that exist within international relations that might be utilised in order to bring about pacific settlement of the dispute. It builds on the work of Merrills, and others such as Raimondo, whose piece addressing the Role for the UN in relation to the sovereignty dispute over the Falklands (Malvinas) proved illuminating.3 In the final section, the focus of the presentation moves away from the doctrinal, and into the critical, broaching the fundamental question as to what is the relationship between international law and politics. Koskenniemi’s notion of international law as the ‘gentle civiliser of nations’ is adopted, and it is argued that when a political regime collapses law can play a crucial role in the establishment of the emergent political relationship. Finally, it will be assessed whether we are in the midst of one such moment, with the changing relationship between the UK and Argentina, as evidenced in the September 2016 joint statement4 - arguably precipitated by the changing political positions within both countries – being representative of this.

I rewrote this judgement through the lens of the Third World Approach to
International Law (TWAIL) because the simple reference (and disregard) for the ‘1927/1933 treaty arrangement’ by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) diminishes the responsibility it bear for the maritime dispute between Italian Jubaland (Somalia) and the Northern Frontier district (Kenya).
These were the names given to the territories at the time by imperialists and I have used them in this judgement because they constitute as part of the origins of the dispute.

In light of the above, this paper will adopt a framework incorporating Luis Eslava’s second ‘coordinate’ titled ‘Empire Moves’. He argues that contemporary international legal relations are disguised as ‘international community’ goals that are characterised by the reproduction of imperialism.

Boris Krivokapic: INTERNATIONAL JUDICIARY TODAY,
It can often be heard that international judiciary is insufficiently developed, and more importantly, that it is not mandatory, but optional. In this regard it could be pointed out that the international community doesn`t have centralized judicial system; that countries could become subjects of international court`s jurisdiction, only if they explicitly agree to it, etc.
However, time in which we live is the time of accelarated, general globalization, and it led to significant changes in all spheres of life, including this one. Generally speaking, even nowdays the international judiciary is optional, although in the meantime certain major changes have happened.
That is quite understandable bearing in mind the fact that there is a growing number of main subjects of the international law-countries and international oragnizations; that some new subjects of the international law were made, and they led to certain new kind of international disputes etc.
Large number and diversity of international courts suggests that it would be advisable to make certain divisions and place them into appropriate categories in order to understand them better. At the same time it is an opportunity to present not only the most important but also some less known but for some reason particularly interesting international courts.
Accordingly, the paper represents an attempt to point out some of the most interesting divisions or kinds of international courts (universal and regional; courts for the settlement of disputes and ( penalty) criminal courts; courts of general jurisdiction and specialized courts; courts for states and others; institunationalized international courts and selected courts  (arbitrations); permanent and temporary courts; international courts in the right sense of the word and mixed courts, etc. Within these, further divisions were made.
Bearing in mind that international courts have developed incredibly both by the number and the type, in organizational sense and in connection with the role they have in the international community, author in the concluding discussion points out some specific problems and perspectives of international judiciary.

La interpretación de sentencias es un recurso utilizado desde antaño, el cual, en la actualidad, se encuentra disponible en la mayoría de los estatutos y reglamentos de tribunales internacionales, así como en tratados o compromisos arbitrales.
En este artículo se hace referencia a los requisitos, características y alcances de este recurso en el contexto de ciertos tribunales internacionales que podrían ser de interés para la República Argentina, como la Corte Internacional de Justicia, el Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar, la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y algunos tribunales arbitrales internacionales.
Asimismo, se diferencia la interpretación de sentencias de otros recursos o procedimientos también previstos en tratados, estatutos y reglamentos de tribunales internacionales.

It seems that the abolition of war is an impossible task. How is it possible to disarm without national security being jeopardised? Nations cannot disarm into a vacuum, and most people, including this author, will agree that this is an irrefutable fact. The problem was recognised already more than 100 years ago at the Hague Peace Conferences in 1899 and 1907, where disarmament and the creation of an international court of justice with binding powers were the main issues debated. 1 Instead of resorting to war, disputes between nations were to be resolved in a court of law. The project failed mainly due to German opposition; the Court was created but without binding powers. As a result, nations could not disarm. The consequence was the First World War. But why is there no mention in our school books of this simple fact concerning the Hague conferences? The government representatives at The Hague voted twice, in 1899 and in 1907, on the issue of the peaceful court settlement of international disputes or obligatory arbitration, but the vote had to be unanimous. The idea was simple enough, and even the common man could easily understand it. The American delegation unsuccessfully sought a majority vote in 1907. At the Third Hague Peace Conference, scheduled for 1914, there would no doubt have been a majority vote. But that conference never took place. Still, the powers which had voted in favour of "obligatory arbitration" continued to pursue the world order project begun at The Hague, creating the League of Nations soon after, and also, for the first time, a rudimentary system of collective security.

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh that has been found by the Bangladeshi Government to try war crimes during India Pakistan war of 1971. The tribunal is violating the fair trial rights as guaranteed by Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Humanitarian Law and the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh is far below than that setup by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. These irregularities imply serious concern over the proceedings of the said tribunal. Study seeks to describe the International Law about war crimes particularly with respect to fair trial provisions and it compare the proceedings of the Bangladeshi tribunal with the other internationally recognized tribunals.

El objeto de este artículo es pasar revista de los requisitos y
características de los procedimientos de intervención de terceros y aquellas cuestiones procesales o jurisdiccionales que suelen ser objeto de discusión en el contexto de ciertos tribunales internacionales judiciales, como la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Internacional del Derecho del Mar.

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh that has been found by the Bangladeshi Government to try war crimes during India Pakistan war of 1971. The tribunal is violating the fair trial rights as guaranteed by Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Humanitarian Law and the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh is far below than that setup by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. These irregularities imply serious concern over the proceedings of the said tribunal. Study seeks to describe the International Law about war crimes particularly with respect to fair trial provisions and it compare the proceedings of the Bangladeshi tribunal with the other internationally recognized tribunals.

The International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh that has been found by the Bangladeshi Government to try war crimes during India Pakistan war of 1971. The tribunal is violating the fair trial rights as guaranteed by Constitution, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Humanitarian Law and the standard of the International Crimes Tribunal Bangladesh is far below than that setup by The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Court. These irregularities imply serious concern over the proceedings of the said tribunal. Study seeks to describe the International Law about war crimes particularly with respect to fair trial provisions and it compare the proceedings of the Bangladeshi tribunal with the other internationally recognized tribunals.

This essay’s focus of concern is on the oil and gas Timor Sea dispute between one of the youngest and poorest nations in the international community, East Timor, and Australia one of the prosperous middle powers in the world. In particular this issue is connected to East Timor’s post-conflict nation building and construction efforts after enduring a bloody, painful and costly path towards its independence where it was the victim of power play in international politics. The thesis of this essay argues that Australia’s conduct in its dispute with East Timor demonstrates Australia’s historical long standing exercise of cold and brutal realpolitik causing the poor micro state East Timor from missing out from large considerable revenue to build a stable and relatively prosperous nation which consequentially made post-conflict East Timor dependent on aid donated by foreign donors rather than being self-reliant on its own natural resources and national income.

El 9 de septiembre de 2013, el presente colombiano J. Manuel Santos declaró inaplicable el cuestionado fallo de la CIJ por el que se redelimitó la frontera marítima nicaragüense-colombiana en el Archipiélago de San Andrés y Providencia. Para desconocer el fallo de la Corte, el gobierno colombiano usó un argumento constitucional antes que jurídico-internacional: la exigencia de un tratado bilateral posterior al fallo como única forma para aplicar tal sentencia que como tal exige la modificación de dicha frontera marítima. Dos nuevas demandas nicaragüenses exigiendo a Colombia el cumplimiento del fallo y solicitando a la Corte la ampliación de su plataforma continental, develaron el objetivo final nicaragüense: otorgar concesiones de exploración petrolífera y adquirir las aguas requeridas para operar el cuestionado canal interoceánico ya aprobado por dicho gobierno. Amas pretensiones implican la destruccipon una reserva clave de la biosfera caribeña ¿A falta de dicho tratado, tiene Colombia derecho para impedir unilateralmente tal destrucción ecológica y daño medioambiental?