Justices to Rule Once Again on Race in College Admissions

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Law

**International Court of Justice**
Peace Palace, seat of the ICJ.
Org type:	Master Organ
Acronyms:	ICJ, CIJ
Head:	President of the ICJ Dame Rosalyn Higgins Britain
Status:	Active
Established:	1945
Website:	www.icj-cij.org
Wikimedia Eatables:	ICJ-CJI
Portal:	Un Portal

The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Courtroom or ICJ; French: Cour internationale de Justice ) is the principal judicial organ of the United nations. Its seat is in the Peace Palace at The Hague, Netherlands. Established in 1945 past the Charter of the Un, the Court began piece of work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Courtroom of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional certificate constituting and regulating the Court. The ICJ should not be confused with the International Criminal Courtroom or a court exercising jurisdiction nether Belgium'south State of war Crimes Law, both of which likewise potentially have "global" jurisdiction. English language and French are its two official languages.

The Court'due south workload is characterised by a wide range of judicial action. Its principal functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it past states and to requite advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorised international organs and agencies. The number of decisions fabricated by the ICJ has been relatively small, but there has clearly been an increased willingness to use the Courtroom since the 1980s, particularly among developing countries, although the USA withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, pregnant it accepts the court's jurisdiction on only a case-to-case basis.

Composition

Public hearing at the ICJ.

The ICJ is composed of fifteen permanent judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a listing of persons nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Courtroom of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Manufactures four-12 of the ICJ statute. Judges serve for nine year terms and may be re-elected. Elections take place every iii years, with ane-tertiary of judges retiring each fourth dimension, in club to ensure continuity within the court.

Should a judge die in role, the practice has mostly been to elect a judge of the same nationality to complete the term. No 2 may exist nationals of the same country. According to Commodity ix, the membership of the Court is supposed to represent the "principal forms of culture and of the principal legal systems of the world". Essentially, this has meant common law, ceremonious law and socialist constabulary (now mail service-communist constabulary). Since the 1960s four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia, the Uk, and the Usa) accept always had a judge on the Courtroom. The exception was China (the Democracy of Mainland china until 1971, the People's Republic of People's republic of china from 1971 onwards), which did non have a judge on the Court from 1967- 1985, considering information technology did not put forward a candidate. The rule on a geopolitical composition of the bench exists despite the fact that there is no provision for it in the Statute of the ICJ.

Article 2 of the Statute provides that all judges should exist "elected regardless of their nationality among persons of loftier moral character", who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt specifically with in Articles xvi-eighteen. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold whatsoever other mail service, nor act as counsel. A judge tin be dismissed past just a unanimous vote of other members of the Court. Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua Case, the USA issued a communiqué suggesting that it could non present sensitive material to the Court because of the presence of judges from Eastern bloc states.

Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and Informational Opinions are by majority and, in the issue of an equal division, the President'due south vote becomes decisive. Judges may also deliver dissever dissenting opinions.

Advertisement hoc judges

Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases earlier the Court. This system allows whatever party to a contentious case to nominate a judge of their option (usually of their nationality), if a judge of their nationality is non already on the demote. Ad hoc judges participate fully in the case and the deliberations, along with the permanent bench. Thus, information technology is possible that as many equally seventeen judges may sit on one case.

This system may seem strange when compared with domestic courtroom processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases to the Court. For instance, if a state knows it will have a judicial officeholder who tin participate in deliberation and offer other judges local noesis and an understanding of the state's perspective, that state may be more willing to submit to the Court's jurisdiction. Although this organisation does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of piffling practical consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not e'er) vote in favour of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out.

Chambers

By and large, the Court sits as a full bench, merely in the last fifteen years information technology has on occasion sat every bit a chamber. Articles 26-29 of the statute permit the Courtroom to grade smaller chambers, commonly 3 or v judges, to hear cases. 2 types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear particular disputes. In 1993 a special sleeping room was established, under Commodity 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal specifically with ecology matters (although this sleeping room has never been used).

Ad hoc chambers are more ofttimes convened. For case, chambers were used to hear the Gulf of Maine Case (USA five Canada). In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the Court appointed judges to the bedroom who were adequate to the parties. Chambers judgments may take less authority than full Court judgments, or may diminish the proper estimation of universal international police force informed past a multifariousness of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other mitt, the utilise of Chambers might encourage greater recourse to the Courtroom and thus heighten international dispute resolution.

Current composition

Equally of 6 February 2006 the composition of the court is every bit follows:

In add-on to the President and Vice-President, the ICJ judges are:

Jurisdiction

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Lease, all 192 UN members are automatically parties to the Court's statute. Not-UN members may too go parties to the Court'southward statute under the Article 93(2) process. For example, before becoming member nations, Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a political party; Nauru too became a party in 1988. Once a state is a party to the Courtroom'south statute, it is entitled to participate in cases earlier the Court. Even so, beingness a party to the statute does not automatically requite the Courtroom jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the two types of ICJ cases: contentious bug and informational opinions.

Contentious problems

In contentious cases, the ICJ produces a binding ruling betwixt states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. But states may exist parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal land, NGOs, Un organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organisations. This does non prevent non-state interests from existence the subject of proceedings if one state brings the instance against another. For example, a state may, in instance of "diplomatic protection", bring a instance on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations.

Jurisdiction is frequently a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases. (Meet Procedure beneath.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the Court's jurisdiction may exist founded.

Get-go, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the Court (jurisdiction founded on "special understanding" or "compromis"). This method is based on explicit consent rather than truthful compulsory jurisdiction. It is, maybe, the most constructive basis for the Court'south jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved past the Court and are thus more than likely to comply with the Court'due south judgment.

Second, 36(one) also gives the Court jurisdiction over "matters specifically provided for ... in treaties and conventions in force". Almost mod treaties will contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ. Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been equally effective every bit cases founded on special agreement, since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the Court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by Usa based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, nor did information technology comply with the judgment. Since the 1970s, the utilize of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set up out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.

Third, Commodity 36(two) allows states to brand optional clause declarations accepting the Court's jurisdiction. The tag of "compulsory" which is sometimes placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since declarations by states are voluntary. Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such equally exclusion from jurisdiction certain types of disputes ("ratione materia"). The principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of Oct 2006, 60-seven states had a declaration in force. Out of the Security Quango members, merely the United Kingdom has a declaration. In the Court's early years, most declarations were made past industrialised countries. Since the Nicaragua Case, declarations made past developing countries accept increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the Courtroom since the 1980s. Industrialised countries however have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in contempo years. Examples include the U.s., equally mentioned previously and Australia who modified their declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries, most probable to foreclose an impending challenge from East timor who gained their independence ii months afterwards.

Finally, 36(v) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations fabricated under the Permanent Court of International Justice's statute. Article 37 of the ICJ'south statute similarly transfers jurisdiction nether any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.

In add-on, the Courtroom may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent ( forum prorogatum). In the absence of articulate jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction volition exist established if the respondent accepts its jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads on the merits. The notion arose in the Corfu Channel Case (Britain v Albania) in which it was held that letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.

Advisory opinion

An advisory opinion is a part of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory Opinions were intended every bit a means by which United nations agencies could seek the Court's help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall nether their respective mandates. In principle, the Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character, though they are also influential and widely respected. Whilst certain instruments or regulations can provide in accelerate that the advisory opinion shall be specifically bounden on detail agencies or states, they are inherently non-bounden under the Statute of the Court.

Advisory Opinions have often been controversial, either because the questions asked are controversial, or because the example was pursued as a "backdoor" way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the Court.

Examples of cases include:

Advisory Stance of the International Court of Justice on the Israeli Due west Banking company Barrier.
An advisory opinion on the legality of the utilise (or threat to use) nuclear weapons.
The opinion on Western Sahara, issued in 1975.

The ICJ and the Security Council

Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties do non comply, the upshot may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious issues with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is confronting i of the permanent five members of the Security Quango or its allies, any resolution on enforcement will exist vetoed. This occurred, for example, later the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the USA'southward non-compliance with the Court'southward decision earlier the Security Quango. Furthermore, if the Security Quango refuses to enforce a judgment against any other country, there is no method of forcing the state to comply.

The human relationship betwixt the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was considered past the Court in 1992, in the Pan Am case. The Court had to consider an awarding from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, information technology alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the UK and United States. The trouble was that these sanctions had been authorised by the Security Council, which resulted with a potential conflict betwixt the Affiliate VII functions of the Security Council and the judicial office of the Court. The Court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could non social club the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate nether the Montreal Convention, prima facie could not be regarded as advisable since the activeness was ordered by the Security Council. In accord with Article 103 of the United nations Charter, obligations nether the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Even so the Courtroom declared the awarding open-door in 1998. A determination on the claim has non been given since the parties United kingdom of great britain and northern ireland, United States and Libya) settled the case out of court in 2003.

There was a marked reluctance on the part of a bulk of the Courtroom to get involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring information technology potentially into disharmonize with the Council. The Court stated in the Nicaragua instance that there is no necessary inconsistency between activeness by the Security Council and adjudication past the ICJ. However, where there is room for conflict, the remainder appears to exist in favour of the Security Council.

Should either party neglect "to perform the obligations incumbent upon information technology under a judgment rendered past the Court", the Security Council may exist called upon to "make recommendations or determine upon measures" if the Security Council deems such deportment necessary. In do, the Courtroom's powers have been express by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Court's ruling, and by the Security Quango's unwillingness to impose consequences. Withal, in theory, "and so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal," and "by signing the Lease, a State Member of the Un undertakes to comply with whatsoever conclusion of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party."

For example, in Nicaragua v. United States the United states of america of America had previously accepted the Courtroom'southward compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 merely withdrew its acceptance following the Court's judgment in 1984 that called on the U.s.a. to "finish and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of strength" confronting the regime of Nicaragua. The Courtroom ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the U.s. was "in alienation of its obligation nether the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use forcefulness confronting Nicaragua" and ordered the Usa to pay reparations (see note 2).

Examples of contentious cases include:

A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran in violation of international police force.
A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf betwixt them.
A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine area.
A complaint past the Federal Commonwealth of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty System regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the FRY was not a party to the ICJ statute at the fourth dimension it made the application.

More often than not, the Courtroom has been most successful resolving border delineation and the use of oceans and waterways. While the Courtroom has, in some instances, resolved claims by one State consort on behalf of its nationals, the Court has generally refrained from hearing contentious cases that are political in nature, due in role to its lack of enforcement mechanism and its lack of compulsory jurisdiction. The Courtroom has generally found it did not have jurisdiction to hear cases involving the use of force.

Police force practical

When deciding cases, the Court applies international law every bit summarised in Article 38. Article 38 of the ICJ Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall employ international conventions, international custom, and the "full general principles of law recognized past civilized nations". It may besides refer to bookish writing and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the police force, although the Court is non formally bound by its previous decisions nether the doctrine of stare decisis. Article 59 makes clear that the common police force notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The Court's decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Nether 38(one)(d), still, the Court may consider its own previous decisions. In reality, the ICJ rarely departs from its own previous decisions and treats them as precedent in a way like to superior courts in common law systems. Additionally, international lawyers normally operate as though ICJ judgments had precedential value.

If the parties concur, they may also grant the Courtroom the liberty to determine ex aequo et bono ("in justice and fairness"), granting the ICJ the liberty to make an equitable determination based on what is off-white under the circumstances. The Courtroom operating nether ex aequo et bono would act in some means similar to a mediator. However, this provision has not been used in the Court'due south history.

Process

The ICJ is vested with the ability to make its own rules. Courtroom procedure is prepare out in Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).

Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The instance is lodged by the applicant who files a written memorial setting out the basis of the Court'due south jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the Court's jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the claim of the case.

Preliminary Objections

A respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court may enhance Preliminary Objections. Whatever such objections must exist ruled upon before the Court can address the merits of the applicant's claim. These objections must be ruled upon by the Court before information technology can proceed on the claim. Often a separate public hearing is held on the Preliminary Objections and the Court volition render a judgment. Respondents usually file Preliminary Objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility refers to a range of arguments about factors the Court should take into business relationship in deciding jurisdiction; for example, that the outcome is non justiciable or that it is not a "legal dispute".

In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not earlier the Court. If the example necessarily requires the Court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has non consented to the Court'due south jurisdiction, the Court will not proceed to upshot a judgment on the merits.

If the Court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent will then be required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant's claim. In one case all written arguments are filed, the Court volition concord a public hearing on the claim.

One time a case has been filed, any party (merely usually the Applicant) may seek an order from the Courtroom to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the instance. Such orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory injunctions in domestic (United states of america) law. Commodity 41 of the statute allows the Court to make such orders. The Court must be satisfied to have prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before granting conditional measures.

Applications to intervene

In cases where a third country's interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case, and participate equally a total party. Under Article 62, a state "with an interest of a legal nature" may apply; even so, information technology is inside the Court's discretion whether or non to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare - the outset successful application occurred in 1990.

Once deliberation has taken identify, the Court will event a bulk stance. Individual judges may upshot separate opinions (if they agree with the upshot reached in the judgment of the courtroom but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the bulk). No appeal is possible.

Criticisms

Criticisms of the International Court range from its rulings, its procedures, to its dominance. As with Un criticisms as a whole, many of these criticisms refer more than to the authority assigned to the body by fellow member states through its charter rather than to problems with the specific composition of judges or their rulings.

"Compulsory" jurisdiction is express to cases where both parties take agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend to be adjudicated past the Security Council.
Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court, such as to entreatment a national supreme court'due south ruling. U.N. agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and not-binding).
Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court.
The International Courtroom does not savor a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of fifty-fifty cases to which they consented in accelerate to be bound.

gilruthcoman1948.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.cs.mcgill.ca/~rwest/wikispeedia/wpcd/wp/i/International_Court_of_Justice.htm

Gilruth Coman1948