Are there exceptions to the jus standi requirement before the International Court's of Justice? A critical appraisal of the Judgment in Croatia/Serbia Case - General observations about ius standi requirement before the ICJ
https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2017.127.6.189-198
Abstract
The author discusses the interpretation of jus standi requirement by the International Court of Justice in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. FR of Yugoslavia/Serbia). He finds out that the position of the Court in that regard taken in Case regarding Legality of Use of Force instituted by FR Yugoslavia against ten NATO members is in sharp contradiction to its position in Croatia/FRY/Serbia case. In the later judgment the Court, in fact, has formulated an exception to the jus standi requirement on the basis of combined effects of the few considerations: a) the so-called Mavrommatis rule; b) principle of sound administration of justice; c) principle competence de la competence; d) seisen of the Court. The author comes to the conclusion that none of the arguments forwarded is not capable to serve as the basis for the exception to the mandatory requirement of jus standi and that, accordingly, the position of the Court in Croatia/Serbia Case seems to be dictated by extra-legal considerations.
About the Author
M. Kreca
International Court of Justice; European Court of Human Rights; Permanent Court of Arbitration; Venice Commission
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Jowitt s Dictionary of English Law, 2nd ed., Vol. 2, p. 1115
2. Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J. Series A, No. 2, p. 34.
3. CR 2008/11, pp. 33-34, para. 8 (Crawford).
4. Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 40.
5. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibillity, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428-429, para. 83.
6. Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14.
7. Nicaragua v. United States of America (Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428429, para. 83).
8. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. FR of Yugoslavia/Serbia), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Owada, para. 24.
9. Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 295, para. 36.
10. G. Schwarzenberger, „International Law as Applied by International Court'ss and Tribunals", International Judicial Law, Vol. IV, 1986, pp. 434-435
11. Faclere, The Oermanent Court's of International Justice, 1932, p. 63
12. R. Kolb, Theorie du ius cogens international Essai de relecture du concept, 2001, pp. 344-348
13. See Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment, No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34.
14. Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14.
15. In that regard, strictly and without exception, the Court has treated the issue in eight Legality of Use of Force cases (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 298- 299, paras. 46; pp. 310-311, para 79; pp. 314-315, para. 91 and p. 327, para. 126.
16. Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004, (I), pp. 327-328, para. 127.
17. isheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 53, para. 11
18. Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 143
19. Judgment, para. 86
20. G. Schwarzenberger, International Law, Vol. I, 1945, p. 376
21. Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), pp. 298-299, para. 46
22. see also the ten cases in the provisional measures phase (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), I.C.J. Reports 1999 (I), p. 132, para. 20
23. and Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court's, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 53, para. 11
24. South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa; Liberia v. South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. reports 1966, p. 36, para. 57.
25. I. Shihata, The Power of the International Court to Determine its own Jurisdiction, Competence de la Competence, 1965, p. 304.
26. G. Fitzmaurice, „The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951-1954: Questions of Jurisdiction, Competence and Procedure", British Year Book of International Law, 1958, p. 15
27. Martime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 23, para. 43
28. Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1953, p. 122
29. Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 299, para. 46
30. see also I.C.J. Reports 1998,p. 26, para. 44
31. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), p. 613, para. 26
32. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p. 257, para. 30; pp. 257-258, para. 31
33. Barselona Traction, I.C.J. Reports 1964, pp. 6, 42: Oil Platforms, I.C.J. Reports 1998, pp. 190-203, para. 33; p. 205, para 43
34. see also the Polish Upper Silesia case, Jurisdiction, Judgment No. 6, 1925, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 6, p. 14
35. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 34
Review
For citations:
Kreca M. Are there exceptions to the jus standi requirement before the International Court's of Justice? A critical appraisal of the Judgment in Croatia/Serbia Case - General observations about ius standi requirement before the ICJ. Lex Russica. 2017;(6):189-198. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17803/1729-5920.2017.127.6.189-198
Views:
882
Email this article 