7 - Article 36 of the ICJ Flashcards Preview

International Law > 7 - Article 36 of the ICJ > Flashcards

Flashcards in 7 - Article 36 of the ICJ Deck (10)
Loading flashcards...

In what circumstances does the ICJ have jurisdiction?

(a) contentious cases between states in which the court produces binding rulings between states that agree, or have previously agreed, to submit to the ruling of the court; (b) and advisory opinions, which provide reasoned, but non-binding, rulings on properly submitted questions of international law, usually at the request of the United Nations General Assembly.


What is 'special agreement'?

The jurisdiction of the court is all cases which the parties refer to it [ICJ]. The court is notified through a special agreement that the parties to the dispute have agreed to in that they will refer judgement to do the ICJ.


Who decides questions concerning jurisdiction?

"In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court." - Article 36(6) of the UN Charter


What is compulosry jurisdiction?

ICJ invited states around the world to accept it's compulsory jurisdction - meaning if two states had agreed then ICJ would have jurisdiction over its case


What happened in the Norweigan loans case?

Norway owed France money and when France took the matter to the ICJ, Norway claimed it didn't have jurisdiction as France hadn't wholly accepted ICJ's jurisdiction.


What is the effect of reciprocity in relation to the ICJ’s “compulsory jurisdiction”?

Where there is a dispute, if 1 of the 2 states has a reservation on compulsory jurisdiction then the ICJ must work on the basis of that


What case demonstrates the role of reciprocity in the courts “compulsory jurisdiction”?

Norwegian loans case


What is the main limit on states bringing cases to the ICJ?

That they must have tried all relevant domestic legal remedies


What case supports the limit to states bringing cases to the ICJ?

The Interhandel case


What was determined in the interhandel case?

It was considered necessary that the state where the violation occurred should have an opportunity to rectify it