The international court of justice and the law of the sea-some reflections

International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 491-532

  Kwiatkowska, Barbara ^a  

^a UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0344681140     PISSN: 09273522     EISSN: 15718085     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1163/157180896X00285     Document Type: Article

References (360)

1. A.M. Stuyt, Survey of International Arbitration 1794-1989 No. 94 (1990).
2. repeated in the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 judgment, [1991] ICJ Rep 53, 68-9.
3. See also the Corfu Channel Dissenting Opinion (Merits) of Judge Azevedo, [1949] ICJ Rep 78, 96; the Anglo)'Norwegian Fisheries Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sir Arnold McNair, [1951] ICJ Rep 158, 181;
4. the Rights of Nationals of the USA in Morocco Pleadings, Vol. II, 147 (Agent Gros/France);
5. the Fisheries Jurisdiction Pleadings (UK), 249;
6. the East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, [1995] ICJ Rep 139, 158-9.
7. See S. Rosenne, "L'Affaire de VAlabama", Tribune de Geneve, le 14 septembre 1972 (cent ans apres la sentence du 14 septembre 1872)
8. reprinted in, Rosenne, An International Law Miscellany (1993), 125-31;
9. M.O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920-1942 (1943), 601;
10. J. Sette-Camara, "methods of Obligatory Settlement of Disputes", in M. Bedjaoui (ed.), International Law: Achievements and Prospects (1991), 519, 527;
11. Rosenne, Intervention in the International Court of Justice (1993), 7;
12. Rosenne, The World Court: What It Is and How It Works (Fifth Completely Revised Edition, 1995) 5.
13. The rejection (in accordance with the British contention) of the concept of international servitudes by the 1910 GB/USA North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Award (RIAA XI, 167;
14. But the PCIJ did not accept the German contention as to the applicability of this concept to the Kiel Canal. Cf. H.D. Reid, International Servitudes in Law and Practice (1932) 32-5, 138-40.
15. For invocation of rejection of the servitudes by the 1910 Award, see the Rights of Nationals of the USA in Morocco Pleadings, Vol.1, 66 (Memorial of France), Vol.11, 173 (Agent Gros, 16 July 1952);
16. the Minquiers Pleadings, Vol.11, 88 (Counsel Fitzmaurice, 21 September 1953).
17. On the concept of servitudes, see the Corfu Dissenting Opinion (Merits) of Judge Azevedo [1949] ICJ Rep 104; the Minquiers Pleadings, Vol.1, 473, 477 and 487 (Reply of UK), 716 (Rejoinder of France).
18. For comparative analysis of the Ambatielos Claim and the Finnish Ships Awards, see D.R. Mummery, The Content of the Duty to Exhaust Local Judicial Remedies", (1964) 58 AJIL 389, 398-414.
19. For reliance on the Finnish Ships Award, see the Ambatielos Pleadings, 16 (Memorial of Greece), 266-7 (Rejoinder [Merits] of UK), 427-33 (27 March, Counsel Fawcett), 442-4 (28 March, Counsel Sir Frank Soskice), 492-4 (30 March 1953, Fawcett);
20. and on both the Finnish Ships and Ambatielos Claim Awards, see the Certain Norwegian Loans Pleadings, Vol.11, 74 (15 May, Agent Gros), 161-5 (22 May 1957, Advocate Bourquin).
21. In the Elettronica Sircula S.p.A. (ELSI) case, objection to the admissibility of Italy, which (in part) relied on both Awards along with the Interhandel judgment (Preliminary Objections) ([1959] ICJ Rep 27), in the ELSI Pleadings, Vol.11, 27-9, 264-7
22. (Counter-Memorial of Italy), 417-18 (Rejoinder of Italy), was contested by the United States, ibid. 374-6 (Reply of the USA), and it was rejected unanimously in the ELSI judgement, [1989] ICJ Rep 15. On the contribution of this judgment to the elucidation of the local remedies rule, see the ELSI Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [1989] ICJ Rep 94, 94;
23. S.M. Schwebel, "The Treatment of Human Rights and of Aliens in the ICJ", in A.V. Lowe and M. Fitzmaurice (eds.), Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice- Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings (1996) 327, 350.
24. The composition of the Argentina!Chile Beagle Channel Court of Arbitration of five members, who all were ICJ judges (H. Dillard, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, A. Gros, Ch.D. Onyeama and S. Petren) (1978) 17 ILM 634;
25. (1977) 71 AJIL 733; No. 435/Stuyt), provided a stimulus for amending Art. 26 17(2) and (4) of the Rules of Court with respect to composition of ad hoc Chambers.
26. Cf. S.M. Schwebel, "New Life for World Court", (1983) 23 Virginia Journal of International Law (VJIL) 375-8;
27. G. Abi-Saab, "De 1'evolution de la Court Internationale: Reflections sur quelques tendances recentes", (1992) 96 Revue Generate de Droit International Public (RGDIP) 274, 287;
28. S.M. Schwebel, Justice in International Law-Selected Writings of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, Chapter 6: "Chambers of the International Court of Justice Formed for Particular Cases", 93, 101-2 (1994);
29. E. Valencia-Ospina, "The Use of Chambers of the ICJ", in Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, above, note 4, at 503, 506-7.
30. Absolute immunity for a sovereign required by English law since 1873 The Charkieh (The Batavier) (LR 4 A & E 59; 42 LJQB 75) and 1879/80
31. The Parliament Beige (1879) (LR 4 PD 129;
32. (1880) 5 PD 197) cases was reversed only by 1977 The Owners of the Philippine Admiral v Wallem Shipping (Hong Kong) judgment (AC 373; 64 ILR 90), which initiated restrictive doctrine of immunity in respect of actions in rem (as followed by the extension in the 1977 Trendtex Trading Corporation v Central Bank of Nigeria (QB 529; (1977) 16 ILM 471) of the restrictive doctrine to actions in personam as well).
33. R. Higgins, "Certain Unresolved Aspects of the Law of State Immunity" (1982) 29 Netherlands International Law Review 265-76, 265.
34. Cf. M. Byers, "State Immunity: Article 18 of the ILC's Draft", (1995) 44 International & Comparative Law Quarterley (ICLQ) 882-93.
35. Background Note VI: Collected Unofficial Summaries of Decisions Concerning The Law of the Sea 1946-1986 (ICJ, July 1986).
36. See the Jubilee Book by A. Eyffinger, The International Court of Justice 1946-1996 (1996), Chapter 10 by A. Witteveen: "A Review of the Court's Case-Law", 342-58, at 344-9 (Disputes Concerning the Law of the Sea, including maps).
37. The Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 343, refers to the Gulf of Fonseca in the section on Territorial and Boundary Disputes. The case was reported in the Reports of the Secretary-General-Law of the Sea, UN Docs A/43/718, 9 (1988), A/44/650, 11 (1989), A/46/724, 13, A/45/721, 13
38. and Corr.l [El Salvador v Honduras] (1990), A/47/623, 12 (1992), in the section on Maritime Disputes and Conflicts. The Reports are prepared annually by the Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea (DOALOS/OLA), UN/New York, under the Directorship of presently Dr. Moritaka Hayashi (Japan) who succeeded, in 1996, Dr. Jean-Pierre Levy (France). See also below, note 61.
39. The Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 355, refers to the East Timor case in the section on Issues of Decolonization. The 1995 East Timor judgment was reported in the Report of the Secretary-General-Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/50/713, 34-5 (1995), in the section on Maritime Disputes and Conflicts. For reference tot he 1989 Australia/Indonesia Timor Gap Treaty (1990) (29 ILM 469), see ibid., 39, and, Doc. A/45/721 (1990), above, note 11, at 12.
40. The Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 343-4, refers to the Cameroon v Nigeria case in the section on Territorial and Boundary Disputes. Institution of this case was referred to in the Report of the Secretary-General-Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/49/631, 15 (1994), in the section on Maritime Delimitation Disputes.
41. South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa) and Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) cases; main text accompanying note 37 below. Cf. Namibia, South Africa, and the Walvis Bay Dispute, (1980) 89 Yale Law Journal 903-22;
42. 1992 Namibia/South Africa Agreement on the Joint Administration of Walvis Bay and the Offshore Islands, (1993) 32 ILM 1152, 1470;
43. D.B. Hamman, "A Solution for Maritime Delimitation Between Namibia and South Africa", (1995) 10 IJMCL 369-88.
44. Cf. main text accompanying note 240, below; M. Shaw, "The Western Sahara Case", (1978) 49 British Yearbook of International Law (BYIL) 119-54;
45. UNGA Resolutions 48/49 and 50/36 on Question of Western Sahara of 10 December 1993 and 6 December 1995 respectively; Reports of the Secretary-General on the Work of the Organization (Western Sahara), UN Docs A/49/1, 78-9 (1994) and A/50/1, 108-9 (1995); Security Council Resolution 1042 (1996).
46. The Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 353, refers to the IMCO case in the section on The Law of International Organizations.
47. The Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 357, refers to the Ambatielos case in the section on Protection of Private Interests. See also above, note 4.
48. ILC Yearbook 1956-11, 15 and 278-9. Cf. below, notes 221-227.
49. The Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 356, refers to 1995 New Zealand v France Nuclear Tests Order, jointly with the 1973/4 Nuclear Tests cases, in the section on International Peace and Security, the Use of Force and Intervention. The 1973/4 Nuclear Tests cases are analysed by Thirlway, below, note 55, Part VI, 87-8, in Division A on The Law of the Sea; and the 1995 NZ v France Order is reported upon in the Report of the Secretary-General-Law of the Sea, UN Doc. A/50/713, above, note 12, at 40, in the section on Peace and Security.
50. For the 1982 LOS Convention, which entered into force on 16 November 1994, see (1982) 21 ILM 1245, and for the UN Agreement of 28 July 1994 Relating to the Implementation of the Convention's Part XI, see (1994) 33 ILM 1309. For status of the Convention and the Agreement, as of 29 February 1996, see UN/DOALOS Law of the Sea Bulletin (1996 No. 30).
51. Cf. M. Hayashi, "The 1994 Agreement for the Universalization of the Law of the Sea Convention", (1996) 27 Ocean Development and International Law 31-9.
52. (1926) 20 AJIL Supp. Cf. main text accompanying notes 212-216, below.
53. (1930) 24 AJIL Supp.
54. Cf. M.O. Hudson, "The First Conference for the Codification of International Law", (1930) 24 AJIL 447-66, 784 [erratum].
55. Cf. the Anglo/Norwegian Pleadings, Vol.1, 395-6
56. (Counter-Memorial of Norway), invoking the Corfu Pleadings (Vol.III, 269-71 (11 November 1948, Agent Sir Eric Beckett)) to the effect that international conventions, referred to under Art. 38(l)(a) of the ICJ Statute, "are finally agreed and ratified conventions"
57. and that the Court is not entitled to apply as law in cases before it conventions which are only signed, and still less a mere 1930 Draft Convention; Vol.11, 432-9 (Reply of UK), Vol.III, 301-2 (Rejoiner of Norway). Cf. main text accompanying note 204, below.
58. For reference to a historic speech of Ambassador Arvid Pardo (Malta) to the UNGA, UN Doc. A/6695 (1967), see the Tunisia/Libya Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda, [1982] ICJ Rep 157, 212/ See below, notes 34, 54, 61 and 184.
59. Cf. S. Rosenne et al (eds.), United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982-A Commentary, Vol.1 (1985), Vol.11 (1993), Vol.III (1995), Vol.IV (1991), Vol.V (1989), Vol.VI (in press);
60. "Problems Arising From a Succession of Codification Conventions on a Particular Subject", Rapporteur: Sir Ian Sinclair, (1995) 66 Annuaire Institute de Droit International I (Annuaire IDI) [Session de Lisbonne], 15-248.
61. Cf. R. Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (1994), 18
62. referring to submission of H. Thirlway, International Customary Law and Codification (1972), that international law is defined as that which the Court would apply in a given case.
63. Cf. J.H.W. Verzijl, The Jurisprudence of the World Court-A Case By Case Commentary, Vol.1: PCIJ 1922-40 (1965) and Vol.11: ICJ 1947-65 (1966).
64. See. S. Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court (1965/1985), 595-9;
65. Sir Robert Jennings, "The Internal Judicial Practice of the International Court of Justice", (1988) 59 BYIL 31 -4V;
66. Jennings, "The Collegiate Responsibility and Authority of the International court of Justice", in International Law at a Time of Perplexity, Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (1989), 343-53.
67. Minquiers and Ecrehos Separate Opinions of Judges Basdevant and Levi Carneiro [1953] ICJ Rep. 74, 78, 85, 97-102, 108;
68. the Minquiers Pleadings, Vol.11, 196-7 (28 September 1953, Agent Gros).
69. On precedential exposition of the EEZ/CS parallelism by Judge Oda, see B. Kwiatkowska, "Judge Shigeru Oda's Opinions in Law-of-the-Sea Cases: Equitable Maritime Boundary Delimitation", (1993) 36 German Yearbook of International Law, 225-94.
70. New Zealand v France Nuclear Tests Dissenting Opinions (Request for an Examination of the Situation) of Judges Weeramantry, [1995] ICJ Rep 317-62
71. Cf. B. Kwiatkowska, "New Zealand v France Nuclear Tests Case: The Dismissed Case of Lasting Significance", 36 VJIL (1996, in press).
72. Cf. L. Gross, "Review of the Role of the International Court of Justice", (1972) 66 AJIL 479, 488;
73. Schwebel, "The Treatment of Human Rights and of Aliens in the ICJ", above, note 4, at 333-6.
74. Cf. S. Oda, "The International Court of Justice Viewed From the Bench (1976-1993)", 244 Recueildes cours (RCADI) 12, 145 (1993-VII).
75. Statement by Mr. Hans Corell, UN Under Secretary-General and the Legal Counsel of 16 April 1996, in R. Higgins and Ch.G. Weeramantry (eds.), Increasing the Effectiveness of the Court- An ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the International Court of Justice, Peace Palace, The Hague, 16-18 April 1996 (in press).
76. Cf. S.M. Schwebel, "Fifty Years of the World Court: A Critical Appraisal", in Are International Institutions Doing Their Job?, Proceedings of the 90th ASIL Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., 27-30 March 1996 (in press).
77. An Agenda for Peace: Preventative Diplomacy, Peacemaking and Peace-Keeping, UN Doc. A/47/ 277-S/24111 (1992);
78. Implementation of the Recommendations Contained in "An Agenda for Peace'; Doc. A/47/965-S/25944 (1993);
79. Supplement to An Agenda for Peace, Doc. A/50/60-S/ 1995/1 (1995).
80. Cf. R.Y. Jennings, "Note preliminaire, Comite restreint sur le reglement pacifique des differends", 65 Annuaire IDI [Session de Milan], 279, 281-2 (1993-11);
81. C.-A. Fleischhauer (the then UN Legal Counsel), "The UN Decade of International Law-The Role and Work of the Secretariat of the United Nations and of Its System of Organizations", in N. Al-Nauimi (ed.), International Legal Issues Arising Under the UN Decade of International Law (1995).
82. C.-A. Fleischhauer, "Article 13", in B. Simma et al. (eds), The Charter of the United Nations-A Commentary (1994) 265-79.
83. Jennings, "Note preliminaire", above, note 41, at 282. See also Speech by Sir Robert Jennings (UK), President of the International Court of Justice, to the UNCED, 3-14 June 1992, read on behalf of President by the ICJ Registrar, Eduardo Valencia-Ospina, in ICJ Yearbook 1991-1992 212-8 (No.46).
84. The initial (August 1996/December 1997) budget of the ITLOS totals over US$ 6 million. The first election of ITLOS's judges was postponed until 1 August 1996, to be followed by the swearing-in ceremony on 18 October 1996. Cf. S. Rosenne, "Establishing the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea", (1995) 89 AJIL 806-14;
85. Curricula Vitae of Candidates nominated by States' Parties for Election to the ITLOS-Note by the Secretary-General, UN Doc. SPLOS/11(1996).
86. See esp. E. Lauterpacht, QC, Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (Cambridge, Grotius Publications Limited, 1991), 19-22;
87. G. Guillaume, "The Future of International Judicial Institutions", (1995) 44 ICLQ 848, 854-5, concluding his remarks on ITLOS that "errate humanum est, perseverare diabolicum";
88. Oda, "The ICJ Viewed From the Bench", above, note 38, at 139-55
89. and S. Oda, "Dispute Settlement Prospects in the Law of the Sea", (1995) 44 ICLQ 863-72
90. as replied to by J.I. Charney, "The Implications of Expanding International Dispute Settlement Systems", (1996) 90 AJIL 69-75
91. as rejoined by Oda, ibid, (in press). For more moderate views, see R. Ranjeva, "L'Environnement, la Cour Internationale de Justice et sa Chambre speciale pour les questions d'environnement", 40 Annuaire franpais de droit international (1994) (AFDI) 433-41;
92. A.G. Koroma, "Interpretation of International Law", in Contemporary International Law Issues, Proceedings of the 3rd ASILjNVIR Joint Conference, The Hague, 13-15 July 1995 (1996), 154-7.
93. Schwebel, Justice in International Law, above, note 5, Chapter 2: "Relations Between the ICJ and the United Nations", 14, 18.
94. Higgins, Problems and Process, above, note 30, at 267.
95. Lotus Dissenting Opinion of Judge Moore, PCIJ Series A. No.10, 65, 70-2.
96. Rosenne, The Law and Practice (1965/1985), above, note 32, with magnificent revision of this work (forthcoming 1996)'
97. The World Court (1995), above, note 2;
98. An International Law Miscellany (1993)
99. and Interventions (1993), both above, note 2;
100. United Nations Convention, above, note 29; and of his other works, see, e.g., Rosenne, above, note 47, and below, notes 63, 67, 77, 80, 94, 132, 138, 172.
101. H. Thirlway, "The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989", Part I, (1989) 60 BYIL 1-157; Part II, (1990) 61 BYIL 1-133; Part III, (1991) 62 BYIL 1-75; Part IV, (1992) 63 BYIL 1-96; Part V, (1993) 64 BYIL 1-54; Part VI, (1994) 65 BYIL 1-102. Professor Thirlway's series is designed in continuation of a series of articles published by Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice in the BYIL in 1950-59, and then in tribute to Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in 1961-63. See also G. Ziccardi Capaldo, Repertory of Decisions of the International Court of Justice (19471992), (1995) Vols I and II.
102. E. Langavant et O. Pirotte, "L'Affaire des Pecheries islandaises", 80 RGDIP 55, 80 (1976).
103. Cf. Thirlway, "Reflections on the Articulation of International Judicial Decisions and the Problem of 'Mootness'", in R.St.J. Macdonald (ed.), Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya (1994), 789, 805-6; below notes 155 and 230.
104. M. Fitzmaurice, "Environmental Law", in Higgins and Weeramantry, above, note 39; main text accompanying note 36 above, and below notes 123-125.
105. See above, notes 2 (Rosenne, The World Court), 8 (Unofficial Summaries), and 38 (Oda, Chapter V); also above, note 22. Significantly, the Report of the Secretary-General-Law of the Sea prepared annually by the UN DOALOS/OLA (above, note 11, and elsewhere in this essay) reports not only on the phase of Merits of the respective cases, but also on those of Provisional Measures, Jurisdiction, Intervention and Discontinuance as appropriate. Rosenne, above, note 47, at 814.
106. S. Rosenne, "The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and the International Court of Justice", S. Rosenne, Essays on the Law of the Sea and on the ITLOS (1996) 200-215.
107. Cf. T. Treves, "The Law of the Sea Tribunal: Its Status and Scope of Jurisdiction After November 16, 1994", 55 Zeitschrift fur ausldndisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht (ZaoRV) (1995), 421-451;
108. Treves, "Aspects of the Relationship Between the Jurisdiction of the ITLOS and the ICJ", in Contemporary International Law Issues, above note 48, at 305-9;
109. K. Highet, "Maritime Boundary Disputes and Settlement", in Mochtar Kusumaatmadja (ed.), Sustainable Development and Preservation of the Oceans, 29th LSI Proceedings, Bali, Indonesia, 19-22 June 1995 (in press).
110. R.Y. Jennings, "The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law", (1996) 45 ICLQ 1, 5-6, invoking Loizidou v Turkey Ser.A, No.310, 23 March 1995;
111. [1995] ICJ Rep 302. Given its dismissal by the Court, the NZ Request was subsequently removed from the General List as of the date of the Order, ibid. 306. Cf. Kwiatkowska, above, note 36. For a somewhat different interpretation of the Court's treatment of French submission regarding Art. 38(5) of the Rules, see S. Rosenne, "The General List of the International Court of Justice" in J. Makarczyk (ed.), Liber Amicorum for Professor Krzysztof J. Skubiszewski (in press).
112. [1978] ICJ Rep 3, 29-37. Cf. main text accompanying note 220, below.
113. ICJ Yearbook 1993-1994 102 [Malta] (48);
114. the Libya/Malta Pleadings, Vol.11, 621 (30 January 1984, Counsel Lauterpacht).
115. On this and other law of the sea reservations (including that of Canada), see the Nicaragua v USA Separate Opinions (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) of Judges Oda, [1984] ICJ Rep 471, 490-4
116. ICJ Yearbook 1993-1994 88 [Canada] (No.48);
117. UN/DOALOS Law of the Sea Bulletin 19 [Declaration], 20 [Fisheries Act] (1994 No.26).
118. B. Kwiatkowska, "The Spain v Canada Fisheries Jurisdiction (The Estai) Case", presented at the Asser Round Table Session, The Hague, 29 June 1995.
119. Rosenne, The World Court, above, note 2, at 86
120. (confirming his view expressed in the previous edition of The World Court (1989), 85.
121. Rosenne, The World Court, above, note 2, at 231.
122. Reliance on Art. 36(2) of the Statute in the Denmark v Norway (Jan Mayen) Case was reported in UN Doc. A/43/718 (1988), above, note 11, at 9, and the Court's 1993 judgment, in the Report of the Secretary-General-Law of the Sea, Doc. A/48/527, 12 (1993).
123. See S. Rosenne, "The Qatar/Bahrain Case: What Is a Treaty? A Framework Agreement and the Seising of the Court", (1995) 8 Leiden Journal of International Law (LJIL) 161-80, at 171-6.
124. The two Qatar v Bahrain judgements (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), [1994] ICJ Rep 112, [1995] 6, are reported in UN Docs A/49/631 (1994), above, note 13, at 16, and A/50/713 (1995), above, note 12, at 33-4, respectively.
125. For the Geneva Protocol, see above, note 23. Cf. the North Sea Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sorensen, [1969] ICJ Rep 241, 256;
126. and the Qatar v Bahrain Dissenting Opinion (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) of Judge Koroma, [1995] ICJ Rep 67, 70.
127. J.R. Stevenson and B.H. Oxman, "The Future of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea", (1994) 88 AJIL 488, 499. Cf. Rosenne el al, above, note 29, Vol.V (1989).
128. Rosenne, as Moderator of Round-Table on Settlement of Disputes, in Proceedings of the United Nations Congress on public International Law, New York, 13-17 March 1995 (in press).
129. Cf. Rosenne, "The International Tribunal", above, note 63;
130. Rosenne, "The International Court of Justice: Lessons of the Past and the Needs of the Future", in Higgins and Weeramantry, above, note 39.
131. On the participation clause of the LOS Convention (Art. 305), see also Rosenne, Intervention, above, note 2, at 82-3.
132. PCIJ Series A, No. 1, 11. In its Application, Poland sought permission to intervene under Art. 62 of the Statute, but shifted to Art. 63 during the Oral Hearings as a result of the initiative of the British Agent Sir Cecil Hurst. See the Wimbledon Pleadings, PCIJ Series C, No. 3-1, 106.
133. Permission to intervene under Art. 63 was also requested by Cuba in the Colombia]Peru Haya de la Torre, [1951] ICJ Rep 71;
134. and by four Pacific island states in the New Zealand v France Nuclear Tests cases, [1995] ICJ Rep 288.
135. Cf. review by S.M. Schwebel of Ch. Chinkin, Third Parties in International Law (1993), (1995) 89 AJIL 835-7.
136. See also the Anglo I Norwegian Fisheries Pleadings, Vol.IV, 523 (26 October 1951, Counsel Bourquin);
137. the Minquiers Pleadings, Vol.1, 543, 553 (Reply of UK), Vol.11, 55 (18 September 1953, Counsel Sir Lionel Heald), 270 (30 September, Agent Gros).
138. Eastern Greenl, Pleadings PCIJ Series C No.67, 4081-2 [Iceland's Letter of 19 August 1931], 4119-9 [Iceland's Letter of 25 October 1932].
139. [1954] ICJ Rep 19. The Monetary Gold (Preliminary Question) case concerned the possible implementation of the Corfu (Compensation) judgment, [1949] ICJ Rep 244, and was preceded by the 1953 Monetary Gold Looted by Germany from Rome (France, UK, USA v Italy) Arbitral Advice of Georges Sauser Hall, RIAA XII, 19; ILR 441; No.415/Stuyt.
140. Rosenne, Intervention, above, note 2, at 160-76 (169-74).
141. Nauru Dissenting Opinion (Preliminary Objections) of Judge Schwebel, [1992] ICJ Rep 329, 330.
142. Nauru Dissenting Opinion (Preliminary Objections) of Judge Schwebel, [1992] ICJ Rep 330-1.
143. See also Nauru judgment, ibid., citing Monetary Gold judgment (Preliminary Question), [1954] ICJ Rep 32.
144. East Timor judgment, [1995] ICJ Rep 90, 100-5.
145. Id., 105, citing Monetary Gold judgment (Preliminary Question), [1954] ICJ Rep 32. Cf. above, note 12 and below note 219.
146. Cf. statement of Vice-President Schwebel, in discussion on papers by K.J. Skubiszewski and E. Lauterpacht, QC, "The Role of Ad Hoc Judges", in Higgins and Weeramantry, above, note 39
147. noting that a vote and the Tunisia v Libya Separate Opinion (Revision and Interpretation), [1985] ICJ Rep 192, 247-52, of Judge ad hoc Mrs. Suzanne Bastid remains an exceptional example of a judge ad hoc taking a position against that of the appointing state (in this case Tunisia).
148. Cf. the Jubilee Book, above, note 9, at 164, reporting that Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski from Poland was called in twice by different foreign nations, Portugal (in the East Timor case) and Slovakia (in the pending Gabikovo/Nagymoros Project case). On Poland's Optional Clause Declaration signed in 1990 by the then Foreign Minister Skubiszewski, see S. Rosenne, "The Cold War and the International Court of Justice: A Review Essay of Stephen M. Schwebel's Justice in International Law', (1995) 35 VJIL 669. 681. At the time of his judgeship ad hoc in the East Timor case, Professor Skubiszewski was, as he presently remains, President of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal in The Hague.
149. East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep 224-77, 241-53, at 242.
150. East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, ibid., 243, citing Gulf of Fonseca judgment (Intervention), [1990] ICJ Rep 115-16 and 122.
151. Cf. the Nauru Dissenting Opinion (Preliminary Objections) of Judge Schwebel, [1992] ICJ Rep 335-7, interpreting these Gulf of Fonseca pronouncements as supporting the position of Australia (and not that of Nauru) in the Nauru case.
152. East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep 243-4, citing
153. Nauru judgment (Preliminary Objections), [1992] ICJ Rep 261-2.
154. East Timor dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep 245.
155. Cameroon v Nigeria Order (Provisional Measures) of 15 March 1996, para. 15; Declaration of Judges Oda, Shahabuddeen, Ranjeva, Koroma, Joint Declaration of Judges Weeramantry, Shi and Vereshchetin, Declaration of Judge ad hoc Keba Mbaye, and Separate Opinion of Judge Ajibola, [1996] ICJ Rep. 13-56.
156. B. Ajibola, "Third Parties in ICJ Proceedings", in Are International Institutions Doing Their Jobl above, note 39.
157. Anglo I Norwegian Fisheries Pleadings Vol.IV 671-2.
158. [1973] ICJ Rep 320, 324 (Intervention), and [1974] 530, 535 (Intervention).
159. [1981] ICJ Rep 3 (Intervention); Separate Opinions of Judges Morozov, ibid. 22, Oda, ibid. 23-34, and Schwebel, ibid. 35-40.
160. [1984] ICJ Rep 3 (Intervention); Separate Opinions of Judges Morozov, Nagendra Singh and Mbaye and Judge ad hoc Jimenez de Arechaga, ibid. 30-70; Dissenting Opinions of Vice-President Sette-Camara, ibid. 71-89, and Judges Oda, ibid. 90-114, Ago, ibid. 115-30, Schwebel, ibid. 131-47, and Sir Robert Jennings, ibid. 148-60.
161. [1990] ICJ Rep 92 (Intervention); Separate Opinion of Judge Oda, ibid. 138-44.
162. [1995] ICJ Rep 288. Cf. above, notes 36 and 81.
163. Libya/Malta Dissenting Opinion (Intervention) of Vice-President Sette-Camara, [1984] ICJ Rep 71, 88.
164. TunisiajLibya Separate Opinions (Intervention) of Judge Oda, [1981] ICJ Rep 27, and Judge Schwebel, ibid., 40.
165. Libya/Malta Separate Opinion (Intervention) and Judge ad hoc de Arechaga, [1984] ICJ Rep 55, 64.
166. See main text accompanying note 80, above; Rosenne, Intervention, above, note 2, at 105-15, 148-55, 177-83.
167. For doubts on non-party intervention, see also Lauterpacht, above, note 48, at 26-30; and the El Salvador/Honuras Oral Hearings, C 4/CR 90/3, 80-4 (6 June 1990, Counsel Lauterpacht).
168. [1990] ICJ Rep 135-6
169. discussed by R.Y. Jennings, "The International Court of Justice After Fifty Years", (1995) 89 AJIL 493, 500.
170. Cf. B. Kwiatkowska, "Equitable Maritime boundary Delimitation-As Exemplified in the Work of the World Court During the Presidency of Sir Robert Yewdall Jennings", in Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, above, note 4, 264, 273-6.
171. On judges ad hoc in the Tunisia v Libya case, see above, note 93.
172. Cf. "Non-Appearance Before the International Court of Justice", Rapporteur: G. Arangio-Ruiz, 64 Annuaire IDI [Session de Balel, 193-376 (1991-1). On Iceland's non-appearance, see main text accompanying note 71, above.
173. Cf. A. Gros, "La Cour Internationale de Justice 1946-1986", in Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne, above, note 32, at 289, 299.
174. For a view of a former judge ad hoc, designated by New Zealand and Australia in the original Nuclear Tests cases, that both those cases involved solely atmospheric testing, see Sir Geoffrey Palmer, "New Ways to Make International Environmental Law", (1992) 86 AJIL 259, 265-6. Note that Sir Geoffrey acknowledged comments on his article from Sir Kenneth Keith, who was NZ Counsel in both the original and the 1995 cases.
175. Cf. Written Reply by New Zealand of 15 September 1995 (on file with the author), to Question 2 of vice-President Schwebel, NZ v France Oral Hearings, CR 95/20, 45 (12 September 1995). 121 UNTS 97. Cf. the Minquiers Pleadings, Vol.11, 20 (17 September 1953, Counsel Sir Lionel Heald), 62-3 (18 September, Counsel Fitzmaurice). Cf. also statement of Britain that neither the status of Ecrehos (remaining within the jurisdiction of Jersey) nor fishing rights around Ecrehos were in any way affected by the 1994 UK/France Agreement on Fishing Rights in Waters Between Guernsey and French Coast. See (1994) 65 BYIL 649-51 (incl. map). Cf. main text accompanying notes 201-202 and 239-241, below. See above, note 85.
176. Cf. S. Rosenne, "The International Court of Justice and International Arbitration", (1993) 6 LJIL 297-323;
177. Schwebel, Justice in International Law, above, note 5, Chapter 26
178. "On Whether the Breach by a State of a Contract with an Alien is a Breach of International Law", 425-35.
179. See above, note 132; Schwebel, Justice in International Law, above, note 5, Chapter 13
180. "The Majority Vote of an International Arbitral Tribunal", 213-22;
181. S.M. Schwebel, "The Creation and Operation of an International Court of Arbitral Awards", in The Internationalization of International Arbitration, The LCIA Centenary Conference (1995) 115-23.
182. [1992] ICJ Rep 351, 600 For the 1917 Gulf of Fonseca judgment, see (1917) 11 AJIL 674. Cf. Hudson, above, note 2, at 60-2; Rosenne, above,note 132, at 321 n. 43.
183. Gulf of Maine Order (Constitution of Chamber), [1982] ICJ Rep 1.
184. The Chamber was composed of Judges Gros, Mosler, Ago (Chamber's President) and Schwebel, and Judge ad hoc Cohen (designated by Canada). See also the Gulf of Maine judgment, [1984] ICJ Rep 246; Technical Report of Commander Beazley, ibid. 347-52; Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel, ibid. 353-59; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gros, ibid. 360-90.
185. S. Rosenne, "The Role of the International Court of Justice in Inter-State Relations Today", 20 Revue beige de droit international (1987) (RBDI) 275, 277. Cf. above, note 5.
186. Oda, "The ICJ Viewed From the Bench", above, note 38, at 114.
187. Rosenne, "A Review Essay of Stephen M. Schwebel's Justice in International Law", above, note 94, at 678-80 (679).
188. Cf. Rosenne, The World's Court, above, note 2, at 251-4, and on Questions put to the witnesses by Judge Schwebel, see ibid., 141, 142-3. For more philosophical perception of the Nicaragua v USA case, see Abi-Saab, above, note 5, at 293-5.
189. Rosenne, "A Review Essay of Stephen M. Schwebel's Justice in International Law", above note 94, at 680;
190. Rosenne, "Lessons of the Past and the Needs of the Future", above note 80;
191. and on the revelations disclosed in a follow-up to an explosion in Managua on 23 May 1993, see Rosenne, 77ie World Court, above, note 2, at 152-3 (Postscript). [1992] ICJ Rep 3, 114 (Provisional Measures). [1993] ICJ Rep 325 (Provisional Measures).
192. Note that during the Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland) case (May 1973) and thereafter (December 1975), the British/Icelandic incidents were brought to the attention of the Security Council, which took no decision on either occasion. Nor did the SC take a decision when prior to the institution of the Libya/Malta proceedings, the dispute was brought to its attention in 1980/81. In this case, the good offices of the Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim were instrumental in persuading Libya and Malta to bring their dispute to the Court. A draft resolution submitted by Nicaragua on 4 April 1984 was not adopted by the SC following the negative vote of the United States, which triggered Nicaragua's decision to bring the case to the Court. On the Letters of the SC President of 29 February 1996 and a Fact-Finding Mission into the Bakassi Peninsula which was proposed by Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali, see the Cameroon v Nigeria (Provisional Measures) Order, [1996] ICJ Rep. 23-24.
193. K.J. Skubiszewski, "The International Court of Justice and the Security Council", in Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, above, note 4, at 606, 606-15 (610).
194. Cf. Schwebel, Justice in International Law, above, note 5, Chapter 2
195. "Relations Between the International Court of Justice and the United Nations", 14, 21-3.
196. Rosenne, The World Court, above, note 2, at 239, 251.
197. Skubiszewski, "The International Court of Justice and the Security Council", above, note 146, at 615-22, 618.
198. Ibid., 622, noting that in the Lockerbie cases the SC came rather close to the proposition advanced in the Anglo/Iranian Oil Co. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Alvarez, [1952] ICJ Rep 124, 134, for which Rosenne, The Law and Practice, above, note 32, at 73, found no express authority in the Charter or in the Court's Statute.
199. For citation of Rosenne's view, see the Lockerbie Dissenting Opinions (Provisional Measures) of Judge Weeramantry, [1992] ICJ Reports 56-7, 166-7.
200. Cf. remarks on the Lockerbie Orders (Provisional Measures) in the East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep, 247-8.
201. Cf. also T.M. Franck, "The Powers of Appreciation'", (1992) 86 AJIL 519-23;
202. W.M. Reisman, "The Constitutional Crisis in the United Nations", (1993) 87 AJIL 83-100;
203. R.St.J. Macdonald, "Changing Relations Between the ICJ and the Security Council, (1993) 31 Canadian Yearbook of International Law 3-32.
204. [1949] icj Rep 174.
205. On the significance of the Reparation Advisory Opinion, see Schwebel, Justice in International Law, above, note 5, Chapter 16: "The International Character of the Secretariat of the United Nations", 248, 258-60.
206. East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski [1995] ICJ Rep 238, remarking that, A court of justice need not be and, indeed, should not be an exponent of the law-making opinion of 'yesterday' or still worse-to use Albert V. Dicey's expression-'the opinion of the day before yesterday.' The Court should and can look ahead. Otherwise there would not be decisions such as the one in the case concerning Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. On Judge Skubiszewski's Opinion, see main text accompanying notes 93-102, above.
207. PCIJ Series A, No. 10, 4, 18. For a view that this Lotus passage was no more than an obiter dictum which could have been omitted without affecting the judgment, see Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, QC, LLD, FBA, The Development of International Law by the International Court (1934/1982), 359-61.
208. Cf. R.Y. Jennings, "General Course on Principles of International Law", RCADI 327, 515-26 (1967-11).
209. Cf. the Fisheries Jurisdiction (UKv Iceland) Separate Opinion (Merits) of Judge Dillard, [1974] ICJ Rep 53, 58-60.
210. Ibid., CR 95/28, 69-71 (9 November 1995, Advocate Sanchez/Philippines), CR 95/31, 59-61 (13 November, Clark/Samoa, also on behalf of the Marshall Islands and Solomon Islands), CR 95/ 32, 81 (14 November 1995, Crawford/Solomon Islands); the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (UNGA Request), [1996] ICJ Rep. (in press), reprinted in (1996) 35 ILM 819-20.
211. Cf. K.J. Skubiszewski, "Elements of Custom and the Hague Court", 31 KaoRV (1971) 810, 816, 824, 830-1, 840-2, 852-3; Jennings, above, note 64, at 2.
212. [1969] ICJ Rep 44-5.
213. Cf. the North Sea Pleadings, Vol.1, 58 (Memorial of FRG[D], Vol.11, 200 (5 November 1968, Counsel Shigeru Oda).
214. [1986] ICJ Rep 108 9
215. citing the North Sea judgment, [1969] ICJ Rep 44.
216. Nuclear Tests Pleadings (Australia), 333.
217. See also Fisheries Jurisdiction Pleadings (UK), 351 (Memorial (Merits);
218. the Nuclear Weapons Oral Hearings, CR 95/28, 38 (9 November 1995, New Zealand), CR 95/34, 77, 78 (15 November, UK).
219. PCIJ Series A/B, No.53, 22, 71-3.
220. [1995] ICJ Rep 305-6 (Order)
221. citing [1974] ICJ Rep 474
222. (NZ v France judgment). See also the Nicaragua v USA judgment (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), [1984] ICJ Rep 418;
223. the Burkina FasojMali Frontier Dispute judgment, [1986] ICJ Rep 573-4;
224. the Nicaragua v Honduras judgment (Jurisdiction), [1988] ICJ Rep 105-6.
225. Cf. the Nuclear Weapons Oral Hearings, CR 95/ 28, 50 (9 November 1995, New Zealand).
226. K.J. Skubiszewski, "Unilateral Acts of States", in Bedjaoui, above, note 2, at 221, 225; also 231-2, 235.
227. Cf. E. Jimenez de Arechaga, "The Work and Jurisprudence of the ICJ 1947/1986", (1987) 48 BYIL 1, 10-11.
228. Aegean Sea Pleadings, 111-12 (25 August 1976), Counsel O'Connell), 266 (Memorial (Jurisdiction) of Greece); Separate Opinion (Jurisdiction) of Judge Lachs, [1978] ICJ Rep 50, 51.
229. [1978] ICJ Rep 3, 39-4.
230. [1986] ICJ Rep 132.
231. Higgins, Problems and Process, above, note 30, at 35.
232. [1949] ICJ Rep 22
233. repeated in the Nicaragua v USA judgment (Merits), [1986] ICJ Rep 112.
234. Cf. Schwebel, "The Treatment of Human Rights", above, note 4, at 330 and 339.
235. For invocation of this Corfu pronouncement, see also the Nuclear Weapons Oral Hearings, CR 95/22, 44 (30 October 1995, Australia)
236. CR 95/25, 29 (3 November, Indonesia), CR 95/28, 28 (9 November, New Zealand), CR 95/32, 18 (14 November, Marshall Islands), CR 95/34, 44-6 (15 November 1995, UK);
237. Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (UNGA Request), see note 157 above; reprinted in (1996) 35 ILM 827.
238. [1949] ICJ Rep 22.
239. For reliance thereupon, see the Australia v France Nuclear Tests Joint Dissenting Opinion, and Dissenting Opinion of Judge de Castro, [1974] ICJ Rep 361, 388;
240. the New Zealand v France Nuclear Tests Dissenting Opinions (Request for an Examination of the Situation) of Judge Weeramantry, [1995] ICJ Rep 346-7, 362 n.l
241. and Judge ad hoc Sir Geoffrey Palmer, ibid., 408. See also the Anglo/Norwegian Fisheries Pleadings, Vol.11, 427, 430 (Reply of UK);
242. the North Sea Pleadings, Vol.11, 200 (5 November 1968, Counsel Shigeru Oda);
243. the Nuclear Weapons Oral Hearings, CR 95/34, 55 (15 November 1995, UK).
244. Cf. Valencia-Ospina, above, note 5, at 523; Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, see note 157 above; reprinted in (1996) 35 ILM 821.
245. Cf. Ch. Greenwood, "The ICJ and the Use of Force", in Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings, above, note 4, at 373, 373-4.
246. [1960] ICJ Rep 150.
247. Cf. S. Rosenne, "La Cour Internationale de Justice en 1960", (1961) 65
248. RGDIP 473, 515-17. Cf. also main text accompanying notes 221-227, below.
249. See Rosenne, An International Law Miscellany, above, note 2, Chapter 7
250. "The Position of the ICJ on the Foundations of the Principle of Equity in International Law", 201, 220.
251. [1956] ICJ Rep 100 (Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal), invoking [1949] ICJ Rep 249 (Corfu (Compensation)); as cited in the North Sea judgment, [1969] ICJ Rep 48-9. Cf. main text accompanying notes 74-75 above, below, notes 229 and 234.
252. PCIJ Series A/B, No.70, 25.
253. According to Dissenting Opinions of Judge Hudson, ibid. 11, "under Article 38 of the Statute, if not independently of that article, the Court has some freedom to consider principles of equity as part of the international law which it must apply." Judge Hudson's Opinion, ibid. 76, was invoked in the Tunisia/Libya Dissenting Opinion (Merits) of Judge ad hoc Evensen, [1982] ICJ Rep 290-1;
254. and below, notes 181 and 183. See also the North Sea Pleadings, Vol.11, 200 (Counsel Shigeru Oda, 5 November 1968);
255. the Fisheries Jurisdiction Pleadings (UK), 473 (25 March 1974, Counsel Silkin);
256. the Tunisia/Libya Pleadings Vol.1, 166-7 (Memorial of Tunisia), Vol.IV, 417 (16 September 1981, Counsel Sir Robert Jennings).
257. Cf. Hudson, The Permanent court, above, note 2, at 618.
258. [1951] ICJ Rep 128-9,132.
259. Cf. the North Sea Pleadings Vol.11,179-80 (4 November 1968, Agent Jaenicke), 194-5 (5 November, Counsel Shigeru Oda), 271-2 (11 November 1968, Counsel Sir Humphrey Waldock).
260. Including: 1902 France/Venezuela Frederick & Co. (No.260/Stuyt), 1914
261. Netherlands/Portugal Island of Timor ((1915) 9
262. AJIL and Suppl. 107; No.275/Stuyt)
263. 1928. UK/Turkey W.J. Armstrong & Co. Ltd. v Vickers Ltd. decisions. Other examples are: 1922
264. and 1928 UK/Turkey W.J. Armstrong & Co. Ltd. v Vickers Ltd. decisions.
265. Other examples are: 1922 Norway/USA Norwegian Shipowners' Claim (RIAA I, 339; (1922) 16 AJIL 81 and Suppl. 16;
266. (1923) 17 AJIL 287, 362; No.339/Stuyt)
267. 1926 GB v USA Cayuga Indians ((1926) 20 AJIL 574; No.303/Stuyt)
268. and 1968 India/Pakistan Rann of Kutch (50 ILR 2; (1968) 7 ILM 633; J. Gillis Wetter, (1971) 65 AJIL 346-57; No.433/Stuyt).
269. North Sea Separate Opinions of Judge Jessup, [1969] ICJ Rep 66, 84, and Judge Ammoun, ibid., 100, 138, 142, 145.
270. [1970] ICJ Rep 48-50.
271. For invocation of the Barcelona Traction Separate Opinion (Second Phase) of Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, ibid. 85-6, see the Libya/Malta Pleadings, Vol.11, 316 n.3 (Counter-Memorial of Malta).
272. [1974] ICJ Rep 33, 34 (para. 79(3)), and 202, 205 (para. 77(3));
273. Separate Opinion (Merits) of Judge Dillard, ibid. 63-6, invoking the 1937 Diversion of Water from the Meuse Dissenting Opinion of Judge Hudson (PCIJ Series A/B, No.70, 76); Separate Opinion of Judge de Castro, ibid. 99, 103-4; Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gros, ibid. 146. Cf. Higgins, Problems and Process, above, note 30, at 224-5.
274. [1986] ICJ Rep 567-8, 631-3, and Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Abi-Saab, ibid., 659, 662.
275. Nicaragua v USA Dissenting Opinions of Judge Schwebel, [1984] ICJ Rep 190, 198-9 (Provisional Measures), and 1986, 259, 392-3 (Merits). For Judge Hudson's Opinion, see above, note 176.
276. Fisheries Jurisdiction judgments (Merits) (1974) ICJ Rep. 23-24, 192
277. Cf. Declarations of Judge Ignacio-Pinto, ibid., 38, 211, where he agreed with J.-P. Levy, "La troisieme Conference sur le droit de la mer", (1971) 17 AFDI 828, in thinking that the UNCLOS III could only succeed "by moderation, mutual understanding, and the spirit of compromise".
278. J.-P. Levy (Former Director of the DOALOS/OLA, above, note 11), "Les Nations Unies et la Convention de 1982 sur le droit de la mer", (1995) 28 RBDI 11-35, 31.
279. Cf. the East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep 238, referred to above, note 151.
280. See main text accompanying notes 92-102 East Timor and 122-125 (Nz v France). See above, notes 73 (The Estai) and 101 (Cameroon v Nigeria). [1982] ICJ Rep 763, and [1994] 3;
281. ICJ Communique No.96/4 and 96/28. PCIJ Series A/B, No.51, 1.
282. PCIJ Series A/B, No.55, 157;
283. main text accompanying note 77, above. [1995] ICJ Rep 423.
284. [1996] ICJ Rep 9.
285. Great Belt Order (Provisional Measures) [1991] ICJ Rep 12;
286. ICJ Communique No.92/93. Cf. M. Koskennienni "Case Concerning Passage through the Great Belt", (1996) 27 ODIL 255-289.
287. See main text accompanying notes 40-41 and 75, above. E. Root, "The Codification of International Law", (1925) 19 AJIL 675, 678.
288. Interview with Japan's Vice-Foreign Minister, Hisashi Owada, The Korea Times, 14 July 1993, 3;
289. "Japan Rules Out Force Over Disputed Islands", International Herald Tribune (IHT), 14 February 1996, 4, and 21 February, 4; "Korean Plan for Isles Risks Japanese Anger", ibid., 23 February, 4, and 14 March 1996, 4. UN Doc. A/50/713 (1995), above, note 12, at 38.
290. Of earlier instances, see the 1974 US Senate Resolution 74 on ICJ-Territorial Disputes (Sec.2), (1975) 69
291. AJIL 246; L.B. Sohn, ibid., 92-6.
292. RIAA XI, 155; (1910) 4 AJIL 226; No.288/Stuyt. For invocation of the Grisabadarna Award in this context, see the Eastern Greenland Pleadings (PCIJ Series C, No.63), 817 (Reply of Denmark), 1314-15 (Rejoinder of Norway); the Minquiers Pleadings, Vol.11, 177-8 (24 September 1953, Counsel Harrison), 274 (30 September, Agent Gros).
293. [1953] ICJ Rep 47, 70-1.
294. On the Horsburgh Light, see G. Kent and M.J. Valencia, Marine Policy in Southwest Asia (1985) 93.
295. ILC Yearbook 1956-11, 266-8
296. (Anglo/Norwegian Fisheries [1951] ICJ Rep 116: normal and straight baselines), 268-9 (id.: bays), 273 (Corfu (Merits, [1949] ICJ Rep 1): innocent passage through TS and regime of straits), 277 (id.: innocent passage of warships).
297. Normal and straight baselines: 1958 TSC-Arts. 3, 4 and 5, 1982 LOSC-Arts. 5, 7 and 8;
298. Bays: 1958 TSC-Art. 7, 1982 LOSC-Art. 10;
299. Innocent passage through TS: 1958 TSC-Arts. 15 and 16, 1982 LOSC-Arts. 24 and 25;
300. Regime of straits: 1958 TSC- Art. 16(4), 1982
301. LOSC-Arts. 37 (definition of strait) and 45 (innocent passage); Innocent passage of warships: 1958 TSC-Art. 23, 1982 LOSC-Art. 30. For the 1958 TSC and 1982 LOSC, see above, notes 23 and 24; also above, note 27.
302. PCIJ Series A, No.l, 15. Cf. main text accompanying note 153; UNGA Resolution 50/12 of 7 November 1995 on Universal Congress on the Panama Canal (to be held in Panama City in September 1997).
303. PCIJ Series A/B, No.43, 128; Dissenting Opinion of Count Michel Jean Cesar Rostworoski (Poland), ibid., 151-61, and Statements of Dissent of Judges Fromageot (France) and Urrutia (Colombia), ibid., 149-50. Cf. Hudson, above, note 2, at 657; Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, above, note 154, at 119-20, also at 29-30, 80, 304 n.20.
304. For invocation of the Polish War Vessels in Danzig Advisory Opinion in this context, see the Corfu Dissenting Opinion (Merits) of Judge Azevedo, [1949] ICJ Rep 75, 100.
305. See the Nicaragua v USA Dissenting Opinion (Merits) of Judge Schwebel, [1986] ICJ Rep 259, 378-81;
306. as discussed by W. Heintschel von Heinegg, "The International Law of Mine Warfare at Sea", 23 Israel Yearbook of Human Rights (1993), 53-76, at 67-8.
307. Cf. main text accompanying notes 140-142. On US mining of Haiphong, Vietnam in 1972, see the Nuclear Tests Pleadings (Australia), 517 (9 July 1974, Solicitor-General Byers). See the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (UNGA Request), note 157 above, reprinted in (1996) 35 ILM 829, and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabudeen, ibid., 865-866.
308. For reliance on Elihu Root's dictum from the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Proceedings, [1912] Vol.XI, 2007 (above, note 3)
309. see the Corfu Pleadings, vol.11, 137 (Counter-Memorial of Albania), 293 (Reply of UK), Vol.III, 274-5 and 276 (11 November 1948, Agent Sir Eric Beckett), 377, 382 and 386 (18 November 1948, Counsel Cot), Vol.IV, 543 and 553 (18 January 1949, Agent Beckett), 673 (22 January 1949, Counsel Cot).
310. Corfu Dissenting Opinions (Merits) of Judge Krylov, [1949] ICJ Rep 68, 74, and Judge Azevedo, ibid., 78, 101.
311. (1989) 28 ILM 1444; UN Doc.A/44/650 (1989), above, note 11, at 8.
312. PCIJ Series A 10, 1, 25
313. IMCO Pleadings, 132-6 (USA).
314. IMCO Pleadings, 136 (SA). See also ibid., 44 (Liberia), 182-3 (Panama), 256 (India), 317 (27 April 1960, Panama).
315. For opposite view, see W.M. Reisman and G.G. Westerman, Straight Baselines in Maritime Boundary Delimitation (1992), 34.
316. The 1989 Australia/Indonesia timor Gap Treaty, whose validity was questioned in the East Timor case by Portugal, [1995] ICJ Rep 98, 100, 102, 105, and Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, ibid., 233-4, 253-5
317. exemplified Indonesia's policy (initiated by Minister of Justice and then Foreign Minister Mochtar Kusumaatmadja, and continued by the current Foreign Minister Ali Alatas, who signed the Timor Gap Treaty) of concluding some 15 maritime delimitation and other treaties (e.g. 1988 Indonesia/USA Income Tax Treaty, (1989) 83 AJIL 559) with a view to securing international recognition of the archipelagic concept. With the integration of East Timor into Indonesian territory in 1976, the total area (land and archipelagic waters) of the Indonesian Archipelago is now 5,193,250 square kilometres. See also East Timor Separate Opinion of Judge Oda, [1995] ICJ Rep 107-18. Cf. main text accompanying notes 12, 33 and 91-102, above.
318. [1955] ICJ Rep 4, 23; note 18, above.
319. IMCO Pleadings, 71 (Liberia), 298-9 (27 April 1960, L), 317 (27 June, Panama, 404-5, 407 (3 May, L). See also above, notes 214-215.
320. 344 (28 April, Italy), 355-9 (29 April, Netherlands), 354-8 (Norway), 374, 383 (UK)
321. IMCO Pleadings, 335, 344 (28 April 1960, Italy), 355-9 (29 April, Netherlands), 354-8 (Norway), 374, 383 (UK).
322. Cf. the North Sea Pleadings, Vol.11, 242 (8 November 1969, Counsel Sir Humphrey Waldock); the ELSI Pleadings, Vol.11, 250 n.4 (Counter-Memorial of Italy).
323. [1960] ICJ Rep 150, 171. For support of genuine link concept, see Dissenting Opinion of Judge Moreno Quintana, ibid., 177, 178. Cf. also above, note 172. [1970] ICJ Rep 182, 183-4. (1987) 26 ILM 1229.
324. Jennings, "General Course", above note 154, at 463-5.
325. East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep 238, referred to above, note 151.
326. For reliance on the North Sea judgment, [1969] ICJ Rep 3, see Statements of: Orion (Israel), 16th Meeting-26 July 1974, in UNCLOS III Off. Rec. Vol.11 (1975) 144; Herrera Caceres (Honduras), ibid. 145; Galindo Pohl (El Salvador), 18th Meeting-29 July, ibid. 149; Kelly de Guibourg (Argentina), 150; Chao (Singapore), 151; Lupinacci (Uruguay), 153; Mircea (Romania), 19th Meeting-30 July, ibid. 156; Caflisch (Switzerland), 157; Yolga (Turkey), 158; Araim (Iraq), 159; Panupong (Thailand), 159-60; Kedadi (Tunisia), 20th Meeting-30 July, ibid., 163; Gayan (Mauritius), 163; Jacovides (Cyprus), 163; Lysaght (Ireland), 165; Sobarzo (Mexico), 166; Robinson (Jamaica), 167-8; Bellizzi (Malta), 168-9; Al-Nimer (Bahrain), 22nd Meeting-31 July 1974, ibid. 171. Cf. also Yolga (Turkey), 140th Meeting-27 August 1980, ibid. Vol.XIV, 79 (1982);
327. Libya/malta Pleadings Vol.1, 105-7 (Memorial of Libya).
328. For reliance on the Fisheries Jurisdiction judgments (Merits), [1974] ICJ Rep 3, 175, see Statements of: Ambassador Rosenne (Israel), 22nd Meeting-31 July 1974, in UNCLOS III Off. Rec. Vol.11 (1975) 178;
329. Ambassador Andersen (Iceland), 30th Meeting-7 August 1974, ibid., 229.
330. [1995] ICJ Rep 306;
331. repeated in the Nuclear Weaons Advisory Opinion, see note 157 above, reprinted in (1996) 35 ILM 821.
332. Gulf of Maine Separate Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [1984] ICJ Rep 353, 357. Cf. main text accompanying notes 173-183, above.
333. An exception thereto seems to be provided by the 1992 Delimitation of Maritime Areas Between Canada and France (St. Pierre and Miquelon) Award, (1992) 31 ILM 1165; (1992) 96 RGDIP 673; No.450/Stuyt.
334. Cf. E. Zoller, "L'Affaire de la Delimitation des espaces maritimes entre le Canada et la Republique Franfaise", (1992) 38 AFDI 480-500.
335. RIAA XVIII, 3; 54 ILR 139; (1979) 18 ILM 397. For the 1958 CSC, see above, note 23. For the first attempt to combine the application of equitable principles with equidistance, see Doc. A/ CONF.62/C.2/L.14 (Netherlands), 19 July 1974, in UNCLOS III Off. Rec. vol.III (1975), 190 and Statement of Riphagen (NL), 28th Meeting-6 August 1974, ibid, vol.11 (1975), 218.
336. [1993] ICJ Rep 38, 62-63.
337. [1956] ICJ Rep 12, 15 (Removal from the List). Cf. main text accompanying note 66, above. RIAAII, 829; No.366/Stuyt.
338. Cf. Ph.C. Jessup, The Palmas Island Arbitration", (1928) 22 AJIL 735-52.
339. Antarctica Pleadings, 8-47, 48-77
340. and a map at the end of volume. Cf. Sir Humphrey Waldock, Disputed Sovereignty in the Falkland Islands Dependencies", (1948) 25 BYIL 311-53.
341. Cf. also R.D. Hayton, "The 'American' Antarctica", (1956) 50 AJIL 583, 607-8
342. noting that the British Applications amounted to a preliminary Memorial. [1975] ICJ Rep 12, 38-9, 42-3. Cf. above, note 15. 91 ILR 543; (1994) 65 BYIL 103-33; No.438/Stuyt.
343. National Security and the Convention on the Law of the Sea (US Department of Defense, 1996) 16-20.
344. Cf. G.M.C. Valero, "Spratly Archipelago Dispute", (1994) 18 Marine Policy 314-44; UN Doc. A/50/713 (1995), above, note 12, at 37-8.
345. Antarctica Pleadings, 27. See also Letter of the UK Agent Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice of 31 August 1955 to the Court's Registrar, ibid. 97-100.
346. For some recent exchanges, see e.g. UN/DOALOS Law of the Sea Bulletin 40-52 (1987 No.9);
347. Working Paper of the Secretariat on Falkland Islands (Malvinas), UN Doc. A/AC.109/2027 (1995). See above, note 198.
348. For some recent exchanges, see UN Docs A/50/216-S/1995/476, A/50/256-S/1995/505, A/50/ 264-S/1995/526, A/50/279-S/1995/568, A.50/303-S/1995/603. See also Declaration made by Greece upon ratification of the LOS Convention and the Part XI Agreement on 21 July 1995, UN/DOALOS Law of the Sea Bulletin 6-7 (1995 No.29), and Objection of Turkey of 19 December 1995 to Greece's Declaration, ibid., 9-10 (1996 No.30).
349. Rosenne, The World Court, above, note 2, at 213.
350. W. Drozdiak, "Nuclear Tests Over, Chirac Announces", IHT of 30 January 1996, 1;
351. M. Richardson, ibid., 31 January 1996, 4. See also Report of the Third Ordinary Meeting of the Contracting Parties to the SPREP Convention, Apia, Western Samoa, 6-7 October 1995, Agenda Item 6, at 2-4 [Declaration], Annexes 5 [AUS], 6 [NZ], 7 [USA, abstaining] (SPREP 1995);
352. the Nuclear Weapons Oral Hearings, CR 95/22, 67-8 (30 October, Counsel Evans), CR 95/28, 19-62, at 20 and 53-8 (9 November 1995, Attorney-General East).
353. AEA Press Release PR 96/3, 96/12 and 96/16 (1996).
354. East Timor Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Skubiszewski, [1995] ICJ Rep 238, referred to above, note 151.
355. Schwebel, Justice in International Law, above, note 5, Chapter 1: "Reflections on the Role of the ICJ", 3-13, at 4;
356. as cited in the Jubilee Book, above, note 9, Chapter Nine: "The Judges", Stephen M. Schwebel, 323.
357. Jennings, "The ICJ After Fifty Years", above, note 116, at 493.
358. Cf. Rosenne, "Establishing the ITLOS", above, note 47;
359. Rosenne, "The ITLOS and the ICJ", above, note 63;
360. and Rosenne, as Moderator of Round-Table on Settlement of Disputes, above, notes 80 and 114.