III. Case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), jurisdiction and admissibility, judgment of 3 February 2006

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 55, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 753-763

  Orakhelashvili, Alexander ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748121741     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/lei117     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. General List No 126. Not yet published (hereinafter referred to as 'Judgment'). All references to the Judgment and individual opinions are made to the text available at the Court's website .
2. Judgment, para 18.
3. See, in particular, the Rights of Minorities in Upper Silesia Case PCIJ Series A, No, 15, 23;
4. and the Corfu Channel Case ICJ Reports 1947-8, 27.
5. Judgment, paras 23-5.
6. ibid paras 29, 43.
7. ibid paras 42, 44.
8. Judgment paras 47-8.
9. ibid paras 49-53.
10. ibid paras 63-4.
11. ibid paras 65-7.
12. ibid para 68.
13. Dissenting Opinion para 13 (emphasis original).
14. Dissenting Opinion para 21.
15. ibid paras 22, 26, and 29.
16. Joint Separate Opinion para 21.
17. ibid paras 2-5.
18. Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide [1951] ICJ Rep 15.
19. Joint Separate Opinion, paras 14-16, 22.
20. ibid paras 28-9.
21. Judgment paras 71-9.
22. Judgment paras 87-93, 99-101, 107-9, and 118-19.
23. ibid para 121.
24. ibid paras 123-4.
25. ibid para 126.
26. As the Court affirmed in Nuclear Tests ICJ Reports 1974, 267-8, unilateral acts imply binding obligation for the declaring State in which other States may place reliance.
27. This can be compared to the treatment of the concept of 'reasonable time' in the Nicaragua case as the parameter against which the validity of the termination of the US Optional Clause declaration was to be judged: ICJ Reports 1984, 420-1.
28. Pellet Tenth Report on Reservations to Treaties, Addendum 1, A/CN.4/558/ Add.1, 18.
29. Written Statement of the United Nations in the Reservations case ICJ Pleadings, 1951, 104-5, 108-9.
30. ibid 105, 109.
31. But subsequently Guatemala seems to have changed its approach by stating that reservations may affect the application of the clauses concerned, ibid 105-6.
32. ibid 106-7.
33. ibid 109.
34. ibid 110.
35. Oral Statement by Sir Hartley Shawcross in the Reservations case, ICJ Pleadings, 1951, 380.
36. The UK statements of 21 Nov 1975, 26 Aug 1983, 30 Dec 1987, 22 Dec 1989, and 20 Mar 1996 are available at .
37. ICJ Reports, 1951, 23.
38. This can hold true both for universal and regional humanitarian treaties, such as the ECHR, ACHR, and ICCPR, see Austria v Italy 4 YB ECHR (1961) 140;
39. Ireland v UK ECtHR 58 ILR 188, 291;
40. Effect of Reservations, IACtHR, para 27, 67 ILR 568;
41. and the General Comment 24(52) of the UN Human Rights Committee, para 17, 2 IHRR (1995) 10.
42. The Convention against Torture (1984) establishes the Committee against Torture and provides for arbitration for the purposes of interpretation and application of that Convention (Art 30). Art 30(2) expressly empowers States-Parties to make a reservation excluding the jurisdiction of the Court. The Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1966) establishes also the treaty-based Committee entrusted with the task to enforce that Convention.
43. Reservations to the Genocide Convention, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1951, 23.
44. Application of the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, ICJ Reports, 1996, 616.
45. Such as the duties with regard to jurisdication and extradition under Arts VI-VII.
46. Rawle Kennedy, paras 6.5 ff, and more generally, General Comment No 24 (52) para 6.
47. Temeltasch 5 EHRR (1983). 423 ff, paras 32 ff, 431 ff, paras 68 ff
48. Chrysostomos 12 HRLJ (1991) 120-1, paras 12 and 23.
49. Belilos Series A, 132, 21 ff, para 42
50. Loizidou Series A, 310, 27, paras 72 ff;
51. P Van Dijk and GJH Van Hoof Theory and Practice of the European Convention on Human Rights (Brill Leiden 1998) 776, emphasize that the outcome of severability in Loizidou was dictated by the need for compatibility with the object and purpose under Art 19 VCLT.
52. The European Court in Loizidou inferred its own power to sever reservations from the two other circumstances: The interplay between the respondent's intention and the jurisdictional requirements contained in Arts 25 and 46 of the European Convention (para 95) and the fact that the examination of the respondent's declaration allowed the separation of impugned clauses from the reminder of acceptance (para 97), Series A, 310, 31-2.
53. General Comment 24, para 17.
54. Bowett 'Reservations to Non-Restricted Multilateral treaties' BYIL (1975-6) 83.
55. Dissenting Opinion, para 14 (emphasis added);
56. see also Joint Separate Opinion, para 22.
57. This was confirmed in individual Opinions of Judges in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, in which the majority did not deal with the issue of jus cogens as it had no direct relevance for the case.
58. See the Opinion of Judges Padilla Nervo, ICJ Reports, 1969, 97-8
59. Tanaka, ICJ Reports, 1969, 182
60. Lachs, ICJ Reports, 1969, 229
61. Sorensen, ICJ Reports, 1969, 248.