Dr.

SHAKUNTALA MISRA NATIONAL REHABILITATION UNIVERSITY

Lucknow

Faculty of Law

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

For

COURSE ON INTERNATIONAL LAW

CLASS: B.Com., LL.B (Hons.) VIIrd Semester

Submitted by

ABHISHEK VERMA

143070005

Academic Session: 2017-18

Under the Supervision of

Prof. Dr.Gulab Rai
Prof. in Law
Faculty of Law
Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University
 Acknowledgement

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher Prof. Dr.Gulab Rai
who gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful topic in INTERNATIONAL
LAW at topic INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE which also helped me in doing a
lot of Research and I came to know about so many new things I am really thankful to them.

Abhishek verma
Introduction
The Justice plays a dominant role to provide for rule of law which is so essential
for strengthening the foundations of democracy. This is more important for a
developing democracy like Bangladesh where weaknesses of democracy in the
absence of a strong Justice could pose threat to individual liberty. Access to justice
and Justice as the last resort to justice is the demand of any democracy. Justice
rescues the weak from the misuse of power by the strong; it protects the minority
from the tyranny of the majority. For Justice to be strong and effective, Court of
Justice & Its Role In International Dispute Settlement is the first precondition.

Objectives & Scope of the Study

The objectives of this research are:

to review the present status of the Court of Justice & Its Role In
International Dispute Settlement
to analyze & assess the existing measures for ensuring Court of Justice &
Its Role In International Dispute Settlement
to find out weakness and problems of Justice
to propose the betterment options for International Court of Justice & Its
Role In International Dispute Settlement & its improvement
to ensure high standard of justice & people confidence on Justice.

The scope of this research includes the areas of information required to Collect
analyze regarding the International Court of Justice & Its Role In International
Dispute Settlement.

Utility
In the field of Justice the subject matter has a great importance. It is not only
necessary for judicial person but also necessary for public in general to get justice.
I hope that this will be a valuable asset for later workers in this field. Overall I
expect that this thesis will benefit the country & countrymen.
Limitations
In conducting this research some limitations have found. This field of research is
very complicated and the materials are not available. In case of foreign elements it
is very difficult to collect recent information and data. The collection of materials
is not easy and free.

Objectives

The modern history of international arbitration is however, generally recognized as

dating from the so-called jay treaty of 1794 between the united states of America
and great Britain the treaty of amity, commerce and navigation provided for the
creation of three mixed commissions, composed of American and British nationals
in equal number, whose takes it would be to settle a number of outstanding
question between the two countries which it had not been possible to resolve by
negotiation.

Whilst it is true that these mixed commission were not strictly speaking organs of
third-party adjudication they were intended to function to some extent as tribunals.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ)

The outbreak of war in September 1939 inevitably had serious consequences for
the PCIJ, which had already for some years known a period of diminished activity.
After its last public sitting on 4 December 1939, the permanent court of
International justice did not in fact deal with any judicial business and no further
elections of judges were help. In 1940 the court removed to GENEVA, a single
judge remaining at the HAGUE, together with a few register officials of Dutch
nationality. It was inevitable that even under the stress of the war some thought
should be given to future of the court, as well to the creation of a new international
political order.

In 1942 the United states secretary of state and the foreign secretary of the United
Kingdom declared themselves in favour of the establishment or re-establishment of
an international court after war, and the Inter-American juridical committee
recommended the extension of the PCLTs jurisdiction. Early in 1943, the United
Kingdom Government took the initiative of inviting a number of experts to London
to constitute an informal inter-Allied committee to examine the matter. This
committee, under the chairmanship of Sir William Malkin(United Kingdom), held
19meetings, which were attended by jurists from 11 countries. In its report, which
was published on 10 February 1944, it recommended: that the statue of any new
international court should be based on that of the permanent court of international
court of Justice. Meanwhile, on 30 October 1943, following a conference between
China, the USSR, the United Kingdom and the United States, a joint declaration
was issued recognizing the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date
a general international organization,

based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and
open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of
international peace and security.

This declaration led to exchanges between the Four Powers at Dumbarton Oaks,
resulting in the publication on 9 October 1944 of proposals for the establishment of
a general international organization, to include an international court of justice.
The next step was the convening of a meeting in Washington, in April 1945, of a
committee of jurists representing 44 States. This Committee, under the
chairmanship of G. H. Hackworth (United States), was entrusted with the
preparation of a draft Statute for the future international court of justice, for
submission to the San Francisco Conference, which during the months of April to
June 1945 was to draw up the United Nations Charter.

The San Francisco Conference nevertheless showed some concern that all
continuity with the past should not be broken, particularly as the Statute of the
PCIJ had itself been drawn up on the basis of past experience, and it was felt better
not to change something that had seemed to work well. The Charter therefore
plainly stated that the Statute of the International Court of Justice was based upon
that of the PCIJ. At the same time, the necessary steps were taken for a transfer of
the jurisdiction of the PCIJ so far as was possible to the International Court of
Justice. The judges of the PCIJ all resigned on 31 January 1946, and the election of
the first Members of the International Court of Justice took place on 6 February
1946, at the First Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security
Council. In April 1946, the PCIJ was formally dissolved, and the International
Court of Justice, meeting for the first time, elected as its President Judge Jose
Gustavo Guerrero ( El Salvador), the last President of the PCIJ. The Court
appointed the members of its Registry (largely from among former officials of the
PCIJ) and held an inaugural public sitting, on the 18th of that month. The first case
was submitted in May 19472. It concerned incidents in the Corfu Channel and was
brought by Ihc United Kingdom against Albania.
Composition

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN
General Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated
by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process
is set out in Articles 4-19 of the 1CJ statute. Judges serve for nine year terms and
may be re-elected for up to two further terms. Elections take place every three
years, with one-third of the judges retiring (and possibly standing for re-election)
each time, in order to ensure continuity within the court.

Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge of the
same nationality lo complete the term. No two may be nationals of the same
country. According to Article 9, the membership of the Court is supposed to
represent the main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the
world. Essentially, this has meant common law, civil law and socialist law (now
post-communist law). Since the 1960s four of the five permanent members of the
Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States)
have always had a judge on the Court, The exception was China (the Republic of
China until 1971, the Peoples Republic of China from 1971 onwards), which did
not have a judge on the Court from 1967-1985, because it did not put forward a
candidate.

Article 2 of the Statute provides that all judges should be elected regardless of
their nationality among persons of high 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 16-18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other
post, nor act as counsel. In practice the Members of the Court have their own
interpretation of these rules. A judge can be dismissed only by 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 iommuniqufi suggesting that it could not 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 Advisory Opinions are by majority and, in the event of an equal division, the
Presidents vote becomes decisive. Judges may also deliver separate dissenting
opinions.
Ad hoc judges

Article 31 of ihe statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on
contentious cases before the Court. This system allows any party to a contentious
case to nominate a judge of their choosing. H is possible that as many as seventeen
judges may sit on, one case.

This system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but
its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases to the Court. For example, if a
state knows it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and
offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the states perspective
that state may be more willing to submit lo the Courts jurisdiction.

Chambers

Generally, the Court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years it has on
occasion sat as a chamber. Articles 26-29 of the statute allow the Court to form
smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two 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, la 1993 a
special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the 1CJ statute, to deal
specifically with environmental matters (although this chamber has never been
used).

Ad hoc chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used
to hear the Gulf of Maine Case (USA v Canada). In that case, the parties made
clear they would withdraw the case unless the Court appointed judges to the
chamber who were acceptable to the parties. On the other hand, the use of
chambers might encourage greater recourse to the Court and thus enhance
international dispute resolution.

Re-elected were Frances Ronny Abraham and Jordans Awn Shawkat Al-
Khasawneh (terms expired on 5 February 2009), while UKs Christopher
Greenwood. Brazils Antonio Au gusto Cancado Trindade and Somalias
Abdulqawi YusuF(terms began on 6 February 2009) were newly elected.

The declared candidates Sayeman Bula-Bula (Democratic Republic of the Congo.),

Miriam Defensor-Santiago (Philippines) and Maurice Kamto (Cameroon) lost in
the final voting. The 3 new judges replaced UKs Rosalvn Higgins (1CJ President),
Gonzalo Parra Arantuircn of Venezuela and Madagascars Raymond Ranjeva
(terms all expired on 5 February 2009).
Jurisdiction

Main article: Jurisdiction oft he International Court of Justice As stated in Article

93 of the UN Charter, all 192 UN members are automatically parties to the Courts
statute. Non-UN members may also become parties to the Courts statute under the
Article 93(2) procedure. For example, before becoming a UN member state,
Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a party. And Nauru became a
party in 1988. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the two types of 1CJ cases:
contentious issues and advisory opinions.

Contentious issues

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ

produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the
court. Only suites may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations,
parts of a federal suite. 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 not preclude non-
state interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case
against another. For example, a state may, in case of diplomatic protection, bring
a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations. The International Court of
Justice Research Guide Written by Dana Neaesu Last Updated January 23, 2008

Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the Court in contentious cases. (See
Procedure below.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the
basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the Courts jurisdiction
may be founded.

First. 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the Court (jurisdiction founded
on special agreement or compromis). This method is based on explicit consent
rather than true compulsory jurisdiction.

Second, 36(1) also gives the Court jurisdiction over matters specifically
provided for in treaties and conventions in force. Most modern treaties will
contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ. For
example, during the Iran hostage crisis, 1 ran refused to participate in a case
brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna
Convention on Diplomatic Relations, not did it comply with the judgment. Since
the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their
own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.
 Third, Article 36(2) allows states to make optional clause declarations
accepting the Courts jurisdiction. The label compulsory which is sometimes
placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since ftolaratfcns by states are
voluntary.

Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such as exclusion from

jurisdiction certain types of disputes (ratione material). The principle of
reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had
a declaration in force. Of the permanent Security Council members, only the
United Kingdom has a declaration. In the Courts early years, most declarations
were made by industrialised countries. Examples include the USA, as mentioned
previously and Australia who modified their declaration in 2002 to exclude
disputes on maritime boundaries (most likely to prevent an impending challenge
from East Timor who gained their independence two months later).

Finally. 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the
Permanent Conn of international Justices statute. Article 37 of the Statute
similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that
gave jurisdiction to the FCIJ.

International Law and International Jurisdiction

At the end of the 19th century, governments met at the First Peace Conference at
The Hague and decided to codify international law in treaties. Furthermore, they
reached an agreement lo establish the first permanent international court, the
Permanent Court of Arbitration. Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of
Nations provided for the creation of a judicial body entrusted with two kinds of
jurisdiction: contentious and advisory were clearly envisaged. In 1921, the
predecessor of the Imcrnaiioruil Court of Justice (1C.I). the Permanent Court of
International Justice (PC1J) materialized. The PC1.I was dissolved in 1946 at the
same time as the League of Nations.

The 1CJ is an organ of the United Nations and the Statute of the International
Court of Justice forms an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations. The
court has functioned since 1945. It does not have compulsory international
jurisdiction, and its main function remains to decide in accordance with
international law all disputes submitted to it, (Article 38).
The ICJ: Judgments & Advisory Opinions. How to Find a Judgment

Within Ihe limits of its ratione materiae, as mentioned above, the ICJ has both
contentious and advisory jurisdictions. For the last sixty years it has had the
opportunity 10 render hundreds of opinions which, due to numerous print and
online sources are relatively easy to research.

The judgments of the Court are binding in law, although states do not always
comply with the 1C.) judgments. However, as statistics show see Paulson, Colter,
Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice since
1987 98 Am. J. Intl. L. 434, 458-459 (2004) while the overall percentage of
full compliance by states has decreased since 1987 from 80% from 1946 to 1987 to
60% from 1987 to 2004, partial compliance has probably increased. Furthermore,
the ICJ continues to be perceived as fulfilling its role a part of the United Nations
system of maintaining peace and security.

The ICJ: The Procedure before the Court How to Find the Court Rules

The Statute otlhe ICJ contains the relevant rules regarding the procedure before
the Court: Competence of the Court (Arts. 34-38), Procedure (Arts. 39-64),
Advisory Opinions (Arts. 65-68).

Advisory opinion

Audience of the Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration

of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo

An advisory opinion is a function 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
as a means by which UN agencies could seek the Courts help in deciding complex
legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates. An advisory opinion
derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of
the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, Advisory Opinions have often
been controversial, either because the questions asked are controversial, or the case
was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before
the Court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section advisory
opinions in the List of International Court of Justice cases article. One such well-
known advisory opinion is the Nuclear Weapons Case.
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 not comply, the issue may be taken before the
Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a
method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five
members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would
then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when
Nicaragua brought the issue of the U.S.s non-compliance with the Courts
decision before the Security Council. Furthermore, the most effective form to uiku
action for the Security Council coercive action under chapter VII of the United
Nations Charter can only be justified if international peace and security are at
slake. The Security Council has never done this so far. The relationship between
the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was
considered by the Court in 1992 in the Pan Am case. The problem was that these
sanctions had been authorized by the Security Council, which resulted with a
potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council and
the judicial function of the Court. The Court decided, by eleven votes to five, that
it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by
Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention, prima facie could not be
regarded as appropriate since the action was ordered by the Security Council. In
accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charier, obligations under the Charter took
precedence over other treaty obligations. Nevertheless the Court declared the
application admissible in 1998. A decision on the merits has not been given since
the parties (United Kingdom, United States and Libya) settled the case out of court
in 2003.

Should either party fail to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a
judgment rendered by the Court, the Security Council may be called upon to
make recommendations or decide upon measures if the Security Council deems
such actions necessary. In practice, the Courts powers have been limited by the
unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the Courts ruling, and by the Security
Councils unwillingness to impose consequences.

Law applied

Main article: Sources of international law

When deciding cases, the Court applies international law as summarized in-Article
38 of the IC.I Statute provides thai in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply
international conventions, international custom, and the general principles of law
recognized by civilized nations. It may also refer to academic writing (the
teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations) and
previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is not
formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis.
Article 59 makes clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis
does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The Courts decision binds only the
parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(l)(d), however, 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 similar to superior courts
in common law systems. Additionally, international lawyers commonly operate as
though ICJ judgments had precedential value.

If the parties agree, they may also grant the Court the liberty to decide ex aequo et
bono (in justice and fairness), granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable
decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. This provision has not been
used in the Courts history. So far the International Court of Justice has dealt with
about 130 cases.

Procedure

The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out
in Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978. (as amended on 29
September Z005).

Preliminary objections

A respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court may
raise Preliminary Objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the
Court, can address the merits of the applicants claim. Often a separate public
hearing is held on the Preliminary Objections and the Court will render a
judgment. Respondents normally file Preliminary Objections lo the jurisdiction of
the Court and or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibilily refers lo a range of
arguments about factors the Court should take into account in deciding jurisdiction;
for example, that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a legal dispute.

In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before
the Court. If the case necessarily requires the Court to rule on the rights and
obligations of a state that has not consented to the Courts jurisdiction, the Court
will not proceed to issue a judgment on the merits. Once till written arguments are
filed, the Court will hold a public hearing on the merits.
Once a case has been Hied, any party (but usually the Applicant) may seek an
order from the Court lo protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. Such
orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to
jnterlocutory injunctions in United States law. The Court must be satisfied lo have
prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before granting provisional
measures.

Applications to intervene

In cases where a third slates interests are affected, that state may be permitted lo
intervene in the case, and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state with
an interest of a legal nature may apply; however, it is within the Courts discretion
whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare the
first successful application occurred in 1991.

Judgment and remedies

Once deliberation has taken place, the Court will issue a majority opinion.
Individual judges may issue separate opinions (if they agree with the outcome
reached in the judgment of the court but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting
opinions (if they disagree with the majority), No appca! is possible, though any
party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the meaning or
scope of the courts judgment.

Criticisms

This law-related article does not cite its references or sources. You can hel
including appropriate citations, which can be found through legal research. The
International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures,
and its authority. As with United Nations criticisms as a whole, many of these
criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member
states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges
or their rulings. Major criticisms include:

Compulsory jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed

to
submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend
to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council.
Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases
takento the International Court, such as to appeal a national supreme courts
 ruling.U.N. agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory
opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding).

Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the
umbrella of the International Court.

The International Court docs not enjoy a full separation of powers,

with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement
of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound

Presidency

The President and the Vice-President are elected by the Members of the Court
every three years by secret ballot. The election is held on the date on which
Members of the Court elected at a triennial election are to begin, their terms of
office or shortly thereafter. An absolute majority is required and there arc no
conditions with regard to nationality. The President and the Vice-President may be
re-elected.

The President presides at alt meetings of the Court; he/she directs its work and
supervises its administration, with the assistance of a Budgetary and
Administrative Committee and of various other committees, all composed of
Members of the Court. During judicial deliberations, the President has a casting
vole in the event of votes being equally divided.

The President receives a special supplementary allowance of 15,000 dollars per

annum. In addition to his/her annual salary.

The Vice-President replaces the President in his/her absence, in the event of his/her
inability to exercise his/her duties, or in the event of a vacancy in the presidency.
For this purpose he/she receives a daily allowance. In the absence of the Vice-
President, this role devolves upon the senior judge.

Chambers and Committees

Chambers :-

The Court generally discharges its duties as a full Court (a quorum of nine judges,
excluding judges ad hoc, being sufficient). But it may also form permanent
temporary chambers.
High Court three types of chamber:

the Chamber of Summary Procedure, comprising five judges, including the

President and Vice-President, and two substitutes, which the Court is required by
Article 29 of the Statute to form annually with a view to the speedy dispatch of
business;

any chamber, comprising at least three judges, that the Court may form
pursuant
to Article 26, paragraph 1, of the Statute to deal with certain categories of
cases, such as labor or communications;
any chamber that the Court may form pursuant to Article 26, paragraph 2, of
the Statute to deal with a particular case, after formally consulting the
parties regarding the number of its members and informally regarding their
name- who will then sit in ail phases of the case until its final conclusion,
even if in the meantime they cease to be Members of the Court.

In the Chambers 13 years of existence, however, no State ever requested that a

case be dealt with by it. The Court consequently dceided in 2006 not to hold
elections for a Bench for the said Chamber.

Despite the advantages that chambers can offer in certain cases, under the terms of
the Statute their use remains exceptional. Their formation requires the consent of
the parties. While, to date, no case has been heard by either of the first two types of
chamber, by contrast there have been six cases dealt with by ad hoc chambers.

Chamber of Summary Procedure

The current composition of this Chamber which, at the request of the parties, may
hear and determine cases by summary procedure is as follows:

Members:

President

Hisashi Ovvada
Vice-President
Peter Tomka
Judges
Abdul G. Koroma
 Bruno Simma Substitute members:
Judges
Bernardo Sepulveda-Amor
Leonid Skotnikov

How the Court works

The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States
submitted to it bv them (contentious cases) and requests for advisory opinions on
legal questions referred to it by United Nations organs and specialized agencies
(advisory proceedings).

Contentious cases

Only Suucs (States Members of the United Nations and other States which have
become parties lo the Statute of the Court or which have accepted its jurisdiction
under certain conditions) may be parties to contentious cases.

The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have
accepted its jurisdiction in one or more of the following ways;

by entering into a special agreement to submit the dispute to the Court;

by virtue of a jurisdictional clause, i.e., typically, when they are parties to a
treaty containing a provision whereby, in the event of a dispute of a given
type or disagreement over the interpretation or application of the treaty, one
of them may refer the dispute to the Court; through the reciprocal effect of
declarations made by them under the Statute whereby each has accepted the
jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another
State having made a similar declaration. A number of these declarations,
which must be deposited with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain
reservations excluding certain categories of dispute.

States have no permanent representatives accredited to the Court. They normally

communicate with the Registrar through the medium of their Minister for Foreign
Affairs or their ambassador accredited to the Netherlands, Where they are parties
to a case before the Court they are represented by an agent. In general, whenever a
formal act is to be done by the government represented, it is done by the agent.
Agents are sometimes assisted by co-agents, deputy agents or assistant agents and
always have counsel or advocates, whose work they co-ordinate, to assist them in
the preparation of pleadings and delivery of oral argument. Since there is no
special International Court of Justice Bar, there are no conditions that nave to
fulfilled for counsel or advocates to enjoy the right of arguing before it except only
that they must have been appointed by a government to do so.

Proceedings may be instituted in one of two ways:

Through the notification of a special agreement:

this document, which is of bilateral nature, can be lodged with the Court by either
of the States parties to proceedings or by both of them. A special agreement must
indicate the subject the dispute and the parties thereto. Since there is neither an
applicant State nor a respondent State, in the Courts publications their names
are separated by an oblique stroke at the end of the official title of the case, e.g.,
Benin/Niger; by means of an application: the application, which is of a unilateral
nature, is submitted by an applicant State against a respondent State, It is intended
for communication to the latter Stale and the Rules of Court contain stricter
requirements with respect to its content. At the end of the official title of the case
the names of the two parties are separated by the abbreviation v. (For the Latin
versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.

The date of the institution of proceedings, which is that of the receipt by the
Registrar of the special agreement or application, marks the opening of
proceedings before the Court. Contentious proceedings include a written phase, in
which the parties file and exchange pleadings containing a detailed statement of
the points of fact and of law on which each party relies, and an oral phase
consisting of public hearings at which agents and counsel address the Court.

By signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to

comply with any decision of the Court in a case to which it is a party. Since,
furthermore, a case can only be submitted to the Court and decided by it if the
parties have in one way or another consented to its jurisdiction over the case; it is
rare for a decision not to be implemented. A State which contends that the other
side has failed to perform the obligations. Court may lay the matter before the
Security Council, which is empowered to recommend or decide upon the measures
to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

The Court discharges its duties as a full court but, at the request of the parties, it
may also establish ad hoc chambers to examine specific eases. A Chamber of
Summary Procedure is elected every year by the Court in accordance with its
Statute.
The Registry

The Registry is the permanent administrative organ of the Court. It is accountable

to the Court alone. It is headed by a Registrar, assisted by a

The -Registrar.

Those officials take an oath of loyalty and discretion on entering upon their duties.
In general they enjoy the same privileges and immunities _as members of
diplomatic missions at The Hague of comparable rank. They are subject to Staff
Regulations, which are virtually identical with the United Nations, Staff
Regulations, and to Instructions for the Registry. Their conditions of employment,
alaries and pension rights correspond to Inhofe of United equivalent category and
grade; the costs are borne by the United Nations.

The Registrar

The Conn appoints its Registrar from among candidates proposed by Members of
the Court; lie is elected for a term of seven years and may be re-elected. The Court
also appoints a Deputy-Registrar to assist him, under the same conditions and in
the same way as the Registrar.

The Deputy-Registrar assists the Registrar and acts as Registrar in the latters
absence. Has recently been entrusted with wider administrative responsibilities,
including direct supervision Archives, IT and General Assistance Divisions.

The present Registrar is Mr., Philippe Couvreur. Of Belgian nationality, \vh6 was
elected on 10 February 2000 for a term of seven years and who was re-elected on 8
February 2007 for a new term of seven years. The present Deputy-Registrar is Ms.
Therese de Saint Phalli. Of American and French nationality, who was elected on 9
October 2007 for a term of seven years as from 19 February 2008?

Impact on peace process

Main article: Peace process in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Gush Katif was a
block of 16 Israeli settlements in the southern Gaza Strip. Its 8.000 residents were
forced to leave and had their homes demolished in August 2005 as part of Israels
unilateral disengagement plan.

The settlements have been a source of tension between Israel and the U.S. Jimmy
Carter regarded the settlements as illegal and tactically unwise. Ronald Reagan
stated that they were legal but an obstacle to negotiations in 1991, the U.S. delayed
a subsidized loan to pressure Israel on the subject of settlement-building in the
Jerusalem-Bethlehem corridor. In 2005, U.S.

Final status proposals have called for retaining long-established communities along
the Green Line and transferring the same amount of land in Israel to the Palestinian
state. The Clinton administration proposed that Israel keep some settlements in the
West Bank, especially those in large blocs near the pre-1967 burden ofhrad, with
the Palestinians receiving concessions of land in other pails of the country.Both
Clinton and Tony Blair pointed out the need for territorial and diplomatic
compromise based on the validity of some of the claims of both sides.

In December 2010, the United States criticised efforts by the Palestinian Authority
to impose borders for the two states through the United Nations rather than through
direct negotiations between the two sides. In February 201 1, it vetoed a draft
resolution to condemn all Jewish settlements established in the occupied
Palestinian territory since 1967 as illegal. The resolution, which was supported by
all other Security Council members and co-sponsored by over 120 nations. would
have demanded that Israel, as the occupying power, immediately and completely
ceases all settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East
Jerusalem and that it filly respect its legal Obligations in this regard. The U.S.
representative said that while it agreed that the settlements were illegal, the
resolution would harm chances for negotiations Israels deputy Foreign Minister,
Daniel Ayalon, said that the UN serves as a rubber stamp for the Arab countries
and, as such, the General Assembly has an automatic majority. and that (he vote
proved that the United States is the only country capable of advancing (he peace
process and the only righteous one speaking the truth: that direct talks between
Israel and the Palestinians are required. Palestinian negotiators, however, have
refused to resume direct talks until Israel ceases all settlement activity.

PROPOSALS FOR LAND SWAP

The Clinton Parameters included a plan on which the Palestinian State was to
include 94-96% of the West Bank, and around 80% of the settlers were to remain
under Israeli sovereignty, and in exchange for that, Israel will concede some
territory (so called Territory Exchange or Land Swap) within the Green Line
(1967 borders). The swap would consist of 1-3% of Israeli territory, such that the
final borders of the West Bank, part of the Palestinian state would include 97% of
the land of the original borders.
Under any peace deal with the Palestinians, Israel intends to keep the major
settlement blocs close to its borders, which contain over 80% of the settlers. Prime
Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Ariel Sharon, and Benjamin Netanyahu have all stated
Israels intent to keep such blocs under any peace agreement. U.S. President
George W. Bush acknowledged that such areas should be annexed to Israel in a
2004 letter to Prime Minister Sharon.

According to Mitchell G. Bard: Ultimately, Israel may decide to unilaterally

disengage from the West Bank and determine which settlements it will incorporate
within the borders it delineates. Israel would prefer, however, to negotiate a peace
treaty with the Palestinians that would specify which Jewish communities will
remain intact within the mutually agreed border of Israel, and which will need to
be evacuated. Israel will undoubtedly insist that some or all of the consensus
blocs become part of Israel.

Proposal of dual citizenship

A number of proposals for the granting of Palestinian citizenship or residential

permits to Jewish settlers in return for the removal of Israeli military installations
from the West Bank have been fielded by such individuals as Arafat, Ibrahim
Sarsur and Ahmed Qurei.

The idea has been expressed by both advocates of the two-state solution and
supporters of the settlers and conservative or fundamentalist currents in Israeli
Judaism that, while objecting to any withdrawal, claim stronger links lo the land
than to the state of Israel.

Recommendation

The modern proliferation of international courts and tribunals and the increasing
use of binding third party adjudication to settle international disputes have neither
achieved significant developments in international environmental law nor
advanced the state of global environmental governance. In order to prevent further
deterioration of natural resources and achieve environmental justice, the
international community needs to rethink the existing alternatives for the
improvement of the international judicial system.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ or the World Court) is the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations and has general authority over any
international law question, including environmental issues. The Statute of the
Court includes many conservative procedural provisions, such as the ability of
each state to determine whether it chooses to be subject to the decisions of the
Court. Each state also has the option to accept ICJ jurisdiction based on a set of
limitations and conditions. Furthermore, only states themselves can represent their
interests before the court, and non-state actors therefore have no standing.

Despite these substantial limitations, the authority of the ICJ is singular within the
international judicial system. UN member-states have committed to undertake to
comply with the decisions of the Court, and the UN Security Council is authorized
to assist the Court by enforcing its decisions. An important additional procedural
step took place in 1993, when the Court established a special seven-member
standing Chamber for Environmental Matters to play a more proactive role in
environmental disputes. However, because the members of the Chamber are not
required to hold any particular expertise on environmental matters, it is doubtful
whether the establishment of the Chamber will contribute as essentially as
expected to the development of innovative and meaningful environmental
jurisprudence. The Chamber has yet to hear case. In its decisions, ICJ has
reaffirmed principles of international environmental law, such as Principle 21 of
the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration. However, the
judgments have heen criticized by academia and civil society as conservative and
environmentally insensitive. The Court did not adopt progressive legal
interpretations that might have led to important developments of the body of
international environmental law and regulation of critical environmental issues.
The ICJ has also been criticized for its minimalist approach to decision-making;
several notable cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds. In these cases,
the dissenting opinion found the majority to be too reductionist and posititivist in
its legal method and concluded that the ICJ had the duty to undertake a more
proactive and flexible approach, in order to make a contribution to some of the
seminal principles of the evolving corpus of international environmental law.

Dispute settlement is identified as a principle function of the World Trade

Organization (WTO).The WTO dispute settlement process begins with
consultations and proceeds with GATT conciliation or mediation services. A parry
may request that the dispute be heard by a panel, which receives submissions from
all interested parties and issues a report. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
adopts the panels report unless there is joint opposition to such adoption. Any of
the parties to the dispute may appeal the panels decision to the Appellate Body, a
standing body of seven members. Parties are required to implement the panel
ruling within a reasonable period of time. If ruling is not implemented, the
injured party may be compensated and retaliatory measures may be undertaken.
Several steps were undertaken during the Uruguay Round to improve the
effectiveness of the dispute settlement process. Finally, the WTO panels are not
required to take into consideration international law regimes such as international
environmental agreements and the customary international law. WTO agreements
have created a seif-contained and self-referential regime. Despite efforts to
achieve consistency between existing multilateral environmental agreements and
the trade regime, these two have not been adequately integrated.

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) plays an essential and meaningful role within
the European Community (EC). National courts and governments tend to respect
its decisions. While it is not a specialized environmental court, ECJ is authorized to
hear environmental cases on grounds of non-compliance of a Member State with
the European Communitys environmental laws. ECJ also is authorized to render
preliminary rulings on the interpretation of primary or secondary European Law,
including environmental law. ECJ structure does not provide for a specialized
chamber on environmental issues. The ECJ has contributed to the protection of the
natural environment in the European region. It has accepted more than 150
environmental cases and has rendered important environmental jurisprudence. It
was the first Court to acknowledge many principles of international environmental
law such as the precautionary principle. As national courts have funneled
preliminary questions to the ECJ, it has succeeded in clarifying environmental
rules and has influenced both the harmonization of the application of EC
environmental law and the development of national environmental law. In
addition, ECJ, as a multi-issue court, has been able to evaluate and balance
environmental protection in conjunction with other public interests such as
economic development.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), established under the auspices of
the Council of Europe in 1950, is entrusted with monitoring state-party compliance
with the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the
Rome Convention). ECHR has developed progressive interpretations of legal
documents for the protection of human rights and is a very successful example of a
regional judicial body. It has attributed compensation to individuals suffering from
environmental harm or noise pollution through application of Article 8 (protection
of private life and family life.) However, similar environmental decisions have
not been forthcoming. The Court stated in the recent case that it is unable to
provide comprehensive environmental protection due to the limits of the
Convention and its additional Protocols.
These weaknesses demonstrate the inability of most existing judicial bodies to
effectively address major international environmental issues. Most of the courts
were established in order to serve a specific treaty or international organization,
and they are limited in their subject matter jurisdiction. The courts are obliged to
deal with environmental issues only in relation to other fields of international law
or while seeking to serve different purposes, such as the promotion of free trade or
the protection of human rights.

Exactly because these bodies are not structured to judge environmental cases, their
staffs lack the expertise to do so. Non-specialized international judges often are
unable to apply the complex, vague and incomplete norms of international
environmental law. ICJ itself, in the Gabcikovo- Nagymaros Project case admitted
that the application of the international environmental law is not an easy task.In
that case, the ICJ judges had to be educated in the environmental and scientific
aspects of the dispute before they judged the case.

Finally, in most cases, international tribunals seem to follow a minimalist view,

through which they focus on the specific settlement of disputes between the parties
and devote only minimal attention to the broader policy implications of their
judgments for the development of law. Scholars have noted this approach in many
of the ICJ decisions.This minimalist perspective limits the broader consideration
of environmental issues associated with specific disputes.

The development of a system that connects international courts will be required to

distribute cases among the ICE and other international judicial bodies. Provisions
establishing closer cooperation between the courts would be useful.

National courts are not adequate to fully deal with environmental cases arising at
the international level or, in some cases, even at the national icvd. Many
environmental issues are transboundary in nature and require international
institutions to manage them. In The process of globalization of the contemporary
socially, more and moir transactions] activities affect adversely the natural
environment. Current international judicial bodies function regimes whose
purposes and values are not always aligned with that of environmental protection,
some of these bodies were established in an environmentally innocent era, when
the prolusion of Use environment was not elevated as a fundamental societal value
at the International. Their procedural rules do not accommodate needs of
environmental victims. The mlernatior courts function within the nascent
frameworks of international law and often lack compulsory junsilictiorj and
enforcement mechanisms. In response to these weaknesses, there is a public
demand for the solution of environmental crises and recent case-law indicates a
growing willingness of States and other actors to have recourse to international
mechanisms to resolve disputes relating to natural resources and the environment.
Although many proposals have been presented existing bodies, none of this is
sufficient on its own. An international environmental court necessary. The
academic community and the framevs of the court should study carefully uk
examples of current international.

Conclusion

The Palestinian leadership maintained that the synagogues were symbols of

Israeli occupation. Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations at the
time, said the Palestinian Authority had a moral responsibility to protect the
synagogues as places with religious significance. Some believe that settlements
need not necessarily be dismantled and evacuated, even if Israel withdraws from
the territory where they stand, as they can remain under Palestinian rule. These
ideas have been expressed both by left-wing Israelis, and by Palestinians who
advocate the two-state solution, and by extreme Israeli right-wingers and settlers
who object to any dismantling and claim links to the land than are stronger than the
political boundaries of the state of Israel. The Israeli government has often
threatened to dismantle so-called outposts. Some have actually been dismantled,
occasionally with use of force; this led to settler violence.