The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation New Directions from the Chagos Advisory Opinion
Book contents
- The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
- The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Cases and Awards
- Table of Legislation
- UN General Assembly Resolutions
- National Legislation
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Chagos, Custom and the Interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolutions
- 3 Reflections on the Treatment of General Assembly Resolutions in the Chagos Advisory Opinion
- 4 The Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Principle of Consent to Adjudication
- 5 Two Takes on Chagos: Reconciling the Advisory Opinion with the Res Judicata Effect of the UNCLOS Arbitral Award
- 6 State Responsibility in Advisory Proceedings: Thoughts on Judicial Propriety and Multilateralism in the Chagos Opinion
- 7 Peremptory Norms in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Decolonisation of Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago
- 8 Reflections on the UK’s Assertion of Sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago in the Wake of the Chagos Advisory Opinion
- 9 The Chagos Marine Protected Area
- 10 Human Rights and the Chagos Advisory Opinion
- 11 Heightened Scrutiny of Colonial Consent According to the Chagos Advisory Opinion: Pandora’s Box Reopened?
- 12 Chagos and the Perplexities of the Law of Treaties
- 13 Prospect of the Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Subsequent UN General Assembly Resolution Helping to Resolve the Future of the Chagos Archipelago and Its Former Inhabitants: A Political Perspective
- 14 Reflections on the Human Tragedy Underlying the Chagos Case and the Way Forward
- Index
4 - The Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Principle of Consent to Adjudication
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 13 February 2021
Book contents
- The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
- The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Table of Cases and Awards
- Table of Legislation
- UN General Assembly Resolutions
- National Legislation
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Chagos, Custom and the Interpretation of UN General Assembly Resolutions
- 3 Reflections on the Treatment of General Assembly Resolutions in the Chagos Advisory Opinion
- 4 The Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Principle of Consent to Adjudication
- 5 Two Takes on Chagos: Reconciling the Advisory Opinion with the Res Judicata Effect of the UNCLOS Arbitral Award
- 6 State Responsibility in Advisory Proceedings: Thoughts on Judicial Propriety and Multilateralism in the Chagos Opinion
- 7 Peremptory Norms in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Decolonisation of Mauritius and the Chagos Archipelago
- 8 Reflections on the UK’s Assertion of Sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago in the Wake of the Chagos Advisory Opinion
- 9 The Chagos Marine Protected Area
- 10 Human Rights and the Chagos Advisory Opinion
- 11 Heightened Scrutiny of Colonial Consent According to the Chagos Advisory Opinion: Pandora’s Box Reopened?
- 12 Chagos and the Perplexities of the Law of Treaties
- 13 Prospect of the Chagos Advisory Opinion and the Subsequent UN General Assembly Resolution Helping to Resolve the Future of the Chagos Archipelago and Its Former Inhabitants: A Political Perspective
- 14 Reflections on the Human Tragedy Underlying the Chagos Case and the Way Forward
- Index
Summary
Almost a century after its ruling on Eastern Carelia,1 in Chagos the International Court of Justice (ICJ) faced once more the delicate relationship between its advisory jurisdiction and the principle of consent.2 This chapter examines the reasoning followed by the Court on this specific relationship, in particular with a view to similar cases that could occur in the future.3
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The International Court of Justice and DecolonisationNew Directions from the Chagos Advisory Opinion, pp. 51 - 70Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
- 1
- Cited by