Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-r5zm4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-01T18:20:44.123Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

John R. Crook
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During 2002, countries from all regions, especially Africa, resorted to the International Court of Justice; only one of the Court's 2002 judgments involved an OECD countiy. The Court's work during the year also shows the continued importance of boundary issues for states and for the Court.

The Court again completed a substantial program of work, resolving three cases with final judgments. In February, it triggered substantial controversy by finding that a Belgian court's warrant for the arrest of the then foreign minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (“Congo”) violated international law. In October, it resolved a complex of boundary disputes between Cameroon and Nigeria, although by year-end Nigeria had not yet implemented the Court's key requirement—withdrawal from the Bakassi Peninsula. In December, comparing sparse effectivités, it concluded that Malaysia, and not Indonesia, had sovereignty over two small disputed islands.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 97 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 352 - 364
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For similar reports on ICJ activities during 2000 and 2001, see Crook, John R., The 2000 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice, 95 AJIL 685 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar [hereinafter 2000 Report], and The 2001 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice, 96 AJIL 397 (2002) [hereinafter 2001 Report]. This report again makes heavy use of materials fromthe Court’s invaluable Web site, <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

2 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Dem. Congo v. Belg.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 14, 2002) [hereinafter ArrestWarrant].

3 Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nig.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Oct. 10, 2002) [hereinafter Cameroon-Nigeria Boundary].

4 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indon. v. Malay.), (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 17, 2002) [hereinafter Indonesia/Malaysia], available at <http://www.icj-cij.org>.

5 ICJ Press Release 2002/13 (May 3, 2002).

6 ICJ Press Release 2002/15 (May 28, 2002).

7 ICJ Press Release 2002/21 (Sept. 10, 2002).

8 ICJ Press Release 2002/37 (Dec. 9, 2002). The Applicant was the Republic of the Congo (Brazzaville), not the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Under Rule of Court 38(5), if a state proposes to base jurisdiction on the subsequentconsent of the other party, the case “shall not be entered in the General List, nor any action be taken” unless and until the other party consents to jurisdiction. France did so in April 2003. ICJ Press Release 2003/14 (Apr. 11, 2003).

9 Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), 96 AJIL 677 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 See, e.g., Cassese, Antonio, When May Senior State Officials Be Tried for International Crimes? Some Comments on the Congo v. Belgium Case, 13 EJIL 853 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Frulli, Michaela, The ICJ Judgment on theBelgium v. Congo Case (14 February2002): A Cautious Stand on Immunity From Prosecution for International Crimes, 3 German L.J. (2002), available at <http://www.germanlawjournal.com>Google Scholar (visited Dec. 27, 2002); Human Rights Watch, Press Release, Disappointment on Belgian War-Crimes Ruling (Feb. 14, 2002), available at <http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/02/icj0215.htm> (visited Dec. 27, 1992); Orakhelashvili, supra note 9; Wirth, Steffen, Immunity for Core Crimes? The ICJ’s Jurisdiction in the Congov. Belgium Case, 13 EJIL 877 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 Press Statement of President Guillaume (Feb. 14, 2002), available at <http://www.icj-cij.org>. The case was filed on October 17, 2000, and decided February 14, 2002. ICJ Press Release 2002/02 (Feb. 7, 2002).

12 In LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice June 27, 2001), reprinted in 40 ILM 1069 (2001), the Court decided that if German nationals are sentenced to severe penalties without receiving consular notification, the United States, by means of its own choosing, is to allow review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence while taking into account the violation.

13 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 402; Orakhelashvili, supra note 9, at 684.

14 Article 30 of the ILC articles provides that a state responsible for an internationally wrongful act “is under anobligation . . . to cease that act, if it is continuing[.]” See Shelton, Dinah, Righting Wrongs: Reparations in the Articleson State Responsibility, 96 AJIL 817, 839–41 (2002)Google Scholar. On the articles generally, see Bodansky, Daniel & Crook, John R., The ILC’S State Responsibility Articles: Introduction and Overview, 96 AJIL 773 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 For example, Judges Kooijmans and Rezek previously served as foreign ministers; President Guillaume, JudgeShi, and Judge Al-Khasawneh were the chief legal advisers to their national foreign ministries; Judge Fleischhauerserved as UN legal counsel; Judge Koroma was Permanent Representative to the United Nations in New York; and Judge Elaraby (who did not take part in this case) was Permanent Representative in both New York and Geneva. Two of the recently elected members (Ambassadors Owada and Tomka) likewise have high-level diplomatic backgrounds.

16 Arrest Warrant, supra note 2, paras. 51–55.

17 Id., paras. 56–58. In contrast, the separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, and Buergenthal surveys considerable state practice in assessing whether states may exercise jurisdiction over persons outside their territory and unconnected with the forum. Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal, id.,paras. 19–52.

18 See, e.g., Meron, Theodor, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law 36 (1989)Google Scholar (“The Nicaragua Court’s discussion of the Geneva Conventions is remarkable, indeed, for its complete failure to inquire whether opinio juris and practice support the crystallization of Articles 1 and 3 into customary law....). Professor D’Amato was less genteel (“It reveals the august judges of the International Court of Justice as collectively naiveabout the nature of custom as the primary source of international law.”). Anthony, D’Amato, Trashing CustomaryInternational Law, 81 AJIL 101 (1987)Google Scholar.

19 The Bakassi Peninsula “is a swampy peninsula projecting into the Atlantic at the Gulf of Guinea . . . [T]he coastal areas of the Gulf of Guinea have proved to be rich in commercially viable oil deposits. Already there areUS, Swiss and French oil companies jostling to get their drills into the deposits ...”. Somerville, Keith, Border Disputean African Colonial Legacy, BBC News Online, Oct. 10, 2002, at <http://www.news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/africa.stm>Google Scholar (visited Oct. 24, 2002). The disputed area thus further displays the predictive power of “Hodgson’s Law” (“where there is jurisdictional uncertainty, there tends to be oil”). See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 398 n .11.

20 UN Press Release, SG/SM/8368, AFR/476, Sept. 5, 2002, at <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2002/sgsm8368.doc.htm> (visited Jan. 13, 2003).

21 The Nigerian government declared:

[F]or purely political reasons, the Court, headed by a French President, upheld a legal position, which is contrary to all known laws and conventions, thus legitimizing and promoting the interests of former colonial powers at our expense. The French President of the Court and the English and German judges should have disqualified themselves since the countries they represent are, in essence, parties to the action or have substantial stakes.

Statement of the Federal Government of Nigeria on the Judgement of the International Court of Justice at the Hague (Cameroon vs. Nigeria with Equatorial Guinea Intervening) (Oct. 24, 2002), available at <http://www.afrol.com/Countries/Nigeria/documents/2002_icj_ruling_response.htm> (visited Dec. 23, 2002).

22 Office of the UN Spokesmanjoint Communiqué (Nov. 15, 2002), at <http://www.un.org/apps/sg/offthecuif.asp?> (visited Dec. 23, 2002); Statement on the Cameroon-Nigeria Border (Nov. 27, 2002), at <http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?> (visited Dec. 1, 2002).

23 Mission to Go to Bakassi, BBC News World Edition, Dec. 3, 2002, at <http://www.news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/africa/2533881.stm>>Google Scholar (visited Dec. 23, 2002).

24 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 398.

25 ICJ Press Release 2002/1 (Jan. 29, 2002) summarizes the procedural history. See also Request for Interpretationof the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria) (Int’l Ct. Justice Mar. 25, 1999).

26 President’s Guillaume’s address to the General Assembly, (Oct. 29, 2002), at <http://www.icj-cij.org> [hereinafterPresident Guillaume’s Address].

27 Cameroon-Nigeria Boundary, supra note 3, para. 319.

28 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 401.

29 ICJ Press Release 2002/09 (Mar. 13, 2002); ICJ Press Release 2002/14 (May 23, 2002).

30 See Indonesia/Malaysia, supra note 4.

31 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 403–04.

32 See Indonesia/Malaysia, supra note 4, paras. 137—49.

33 Dissenting Opinion of Judge Franck, Indonesia/Malaysia, supra note 4, para. 8.

34 Id., para. 6.

35 ICJ Press Release 2002/15 (May 28, 2002). The Congo filed its initial action against Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda in June 1999. ICJ Press Release 99/34 (June 23, 1999). The Court indicated provisional measures in the caseagainst Uganda, 2000 Report, supra note 1, at 687. However, the Congo discontinued its proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda in January 2001. ICJ Press Release 2001/2 (Feb. 1, 2001). Rwanda argued unsuccessfully that the new filing was “a replica of the old application” and was “an abuse of the process of the Court.” Armed Activities onthe Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) para. 49 (Int’lCt. Justice July 10, 2002).

36 Id., para. 33.

37 Judge Elaraby and Judge ad hoc Mavungu voted against.

38 In Yugoslavia’s 1999 NATO bombing cases, the Court likewise gave effect to Spanish and U.S. reservations to the Genocide Convention’s compulsory dispute settlement article. Legality of Use of Force (Yugo. v. Spain) and(Yugo. v. U.S.) (Int’l Ct. Justice June 2, 1999). Much of the modern law of reservations naturally rests on the Court’s 1951 advisory opinion concerning reservations on genocide. Reservations to the Convention on the Preventionand Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951 ICJ Rep. 15 (May 28), allowing reservations if they are not incompatible with the Convention’s object and purpose, a formulation carried forward in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

39 See A Report From Congo: Africa’s Great War, The Economist, July 6, 2002, at 43–45 Google Scholar.

40 Provisional measures order, supra note 35, para. 55.

41 Id., para. 56. See also paras. 54, 93.

42 See, e.g., Legality of Use of Force (Yugo. v. Can.), Provisional Measures, para. 44 (Int’l Ct. Justice June 2, 1999); Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Can.) para. 56 (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 4, 1998).

43 Declaration of Judge Koroma, supra note 35, para. 16.

44 Declaration of Judge Buergenthal, supra note 35, para 2.

45 Id., para 6.

46 Declaration of Judge Elaraby, supra note 35, para 3.

47 Id., para. 9.

48 ICJ Press Release 2002/22 (Sept. 20, 2002).

49 ICJ Press Release 2002/13 (May 3, 2002).

50 See Africa News Online, Niger, Benin and Burkina to Pay Attention to Park (May 31, 2000), at <http://www.ibru.dur.ac.uk/cgi-bin/data.pl> (visited Sept. 18, 2002); “W” National Park of Niger, at <http://www.whc.unesco.org/sites/749.htm> (World Heritage listing) (visited Oct. 25, 2002); Ramsar Convention designation, at <http://www.ramsar.org/profiles_niger.htm> (visited Oct. 25, 2002).

51 ICJ Press Release 2002/41 (Dec. 20, 2002).

52 The CIA estimates Benin’s GDP per capita at purchasing power parity to be $1030 per capita, and Niger’s tobe $820, at <http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/> (visited Jan. 14, 2003).

53 Committee on Transnational Dispute Resolution, International Law Association, American Branch, Study and Evaluation of the UN Secretary-General’s Trust Fund to Assist States in the Settlement of Disputes through the InternationalCourt of justice, reprinted in 1 Chinese J. Int’l. 234 (2002), available at <http://www.chinesejil.org>>Google Scholar.

54 ICJ Press Release 2002/29 (Oct. 29, 2002).

55 ICJ Press Release 2002/21 (Sept. 10, 2002). El Salvador seeks revision of the Judgment in Case Concerning Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal./Hond.: Nicaragua intervening) 1992 ICJ Rep. 351 (Sept. 11).

56 Bell, Judith, El-Salvador-Honduras, in Border and Territorial Disputes 372–74 (Day, Alan J. ed., 1982)Google Scholar.

57 See infra note 89 and corresponding text.

58 In the original case, the Court decided that the chamber, not the full Court, should act on Nicaragua’s applicationto intervene. 1992 ICJ Rep. 12–13.

59 Order of Nov. 27, 2002; ICJ Press Release 2002/40 (Dec. 20, 2002).

60 Id. Hence, there is no duplication between the new chamber and the earlier one, which consisted of JudgeSette-Camara (president of the chamber), Sir Robert Jennings, Judge Oda and Judges ad hoc Valticos and Torres Bernárdez.

61 ICJ Press Release 2002/37 (Dec. 9, 2002).

62 ICJ Press Release 2003/14 (Apr. 11, 2003).

63 South West Africa Cases (Second Phase), 1966 ICJ Rep. 3. See Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use it 190 (1994)Google Scholar; Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law (7th rev. ed. 1997) (Malanczuk, George ed.), 284 Google Scholar.

64 ICJ Press Release 2002/33 (Nov. 13, 2002).

65 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Congo v. Uganda), supra note 35 and accompanying text.

66 Id.

67 ICJ Press Releases 2002/32 (Nov. 13, 2002); 2003/12 (Jan. 29, 2003).

68 Case Concerning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. Chad), 1994 ICJ Rep. 6 (Feb. 3). See UN Secretary-General’s Report Concerning the Agreement on Implementation of the ICJ Judgment Concerning theTerritorial Dispute Between Chad and Libya (Apr. 27, 1994), 33 ILM 785 (1994).

69 Case Concerning Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Bots./Namib.), 1999 ICJ Rep. 1045 (Dec. 13).

70 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 398–400.

71 In 1966, the Court voted 8–7 to reject Ethiopia and Liberia’s challenge to South Africa’s apartheid administration of South-West Africa (Namibia), with the president of the Court (Judge Spender of Australia) casting the tie breakingadditional (“casting”) vote given to the president by Article 55(2) of the Statute. See supra note 63. A key issue concerning the legality of nuclear weapons in the Court’s 1996 Advisory Opinion was again decided by the casting vote of President Bedjaoui. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ Rep. 226, 266 (July 8).

72 See President Guillaume’s Address; 2000 Report, supra note 1, at 691; 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 410–11.

73 ICJ Press Release 2002/12, (Apr. 4, 2002).

74 President Guillaume’s Address, note 72, para. 3.

75 ICJ Press Release 2002/29 (Oct. 29, 2002).

76 See, e.g, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Declarationof Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador, 1984 ICJ Rep. 215.

77 UN Press Release GA/10087 (Oct. 21, 2002); ICJ Press Release 2002/27 (Oct. 22, 2002).

78 The candidates’ curricula vitae are contained in a note by the Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/57/307-S/2002/927.

79 ICJ Press Release 2002/29 (Oct. 29, 2002).

80 ICJ Press Release 2002/30 (Oct. 30, 2002).

81 See, e.g., Wald, Matthew, Libyan Offer of $2. 7 Billion in Pan Am Blast, N.Y. Times, May 29, 2002, at A1 Google Scholar; Libya Denies Offerof Lockerbie Funds, Int’l Herald Trib., May 30, 2002, at 1 Google Scholar.

82 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 406–08; ICJ Press Release 2002/20 (Jul. 26, 2002).

83 ICJ Press Release 2002/22 (Sep. 20, 2002).

84 ICJ Press Release 2002/34 (Nov. 19, 2002).

85 ICJ Press Release 2002/32 (Nov. 13, 2002).

86 ICJ Press Release 2002/17 (June 18, 2002).

87 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 405–06.

88 ICJ Press Release 2002/10 (Mar. 22, 2002). The eight remaining NATO respondents are Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, and the United Kingdom.

89 ICJ Press Releases 2002/28 (Oct 25, 2002) and 2002/31 (Nov. 7, 2002). See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 405–06.

90 CR 2002/40 at 8.

91 ICJ Press Release 2003/8 (Feb. 3, 2003).

92 ICJ Press Release 2002/34 (Nov. 19, 2002).

93 See 2001 Report, supra note 1, at 408–09.

94 ICJ Press Release 2002/07 (Mar. 1, 2002).

95 Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 2001–31 July 2002, at 52.

96 ICJ Press Release 2003/10 (Feb. 6, 2003).

97 ICJ Press Release 2003/1 (Jan. 10, 2003).