Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T16:05:08.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forum Prorogatum and the Advisory Proceedings of the International Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Sienho Yee
Sienho Yee*
Affiliation:
St. Hugh’s College, University of Oxford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 95 , Issue 2 , April 2001 , pp. 381 - 385
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2001

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 general discussion of the doctrine, see, for example, Rosenne, Shabtai, Law and Practice of the International, Court, 1920–1996, at 695–725 (3d ed. 1997)Google Scholar; Bedjaoui, Mohammed, The Forum Prorogatum Before the International Court of Justice: The Resources of an Institution or the Hidden Face of Consensualism, 1996-97 ICJ Y.B. 216 (speech before the Sixth Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in 1996 as president of the ICJ)Google Scholar; Waldock, C. H. M., Forum Prorogatum or Acceptance of a Unilateral Summons to Appear Before the International Court, 2 Int’l L.Q. 377 (1948)Google Scholar; Winiarski, Bohdan, Quelques Reflexions sur le soi-disant forum prorogatum en droit international, in Problemes Fondamentaux du Droit International—Festschrift Furjean Spiropoulos 445 (Constantopoulos, D. S. et al. eds., 1957)Google Scholar; Yee, Sienho, Forum Prorogatum and the Indication of Provisional Measures in the International Court, in The Reality of International Law: Essays in Honour of Ian Brownlie 565 (Guy, Goodwin-Gill & Talmon, Stefan eds., 1999)Google Scholar; Yee, Sienho, Forum Prorogatum in the International Court, 42 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 147 (1999)Google Scholar [hereinafter Yee, Forum Prorogatum I].

2 See Dictionnaire de La Terminologie du droit International 481 (1960)Google Scholar; Rosenne, supra note 1, at 696.

3 Article 36(1) of the Statute of the ICJ provides that “[t] he jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.” Article 36(2) provides for the “optional clause” system of compulsory jurisdiction. Article 40 (1) provides that a case may be instituted by notification of a special agreement or by application. Article 36(1) is practically an exact replica of the corresponding article in the Statute of the PCIJ.

4 See Yee, Forum Prorogatum I, supra note 1, at 160–68, 180–83.

5 E.g., Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions, 1925 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 5, at 27-28 (Mar. 26).

6 E.g., Corfu Channel (UK v. Alb.), Preliminary Objection, 1948 ICJ Rep. 15 (Mar. 25).

7 E.g., Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (U.S. v. USSR), 1959 ICJ Rep. 276 (Oct. 7); Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (U.S. v. USSR), 1958 ICJ Rep. 158 (Dec. 9); Antarctica (UKv. Arg.), 1956 ICJ Rep. 12 (Mar. 16); Antarctica (UKv. Chile), 1956 ICJ REP. 15 (Mar. 16); Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (U.S. v. Czech.), 1956 ICJ Rep. 6 (Mar. 14); Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (U.S. v. USSR), 1956 ICJ Rep. 9 (Mar. 14); Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (U.S. v. Hung.), 1954 ICJ REP. 99 (July 12); Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (U.S. v. USSR), 1954 ICJ Rep. 103 (July 12); see also ICJ Communiqué No. 99/4 (Feb. 16, 1999) (application filed by Eritrea against Ethiopia alleging violation of diplomatic immunities, not yet entered on the General List).

8 Bedjaoui, supra note 1, at 231-32, para. 39 (footnotes omitted).

9 Rosenne, supra note 1, at 715 & n.127.

10 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Not Withstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 1971 ICJ Rep. 16 (Jan. 26)Google Scholar [hereinafter South West Africa].

11 Soubeyrol, Jacques, «Forum prorogatum» et Cour Internationale de Justice: de la procedure contentieuse à la procédure consultative, 76 Revue GÉnÉral de droit International Public 1098, 1104 (1972)Google Scholar (emphasis omitted).

12 Id. at 1102.

13 Id.

14 On the advisory jurisdiction of the Court in general, see Abi-Saab, Georges, Les Exceptions PrÉliminaires Dans La Procedure de La Cour Internationale 69–84 (1967)Google Scholar; Pomerance, Michla, The Advisory Function of the International Court in the League and U.N. eras (1973)Google Scholar; Pratap, Dharma, The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court (1972)Google Scholar; Rosenne, supra note 1, at 279–351, 985–1055, 1711-64; Higgins, Rosalyn, A Comment on the Current Health of Advisory Opinions, in Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings 567 (Lowe, Vaughan & Fitzmaurice, Malgosia eds., 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pomerance, Michla, The Advisory Role of the International Court of Justice and Its “Judicial” Character: Past and Future Prisms, in The International Court of Justice: its Future Role After Fifty Years 271 (Muller, A. S. et al. eds., 1997)Google Scholar [hereinafter Pomerance, Advisory Role].

15 Article 96 of the UN Charter states:

  • 1.

    1. The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question.

  • 2.

    2. Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.

16 Article 65 (1) of the ICJ Statute states: “The Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to make such a request.”

17 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (First Phrase), Advisory Opinion, 1950 ICJ Rep. 65, 71 (Mar. 30).

18 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 ICJ Rep. 12, 20, para. 21 (Oct.16).Google Scholar

19 Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1989 ICJ Rep. 177 Google Scholar (Dec. 15) [hereinafter Mazilu].

20 Id. at 188-89, para. 31.

21 Interpretation of the Greco-Bulgarian Agreement of December 9th, 1927 (Caphandaris-Molloff Agreement), 1932 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 45, at 68 (Mar. 8).

22 Id. at 87.

23 Id.

24 1975 ICJ Rep. 20, para. 21 (Oct. 16).

25 Id. at 25, para. 32.

26 Id. at 21, para. 23.

27 Id.

28 Mazilu, 1989 ICJ Rep. 177, 191, para. 37 (Dec. 15).

29 Id., para. 38 (quoting Western Sahara, 1975 ICJ Rep. at 25, para. 33).Google Scholar

30 Request for Advisory Opinion Concerning the Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion, 1923 PCIJ (ser. B) No. 5, at 27-28 (July 23); see also Western Sahara, 1975 ICJ Rep. at 23-24, paras. 28-30.Google Scholar For discussion, see Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and how we use it 200-01 (1994)Google Scholar; Pomerance, Advisory Role, supra note 14, at 298-307.

31 South West Africa, 1971 ICJ Rep. 16, 21-23, paras. 20-26 (Jan. 26).

32 Id. at 23, paras. 27, 30.

33 Id at 23–24, para. 31.

34 Bedjaoui, supra note 1, at 232-33, para. 39 & n.2.

35 Soubeyrol, supra note 11, at 1102.

36 Although the doctrine of precedent does not apply in international courts to die same extent as in common law courts, the concept of obiter dicta has been recognized by the Court. Shahabuddeen, Mohamed, Precedent in the World Court 154–60 (1996).Google Scholar

37 South West Africa, 1971 ICJ Rep. at 24, paras. 32-34.

38 Judge Azevedo seemed to make a more limited assertion in Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania (First Phase), Advisory Opinion, 1950 ICJ Rep. 65, 81 (Mar. 30) (sep. op. Azevedo, J.)Google Scholar. There, rather than state that the Court had actually applied the principle of forum prorogatum, he seemed to claim that in Interpretation of Article 3, Paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne (Frontier between Turkey and Iraq), Advisory Opinion, 1925 PCIJ (ser. B) No. 12 (Nov. 21), the PCIJ’s decision to give an advisory opinion was compatible with the principle. Judge Azevedo’s view, however, did not capture the essence of that decision. The PCIJ gave no indication that forum prorogatum or the consent of Turkey was an issue. The Court was asked to give an opinion on the nature and procedure of a particular function of the Council of the League of Nations, and it emphasized that its opinion should not prejudice the merits of the problem before the Council. Id. at 18.