Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T01:42:21.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Respecting Sovereign States and Runnng a Tight Courtroom*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Judge Rosalyn Higgins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There was a time when international law was perceived as consisting of a manageable corpus of rules over a finite, ascertainable subject matter, relevant to the relations of States with each other.

Type
Shorter Articles, Comments and Notes
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 50 , Issue 1 , January 2001 , pp. 121 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative 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. Fukuyama, , “The End of History”, The National Interest (1989), No. 16, pp.3–18.Google Scholar

2. Slaughter, A.M., “The Real New World Order”, Foreign Affairs (Sept.-Oct. 1997).Google Scholar

3. Unless the WTO members by consensus agree otherwise.

4. Gabĉíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1997, p.7.

5. Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998.

6. Op. cit. supra, n.5.

7. Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India), Judgment of 21 June 2000.

8. Op. cit. supra, n.4.

9. Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1994, p.6.

10. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia).

11. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Yugoslavia).

12. Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Canada), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. France), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Germany), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Italy), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Netherlands), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Portugal), Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom).

13. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. USA), I.C.J. Reports 1998, p.248.

14. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Order of 5 March 1999.

15. I.C.J. Reports 1996, p.66.

16. Op. cit. supra n.12.

17. Op. cit. supra, n.4.

18. Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia), Judgment of 13 Dec. 1999.

19. Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p.554.

20. Elettronica Sicula S.p.A., Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1989, p.15.

21. Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1993, p.38.Google Scholar

22. Op. cit. supra, n.9.

23. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America).

24. Op. cit. supra, n.18.

25. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), I.C.J. Reports 1992, p.351.Google Scholar

26. East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p.90.

27. Corfu Channel, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1949, p.4.Google Scholar

28. Nottebohm, Second Phase, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p.4.Google Scholar

29. Op. cit. supra, n.10.

30. Op. cit. supra, n.4.

31. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain).

32. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America).