Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-16T22:41:12.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Humanitarian Intervention and the Clean Hands Doctrine in International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2015

Ori Pomson  and
Yonatan Horowitz
Ori Pomson
Affiliation:
Ori Pomson, LLB, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; orip92@gmail.com.
Yonatan Horowitz
Affiliation:
Yonatan Horowitz is a Legal Intern at S Horowitz & Co, LLB Interdisciplinary Program of Law and Economics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem; yhorowitz1@gmail.com.
Get access

Abstract

A serious issue that has confronted the international community is the legality of humanitarian intervention. Although the majority of scholars reject the existence of a doctrine of humanitarian intervention, could the attacked state invoke the responsibility of an intervening state before an international tribunal? This article attempts to answer this question in light of the often misunderstood clean hands doctrine in international law. It first concludes that under the lex lata, humanitarian intervention is prohibited under international law. This raises the question whether the clean hands doctrine may nevertheless preclude a court or tribunal from adjudicating in favour of a state that has been subject to humanitarian intervention. Although the clean hands doctrine exists under international law in various manifestations, its applicability in cases concerning humanitarian intervention is lacking. The article finally considers whether the jus cogens status of the prohibition of the use of force would prevent the applicability of the clean hands doctrine to humanitarian intervention cases were the clean hands doctrine to evolve into a customary international legal norm.

Keywords

clean handshumanitarian interventionprocedural rulesnormative hierarchy
Type
Articles
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 48 , Issue 2 , July 2015 , pp. 219 - 251
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2015 

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 Gray, Christine, ‘The Use of Force for Humanitarian Purposes’ in Henderson, Christian and White, Nigel D (eds), Research Handbook on International Conflict and Security Law (Edward Elgar 2013) 229, 253Google Scholar.

2 Lowe, Vaughan and Tzanakopoulos, Antonios, ‘Humanitarian Intervention’ in Wolfrum, R (ed), The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford University Press 2014)Google Scholar, http://opil.ouplaw.com/home/EPIL.

3 Independent International Commission on Kosovo, The Kosovo Report: Conflict, International Response, Lessons Learned (Oxford University Press 2000) 4Google Scholar. On the concept of legitimacy in international law see Franck, Thomas M, The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (Oxford University Press 1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shaw, Malcolm N, ‘International Law: A System of Relationships’ (2011) 3 Collected Courses of the Xiamen Academy of International Law 237, 246–68Google Scholar.

4 Crawford, James, Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law (8th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 634CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UNGA Res 217A(III), 10 December 1948, UN Doc A/810 (1948).

6 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (entered into force 23 March 1976) 999 UNTS 171 (ICCPR).

7 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (entered into force 3 January 1976) 993 UNTS 3 (ICESCR).

8 Alston, Philip and Goodman, Ryan, International Human Rights (Oxford University Press 2013) 139Google Scholar.

9 eg Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (entered into force 3 September 1981) 1249 UNTS 13 (CEDAW); Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (entered into force 26 June 1987) 1465 UNTS 85 (CAT).

10 eg European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (entered into force 3 September 1953) 213 UNTS 222 (ECHR); African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (entered into force 21 October 1986) 1520 UNTS 217 (AChHPR).

11 eg Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion [1951] ICJ Rep 15, 23 (Reservations); Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment [2010] ICJ Rep 639, [88]; Questions Relating to the Obligation to Extradite or Prosecute (Belgium v Senegal), Judgment [2012] ICJ Rep 422, [99] (Belgium v Senegal). For recognition of customary status in municipal courts, see generally Meron, Theodor, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law (Clarendon Press 1989) 114–35Google Scholar.

12 See Section 2 below.

13 See Section 3 below.

14 See generally Schwarzenberger, Georg, ‘The Inductive Approach to International Law’ (1947) 60 Harvard Law Review 539CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (entered into force 24 October 1945) (ICJ Statute), art 38(1)(d).

16 Jennings, RY, ‘The Judiciary, International and National, and the Development of International Law’ (1996) 45 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 1, 8CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

17 eg North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), Judgment [1969] ICJ Rep 3, [77]; Tomka, Peter, ‘Custom and the International Court of Justice’ (2013) 12 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 195, 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Rwamakuba v Prosecutor, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal regarding Application of Joint Criminal Enterprise to the Crime of Genocide, ICTR-98-44-AR72.4, Appeals Chamber, 22 October 2004, [14].

18 Sir Michael Wood (Special Rapporteur), Second Report on Identification of Customary International Law, 22 May 2014, UN Doc A/CN.4/672, para 24.

19 Hart, HLA, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, Clarendon Press 1994) 236Google Scholar; Byers, Michael, Custom, Power, and the Power of Rules (Cambridge University Press 1999) 144CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Finnis, John, Natural Law and Natural Rights (2nd edn, Oxford University Press 2011) 244Google Scholar.

20 Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru), Judgment [1950] ICJ Rep 266, 277; Thirlway, Hugh, ‘The Sources of International Law’ in Evans, Malcolm (ed), International Law (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2010) 95, 105Google Scholar; Murphy, Sean D, Principles of International Law (2nd edn, West 2012) 93Google Scholar.

21 Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v Iceland), Merits, Judgment [1974] ICJ Rep 3, Joint Separate Opinion of Judges Forster, Bengzon, Jiménez de Aréchaga, Nagendra Singh and Ruda, 45; Barboza, Julio, ‘The Customary Rule: From Chrysalis to Butterfly’ in Barea, Calixto A Armas and others (eds), Liber Amicorum in Memoriam of Judge José María Ruda (Kluwer Law International 2000) 1, 5Google Scholar; Clapham, Andrew, Brierly's Law of Nations (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2012) 59CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Kunz, Josef L, ‘The Nature of Customary International Law’ (1953) 47 American Journal of International Law 662, 666CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Malanczuk, Peter, Akehurst's Modern Introduction to International Law (7th edn, Routledge 1997) 42Google Scholar.

23 North Sea Continental Shelf (n 17) [74]; Meron, Theodor, ‘The Continuing Role of Custom in the Formation of International Humanitarian Law’ (1996) 90 American Journal of International Law 238, 249CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Thompson, Della (ed), The Concise Oxford Dictionary (9th edn, Clarendon Press 1995) 1072Google Scholar.

25 D'Amato, Anthony A, The Concept of Custom in International Law (Cornell University Press 1971) 88Google Scholar; but see Brownlie, Ian, ‘Comparative Approaches to the Theory of International Law: Remarks’ (1986) 80 American Society of International Law Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 152, 156Google Scholar (referring to D'Amato's approach as ‘“Rambo” superpositivism’).

26 Akehurst, Michael, ‘Custom as a Source of International Law’ (1975) 47 British Yearbook of International Law 1, 2Google Scholar; Sir Jennings, Robert and Sir Watts, Arthur (eds), Oppenheim's International Law, Vol I (9th edn, Longman Group UK 1992) 26Google Scholar.

27 Sir Michael Wood (Special Rapporteur), First Report on Formation and Evidence of Customary International Law, 17 May 2013, UN Doc A/CN.4/663, para 48; Mendelson, Maurice H, ‘The Formation of Customary International Law’ (1998) 272 Recueil des cours 155, 204Google Scholar; Dinstein, Yoram, ‘The Interaction between Customary International Law and Treaties’ (2006) 322 Recueil des cours 243, 277Google Scholar; Sir Michael Wood and Omri Sender, ‘State Practice’ in Wolfrum (n 2). Even those generally opposed to considering verbal conduct as state practice accept that such conduct is relevant when the practice itself can occur only through verbal remarks: see ‘Judgment of the Hon'ble Mr Justice Pal, Member from India’ in Boister, Neil and Cryer, Robert (eds), Documents on the Tokyo International Military Tribunal: Charter, Indictment and Judgments (Oxford University Press 2008) 809, 861CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wolfke, Karol, Custom in Present International Law (2nd edn, Nijhoff 1993) 42CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Ways and Means for Making the Evidence of Customary International Law More Readily Available, 2nd sess, (1950) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 5 [30], UN Doc A/CN.4/Ser A/1950 (Brierly); Bos, Maarten, ‘The Identification of Custom in International Law’ (1982) 25 German Yearbook of International Law 9, 28Google Scholar.

29 cf North Sea Continental Shelf (n 17) [74].

30 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (entered into force 27 January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331 (VCLT), arts 31–32.

31 Maritime Dispute (Peru v Chile), Judgment, 27 January 2014, [57]; Responsibilities and Obligations of States with Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion [2011] ITLOS Rep 10, [57].

32 VCLT (n 30) art 31(1).

33 ibid arts 31(3)(b), 32. See also Affaire de l'indemnité Russe (Russie, Turquie) (1912) 11 Reports of International Arbitral Awards 422, 433.

34 Georg Nolte (Special Rapporteur), First Report on Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in relation to Treaty Interpretation, 19 March 2013, UN Doc A/CN.4/660, 45, para 11. See also Law of Treaties, 16th sess, (1964) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 204, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1964/Add1, Commentary to Article 69, para 13 (following substantive changes, art 69 subsequently became art 31 of the VCLT (n 30)).

35 VCLT (n 30) art 32; Bouthillier, Yves le, ‘Convention de Vienne de 1969, Article 32’ in Corten, Olivier and Klein, Pierre (eds), Les Conventions de Vienne sur le droit des traités, Vol 2 (Bruylant 2006)Google Scholar 1339, 1394; but see Mortenson, Davis, ‘The Travaux of Travaux: Is the Vienna Convention Hostile to Drafting History?’ (2013) 107 American Journal of International Law 780CrossRefGoogle Scholar, 821 (arguing that it was intended that the travaux préparatoires should be an integral part of treaty interpretation).

36 eg Henkin, Louis, ‘Kosovo and the Law of “Humanitarian Intervention”’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 824, 824CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

37 eg General Treaty for Renunciation of War as an Instrument of National Policy (entered into force 25 July 1929) 94 LNTS 57, arts 1–2; Charter of the United Nations (entered into force 24 October 1945) (UN Charter), art 2(4); ‘Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe: Final Act’ (1975) 14 International Legal Materials 1292, 1294; VCLT (n 30) art 52; Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, UNGA Res 2625(XXV), 24 October 1970, UN Doc A/RES/2625 (1970); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v US), Merits, Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep 14, [181] (Nicaragua v US); Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion [2004] ICJ Rep 136, [87] (Wall); Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda), Judgment [2005] ICJ Rep 168, [148] (DRC v Uganda).

38 Nicaragua v US, ibid [181]; but see Crawford, James, ‘Chance, Order, Change: The Course of International Law – General Course on Public International Law’ (2013) 365 Recueil des cours 9, 59Google Scholar (expressing doubt over the approach expressed in Nicaragua).

39 UN Charter (n 37) art 2(4).

40 On the of protection of nationals abroad see, eg, Ruys, Tom, ‘The “Protection of Nationals” Doctrine Revisited’ (2008) 13 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 233CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the subject of intervention upon invitation see Tali Kolesov Har-Oz and Ori Pomson, ‘Ukraine Insta-Symposium: Two to Tango? The Limits of Government Consent to Intervention’, Opinio Juris, 9 March 2014, http://opiniojuris.org/2014/03/09/ukraine-insta-symposium-two-tango-limits-government-consent-intervention.

41 Green, James A, ‘Questioning the Peremptory Status of the Prohibition of the Use of Force’ (2011) 32 Michigan Journal of International Law 215, 255Google Scholar; Peters, Anne, ‘Are We Moving Towards Constitutionalization of the World Community?’ in Cassese, Antonio (ed), Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (Oxford University Press 2012)Google Scholar 118, 131. See also D'Amato, Anthony, ‘It's a Bird, It's a Plane, It's Jus Cogens!’ (1990) 6 Connecticut Journal of International Law 1Google Scholar.

42 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries (2001), Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd sess, (2001) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commisssion 26, UN Doc A/56/10 (2001), Commentary to Article 48, paras 8–9.

43 Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, 18th sess, (1966) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commisson 247, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1966/Add1, Commentary to Article 50, para 3. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) cited the opinion of the International Law Commission (ILC) in the Nicaragua case: Nicaragua v US (n 37) [190]. See also ibid, Separate Opinion of President Singh, 153; ibid, Separate Opinion of Judge Sette-Cama, 199; Oil Platforms (Iran v US), Judgment [2003] ICJ Rep 161, Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, [9]; ibid, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, [46]; Wall (n 37) Separate Opinion of Judge Elaraby, [3.1]; Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion [2010] ICJ Rep 403, Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade, [214].

44 cf Prosper Weil, ‘Towards Relative Normativity in International Law?’ (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law 413Google Scholar; Guillaume, Gilbert, ‘The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators’ (2011) 2 Journal of International Dispute Settlement 5, 22–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 For contemporary examples see Harold Hongju Koh, ‘Syria and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention (Part II: International Law and the Way Forward)’, Just Security, 2 October 2013, http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/02/koh-syria-part2; Harold Hongju Koh, ‘Syria and the Law of Humanitarian Intervention (Part III – A Reply)’, Just Security, 10 October 2013, http://justsecurity.org/2013/10/10/syria-law-humanitarian-intervention-part-iii-reply; Sir Daniel Bethlehem, ‘Stepping Back a Moment – The Legal Basis in Favour of a Principle of Humanitarian Intervention’, EJIL: Talk!, 12 September 2013, http://www.ejiltalk.org/stepping-back-a-moment-the-legal-basis-in-favour-of-a-principle-of-humanitarian-intervention; Carsten Stahn, ‘Guest Post: On “Humanitarian Intervention”, “Lawmaking” Moments and What the “Law Ought to Be”– Counseling Caution against a New “Affirmative Defense to Art. 2 (4)” after Syria’, Opinio Juris, 8 October 2013, http://opiniojuris.org/2013/10/08/guest-post-humanitarian-intervention-lawmaking-moments-law-counseling-caution-new-affirmative-de; Carsten Stahn, ‘Guest Post: On Intervention, Narratives of Progress, Threats of Force and the Virtues of Case-by-Case Assessment – A Rejoinder to Koh (Part III)’, Opinio Juris, 14 October 2013, http://opiniojuris.org/2013/10/14/carsten-stahn-guest-post-intervention-narratives-progress-threats-force-virtues-case-case-assessment-rejoinder-koh-part-iii; Kevin Jon Heller, ‘Four Thoughts on Koh's Defense of Unilateral Humanitarian Intervention’, Opinio Juris, 2 October 2013, http://opiniojuris.org/2013/10/02/four-thoughts-kohs-defense-unilateral-humanitarian-intervention. For more classical examples see Wippman, David, ‘The Nine Lives of Article 2(4)’ (2007) 16 Minnesota Journal of International Law 387, 403Google Scholar; Cassese, Antonio, ‘Ex iniuria ius oritur: Are We Moving Towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community’ (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law 23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘Memorandum submitted by Christopher Greenwood QC’, UK Parliament, 11 May 2000, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmfaff/28/0020802.htm; D'Amato, Anthony, ‘The Invasion of Panama Was a Lawful Response to Tyranny’ (1990) 84 American Journal of International Law 516, 524Google Scholar; Fonteyne, Jean-Pierre L, ‘The Customary International Law Doctrine of Humanitarian Intervention: Its Current Validity under the U.N. Charter’ (1974) 4 California Western International Law Journal 203, 258Google Scholar; Franck, Thomas M and Rodley, Nigel S, ‘After Bangladesh: The Law of Humanitarian Intervention by Military Force’ (1973) 67 American Journal of International Law 275, 302–03CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Sur, Serge, ‘L'affaire du Kosovo et le droit international: points et contrepoints’ (1999) 45 Annuaire Français de droit international 280, 286CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also D'Amato, ibid 520.

47 UN Charter (n 37) preamble, art 1(3). See in this regard Reisman, W Michael, ‘Kosovo's Antinomies’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 860, 862CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also Chinkin, Christine, ‘The Legality of NATO's Action in the Former Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) under International Law’ (2000) 49 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 910, 917–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 D'Amato, Anthony, ‘There is No Norm of Intervention or Non-Intervention in International Law’ (2001) 7 International Legal Theory 33, 36–39Google Scholar. See also Evans, Gareth and others, The Responsibility to Protect (International Development Research Centre 2001) 75Google Scholar.

49 Nicaragua v US (n 37) [268]; Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v Belgium), Provisional Measures, Order, [1999] ICJ Rep 124, [17] (Yugoslavia v Belgium, Provisional Measures); Gray, Christine, International Law and the Use of Force (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 51Google Scholar; Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (5th edn, Cambridge University Press 2011) s 197CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Corten, Olivier, The Law Against War: The Prohibition of the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (Sutcliffe, Christopher tr, Hart 2010) 548–49Google Scholar.

50 Arangio-Ruiz, Gaetano, ‘The Normative Role of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the Declaration of Principles of Friendly Relations’ (1972) 137 Recueil des cours 419, 534Google Scholar; Jus ad Bellum, Ethiopia's Claims 1–8 (Eritrea/Ethiopia Claims Commission) (2005) 135 International Law Reports 479, 485Google Scholar. See also Corten, Olivier, ‘Territorial Integrity Narrowly Interpreted: Reasserting the Classical Inter-State Paradigm of International Law’ (2011) 24 Leiden Journal of International Law 87, 91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

51 UN Charter (n 37) preamble, art 1(1). See in this regard Charney, Jonathan I, ‘Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 834, 835–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Chatterjee, SK, ‘Some Legal Problems of Support Role in International Law: Tanzania and Uganda’ (1981) 30 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 755, 756CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Tanzanian intervention in Uganda being based on self-defence); Ratner, Steven R, ‘The Cambodia Settlement Agreements’ (1993) 87 American Journal of International Law 1, 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar (Vietnam and Kampuchea/Cambodia); Corten (n 49) 542–43 (certain NATO states and Kosovo).

53 UNGA Res 2793(XXVI), 7 December 1971, UN Doc A/RES/2793 (1971) (India and East Pakistan/Bangladesh); UNGA Res 34/22, 14 November 1979, UN Doc A/RES/34/22 (1979) (Vietnam and Kampuchea/Cambodia); Gray (n 49) 47 (NATO and Kosovo).

54 Documents of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, Vol VI (Library of Congress 1945) 335. See also Giraud, Emile, ‘L'interdiction du recours à la force: la théorie et la pratique des Nations Unies’ (1963) 67 Revue générale de droit international public 501, 512–13Google Scholar.

55 Schachter, Oscar, ‘International Law in Theory and Practice: General Course in Public International Law’ (1982) 178 Recueil des cours 9, 144Google Scholar. See also Mani, VS, ‘“Humanitarian” Intervention Today’ (2005) 313 Recueil des cours 9, 307–08Google Scholar.

56 UN Charter (n 37) art 51. See also Nicaragua v US (n 37) [193]; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion [1996] ICJ Rep 226, [38], [96].

57 UN Charter (n 37) art 42.

58 Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 58th sess, (2006) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 182, paras 31–33, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2006/Add.1 (Pt 2).

59 Diplomatic Protection, 56th sess, (2004) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 4, para 35 (Brownlie), UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2004. For other sceptical opinions of the doctrine's existence see State Responsibility, 52nd sess, (2000) 1 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 218, para 17 (Crawford), UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2000; State Responsibility, 51st sess, (1999) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 85, paras 411–15, UN Doc. A/CN.4/SER.A/1999/Add.1 (Pt 2) (discussion of clean hands in the ILC‘s report on state responsibility); Rousseau, Charles, Droit international public, Tome V: Les rapports conflictuels (Sirey 1983) 177Google Scholar (‘il n'est pas possible de considérer la théorie des mains propres comme une institution du droit coutumier géneral’); LaPlante, Lisa J, ‘The Law of Remedies and the Clean Hands Doctrine: Exclusionary Reparation Policies in Peru's Political Transition’ (2007) 23 American University International Law Review 51, 64Google Scholar. See also Simma, Bruno, ‘The Work of the International Law Commission at Its Fifty-First Session (1999)’ (1999) 68 Nordic Journal of International Law 293, 315–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Report of the International Law Commission, 57th sess, 2005, UN Doc A/60/10, 110 (Special Rapporteur on Diplomatic Protection, John Dugard). For other opinions in support of the doctrine's existence, see State Responsibility, 51st sess (n 59) 85, paras 413–14; Lowe, Vaughan, ‘The Role of Equity in International Law’ (1989) 12 Australian Yearbook of International Law 54, 80Google Scholar; Rossi, Christopher R, Equity and International Law: A Legal Realist Approach to International Decisionmaking (Transnational 1993) 165CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shapovalov, Aleksandr, ‘Should a Requirement of “Clean Hands” Be a Prerequisite to the Exercise of Diplomatic Protection? Human Rights Implications of the International Law Commission's Debate’ (2005) 20 American University International Law Review 829, 842Google Scholar. See also Simma (n 59) 315–16. Alain Pellet has argued that, while the clean hands doctrine has no ‘autonomous consequences’ regarding norms of international law generally, it has significance in the context of diplomatic protection: Diplomatic Protection, 56th sess (n 59) 12, para 5.

61 Guyana/Suriname Arbitration (Award) (2007) 139 International Law Reports 566, 685. Alain Pellet and Ian Brownlie have referred to the doctrine as being ‘vague’: see, respectively, Diplomatic Protection, 56th sess (n 59) 12, para 5; 190, para 29.

62 A similar – though slightly nuanced – differentiation was expounded by D Stephen Mathias in the United States' oral submission in the Oil Platforms case: ICJ, Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States), Verbatim Record, 5 March 2003, 3.00 pm, [26.13], http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/5181.pdf (Verbatim Record, 5 March 2003).

63 For discussion of this understanding applied under international law see Samuel Moss, ‘Does a Doctrine of “Clean Hands” Exist in International Law?’, MIS dissertation, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2007.

64 Permanent Court of Arbitration, Yukos Universal Ltd (Isle of Man) v The Russian Federation, PCA Case No AA227, 18 July 2014, [1363].

65 The ICJ ruled that violations of human rights do not directly involve the right to use force in order to monitor and prevent those violations: Nicaragua v US (n 37) [268]. Similarly, although only obiter dicta, the ICJ expressed doubt regarding the legality of the NATO humanitarian intervention in Kosovo: Yugoslavia v Belgium, Provisional Measures (n 49) [17].

66 Quincy Wright, ‘The Goa Incident’ (1962) 56 American Journal of International Law 617, 628.

67 Diversion of Waters from the Meuse (Netherlands v Belgium) (1937) PCIJ Rep (Ser A/B, No 70) 16.

68 ibid 25.

69 Rossi (n 60) 158–59.

70 Meuse (n 67) Individual Opinion of Judge Hudson, 77.

71 Jenks, C Wilfred, The Prospects of International Adjudication (Stevens 1964) 326, fn 30Google Scholar.

72 Meuse (n 67) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti, 50.

73 This maxim is said to mean in English that ‘one who reneges on a legal obligation cannot invoke the law to force other parties to fulfil their own, reciprocal obligations’: Fellmeth, Aaron X and Horwitz, Maurice, Guide to Latin in International Law (Oxford University Press 2009) 136CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Stephen M Schwebel, ‘Clean Hands, Principle’, in Wolfrum (n 2) para 2.

75 Nicaragua v US (n 37) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [269]; Guyana/Suriname (n 61) 687.

76 Meuse (n 67) Individual Opinion of Judge Hudson, 77.

77 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (entered into force 19 March 1967) 596 UNTS 261 (VCCR), art 36(1)(b).

78 Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v US), Judgment [2004] ICJ Rep 12, [106].

79 ibid [45].

80 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v Iran), Provisional Measures, Order [1979] ICJ Rep 7, [40].

81 Avena (n 78) [47].

82 DRC v Uganda (n 37) [221].

83 ibid, Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, [75]–[78].

84 ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Kateka, [61]. It should be noted that Judge ad hoc Kateka stated that the doctrine should be applied with regard to the DRC's claim that Uganda carried out an intentional policy of terror: ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Kateka, [46]. However, the Court dismissed the DRC's claim on the basis of lack of evidence: ibid [212].

85 This is significant since ‘[i]n order to interpret or elucidate a judgment it is both permissible and advisable to take into account any dissenting or other opinions appended to the judgment’: Application for Review of Judgment No 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion [1987] ICJ Rep 18, [49].

86 There are two points of relevance here. First, the arbitration made it clear that its analysis was based on the assumption that the clean hands doctrine existed, without ruling on the existence of the doctrine as a legal norm. Second, and regrettably, the arbitration stated that the violated obligation that serves as the basis for tainting the claimant's hands as unclean must be reciprocal to the violation alleged to have been committed by the respondent: Guyana/Suriname (n 61) 687. Yet, the arbitration does not appear to differentiate between different manifestations of the clean hands doctrine. Hence, the application of the following conditions should be confined solely to the reciprocal obligations manifestation of the doctrine.

87 ibid 687.

88 eg Nicaragua v US (n 37) [128].

89 ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [28]. Schwebel cited the Corfu Channel case in which the ICJ ruled that states are under the ‘obligation not to allow knowingly its territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States’: ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [240]; Corfu Channel (UK v Albania), Merits, Judgment [1949] ICJ Rep 4, 22.

90 Nicaragua v US (n 37) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [240]. An additional use of the clean hands doctrine in its reciprocal obligations manifestation may be found in the separate opinion of Judge Prince Bola Adesumbo Ajibola in the Bosnian Genocide case. Bosnia and Herzegovina had requested additional provisional measures to serve as protection from alleged acts of genocide being committed against its population with the support of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, Order of 13 September 1993, [1993] ICJ Rep 325, [3] (Order, Bosnian Genocide)). The Court rejected this request at [59]. Judge Ajibola stated that in light of the Court's discretion under its Rules to decide ‘whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures which ought to be taken or complied with by any or all of the parties’ (ICJ, Rules of Court, art 75(1), http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=3&p3=0), the Court's discretion should include equity. Consequently, he stated that ‘if an applicant wants the court to exercise its equitable discretion on a matter, he must first satisfy the court that the earlier order issued by the court has been complied with, otherwise the court may refuse to make any further order’: Order, Bosnian Genocide, ibid, Separate Opinion of Judge Ajibola, 395. Considering the relatively broad – and vague – discretion provided to the Court by its Rules in granting provisional measures, it seems inappropriate to apply Judge Ajibola's dicta in general when adjudicating norms of international law.

91 nn 42–43 and accompanying text.

92 Fellmeth and Horwitz (n 73) 203. See also Cheng, Bin, General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (Grotius 1953) 149Google Scholar.

93 For the factual background see, eg, Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland), Preliminary Objections (1925) PCIJ Rep (Ser A, No 6) 8–10.

94 Factory at Chorzów (Germany v Poland), Jurisdiction (1927) PCIJ Rep (Ser A, No 9) 25.

95 ibid 31.

96 ibid (emphasis added).

97 Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Advisory Opinion (1928) PCIJ Rep (Ser B, No 15) 26–27. The advisory opinion concerned a Polish contention that Danzig courts lacked jurisdiction over claims brought by Danzig railway officials against the Polish Railways Administration (PRA), the claimants being under the service of the PRA pursuant to the Treaty of Versailles and subsequent agreements between Poland and the Free City of Danzig: ibid 8–10. In addressing a potential Polish argument that the Danzig courts lacked jurisdiction as Poland did not provide for such jurisdiction in its internal law, the PCIJ stated that Poland would be precluded from making such a claim since it would be based on a breach of its own obligation: ibid 26–27.

98 Tams, Christian J, ‘Waiver, Acquiescence, and Extinctive Prescription’ in Crawford, James, Pellet, Alain and Olleson, Simon (eds), The Law of International Responsibility (Oxford University Press 2010) 1035, 1044Google Scholar.

99 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v Thailand), Merits, Judgment [1962] ICJ Rep 6, Separate Opinion of Judge Fitzmaurice, 62–64.

100 ibid, Separate Opinion of Vice-President Alfaro, 40.

101 In the TAMS-AFFA case, the Claims Tribunal was concerned with how to evaluate the amount of compensation due to an American partner after it was deprived of its assets in a jointly owned entity as a result of its takeover by the Iranian government: Tippets, Abbet, McCarthy, Stratton v TAMS-AFFA (1984) 6 Iran-US Cl Trib Rep 219, 224–27. Considering that the entity had been involved in projects which involved payments from the Iranian government, the Tribunal stated that if the Iranian government failed to make such payments to the entity it could not benefit from deducting these amounts from the value of the entity: ibid 227–28. Conversely, the American partner could not benefit from taxes that its jointly owned entity failed to pay to the Iranian government upon assessing the value of the entity: ibid 228.

102 In the Inceysa v El Salvador case, the ICSID was faced with a dispute concerning a Spanish company claiming against El Salvador for contractual breach and expropriation: Inceysa Vallisoletana SL v El Salvador, ICSID Case No ARB/03/26, Award (2006) [3]. However, the company had entered into the contractual obligation with the state as a result of fraudulent behaviour: eg ibid [103], [118], [119], [123]. In dismissing its jurisdiction over the case, the ICSID stated, inter alia, that ‘[n]o legal system based on rational grounds allows the party that committed a chain of clearly illegal acts to benefit from them’: ibid [244]; see also Rahim Moloo, ‘A Comment on the Clean Hands Doctrine in International Law’ (2010) 7 Inter Alia 39, 46. In this regard, it should be noted that one of the reasons why Schwebel was of the opinion that Nicaragua had unclean hands was because it misled the ICJ concerning its alleged armed intervention in El Salvador: Nicaragua v US (n 37) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [268]. Only recently did the judge state that Nicaragua ‘grossly misled the Court’: Stephen M Schwebel, ‘Celebrating a Fraud on the Court’ (2012) 106 American Journal of International Law 102, 103.

103 Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (1933) PCIJ Rep (Ser A/B, No 53) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti, 95.

104 Cheng (n 92) 155.

105 Eastern Greenland (n 103) 26.

106 ibid 23.

107 ibid 36. While some scholars argue otherwise, it appears that the PCIJ was of the opinion that the legal status of the Ihlen Declaration is that of a unilateral act of state: ibid 71; Víctor Rodríguez Cedeño (Special Rapporteur), Eighth Report on Unilateral Acts of States, (2005) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 131–32, para 122, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2005/Add.1 (Pt 1). For the legal status of unilateral acts of states generally, see Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, (2006) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 161 [176], UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2006/Add.l (Pt 2).

108 Eastern Greenland (n 103) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti, 94.

109 ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti, 95. It should be noted that the reason Anzilotti's opinion is titled a ‘dissent’ is because of his departure from the Court majority's holding that the area claimed by Norway was not terra nullius: ibid 85–86.

110 Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Second Phase) (France v Switzerland), Order (1930) PCIJ Rep (Ser A, No 24) 16. Under the Treaty of Versailles, France and Switzerland were to agree on the status of the free zones of Upper Savoy and the Gex District in light of ‘present conditions’. Following the entering into force of the Treaty, France unilaterally, and unlawfully, transferred a customs cordon to the political frontier in the area. The PCIJ ruled that France was precluded from relying on the consequences of its unlawful act when the states were to decide on the appropriate regime in light of ‘present conditions’.

111 UNSC Res 687(1991), 8 April 1991, UN Doc S/RES/687 (1991), para 18.

112 UN Compensation Commission Governing Council, Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Concerning the First Instalment of ‘E2’ Claims, 3 July 1998, UN Doc S/AC.26/1998/7, para 170 (First Instalment of ‘E2’ Claims).

113 UNSC Res 661(1990), 6 August 1990, UN Doc S/RES/661 (1990), paras 2–4.

114 First Instalment of ‘E2’ Claims (n 112) para 172.

115 ibid.

116 Alford, Roger P, ‘The Proliferation of International Courts and Tribunals: International Adjudication in Ascendance’ (2000) 94 American Society of International Law Proceedings of the Annual Meeting 160, 161Google Scholar.

117 Meuse (n 67) Individual Opinion of Judge Hudson, 77. A chamber of the ICJ has stated that if there are no special circumstances, equality is the ‘best expression’ of equity: see Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso v Mali), Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep 554, [150].

118 United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v Iran), Judgment [1980] ICJ Rep 3 (Tehran Hostages).

119 ibid [10].

120 ibid.

121 ibid [37], [82]. Iran did not attempt to substantiate its contention, as it did not file any pleadings with the ICJ: ibid [37].

122 ibid [83]–[86].

123 ibid [87].

124 ibid [88]–[89]. The ICJ did, however, provide for the possibility that Iran's allegations, if founded, could affect the consequences of Iran's responsibility: ibid [89].

125 ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tarazi, 62.

126 ibid 60–61.

127 ibid 61–62.

128 ibid 62.

129 ibid 62–63.

130 Nicaragua v US (n 37), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [270].

131 ibid [272]. Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert referred to Schwebel's opinion in her own dissenting opinion in the Arrest Warrant case. However, she did not apply the doctrine to preclude the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) from making claims. Rather, she noted that the DRC had unclean hands to exemplify it acting in bad faith: Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment [2002] ICJ Rep 3, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, [35] and fn 82; Guyana/Suriname (n 61) 686.

132 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), Judgment [1997] ICJ Rep 7.

133 Treaty concerning the Construction and Operation of the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros System of Locks (entered into force 30 June 1978) 1109 UNTS 211, art 1(1), as quoted in Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros, ibid [18].

134 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 132) [22].

135 ibid [59].

136 ibid [23].

137 ibid [78].

138 ibid [152].

139 Text accompanying n 96.

140 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 132) [110].

141 ibid.

142 Verbatim Record, 5 March 2003 (n 62) [26.16]. It should be noted that the ICJ ultimately ruled that it did not need to address the question of clean hands: Oil Platforms (n 43) [30].

143 North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany v Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany v Netherlands), Judgment [1969] ICJ Rep 3, [98]; Ruth Lapidoth, ‘Equity in International Law’ (1987) 22 Israel Law Review 161, 177–79.

144 Nicaragua v US (n 37) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel, [269]; Jenks (n 71) 412–13.

145 Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, ‘The General Principles of International Law Considered from the Standpoint of the Rule of Law’ (1957) 92 Recueil des cours 1, 119–20.

146 Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros (n 132) [78].

147 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v Portugal), Verbatim Record’, 11 May 1999, 12.20 pm, 11, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/111/4565.pdf.

148 Verbatim Record, 5 March 2003 (n 62) [26.16]–[26.17].

149 ICJ, ‘Letter dated 29 January 2004 from the Deputy Director General and Legal Advisor of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, together with the Written Statement of the Government of Israel, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory’, 30 January 2004, [9.3]–[9.4], http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/131/1579.pdf.

150 See also nn 174–79 below and accompanying text.

151 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium and Others), Verbatim Record’, 21 April 2004, 45–46, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/105/4409.pdf.

152 ibid 46–47.

153 ICJ, ‘Reply and Defence to Counterclaim Submitted by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Oil Platforms (Iran v US)’, 10 March 1999, [8.5], http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/8630.pdf.

154 ibid [8.11]; ICJ, ‘Oil Platforms (Iran v US), Verbatim Record Translation’, 19 February 2003, 3.00 pm, 20–22, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/5143.pdf. This approach is not surprising considering that Alain Pellet served as counsel for Iran, and adopts this as his personal approach: see n 60. There also appears to be much misunderstanding between the states regarding the nature of the doctrine. It was unclear to Iran whether the invocation of clean hands is a matter of admissibility, merits (relating to responsibility), or mitigation of due reparation: ibid 19. Thus, Iran took great efforts to argue that clean hands is not a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act under the laws of treaties and state responsibility: ICJ, ‘Oil Platforms (Iran v US), Verbatim Record Translation’, 3 March 2003, 3.00 pm, 14–17, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/90/5175.pdf.

155 eg Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment [2004] ICJ Rep 279.

156 Oil Platforms (n 43) [29]–[30].

157 ibid [125].

158 Wall (n 37) [64].

159 Tehran Hostages (n 118) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Morozov.

160 ibid [30]–[31].

161 ibid [93].

162 ibid [32].

163 ibid [93].

164 ibid [94].

165 ibid.

166 ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Morozov, 54.

167 ibid 53; see also ibid 54–55.

168 ibid 54–55 (emphasis in original).

169 Yugoslavia v Belgium, Provisional Measures (n 49).

170 n 147 and accompanying text.

171 Yugoslavia v Belgium, Provisional Measures (n 49) Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, 184.

172 ibid.

173 eg Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium, Preliminary Objections (n 155).

174 ICJ, ‘Preliminary Objections of the Kingdom of Belgium, Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium)’, 5 July 2000, [479]–[483], http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/105/8340.pdf.

175 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugovslavia v Canada), Verbatim Record’, 10 May 1999, 4.15 pm, 7, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/106/4517.pdf.

176 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugovslavia v Germany), Verbatim Record’, 11 May 1999, 10.00 am, 10, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/108/4553.pdf.

177 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugovslavia v Netherlands), Verbatim Record’, 11 May 1999, 11.55 am, 15–17, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/110/4561.pdf.

178 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v UK), Verbatim Record’, 12 May 1999, 4:35 pm, 13, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/113/4645.pdf.

179 ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v US), Verbatim Record’, 11 May 1999, 4:30 pm, 23, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/114/4577.pdf; ICJ, ‘Legality of Use of Force (Yugovslavia v US), Verbatim Record’, 12 May 1999, 4:50 pm, 10, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/114/4647.pdf.

180 Verbatim Record 5 March 2003 (n 62) [26.18].

181 Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), ‘Rejoinder of the Republic of Suriname, Volume I, Guyana/Suriname Arbitration’, 1 September 2006, [2.93]ff, http://server.nijmedia.nl/pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=690.

182 PCA, ‘Guyana/Suriname Arbitration, Proceedings’, 15 December 2006, 1100-01, http://server.nijmedia.nl/pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=678.

183 nn 150–152 and accompanying text.

184 nn 153–154 and accompanying text.

185 PCA, ‘Reply of the Republic of Guyana, Volume 1, Guyana/Suriname Arbitration’, 1 April 2006, [2.48], http://www.pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=910; PCA, ‘Guyana/Suriname Arbitration, Proceedings’, 8 July 2005, 32, http://www.pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=773; PCA, ‘Guyana/Suriname Arbitration, Proceedings’, 11 December 2006, 581–82, http://www.pca-cpa.org/showfile.asp?fil_id=675.

186 nn 155–157 and accompanying text.

187 Guyana/Suriname (n 61) 688.

188 Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece intervening), Judgment [2012] ICJ Rep 99, [93] (Germany v Italy).

189 Talmon, Stefan, ‘Jus Cogens after Germany v Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished’ (2012) 25 Leiden Journal of International Law 979, 985CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

190 Section 2.

191 Brownlie, Ian, Principles of Public International Law (7th edn, Oxford University Press 2008) 503Google Scholar. Note that the most recent edition of this book does not discuss the matter: Crawford (n 4).

192 eg East Timor (Portugal v Australia), Judgment [1995] ICJ Rep 90, [29]; Arrest Warrant (n 131) [60]; Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment [2004] ICJ Rep 720, [39] (Serbia and Montenegro v Germany); Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment [2006] ICJ Rep 6,[64] (DRC v Rwanda); Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment [2010] ICJ Rep 14 [67]–[158]; Germany v Italy (n 188) [93]; Prosecutor v. Furundžija (Judgment) (1998) 121 International Law Reports 213, 261; Habré (2000) 125 International Law Reports 569, 573; Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (2001) 123 International Law Reports 24, 50; Fogarty v United Kingdom (2001) 123 International Law Reports 53, 61–62 (Fogarty); Prosecutor v Taylor (Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction) (2004) 128 International Law Reports 239; Jones v Ministry of Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (2007) 129 International Law Reports 629, 727; ECtHR, Jones v United Kingdom, App No 34356/06, 14 January 2014, para 215; Lorna McGregor, ‘Torture and State Immunity: Deflecting Impunity, Distorting Sovereignty’ (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 903, 911; Alexander Orakhelashvili, ‘State Immunity and Hierarchy of Norms: Why the House of Lords Got It Wrong’ (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 955, 968; Talmon (189).

193 Erika de Wet, ‘The International Constitutional Order’ (2006) 55 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 51, 64.

194 A simple example is the following. The necessary panel of nine judges to adjudicate a dispute before the ICJ may never be reduced, even where a provisional measures request concerns prevention of genocide or other serious international law violations. If the required number of judges is not available, proceedings may not take place until that number is met: ICJ Statute (n 15) arts 25(1) and (3), 41; ICJ Rules (n 90) art 74(2)–(3); Zimmermann, Andreas, Tomuschat, Christian and Ellers-Frahm, Karin (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2006) 436; Talmon (n 189) 988Google Scholar.

195 Orakhelashvili, Alexander, Peremptory Norms in International Law (Oxford University Press 2006) 50Google Scholar.

196 VCLT (n 30) arts 53, 64; Articles on Responsibility of States (n 42) Commentary to Article 26, para 5.

197 Bartsch, Kerstin and Elberling, Björn, ‘Jus Cogens vs. State Immunity, Round Two: The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Kalogeropoulou et al. v. Greece and Germany Decision’ (2003) 4 German Law Journal 477, 484CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rau, Markus, ‘After Pinochet: Foreign Sovereign Immunity in Respect of Serious Human Rights Violations – The Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in the Al-Adsani Case’ (2002) 3 German Law Journal, s 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

198 See also Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Judgment [2009] ICJ Rep 213, [48] (‘limitations of the sovereignty of a State over its territory are not to be presumed’); Lac Lanoux Arbitration (France/Spain) (1957) 24 International Law Reports 101, 127 (the Arbitral Tribunal noting that limitations on sovereignty would ‘only be admitted if there were clear and convincing evidence’).

199 SS ‘Lotus’ (France v Turkey) (1927) PCIJ Rep (Ser A, No 10) 18; Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company Ltd (Belgium v Spain), Judgment [1970] ICJ Rep 3, [89]; Lowe, AV, ‘Do General Rules of International Law Exist?’ (1983) 9 Review of International Studies 207, 208–09CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Cassese, Antonio, International Law in a Divided World (Clarendon Press 1986) ss 93, 97Google Scholar; Henkin, Louis, ‘International Law: Politics, Values and Functions’ (1989) 216 Recueil des cours 9, 27Google Scholar. But see Kosovo Advisory Opinion (n 43) Declaration of Judge Simma, [8] (rejecting an absolute approach in which all that has not been consented to is permitted).

200 Nicaragua v US (n 37) [44]. In the Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, [1985] ICJ Rep 192, [43], the Court noted that it was ‘a fundamental principle’ that ‘the consent of states parties to a dispute is the basis of the Court's jurisdiction in contentious cases’, citing Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion [1950] ICJ Rep 65, 71. See also Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment [2002] ICJ Rep 303, [238] (Cameroon v Nigeria), and DRC v Rwanda (n 192) [21]. The Court further noted that ‘its jurisdiction is based on the consent of the parties and is confined to the extent accepted by them’, and that ‘the conditions to which such consent is subject must be regarded as constituting the limits thereon … [T]he examination of such conditions relates to its jurisdiction and not to the admissibility of the application’: ibid [88]. See also Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France), Judgment [2008] ICJ Rep 177, [48] (Certain Questions).

201 ICJ Statute (n 15) art 36(1). This may be conducted through special agreement (compromis) as was the situation in Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium v Netherlands), Judgment [1959] ICJ Rep 209; Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment [1982] ICJ Rep 18; Territorial Dispute (Libya v Chad), Judgment [1994] ICJ Rep 6. Also, the ICJ may infer the consent of one of the parties from its conduct, as was the case in Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v Albania), Preliminary Objection, Judgment [1948] ICJ Rep 15, 25–28. Additionally, the ICJ has jurisdiction under treaties where there is a ‘compromissory clause’ providing this jurisdiction; this was the situation in United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Hostages (n 118) [45]–[54]; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment [1996] ICJ Rep 595, [17]–[26] (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia).

202 DRC v Rwanda (n 192) [64], [125]; Germany v Italy (n 188) [95].

203 eg Serbia and Montenegro v Germany (n 192) [89].

204 DRC v Rwanda (n 192) [125].

205 Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v France, UK and US), Preliminary Question, Judgment [1954] ICJ Rep 19.

206 ibid 32.

207 East Timor (n 192).

208 ibid [35].

209 UN Charter (n 37) art 1(2); Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276, Advisory Opinion [1971] ICJ Rep 16, [52]–[53]; Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion [1975] ICJ Rep 12, [54]–[59].

210 East Timor (n 192) [29].

211 Wall (n 37) [172].

212 del Vecchio, Angela, ‘International Courts and Tribunals, Standing’ in Wolfrum (n 2); Malcolm N Shaw, International Law (6th edn, Cambridge University Press 2008) 1072Google Scholar.

213 Reparations for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion [1949] ICJ Rep 174, 181–82. See also Barcelona Traction (n 199) [35]; Belgium v Senegal (n 11) [69]–[70].

214 On use of the term ‘indirect’ harm, see State Responsibility, 52nd sess (n 59) 33, para 57 (Pellet).

215 Barcelona Traction (n 199) [33].

216 ibid [34]. See also Reservations (n 11) 23.

217 Ragazzi, Maurizio, The Concept of International Obligations Erga Omnes (Oxford University Press 1997) 124–32Google Scholar.

218 Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (n 42).

219 Scobbie, Iain, ‘The Invocation of Responsibility for the Breach of “Obligations under Peremptory Norms of General International Law”’ (2002) 13 European Journal of International Law 1201, 1212–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

220 South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment [1966] ICJ Rep 6.

221 ibid [100].

222 ibid 11–12, 15.

223 ibid [84]–[88].

224 James Crawford (Special Rapporteur), Third Report on State Responsibility, (2000) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commision 29–30, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/2000/Add.1 (Pt 1).

225 Germany v Italy (n 188) [55]; European Convention on State Immunity (entered into force 11 June 1976) 1495 UNTS 181 (ECSI); United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 2 December 2004, UN Doc A/RES/59/38 (UN Immunities Convention); Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, 32nd sess, (1980) 2 Yearbook of the International Law Commission 147, UN Doc A/CN.4/SER.A/1980/Add.1; Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 USC § 1604 (2012) (US) (USFSIA); State Immunity Act 1978 (UK) (UKSIA); Prefecture of Voiotia v Germany (Distomo Massacre Case) (2000) 129 International Law Reports 513, 516; Canada v Edelson (1997) 131 International Law Reports 279, 287.

226 Arrest Warrant (n 131) [60]. See also DRC v Rwanda (n 192) [34], in which the Court referred to ‘provisions relating to the jurisdiction of the Court’ as ‘procedural provisions’; Prosecutor v Taylor (n 192) 256; Talmon (n 189) 980.

227 Germany v Italy (n 188) [58]; Arrest Warrant (n 131) [60]; Fox, Hazel and Webb, Philippa, The Law of State Immunity (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2013) 5Google Scholar; Al-Adsani v UK (n 192) 38; Fogarty v UK (n 192) 61.

228 UN Immunities Convention (n 225) art 7; USFSIA (n 225) § 1605(a)(1); UKSIA (n 225) s 2(2); ECSI (n 225) art 2.

229 Fox and Webb (n 227) 395; Germany v Italy (n 188) [60]; UN Immunities Convention (n 225) art 10; USFSIA (n 225) § 1605(a)(2); Empire of Iran (1963) 45 International Law Reports 57, 76; Republic of Argentina v Weltover Inc (1992) 100 International Law Reports 509, 513.

230 UN Immunities Convention (n 225) arts 11–17; ECSI (n 225) arts 5–11.

231 Fox and Webb (n 227) 3; Al-Adsani v UK (n 192) 40–43; Kalogeropoulou v Greece and Germany (2002) 129 International Law Reports 537, 546–47; (Kalogeropoulou).

232 ECtHR, Nada v Switzerland, App No 10593/08, 12 September 2012, para 169. See also VCLT (n 30) art 31(3)(c); Certain Questions (n 200) [112].

233 Fox and Webb (n 227) 3; Al-Adsani v UK (n 192) 40–43; Kalogeropoulou (n 231) 546–47; Bartsch and Elberling (n 197) 483.

234 Germany v Italy (n 188) [91]; see also Al-Adsani v UK (n 192) 41–42; Kalogeropoulou (n 231) 546–47.

235 Germany v Italy (n 188) [93]–[97]; see also Jones v Saudi Arabia (n 192); Bouzari v Islamic Republic of Iran (2004) 128 International Law Reports 586, 605; Fang v Jiang (2006) 141 International Law Reports 702, 710; Margellos v Germany (2002) 129 International Law Reports 525, 531; Al-Adsani v UK (n 192) 40–43; Kalogeropoulou (n 231) 546–47.

236 Germany v Italy (n 188) [89].

237 Corten (n 49) 550.

238 Articles for Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (n 42) Commentary to Article 50, para 1.

239 Ruys, Tom, ‘The Meaning of “Force” and the Boundaries of the Jus ad Bellum: Are “Minimal” Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter Article 2(4)?’ (2014) 108 American Journal of International Law 159, 209–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

240 n 64 and accompanying text.