Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-qs9v7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T23:10:31.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 March 2017

Bart M. J. Szewczyk
Bart M. J. Szewczyk*
Affiliation:
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP
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
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 105 , Issue 4 , October 2011 , pp. 747 - 754
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2011

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 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geor.v. Russ.), Preliminary Objections (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 1,2011), 50 ILM 607 (2011) [hereinafter Judgment]. The ICJ and PCIJ documents cited herein are available on the Court’s Web site at http://www.icj-cij.org/.

2 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geor.v. Russ.), Provisional Measures, 2008 ICJ Rep. 353 (Oct. 15).

3 Republic of Georgia, Application Instituting Proceedings, para. 2 (Aug. 12, 2008).

4 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, opened for signature Mar.7, 1966, S. Exec. Rep. C, 95th Cong. (1978), 660 UNTS 195 [hereinafter CERD].

5 Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection Submitted by the Government of the Republic of Georgia (Aug. 13,2008); see also Amended Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection Submitted by the Government of the Republic of Georgia (Aug. 25, 2008).

6 Order, supra note 2, para. 2 (quoting CERD, supra note 4, Art. 22). For an overview of the order and furtherdiscussion of the factual background, see Cindy Galway Buys, Case Report: Application of the International Conventionon the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), in 103 AJIL 294(2009).

7 Order, supra note 2, para. 114.

8 Id.

9 Id, para. 148.

10 Quoting Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, 1924 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 2, at 11.

11 Quoting id. at 13.

12 Quoting Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), Preliminary Objection, 1996ICJ REP. 803,809, para. 15 (Dec. 12) (1stquote); id, Merits, 2003 ICJ Rep. 161, 210-11, para. 107 (Nov. 6) (2d quote).

13 For a more detailed discussion of the relevant documents, see Separate Opinion of Judge Simma at 9-28.

14 See generally Michael Reisman, W., Arsanjani, Mahnoush H., Wiessner, Siegfried, & Westerman, Gayl S., International Law in Contemporary Perspective 1381 (2d ed. 2004)Google Scholar.

15 Currently, only 66 of the 192 state parties to the UN Charter (or 34%) have issued declarations under Article 36(2), the so-called optional clause; frequently, even these declarations are limited by reservations and thus do not provide for the complete general jurisdiction of the ICJ. The Court’s advisory jurisdiction can be invoked only by certain international organizations.

16 Joseph S., Nye Jr., The Future of Power 3 (2011)Google Scholar.

17 Compare Judgment, para. 9, with Order, supra note 2, para. 149(D).

18 See generally Huff, Ariella, The Role of EU Defence Policy in the Eastern Neighbourhood, Eur. Union Inst. Security Stud. [Euiss], Occasional Paper NO. 91 (May 11, 2011)Google Scholar, at http://www.iss.europa.eu; Fischer, Sabine, The EU’s Non-recognition and Engagement Policy Towards Abkhazia and South Ossetia, Euiss Seminarreports (Dec. 1-2, 2010), at http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/NREP_report.pdf Google Scholar.

19 This type of reassessment is not unprecedented. See Michael Reisman, W., The Enforcement of International Judgments, 63 AJIL 1, 3 & n.7 (1969)Google Scholar (discussing “not infrequentf]” cases when “the Court anticipated that a state was likely to impugn a judgment. . . [and] disseised itself of jurisdiction”).

20 See Bart M. J., Szewczyk, European Citizenship and National Democracy: Contemporary Sources of Legitimacy of the European Union, 17 Colum. J. Eur. L. 151, 160 (2011)Google Scholar (quoting W. Michael Reisman, Assessing Claims to Revise the Laws of War, 97 AJIL 82, 82 (2003)).

21 See Carl Von, Clausewitz, On War 99 (Howard, Michael & Paret, Peter eds. & trans., Knopf, Alfred A. 1993) (1832)Google Scholar (“War is Merely the Continuation of Policy by Other Means.”).

22 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Rom. v. Ukr.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 61, 70, para. 18 (Aug. 12). Notably, the Court’s judgment in this case was the first unanimous judgment in the Court’s history without any separate opinions.

23 SC Res. 1970 (Feb. 26, 2011).

24 Prosecutor v. Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi and Abdullah Al-Senussi,No. ICC-01/11-01/11-1, Decision on the “Prosecutor’s Application Pursuant to Article 58” (June 27, 2011); see Simons, Marlise, Charges of War Crimes Brought Against Qaddafi, N.Y. Times, June 28, 2011 Google Scholar, at Al 1.

25 Afr. Comm’n on Hum. & Peoples’ Rts. v. Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, App. No. 004/2011, Provisional Measures, para. 25(1) (Afr. Ct. Hum. & Peoples’ Rts. Mar. 25, 2011), at http://www.africancourt.org/. For a discussion of this decision, see generally Bart M. J., Szewczyk, The African Rights System, in The Rules, Practice, and Jurisprudence of International Courts and Tribunals (Chiara Giorgetti ed.,forthcoming 2011)Google Scholar.

26 Meron, Theodor, Remarks, in Decision Making in International Courts and Tribunals: A Conversation with Leading Judges and Arbitrators, 105 ASIL Proc. (forthcoming 2012)Google Scholar.

27 Llamzon, Aloysius P., Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice, 18 Eur. J. Int’l L. 815, 852 (2007)Google Scholar.

28 See, e.g., Ding, Haihua & Koenig, Eric S., Case Report: Boundary Dispute Concerning the Taba Area, in 83 AJIL 590 (1989)Google Scholar.

29 Thus, one would not—-and should not—expect the Taba arbitration, which successfully resolved the Egyptian-Israeli border dispute ten years after the signing of the peace treaty between the two countries and years of attempted negotiations, to serve as an applicable model for the Israeli-Palestinian border dispute today in view of the current set of circumstances, the gravity of the interests, and the gulf between the parties.

30 See generally NYE, supra note 16.

31 See Hillary, Rodham Clinton, U.S. secretary of state, Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century (Dec. 14, 2009), at http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/12/133544.htm Google Scholar.

32 See UN Security Council, Thematic Debate on Strengthening International Law 5, UN Doc. S/PV.5474(June 22, 2006) (speech by Rosalyn Higgins, former ICJ president) (“[O]ut of nearly 100 contentious cases that the Court has dealt with, no more than a handful have presented problems of compliance. Of this handful, the problems of compliance have mostly turned out to be temporary.”); see also Paulson, Colter, Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice Since 1987, 98 AJIL 434 (2004)Google Scholar.