No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Against the Motion
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2018
Extract
My argument against this motion is very confined. I argue simply that the motion, as drafted, embodies overreach—if passed, it does not caution merely against expansive interpretation, a contested term that is not a legal term of art, but stands for a restrictive, unrecognized rule of interpretation in relation to an entire category of international law documents, the varied instruments conferring jurisdiction on international courts and tribunals.
- Type
- Debate: Compulsory Jurisdiction in International Dispute Settlement: Beyond David Versus Goliath?
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © by The American Society of International Law 2018
References
1 See, e.g., Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nic. v. Col.), Preliminary Objections, 2007 ICJ Rep. 860, paras. 83–85; Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (U.K. v. Iran), Preliminary Objections, 1951 ICJ Rep. 93, 104; Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Can.), Preliminary Objections, 1998 ICJ Rep. 432, 454, para. 48.
2 Temple of Preah Vihear (Cam. v. Thai.), Preliminary Objections, 1961 ICJ Rep. 17, 32; see also Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Gr. v. Turk.), Judgment, 1978 ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 69–76; and Fisheries Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 44.
3 See Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), Jurisdiction, 1927 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 9, at 32; and Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Preliminary Objections, 1949 ICJ Rep. 4, 24 (“[T]he clauses of a special agreement by which a dispute is referred to the Court must, if it does not involve doing violence to their terms, be construed in a manner enabling the clauses themselves to have appropriate effects.”). See also Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Switz. v. Fr.), Judgment, 1932 PCIJ (ser. A/B) No. 46.
4 See Charney, Jonathan I., Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, 81 AJIL 855, 883 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5 Factory at Chorzów (Ger. v. Pol.), Indemnities, 1927 PCIJ (ser. A) No. 19, at 21–25; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nic. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14, 142; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bos. & Herz. v. Serb. & Mont.), Jurisdiction, 1996 ICJ Rep. 595, 616, para. 32; LaGrand (Ger. v. U.S.), Juris. and Admiss., 2001 ICJ Rep. 466, 485, para. 48.
6 Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Adv. Op., 1949 ICJ Rep. 174.
7 Ambatielos (Gr. v. U.K.), 1952 ICJ Rep. 28, 39–40.
8 Southern Bluefin Tuna (N.Z. v. Japan), 1999 I.T.L.O.S. No. 3, at para. 41(d).
9 South China Sea Arbitration (Phil. v. P.R.C.) P.C.A. No. 2013-19, Award of July 12, 2016.
10 Crawford, James, Legal Effect of Automatic Reservations to the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, 50 Brit. Y.B. Int'l L. 63, 69 (1980)Google Scholar.
11 See International Law Commission, Guide to Practice on Reservations to Treaties, as annexed to GA Res. 68/111 (Dec. 16, 2013).
12 Nicaragua (Merits), supra note 5, para. 60.
13 Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cam. v. Nig.; Eq. Guinea inter.), Preliminary Objections, 1998 ICJ Rep. 275, para. 25.
14 Fisheries Jurisdiction, supra note 1, at para. 49.
15 Anglo-Iranian Oil, supra note 1, at 105.
16 Certain Norwegian Loans (Fr. v. Nor.), Juris. & Admiss., 1957 ICJ Rep. 9, 27.
17 Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djib. v. Fr.), Judgment, 2008 ICJ Rep. 177, para. 62.
18 Id. para. 83.
19 Armed Activities in the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (D.R.C. v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 2006 ICJ Rep. 6, 18; Corfu Channel, supra note 3, at 27; Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 5, at para. 40; Anglo-Iranian Oil, supra note 1, at 113–14; Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (It. v. Fr., U.K. & U.S.), Judgment, 1954 ICJ Rep. 19, 30.