Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T21:59:39.979Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The 2015 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Surabhi Ranganathan
Surabhi Ranganathan*
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The International Court of Justice (Court or ICJ) delivered three judgments in 2015. The first, delivered on February 3, 2015, determines claims of genocide made by Croatia and Serbia against each other. The second, delivered on September 24, 2015, addresses Chile’s preliminary objection in a case brought against it by Bolivia, which asserted that Chile had violated its obligation to negotiate in good faith to secure Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. The third, delivered on December 16, 2015, concerns the joined cases brought by Costa Rica and Nicaragua, each party alleging territorial violations and transboundary environmental harms by the other. This review highlights notable points of interest in the judgments and draws attention to particular insights and critiques afforded by the individual opinions that accompany each judgment.

Type
Current Developments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 110 , Issue 3 , July 2016 , pp. 504 - 525
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016

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 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croat. v. Serb.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Feb. 3,2015) [hereinafter Application of the Genocide Convention]. All the materials of the Court cited in this report are available on its website, http://www.icj-cij.org.

2 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croat. v. Yugo. (Serb. & Montenegro)) (Int’l Ct. Justice July 2, 1999) [hereinafter Application Instituting Proceedings (Croat. v. Yugo.)].

3 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Art. IX, Dec. 9, 1948, 78 UNTS 277 (entered into force Jan. 12, 1951) [hereinafter Genocide Convention].

4 Application Instituting Proceedings (Croat. v. Yugo.), supra note 2, para. 36.

5 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croat. v. Serb.), Counter-Memorial Submitted by the Republic of Serbia, vols. I–V (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 1, 2009) [hereinafter Application of the Convention, Counter-Memorial of Serbia].

6 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croat. v. Serb.), Preliminary Objections, 2008 ICJ Rep. 412, paras. 23–34 (Nov. 18) [hereinafter Application of the Convention, Preliminary Objections].

7 Application of the Convention, Counter-Memorial of Serbia, supra note 5, vol. I, paras. 29, 1096–476.

8 Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 1, para. 524.

9 UN Doc. A/46/915, Annex II, Declaration of the Representatives of the People of the Republic of Serbia and the Republic of Montenegro (Apr. 27, 1992), at 4 (May 7, 1992).

10 Id., Annex I, Note Dated 27 April 1992 from the Permanent Mission of Yugoslavia to the United Nations Addressed to the Secretary-General.

11 Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 1, para. 58.

12 Id.

13 Id., Decl. Xue, J., para. 9.

14 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Montenegro), 2007 ICJ Rep. 43, para. 105 (Feb. 26) (quoting Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Yugo. (Serb. & Montenegro)), Provisional Measures, 1993 ICJ Rep. 3, para. 18 (Apr. 8)) [hereinafter Bosnian Genocide].

15 Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 1, para. 84; see also id., Sep. Op. Skotnikov, J., para. 8.

16 Application of the Convention, Preliminary Objections, supra note 6, paras. 23–34; see also Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 1, para. 59.

17 Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 1, para. 66.

18 Id., para. 69.

19 Id., para. 73.

20 Id., paras. 442, 524.

21 Id., para. 9.

22 Id., para. 81.

23 Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, in Report of the International Law Commission on the Work of Its Fifty-Third Session, UN GAOR, 56th Sess., Supp. No. 10, at 43, UN Doc. A/56/10 (2001) [hereinafter ARSIWA].

24 Application of the Genocide Convention, supra note 1, para. 101.

25 ARSIWA, supra note 23, Art. 10(2).

26 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, paras. 99–100, 104.

27 Id., para. 100. In addition, Serbia’s obligations under the customary international law on genocide were not before the Court. Id., paras. 87–89.

28 Verbatim Record, Application of the Genocide Convention, ICJ Doc.CR2014/12, at 44–47 (Mar. 7, 2014) [hereinafter Verbatim Record CR 2014/12].

29 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, para. 97; see also id., paras. 96–100.

30 Id., para. 105.

31 See Verbatim Record, Application of the Genocide Convention, ICJ Doc. CR 2014/21, at 20–22 (Mar. 21, 2014).

32 Verbatim Record CR 2014/12, supra note 28, at 21 (citing Lighthouses Arbitration (Fr. v. Greece), 23 ILR 81, 90 (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1956)); Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, para. 107.

33 See Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), 2007 ICJ Rep.659, para. 108 (Oct. 8); see also Legality of Use of Force (Yugo. v. Belg.), Provisional Measures, 1999 ICJ Rep. 124, para. 44 (June 2).

34 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, para. 109.

35 Genocide Convention,, supra note 3, Art. IX.

36 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, para. 114.

37 Id.

38 Id., para. 524.

39 Id., Sep. Op. Tomka, P.; id., Sep. Op. Owada, J.; id., Sep. Op. Skotnikov, J.; id., Decl. Xue, J.; id., Sep. Op Sebutinde, J.; id., Sep. Op. Krecća, J. ad hoc.

40 James Crawford, Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law 424 (8th ed. 2012).

41 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, Decl. Xue, J., para. 23.

42 See Crawford, supra note 40, at 442 (citing Lighthouses Arbitration, supra note 32).

43 See Dumberry, Patrick, The Controversial Issue of State Succession to International Responsibility Revisited in Light of Recent State Practice, 2006 Ger. Y.B. Int’l L. 413 Google Scholar.

44 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, Sep. Op. Skotnikov, J., para. 4.

45 See supra text accompanying note 21.

46 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, Sep. Op. Tomka, P., paras. 8–24.

47 See id., paras. 21–24.

48 Id., para. 116 (Judgment of the Court).

49 Id. (citing in part Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (It.v.Fr., UK & U.S.), Preliminary Question, 1954 ICJ Rep. 19 (June 15)). According to this principle, the “Court will not adjudicate on a case where the Court would be required, as a necessary prerequisite, to adjudicate on the rights or responsibilities of a non-consenting and absent third State.” Akande, Dapo, The ICC and the Crime of Aggression: The Consent Problem and the Security Council Issue, EJIL: Talk! (May 28, 2010), at http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-icc-and-the-crime-of-aggression-the-consent-problem-and-the-security-council-issue Google Scholar.

50 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, Sep. Op. Tomka, P., para. 32.

51 Agreement on Succession Issues, Annex F: Other Rights, Interests and Liabilities, June 29, 2001, 2262 UNTS 251, 293 (entered into force June 2, 2004), available at https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/UNTS/Volume%202262/v2262.pdf.

52 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, Sep. Op. Tomka, P., para. 25; id., Decl. Xue, J., para. 15; id., Sep. Op. Sebutinde, J., para. 13.

53 Id., Sep. Op. Skotnikov, J., para. 9.

54 Id., Sep. Op. Tomka, P., para. 33. But see id., Decl. Xue, J., para. 26.

55 Id., paras. 162, 434 (Judgment of the Court) (quoting Bosnian Genocide, supra note 14, para. 190).

56 Id., para. 356; see also Jacobs, Dov, A Commentary on the ICJ Croatia v. Serbia Genocide Case (Part I): Some Thoughts on an Anti-Climatic Result, Spreading The Jam (Feb. 16, 2015), at https://dovjacobs.com/2015/02/16/a-commentary-on-the-icj-croatia-v-serbia-genocide-case-part-i-some-thoughts-on-an-anti-climatic-result Google Scholar.

57 Id., para. 359; see also id., para. 523.

58 Id., para. 148.

59 Bosnian Genocide, supra note 14, para. 373 (noting that “for a pattern of conduct to be accepted as evidence of its existence, it would have to be such that it could only point to the existence of such intent”).

60 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, para. 148.

61 Verbatim Record CR 2014/12, supra note 28, at 10; Verbatim Record, Application of the Genocide Convention, ICJ Doc. CR 2014/20, at 67 (Mar. 20, 2014).

62 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, paras. 180 –99.

63 Id., Decl. Donoghue, J., para. 9.

64 Id., para. 182 (Judgment of the Court) (quoting Bosnian Genocide, supra note 14, para. 223).

65 Id., Sep. Op. Sebutinde, J., paras. 16–21.

66 Id., para. 17.

67 Id., para. 21.

68 Id., Sep. Op. Skotnikov, J., para. 14.

69 Id., Sep. Op. Gaja, J., paras. 1–5.

70 Judge Rosalyn Higgins, then president of the ICJ, clarified that the Court’s standard of proof for genocide was not higher or lower than that applied by the ICTY but noted that it was “simply a comparable standard which employed terminology more appropriate to a civil, international law case.” Statement by the President to the International Court of Justice to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly (Nov. 2, 2007), UN GAOR, 62d Sess., Sixth Committee, 23d mtg., para. 94, UN Doc. A/C.6/62/SR.23 (Dec. 6, 2007) (citing Bosnian Genocide, supra note 14, para. 209).

71 Verbatim Record, Application of the Genocide Convention, ICJ Doc. CR 2014/18, at 43– 47 (Mar. 14, 2014).

72 Prosecutor v. Gotovina, Case No. IT-06-90-T, Trial Judgement, vol. II, paras. 1967, 2600–01, 2619 (Apr. 15, 2011).

73 Prosecutor v. Gotovina, Case No. IT-06-90-A, Appeals Judgement, para. 158 (Nov. 16, 2012).

74 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, paras. 412–37 (esp. 435), 505, 514; see also Application of the Convention, Counter-Memorial of Serbia, supra note 5, vol. I, paras. 55–58, 975–77; Application of the Genocide Convention, Additional Pleading of Croatia, vol. I, paras. 4.31– 4.36 (Int’l Ct. Justice Aug. 30, 2012).

75 Application of the Genocide Convention,, supra note 1, para. 523; id., Sep. Op. Tomka, P., paras. 34–35.

76 Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bol. v. Chile), Preliminary Objection (Int’l Ct. Justice Sept. 24, 2015) [hereinafter Obligation to Negotiate, Preliminary Objection].

77 Application Instituting Proceedings (Bol. v. Chile), para. 1(Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 24, 2013) [hereinafter Application Instituting Proceedings (Bol. v. Chile)].

78 Id., para. 32(c).

79 American Treaty on Pacific Settlement (Pact of Bogotá), Apr. 30, 1948, 30 UNTS 55 (entered into force June 5, 1949) [hereinafter Pact of Bogotá].

80 Application Instituting Proceedings (Bol. v. Chile), supra note 77, at 10, para. 5.

81 Id. (citing Pact of Bogotá, supra note 79, Art. XXXI).

82 Obligation to Negotiate, Preliminary Objection of Chile, vol. I, para. 1.1 (Int’l Ct. Justice July 15, 2014) (citing Pact of Bogotá, supra note 79, Art. VI) [hereinafter Preliminary Objection of Chile].

83 Id., vol. I, paras. 3.20 –3.39 (citing Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Bol.-Chile, Oct. 20, 1904 (entered into force Mar. 10, 1905) [hereinafter Treaty of Peace and Friendship]).

84 Obligation to Negotiate, Preliminary Objection, supra note 76, para. 23.

85 Treaty of Peace and Friendship, supra note 83, Arts. II, VI, VII.

86 Application Instituting Proceedings (Bol. v. Chile), supra note 77, para. 31.

87 Id., para. 27 (citation omitted).

88 Obligation to Negotiate, Written Statement of the Plurinational State of Bolivia on the Preliminary Objection to Jurisdiction Filed by Chile, para. 69 (Int’l Ct. Justice Nov. 7, 2014).

89 Obligation to Negotiate, Preliminary Objection, supra note 76, para. 24.

90 Id., paras. 32–34.

91 This distinction was highlighted in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ Rep. 226, para. 99 (July 8) [hereinafter Legality of the Threat].

92 Chile clarified this understanding in response to a question asked by Judge Hisashi Owada. Obligation to Negotiate, Written Reply of Chile to the Question Put by Judge Owada (Int’l Ct. Justice May 13, 2015).

93 Preliminary Objection of Chile, supra note 82, vol. I, para. 3.19.

94 Obligation to Negotiate, Preliminary Objection, supra note 76, para. 34.

95 Id., para. 54.

96 Id., para. 1 (emphasis added) (quoting in part Application Instituting Proceedings (Bol. v. Chile), supra note 77, para. 1).

97 Judge ad hoc Louise Arbour makes the point about Bolivia reformulating its claim. Id., Diss. Op. Arbour, J. ad hoc, paras. 13–14.

98 Id., para. 33 (Judgment of the Court).

99 Obligation to Negotiate, Bolivia’s Response to the Question of Judge Owada (Int’l Ct. Justice May 13, 2015) (emphasis added).

100 Obligation to Negotiate, Preliminary Objection, supra note 76, para. 52.

101 Id., Decl. Gaja, J., paras. 3, 4 (emphasis added).

102 Judge Antônio Augusto Cancçado Trindade and Judge Mohamed Bennouna recommended this approach. Id., Sep. Op. Canc¸ado Trindade, J., paras. 12–15, 32–35; id., Decl. Bennouna, J.; see also id., Diss. Op. Arbour, J. ad hoc, para. 27.

103 Application Instituting Proceedings (Bol. v. Chile), supra note 77, para. 31.

104 But the duty to negotiate transit has a legal basis. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Art. 125, opened for signature Dec. 10, 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, 21 ILM 1261 (1982) (entered into force Nov. 16, 1994) [hereinafter UNCLOS]. Bolivia, presumably, wants more than the right of transit. The Court has occasionally inferred an obligation to negotiate from the rights and obligations of states in specific contexts. E.g., North Sea Continental Shelf (FRG/Den.; FRG/Neth.), 1969 ICJ Rep. 3, para. 85 (Feb. 20); Fisheries Jurisdiction (UK v. Ice.), Merits, 1974 ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 74–75 (July 25). The latter case, highlighting as a material point Iceland’s exceptional dependence upon a particular use of the sea, might even suggest a weak analogy, but, given that even UNCLOS only recognizes a right of transit for a landlocked state, it is unlikely to support a claim that Chile is under a general duty to negotiate a sovereign access to the sea.

105 Benvenisti, Eyal, Sovereigns as Trustees of Humanity: On the Accountability of States to Foreign Stakeholders, 107 AJIL 295, 320 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

106 Benvenisti, Eyal, Landlocked Bolivia Takes Chile to the International Court of Justice Seeking Access to the Pacific Ocean, Global Trustb Log (May 23, 2013), at globaltrust.tau.ac.il/landlocked-bolivia-takes-chile-to-the-international-court-of-justice-seeking-access-to-the-pacific-ocean Google Scholar.

107 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Ricav. Nicar.)/Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), para. 229 (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 16, 2015) [hereinafter Certain Activities/Construction of a Road].

108 Application Instituting Proceedings, Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), para. 41 (Int’l Ct. Justice Nov. 18, 2010) [hereinafter Application Instituting Proceedings, Certain Activities]; see also Yee, Sienho, The 2013 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice, 109 AJIL 339, 349 (2015)Google Scholar.

109 Costa Rica’s navigational rights were the subject of a recent judgment. Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), 2009 ICJ Rep. 213 (July 13).

110 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, at 31 (Sketch-Map No. 1).

111 Id., para. 68.

112 Id., para. 77.

113 Id., para. 78. Both parties relied upon the same legal authorities: Treaty of Limits, Costa Rica-Nicar., Apr. 15, 1858 (entered into force Apr. 26, 1858); Cleveland Award, Mar. 22, 1888, 28 Rep. Int’l Arb. Awards [RIAA] 189; Alexander Awards I–II, Sept. 30, 1897–Dec. 20, 1897, 28 RIAA 215–25. See Application Instituting Proceedings, Certain Activities, supra note 108, paras. 1, 9, 21; Application Instituting Proceedings, Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), paras. 47, 49 (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 22, 2011) [hereinafter Application Instituting Proceedings, Construction of a Road].

114 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 63.

115 Treaty of Limits, supra note 113, Art. IX.

116 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, paras. 48, 49.

117 Id., para. 63.

118 Id., para. 76.

119 Id., para. 229(1), (2).

120 Id., para. 97.

121 Id., paras. 95, 229(7).

122 Id., para. 48.

123 Id., para. 104 (quoting Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.), 2010 ICJ Rep. 14, para. 101 (Apr. 20)).

124 Id., para. 105.

125 Id., para. 108. Moreover, the Court did not find any breach of notice and consult obligations under specific treaties such as the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands of International Importance, Especially as Waterfowl Habitat, Feb. 2, 1971, 996 UNTS 245, 11 ILM 969 (1972) (entered into force Dec. 21, 1975). Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 110.

126 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 107.

127 Id., paras. 109, 110.

128 Id., paras. 136, 229(2).

129 See id., para. 229(3) (citing Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.), Provisional Measures, 2011 ICJ Rep. 6 (Mar. 8)).

130 Id.

131 Id., paras. 126, 229(3).

132 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicar.)/Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicar. v. Costa Rica), Provisional Measures, 2013 ICJ Rep. 230 (July 16).

133 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 229(4)(c).

134 Id., para. 144 (citing Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 64).

135 Id., para. 229(5)(a). Nicaragua had already withdrawn from the disputed territory in response to the 2013 order. The Court considered that its declaration of Nicaragua’s territorial violation provided adequate satisfaction for the nonmaterial injury suffered by Costa Rica.

136 Id., para. 229(5)(b). If the Court does ultimately fix the amount of compensation, it will mark only the third occasion on which it would have done so; the others were Corfu Channel (UK v. Alb.), Assessment of Amount of Compensation, 1949 ICJ Rep. 244 (Dec. 15), and Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Guinea v Dem. Rep. Congo), Compensation, 2012 ICJ Rep. 324 (June 19).

137 Application Instituting Proceedings, Construction of a Road, supra note 113, paras. 49–52.

138 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 64.

139 Id., para. 148.

140 Id., paras. 149, 219.

141 Id., paras. 156, 161, 229(6).

142 Id., para. 161.

143 Id., para. 148.

144 Id., para. 158.

145 Id., para. 157 (quoting Pulp Mills, supra note 123, para. 205).

146 Id.

147 Id., para. 159.

148 Id., para. 161.

149 The Court did not find a breach of specific notice and consult obligations under the Ramsar Convention. See id., paras. 165, 172.

150 See id., para. 192.

151 Id., para. 221.

152 Id., para. 223.

153 Id., para. 229.

154 Id., para. 97.

155 The Court first used the phrase in Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Neth. v. Swed.), 1958 ICJ Rep. 55, 62 (Nov. 28), but previously employed the approach in Fisheries (UK v. Nor.), 1951 ICJ Rep. 116, 126 (Dec. 18). Orakhelashvili, Alexander, The International Court and ‘Its Freedom to Select the Ground upon Which It Will Base Its Judgment, 56 Int’l & Comp. L.Q. 171, 173 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

156 See also 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)? , 108 AJIL 159, 160–63 (2014)Google Scholar.

157 Orakhelashvili, supra note 155, at 183.

158 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 97 (quoting Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Eq. Guinea intervening), 2002 ICJ Rep. 303, para. 319 (Oct. 10)).

159 Id., Sep. Op. Robinson, J., para. 30. On the Court’s approach to cases concerning the use of force, see Gray, Christine, The International Court of Justice and the Use of Force, in The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice 237 (Tams, Christian J. & Sloan, James eds., 2013)Google Scholar.

160 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, Sep. Op. Robinson, J., paras. 27, 37–38.

161 Id., paras. 37–39.

162 Id., para. 159.

163 See, e.g., International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights, Art. 4, Dec. 16, 1966, 999 UNTS 171 (entered into force Mar. 23, 1976).

164 ARSIWA, supra note 23, Art. 25.

165 In another context, the Court has clarified that certain treaty obligations to protect the environment were not obligations of total restraint during military conflict. Legality of the Threat, supra note 91, paras. 25, 30.

166 The Court has previously asserted that the necessity of measures taken to protect its essential security interests is “not purely a question for the subjective judgment of the party.” Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), 2003 ICJ Rep. 161, para. 43 (Nov. 6) (quoting Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Merits, 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 , para. 282 (June 27)). In both cases, it found the measures unnecessary for the purpose, although it did not directly challenge the United States’ determination that its essential interests were threatened (but expressed skepticism in the Nicaragua case). In the present case, the Court appears to doubt Costa Rica’s claim of an emergency.

167 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, paras. 130–32.

168 Id., para. 229(1); see also id., para. 49(2)(a).

169 Id., Decl. Guillaume, J. ad hoc, para. 16; see also id., Decl. Gevorgian, J., para. 3.

170 Id., para. 69 (Judgment of the Court).

171 Id., para. 143.

172 Id., para. 229(5).

173 Id., Joint Decl. Tomka, P., Greenwood & Sebutinde, JJ. & Dugard, J. ad hoc, para. 7.

174 Id., para. 9.

175 Id., para. 105 (Judgment of the Court).

176 Id.

177 See Desierto, Diane, Evidence but Not Empiricism? Environmental Impact Assessments at the International Court of Justice in Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica Along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), EJIL: Talk! (Feb. 26, 2016), at http://www.ejiltalk.org/evidence-but-not-empiricism-environmental-impact-assessments-at-the-international-court-of-justice-in-certain-activities-carried-out-by-nicaragua-in-the-border-area-costa-rica-v-nicaragua-and-con.Google Scholar

178 Certain Activities/Construction of a Road, supra note 107, para. 154.

179 Id., Sep. Op. Dugard, J. ad hoc, paras. 21–35.

180 Id., Sep. Op. Donoghue, J., para. 21.

181 Id.

182 Id., paras. 104, 157 (Judgment of the Court).

183 Franklin Berman, The International Court of Justice as an ‘Agent’ of Legal Development?, in Development of International Law, supra note 159, at 7, 12.

184 Famously, Barcelona Traction, Light & Power Co. (Belg. v. Spain), Second Phase, 1970 ICJ Rep. 3, paras. 33–34 (Feb. 5).

185 But see Christian J. Tams, The ICJ as a ‘Law-Formative Agency’: Summary and Synthesis, in Development of International Law, supra note 159, at 377, 390 –91.

186 Berman, supra note 183, at 12–13; see also Jennings, Robert Y., The Role of the International Court of Justice, 1997 Brit. Y. B. Int’l L. 1, 28–30Google Scholar; Gleider I. Hernández, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function 95–125 (2014).