Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-31T08:57:29.772Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evidence Before the International Court of Justice. By Anna Riddell and Brendan Plant. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 2009. Pp. xxvii, 420. $130.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

John R. Crook
John R. Crook*
Affiliation:
Of the Board of Editors
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
Recent Books on International Law
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 107 , Issue 1 , January 2013 , pp. 259 - 265
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2013

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 Schwebel, Stephen M., Celebrating a Fraud on the Court, 106 AJIL 102 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reichler, Paul S., The Nicaragua Case: A Response to Judge Schwebel, 106 AJIL 316 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schwebel, Stephen M., The Nicaragua Case: A Response to Paul Reichler, 106 AJIL 582 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Reichler, Paul S., Paul Reichler’s Rejoinder, 106 AJIL 583 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), 1986 ICJ Rep. 14 ( June 27).

3 Combs, Nancy A., Fact-Finding Without Facts: The Uncertain Evidentiary Foundations of International Criminal Convictions (2010) (reviewed by Malone, Linda A. at 105 AJIL 848 (2011)Google Scholar).

4 Oil Platforms (Iran v. U.S.), 2003 ICJ Rep. 161 (Nov. 6).

5 For skeptical commentary on the Court’s allocation of the burden of proof in Argentina v. Uruguay, see Payne, Cymie R., Case Report: International Decision: Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), 105 AJIL 94, 100–01 (2011)Google Scholar.

6 Corfu Channel (UK v. Alb.), 1949 ICJ Rep. 4 (Apr. 9).

7 Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions Between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahr.), 2001 ICJ Rep. 40, paras. 15–23 (Mar. 16).

8 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Dem. Rep. Congo v. Uganda), 2005 ICJ Rep. 168 (Dec. 19).

9 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosn. & Herz. v. Serb. & Mont.), 2007 ICJ REP. 43 (Feb. 26).

10 Quoting Territorial and Maritime Dispute Between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicar. v. Hond.), 2007 ICJ Rep. 659, para. 244 (Oct. 8).

11 South West Africa (Eth. v. S. Afr.; Liber. v.S.Afr.), Second Phase, 1966 ICJ Rep. 6 (July 18).

12 Gabcčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hung./Slovk.), 1997 ICJ REP. 7 (Sept. 25).

13 Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Eq. Guinea intervening), 2002 ICJ Rep. 303 (Oct. 10).

14 See, e.g., Rethinking Climate Change: Towards an Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice, Nyu L. Environmental and Land Use Law Blog (Feb. 5, 2012), http://blogs.law.nyu.edu/environmental/2012/02/rethinking-climate-change-towards-an-advisory-opinion-from-the-international-court-of-justice.

15 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Geor. v. Russ.), Preliminary Objections (Int’l Ct. Jus tice Apr. 1, 2011).

16 Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (former Yugoslav Rep. Maced. v. Greece) (Int’l Ct. Justice Dec. 5, 2011).

17 Diallo (Guinea v. Dem. Rep. Congo), Compensation Owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congoto the Republic of Guinea (Int’l Ct. Justice June 19, 2012).

18 Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Arg. v. Uru.) (Int’l Ct. Justice Apr. 20, 2010).

19 The Court took the numerical standards for discharge of particular pollutants adopted by a regional river commission and in Uruguayan permits as the measures of whether there were prohibited “harmful effects” from pollution. Id., paras. 200–02, 227. This approach allowed for a relatively straightforward process of comparing undisputed water quality data provided by the parties with the numerical standards.

20 Id., para. 213.

21 Id., para. 168; see Jacob Cogan, Katz, The 2010 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice, 105 AJIL 477, 479–81 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Pulp Mills, Joint Diss. Op. Al-Khasawneh & Simma, JJ., para. 17.

23 Id., Sep. Op. Keith, J., paras. 8, 11. Judge Green wood agreed. Id., Sep. Op. Greenwood, J., para. 24.

24 Although Sandifer is best known to international lawyers for his evidence treatise, he made his living as a U.S. State Department official working on international organization affairs. His oral history at the Truman Library suggests that he saw the evidence treatise as a minor diversion. Interview by Richard D. McKinzie with Durward V. Sandifer, in Silver Spring, Md. (Mar. 15, 1973), at http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oral hist/sandifer.htm.

25 Reviewed by Lucy Reed & Ruth Teitelbaum at 102 AJIL 684 (2008).