Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
It is common knowledge that the initial time periods for the submission of written pleadings—memorial, counter-memorial, reply and rejoinder—are determined by the Court after consultation with the parties. Similarly, extensions of time limits are granted by the Court at the request of one party and after consultation with the other party or parties. The Court in both respects has been absolutely at the mercy of the parties, the formal orders made by the Court signifying its compliance with their wishes.
1 [1968] I.C.J. Rep. 13, at 14 (italics supplied).
2 1 Int. Art. Awards 307.
3 Ibid. 347
4 Ibid. 369
5 Loc. cit., Vol. II, p. 829.
6 Ibid. 921.
7 Ibid. 1161.
8 Ibid. 1308.
9 Loc. cit., Vol. III , p. 1609. Jan. 28, 1932, is the date on which the procedure started, ibid. 1613. A Joint Interim Report of the Commissioners was submitted on June 30, 1933; the joint Final Report was submitted on Jan. 9, 1935.
10 Ibid. 1905. The Tribunal met on June 21, 1937, for organization and hearing of preliminary statements, ibid. 1912. A partial award was given on April 16, 1938. March 11, 1941, is the date of the final award.
11 Loc. .cit., Vol. XI, p. 167.
12 Loc. cit., Vol. XII, p. 281.
13 Foreign Office, Award of H.M. Queen Elizabeth II for the Arbitration of a Controversy between the Argentine Republic and the Republic of Chile concerning certain parts of the Boundary between their Territories (London, H. M. Stationery Office, 1966). The first date is that on which the British Secretary for Foreign Affairs signed the Agreement of Arbitration, ibid. 12. This arbitration involved an aerial survey of the area and a reconnnaissance on the ground, ibid. 17.
14 7 Int. Legal Materials 633-705 (May, 1968). The first meeting of the Tribunal was held on Feb. 15, 1966.
15 The President of the Tribunal, Ju?ge Sture Petrén, was appointed by the King of Swe?en on Jan. 25, 1957; time limits began to run from this date; the opening of oral hearings was deferred by the parties until Oct. 17, 1957; they were terminated on Oct. 23, 1957; and the award rendered about three weeks later.
16 7 Int. Legal Materials 640 (1968).
17 I.C.J. Communiqué No. 68/5, June 5, 1968.
18 [1964] I.C.J. Rep. 6.
19 I.C.J. Communiqué No. 68/4 (unofficial). In its Or?er of April 26, 1968, the Court found that Denmark and The Netherlan?s were parties in the same interest, joined the proceedings in the two cases and required, accor?ingly, a single Rejoinder by these two states. Oral hearings in this case started on Oct. 23, 1968. I.C,J. Communiqué’ 68/7.
20 The time periods between the opening of oral hearings and judgments in contentious cases and advisory opinions in advisory proceedings will be found in Leo Gross's “Some Observations on the International Court of Justice,” 56 A.J.I.L. 33-62, at 47-50 (1962). The following table provides supplementary data for judgments and opinions rendered since 1961:
21 I.C.J. Communiqué No. 68/3, April 9, 1968.
22 On the physical facilities of the Court, which seem to have always been inadequate, see Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920-1942 (1943), pp. 323-324.
23 On the thorny question of protocol see Hudson, op. cit. 321-331. The diplomatic corps takes precedence at official ceremonies to which it and the Court are invited. According to the exchange of letters between the President of the Court and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of The Netherlands of June 26, 1946, “ t h e question of precedence … remains outside the present agreement.” 2 Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court 875-877 (1965). In Hudson's view, the “Court has not been sufficiently exigent in this matter. The judges as a body ought not to be assimilated to a diplomatic corps, and a proper respect for the Court as an institution may be thought to require that its members be given precedence over the representatives of any single State . “ Op. cit. 331.
24 In 1968, perhaps in order to emphasize its rôle as a principal organ of the Organization, the Court for the first time, in conformity with the long-standing practice of the other principal organs, submitted to the TJ. N. General Assembly a report on its activities. Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 1967-31 July 1968, General Assembly, 23rd Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/7217) and Corrigendum.
25 Communiqué No. 68/3, April 9, 1968.
26 These organs and agencies are: General Assembly of the United Nations, Security Council of the United Nations, Economic and Social Council of the U.N., Trusteeship Council of the U.N., Interim Committee of the General Assembly, Committee on Application for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments, International Labor Organization, Food and Agriculture Organization of the U.N., United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Civil Aviation Organization, International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, International Development Association, International Monetary Fund, World Health Organization, International Telecommunication Union, World Meteorological Organization, Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, International Atomic Energy Agency. 1966-1967 I.C.J. Yearbook 36-37.
