12th August 2024: digital purchasing is currently unavailable on Cambridge Core. Due to recent technical disruption affecting our publishing operation, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. 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: 09 March 2016
In sharp contrast to the high hopes raised by the reconstitution of the International Court of Justice in 1946, its subsequent record has been somewhat less than inspiring; and its impact as an organ for the settlement of disputes has been anything but spectacular. Established as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, it broods at The Hague in idle splendour, waiting hopefully for the occasional suit to be taken before it. Despite the hopes, the promise and the optimism, recourse to adjudication is exceptional, infrequent, and limited to disputes of minor importance.
Writings on the Court are suffused with lamentations over the chasm between the idealized aspirations of its founders and its actual performance. From the depths, however, the call is heard; the vision of the jurists becomes the burden of the reformers — the burden of recasting the machinery of world order. Political theorists, lawyers and institutional reformers are all prepared to shoulder the burden, and each considers it his duty to add to the literature on the Court yet another “epilogue for the improvement….”
1 Jenks, C. Wilfred, The Prospects of International Adjudication 90 (1964).Google Scholar
2 de Visscher, Charles, Theory and Reality in Public International Law 361 (translated by Corbett, P.E., 1957).Google Scholar
3 Proposals in this category are drawn from the following sample of works: Allott, P.J., “The International Court of Justice,” in David Davies Memorial Institute of International Studies, Report of a Study Group on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, Annex II.E., at 131–33Google Scholar; Honig, F., “The Diminishing Role of the World Court,” 34 Int’l Aff. 184 (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
C. Wilfred Jenks, op. cit. supra note 1;
Jully, Laurent, “Arbitration and Judicial Settlement,” 48 Am. J. Int’l L. 380 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Rhyne, Charles, “The Need for Lawyer Leadership in Securing Peace Under Law,” 51 Am. J. Int’l L. (Supp. 1957)Google Scholar ;
Rhyne, Charles, “World Peace Through Law,” 44 Am. B. Ass. J. 997 (1958)Google Scholar;
Stone, Julius, “The International Court and World Crisis,” 536 Int’l Concil. 3 (1962).Google Scholar
Some of the proposals have been raised at various international meetings and conferences as well; e.g., the 1954 meeting of the Institute of International Law, Aix-La-Chappelle ; the 1964 meeting of the International Law Association, Tokyo; and the 1964 Conference on Friendly Relations, etc., Mexico City.
4 See, for example, Jully, supra note 3, at 395.
5 Jenks, op. cit. supra note 1, at 151.
6 Sorensen, Max, “The I.C.J. : Its Role in Contemporary International Relations,” 14 Int’l Org. 272 (1960).Google Scholar
7 The proposals presented in this category are drawn from the following works :
P. J. Allott, op. cit. supra note 3;
Anand, R.P., “The Role of the ‘New’ African and Asian Countries in the Present International Legal Order,” 56 Am. J. Int’l L. 404 (1962) CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Briggs, H.W., “Reservations to the Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the I.C.J.,” 93 Recueil des Cours 223 (1958) Google Scholar;
Clark, and Sohn, , World Peace Through World Law (1966) Google Scholar;
Gross, Leo, “Problems of International Adjudication and Compliance with International Law,” 59 Am. J. Int’l L. 57 (1965) CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Jessup, P., “The Subjects of a Modern Law of Nations,” 45 Mich. L. Rev. 406 (1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar;
Sohn, Louis B., “Step-by-Step Acceptance of the Jurisdiction of the Inter-nation Court of Justice,” 58 Am. Soc. Int’l L., Proceedings, 131 (1964)Google Scholar;
Waldock, C.H.M., “Decline of the Optional Clause,” 32 Brit. Yb. Int’l L. 244 (1955–56)Google Scholar; cf. 1959 Resolution of the Institute of International Law.
8 De Visscher, op. cit. supra note 2, at 334.
9 Gilmore, Grant, “The International Court of Justice,” 55 Yale L.J. 1066 (1946).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10 Jenks, op. cit. supra note 1, at 758. Jenks does not necessarily always follow his own admonition.
11 13 U.N.C.I.O. Proceedings 316.
12 Myres S. McDougal, 4 S. Dak. L. Rev. 92 (1959).
13 Sorensen, supra note 6, at 275.
14 See Dalfen, C.M., “The World Court in Idle Splendour: The Basis of States’ Attitudes,” 23 Int’l J. 124 (1967–68),Google Scholar for an attempted basis for this sort of examination.
15 See, for example, P. J. Allott, supra note 3, at 131–33. Cf. Jully, supra note 3, at 396.
16 See, e.g., re both sides of the question, the opening paragraphs (and notes) of Reisman, William M., “The Role of Economic Agencies in the Enforcement of International Judgements and Awards: A Functional Approach,” 19 Int’l Org. 939 (1965).Google Scholar
17 Carr, E.H., The Twenty Years’ Crisis 197 (2nd ed., 1946).Google Scholar
18 Jenks, op. cit. supra note 1, at 101.
19 Rosenne, Shabtai, The Law and Practice of the I.C.J., Vol. 1, at 18 (1965).Google Scholar
20 Shihata, H., “The Attitudes of New States to the I.C.J.,” 19 Int’l Org. 219 (1965).Google Scholar Shihata goes on to show that most small states were in fact aware of this at San Francisco and hence wanted compulsory jurisdiction.
21 II Suh, Ro, National Judges in International Courts (University of Nebraska, 1964) (Unpublished thesis).Google Scholar
22 Liacouras, A., The International Court of Justice (preliminary ed., Durham, N.C., 1962).Google Scholar
23 Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 19, at 204–05; cf. ibid., vol. II, Appendix 17, at 939–48.
24 Jessup, P., Use of International Law 120 (1959).Google Scholar
