¹ The aim of provisional measures as a remedy against “la lenteur de la justice” was explicitly expressed by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal in the case Ellermann v. Etat polonais, 5 TAM 457, 459 (1924).Google Scholar

² Wolfrum, Rüdiger, Interim (Provisional) Measures of Protection, in: The Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL), margin number 7 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2006), available at: http://www.mpepil.com; Lawrence Collins, Provisional and Protective Measures in International Litigation, 234 Recueil des Cours 9, 19 (1992/III).Google Scholar

³ This is the undisputed basic principle of international jurisdiction; cf. Christian Tomuschat, International Courts and Tribunals, in: MPEPIL, margin number 46 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2006); Merrils, John G., International Dispute Settlement ch. 6 (2005); Oellers-Frahm, Karin, Nowhere to Go? - The Obligation to Settle Disputes Peacefully in the Absence of Compulsory Jurisdiction, in: A Wiser century? Judicial Dispute Settlement; Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference, 435 (Thomas Giegerich ed., 2009); SCHORER, SABINE, DAS KONSENSPRINZIP IN DER INTERNATIONALEN GERICHTSBARKEIT, 2003; see also Eastern Carelia Case, PCIJ 1923, Series B, No. 5, 27 and Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, PCIJ 1924, Series A, No. 2, 16.Google Scholar

⁴ Infra section B.II.Google Scholar

⁵ For more details, see Karin Oellers-Frahm, Art. 41, in: The Statute of the International Court of Justice - A Commentary, 925, margin number 1-3 (Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat & Karin Oellers-Frahm eds, 2006).Google Scholar

⁶ Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 929, margin number 17.Google Scholar

⁷ Karin Oellers-Frahm & Andreas Zimmermann, 2 Dispute Settlement in Public International Law, Texts and Materials 1075 et seq (2001).Google Scholar

⁸ Collins (note 2), 24.Google Scholar

⁹ Wolfrum (note 2), margin number 32 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁰ Tomuschat (note 3).Google Scholar

¹¹ Supra section B.I.Google Scholar

¹² Until the coming into force of Protocol No. 11 of 1994, Rule 36 of the Commission provided for the power to adopt provisional measures; today Rule 39 of the Rules of Court of 1998 contains a provision on the adoption of provisional measures by the Court.Google Scholar

¹³ Art. 26 of the Convention as amended by Protocol No. 11.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Cf. for a rather early example the Northern Cameroons Case, Individual Opinion of Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, ICJ Reports 1963, 3, 103; Karin Oellers-Frahm, Die einstweilige Anordnung in der internationalen Gerichtsbarkeit 122 et seq. (1975); Sztucki, Jerzy, Interim Measures in the Hague Court 221 et seq. (1983).Google Scholar

¹⁵ Wolfrum (note 2), margin number 1; Shabtai Rosenne, Provisional Measures in International Law 10 (2005); Collins (note 2), 215.Google Scholar

¹⁶ The relevant case concerning a revolution in Honduras which allegedly was supported by Nicaragua was brought before an arbitral tribunal on the basis of Art. 11 of the Peace and Arbitration Treaty of 20 January 1902 between Costa Rica, El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua. The arbitral tribunal “ordered the immediate disarmament and disbandment of force, in order that this may return to the pacific state which the arbitral compromis contemplates”. This measure was taken for the reason that the tribunal “considered its principal duty was to see to it that the award to be pronounced should be made effective”, cf., for more details, Dana G. Munro, The Five Republics of Central America 208 et seq. (1967).Google Scholar

¹⁷ Oellers-Frahm (note 14), 127 et seq. Google Scholar

¹⁸ This term is used in the Rules of the ICJ, section D.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Rosenne (note 15), 9, whether this statement is valid without any restriction will be discussed infra text to note 57.Google Scholar

²⁰ Rosenne (note 15), 9.Google Scholar

²¹ Wolfrum (note 2), margin number 19 et seq.; Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 934, margin number 26 et seq.; Hersch Lauterpacht, The development of International Law by the International Court 254 et seq. (1958).Google Scholar

²² For an overview over court practice and doctrine, see Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 953, in particular margin number 85 et seq. Google Scholar

²³ Cf., e.g., Art. 59 ICJ Statute.Google Scholar

²⁴ Procès-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Advisory Committee of Jurists 735 (1920); see also Manley O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920-1942 423 (1943).Google Scholar

²⁵ With regard to this difference, see Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Provisional Measures, Separate Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, ICJ Reports 1993, 325, 374; and para. 107 of the Judgment of the Court in the LaGrand Case where the Court affirms that “the lack of means of execution and the lack of binding force are two different matters”, ICJ Reports 2001, 466.Google Scholar

²⁶ Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 956, margin number 88.Google Scholar

²⁷ ICJ Reports 1951, 89; see also Shabtai Rosenne, 1 The Law and practice of the International Court 1920-2005 249 et seq. (2006).Google Scholar

²⁸ Oellers-Frahm (note 5), margin number 86 et seq. Google Scholar

²⁹ The clearest statement that does, however, also not support the binding character of provisional measures can be found in the Nicaragua Case, where the Court stated: “When the Court finds that the situation requires that measures of this kind should be taken, it is incumbent on each party to take the Court's indications seriously into account, and not to direct its conduct solely by reference to what it believes to be its rights. This is particularly so in a situation of armed conflict where no reparation can efface the results of conduct which the Court may rule to be contrary to international law”, ICJ Reports 1986, 114, para. 289; a similar statement can be found in the Genocide Convention Case (Provisional Measures), where the Court required their “immediate and effective implementation”, ICJ Reports 1993, 325, 349, para. 59.Google Scholar

³⁰ Inter-Am. Court H.R., Constitutional Court Case (Peru), Provisional Measures, Judgment of 14 August 2000, Series E, No. 3; it has, however, to be mentioned that Art. 25(1) of the Rules of the IACtHR empowers the Court to “order” provisional measures what raises again the question whether the Rules exceed the frame set by the Convention.Google Scholar

³¹ See Glenn Ashby v. Trinidad and Tobago, 27 July 1994, UN Doc. CCPR/C/74/D/580/1994; and Dante Piandong et al. v. The Philippines, 19 October 2000, Un Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999 where the Committee stated in para. 5.1: “By adhering to the Optional Protocol, a state party to the Covenant recognizes the competence of the Human Rights Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals claiming to be victims of violations of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. … Implicit in a state's adherence to the Protocol is an undertaking to cooperate with the Committee in good faith so as to permit and enable it to consider such communications, and after examination to forward its views. … It is incompatible with these obligations for a state party to take action that would prevent or frustrate the Committee in its consideration and examination of the communication, and in the expression of its views”. For the follow-up, see Nisuke Ando, The Follow-Up Procedure of the Human Rights Committee's Views, in: 2 Liber Amicorum Judge Shigeru Oda, 1437 (Nisuke Ando, Edward McWhinney & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds, 2002).Google Scholar

³² Convention of 10 December 1984, UN GAOR, 39^th Session, Resolutions, Supp. 51, UN Doc. A/39/51, 197.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. case Rosana Nunez Chipana v. Venezuela, 10 November 1998, UN Doc. CAT/C/21/D/110/1998, Annex; and case T.P.S. v. Canada, 16 May 2000, UN Doc. CA T/C/24/D/99/1997.Google Scholar

³⁴ Convention of 10 December 1982, 21 International Legal Materials 1261 (1982).Google Scholar

³⁵ LaGrand Case, Merits, ICJ Reports 2001, 466, 502, para. 100 et seq.; cf. Karin Oellers-Frahm, Die Entscheidung des IGH im Fall LaGrand - Eine Stärkung der internationalen Gerichtsbarkeit und der Rolle des Individuums im Völkerrecht, 28 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 265 (2001); Frowein, Jochen A., Provisional Measures by the International Court of Justice - The LaGrand Case, 62 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 55 (2002); Kammerhofer, Jörg, The Binding Nature of Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice: the “Settlement” of the Issue in the LaGrand Case, 16 Leiden Journal of International Law 67 (2003); Rosenne, Shabtai, The International Court of Justice: The New Form of the Operative Clause of an Order Indicating Provisional Measures, 2 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 201 (2003).Google Scholar

³⁶ Mamatkulov v. Turkey, Judgment of 6 February 2003; cf. Karin Oellers-Frahm, Verbindlichkeit einstweiliger Maßnahmen: Der EGMR vollzieht - endlich - die erforderliche Wende in seiner Rechtsprechung, 30 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 689 (2003); and Mamatkulov v. Turkey, Judgment of the Grand Chamber of 4 February 2005; Karin Oellers-Frahm, Verbindlichkeit einstweiliger Anordnungen des EGMR - Epilog, Das Urteil der Großen Kammer im Fall Mamatkulov u.a. gegen Türkei, 32 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 347 (2005).Google Scholar

³⁷ Oellers-Frahm (note 14), 107 et seq.; Wolfrum (note 2), margin number 45 et seq.; Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 953, margin number 79 et seq. Google Scholar

³⁸ Bogdandy, Armin von & Venzke, Ingo, Zur Herrschaft internationaler Gerichte: Eine Untersuchung internationaler öffentlicher Gewalt und ihrer demokratischen Rechtfertigung, 70 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 1, 13 (2010).Google Scholar

³⁹ All clearly defined competences explicitly conferred upon a court or tribunal in the instituting instrument are irrelevant in a discussion concerning the question of expansion of competences. They may, however, reflect a development of international law, such as the provision in Art. 290 UNCLOS which empowers the competent court or tribunal to issue provisional measures not only to preserve the respective rights of the parties, but also “to prevent serious harm to the marine environment”. This provision differs from the usual rules concerning interim protection; as, however, it is part of the Treaty and thus based on the consent of the states parties to the Convention, it does not raise questions of expansion of competence which may only come up in the context of the use made of the provision; cf. Philippe Gautier, Mesures conservatoires, préjudice irréparable et protection de l'environnement, in: Le procès international, Liber amicorum Jean-Pierre Cot, 131-154 (2009). In the same context reference can be made to the Stockholm Arbitration Center, Chamber of Commerce, which on 1 January 2010 introduced an emergency arbitration procedure providing for the adoption of binding pre-arbitral provisional relieve which in fact raises questions of expansion of competence; text of the new rules, available at: http://www.sccinstitute.com/forenklade-regler-2.aspx; for a first comment, see Charles N. Brower, Ariel Meyerstein & Stephan W. Schill, The Power and Effectiveness of Pre-Arbitral Provisional Relief: The SCC Emergency Arbitrator in Investor-States Disputes, in: Between East and West: Essays in Honour of Ulf Franke, 61 (Kaj Hobér, Annette Magnusson & Marie Öhrström eds, 2010).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ ICJ Reports 2001, 500, para. 96.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Id. Google Scholar

⁴² Id. Google Scholar

⁴³ Id., 502 et seq., paras 100 et seq.; see LaGrand (note 35).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Supra note 31 and 33.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Cruz Varas v. Sweden, Judgment of 20 March 1991; see also the critical comments to this decision by Karin Oellers-Frahm, Zur Verbindlichkeit einstweiliger Anordnungen der Europäischen Kommission für Menschenrechte, 18 Europäische Grundrechte Zeitschrift 197 (1991); Macdonald, Ronald S. J., Interim Measures in International Law, with Special Reference to the European System for the Protection of Human Rights, 52 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 703 (1992); Cohen-Jonathan, Gerard, De l'effet juridique des “mesures provisoires” dans certaines circonstances et de l'efficacité du droit de recours individuel: à propos de l'arrět de la Cour de Strasbourg Cruz Varas du 20 mars 1991, 3 Revue Universelle des Droits de l'Homme 205 (1991).Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Conka et al.v. Belgium, Judgment of 13 March 2001.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Mamatkulov v. Turkey (note 36), para. 109.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id. paras 110 et seq. Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Infra section C.V.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Paras 122 et seq. of the Judgment.Google Scholar

⁵¹ UN Human Rights Committee, Dante Piandong et al. v. The Philippines, 19 October 2000, Un Doc. CCPR/C/70/D/869/1999, para 5.2.Google Scholar

⁵² ICJ Reports 1986, 136.Google Scholar

⁵³ Oellers-Frahm (note 14), 109 et seq. Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Supra text to note 50.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ This aspect was explicitly underlined by Judge Dugard in his separate opinion in the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, where he stated that due to their binding character provisional measures will assume greater importance than before and that in these circumstances “the Court should be cautious in making Orders for provisional measures where there are serious doubts about the basis for jurisdiction …”, ICJ Reports 2002, 265.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Rosenne (note 15), 9: “‘Incidental jurisdiction’ is a term with no precise legal meaning in international law. It implies that the court or tribunal regularly seized of a case, and provided that it has prima facie jurisdiction over the merits, can take all necessary decisions for the conduct of the proceedings …”.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 957, margin number 92; Mita Manouvel, Métamorphose de l'article 41 du Statut de la CIJ, 106 Revue Generale de Droit International Public 103, 135 (2002).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Oellers-Frahm, Karin, Souveräne Gleichheit der Staaten in der internationalen gerichtlichen Streitbeilegung? Überlegungen zu Art. 94 Abs. 2 und Art. 27 UN-Charta, in: Verhandeln für den Frieden, Liber Amicorum Tono Eitel, 169-191 (Jochen A. Frowein, Klaus Scharioth, Ingo Winkelmann & Rüdiger Wolfrum eds, 2003); Shani, Yuval, No Longer a Weak Department of Power? Reflections on the Emergence of a New International Judiciary, 20 EJIL 73 (2009); Bernhardt, Rudolf, Art. 59, in: The Statute of the International Court of Justice - A Commentary, 1246, margin number 52 et seq (Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat & Karin Oellers-Frahm eds, 2006).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Bothe, Michael, Legal and Non-Legal Norms - A Meaningful Distinction in International Relations?, 11 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law 65 et seq., 87 (1980).Google Scholar

⁶⁰ See von Bogdandy & Venzke (note 38), 4.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Supra section C.III.Google Scholar

⁶² Oellers-Frahm (note 5), 962, margin number 102.Google Scholar

⁶³ ICJ Reports 2001, 500, para. 96.Google Scholar