Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-11T15:55:41.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The ICJ, the ECJ, and the Integrity of International Law1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Rosalyn Higgins
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The European Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice are both courts born of war, established by interstate treaties and having their seats in European cities. The relationship between Luxembourg and Strasbourg has been well explored, and has developed over the years. The major issue today seems to be one of the coherence of human rights protection in Europe—an issue addressed with knowledge, depth, and insight by Kruger and Polakiewicz in the October Human Rights Law Journal.2

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , January 2003 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2003

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

2 HC Kruger and Jorg Polakiewicz, ‘Proposals for a Coherent Human Rights Protection System in Europe/The European Convention on Human Rights and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights’ (2001), vol 22, no 1–A HRLJ 1–13.

3 Steiner, J and Woods, L, Textbook on EC Law, 7th edn (London: Blackstone Press, 2000)Google Scholar, See generally Fontaine, P, A New Idea for Europe: The Schuman Declaration:1950–2000, 2nd edn (Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2000).Google Scholar

4 Treaty instituting the European Coal and Steel Community (1951), Art 7.

5 Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (1957), Art 7 (ex 4).

6 Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (1957), Art 3.

7 Single European Act (1986), Arts 4, 11, and 26.

8 On the history of the International Court of Justice see generally Eyffinger, A, The International Court of Justice: 1946–1996 (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1996)Google Scholar; id, The 1899 Hague Peace Conference: ‘The Parliament of Man, the Federation of the World’ (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 1999)Google Scholar; id, The Peace Palace: Residence for Justice, Domicile for Learning (The Hague: Carnegie Foundation, 1988)Google Scholar; Knipping, F, H von, Mangoldt, and Rittberger, V (eds), The United Nations System and its Predecessors (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).Google Scholar

9 Charter of the United Nations (1945).

10 Ibid, Arts 92–6.

11 Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945).

12 Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2002, 3 (publication forthcoming; available at <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/iCOBE/iCOBEframe.htm>). Since this lecture was delivered, judgment has been given in Cameroon v Nigeria: see www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idocket/icn/icnframe.htm.

13 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, see ICJ Reports, 2002.

14 Sovereignty over Palau Ligitan and Palau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), see ICJ Yearbook 1998–1999, at 230’1.

15 Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v Bosnia and Herzegovina), see <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm>.

16 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), see <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm>.

17 Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), see <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm>.

18 ICJ Yearbook, 1951–1952, at 71–2.

19 Ibid, at 69–70.

20 Ibid1952–1953, at 68.

21 Ibid, 1956–1957, at 74.

22 Ibid, 1957–1958, at 81.

23 Ibid, 1958–1959, at 83; Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Order of 10 April 1961, ICJ Reports, 1961, 9 at 10; Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Second Phase, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1970, 3.

24 North Sea Continental Shelf Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1969, 3.

25 ICJ Yearbook, 1990–1991, at 155–9.

26 Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v Denmark), Order of 10 Sept 1992, ICJ Reports, 1992, 348, at 348–9.

27 Above, n 24.

28 See, eg, ICJ Yearbook, 1967–1968, at 85–6 (North Sea Continental Shelf); ICJ Yearbook, 1976–1977, at 110–13 (Aegean Sea Continental Shelf); ICJ Yearbook, 1978–1979, at 124 (Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)).

29 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1998, 432.

30 Ibid, at paras 13–22.

31 Ibid, at paras 23–8.

32 Ibid, at para 27.

33 Anklagemyndigheden v Peter Michael Poulsen and Diva Navigation Corp (Case C-286/90) [1992] ECR I-6019.

34 Ibid, at paras 1–8.

35 Ibid, at paras 12–16.

36 Ibid, at paras 21–9.

37 Ibid, at para 10.

38 Opel Austria GmbHv Council of the European Union (Case T-115/94) [1997] ECR II–39.

39 Ibid, generally at paras 1–68.

40 Ibid, at paras 90 and 93.

41 Ibid, at para 78: ‘Art 18 of the First Vienna Convention and Art 18 of the Second Vienna Convention constitute an expression of the general principle of protection of legitimate expectations in public international law.’

42 Ibid, at para 77.

43 Ibid, at para 78.

44 Ibid.

45 Ibid, at paras 79 and ff.

46 Ibid, at para 79.

47 Ibid.

48 Racke GmbH & Co v Hauptzollamt Mainz (Case C-162/96) [1998] ECR1–3655.

49 Ibid, at paras 1–23.

50 Ibid, at para 27.

51 Ibid, at paras 44–6.

52 Ibid, at para 52.

53 Ibid, at paras 24 and ff.

54 Ibid, at para 50.

55 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 27 at para 55.

56 Loizidou v Turkey (1995) 20 EHRR 99 at paras 70 ff.

57 op cit above n 55.

58 Fogarty v United Kingdom (2002) 34 EHRR 302.Google Scholar

59 McElhinney v Ireland (2002) 34 EHRR 02.Google Scholar

60 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950, Art 3.

61 Al-Adsani, above n 59 at para 48.

62 Arrest Warrant of 11 Apr 2000, above n 12 at paras 58–61.

63 Ibid, at para 54.

64 Ibid, at para 55.

65 Ibid.

66 Ibid, at para 56.

67 Arrest Warrant of 11 Apr 2000, op cit, n 12 at para 58.

68 ‘Only States may be parties in cases before the Court’, Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, Art 34(1).

69 Ibid.

70 See Slaughter, AM, ‘The Real New World Order’, (1997) 76 Foreign Aff, 183CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ead, ‘International Law in a World of Liberal States’ (1995) 6 Eur J Int’l L, 503.Google Scholar

71 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966).

72 Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (1982), Art 20(2); United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1982, Part XL

73 ‘MERCOSUR’ in Spanish; ‘MERCOSUL’ in Portuguese.

74 See, eg, Protocol of Jurisdictional Co-operation and Assistance in Civil, Commercial, Labor and Administrative Matters (Protocol of Las Leilas), 1992; Protocol of Buenos Aires on International Jurisdiction in Disputes Relating to Contracts, 1994.

75 See Araujo, N de, ‘Dispute Resolution in MERCOSUL: The Protocol of Las Leñas and the Case Law of the Brazilian Supreme Court’ (2001) U Miami Inter-Am. L Rev, 25–56, at 35Google Scholar. Also Rodrigues, HR, Mercosul, : ‘Alguns Conceitos Básicos Necessarios a Susa Compreennsao’, in Soucao de Controversias No Mercosul 29 (1997).Google Scholar

76 See O'Keefe, TA, ‘The Central American Integration System (SICA) at the Dawn of a New Century: Will the Central American Isthmus Finally be Able to Achieve Economic and Political Unity?’ (2001) 13 Fla J Int’l L, 243 at 251–6Google Scholar. The SICA includes Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua.

77 Estatuto de la Corte Centroamericana de Justicia (1992), Arts 22(b), 22(c), 22(e), 22(g), 22(j), 22(k), and 24.

The Court of Central American Justice (Corte de Justicia Centroamericana), in place from 1908 to 1918, was the first permanent international court in the world. States, individuals, and legal entities were allowed to bring actions before that Court. See Mill, HM Central American Court of Justice, in: Bernhardt (ed), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law [Volume I (1992), 551–554].Google Scholar

78 ASEAN Protocol on Dispute Settlement Mechanism, see YN, Lim, ‘Restoring Foreign Investor Confidence in ASEAN: Legal Framework for Dispute Settlement Processes’ (1998) 19 Sing LR, 145–65.Google Scholar

79 The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 1 July 2002 in accordance with Art 126; see <http://www.icc.int>.

80 See generally Pauwelyn, J, ‘The Role of Public International Law in the WTO: How Far Can We Go?’ (2001) 95 AJIL 535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

81 Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (1994), Art 3(2).

82 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Art 31(3)(c).

83 WTO case DS26 European Communities: Measures concerning meat and meat products (hormones) (Brought by US); WTO case DS48 European Communities: Measures affecting meat and meat products (hormones) (Brought by Canada).

84 WTO case DS56 Argentina: Measures affecting imports of footwear, textiles, apparel and other items (brought by US); WTO case DS77 Argentina: Measures affecting textiles, othing and footwear (Brought by EC); WTO case DS121 Argentina: Safeguard measures on imports of footwear (Brought by EC); WTO case DS123 Argentina: Safeguard measures on imports of footwear (Brought by Indonesia); WTO case DS164 Argentina: Measures affecting imports of footwear (Brought by US).

85 WTO case DS163 Korea: Measures affecting government procurement (Brought by US).

86 Pauwelyn, above n 80, at 578.

87 Address by HE Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the United Nations General Assembly, 26 Oct 2000, A/55/PV 41; The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order—Speech by the President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 27 Oct 2000, available at <http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/SPEECHES/iSpeechPresident_Guillaume_SixthCommittee_20001027.htm>.

88 ECHR case Loizidou v Turkey, above n 56, at paras 65–89.

89 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports, 1951, 15.

90 Southern Bluefin Tuna Case (Australia and New Zealand v Japan) available at <http://www.worldbank.org/icsid/>.

91 See Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (New Zealand v Japan; Australia v Japan), Provisional Measures, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea judgment of 27 Aug 1999.

92 Southern Bluefin Tuna Case, above n 90.

93 Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, ICTY Appeals Chamber judgment of 15 July 1999.

94 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Reports, 1986, 14 at 64–5.

95 Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic, above n 93, at paras 68–171.

96 Address to the Plenary Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations by Judge Stephen M Schwebel, President of the International Court of Justice, 26 Oct 1999, A/54/PV 39; The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Outlook for the International Legal Order—Speech by His Excellency Judge Gilbert Guillaume, President of the International Court of Justice, to the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 27 Oct 2000, above n 87.

97 Treaty Establishing the European Economic Community, above n 5, Art 234 (ex 177).