Search results

You are looking at 1 - 7 of 7 items for :

  • "International Court of Justice" x
  • All content x
Clear All
Open Access (free)
R. A. Melikan

examine international trials for war crimes – what are sometimes referred to as breaches of international humanitarian law – and human rights violations. The twentieth century witnessed the creation of an apparently impressive range of international tribunals with authority to consider such offences: the International Court of Justice, the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, and the African Court of Human Rights. All of these, however, adjudicated state responsibility for violations of international law; they did not have

in Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000
The end of European empires in the Sahara and their legacy
Berny Sèbe

-colonial fragmentation of the Sahara had an impact on its inhabitants at several levels. It led to confrontations between states and within states, and partitioned major ethnic groups. At the state level, unsolved colonial disputes often led to long-lasting confrontations. This was particularly the case of the dispute between Chad and Libya over the Aouzou strip, which resulted from an unratified Franco-Italian agreement of 1935 and led to an ‘African Thirty Years’ War’ until the International Court of Justice arbitrated in favour of Chad in 1994 (Lanne 1982; Wright 1989; Burr and

in Francophone Africa at fifty
Legality and legitimacy
Dominic McGoldrick

of Bosnia).109 Obligations on states stemming from the Statute ‘shall prevail over any legal impediment to the surrender or transfer of the accused to the Tribunal’ that may exist under national legal systems. A common national obstacle is that some constitutions or national laws prevent the extradition of nationals. This principle is in conformity with international law given the large number of states who follow the practice. In the Lockerbie Case, the International Court of Justice ruled that the obligation under Article 103 of the UN Charter that ‘In the event

in Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000
A twenty-first century trial?
Dominic McGoldrick

jurisdictional issue by seeking an opinion from the highest judicial body of the UN, the International Court of Justice, which is also located in The Hague. They also put the arguments of bias and partiality, submitting that from Milosevic’s perspective the ICTY was incapable of giving him a fair trial and faced unacceptable levels of pressure from external sources. An example of partiality was the court’s order forbidding him from giving media interviews, while the prosecution faced no such restriction.45 The amici also argued that trying Milosevic for actions as a head of

in Domestic and international trials, 1700–2000
The boundary commission at work
Lucy P. Chester

led Pakistan’s delegation to the UN, where he argued Pakistan’s case for Kashmir and supported Arab claims in Palestine. He was a judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) at the Hague from 1954 to 1961 and from 1964 to 1973, with an interlude to preside over the UN General Assembly in 1962. From 1970 to 1973 he was president of the ICJ. 24 Zafrullah therefore provided high-powered leadership

in Borders and conflict in South Asia
Abstract only
Southern Africa, popular protest and foreign policy
Kevin O’Sullivan

continued to be focussed on its role in South West Africa. In July 1966, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its verdict on the territory, in which it declared that the case against South Africa had not proven the legality of its claims and that it could not make a decision one way or the other. At the UN, the judgement drew an immediate reaction. The General Assembly voted to terminate the South African mandate and recognise the territory as the re-named Namibia. In 1969 the Security Council followed suit, calling upon South Africa to withdraw its

in Ireland, Africa and the end of empire
The façade of South Asian responsibility
Lucy P. Chester

has been abandoned and it will probably be best if a reference even to the President of the International Court of Justice is also avoided as it would inevitably involve delay.’ 35 The British Government had realized that international participation in this delicate decision was not desirable. It was vital for Britain’s reputation as a world power that it manage the South Asian partition on its own

in Borders and conflict in South Asia