1. Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes

2. Article 2, paragraph 3, of the United Nations Charter
“All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered. ”

3. Peaceful settlement of disputes
No obligation to solve the dispute
Free choice of means
Combination of means

4. Diplomatic Procedures v. Judicial Procedures
Parties agree on terms of settlement for themselves
Adjudication/judicial settlements
Dispute is settled by a third party.

5. International Courts and Quasi-Judicial Bodies
International Court of Justice
International Criminal Court
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
European Court of Human Rights
Inter-American Court of Human Rights
Inter-American Commission of Human Rights
African Commission on Human Rights
Human Rights Committee
Permanent Court of Arbitration etc.

6. State Responsibility v. Individual Criminal Responsibility
ICJ
ECtHR
IACtHR etc.
Individual Criminal Responsibility
ICC
ICTY
ICTR

7. The International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Type of organ
Standing Court of Justice of general jurisdiction
Principal judicial organ of the United Nations (art. 92 UNC)
Treaty basis
Statute of the ICJ annexed to the UNC (art. 92 UNC)
Composition
15 Judges elected regardless of their nationality
Applicable law
Art. 38 ICJ Statute

8. ICJ: Advisory Opinions v. Judgments
Not binding per se
General Assembly (GA) or the Security Council (SC) on any legal question (art. 96§1 UNC)
Other organs of the UN and specialised agencies: within their competence
Judgments
Disputes between States (art. 34§1 ICJ Statute)
Binding decisions between the parties in the particular case = res judicata (art. 94§1 UNC; art. 59 ICJ Statute)
Possible recourse to the UN Security Council for the enforcement (art. 94§2 UNC)

9. Threat or use of nuclear weapons ICJ Advisory opinion 1996
No customary international law prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons (paras 63-73; para 105, 2 (B): 11:3)
Generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law (paras , para 105, 2 (E): 7:7)
‘ in view of the current state of international law , and of the elements of the fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake (para.96; para 105, 2 (E): 7:7)
Good faith obligation to purse and bring to an end negotiations leading to nuclear disarmement ( paras ) , para. 105 (2(F): unanimous)

10. ICJ: Competence (1)
Disputes between States (art.34§1 ICJ Statute)
Permanent Court of International Justice, Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions case, 1924, §11:
“A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons.”

11. ICJ: Competence (1): dispute
Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand/Australia v France), 1997
- Dispute was moot: unilateral French statement to no longer undertake atmospheric tests
NZ request to re-open proceedings due to French underground tests rejected: not the the same dispute
Nuclear disarmament obligations (Marshall Islands v UK / Pakistan/India), 2016
- Alleged failure to abide by NPT Article 6: Good faith obligation to purse and bring to an end negotiations leading to nuclear disarmement

12. ICJ: Competence (1): dispute
Nuclear disarmament obligations (Marshall Islands v UK / Pakistan/India), 2016
All dismissed for the same reason: no dispute exists
First time ever that an entire case dismissed on these grounds
Reasoning: lack of awareness of defendant states + no allegations particular to their conduct
Slim majorities: 8 to 8 with casting vote of the President in case against UK; 7 to 9 in cases against Pakistan and India
-Judge Yusuf voted differently in case against UK due to his objection over the novel and ‘subjective’ awareness criterion
- heavily criticized as a new understanding of the notion of dispute

13. ICJ: Competence (2) States must be a party to the Statute of the ICJ
All Members of the UN are ipso facto parties to the Statute of the ICJ (art. 93§1 UNC and 35§1 ICJ Statute)
A State which is not a Member of the UNC may become a party to the Statute of the ICJ. (art. 93§2 UNC and 35§2 ICJ Statute)

14. ICJ: Competence (3) Art. 36 §1 ICJ Statute
« All cases which the parties refer to the ICJ » = Special agreement = compromis OR
« And all matters specially provided … in treaties and conventions in force » = Compromissory clause OR
Art. 36§2 ICJ Statute
Optional Clause: States declare that they recognize as compulsory the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation.
Thus: RECIPROCAL basis.

15. ICJ: Competence (4) Possible reservations: (art. 36§3 ICJ Statute)
Timewise
Re certain States
Re certain matters
Re certain geographical areas
A defendant may thus invoke a reservation in the plaintiff’s declaration (even if the plaintiff does not invoke it). Cf. ICJ Interhandel case, 1959.
Art. 36§6 ICJ Statute: If there is a dispute as to whether the ICJ is competent, the court decides. (Kompetenz-Kompetenz)

16. Special agreement: Example
ICJ, GabCikovo-Nagymaros Project (HungarylSlovakia), 1997, p.11: Special agreement dated 7 April 1983.
ICJ Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jarnahiriya/Malta), 1985, §19: ”Since the jurisdiction of the Court derives from the Special Agreement between the Parties, the definition of the task so conferred upon it is primarily a matter of ascertainment of the intention of the Parties by interpretation of the Special Agreement. The Court must not exceed the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Parties, but it must also exercise that jurisdiction to its full extent.”

17. Compromissory Clause: Examples
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948: “Article 9: Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfillment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide or for any of the other acts enumerated in article III, shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.”
Note: The fact that there is a dispute regarding the validity, suspension or termination of a treaty does not impact the ground to establish the jurisdiction of the Court!

18. Optional clauses: Examples
ICJ, Norwegian Loans Case, 1957: Reciprocity
“Since two unilateral declarations are involved, such jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court only to the extent to which the declarations coincide in conferring it. A comparison between the two declarations shows that the French declaration accepts the Court’s jurisdiction within narrower limits than the Norwegian declaration; consequently the common will of the parties, which is the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, exists within these narrower limits indicated by the French reservation.”

19. Optional clauses: Examples
ICJ, Cameroon v. Nigeria (Preliminary Objections), 1998: Immediate consensual bond
“Any state party to the statute to the Statute, in adhering to the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36 (2), accepts jurisdiction in its relations with states previously having adhered to that clause. At the same time, it makes a standing offer to the other state parties to the Statute which have not yet deposited declaration of acceptance. The day one of those states accepts that offer by depositing in its turn its declaration of acceptance, the consensual bond is established and no further condition needs to be met.”

20. Forum Prorogatum: Example
ICJ, Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia v. Peru), 1951 : “The Parties have in the present case consented to the jurisdiction of the Court. All the questions submitted to it have been argued by them on the merits, and no objection has been made to a decision on the merits. This conduct of the Parties is sufficient to confer jurisdiction on the Court.”

21. ICJ: Competence (3): Summary:Bases for jurisdiction1.
Special agreement/ Compromis 2.
Compromissory Clause in a Treaty 3.
Overlapping Declarations under the Optional Clause 4.
Forum Prorogatum
Note: These different ways to ground jurisdiction can be combined! THUS: there is a need to examine each aspect of the dispute and to determine in each case if there is a basis for jurisdiction. The basis for jurisdiction may influence the scope of the competence of the ICJ

22. Special Courts, Tribunals, Quasi-Judicial Bodies

23. Universal Human Rights Bodies
Charter-based bodies
Human Rights Council
Reports, Resolutions, Universal Periodic Review
Treaty-Based Bodies
HRC; CESC; CAT; CERD; CEDAW; CRC; CMW etc.
General Comments, Concluding Observations,
Individual Complaints
Inquiries
Non-binding

24. Regional Human Rights Bodies
Europe
ECtHR
Res judicata
Americas
IACommHR: recommendations
IACtHR: R.J.
Africa
AfCHPR: recommendations
African Court: R.J.

25. International Criminal Courts and Tribunals
ICTY and ICTR
Created by the UNSC
ICTY, Tadic, 95
Jurisdiction is limited
Primacy
ICC
Created by the Rome Statute
Unlimited jurisdiction
Complementarity

26. ICC: Jurisdiction Crimes covered:
War Crimes
Crimes against Humanity
Genocide
Aggression
Crimes committed after the entry into force of the ICC Statute.
Crimes committed:
On the territory of a State Party
By a national of a State Party
Referral
By a State party
By the UN SC under Chapter VII (independently of where the crime has been committed and who has alledgedly committed it)
By the Prosecutor