File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Article: Jurisdiction ratione materiae of the International Court of Justice in Compromissory Clause Cases

TitleJurisdiction ratione materiae of the International Court of Justice in Compromissory Clause Cases
Authors
Issue Date16-Jan-2023
PublisherSweet and Maxwell
Citation
Law Quarterly Review, 2023, v. 139, n. 1, p. 52-78 How to Cite?
Abstract

States wishing to bring a dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may have a difficult time finding suitable jurisdictional bases. When starting a case by unilateral application, applicants must identify how respondents have consented to the court's jurisdiction. States may consent by accepting the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction under art.36(2) of its statute, known as the "optional clause"; agreeing to submit to its jurisdiction after the filing of the application, called "'forum prorogatum'"; or becoming parties to treaties containing compromissory clauses providing for the ICJ as a means to settle disputes arising out of those treaties. This article elaborates on this last means of expressing consent. States have used compromissory clauses as bases of jurisdiction since the ICJ's predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). Already in its second case, the 1924 jurisdiction phase in 'Mavrommatis', the PCIJ was seised of a dispute pursuant to the compromissory clause under art.26 of the League of Nations mandate conferred on the UK in respect of Palestine. States have made applications before the ICJ based on compromissory clauses in over 30 cases.


Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/338515
ISSN

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorLando, Massimo Fabio-
dc.date.accessioned2024-03-11T10:29:27Z-
dc.date.available2024-03-11T10:29:27Z-
dc.date.issued2023-01-16-
dc.identifier.citationLaw Quarterly Review, 2023, v. 139, n. 1, p. 52-78-
dc.identifier.issn0023-933X-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/338515-
dc.description.abstract<p>States wishing to bring a dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) may have a difficult time finding suitable jurisdictional bases. When starting a case by unilateral application, applicants must identify how respondents have consented to the court's jurisdiction. States may consent by accepting the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction under art.36(2) of its statute, known as the "optional clause"; agreeing to submit to its jurisdiction after the filing of the application, called "'forum prorogatum'"; or becoming parties to treaties containing compromissory clauses providing for the ICJ as a means to settle disputes arising out of those treaties. This article elaborates on this last means of expressing consent. States have used compromissory clauses as bases of jurisdiction since the ICJ's predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ). Already in its second case, the 1924 jurisdiction phase in 'Mavrommatis', the PCIJ was seised of a dispute pursuant to the compromissory clause under art.26 of the League of Nations mandate conferred on the UK in respect of Palestine. States have made applications before the ICJ based on compromissory clauses in over 30 cases.<br></p>-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSweet and Maxwell-
dc.relation.ispartofLaw Quarterly Review-
dc.titleJurisdiction ratione materiae of the International Court of Justice in Compromissory Clause Cases-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.volume139-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage52-
dc.identifier.epage78-
dc.identifier.issnl0023-933X-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats