Once a case has been filed, any party (usually the plaintiff) can apply for a court order to protect the status quo until the case is heard. These injunctions are known as interim measures (or interim) and correspond to injunctions under U.S. law. Section 41 of the Act authorizes the court to make such orders. The court must be satisfied that it has prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before adopting interim measures. The unprecedented bloodshed of World War I led to the creation of the League of Nations, which was founded at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the world`s first intergovernmental organization for the maintenance of peace and collective security. Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which would have jurisdiction over any international dispute submitted to it by the parties to the dispute, as well as to give an advisory opinion on any dispute or matter referred to it by the League of Nations. This situation is not satisfactory. While there are many aspects of international law on which jurists of all stripes can be expected to agree, we must recognize that there is no uniform and homogenized answer to many of the legal issues that arise in international disputes. While each individual aspires to a cosmopolitan perspective, we must all have the humility to recognize that we are shaped by our respective experiences. We must actively seek different perspectives and encourage an open exchange of ideas, especially with those whose views differ from ours. In general, the Court sits as an ordinary court, but in the last fifteen years it has sometimes sat as a chamber. Articles 26 to 29 of the Statute allow the Court to form smaller chambers, usually composed of 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases.
Article 26 provides for two types of chambers: on the one hand, chambers for special categories of cases and, on the other hand, the creation of ad hoc chambers for certain disputes. In 1993, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ Statute, a Special Chamber was established to deal specifically with environmental issues (although it was never used). I have guided these ideals to guide my work as a judge of the International Court of Justice and now as President. In line with this approach, I attach great importance to the Court`s judicial fellowship programme, which enables its judges to play a role in developing future leaders in the field of international law. Each year, under this programme, the Court selects 15 law graduates who have studied international law to come to the Court to develop their skills in this field. Each fellow is assigned to a judge for a period of approximately 10 months, during which he or she participates in the Court`s public hearings, conducts research and writes briefs on legal issues and factual aspects of pending cases, and participates in other aspects of the Court`s work. In addition, participants will have the opportunity to be part of the thriving community of international lawyers in The Hague, attend conferences and attend other events related to the many leading institutions based in this “city of peace and justice”. For example, the United States had already accepted the Court`s compulsory jurisdiction when it was established in 1946, but in 1984 it moved to Nicaragua v. The United States withdrew its adoption following the court`s decision ordering the United States to “cease and refrain from the unlawful use of force” against the Nicaraguan government.
The tribunal ruled (only the U.S. judge disagreed) that the U.S. was “violating its obligation under the Treaty of Amity with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua” and ordered the U.S. to pay war reparations. [16] The ad hoc chambers are convened more frequently. For example, chambers were used to hear the Gulf of Maine case (Canada/United States). [18] In this case, the parties have made it clear that they will withdraw the case unless the court appoints judges for the chamber acceptable to the parties. Chambers` judgments may either have less authority than the Court`s full judgments or undermine the correct interpretation of universal international law, which is shaped by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, recourse to chambers could encourage greater referral to the Court of Justice and thus improve the settlement of international disputes. [19] The system may seem strange compared to national court cases, but its purpose is to encourage states to initiate complaints. For example, if a state knows that it will have a bailiff who can participate in the deliberations and offer other judges local knowledge and understanding of the state`s perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Although this system does not fit well with the judicial character of the body, it is generally of little practical importance.
Judges ad hoc usually (but not always) vote for the state that appointed them, thereby cancelling each other. [17] In contentious cases (adversarial procedures for the settlement of a dispute), the ICJ renders a binding judgment between States that agree to submit to the Court`s judgment.