英语论文网

regards to the practice of States, the Court points out that there have been in recent years a number of illustrations of foreign intervention in one State for the benefit of forces opposed to the government of that State. This means that it concludes that the practice of States does not justify the view that any general right of intervention in support of an opposition within another State exists in current international law.

 

A previous decision of the ICJ

 

Hon Judge, I am sure you are aware that by being an ad-hoc judge you will be one of the judges that will decide the case which is currently being decided before the court.

 

It is therefore important to know that according to article 34(1) of the statute, only nation states have locus standi [37] before the ICJ. This means that it is impossible for an individual to be a party before the court. Another important point is that a decision is final and states have no right to appeal and if they fail to implement the decision of the court, the security council may apply appropriate sanctions according to the circumstances.

 

The decision must not necessary be applied on the day of the judgment. For instance, in the Libya vs Malta (1985) dispute, the decision took 5 years to be implemented.

 

Article 59 of the statute of the ICJ states that the decision of the court has no binding force except between parties and in respect of that particular case. This means that the ICJ is not bound by the rule of judicial precedence. Even if the case is nearly identical to a previous judgment, the ICJ is not bound to arrive to the same conclusion.

 

However, article 38 of the same statue points out that the court, in order to decide according to international law, it may refer to previous judgments to support its conclusions.

 

For example, in the Bosnian Genocide case, The Court found that Serbia was neither directly responsible for Srebrenica genocide, nor that it was complicit in it, but it did rule that Serbia had committed the breach the Genocide Convention by failing to prevent the Srebrenica genocide, for not cooperating with the ICTY in punishing the perpetrators of the genocide.

 

The court, in reaching its decision, referred to the standard set by Nicaragua v. United States, in which the United States was not found responsible of their actions even though they back the Guerillas.

 

Moreover, judgments of the ICJ have many times been used as a source of treaty law and international law, thus binding not only parties involved in the dispute but also the signatories of the treaty.

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。