Compulsory Jurisdiction In International Law

States are increasingly accepting the idea of compulsory jurisdiction for the International Court of Justice and the Court has more cases on its docket than ever before. This book is the first monograph in English dealing with the topic in a concise and accurate manner. Chapter I deals with basic general problems, such as the notion and bases of and the decisions on the ICJ jurisdiction. Chapter II presents the question of ICJ compulsory jurisdiction based on treaty provisions. The central issue, i.e. the ICJ compulsory jurisdiction based on the optional clause, is dealt with in Chapter III. After presenting specific questions, such as the essence of declarations accepting the optional clause, the principle of reciprocity, reservations, formal conditions, etc., the author concentrates in this chapter on the characteristics of the legal system created on the basis of the optional clause.

The system of optional clause declarations is a unique regime of compulsory jurisdiction based on the two World Courts� Statutes. This timely book offers a wide-ranging academic survey of the developments of that system, the theoretical and procedural

Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice by Judge Xue Hanqin introduces general concepts that underlie international adjudication and the basic rules and principles governing the competence and jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

This study examines the reservations to the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction included in declarations made by States under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and discusses the practical application by the Court of the principle of reciprocity to such reservations in contentious cases submitted to it under Article 36(2). It has been considered that, due to acceptance conditioned by so many diverse, and complicated reservations, the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has been declining in significance. The recent trend of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction does not support such a conclusion. Since the practice of making declarations with reservations has continued, further study of the Court's jurisprudence in dealing with such reservations seems necessary. This analysis attempts to show that reservations in unilateral declarations do not contribute to the decline of the Optional Clause. In fact, reservations provide for the flexibility which many States consider essential in accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Thus, the right to include a variety of reservations in unilateral declarations may in fact contribute to the wider acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.

This study examines the reservations to the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction included in declarations made by States under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and discusses the practical application by the Court of the principle of reciprocity to such reservations in contentious cases submitted to it under Article 36(2). It has been considered that, due to acceptance conditioned by so many, diverse, and complicated reservations, the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court has been declining in significance. The recent trend of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction does not support such a conclusion. Since the practice of making declarations with reservations has continued, further study of the Court's jurisprudence in dealing with such reservations seems necessary. This analysis attempts to show that reservations in unilateral declarations do not contribute to the decline of the Optional Clause. In fact, reservations provide for the flexibility which many States consider essential in accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Thus, the right to include a variety of reservations in unilateral declarations may in fact contribute to the wider acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.

Considers (79) S. Res. 196.

This publication succeeds previously published seminars of the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law (Heidelberg, Germany) dealing with evolving principles and new developments in international law. Due to the limits of traditional dispute settlement in international law and the ongoing scholarly debate on those limits, it focuses on possible innovations and functional approaches to improve international dispute settlement mechanisms. In doing so, it covers a wide variety of topics such as procedures of the WTO, advisory opinions of international courts and tribunals, the privatization of international dispute settlement, the interaction between counsels and international courts and tribunals, and the law-making function of international courts. The aim of this publication is to contribute to the cross-fertilization between these mechanisms and to offer creative impulses for the promotion of international dispute settlement.