Somber Reflections on the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court

Bibliographic Data

ID9546306
AuthorsMark Weston Janis (0000-0003-0755-3305, University of Connecticut, corresponding author)
Year1987
Volume81
Issue1
Pages144-146
Publication date1987-01-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueAmerican Journal of International Law (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0002-9300 • E-ISSN: 2161-7953
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.2307/2202143
OpenAlexW1984955978
LanguageEN
Citations received3

The Military and Paramilitary Activities case deepens the gloom already surrounding the two forms of the International Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Neither Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, which confers general compulsory jurisdiction upon the Court in cases of reciprocal state declarations, nor that part of Article 36(1) which vests jurisdiction when treaties so provide has been particularly successful in recent practice. No one denies that the ICJ has served a useful, if occasional, role when it has heard and decided cases voluntarily submitted by then-willing states pursuant to the specially conferred provision of Article 36(1). What is in question is the utility of the all too many recent cases where the Court has taken jurisdiction pursuant to the compulsory provisions of its Statute and then has been, to one degree or another, disregarded

Exclusive jurisdiction · Federal jurisdiction · International court · International law · Jurisdiction · Original jurisdiction · Political science · Public international law · State (computer science · Statute · Subject-matter jurisdiction · Global Peace and Security Dynamics · International Law and Aviation · International Law and Human Rights · Law

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access