Norwegian Center for Human Rights

This article looks at the issue of the validity of reservations to international human rights treaties through the lens of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court). A broader perspective is created by comparing the respective positions adopted by other international bodies, such as the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), the Human Rights Committee (HRC), and the International Law Commission (ILC or Commission). In its 1951 advisory opinion in the Reservations to the Genocide Convention the Court provided a general legal framework on the issue of the validity of reservations to multilateral treaties. A proper understanding of that opinion and the subsequent practice of the human rights courts and quasi-judicial bodies has been essential with regard to informing and guiding the Commission in its work on this topic and during the preparation of its forthcoming ‘Guide to Practice’.

This article shall focus on the role and contribution of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) to developing and interpreting the right of peoples to self-determination. The most relevant cases decided by the Court so far, briefly noted here, fall broadly speaking within the decolonization context, save for the ongoing advisory proceedings in the Kosovo case. This simple taxonomy is based on a broad separation of the Court’s case law in two main categories, namely that pertaining to decolonization and that pertaining to secession. The analysis of the place of secession under current international law serves to put into perspective the inquiry into whether any of the main principles applicable to the decolonization process, as elaborated by the Court, continue to be valid in the case of secession of a part of a State from an existing independent State. The article ends with a number of concluding remarks on the contribution of the Court to clarifying the right of peoples to self-determination as part of the corpus of international human rights law.

The contribution of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to the interpretation and development of international human rights and humanitarian law rules and principles is a topic of growing interest and importance. Claims of breaches of norms of both these branches of law have been raised in a considerable number of cases brought before the ICJ in the last two decades. By clarifying the complementary application of international human rights and humanitarian law and by awarding natural and legal persons a right to reparations vis-à-vis the State the ICJ has rendered a valuable contribution to a better protection of individual rights under the general framework of international law. This contribution of the Court is illustrated by focusing mainly on the advisory opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, and the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case. That not only for reasons of space constraints, but also because of the considerable leaps forward made through these cases.

In analyzing and describing the contribution and the role of an important international judicial body such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ, World Court, or simply the Court) in the interpretation and the development of international human rights and humanitarian law rules and principles one can employ different methodologies and adopt different perspectives. Scholars, practitioners, different organizations and institutions, and finally Judges of the Court itself, use their own methodology based on their concerns and the degree of involvement and knowledge of the Court. In spite of the extensive literature that has covered the activities of the ICJ over the six decades of its existence, there is to date hardly any systematic detailed study of the contribution and the role of the World Court in these two branches of international law in the form of a monograph or a dissertation. This book aims to fill this gap. Its readership would include primarily law students, scholars, and international law practitioners, but at the same time it can also assist human rights activists and laypersons who have a general interest in and a knowledge of international law thereby creating a better understanding of the role and contribution of the ICJ with regard to the interpretation and the development of the international law of human rights and humanitarian law rules and principles. With ‘interpretation’ is here understood the legal process through which the ICJ has clarified the aim, scope and application of specific international human rights and humanitarian law rules and principles. ‘Development’ stands not only for the Court’s contribution to the interpretation and application of existing rules of international law, but also for the innovations that the Court has introduced when dealing with different cases closely concerned with human rights and humanitarian law issues. A thorough analysis of this topic implies addressing three main areas which form the three pillars upon which this research is built. First, it is necessary to address the possibilities and limitations arising from the specific institutional characteristics of the ICJ. That provides the reader with the necessary overview of the potential of the Court with regard to its past and possible future contribution to the interpretation and development of human rights and humanitarian law. Second, the contribution of the Court is exposed through a detailed analysis of its case law dealing with international human rights and humanitarian law issues. The period covered stretches from the establishment of the Court in 1946 to 1 September 2007. Last, but not least, the third pillar of this research focuses on the relationship between the ICJ and specialised international human rights and humanitarian law courts and tribunals (ICTs) and international quasi-judicial bodies (IQJBs). Indeed, that is a necessary step before drawing conclusions and making recommendations aiming, firstly, at clarifying the position and the role of the ICJ in the area of human rights and humanitarian law and, secondly, at improving the existing international legal order concerned with the promotion and the protection of human rights.

This article critically assesses the role of provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice in protecting populations during armed conflict situations and the legal consequences attached to the violation of such measures. A number of relevant cases, including the most recent Georgia v. Russia case, are dealt with. Provisional measures aimed at protecting populations affected by armed conflict have been increasingly requested in the last two decades by states finding themselves at a military disadvantage. Questions remain, however, with regard to the suitability of these incidental proceedings to deal with major political controversies resulting in armed conflict between states. That notwithstanding, it is submitted that although compliance with such orders of the Court remains unsatisfactory, in the long term provisional measures can eventually strengthen state compliance with commonly agreed international human rights and humanitarian law standards.

"This short paper aims to provide an overall assessment of the transitional justice processes in the countries emerging from the violent break-up of the former Yugoslavia by focusing on the issues of reparations for victims of the armed conflicts. These states are Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM), Serbia, and Kosovo. The issue of reparations for victims can be seen as one measure of the breadth and depth of the transitional justice process within these countries. Evidently, dealing with a violent past comes at a cost—political, economic, and social—and requires gradually changing public attitudes through education and increasing public awareness, which in turn requires political will and courageous and good political leadership. The paper will focus on two main transitional justice initiatives. First, it will address the role of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in supporting transitional justice processes in these states, with particular reference to the issues of reparations for victims and reconciliation. The Tribunal’s activity and apparent achievements are contrasted with perceptions of, and general public attitudes towards, its work. Second, the paper will address a proposal coming from the civil society for creating a regional truth and reconciliation commission in the Balkans. While these two issues will form the primary focus on this paper, it should also be noted that many issues connected to the evaluation of transitional justice processes and societal transformation in the states emerging from the former Yugoslavia are likely to raise further questions, which cannot be adequately addressed in a paper of this scope."

This paper focuses on the applicability of general international law principles and instruments to European Union (EU) peace missions (also known as crisis management operations). First, the paper shall address the legal framework applicable to EU peace missions, including general principles and instruments of international human rights and humanitarian law. Subsequently, the focus will shift to difficulties which arise in this regard, before providing some concluding remarks. Evidently, in view of the nature of peace missions, the most relevant general principles and instruments applicable are those pertaining to international human rights and international humanitarian law. Although not discussed here, general principles applying to internally displaced persons (IDPs) are also relevant.

ABSTRACT This paper focuses on the motivations and the dynamics that lie at the root of infringements by Defence lawyers of the formal rules and regulations of international criminal courts and tribunals (ICs or tribunals). Although not aplenty, there have been a few instances where Defence lawyers have become subject of disciplinary proceedings for failing to heed orders from the Bench, or more generally for not respecting the formal rules of the tribunals. Different tribunals, as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have had to deal with cases of professional misconduct.First, this paper outlines briefly the various challenges concerning the work of Defence counsel practising at an international level. Subsequently, it addresses the motivations and the dynamics of why Defence counsel has failed to heed orders from the bench or to respect the formal rules and regulations of the tribunals. Such misconduct has resulted in disciplinary proceedings for a limited number of Defence counsel on charges of contempt of court or offences with regard to the administration of justice. This paper suggests that the present legal framework regulating the conduct of Defence counsel before different ICs leaves them a considerable margin of appreciation, which at times can obfuscate the difference between professional zeal and misconduct. Evidently, addressing professional misconduct at an international level requires a good level of cooperation between the existing disciplinary mechanisms at different tribunals and relevant domestic mechanisms.

Although promoting, enforcing, and ensuring respect for human rights and humanitarian law norms has been high on the international agenda for over six decades, effective implementation and enforcement still leave ample room for improvement. This article examines the potential of the International Court of Justice to contribute more towards enforcing timely and efficiently international human rights and humanitarian law standards laid down in a number of widely ratified international law instruments. To that aim it is inquired whether time is ripe to set up a standing Human Rights and Humanitarian Issues Chamber within the Court to deal with issues relating with widespread and systematic abuses to human rights and humanitarian law. Consequently, this paper deals with issues concerning the feasibility and necessity of such a Chamber within the Court.