Suchergebnisse

How do the judges of the International Court of Justice, the most authoritative court in international law, use teachings when deciding cases? This book is the first book-length examination of how teachings are used in an important international institution. It uses three different methodologies: a traditional legal analysis, an empirical analysis where citations of teachings are counted and interviews with judges and staff. Three main patterns are identified: teachings have generally low weight, but this weight varies between different works and between different judges. The book suggests explanations for the patterns it identifies, in order to contribute to understanding not only when and how teachings are used, but also why, and compares the Court's practice with that of other international courts and tribunals. This study fills a gap in the international legal literature and will be essential reading for scholars and practicing international lawyers.

Abstract
This article examines the application of teachings by the International Court of Justice between 2016 and 2022. The Court did not cite teachings in its majority opinions during this period. It did cite works from the International Law Commission, which suggests that these are considered different from teachings and possibly have more weight. Judges cited teachings in their individual opinions. Judge Cançado Trindade stands out as a judge with a particularly high citation rate. Teachings played a wide variety of functions in individual opinions, from the classical functions of aiding the interpretation of a treaty and the ascertainment of a rule of customary international law, to a range of other specialized functions such as the interpretation of other texts, in particular judicial decisions, methodological and historical points, and showing the purpose of a rule of instrument, in addition to providing reflections on the role of the international judiciary itself. The article also examines the demographics of the most-cited writers, finding that most of them are men from Western States. The article compares the judges' practice with findings from prior to 2016 and other international courts and tribunals.

Abstract
This article examines the International Court of Justice's methodology in cases where it interprets its own decisions under the procedure in Article 60 of the Statute. The Court is constrained by respect for the res judicata of the previous decision. When interpreting the decision the Court and its judges strive to find the intention behind a decision, and emphasise elements that include wording, context, and object and purpose. A comparison with how the Court interprets treaties, resolutions from the United Nations Security Council, and unilateral declarations by States show that the instruments have important different but that their interpretation nonetheless have some basic similarities. On this basis it may be possible to formulate general principles of interpretation in international law.

The EFTA Court has on numerous occasions faced arguments based on international law rules that exist outside the EEA system, and it has dealt with such arguments in disparate ways. The Court is receptive to arguments based on the European Convention on Human Rights, while flatly refusing to engage with arguments based on other treaties. This article outlines the Court's practice in such cases and tries to explain it, with the best explanation being the Court's desire and obligation to maintain homogeneity between the EEA and the EU system. In the future, the Court may be presented with arguments based on the law of the World Trade Organization or the aftermath of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, and this article suggests how the Court may respond.

The People's Republic of China ('China') has adopted legislation threatening to invade the Republic of China ('Taiwan') if the latter declares independence. Threats of force are prohibited by the UN Charter Article 2(4) and equivalent customary international law. This article proceeds along two apparently contradictory strands. On the one hand, the prohibition probably does not apply to non-State entities such as the Republic of China. One the other hand, the ICJ stated in the Nuclear Weapons opinion that 'if the use of force itself in a given case is illegal […] the threat to use such force will likewise be illegal'. If the Republic of China declares independence it will become a State, making a PRC invasion illegal. Therefore, the PRC's current threats should also be illegal. The best way to resolve this apparent paradox is to say that the ICJ's 'Nuclear Weapons principle' must be nuanced.

Abstract
Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ Statute) instructs the Court to 'apply … the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists'. This raises the question of how to decide who these 'publicists' are and how to rank them. This article suggests four factors that the Court's judges apparently use when assessing the weight of 'teachings': the quality of the work, the expertise and official positions of the author(s) and agreement between multiple authors. Judges may invoke these factors because it can make their opinions more authoritative and saves time, and in order to conform with Article 38 of the ICJ Statute. Counting the authors and teachings that judges have highlighted as having high quality, being experts and holding prestigious official positions provides a list that is different from the lists of writers who are cited most often and by the most judges. While this gives a rough idea of who 'the most highly qualified publicists' may be, it also shows that a final, conclusive ranking cannot be given.

It has been argued that groups of fighters who "belong" to a party to an international armed conflict without fulfilling the requirements of Article 4(A)(2) of Geneva Convention III should be classified as combatants, rather than as civilians. This article questions the reasoning put forward in support of that view, by showing that the arguments may be partly circular, incomplete, and debatable.

In the 2012-2013 legal year, eight cases from the Supreme Court concerned jurisdiction and devolution issues. Three concerned the competencies of devolved legislatures, two the right to appeal from Scottish courts, and three the jurisdiction of English courts. (Note about the journal: The Cambridge International Law Journal (CILJ) succeeds the Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law (CJICL)