Documents présentés au comité et relatifs a des projets déjà existants pour l'établissement d'une Cour permanente de justice internationale ... Documents presented to the committee relating to existing plans for the establishment of a permanent court of international justice.

Mode of access: Internet.

Publications de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale. Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Series C, Acts and documents relating to judgements and advisory opinions given by the Court.

Mode of access: Internet.

Judicial settlement of international disputes.

Includes 2d ed. of no. 1 and supplements for no. 2 and 9.

The Hague court reports ; comprising the awards, accompanied by syllabi, the agreements for arbitration, and other documents in each case submitted to the Permanent court of arbitration and to commissions of inquiry under the provisions of the conventions of 1889 and 1907, for the pacific settlement of international disputes ;

At head of title: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.

Les opinions séparées et leurs répercussions sur l’indépendance du juge international

Différents points de vue pour déterminer la portée du secret des délibérations dans certains tribunaux internationaux ont débouché sur le fait que les juges aient le droit de présenter des opinions séparées; alors que d’autres n’ont pas ce droit. En tenant compte du rôle et des objectifs des missions internationales, les juges devraient avoir le droit de présenter des opinions séparées, de la même façon que dans le système de common law et dans un grand nombre de tribunaux constitutionnels.Cependant, ces analogies ont joué un rôle marginal dans les travaux préparatoires du Statut de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale en 1920. D’autant que les Etats ne trouvaient pas  orrect qu’une opinión juridique d’un juge international soit condamnée a l’anonymat comme consequence du principe du secret des délibérations, ceci comme conséquenced’un «technicisme» relatif au fait que ladite opinion était contraire à la position majoritaire de la Cour au moment de voter le projet de la décision.Les règles générales de droit international public garantissent un pouvoir autonome au pouvoir judiciaire international. Selon les règles de procédure des tribunaux internationaux, les juges ont le droit de se prononcer avec une opinion séparée, même si ce droit ne se trouve pas typifié de façon expresse dans le Statut ou dans le traité constitutif de l’organisation. Cette règle est présumée à moins qu’il y ait eu une claire volonté des Etats dans le sens contraire.Le droit relatif aux opinions séparées peut être analysé sous la perspective des juges en tenant compte de leur droit à la liberté d’expression. En ce sens, un juge international peut avoir la liberté pour démontrer, de façon systématique, par le biais d’opinions séparées, les vides argumentatifs de la majorité, en évitant un style qui puissent être offensif envers ses collègues. Cette façon de s’exprimer est considéré inoffensive envers l’autorité judiciaire.Les effets positifs par l’absence, ou l’interdiction, d’opinions séparées, en relation avec l’indépendance des juges internationaux ne sont pas faciles à mettre de côté. Cependant, ce genre des mesures restrictives à la liberté d’expression n’est pas suffisamment effectif ni proportionné pour légitimer l’objectif du juge. Il y a des instruments bien plus effectifs y moins restrictifs qui mènent au même résultat (par exemple, un seul mandat, non renouvelable, des juges nternationaux).

North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration : the argument of the United States before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague under the provisions of the special agreement between the United States of America and Great Britain, concluded January 27, 1909.

Running title: Argument of the United States.

North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration : the case of the United States before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague under the provisions of the Special agreement between the United States of America and Great Britain concluded January 27, 1909.

Two folded maps in pocket of v. 2 of appendix.

North Atlantic coast fisheries arbitration : the counter case of the United States before the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague under the provisions of the Special agreement between the United States of America and Great Britain, concluded January 27, 1909.

Second vol. is appendix.

Customs bulletin and decisions : regulations, rulings, decisions, and notices concerning customs and related matters of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Customs Court.

Latest issue consulted: Vol. 38, no. 1 (Dec. 31, 2003).

An analytical study revisiting debate on interpretation of Article 38 of the Statute of International Court of Justice

Article 38(1) of the Statute of International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ) is today generally seen as a direction to the significant sources of international law, which the world court must consider in resolving disputes; however, the list is not exhaustive nor encompasses all the formal and material sources of the international legal system. Article 38 of the Statute of ICJ was written ninety years ago in a different world, a question is under debate in many states, whether or not sources mentioned in Article 38 of the statute are compatible with needs of 21st century ? In recent decade, many new actors come on the stage which have transformed international law and now it is not only governs relations among states but also covers many International Organizations. Article 38(2) does refer to the other possible sources but does not define them. Moreover, law is a set of rules that citizens must follow to regulate peace and order in society. These laws are binding on both the individual and the state on a domestic and international level. Do states regard this particular rule as a rule of international law? The modern legal system of states is in the form of a specified and well organized set of rules, regulating affairs of different organs of a state. States also need a body of rules for their intercourse with each other. These sets of rules among states are called “International Law.” This article examines international law, its foundation and sources. It considers whether international conventions and treaties can be the only way states can considerably create international law, or there is a need for clarity about the sources of international law. Article is divided into two parts, the first one deals with sources of international law discussed in Article 38 of the statute of International Court of Justice whereas the second one discusses the material and formal sources of law, which still need reorganization as sources of law.

Territorial Integrity and Self-Determination : The Approach of the International Court of Justice in the Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

[EN] On 17 February 2008 Kosovo approved its declaration of independence from Serbia. The declaration was raised as a unilateral secession, a category which to date is widely debated by the international community, but supported in that case by a respectable number of the United Nation member states. A great many legal issues have been raised by the International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on Kosovo. This opinion was eagerly awaited by legal scholars due to both its possible effects and the scope of its principles outside the context of decolonization in what it could constitute of new approach to the international scenario for the twenty-first century. The ICJ stated that the declaration of independence was in accordance with international law if it was not prohibited. The answer turned on whether or not international law prohibited the declaration of independence, without ever examining whether an entity seeking secession is entitled with a positive right to secede and if so, under which circumstances. The basic issue can be summarised as whether or not we are facing a new course in the interpretation of certain classical categories of international law: the principle of territorial integrity, statehood, sovereignty, recognition, the right to external self-determination, etc. In this study we shall analyse some of the aspects arising from the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo focusing on the territorial issue. Firstly we shall analyse the scope of the principle of territorial integrity of States and how it operates ; secondly, we shall focus on the scope of that principle in relation to the interior of the State, and ask ourselves how international law operates in relation to declarations of independence. Lastly, we shall deal with the principle of respect for territorial integrity in the specific case of Serbia with respect to Kosovo, and then end with a series of general conclusions. This study aims, definitely, to contribute to the theoretical debate on the challenges to the traditional certainties of international law in this area.

Genocide and the International Court of Justice: Finally, a Duty to Prevent the Crime of Crimes

The International Court of Justice has issued its long-awaited decision in the suit filed by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro with respect to the 1992–1995 war. The decision confirms the factual and legal determinations of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ruling that genocide was committed during the Srebrenica massacre in July 1995 but that the conflict as a whole was not genocidal in nature. The Court held that Serbia had failed in its duty to prevent genocide in Srebrenica, although—because, the Court said, there was no certainty that it could have succeeded in preventing the genocide—no damages were awarded. The judgment provides a strong and authoritative statement of the general duty upon states to prevent genocide that dovetails well with the doctrine of the responsibility to protect.

Digital evidence as a means of proof before the International Court of Justice

This article discusses the use of digital evidence as a means of proof before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The absence of specific Court rules and procedures for digital evidence (with the exception of Practice Direction IX bis) is not necessarily an obstacle to its production and evaluation before the ICJ, as the general evidentiary rules can also be applied to digital evidence. The article first looks at the rules on the production of documentary evidence and then examines the specific issues related to audiovisual evidence. Finally, it examines the admissibility of digital evidence unlawfully obtained by a litigant through unilateral transborder access to data. The article concludes that, even if specific regulation may be needed as to the specific way in which authenticity and accuracy of digital evidence are to be established, the particular facts of the case and the grounds of challenge can vary widely, and it is doubtful that any regulation could be sufficiently flexible to deal with this in advance.

Translation of the Decision of the International Court of Justice related to the Case concerning the dispute regarding navigational and related rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) Judgment

--