Interpretative Judgment in The Framework of The International Judiciary - The International Court of Justice As an example
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/ynt3sd28Keywords:
international justice Court, Interpretative judgementAbstract
That the International Court of Justice is a court of first and last instance, it is a fundamental principle that its rulings are final and cannot be appealed as stipulated in Article 60 of the Statute. Nevertheless, the provision of this Article provides that the States parties to the case may request an interpretation of the decision, When certain conditions are available, the International Court of Justice has traditionally issued interpretative rulings when the ruling is marred by any ambiguity or ambiguity. Final determination of judgment and res judicata, in the case of interpretation, if a decision or part of a decision is ambiguous, it may prove impossible for the States Parties to comply with it, and then a request for interpretation may be exactly the best way to ensure compliance and achieve res judicata as indicated The Court recently, the process of interpretation is based on the priority of the res judicata principle that must be preserved Specifically, it is the subject of the study.
Downloads
References
Hindi, Ahmed. 1992, The Principle of Two-Level Litigation, Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo.
ii. Nabil, Noyes. 2017, The validity of international judicial rulings, a master’s thesis submitted to the Council of the Faculty of Law, University of Algiers, Algeria.
iii. Treaty of Neuilly: https://archive.org/stream/peacetreaties00alli#page/46/mode/2up
iv. The Hague Convention of 1907.
v. Washington Convention 1907.
vi. Statutes of the International Court of the Sea.
vii. Augusto, Antonio. 2017, Statutes of the International Court of Justice, United Nations Audiovisual Library. viii. Statute of the International Court of Justice.
ix. Omar, Hussein Hanafi, 2007 AD, “The international judicial ruling, its validity and guarantees of its implementation,” an analytical study of arbitration rulings, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court, second edition: Dar Al-Nahda Al-Arabiya, Cairo.
x. Qashi, Al-Khair, 2000, The Problem of Implementing International Judicial Rulings between Text and Reality, University Foundation for Publishing and Distribution, Beirut.
xi. Hindi, Ahmed, 1995, Law of Civil and Commercial Procedure (Litigation, Judgment, and Appeal), Part Two, New University Publishing House, Alexandria.
xii. (Alwan, Bassem Ghannawi. 2021, Interpreting treaties through the subsequent behavior of states parties, Journal of Legal and Political Sciences, University of Diyala, Volume Ten, Issue Two.
i. Kazimierz Grzybowski. 1941, Interpretation of Decisions of International Tribunals, American Journal of International Law, vol.35,No.3.
ii. Helmersen ST. 2021;The Methodology of Formal Interpretations of Judicial Decisions by the International Court of Justice. Nordic Journal of International Law. 90(3).
iii. Juan juśe Quintana. 2015,Litigation at the International Court of Justice Practice and Procedure, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers,vol.10,
iv. Request for Interpretation-Cameroon v. Nigeria, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, ICJ Rep 1999,
v. N.L.Hill,“The Interpretation of the Decisions of International Courts”, Georgetown Law journal,vol. 22 (1933–1934),.
vi. Request for Interpretation-Cameroon v. Nigeria, Judgment of 25 March 1999, ICJ Rep. 1999.
vii. Request for Interpretation-Cameroon v. Nigeria, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, ICJ Rep. 1999.
viii. Genocide Convention (Bosnia), Merits, Judgment of 26 Feb. 2007, ICJ Rep. 2007.
ix. South West Africa-Voting Procedure, Advisory Opinion of 7 June 1955, ICJ Rep. 1955.
x. Shabtai Rosenne.Rosenne’s Law and Practice at the international court of justices (1920-2015), Leiden,Boston:Brill Nijhoff,2016, vol. 3.
xi. Hugh Thirlway.The law and procedure of the international court of Justice:fifty years of jurisprudence, part 13,British Yearbook of International Law,vol.74,2003.
xii. Dumberry Patrick. Le recours en interprétation des arrêts de la Cour Internationale de Justice et des sentences arbitrales. In: Revue Québécoise de droit international, volume 13-2, 2000.
xiii. Application for Revision and Interpretation-Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf, Judgment of 10 Dec. 1985, ICJ Rep. 1985.
xiv. Request for Interpretation-Cameroon v. Nigeria, Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Weeramantry, ICJ Rep. 1999.
xv. judge Anzilotti’s dissent in the Request for Interpretation-Factory at Chorzów case (PCIJ A 13, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Anzilotti.
xvi. Request for Interpretation-Temple of Preah Vihear, Judgment of 11 Nov. 2013.
xvii. Request for Interpretation-Treaty of Neuilly, Judgment No. 4, 26 March 1925, PCIJ A 4.
xviii. Request for Interpretation-Factory at Chorzów, Judgment No. 11, 16 Dec. 1927, PCIJ A 13, p. 21.
xix. Request for Interpretation/Asylum, Judgment of 27 Nov. 1950, ICJ Rep. 1950, p. 402. Reaffirmed
xx. in the Request for Interpretation-Avena ( Judgment of 19 Jan. 2009, ICJ Reports 2009, para. 44) and Request for Interpretation-Temple of Preah Vihear (Provisional Measures, Order of 18 July 2011, para. 44) cases.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
