Plausibility to Human Vulnerability or Both: Shifting Provisional Measures Standards in Human Rights Cases Before the International Court of Justice
Liverpool Law Review - Trang 1-19 - 2024
Tóm tắt
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has the power to indicate provisional measures to preserve the rights of the States. States resorting to provisional measures as a first line of defence has recently increased exponentially. One of the requirements for rendering provisional measure is ‘plausibility’, which got its inception courtesy the separate opinion of Judge Abraham in the Pulp Mills case (2009). Lately, provisional measures orders have been invoked through human rights treaties. However, the surge in requests for provisional measures has also resulted in the ICJ setting out inconsistent plausibility standards. Additionally, the late Brazilian Judge Cancado Trindade endorsed ‘human vulnerability’ as the standard test in provisional measures orders over plausibility. In this article, the author comprehensively analyses the ‘plausibility test’ in human rights cases and argues that the ICJ has adopted an inconsistent approach to interpreting plausibility standards. The author also recommends balancing human vulnerability with plausibility in human rights cases to indicate provisional measures.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Alexander, A. 2020. Autonomous Legal Regime of Provisional Measures in Contemporary International Law: Voices From the International Court of Justice in Gambia v. Myanmar. Society for International Law and Policy. https://silpnujs.wordpress.com/2020/01/27/international-court-of-justice-in-gambia-v-myanmar/.
Den, H.M., and H. Van der Wilt. 2016. Jus Cogens and the Humanization and Fragmentation of International Law. In Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol. 46, ed. H.M. Den and H. Van der Wilt. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-114-2_1.
Duxbury, A. 2000. Saving Lives in the International Court of Justice: The Use of Provisional Measures to Protect Human Rights. California Western International Law Journal. 31 (1): 152.
Espósito, C., and K. Parlett. 2023. The Cambridge companion to the international court of justice. Cambridge University Press.
Hofer, A. 2018. Sanctioning Qatar Continued: The United Arab Emirates is Brought Before the ICJ. Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/sanctioning-qatar-continued-the-united-arab-emirates-is-brought-before-the-icj/.
International Court of Justice. 1972. Fisheries Jurisdiction Case United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland). Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/55/055-19720817-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 1973. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France). Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection Order of 22 June 1973. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/58/058-19730622-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 1979. Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America V. Iran) Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/64/064-19791215-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 2000. Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda). Reports of the Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Order of 1 July 2000. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/116/116-20000701-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 2009. Questions Relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal). Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Order of 28 May 2009. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/144/144-20090528-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 2017. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/166/166-20170419-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 2018. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates). Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/172/172-20180723-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 2020. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar). Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures. https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/178/178-20200123-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
International Court of Justice. 2021. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v Azerbaijan). Reports of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Order of 7 December 2021, https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/180/180-20211207-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf.
Kammerhofer, J. 2003. The Binding Nature of Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice: The ‘Settlement’ of the Issue in the LaGrand Case. Leiden Journal of International Law 16 (1): 67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156503001043.
Keane, D. 2021. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. U.A.E.) (I.C.J.). International Legal Materials 60 (5): 883–960. https://doi.org/10.1017/ilm.2021.22.
Kolb, R. 2020. Digging Deeper into the “Plausibility of Rights”-Criterion in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the ICJ. The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 19 (3): 365–387. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341428.
Kolb, R. 2023. Provisional Measures. In The Cambridge Companion to the International Court of Justice, ed. C. Espósito and K. Parlett. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kontogiannis, D. 2019. Provisional Measures in Ukraine v. Russia: From Illusions to Reality or a Prejudgment in Disguise? Blog of the European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/provisional-measures-in-ukraine-v-russia-from-illusions-to-reality-or-a-prejudgment-in-disguise/.
Kulick, A. 2022. Provisional Measures after Ukraine v Russia (2022). Journal of International Dispute Settlement 13 (2): 323–340. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idac012.
Lando, M. 2018. Plausibility in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Leiden Journal of International Law 31 (3): 642. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156518000213.
Lee-Iwamoto, Y. 2012. The Repercussions of the LaGrand Judgment: Recent ICJ Jurisprudence of Provisional Measures. Japanese Yearbook of International Law 55: 237–262.
Meijknecht, A. 2017. Hague Case Law: Latest Developments. Netherlands International Law Review 64: 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-017-0093-2.
Merrills, J.G. 1995. Interim Measures of Protection in the recent Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 44 (1): 90–146. https://doi.org/10.1093/iclqaj/44.1.90.
Meron, T. 2000. The Humanization of Humanitarian Law. The American Journal of International Law 94 (2): 239–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/2555292.
Miles, C. 2018a. Provisional Measures and the ‘New’ Plausibility in the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. British Yearbook of International Law. https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/bry011.
Miles, C. 2018b. Plausibility and the ICJ: A response to Somos and Sparks. Völkerrechtsblog. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/plausibility-and-the-icj/.
Oellers-Frahm, K. 2011. Expanding the Competence to Issue Provisional Measures - Strengthening the International Judicial Function. German Law Journal 12 (5): 1279–1294. https://doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200017302.
Park, L. 2018. The International Court and Rule-Making: Finding Effectiveness. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 39 (4): 1065–1097.
Pergantis, V. 2005. Towards a “Humanization” of Diplomatic Protection? Institut universitaire de hautes études internationals.
Peters, A. 2017. “Vulnerability” versus “Plausibility”: Righting or Wronging the Regime of Provisional Measures? Reflections on ICJ, Ukraine v. Russian Federation, Order of 19 April 2017. Blog of European Journal of International Law. https://www.ejiltalk.org/vulnerability-versus-plausibility-righting-or-wronging-the-regime-of-provisional-measures-reflections-on-icj-ukraine-v-russian-federation-order-of-19-apr/.
Pomsen, O. 2022. The ICJ’s Provisional Measures Order: Unprecedented. Lieber Institute West Point. https://lieber.westpoint.edu/icj-provisional-measures-order-unprecedented/.
Rieter, E. 2021. Autonomy of Provisional Measures. Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals.
Rosenne, S. 2005. Provisional Measures in International Law: The International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn, E. 2022. Objectives of Provisional Measures. In Jurisprudence of the PCIJ and of the ICJ on Interim Measures of Protection, ed. E. Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press.
Schearf, D. 2017. UN Court Rejects Provisional Measures on Russia Over Ukraine, Voice of America English News. https://www.voanews.com/a/un-court-rejects-provisional-measures-russia-ukraine/3817312.html.
Simma, B. 1994. From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law. Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law. https://doi.org/10.1163/1875-8096_pplrdc_A9789041104199_02.
Somos, M., and T. Sparks. 2018. The Urgent, the Plausible and the Irreparable. The Significance of Lowering ICJ Thresholds for Provisional Measures. Völkerrechtsblog. https://voelkerrechtsblog.org/de/the-urgent-the-plausible-and-the-irreparable/.
Sparks, T., and M. Somos. 2019. The Humanisation of Provisional Measures? Plausibility and the Interim Protection of Rights before the ICJ. Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3471141.
Sparks, T., and M. Somos. 2020. The humanisation of provisional measures?—plausibility and the interim protection of rights before the ICJ. In Provisional measures issued by international courts and tribunals, ed., 77–105. SpringerNature.
Thirlway, H. 2021. Provisional Measures: How “Provisional” Is “Provisional”? In Provisional Measures Issued by International Courts and Tribunals, ed. F.M. Palombino, R. Virzo, and G. Zarra, 13–20. The Hage: T.M.C Asser Press.
Tladi, D. 2023. The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Development of International Law. In The Cambridge Companion to the International Court of Justice, ed. C. Espósito and K. Parlett, 68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ulfstein, G. 2022. Qatar v. United Arab Emirates. American Journal of International Law 116 (2): 397–403.
Stoica, Victor. 2021. Remedies Before the International Court of Justice: A Systemic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wang, Y. 2021. Warfare to Lawfare under CERD: Armenia v. Azerbaijan and Azerbaijan v. Armenia, OpinioJuris. http://opiniojuris.org/2021/11/09/warfare-to-lawfare-under-cerd-armenia-v-azerbaijan-and-azerbaijan-v-armenia/.
Zyberi, G. 2010. Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice in Armed Conflict Situations. Leiden Journal of International Law 23 (3): 571–584. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156510000221.