Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Code

Exhibits and Documents submitted by Nicaragua and the United States of America in connection with the Oral Procedure on Jurisdiction and Admissibility

EXHIBITSAND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTEDBY NICARAGUAAND THE UNITEDSTATESOF AMERICAIN CONNECTIONWITHTHE ORAL PROCEDURE ON JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY DOCUMENTS DÉPOSÉS PARLENICARAGUA ETLES ÉTATS-UNISD'AMERIQUE AUX FINS DE LAPROCÉDUREORALE RELATIVEÀ LACOMPETENCE ETÀ LARECEVABILITÉ EXHIBITS SUBMITTED BY NICARAGUA IN CONNECTION WITH THE ORAL PROCEDURE ON QUESTIONS OF JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY ExhibitA 1. "NICARAGUANS SAY THEY WOULD SIGN PROPOSED TR~~ATY",NEW YORK TIMF3, 23 SEPTEMBER 1984 2. "US OFFICIAL1)ISCOUNTS PLEOGE BY NICARAGUA", Nb'W YORK TIMES, 24 SEP- TEMBER 1984 3.

Latest Developments

Order of 14 June 2024

Fixing of time-limits: Reply and Rejoinder

Available in:

English French

Press release 2023/73

1 December 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court indicates provisional measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Summary 2023/8

Summary of the Order of 1 December 2023

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Order of 1 December 2023

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Declaration of Judge Sebutinde

English

Separate opinion of Judge Robinson

English

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Couvreur

(French version only) French

Press release 2023/72

28 November 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - The Court to deliver its Order on Friday 1 December 2023

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Press release 2023/66

15 November 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Conclusion of the public hearings held on Tuesday 14 and Wednesday 15 November 2023

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Verbatim record 2023/24 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 15 November 2023, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 2023/23 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 14 November 2023, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue presiding, in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Press release 2023/60

9 November 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Revised schedule for the public hearings

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Press release 2023/59

3 November 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Public hearings to be held on Tuesday 14 November 2023

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Press release 2023/58

31 October 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Guyana requests the Court to indicate provisional measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Request for the indication of provisional measures

30 October 2023

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Annexes

English

Order of 6 April 2023

Fixing of time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Press release 2023/18

6 April 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court delivers its Judgment on the preliminary objection raised by Venezuela

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Summary 2023/4

Summary of the Judgment of 6 April 2023

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Judgment of 6 April 2023

Preliminary objection

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Bhandari

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Robinson

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Iwasawa

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Wolfrum

English French Bilingual

Partly separate and partly dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Couvreur

English French Bilingual

Press release 2023/17

3 April 2023

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on Thursday 6 April 2023 at 3 p.m.

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Verbatim record 2022/24 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 22 November 2022, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Press release 2022/65

22 November 2022

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Conclusion of the public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Venezuela - The Court to begin its deliberation

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Verbatim record 2022/23 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 21 November 2022, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 2022/22 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Friday 18 November 2022, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 2022/21 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 17 November 2022, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Donoghue, presiding, in the case concerning Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

Original Language

Press release 2022/57

21 October 2022

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Preliminary Objections - The Court to hold public hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Venezuela from Thursday 17 to Tuesday 22 November 2022

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Written observations of Guyana on Venezuela's preliminary objections

15 July 2022

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Order of 13 June 2022

Fixing of time-limit: Written statement of observations and submissions on preliminary objections

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Preliminary objections of Venezuela

7 June 2022

Procedure(s):Preliminary objections

Available in:

English French

Memorial of Guyana on the merits

8 March 2022

Available in:

English

Volume II - Maps and Figures

English

Volume III - Annexes 1-57

English

Volume IV - Annexes 58-136

English

Order of 8 March 2021

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 18 December 2020

Jurisdiction of the Court

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Tomka

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Abraham

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Bennouna

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Gaja

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Robinson

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Gevorgian

English French Bilingual

Press release 2020/37

18 December 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court delivers its Judgment on the question of its jurisdiction

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Summary 2020/5

Summary of the Judgment of 18 December 2020

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Press release 2020/35

10 December 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court to deliver its Judgment on the question of its jurisdiction on Friday 18 December 2020 at 3 p.m.

Available in:

English French

Views of Guyana on the letter from Venezuela’s Minister of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs dated 24 July 2020

3 August 2020

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Letter from Venezuela’s Minister of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs dated 24 July 2020

24 July 2020

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Written reply of Guyana to the question put by Judge Bennouna at the public sitting held on 30 June 2020 at 2 p.m.

6 July 2020

Available in:

English French

Verbatim record 2020/5 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 30 June 2020, at 2 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Yusuf presiding, in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Press release 2020/18

30 June 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Conclusion of the public hearing held on Tuesday 30 June 2020 - The Court to begin its deliberation

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Press release 2020/17

26 June 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Schedule for the public hearing to be held on Tuesday 30 June 2020

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Press release 2020/15

29 May 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Public hearings by videoconference

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Press release 2020/8

17 March 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court has decided to postpone until further notice the public hearings due to open on Monday 23 March 2020

Available in:

English French

Press release 2020/5

6 February 2020

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 23 to Friday 27 March 2020

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Memorandum of Venezuela

28 November 2019

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Annex

English French

Memorial of Guyana - Volume I

19 November 2018

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Volume II

English French

Volume III

English French

Volume IV

English French

Press release 2018/31

2 July 2018

Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court

Available in:

English French

Order of 19 June 2018

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Press release 2018/17

4 April 2018

Guyana files an application against Venezuela

Available in:

English French

Application instituting proceedings

29 March 2018

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Annexes

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 24 April 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed Applications against nine States (in alphabetical order : China, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India, Israel, Pakistan, Russian Federation, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America), accusing them of not fulfilling their obligations with respect to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.

While these nine Applications all related to the same matter, the Marshall Islands distinguished between those three States (India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom) which had recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, and the six others, in respect of which the Marshall Islands proposed to found the jurisdiction of the Court on consent yet to be given. In accordance with Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, the Applications filed against these six States were transmitted to them but not entered in the General List, and no action was taken in the proceedings in the absence of their consent.

With regard to the cases entered in the General List, the Marshall Islands alleged, more specifically, that the United Kingdom had violated Article VI of the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to which they were both party. According to that Article, each party “undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control”. Although India and Pakistan were not parties to the NPT, the Marshall Islands contended that certain obligations enshrined in that instrument applied to all States as a matter of customary international law, and such was the case of the obligations provided for in Article VI of the NPT.

India and Pakistan having informed the Court that they considered that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the dispute alleged by the Marshall Islands, and that the latter’s Application was inadmissible, the Court decided that these questions needed to be resolved first and that they would be determined separately, before any proceedings on the merits, pursuant to Article 79, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court. The Parties subsequently filed their written pleadings on these questions within the time-limits fixed.

In the proceedings instituted against the United Kingdom, the Court fixed the time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by the Marshall Islands and a Counter-Memorial by the United Kingdom. However, within the time-limit of three months following the filing of the Applicant’s Memorial, the United Kingdom raised certain preliminary objections in the case. Consequently, pursuant to Article 79, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, the proceedings on the merits were suspended, and the Marshall Islands presented a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by the United Kingdom.

Public hearings were held in all three cases in March 2016, and the Court delivered its Judgment in each case on 5 October 2016.

In each of the three Judgments, the Court considered that the respondent States’ preliminary objection based on the absence of a dispute between the Parties at the time the Applications were filed should be upheld. The Court noted that, in order for a dispute to exist, the two sides must hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of the performance or non-performance of certain international obligations. It further noted that a dispute exists when the evidence demonstrates that the respondent was aware, or could not have been unaware, that its views were positively opposed by the applicant. Lastly, it observed that, in principle, the existence of a dispute is to be determined as of the date the application is submitted to the Court. Having examined the statements and conduct of the Parties in each of the cases, the Court considered that they did not provide a basis for finding a dispute between the two States in each case before the Court. Since the Court did not have jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, it could not proceed to the merits of these cases.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

24 April 2014

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Marshall Islands

12 January 2015

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Annexes

English French

Memorial

English French

Counter-memorial of Pakistan

1 December 2015

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2016/2 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 8 March 2016, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan)

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 10 July 2014

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 9 July 2015

Extension of time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 5 October 2016

Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of President Abraham

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Vice-President Yusuf

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Owada

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Tomka

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Bennouna

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Xue

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Donoghue

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Gaja

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Sebutinde

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Bhandari

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Robinson

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Crawford

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Bedjaoui

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2016/4

Summary of the Judgment of 5 October 2016

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 2014/23

11 July 2014

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings on the questions of the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application

Available in:

English French

Press release 2015/19

14 July 2015

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan) - Extension of the time-limit for the filing of Pakistan's Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French

Press release 2016/2

29 January 2016

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan) - Jurisdiction and admissibility - The Court to hold public hearings from Tuesday 8 March to Wednesday 16 March 2016

Available in:

English French

Press release 2016/5

8 March 2016

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan) - Conclusion of public hearings on jurisdiction and admissibility - The Court to begin its deliberation

Available in:

English French

Press release 2016/30

5 October 2016

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan) - The Court upholds the objection to jurisdiction raised by Pakistan, based on the absence of a dispute between the Parties, and finds that it cannot proceed to the merits of the case

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

Public hearings were held in all three cases in March 2016, and the Court delivered its Judgment in each case on 5 October 2016.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

24 April 2014

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Marshall Islands

16 December 2014

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Memorial

English French

Annexes

English

Counter-Memorial of India

16 September 2015

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2016/1 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 7 March 2016, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) - Jurisdiction

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2016/4 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 10 March 2016, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2016/6 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 14 March 2016, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2016/8 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 16 March 2016, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Abraham presiding, in the case regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 16 June 2014

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 19 May 2015

Extension of a time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 5 October 2016

Jurisdiction and admissibility

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of President Abraham

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Vice-President Yusuf

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Owada

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Tomka

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Bennouna

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Xue

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Donoghue

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Gaja

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Sebutinde

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Bhandari

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Robinson

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Crawford

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Bedjaoui

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2016/3

Summary of the Judgment of 5 October 2016

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 2014/22

19 June 2014

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) - Fixing of time-limits for filing of pleadings on the question of jurisdiction

Available in:

English French

Press release 2015/14

2 June 2015

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) - Extension of the time−limit for the filing of India's Counter−Memorial

Available in:

English French

Press release 2016/1

29 January 2016

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) - Jurisdiction - The Court to hold public hearings from Monday 7 March to Wednesday 16 March 2016

Available in:

English French

Press release 2016/6

16 March 2016

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) - Conclusion of public hearings on the question of jurisdiction

Available in:

English French

Press release 2016/29

5 October 2016

Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India) - The Court upholds the objection to jurisdiction raised by India, based on the absence of a dispute between the Parties, and finds that it cannot proceed to the merits of the case

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 28 May 2002, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Rwanda for “massive, serious and flagrant violations of human rights and international humanitarian law” resulting

“from acts of armed aggression perpetrated by Rwanda on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in flagrant breach of the sovereignty and territorial integrity [of the DRC], as guaranteed by the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”.

The DRC stated in its Application that the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with the dispute between it and Rwanda “deriv[ed] from compromissory clauses” in many international legal instruments, such as the 1979 Convention on the Elimination on All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the Constitution of the World Health Organization (WHO), the Constitution of UNESCO, the 1984 New York Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and the 1971 Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. The DRC added that the jurisdiction of the Court also derived from the supremacy of peremptory norms (jus cogens), as reflected in certain international treaties and conventions, in the area of human rights.

On 28 May 2002, the date of the filing of the Application, the DRC also submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures. Public hearings were held on 13 and 14 June 2002 on that request. By an Order of 10 July 2002, the Court rejected that request, holding that it did not, in this case, have the prima facie jurisdiction necessary to indicate the provisional measures requested by the DRC. Further, “in the absence of a manifest lack of jurisdiction”, it also rejected Rwanda’s request for the case to be removed from the List. The Court also found that its findings in no way prejudged the question of its jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case or any questions relating to the admissibility of the Application or relating to the merits themselves.

On 18 September 2002, the Court delivered an Order directing that the written pleadings should first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application, and fixed 20 January 2003 and 20 May 2003, respectively, as the time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of Rwanda and Counter-Memorial of the DRC. Those pleadings were filed within the time-limits thus prescribed.

In its Judgment of 3 February 2006, the Court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the DRC. It found that the international instruments invoked by the DRC could not be relied on, either because Rwanda (1) was not a party to them (as in the case of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) or (2) had made reservations to them (as in the case of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination), or because (3) other preconditions for the seisin of the Court had not been satisfied (as in the case of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Constitution of the WHO, the Constitution of UNESCO and the Montreal Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation).

Since the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the Application, it was not required to rule on its admissibility. Mindful that the subject-matter of the dispute was very similar in nature to that in the case between the Congo and Uganda, and that the reasons as to why the Court would not proceed to an examination of the merits in the case between Congo and Rwanda needed to be carefully explained, the Court stated that it was precluded by a number of provisions in its Statute from taking any position on the merits of the claims made by the DRC. It recalled, however, “that there is a fundamental distinction between the acceptance by States of the Court’s jurisdiction and the conformity of their acts with international law”. Thus, “[w]hether or not States have accepted the jurisdiction of the Court, they are required to fulfil their obligations under the United Nations Charter and the other rules of international law, including international humanitarian and human rights law, and they remain responsible for acts attributable to them which are contrary to international law”.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings (French version only)

28 May 2002

Available in:

French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of Provisional Measures (French version only)

28 May 2002

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

French

Memorial of Rwanda

20 January 2003

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English

Counter-Memorial of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (French version only)

20 May 2003

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2002/36 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 13 June 2002, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2002/37 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 13 June 2002, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2002/38 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Friday 14 June 2002, at 9.30 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2002/39 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Friday 14 June 2002, at 12 noon, at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2005/17 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 4 July 2005, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2005/18 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 5 July 2005, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2005/19 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 6 July 2005, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2005/20 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Friday 8 July 2005, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 10 July 2002

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Higgins

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Buergenthal

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Elaraby

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge ad hoc Dugard

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge ad hoc Mavungu (translation)

English French Bilingual

Order of 18 September 2002

Decision regarding content of written pleadings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 3 February 2006

Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Joint Separate Opinion by Judges Higgins, Kooijmans, Elaraby, Owada and Simma

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Kooijmans

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Elaraby

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion of Judge ad hoc Dugard

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Mavungu

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2002/2

Summary of the Order of 10 July 2002

Available in:

English French

Summary 2006/1

Summary of the Judgment of 3 February 2006

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 2002/15

28 May 2002

The Democratic Republic of the Congo initiates proceedings against Rwanda citing massive human rights violations by Rwanda on Congolese territory - The Democratic Republic of the Congo requests the Court to indicate provisional measures as a matter of urgency

Available in:

English French

Press release 2002/18

5 July 2002

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Court to announce its ruling on Wednesday 10 July 2002 at 3 p.m.

Available in:

English French

Press release 2002/19

10 July 2002

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - The Court rejects the request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by the Congo, as well as the request of Rwanda that the case be removed from the List

Available in:

English French

Press release 2002/22

20 September 2002

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of pleadings concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application

Available in:

English French

Press release 2005/12

9 May 2005

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - The Court will hold public hearings from 4 to 8 July 2005

Available in:

English French

Press release 2005/13

22 June 2005

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - Schedule of public hearings to be held from 4 to 8 July 2005

Available in:

English French

Press release 2005/15

8 July 2005

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - Conclusion of the public hearings - Court ready to begin its deliberation

Available in:

English French

Press release 2006/3 (French version only)

26 January 2006

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - Jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the Application - Court to deliver its Judgment on Friday 3 February 2006 at 10 a.m. - The President of the Court will make a statement to the press immediately after the public sitting

Available in:

French

Press release 2006/4

3 February 2006

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda) - Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application - The Court finds that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 17 October 2000, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed an Application instituting proceedings against Belgium concerning a dispute over an international arrest warrant issued on 11 April 2000 by a Belgian examining judge against the acting Congolese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr. Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, seeking his detention and subsequent extradition to Belgium for alleged crimes constituting “grave violations of international humanitarian law”. The arrest warrant was transmitted to all States, including the DRC, which received it on 12 July 2000.

The DRC also filed a request for the indication of a provisional measure seeking “an order for the immediate discharge of the disputed arrest warrant”. Belgium, for its part, called for that request to be rejected and for the case to be removed from the List. In its Order made on 8 December 2000, the Court, rejecting Belgium’s request for the case to be removed from the List, stated that “the circumstances, as they [then] presented themselves to the Court, [were] not such as to require the exercise of its power, under Article 41 of the Statute, to indicate provisional measures”.

The Memorial of the DRC was filed within the prescribed time-limits. For its part, Belgium filed, within the prescribed time-limits, a Counter-Memorial addressing both issues of jurisdiction and admissibility and the merits.

In its submissions presented at the public hearings, the DRC requested the Court to adjudge and declare that Belgium had violated the rule of customary international law concerning the inviolability and immunity from criminal process of incumbent foreign ministers and that it should be required to recall and cancel that arrest warrant and provide reparation for the moral injury to the DRC. Belgium raised objections relating to jurisdiction, mootness and admissibility.

In its Judgment of 14 February 2002, the Court rejected the objections raised by Belgium and declared that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application of the DRC. With respect to the merits, the Court observed that, in the case, it was only questions of immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability of an incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs that it had to consider, on the basis, moreover, of customary international law.

The Court then observed that, in customary international law, the immunities accorded to Ministers for Foreign Affairs are not granted for their personal benefit, but to ensure the effective performance of their functions on behalf of their respective States. The Court held that the functions exercised by a Minister for Foreign Affairs were such that, throughout the duration of his or her office, a Minister for Foreign Affairs when abroad enjoyed full immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability. Inasmuch as the purpose of that immunity and inviolability was to prevent another State from hindering the Minister in the performance of his or her duties, no distinction could be drawn between acts performed by the latter in an “official” capacity and those claimed to have been performed in a “private capacity” or, for that matter, between acts performed before assuming office as Minister for Foreign Affairs and acts committed during the period of office. The Court then observed that, contrary to Belgium’s arguments, it had been unable to deduce from its examination of State practice that there existed under customary international law any form of exception to the rule according immunity from criminal jurisdiction and inviolability to incumbent Ministers for Foreign Affairs when they were suspected of having committed war crimes or crimes against humanity.

The Court further observed that the rules governing the jurisdiction of national courts must be carefully distinguished from those governing jurisdictional immunities. The immunities under customary international law, including those of Ministers for Foreign Affairs, remained opposable before the courts of a foreign State, even where those courts exercised an extended criminal jurisdiction on the basis of various international conventions on the prevention and punishment of certain serious crimes.

However, the Court emphasized that the immunity from jurisdiction enjoyed by incumbent Ministers for Foreign Affairs did not mean that they enjoyed impunity in respect of any crimes they might have committed, irrespective of their gravity. While jurisdictional immunity was procedural in nature, criminal responsibility was a question of substantive law. Jurisdictional immunity might well bar prosecution for a certain period or for certain offences ; it could not exonerate the person to whom it applied from all criminal responsibility. The Court then spelled out the circumstances in which the immunities enjoyed under international law by an incumbent or former Minister for Foreign Affairs did not represent a bar to criminal prosecution.

After examining the terms of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000, the Court noted that the issuance, as such, of the disputed arrest warrant represented an act by the Belgian judicial authorities intended to enable the arrest on Belgian territory of an incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs, on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity. It found that, given the nature and purpose of the warrant, its mere issuance constituted a violation of an obligation of Belgium towards the DRC, in that it had failed to respect the immunity which Mr. Yerodia enjoyed as incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs. The Court also declared that the international circulation of the disputed arrest warrant from June 2000 by the Belgian authorities constituted a violation of an obligation of Belgium towards the DRC, in that it had failed to respect the immunity of the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs. Finally, the Court considered that its findings constituted a form of satisfaction which would make good the moral injury complained of by the DRC. However, the Court also held that, in order to re-establish “the situation which would, in all probability have existed if [the illegal act] had not been committed”, Belgium must, by means of its own choosing, cancel the warrant in question and so inform the authorities to whom it had been circulated.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

17 October 2000

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the indication of a Provisional Measure (French version only)

17 October 2000

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

French

Memorial of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (French version only)

15 May 2001

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

French

Counter-Memorial of the Kingdom of Belgium

28 September 2001

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2000/32 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 20 November 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2000/33 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 21 November 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2000/34 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 22 November 2000, at 10.40 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2000/35 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 23 November 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, Vice-President Shi, Acting President, presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2001/5 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 15 October 2001, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume and Vice-President Shi presiding, successively

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2001/6 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 16 October 2001, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2001/8 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 17 October 2001, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2001/9 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 18 October 2001, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2001/10 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Friday 19 October 2001, at 9.30 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2001/11 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Friday 19 October 2001, at 5 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 8 December 2000

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Ranjeva (translation)

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge Parra-Aranguren

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Rezek (translation)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion by Judge ad hoc Bula-Bula (translation)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert (translation)

English French Bilingual

Order of 13 December 2000

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 14 March 2001

Extension of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 12 April 2001

Extension of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French

Order of 27 June 2001

Rejection of Preliminary Objections; extension of time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French

Judgments

Judgment of 14 February 2002

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of President Guillaume (English Original Text)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Oda

English French Bilingual

Declaration of Judge Ranjeva (translation)

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Koroma

English French Bilingual

Joint separate opinion of Judges Higgins, Kooijmans and Buergenthal

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Rezek (translation)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Al-Khasawneh

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Bula-Bula (translation)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert (English Original Text)

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2000/3

Summary of the Order of 8 December 2000

Available in:

English French

Summary 2002/1

Summary of the Judgment of 14 February 2002

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 2000/32

17 October 2000

The Democratic Republic of Congo institutes proceedings against Belgium concerning an international arrest warrant issued by a Belgian examining judge against the DRC's acting Minister for Foreign Affairs - The DRC seises the Court of a request for a provisional measure seeking to have the arrest warrant withdrawn forthwith

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/35

20 October 2000

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Request for the indication of provisional measure - Court to hear the Parties at public hearings to open on Monday 20 November 2000

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/39

5 December 2000

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Request for the indication of provisional measures - Court to announce its ruling on Friday 8 December 2000 at 10 a.m.

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/40

8 December 2000

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - The Court rejects Belgium's request that the case be removed from the List and finds that the circumstances, as they now present themselves, are not such as to require the indication of provisional measures

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/41

15 December 2000

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Fixing of time-limits for the filing of written pleadings

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/8

16 March 2001

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Extension of the time-limits fixed for the filing of written pleadings

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/11

17 April 2001

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - New extension of the time-limits fixed for the filing of written pleadings

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/17

29 June 2001

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - The Court rejects a request by Belgium seeking to derogate from the agreed procedure in the case, extends the time-limit for the filing of Belgium's Counter-Memorial and fixes 15 October 2001 as the date for the opening of the hearings

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/23

10 October 2001

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Programme of the public hearings which will open on Monday 15 October 2001

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/27 (French version only)

19 October 2001

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Conclusion of the public hearings - Court ready to consider its Judgment

Available in:

French

Press release 2002/2

7 February 2002

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - Court to deliver its Judgment on Thursday 14 February 2002 at 3 p.m.

Available in:

English French

Press release 2002/3

13 February 2002

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - President of the Court to deliver a statement to the media immediately after the reading of the Judgment on Thursday 14 February 2002

Available in:

English French

Press release 2002/4

14 February 2002

Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) - The Court finds that the issue and international circulation by Belgium of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 against Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi failed to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability which the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Congo enjoyed under international law; and that Belgium must cancel the arrest warrant

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda “for acts of armed aggression committed . . . in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”. In addition to the cessation of the alleged acts, Congo sought reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of the respective respondent States.

In its Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda, the DRC referred, as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction, to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the New York Convention of 10 December 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and, lastly, Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court. However, the Government of the DRC informed the Court on 15 January 2001 that it intended to discontinue the proceedings instituted against Burundi and Rwanda, stating that it reserved the right to invoke subsequently new grounds of jurisdiction of the Court. The two cases were therefore removed from the List on 30 January 2001.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

23 June 1999

Available in:

English French

Annexes to the Application instituting proceedings, Livre blanc (Volumes I and II)

23 June 1999

Available in:

English

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Republic of Burundi (French version only)

21 April 2000

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

French

Orders

Order of 21 October 1999

Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 19 October 2000

Extension of time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 30 January 2001

Removal from List

Procedure(s):Discontinuance

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Press releases

Press release 1999/34

23 June 1999

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - The Democratic Republic of Congo institutes proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda on account of "acts of armed aggression"

Available in:

English French

Press release 1999/45

25 October 1999

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - The Court fixes time-limits for the filing of written pleadings and decides that in two cases the proceedings shall first address questions of jurisdiction and admissibility

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/2

1 February 2001

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - The two cases are removed from the List at the request of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 14 April and 5 June 1972, respectively, the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany instituted proceedings against Iceland concerning a dispute over the proposed extension by Iceland, as from 1 September 1972, of the limits of its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction from a distance of 12 to a distance of 50 nautical miles. Iceland declared that the Court lacked jurisdiction, and declined to be represented in the proceedings or file pleadings. At the request of the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic, the Court in 1972 indicated, and in 1973 confirmed, provisional measures to the effect that Iceland should refrain from implementing, with respect to their vessels, the new regulations regarding the extension of the zone of its exclusive fishing rights, and that the annual catch of those vessels in the disputed area should be limited to certain maxima. In Judgments delivered on 2 February 1973, the Court found that it possessed jurisdiction ; and in Judgments on the merits of 25 July 1974, it found that the Icelandic regulations constituting a unilateral extension of exclusive fishing rights to a limit of 50 nautical miles were not opposable to either the United Kingdom or the Federal Republic, that Iceland was not entitled unilaterally to exclude their fishing vessels from the disputed area, and that the Parties were under mutual obligations to undertake negotiations in good faith for the equitable solution of their differences.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

5 June 1972

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

21 July 1972

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English

Memorial on Jurisdiction submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

13 October 1972

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English

Memorial on the Merits submitted by the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany

1 August 1973

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 1972 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, 2 and 17 August 1972, President Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan presiding

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1973 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Jurisdiction of the Court - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, 8 January and 2 February 1973, President Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Verbatim record 1974 (bilingual version)

Oral Arguments on the Merits of the dispute - Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 28 March, 2 April and 25 July 1974, President Lachs presiding

Available in:

Original Language

Orders

Order of 17 August 1972

Request for the indication of interim measures of protection

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Joint declaration of Vice-President Ammoun and Judges Forster and Jiménez de Aréchaga (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Padilla Nervo

English French Bilingual

Order of 18 August 1972

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Joint Dissenting Opinion by Judges Bengzon and Jiménez de Aréchaga

English French Bilingual

Order of 15 February 1973

Fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French

Order of 12 July 1973

Continuance of interim measures of protection

Procedure(s):Provisional measures

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Ignacio-Pinto (as appended immediately after the order)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gros (translation)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Petrén (translation)

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 2 February 1973

Jurisdiction of the Court

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French

Declaration of Sir Myhammad Zufrulla Khan, President (as appended immediately after the judgment)

English French Bilingual

Separate opinion of Judge Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice

English French Bilingual

Dissenting opinion of Judge Padilla Nervo

English French Bilingual

Judgment of 25 July 1974

Merits

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Declaration of President Lachs (as appended immediately after the judgment)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Dillard (as appended immediately after the judgment)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Ignacio-Pinto (as appended immediately after the judgment)

English French Bilingual

Declaration by Judge Nagendra Singh (as appended immediately after the judgment)

English French Bilingual

Joint Separate Opinion by Judges Forster, Bengzon, Jiménez de Aréchaga, Nagendra Singh and Ruda

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge de Castro (translation)

English French Bilingual

Separate Opinion by Judge Waldock

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Gros (translation)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Petren (translation)

English French Bilingual

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Onyeama

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 1972/2

Summary of the Order of 17 August 1972

Available in:

English French

Summary 1973/1

Summary of the Judgment of 2 February 1973

Available in:

English French

Summary 1973/4

Summary of the Order of 12 July 1973

Available in:

English French

Summary 1974/2

Summary of the Judgment of 25 July 1974

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 1972/11 (French version only)

21 July 1972

Compétence en matière de pêcheries (République fédérale d'Allemagne c. Islande) - La République fédérale d'Allemagne demande des mesures conservatoires (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1972/12 (French version only)

31 July 1972

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Composition des délégations (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1972/13 (French version only)

4 August 1972

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Audiences du 1er et 2 août 1972 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1972/14 (French version only)

11 August 1972

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - L'arrêt sera rendu le 17 août 1972 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1972/16 (French version only)

17 August 1972

La Cour internationale de Justice indique des mesures conservatoires dans les affaires de la Compétence en matière de pêcheries (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1972/18 (French version only)

22 August 1972

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Ordonnances du 18 août 1972 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1972/20 (French version only)

9 December 1972

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Les audiences en vue d'entendre les plaidoiries sur la question de la compétence de la Cour auront lieu les 5 et 8 janvier 1973 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1973/1 (French version only)

4 January 1973

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Composition des délégations (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1973/2 (French version only)

9 January 1973

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Audiences du 5 et 8 janvier 1973 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1973/3 (French version only)

30 January 1973

Compétence en matière de pêcheries (Royaume-Uni c. Islande) (République fédérale d'Allemagne c. Islande) - Les arrêts sur la compétence seront rendus le 2 février 1973 à 10 heures (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1973/5 (French version only)

2 February 1973

La Cour internationale de Justice se déclare compétente dans l'affaire de la Compétence en matière de pêcheries (République fédérale d'Allemagne c. Islande) (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1973/7 (French version only)

15 February 1973

Compétence en matière de pêcheries (Royaume-Uni c. Islande) (République fédérale d'Allemagne c. Islande) - Date d'expiration des délais pour la procédure écrite sur le fond (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1973/27 (French version only)

12 July 1973

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Maintien en vigueur des mesures conservatoires (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1974/1 (French version only)

15 March 1974

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Date des audiences en vue d'entendre les plaidoiries sur le fond (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1974/3 (French version only)

29 March 1974

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - Audiences des 25, 28 et 29 mars 1974 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1974/8 (French version only)

18 July 1974

Compétence en matière de pêcheries - La Cour rendra ses arrêts sur le fond le jeudi 25 juillet 1974 (French version only)

Available in:

French

Press release 1974/10 (French version only)

25 July 1974

Compétence en matière de pêcheries (République fédérale d'Allemagne c. Islande) - La Cour rend son arrêt sur le fond du différend (French version only)

Available in:

French

Correspondence

14 April 1972

Correspondence

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

On 21 September 1999, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan filed an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of India in respect of a dispute concerning the destruction, on 10 August 1999, of a Pakistani aircraft. By letter of 2 November 1999, the Agent of India notified the Court that his Government wished to submit preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court, which were set out in an appended note. On 19 November 1999, the Court decided that the written pleadings would first address the question of the jurisdiction of the Court and fixed time-limits for the filing of the Memorial of Pakistan and the Counter-Memorial of India, which were duly filed within the time-limits so prescribed. Public hearings on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court were held from 3 to 6 April 2000.

In its Judgment of 21 June 2000, the Court noted that, to establish the jurisdiction of the Court, Pakistan had relied on Article 17 of the General Act for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at Geneva on 26 September 1928, on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the Parties and on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute. It considered those bases of jurisdiction in turn.

The Court pointed out first that, on 21 May 1931, British India had acceded to the General Act of 1928. It observed that India and Pakistan had held lengthy discussions on the question whether the General Act had survived the dissolution of the League of Nations and whether, if so, the two States had become parties to that Act on their accession to independence. Referring to a communication addressed to the United Nations Secretary-General of 18 September 1974, in which the Indian Government indicated that, since India’s accession to independence in 1947, they had “never regarded themselves as bound by the General Act of 1928 . . . whether by succession or otherwise”, the Court concluded that India could not be regarded as party to the said Act on the date the Application had been filed by Pakistan and that the Convention did not constitute a basis of jurisdiction. The Court then considered the declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the two States. It noted that India’s declaration contained a reservation under which “disputes with the government of any State which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth of Nations” was barred from its jurisdiction. The Court recalled that its jurisdiction only existed within the limits within which it had been accepted and that the right of States to attach reservations to their declarations was a recognized practice. Consequently, Pakistan’s arguments to the effect that India’s reservation was “extra-statutory” or was obsolete could not be upheld. Pakistan being a member of the Commonwealth, the Court concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the Application on the basis of the declarations made by the two States.

Considering, thirdly, the final basis of jurisdiction relied on by Pakistan, namely Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, according to which “the jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations”, the Court indicated that neither the United Nations Charter nor Article 1 of the Simla Accord of 2 July 1972 between the Parties conferred jurisdiction upon it to deal with the dispute between them.

Lastly, the Court explained that there was “a fundamental distinction between the acceptance by a State of the Court’s jurisdiction and the compatibility of particular acts with international law” and that “the Court’s lack of jurisdiction [did] not relieve States of their obligation to settle their disputes by peaceful means”.

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

21 September 1999

Available in:

English French

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Government of Pakistan on Jurisdiction

7 January 2000

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English

Counter-Memorial of the Government of India - Preliminary Objections to the Jurisdiction of the Court

28 February 2000

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English

Oral proceedings

Verbatim record 2000/1 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Monday 3 April 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2000/2 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Tuesday 4 April 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2000/3 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Wednesday 5 April 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume and Vice-President Shi presiding successively

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Verbatim record 2000/4 (bilingual version)

Public sitting held on Thursday 6 April 2000, at 10 a.m., at the Peace Palace, President Guillaume presiding

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

Original Language

Translation

(bilingual version) Translation

Orders

Order of 19 November 1999

Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Judgments

Judgment of 21 June 2000

Jurisdiction of the Court

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2000/1

Summary of the Judgment of 21 June 2000

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 1999/43

22 September 1999

Pakistan institutes proceedings against India concerning the shooting down of a Pakistani aircraft

Available in:

English French

Press release 1999/48

24 November 1999

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India) - The Court decides that the question of its Jurisdiction to entertain the Application shall be addressed first and fixes time-limits for the written pleadings thereon

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/6

24 February 2000

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India) - The Court decides that the question of its jurisdiction to entertain the Application shall be addressed first and fixes time-limits for the written pleadings thereon

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/11

30 March 2000

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India) - Hearings on the issue of the Court's jurisdiction to open on Monday 3 April 2000 at 10 a.m.

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/12

6 April 2000

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India) - Conclusion of the hearings on the issue of the jurisdiction of the Court - The Court is ready to consider its Judgment

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/17

15 June 2000

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India) - Court to deliver its Judgment on jurisdiction on Wednesday 21 June 2000

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/19

21 June 2000

Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India) - The Court declares that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute

Available in:

English French

OVERVIEW OF THE CASE

This overview is provided for information only and in no way involves the responsibility of the Court.

Institution of proceedings

Application instituting proceedings

23 June 1999

Available in:

English French

Annexes to the Application instituting proceedings, Livre blanc (Volumes I and II)

23 June 1999

Available in:

English

Written proceedings

Memorial of the Republic of Rwanda

21 April 2000

Procedure(s):Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility

Available in:

English

Orders

Order of 21 October 1999

Decision regarding content of written proceedings; fixing of time-limits: Memorial and Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 19 October 2000

Extension of time-limit: Counter-Memorial

Available in:

English French Bilingual

Order of 30 January 2001

Removal from List

Procedure(s):Discontinuance

Available in:

English French

Summaries of Judgments and Orders

Summary 2001/1

Summary of the Order of 30 January 2001

Available in:

English French

Press releases

Press release 1999/34

23 June 1999

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) - The Democratic Republic of Congo institutes proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda on account of "acts of armed aggression"

Available in:

English French

Press release 1999/45

25 October 1999

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) - The Court fixes time-limits for the filing of written pleadings and decides that in two cases the proceedings shall first address questions of jurisdiction and admissibility

Available in:

English French

Press release 2000/34

20 October 2000

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Burundi) - Extension of the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorials of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Available in:

English French

Press release 2001/2

1 February 2001

Armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) - The two cases are removed from the List at the request of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

Available in:

English French

Subscribe to Questions of jurisdiction and/or admissibility