1
WRITTEN REPLY OF THE REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA TO THE QUESTIONS PUT BY JUDGES CLEVELAND, TLADI, AURESCU AND CHARLESWORTH
Question from Judge Cleveland
1.
Judge Cleveland put the following question to the participants at the end of the oral proceedings:
OBLIGATIONS OF STATES IN RESPECT OF CLIMATE CHANGE
(REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION)
THE AFRICAN UNION’S
ANSWERS TO THE
QUESTIONS FROM THE
COURT
20 December 2024
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I – Preliminary remarks .................................................................................................... 3
II – The African Union’s Answers to the Questions ....................................................... 4
A. The First Question ................................................................................................................... 4
1
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE IN THE GAZA STRIP (SOUTH AFRICA v. ISRAEL)
SOUTH AFRICA’S COMMENTS
ON THE REPLY BY ISRAEL TO THE QUESTION POSED BY JUDGE NOLTE AT THE END
OF THE ORAL HEARINGS HELD ON 17 AND 18 MAY 2024
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On 10 May 2024, South Africa sought the modification and indication of provisional measures
pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, and Articles 75 and 76 of the Rules of the Court. The
1
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
Response of the State of Israel to the question posed by Judge Nolte at the oral
hearing of 17 May 2024 on South Africa’s fourth request for provisional measures
18 May 2024
“Can Israel provide information about the existing humanitarian conditions in the
designated evacuation zones, in particular Al-Mawasi, and how it would ensure safe
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC KEITH 1. I have two main reasons for agreeing with the rejection by the Court of Azerbaijan’s requested measures. 2. While it is the case that over 30 civilians in the areas recovered by Azerbaijan in the 44-day war have been killed and over 80 civilians injured, I am unable to see plausible evidence that these were the effects, let alone the purpose, of racially discriminatory acts in terms of Article 1 of CERD. By their very nature, landmines are indiscriminate in their effects. 3.
JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES CHARLESWORTH AND BRANT 1. We join the Court in rejecting Azerbaijan’s Request for provisional measures. Today (Order, para. 22), the Court recalls its reasoning in its Order of 7 December 2021. The Court had stated there that it “does not consider that CERD plausibly imposes any obligation on Armenia to take measures to enable Azerbaijan to undertake demining or to cease and desist from planting landmines”1 . Armenia relied on this sentence in the present proceedings to resist Azerbaijan’s Request. 2. This sentence catches the eye.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE Judge Sebutinde agrees that Azerbaijan’s present request should be rejected in toto She also agrees with the reasoning and conclusion of the Court in relation to Azerbaijan’s allegations relating to the laying of landmines However, she disagrees that the Court’s reasoning in relation to the landmines applies equally to the booby traps Azerbaijan’s assertion regarding the presence of booby traps in civilian areas is based on new facts pursuant to Article 75, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court The reason why the Court should reject the Applicant’s reques
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC KEITH
1. As my vote indicates, I agree with the rejection by the Court of the first and third measures requested by Armenia.
2. I write to explain my negative vote on the measure that the Court does indicate. In support of that vote, I depend on four reasons.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF
Objection to continued misuse of compromissory clause of CERD — Request has nothing to do with CERD — It is about humanitarian law in a situation of armed conflict — It is high time the Court put an end to such misuse — CERD and its compromissory clause to be safeguarded from extraneous claims.
1. I voted against the provisional measure indicated by the Court in paragraph 67 of the Order because of the reference to “obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination”.
Summary of DHI’s Scientific Findings
Regarding
the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters
of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)
Written Statement by DHI
10-01-2022
1
Summary of DHI’s Scientific Findings regarding the Dispute over
the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala
(Chile v. Bolivia)
Written Statement by DHI
DHI 10-01-2022
This document has been requested by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Dispute over the Status