PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS IN THE NEW RULES OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

in The Italian Yearbook of International Law Online
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

References

1 As envisaged in the Preamble, the new Rules came into force on I September 1972. As from that date they were to " replace the Rules adopted by the Court on 6 May 1946, save in respect of any case submitted to the Court before i September 1972, or any phase of such a case, which shall continue to be governed by the Rules in force before that date ". Text of the Rules in 7.C.., Acts and Documents concerning the Organixation of the Court, No. 2 (1972); and also in I.L.M. (1972), p. 899 ff. and in A.J.LL. (1973), p 195 ff. On the amendments of 1972, see Dupuy, La reforme du Reglement de la Cour internationale de justice, in Annuaire Francis (1972), p. 265 ff.; JIMÉNEZ DE ARTCHAGA, The Amend- ments to the Rules of Procedure of the International Court of Justice, in A.J.LL. (1973), p. i ff.; ROSENNE, The r972 Revision of the Rules of the International Court of Justice, in Israel Law Review (1973), p. 197 ff.; GUYOMAR, La revision du Reglement de la Cour internationale de Justice, in R.G.D.I.P. (1973), p. 751 ff.; HAMBRO, Quelques observations stir la revision du Reglement de la Cour internationale de Justice, in Melanges offers à Charles Rousseau. La Communaute Internationale, Paris, 1974, p. 125 ff.; PETRÉN, Quelques reflexions sur la revision du Reglement de la Cour issternationale de Justice, ibidem, p. 187 ff.; POLANEN, The United Nations, z8th Session. The International Court of Justice, in Har- vard International Law Journal (1974), p. 460 ff.; SPERDUTI, Le eccexioni tratte dalla noxione di dominio riservato guali eccezioni preliminari di merito, in Rivista (1974), p. 649 ff. For precedents to Art. 67, GUYOMAR, Commentaire du Reglement de la Cour internationale de Justice. Interpretation et pratique, Paris, 1973, p. 357 ff. 2 A view to this effect was already expressed when the previous Rules were in force; see, in particular, MORELLI, dissenting opinion annexed to the Court's judgment of July 24,

1964, on the case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (preliminary objections), I.C.J. Reports 1964, p. 85 ff., esp. p. 97 ff. (published too with the title Trasferimento della giurisdixione della Corte perma- nente. Eccezioni preliminari. " Desistement " Protexione diplomatica e quality. Ricorsi in- terni, in Nuovi studi sul processo internationale, Milano, 1972, p. 51 ff.); In., Question preliminari nel processo internationale, in Rivista (1971), p. 5 ff. and in Nuovi studi, cit., p. 147 ff.; LAMBERTI ZANARDI, Il procedimento sulle eccezioni preliminari nel processo da- vanti alla Corte internazionale di giustizia, in Rivista (1965), p. 537 ff., esp. p. 548 ff.; DE VISSCHER Ch., Aspects recents du droit procedural de la Cour internationale de Justice, Paris, 1966, p. 99 ff.; MABROUK, Les exceptions de procedure devant les juridictions inter- nationales, Paris, 1966, p. 8 ff.; ABI-SAAB, Les exceptions preliminaires darrs la procedure de la Cour internationale, Paris, 1967, pp. 29 ff. and 179 ff. The view adopted here cor. responds, substantially, to that upheld by judge ANZILOTTI, diss. op. annexed to the Per- manent Court of International Justice's judgment of April 4, 1939, on the case concerning the Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (preliminary objection), P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 77, p. 95: "A preliminary objection is an objection of which the purpose and the effect are to prevent the continuance of proceedings before the Court, without prejudging the question whether the right claimed by the Applicant exists or not "; in this sense see also GUGGLNHEIM, Die vorgdngigen prozessualen Einrederz im Verfahren von dem Internatio- nalen Gerichtshof, in Z.A.O.R.V. (1958), p. 134 ff., esp. p. 136. For the concept of preliminary objection see also ROSENNE, The Law and Practice of the International Court, Leyden, 1965, I, p. 442 ff.; SHIHATA, The Power of the International Court to determine, its own jurisdiction. Competence de la competence, The Hague, 1965, p. 107 ff.; GAJA, L'esaurimento dei ricorsi interni nel diritto internazionale, Milano, 1967, p. 209 ff.; GRISEL, Les exceptions d'incompétence et d'irrecevabilité dans la procedure de la Cour internationale de Justice, Berne, 1968, pp. 52 ff. and 164 ff.; SPERDUTI, La recevabilite des exceptions preliminaires de fond dans le proces international, in Rivista (1970), p. 461 ff. and in René Cassin Amicorum Discipulorumque Liber, vol. III, Paris, 1971, p. 121 ff. Further bibliography in the quoted studies of Lamberti Zanardi, Mabrouk, Abi-Saab, Gaja and Grisel. 3 To be able to examine and pronounce upon the merits of the dispute it is, in fact, necessary for the Court to have first established its own jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application. 4 For similar remarks regarding the old Rules, MORELLI, diss. op. annexed to the Court's judgment of July 24, 1964, cit., p. 99 f.; ID., Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 16 f.; LAMBERTI

ZANARDI, Op. cit., p. 549; for an opposite view, GAJA, op. cit., p. 209 ff.; SPERDUTI, Le eccexioni tratte dalla nozione di dominio riservato, cit., p. 651 f. 5 For the procedural nature of preliminary objections, as opposed to the merits, see for all MORELLI, diss. op. annexed to the Court's judgment of July 24, 1964, cit., p. 98 ff.; ID., Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 7 ff. For an opposite view, SPERDUTI, La recevabilite des exceptions preliminaires de fond, cit., p. 461 ff.; ID., Le eccezioni tratte dalla nozione di dominio riservato, cit., p. 650 ff.; PETREN, op. cit., p. 195. On this question see, lastly, MORELLI, Eccezioni preliminari di merito?, in Rivista (1975), p. 5 ff. In our opinion the expression " other objection the decision upon which is requested before any further proceedings on the merits " represents a residual category of preliminary objections which cannot be easily included into the two typical categories of objections to the Court's jurisdiction and to the admissibility of the application; (as pointed out by RosENNE, The 1972 Revision, cit., p. 239, " neither jurisprudence nor doctrine displays any certainty or unanimity over the categorization of preliminary objections "). For instance, in the Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco case, the defendant State (the United States) filed a preliminary objection in order to obtain a decision on " whether the party or parties in whose name and on whose behalf the present proceedings have been instituted consist of (a) The French Republic in its own right and capacity, (b) The French Republic as Protector of Morocco on behalf of the State of Morocco, or (c) The French Republic in its own right and capacity and as Protector of Morocco on behalf of the State of Morocco (I.C.J. Pleadings, Oral arguments, Documents. Case con- cerning rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, vol. I, p. 235 ff.). Once the proceedings on the merits had been suspended by means of an order of June 25, 1951, of the Court's Vice-President (I.C.J. Reports r95r, p. 86 f.), the same Court invited France to clarify the capacity in which she was proceeding (I.C.J. Pleadings, vol. II, p. 431 f.). The French Government's reply led the United States to withdraw the objection and the Court - with an order of October 31, i95r - placed on record the dis- continuance by the Government of the United States as well as the lack of opposition on the part of France and recordered that proceedings on the merits be resumed (I.C.J. Reports I95I, p. 109 ff.). 6 AGO, La regola del previo esaurimento dei ricorsi interni in tema di responsabilite internazionale, in Arcbivio di diritto pubblico (1938), p. 181 ff.; ID., in Annuaire I.D.I. (1954-1), p. 34 ff.; HUDSON, diss. op. annexed to the judgment of the Permanent Court of International Justice of February 28, 1939, on the Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway case, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 76, p. 42 ff., esp. p. 47; ID., International Tribunal. Past and Future, Washington, 1944, p. 85; MoRELLI, Noxioni di diritto internazionale, 7th ed., Padova, 1967, P. 350; ID., diss. op. annexed to the Court's judgment of July 24, 1964, cit., p. 114 f.;

PAU, Responsabilita internazionale dello Stato per atti di giurisdizione, Cagliari, 1950, p. 45 ff.; BARILE, I diritti assoluti �aell'ordinamento internazionale, Milano, 1951, p. 327 ff.; GIULIANO, Diritto internazionale, I, La societd internazionale e il diritto, Milano, 1974, p. 593; LAUTERPACHT, The Development of International Law by the International Court, London, 1958, p. 350; MONACO, Manuale di diritto internazionale pubblico, 2nd ed., Torino, 1971, p. 569 ff.; GAJA, op cit., p. 28 ff. (who reaches a different conclusion on the possibility of filing the objection of non-exhaustion of local remedies as a preliminary objection); GRISEL, op. cit., p. 145 ff.; JIMENEZ DE ARFCHAGA, op. cit., p. 17. On the local remedies rule see also the Authors quoted by Gaja, by HAESLER, The Exhaustion of Local Remedies on The Case Law of International Courts and Tribunals, Leyden, 1968, and CHAPPEZ, La r�gle de 1'6puisement des voies de recours internes, Paris. 1972. 7 For this opinion, while the 1946 Rules were in force, see, for all, MoRELLI, diss. op. annexed to the Court's judgment of July 24, 1964, cit., p. 100. This Author, in his study Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 18, specifies that the declaration of inadmissibility does not refer to the objection itself, but to the means instituting preliminary proceedings. 8 In fact, as noted by MORELLI, separate opinion annexed to the Court's judgment of July 18, 1966, on the South West Africa cases (second phase), I.C.J. Reports 1966, p. 59 (published with the title Configurazione dell'azione e decisione preliminare, in Nuovi studi, cit., p. 101 ff.), " a judgment on preliminary objections, particularly a judgment which ... dismisses the preliminary objections submitted by a party, is final and binding in the further proceedings "; the same view in SCHWARZENBERGER, A Manual of International Law, 5th ed., London, 1967, p. 254 f. It must be pointed out, in support of this line, that preliminary objections are decided in the form of a judgment (Art 67 para. 7 of the Rules) and that " the judgment is final and without appeal " (Art. 60 of the Statute of the Court).

9 Para. 5 below. lo In the judgment of July 24, 1964, cit., the Court stated: " Respondents are given broad powers by this provision (Article 62), since merely by labelling and filing a plea as a preliminary objection they automatically bring about the suspension of the proceedings on the merits (paragraph 3 of Article Gz) " .C.J. Reports r964, p. 43). See also the Court's judgment of March 21, 1959, on the Interhandel case (preliminary objections), I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 20. As to doctrine see LAMBERTI ZANARDI, Op. cit., p. 539; ROSENNE, The Law and Practice, cit., p. 454 f.; ABI-SAAB, op. cit., p. 31; PETREN, op. cit., p. 195. 11 MORELLI, Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 17.

12 Moreover, it must be noted that the 1946 Rules provided that a preliminary objection might be filed "by a party" (Art. 62 para. s whereas Art. 67 para. i of the new Rules expressly states that such an objection may be filed not only " by the Respondent ", but also " by a party other than the Respondent ". This latter provision confirms the inter- pretation according to which - when the old Rules were in force - a preliminary objection might be filed by the Applicant or by an intervening party (under Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute), as well as in proceedings instituted by special agreement. Cf. Dupuy, op. cit., p. 277; JIMENEZ DE ARECHAGA, Op. cit., p. 19 f.; ROSENNE, The r97� Revision, cit., p. 240 f.; GUYOMAR, Commentaire, cit., pp. 361, 365-367 and 370 f.; ID., La revision, cit., p. 766; as to the doctrine previous to the 1972 Rules, see ScERNI, La procedure de la Cour permanente de justice internationale, in R.A.D.I. (1938-III), p. 565 ff., esp. p. 641 f.; MERIGGI, Le eccezioni preliminari nel processo davanti alla Corte permanente di Giustizia internazionale, in Archivio giuridico "Filippo Serafini ", CXXII (1939), p. 3 ff., esp. p. 14 ff.; SALVIOLI, Problemes de procedure dans la jurisprudence interhationale, in R.A.D.I. (1957-1), p. 557 ff., esp. p. 611 ff.; Bos, Les conditions du proces en droit international public, (Bibliotheca Visseriana, XIX), Leyden, 1957, p. 45; ROSENNE, The Law and Practice, cit., p. 451 f. (according to whom, however, the question whether an intervening party might raise a preliminary objection was to be regarded as an open one); LAMBERTI ZANARDI, op. cit., p. 542 f.; MABROUK, op. cit., pp. 179 ff. and 187 ff.; IWANEJKO, The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: the Plea to the Admissibility, in The Polish Yearbook of International Law (1966/67), p. 164 ff., esp. p. 166; ABI-SAAB, op. cit., p. 19 ff.; GRISEL, op. cit., pp. 23 f. and 39 f.; MoRELLI, Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 18 ff. The two Courts stated that a preliminary objection might be filed in proceedings instituted by special agreement (judgment of the Permanent Court of November 6, 1937, on the Borchgrave case preliminary objections, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 72, p. 158 ff.) and by the Applicant (judgment of the International Court of Justice of June 15, 1954, on the case of the Monetary Gold removed from Rome in 1943, preliminary question, I.C.J. Reports 1954, p.i8 ff., at p. 29 ff,.). '3 Solely to be noted is that, after stating (in exactly the same way as Art. 62 para. 2 of the old Rules) that " the preliminary objection shall set out the facts and the law on which the objection is based, the submissions and a list of the documents in support ", Art. 67 para. 2 requests that " copies of these documents shall be attached "; the provision of the 1946 Rules, on the other hand, read: " these documents shall be attached ". The innova- tion seems to fulfil the intention of simplifying the proceedings before the Court also in order to reduce costs; an intention resulting from various innovations introduced by the present Rules, for which see JIMENEZ DE ARTCHAGA, op. cit., p. 5 ff.

14 On the frequent use of preliminary objections as a dilatory means, see DE VISSCHER Ch., Theories et realites en droit international public, 4th ed., Paris, 1970, p. 398; ROSENNE, The Law and Practice, cit., p. 451; Z,AMBERTI ZANARDI, Op. cit., p. 538; Dupuy, Op. cit., p. 277. 15 According to ROSENNE, The 1972 Revision, cit., p. 242, " although paragraph (6) only refers to the hearing on objections to the jurisdiction, it would seem that the new rules on oral proceedings, particularly Article 57, would enable the Court to act to similar effect in hearings on other types of objections. Here .. only experience will enable a viable assessment to be made of the feasibility of the new approach " 16 Cf. JIMFNEZ DE ARFCHAGA, Op. cit., p. 12; GUYOMAR, Commentaire, cit., p. 371; ID., La revision, cit., p. 765 f.

17 See the orders of August 18, 1972, relating to the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases, I.C.J. Reports 1972, pp. i8i ff. and 188 ff., and those of June 22, 1973, on Nuclear Tests cases (request for the indication of interim measures of protection), LC.J. Reports �973' PP. zog f. and 142. The opinion that it was " impossible to consider the letter of the Icelandic Foreign Minister as constituting a preliminary objection " was upheld by judges Bengzon and Jimenez de Arechaga in the joint dissenting opinion annexed to the orders of August 18, 1972 {I.CJ. Reports 1972, pp. 184 f. and 191 f.); this opinion, however, is criticized by EISEMANN, Les e/fets de la non comparution devant la Cour internationale de Justice, in Annuaire Français (1973), p. 351 ff., at p. 368 ff.; (it must be remembered that the new Rules were not applicable to the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases: these had been sub- mitted to the Court by the United Kingdom and the Federal Republic of Germany with the applications of April 14, and June 5, 1972, respectively; that is, before the new Rules had entered into force - September 1, 1972 -). On the meaning of the orders of August 18, 1972, see FAVOREU, Les ordonnances des I7 et T8 aout I972 dans l'affaire de la comp6- tence en matiere de pecheries (Royaume-Uni c/Islande, Allemagne Fédérale c/Islande): Contri- bution au droit procedural de La Cour en matiere de mesures conservatoires, exceptions pre- liminaires et competence en cas de defaut, in Annuaire Franglais (1972), p. 291 ff., esp. p. 315 ff.; GUYOMAR, La revision, cit., p. 768 f.; GoY, La nouvelle affairs des pecheries islandaises. La procedure devant la Cour, in Clunet (r97q.), p. 279 ff., esp. p. 303. 18 Op. cit., pp. 12 f. and 17; for a similar view Dupuy, op. cit., p. 276; GUYOMAR, La revision, cit., p. 766 f.

's The present Rules, in fact, no longer allow joining the objection to the merits, which constituted a partially discretionary decision on the part of the Court. It must also be noted that the view under consideration does not seem in line with the aim intended by Art. 67, of avoiding the same questions being discussed twice: once in preliminary proceedings and again in those on the merits. 20 Op. cit., p. 13. 21 permanent Court of International Justice's orders of February 4, 1933, on the case concerning the Administration of the Prince von Pless (preliminary objection), P.C.I.]., Series A/B, No. 52, p. 14; May 23, 1936, on the Pajzs, Csaley Esterhazy case (prelimi- nary objection), P.C.I.]., Series A/B, No. 66, p. 9; and June 30, 1938, on the Pane- vezys-Saldutiskis Railway case (preliminary objections), P. C. 1. J., Series A/B, No. 75, p. 55 f.; International Court of Justice's judgments of November 26, 1957, on the case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (preliminary objections), LC.J. Reports 1957, p. 151 f., and July 24, 1964, on the case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Applicatiova: 1962) (preliminary objections), I. C.J. Reports 1964, p. q.6. On the need for full information as a reason for joining the objection to the merits, see LAUTERPACHT, Op. cit., p. 113 f.; ROSENNE, The Law and Practice, cit., p. 464 f.; SHIHATA, Op. cit., (7. 113 ff.; MABROUK, op. cit., p. 284 ff.; ABI-SAAB, Op. cit., p. 195 f.; GRISEL, Op. cit., p. 177 ff.; LANG, La jonction au fond des exceptions prelimihaires devant la C.P.J.1. et la C.I.]., in Clunet (1968), p. 5 ff., esp. p. 10 ff.; MIAJA DE LA MUELA, La cuestidn del " ius standi " del Gobierno belga en la Sentencia de 5 de f ebrero de 1970, in R. Esp. D.I. (1970), p. 306 ff., esp. p. 326 ff.; MORELLI, Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 13. 22 The Court seems to act in the direction specifies here in its judgments of February 2, 1973, on the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases (jurisdiction of the Court), 1. c.]. Reports 1973, p. 3 ff., esp. p. 18 ff., and p. 49 ff., esp. p. 62 ff. In these

cases United Kingdom and Germany's applications against Iceland were based on two compromissory clauses contained in the exchanges of notes of March 11, 1961 (United Kingdom-Iceland) and of July 19, 1961 (Federal Republic of Germany-Iceland). Ice- land had stated in a letter of March 29, 1972, to the Court that the Court did not have jurisdiction, among other things, the termination of the above-mentioned exchanges of notes having been brought about by a change of circumstances. The Court con- sidered such a question as pertaining to the merits and consequently confined itself to stating that a change of circumstances, if any, would not have justified termination of the compromissory clauses. On these cases, in the present connection, see FAVOREU, Les arrets du 2 fevrier 1973. L'affaire de la competence en matiere de pecheries, (Royaurrre- Uni c/Islande, Allemagne federale c/Islande), in Annuaire Prançais (1973), p. 272 ff., esp. p. 283 ff.; BRIGGS, Unilateral Denunciation of Treaties: The Vienna Convention and the International Court of Justice, in A.J.I.L. (1974), p. 51 ff., esp. p. 64 fE.; MARTIN, L'affaire de la competence en matiere de pecheries: les arr6ts de la Cour internationale de justice due 2 février l�73, in R.G.D.I.P. (1974), p. 435 ff., esp. P. 453 ff. See also HAMBRO, op. cit., p. 133. z3 Cf. Court's order of September 28, 1956, on the case of Certain Norwegian Loans, LC.J. Reports 1956, p. 73 fF.; see also IWANEJKO, op. cit., p. 176 f.; GRISEL, op. cit., p. 174 f.; LANG, Op. cit., p. 24 f�.; Dupuy, op. cit., p. 277; Jimenez DE ARECHAGA, Op. cit., p. 20 f.; ROSENNE, The 1972 Revision, cit., p. 245; GUYOMAR, La revision, cit., p. 773. z4 Such a provision, which is the same in the 1946 Rules and in the present ones, reads: " The rules contained in Sections i, 2 and 4 of this Heading shall not preclude the adoption by the Court of particular modifications or additions proposed jointly by the parties and considered by the Court to be appropriate to the case and in the circumstances ".

zs In fact Art. 62 para. 5 of the 1946 Rules in no way indicated the necessary con- ditions tor joining the objection to the merits. For the discretionary nature of the join- der of the objection to the merits, recently, PETREN, op. cit., p. 197. zs Permanent Court of International Justice's orders of May 23, 1936, on the Pajzs, Cs�ky, Esterhazy case (preliminary objection), P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 66, p. 9; June 27, 1936, on the Losinger & Co. case (preliminary objection), P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 67, p. 23 f.; June 30, 1938, on the Panevezys - Saldutiskis Railway case (preliminary ob- jections), P. C. 1. J., Series A/B, No. 75, p. 55 f.; and International Court of Justice's judgments of November 26, 1957, on the case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (preliminary objections), 1. C. J. Reports r957, pp. 150 and 152, and July 24, 1964, on the case concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: T962) (preliminary objections), 1. C. J. Reports 1964, p. 45 f. See LAUTERPACHT, Op. cit., p. 113 ff.; FITZMAURICE, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 195T-4: Questions of Jurisdiction, Competence and Procedure, in B.Y.I.L. (I958), p. I ff., esp. p. 24 f.; ROSENNE, The Law and Practice, cit., p. 464; LAMBERTI ZANARDI, Op. cit., p. 557; SHIHATA, op. cit., p. 115 f.; DE VISSCHER, Aspects recents, cit., p. 106 ff.; MABROUK, op. cit., p. 86 ff.; IWANEJKO, op. cit., p. 177 ff.; ABI-SAAB, Op. Cit., p. 194 ff.; GRISEL, Op. cit., p. 175 ff.; LANG, Op. cit., p. 15 ff.; MIAJA DE LA MUELA, Op. cit., p. 326 ff.; MORELLI, Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 13 f.; GUYOMAR, Commentaire, cit., p. 369 f. As we have seen (at note 21), in other cases the Court joined preliminary objections to the merits in order to attain more complete information. z7 MORELLI, sep. op. annexed to the Court's judgment of December 2, 1963, on the case concerning the Northern Cameroons (preliminary objections), LC.J. Reports 1963, p. 131 ff., esp. p. 149 (published too with the title Ancora della controversia come condi- zione di ricevibilita della domanda. Giurisdizione e diritto subiettivo sostanziale, in Nuovi studi, cit., p. I ff.); ID., Questioni preliminari, cit., p. 13 f.; LAMBERTI ZANARDI, Op. cit., PP. 553 f., 557 and 563; SCHWARZENBERGER, op. cit., p. 255.

28 The Court itself, in its judgment of July 24, 1964, cit., stated: " The object of a preliminary objection is to avoid not merely a decision on, but even any discussion of the merits " (I.C.f. Reports 1964, p. 44). 29 Cf. JIMFNEZ DE ARECHAGA, Op. cit., p. 14. 3o For the statement that " the Court may order the joinder of preliminary objections to the merits, whenever the interests of the good administration of justice require it ", see the Permanent Court's order of June 30, 1938, on the Panevexys-Saldz�tiskis Railway case (preliminary objections), P.C.LJ., Series A/B, No. 75, p. 56.

31 As we have seen, the other need - that of acquiring better information on points relevant to a decision on the objection - may be satisfied by Art. 67 para. g of the Rules. 32 Cf. GUYOMAR, La revision, cit., p. 771. 33 Para. 2 above. 34 A similar line of thought in HAMBRO, op. cit., p. 133 f.; PETREN, op. cit., p. 196. See also GUYOMAR, La revision, cit., p. 772, who — while stressing that the expression under review amounts to a statement that " ce moyen est irrecevable en tant qu'exception preliminaire " - maintains that " il ne s'agit plus d'une decision de caractere neutre, mais d'un arret defavorable pour le demandeur a 1'exception: ses conclusions sont rejetees par la Cour "; what does not appear wholly correct. Even JiMENEZ de ARTCHAGA, op. cit., p. 16, seems to consider the statement that the objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character as amounting to a dismissal of the " submission of the objecting State ", in other words " an adverse decision ". The latter's view is supported by Dupuy, op. cit., p. 276. On Art. 67 para. 7 see also ROSENNE, The 1972 Revision, cit., pp. 242-245. 3s As stated by GRISEL, L'arret de la Cour internationale de Justice dans l'affaire de la Barcelona Traction (seconde phase): Problemes de procedure et de fond, in Annuaire suisse de droit international (1971), p. 31 ff., esp. pp. 36 f. and 48, in accordance to Art. 62

of the 1946 Rules " a 1'issue du procès la Cour doit statuer sur les exceptions (joined to the merits) avant d'aborder le fond ". 36 See Jimenez DE Arechaga, Op. Cit., p. 18; PETREN, Op. Cit., p. 196 f. 37 MORELLI, La competenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia e la c.d. giurisdizione domestica, in Rivista trimestrale di diritto pubblico (1952), p. 309 ff., esp. p. 317 ff. (now in Studi sul processo internazionale, Milano, 1963, p. 57 ff.); ID., Questioni prelimi- i- nari, cit., p. 12; WALDOCK, The Plea of Domestic Jurisdiction before International Legal- Tribunals, in B.Y.I.L. (1954), p. 96 ff., esp. p. 1I3 ff.; STARACE, La competenza della Corte internazionale di giustizia in materia contenziosa, Napoli, 1970, p. 196 f.; Jimenez DE ARF- CHAGA, op. cit., p. 13. On the reservation of domestic jurisdiction see also the Authors quoted by STARACE, op. cit., pp. 193-228. For the concept of domestic jurisdiction see, recently, VERDROSS, The Plea of Domestic Jurisdiction before an international Tribunal and a Political Organ of the United Nations, in Z.A.O.R.V. (1968), p. 33 ff.; ID., Le principe de la non intervention dans les affaires relevant de la comp6tence nationale d'un Etat et l'article 2 (7) de la Charte des Nations Unies, in Mélanges Rousseau, cit., p. 267 ff.; GOOD- RICH, HAMBRO and SIMONS, Charter of the United Nations. Commentary and Documents, 3rd ed., New York-London, ig6g, p. 6o ff.; SPFRDUTI, It dominio riservato, Milano, 1970; NINČIè, The problem of Sovereignty in the Charter and in the Practice of the United Nations, The Hague, 1970, p. 151 ff.; CONFORTI, Le Nazioni Unite. Lezioni di Organizzazione Inter- nazionale, II, Padova, 1974, p. 12 ff.

38 See the Court's judgment of November 26, 1957, on the case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (preliminary objections), 7.C.. Reports z957, p. 149 f. 11 In this sense the Court's judgment of March 21, 1959, on the Interhandel case (preliminary objections), I.C.J. Reports 1959, p. 24. 4o See recently STARACE, op. cit., p. 197 ff. The Author, in particular, has correctly pointed out that a provisional decision is not conducive to ends other than that of reject- ing an objection; in fact, a provisional decision on the question whether a given matter falls within States' domestic jurisdiction is bound to be superseded by a final judgment. Such a judgment is, of course, possible only if the proceedings continue and, therefore, only where the objection is rejected (op. cit., p. 199). 41 Also HAmlsxo, op. cit., p. 133, has pointed out that " il y a des exceptions qui sont d'un tel caractere qu'il faut les decider avec le fond. On pense surtout a 1'exception ... de la competence nationale ". For a different view, however, JIMENEZ DE Arechaga, op. cit., p. 13. 42 It has already been stressed in the past that the reservation of domestic jurisdiction has no practical justification. See LAUTERPACHT, The British Reservation to the Optional Clause, in Economica (1930), p. 137 ff., at p. 149 f.; ID., diss. op. annexed to the Court's judgment of March 21, 1959, on the Interhandel case (preliminary objections), I.C.J. Reports 1959, P. 95 ff., at p. 121 f.; HUDSON, The Permanent Court of International Justice 192o- 1942. A Treatise, 2nd ed., New York, 1943, p. 471 f.; HAMBRO, The Jurisdiction of the International Court of justice, in R.A.D.I. (1950-1), p. 125 ff., at p. 187; C1PPENHEIM, International Law, 7th ed. (edited by H. Lauterpacht), II, London-New York-Toronto, 1952, p. 62; WALDOCK, Op. Cit., pp. 104 f. and 140 f.; SPERDUTI, 7� dominio riservato, cit., p. 35 f.;

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 6 6 3
Full Text Views 4 4 4
PDF Downloads 0 0 0
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0