The Minotaur’s Labyrinth: Third State Intervention before the International Court of Justice

in The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
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

The procedure for intervention before the International Court of Justice has been little explored in literature, which may be explained by the uncertainties that inhabit it.

In fact, this is the reason why States have had little recourse to it – and worse yet – only a few applications for intervention have been successful. The present article seeks to throw light on the most problematic aspects of third State intervention, with a view to finding the thread which will guide a way out of the labyrinth of uncertainty.

Sections

References

4

The full list is provided in Chinkin, supra note 3, at 1178, 1181–1182. In addition, recently the Court granted New Zealand’s declaration of intervention under Article 63 in the Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan) case. (See Order of 6 February 2013).

7

Chinkin, supra note 3, at 1213.

24

Chinkin, supra note 3, 1189.

27

Chinkin, supra note 3, 1182.

60

Bonafé, supra note 48, 743.

63

Ibid., 32–33.

71

Bonafé, supra note 48, 748.

108

Chinkin, supra note 3, 1216.

113

Chinkin, supra note 3, 1214.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 5 5 1
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 2 2 2
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0