DOCSLIB.ORG

Report of the International Court of Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Report of the International Court of Justice A/74/4 United Nations Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August 2018-31 July 2019 General Assembly Official Records Seventy-fourth Session Supplement No. 4 A/74/4 General Assembly A/74/4 Official Records Seventy-fourth Session Supplement No. 4 Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August 2018–31 July 2019 United Nations • New York, 2019 Note Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. ISSN 0251-8473 [1 August 2019] Contents Chapter Page I. Summary ...................................................................... 5 II. Role and jurisdiction of the Court ................................................. 13 III. Organization of the Court ........................................................ 15 A. Composition ............................................................... 15 B. Privileges and immunities .................................................... 18 C. Seat ...................................................................... 19 IV. Registry ....................................................................... 20 V. Judicial activity of the Court ...................................................... 22 A. Pending contentious proceedings during the period under review ................... 22 1. Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) .......................... 22 2. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda) ...................................................... 22 3. Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) ........... 24 4. Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ............................................................ 25 5. Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ................................................ 26 6. Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya) ................. 28 7. Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia) ..... 29 8. Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) ........... 30 9. Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) ..... 33 10. Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) ..................... 36 11. Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) ............................................... 40 12. Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) ...................... 44 13. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) ....................... 46 14. Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) ........................................... 49 19-13600 3/69 15. Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) .................................. 51 16. Alleged violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) 52 17. Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America) ........................................................... 54 18. Guatemala’s Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize) ........ 55 B. Pending advisory proceedings during the period under review Legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (request for an advisory opinion) ......................................... 56 VI. Visits to the Court and other activities .............................................. 59 VII. Publications and presentation of the Court to the public ............................... 61 VIII. Finances of the Court ............................................................ 64 Annex International Court of Justice: Organizational structure and post distribution of the Registry as at 31 July 2019............................................................... 67 4/69 19-13600 A/74/4 Chapter I Summary 1. Brief overview of the judicial work of the Court 1. During the period under review, the International Court of Justice experienced a particularly high level of activity. Among other things, it delivered judgments in the following cases: (a) Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Judgment on the merits of the case (see paras. 88 to 101); (b) Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the Respondent (see paras. 166 to 175); (c) Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), Judgment on the merits of the case (see paras. 192 to 206). 2. The Court also gave its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (see paras. 282 to 292). 3. The Court, or its President, also handed down 16 orders (presented here in chronological order): (a) By an Order dated 17 September 2018, the President of the Court fixed the time- limit within which Ukraine might present a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) (paras. 176 to 191); (b) By an Order dated 3 October 2018, the Court indicated provisional measures in the case concerning Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (see paras. 256 to 267); (c) By an Order dated 10 October 2018, the Court fixed the time-limits for the filing of written pleadings in the case concerning Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (ibid.); (d) By an Order dated 15 November 2018, the Court directed the submission of a Reply by Chile and a Rejoinder by the Plurinational State of Bolivia, limited to the Respondent’s counter-claims, in the case concerning the Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia), and fixed the time- limits for the filing of those written pleadings (see paras. 140 to 151); (e) By an Order dated 15 November 2018, the Court decided that the written pleadings in the case concerning the Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America) would first be addressed to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court and that of the admissibility of the Application, and fixed the time-limits for the filing of a Memorial by the State of Palestine and a Counter-Memorial by the United States of America (see paras. 268 to 273); 19-13600 5/69 A/74/4 (f) By an Order dated 4 December 2018, the Court authorized the submission by Nicaragua of an additional pleading relating solely to the counter-claims submitted by Colombia in the case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia) and fixed the time-limit for the filing of that pleading (see paras. 113 to 126); (g) By an Order dated 24 January 2019, the Court directed the submission of a Reply by Equatorial Guinea and a Rejoinder by France in the case concerning Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France) and fixed the time-limits for the filing of those written pleadings (see paras. 152 to 165); (h) By an Order dated 13 February 2019, the Court fixed the time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of the United States in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (see paras. 166 to 175); (i) By an Order dated 27 March 2019, the Court directed the submission of a Reply by Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates and a Rejoinder by Qatar in the case concerning Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and fixed the time-limits for the filing of those written pleadings (see paras. 236 to 245); (j) By an Order dated 27 March 2019, the Court directed the submission of a Reply by Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates and a Rejoinder by Qatar in the case concerning Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar) and fixed the time-limits for the filing of those written pleadings (see paras. 246 to 255); (k) By an Order dated 8 April 2019, the President of the Court extended the time- limits for the filing of the Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Counter-Memorial of the United States in the case concerning
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions As Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts
    The Legitimacy of Economic Sanctions as Countermeasures for Wrongful Acts Lori Fisler Damrosch* INTRODUCTION This essay offers aN iNstallmeNt of what would have beeN a coNtiNuiNg conversation with David D. Caron, a close colleague in the field of international law, oN themes that eNgaged both of us across multiple phases of our intersecting careers. The issues are fundamental ones for both the theory and the practice of internatioNal law, involving such core coNcerns as how iNterNatioNal law caN be enforced in an international system that is not yet adequately equipped with institutioNs to determine the existeNce aNd coNsequeNces of violatioNs or to impose saNctioNs against violators; aNd how to eNsure that self-help enforcement measures iN a largely deceNtralized aNd still iNcomplete system are coNsisteNt with the priNciples aNd values uNderlyiNg the iNterNatioNal legal order. David CaroN was uNiquely positioNed to speak aNd write oN these issues, Not oNly with a mature scholar’s authority, but also with the authoritativeness conferred by the judicial appointmeNts he held in receNt years aNd the cases oN which he would have deliberated and rendered judgments, but for his untimely death. Without his eloquent voice to provide wisdom aNd reach decisioNs iN the coNtext of coNcrete disputes, I venture still-evolving thoughts on what may well seem unanswerable questions. The topic of ecoNomic saNctioNs as couNtermeasures for iNterNatioNally wroNgful acts provides the opportuNity to revisit questioNs that I eNcouNtered for the first time as a braNd-new international lawyer in the Office of the Legal Adviser of the U.S. DepartmeNt of State; these questioNs would later eNgage David CaroN’s iNterest as well.
    [Show full text]
  • The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use
    The International Emergency Economic Powers Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Updated July 14, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45618 SUMMARY R45618 The International Emergency Economic Powers July 14, 2020 Act: Origins, Evolution, and Use Christopher A. Casey, The International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) provides the President broad Coordinator authority to regulate a variety of economic transactions following a declaration of national Analyst in International emergency. IEEPA, like the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) from which it branched, sits at Trade and Finance the center of the modern U.S. sanctions regime. Changes in the use of IEEPA powers since the act’s enactment in 1977 have caused some to question whether the statute’s oversight provisions Ian F. Fergusson are robust enough given the sweeping economic powers it confers upon the President during a Specialist in International declared emergency. Trade and Finance Over the course of the twentieth century, Congress delegated increasing amounts of emergency power to the President by statute. TWEA was one such statute. Congress passed TWEA in 1917 Dianne E. Rennack to regulate international transactions with enemy powers following the U.S. entry into the First Specialist in Foreign Policy World War. Congress expanded the act during the 1930s to allow the President to declare a Legislation national emergency in times of peace and assume sweeping powers over both domestic and international transactions. Between 1945 and the early 1970s, TWEA became the central means Jennifer K. Elsea to impose sanctions as part of U.S. Cold War strategy. Presidents used TWEA to block Legislative Attorney international financial transactions, seize U.S.-based assets held by foreign nationals, restrict exports, modify regulations to deter the hoarding of gold, limit foreign direct investment in U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Reference
    Thesis The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism WEILL, Sharon Abstract My PhD aims to set a method of analysis evaluating the manner in which national courts enforce international humanitarian law in light of the core principles of the international rule of law (which require courts to be independent, impartial, accessible and effective). This methodology offers a useful tool for understanding the function of national courts and provides a mapping of courts' rulings, within which each category can then be legally (and politically) justified or delegitimized in light of the principles of the rule of law. The scale according to which the court's function is assessed varies from apology to judicial activism, and it identifies four functional roles: (1) the apologist role of courts, in which they serve as a legitimating agency of the state's actions; (2) the avoiding role of courts, in which they, for policy considerations, avoid exercising jurisdiction over a case; (3) the normative application role of courts, in which they apply international humanitarian law as required by the rule of law. In that category, a deferral technique is identified – courts may defer back to the other branches of [...] Reference WEILL, Sharon. The role of national courts in applying international humanitarian law: from apology to judicial activism. Thèse de doctorat : Univ. Genève, 2012, no. D. 852 URN : urn:nbn:ch:unige-235753 DOI : 10.13097/archive-ouverte/unige:23575 Available at: http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:23575 Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
    [Show full text]
  • M. Nawaf Salam
    Nawaf Salam Nawaf Salam, né le 15 décembre 1953 à Beyrouth, est un diplomate, juriste et universitaire libanais. Il a été élu le 9 novembre 2017 juge à la Cour Internationale de Justice pour la période 2018-2027, ayant obtenu la majorité absolue des voix à l'Assemblée générale et au Conseil de Sécurité des Nations Unies. Il a été ambassadeur extraordinaire et plénipotentiaire, représentant permanent du Liban auprès des Nations Unies à New York de 2007 à 2017. Il est docteur d’État en sciences politiques de l'Institut d’études politiques de Paris (Sciences Po) (1992), et titulaire d’un LL.M de Harvard Law School, ainsi que d’un doctorat en histoire de la Sorbonne (1979). De 1979 à 1981, il est chargé de cours à la Sorbonne où il enseigne l’histoire contemporaine du Moyen-Orient. En 1981, il est chercheur invité au Weatherhead Center for International Affairs de l'Université de Harvard. Entre 1985 et 1989, il est maître de conférences à l'Université Américaine de Beyrouth, et avocat associé au cabinet Takla. Il est également, de 1989 à 1990, chercheur invité à Harvard Law School et, de 1989 à 1992, consultant juridique étranger à la firme Edwards & Angell LLP. En 1992, il retourne à Beyrouth où il travaille comme avocat au cabinet Takla et enseigne le droit international et les relations internationales à l'Université Américaine de Beyrouth. Il y est nommé en 2003 professeur associé invité en sciences politiques, puis professeur associé en 2005. De 2005 à 2006, il y assume la direction du département d’études politiques et d’administration publique.
    [Show full text]
  • United Nations General Assembly and Security Council Elect Four Members of the Court
    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928 Website: www.icj-cij.org Twitter Account: @CIJ_ICJ YouTube Channel: CIJ ICJ Press Release Unofficial No. 2017/34 10 November 2017 United Nations General Assembly and Security Council elect four Members of the Court THE HAGUE, 10 November 2017. The General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations yesterday elected four Members of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for a term of office of nine years, beginning on 6 February 2018. Judges Ronny Abraham (France), Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf (Somalia) and Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade (Brazil) were re-elected as Members of the Court. Mr. Nawaf Salam (Lebanon) was elected as a new Member of the Court. The election of a fifth Member of the Court could not be concluded on Thursday, since no candidate obtained a majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. That election will continue on Monday 13 November 2017. The biographies of the re-elected Members of the Court are available on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org) under the heading “The Court”. The biography of the newly elected Member is annexed to this press release. In February 2018, the Court as newly constituted will proceed to elect from among its Members a President and a Vice-President, who will hold office for three years. Composition of the Court: General The International Court of Justice, which is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, comprises 15 judges, who are each elected to a nine-year term of office and may be re-elected.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAPTER 7 International Organizations
    Table of Contents CHAPTER 7 .................................................................................................................................. 215 International Organizations ..................................................................................................... 215 A. UNITED NATIONS .......................................................................................................... 215 1. Upholding International Law while Maintaining International Peace and Security ........ 215 2. Rule of Law...................................................................................................................... 217 3. Charter Committee ........................................................................................................... 218 B. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ................................................................... 220 1. Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity (Iran v. United States) ..................... 220 2. Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. United States) ................................................................. 227 3. Relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States) ..................... 234 4. Request for Advisory Opinion on the British Indian Ocean Territory ............................ 235 C. INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION .................................................................... 251 1. ILC Draft Conclusions on the Identification of Customary International Law ............... 251 2. ILC’s Work at its 70th Session ........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ccg-Nlud-Technology-And-National
    CENTRE FOR COMMUNICATION GOVERNANCE AT NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI TECHNOLOGY AND NATIONAL SECURITY LAW AND POLICY SEMINAR COURSE (FEBRUARY - JUNE 2020) B.A. LL.B. (HONS.) PROGRAMME NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY DELHI Course Facilitator Gunjan Chawla Programme Manager, Technology and National Security, Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi; email: [email protected] ABOUT THE COURSE Given the rapidly evolving landscape of international security issues and the challenges and opportunities presented by new and emerging technologies, Indian lawyers and policymakers need to acquire the capacity to engage effectively with national security law and policy. However, curricula in Indian law schools do not engage adequately with issues of national security. National security threats, balance of power, issues of secrecy and political accountability, terrorism and surveillance laws tend to be discussed in a piece-meal manner within various courses or electives. To fill this knowledge gap within the legal community, the Centre for Communication Governance at National Law University Delhi (CCG-NLU) is offering this seminar course to fourth and fifth-year students of the B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) Programme. The course will explore interdisciplinary approaches in the study of national security law and policy, with a particular focus on issues in cybersecurity and cyberwarfare. Through this course curriculum, we aim to (1) recognize and develop National Security Law as a discrete discipline of legal studies, and (2) impart
    [Show full text]
  • Petitioner, V
    No. IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— BANK MELLI, Petitioner, v. MICHAEL BENNETT, et al., Respondents. ———— On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ———— PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ———— LISA W. BOHL JEFFREY A. LAMKEN MOLOLAMKEN LLP ROBERT K. KRY 300 N. LaSalle St. Counsel of Record Chicago, Illinois 60654 MOLOLAMKEN LLP (312) 450-6700 The Watergate, Suite 660 600 New Hampshire Ave., N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 556-2000 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner :,/621(3(635,17,1*&2,1&± ±:$6+,1*721'& QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) provides that “the blocked assets of [a] terrorist party (including the blocked assets of any agency or instrumentality of that terrorist party)” are subject to execution to satisfy certain terrorism judgments. 28 U.S.C. §1610 note §201(a). In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit allowed plaintiffs with default judgments against Iran to execute against funds that Visa owes to Bank Melli, an Iranian state-owned bank. It did so even though Visa rather than Bank Melli is the owner of the assets, and even though Bank Melli is a separate entity distinct from the Iranian government that had no role in the underlying disputes. The questions presented are: 1. Whether TRIA requires that the respondent actu- ally own the assets at issue, as the D.C. Circuit has held and as the United States has repeatedly urged, or whether the statute instead permits execution even absent owner- ship, as the Ninth Circuit held below.
    [Show full text]
  • LAU Gives Young Leaders a Golden Experience in New York City
    VOLUME 4, ISSUE 3 LAU Gives Young Leaders a GOLDen Experience in New York City AU’s New York Headquarters podium, President Jabbra reminded “We are proud of LAU, of Lebanon’s and Academic Center was abuzz delegates and students of Lebanon’s youth and its presence at the United Lwith young aspiring diplomats in legacy at the world body. Nations,” said Ambassador Salam. late July as 60 students representing 11 different nationalities filled the hallways “In 1948, the UN adopted the Universal “Ownership of the Global Classrooms and classrooms for the Global Outreach Declaration of Human Rights. The brand is a recognition from UNA-USA and Leadership Development Conference rapporteur who worked closely with that we have had the most successful (GOLD). Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairperson of MUN program in the world for the last the Human Rights Commission, was ten years” said Assistant Vice President The second annual GOLD conference, a young, charismatic philosopher for Outreach and Civic Engagement Elie this year’s event was unique in that LAU and diplomat, Charles Malik, then Samia. was recently handed the responsibility Ambassador of Lebanon to the UN,” of running two flagship Model UN Jabbra said. “Now Lebanon, through Building on that reputation, the July conferences. The Global Classrooms LAU, is coming back to the halls of the GOLD conference drew guest lecturers International High School Model UN United Nations to continue its mission from a variety of organizations, Conference and the Global Classrooms of teaching the youth of the world about including the Office of the Secretary International Middle School Model UN the importance of leadership, civic General’s Youth Envoy, the Friendship Conference, run by UNA-USA since their engagement, diplomacy, and peace.” Ambassador’s Foundation, The New inception in 2005, are now under LAU’s School, Syracuse University, New York purview.
    [Show full text]
  • CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of IRAN V
    Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice 231. CERTAIN IRANIAN ASSETS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) [PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS] Summary of the judgment of 13 February 2019 On 13 February 2019, the International Court of Justice rendered its Judgment on the preliminary objections raised by the United States of America in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The Court was composed as follows: President Yusuf; Vice-President Xue; Judges Tomka, Abraham, Bennouna, Cançado Trindade, Gaja, Bhandari, Robinson, Crawford, Gevorgian, Salam, Iwasawa; Judges ad hoc Brower, Momtaz; Registrar Couvreur. * * * History of the proceedings (paras. 1-17) The Court recalls that, on 14 June 2016, the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran (hereinafter “Iran” or the “Applicant”) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America (hereinafter the “United States” or the “Respondent”) with regard to a dispute concerning alleged violations by the United States of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, which was signed by the two States in Tehran on 15 August 1955 and entered into force on 16 June 1957 (hereinafter the “Treaty of Amity” or “Treaty”). The Court notes that, in its Application, Iran seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity. The Court further recalls that, after Iran filed its Memorial in the case, the United States raised preliminary objections to the admissibility of the Application and the jurisdiction of the Court.
    [Show full text]
  • AMERICAN UNIVERSITY of BEIRUT CONTRIBUTORS REPORT 2019 July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 CONTRIBUTORS REPORT 2019
    AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT CONTRIBUTORS REPORT 2019 July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 CONTRIBUTORS REPORT 2019 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT CONTRIBUTORS REPORT 2019 July 1, 2018 – June 30, 2019 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT CONTRIBUTORS REPORT 2019 5 إشعار بعدم التمييز NOTICE OF NON-DISCRIMINATION تماشيا مع التزامها بمبدأ تكافؤ الفرص في التعليم والتوظيف، تحمي سياسات In line with its commitment to the principle of equal opportunity in الجامعة أالميركية في بيروت من التمييز ُالمرتكز على الخصائص المحمية، بما education and employment, AUB policies protect from discrimination في ذلك ّالتحرش التمييزي والتحرش الجنسي. on the basis of protected characteristics, including discriminatory harassment and sexual harassment. Protected characteristics الخصائص المحمية تشمل: العرق، اللون ، الدين ، العمر، الجنسية، الهوية الثنية، ,include: race, color, religion, age, national or ethnic identity, sex الجنس، الجندرأوالهوية الجندرية، الميل الجنسي، الحمل، الوضع العائلي، إالعاقة، gender or gender identity, sexual orientation, pregnancy, marital الستعداد الوراثي أو حالة السمة ّالوراثية، أالصل أالجنبي أو وضع ّالمواطنية، و status, disability, genetic predisposition or carrier status, alienage النتماء السياسي. .or citizenship status, and political affiliation تنطبق هذه السياسات على جميع أعضاء الجامعة أالميركية في بيروت بما في ,The policies are applicable to all the AUB Community including: officers ذلك: المسؤولون وأعضاء هيئة التعليم والموظفون ّوالمعينون أالكاديميون faculty, staff, academic appointees, students (including medical والطالب )بمن فيهم أال ّطباء ّالداخليين
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice
    The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 20 (2021) 395–441 brill.com/lape Procedural Developments at the International Court of Justice Fernando Lusa Bordin Sidney Sussex College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK [email protected] Abstract The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. Those developments comprise jurisdiction ratione materiae under compromissory clauses; procedural preconditions in compromissory clauses; expert opinions; admissibility challenges based on abuse of process and the “clean hands” doctrine; conditions for the indication of provisional measures; and the Court’s discretion to give advisory opinions in cases where a request overlaps with a dispute between States. Keywords International Court of Justice – compromissory clause – jurisdiction ratione materiae – admissibility – abuse of process – “clean hands” doctrine 1 Introduction The present column covers procedural developments at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for the period 1 February 2019 to 31 March 2021. The Court had the occasion to consider several procedural matters in its judg- ments on preliminary objections in Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), © Fernando Lusa Bordin, 2021 | doi:10.1163/15718034-12341451 This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0Downloaded license. from Brill.com09/28/2021 02:39:38PM via free access 396 Bordin Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v.
    [Show full text]