DOCSLIB.ORG

General Assembly Distr.: General 23 June 2006 English Original: Chinese/English/French/ Russian/Spanish

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
General Assembly Distr.: General 23 June 2006 English Original: Chinese/English/French/ Russian/Spanish United Nations A/61/111 General Assembly Distr.: General 23 June 2006 English Original: Chinese/English/French/ Russian/Spanish Sixty-first session Item 102 (c) of the preliminary list* Elections to fill vacancies in subsidiary organs and other elections: election of the members of the International Law Commission Election of the members of the International Law Commission Note by the Secretary-General Contents Page I. Introduction ................................................................... 3 II. Curricula vitae of candidates ..................................................... 4 Ian Brownlie (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) .................. 4 Arturo B. Buena (Philippines) .................................................... 9 Lucius Caflisch (Switzerland) .................................................... 11 Enrique J. A. Candioti (Argentina) ................................................ 22 Pedro Comissário Afonso (Mozambique) ........................................... 26 Riad Daoudi (Syrian Arab Republic) .............................................. 30 Christopher John Robert Dugard (South Africa) ..................................... 34 Constantine P. Economides (Greece) .............................................. 39 Abdelrazeg El-Murtadi Suleiman (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) ........................... 45 Paula Ventura De Carvalho Escarameia (Portugal) ................................... 47 Salifou Fomba (Mali) ........................................................... 53 Giorgio Gaja (Italy) ............................................................ 57 * A/61/50 and Corr.1. 06-40311 (E) 120706 140706 *0640311* A/61/111 Zdzislaw W. Galicki (Poland) .................................................... 61 Hussein A. Hassouna (Egypt) .................................................... 66 Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud (Jordan) .............................................. 70 Marie Gotton Jacobsson (Sweden) ................................................ 73 Maurice Kamto (Cameroon) ..................................................... 83 Fathi Kemicha (Tunisia) ........................................................ 89 Roman Anatolyevitch Kolodkin (Russian Federation) ................................ 91 Carlos López Contreras (Honduras) ............................................... 95 Michael J. Matheson (United States of America) .................................... 99 Donald M. McRae (Canada) ..................................................... 101 Teodor Viorel Melescanu (Romania) .............................................. 110 Djamchid Momtaz (Iran, Islamic Republic of) ...................................... 113 Bernd H. Niehaus (Costa Rica) ................................................... 121 Georg Nolte (Germany) ......................................................... 123 Bayo Ojo (Nigeria) ............................................................. 131 Guillaume Pambou Tchivounda (Gabon) ........................................... 134 Alain Pellet (France) ........................................................... 140 Amrith Rohan Perera (Sri Lanka) ................................................. 160 Ernest Petrič (Slovenia) ......................................................... 165 Gilberto Vergne Saboia (Brazil) .................................................. 169 Narinder Singh (India) .......................................................... 171 Luis Solari Tudela (Peru) ........................................................ 176 Eduardo Valencia-Ospina (Colombia) ............................................. 178 Edmundo Vargas Carreño (Chile) ................................................. 187 Stephen C. Vasciannie (Jamaica) .................................................. 194 Marcelo Vázquez-Bermudez (Ecuador) ............................................ 199 Rauf Versan (Turkey) ........................................................... 203 Amos S. Wako (Kenya) ......................................................... 205 Xue, Hanqin (China) ........................................................... 210 Chusei Yamada (Japan) ......................................................... 216 Nassib G. Ziadé (Lebanon) ...................................................... 220 2 06-40311 A/61/111 I. Introduction 1. In a note verbale of 10 October 2005 to the Permanent Representatives of States Members of the United Nations, the Secretary-General invited nominations by Governments of candidates for election to the International Law Commission for the next five-year term of office beginning on 1 January 2007 and any statements of qualifications of candidates that the nominating Governments might wish to submit. 2. The names of the candidates nominated for election to the Commission, by 1 June 2006 in accordance with article 5 of the Statute of the International Law Commission, are set out in document A/61/92 and Corr.1 and Add.1. 3. The curricula vitae of the candidates submitted by the nominating Governments are contained in section II below. 06-40311 3 A/61/111 II. Curricula vitae of candidates Ian Brownlie (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) [Original: English] Personal history and education Date of birth: 19 September 1932 Called to the Bar: 1958 (Gray’s Inn) Appointed Queen’s Counsel: 1979 (substantive, not honorary) Bencher of Gray’s Inn: 1988 Order of Bernardo O’Higgins of the Republic of Chile, 1986 (for services concerning arbitration and mediation) C.B.E. (Commander of the Order of the British Empire) for services to International Law, Queen’s Birthday Honours, 1993 Commander of the Order of Merit of the Norwegian Crown, 1993 (for services in the International Court of Justice) Current positions Member of the International Law Commission. Elected on the nomination of the Governments of India and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 1996; re-elected for a further five years in 2001, on the nomination of the United Kingdom, India, and South Africa. Member of the Executive Council, International Law Association, since 1991. Member of the Council of Management, British Institute of International Law, since 1983. Chairman of Editorial Committee of British Year Book of International Law since 2000. Professional experience 1. Various appointments as arbitrator, including: Judge ad hoc in the case concerning Certain Property (Liechtenstein v Germany) Party-appointed Arbitrator in Wintershall AG et al. v Government of Qatar arbitration (1986-88) President in Occidental of Pakistan Inc. v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1988-89) Party-appointed Arbitrator in Scimitar Exploration Ltd. v People’s Republic of Bangladesh (1993-4) Party-appointed Arbitrator in Saipem S.P.A. v Bangladesh Oil Gas and Mineral Corporation (1994-) 4 06-40311 A/61/111 Party-appointed Arbitrator in Indus Pipeline Limited v Islamic Republic of Pakistan (1998) President in Compagnie Minière International Or v Republic of Peru (2000-1) Party-appointed Arbitrator in CME Czech Republic B.V. v The Czech Republic (2001-) Party-appointed Arbitrator in dispute between Barbados and Trinidad (2003-). 2. Member of Panel of Arbitrators and Panel of Conciliators, International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (World Bank), 1990-2000. 3. Judge of the European Nuclear Energy Tribunal, 1995-2000. Elected President in 1996. 4. Ad hoc Judge, International Court of Justice, Liechtenstein v Germany, 2001-2. 5. International arbitrations Counsel in: Beagle Channel case (Argentina/Chile) 1974-77 Stichting Greenpeace Council v French State 1986-87 (Rainbow Warrior) Case Concerning Red Sea Islands (Eritrea/Yemen), 1996-99 Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, 2000- Nomura v The Russian Federation, 2001 6. International Court of Justice Counsel in: Gulf of Maine case (Canada v US), 1982-84 Malta-Libya Continental Shelf case, 1982-85 Italian Intervention Proceedings in the Malta-Libya case, 1983-84 Nicaragua v United States, Request for Interim Measures of Protection, 1984 Nicaragua v United States case (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), 1984 El Salvador Declaration of Intervention, 1984 Nicaragua v United States case (Merits), 1984-86 Nicaragua v United States case (Compensation), 1986-91 Nicaragua v Costa Rica (Application of 28 July, 1986) Nicaragua v Honduras (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), 1986-88 Nicaragua v Honduras (Merits), 1988-91 Nauru v Australia (Merits), 1989-90, 1992-93 Maritime Boundary case (Denmark v Norway), 1989-93 Nicaraguan Request for Permission to Intervene (El Salvador-Honduras case), 1989-90 06-40311 5 A/61/111 Nauru v Australia (Jurisdiction and Admissibility), 1990-92 Frontier Case (El Salvador v Honduras), Nicaragua intervening, 1990-92 Libya v United Kingdom and United States (Request for Interim Measures), 1992 Libya v United Kingdom and United States (Merits), 1992- Libya v United Kingdom and United States (Preliminary Objections), 1995-8 Iran v United States (Preliminary Objections), 1994-6 Cameroon v Nigeria (Merits), 1994- Cameroon v Nigeria (Preliminary Objections), 1995-8 Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Merits), 1995- Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Preliminary Objections), 1995-6 Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Admissibility of Counter-claim), 1997 Cameroon v Nigeria (Request for Interim Measures), 1996 Botswana/Namibia (Merits), 1996-99 Cameroon v Nigeria (Request for Interpretation of Judgment), 1998 Congo v Uganda (Merits), 1999- Pakistan v India (Preliminary Objection), 1999-2000 Yugoslavia
Load more

Recommended publications
  • International Organizations in the Recent Work of the International Law Commission
    Chapter 14 2018 aiib Law Lecture: International Organizations in the Recent Work of the International Law Commission Georg Nolte* Abstract The United Nations International Law Commission occasionally deals with the law relating to international organizations. A well-known example is its work in prepara- tion of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties between States and Interna- tional Organizations or between International Organizations of 1986. It is less well- known, but perhaps more important for the practice of international organizations, that the Commission has in recent years also addressed other relevant issues in this field. Those include the responsibility of international organizations (2011), the role which the practice of international organizations may play in the interpretation of their constituent instruments (2018) and in the formation of customary international law (2018), as well as considerations on whether the topic ‘Settlement of disputes to which international organizations are parties’ (2016) should be put on its agenda. This chapter reflects the 2018 aiib Law Lecture, summarizing the work of the Commission on these aspects of the law of international organizations and engages in some general reflections. 1 The Work of the ilc on International Organizations during the Twentieth Century The International Law Commission (ilc) has the mandate, under its Statute of 1947, to promote ‘the progressive development and the codification of inter- national law’.1 This mandate is rather broad, and the Commission is aware that * Georg Nolte, professor of Law, Humboldt-University Berlin, member of the International Law Commission, [email protected]. I thank Ms. Janina Barkholdt and Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Goal-Shifting and the Dynamics of Judicial Effectiveness at the WTO
    Page1 World Trade Review 2016 Is compliance the name of the effectiveness game? Goal-shifting and the dynamics of judicial effectiveness at the WTO Sivan Shlomo Agon Subject: International trade . Other related subjects: Dispute resolution. Keywords: Dispute resolution; World Trade Organisation; *World T.R. 671 Abstract: In line with current research on the effectiveness of international law and institutions, much of the literature on the effectiveness of the WTO dispute settlement system (DSS) has settled on compliance as its primary effectiveness benchmark. This article challenges this trend. It argues that common models gauging the DSS effectiveness through the narrow lens of compliance disregard many other institutional goals pursued by the system, and the conflicts latent among them. Furthermore, existing models are also static in nature--predicated on problematic assumptions regarding the constant supremacy of the DSS compliance objective--what leads them to overlook important shifts amidst the multiple and conflicting goals of the DSS that take place over time and across disputes. Building on the goal-based approach developed in the social sciences, the article introduces a multidimensional framework for analyzing the DSS effectiveness, using the multiple, conflicting and shifting goals set for the system by WTO Members as key effectiveness benchmarks. The article then turns to closely examine the novel concept of "goal-shifting' - essential for effectiveness assessment - and through interview-based analysis of different categories of WTO disputes shows how the DSS goals change with time and context, as a consequence of the changing modalities in which the system operates. 1. Introduction International law and the institutions constituted to reap the benefits of international cooperation affect almost all aspects of our lives: the products we consume, the sustainability of our environment, and our ability to enjoy basic human rights.
    [Show full text]
  • International Law Commission – Statements by Professor Georg Nolte
    Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Last Updated: February 2016 International Law Commission – Statements by Professor Georg Nolte Table of Contents 67th Session (2015) ....................................................................................................................... 6 3277th Meeting, 23 July 2015 (Provisional Application of Treaties) .................................................... 6 3274th Meeting, 22 July 2015 (Visit by the President of the International Court of Justice) .............. 8 3273rd Meeting, 21 July 2015 (Immunity of State Officials from Foreign Criminal Jurisdiction) ........ 9 3262nd Meeting, 4 June 2015 (Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice) ........................ 13 3260th Meeting, 2 June 2015 (Protection of the Atmosphere) ......................................................... 22 3259th Meeting, 29 May 2015 (Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice) ....................... 23 3256th Meeting, 26 May 2015 (Crimes against Humanity) ............................................................... 26 3253rd Meeting, 20 May 2015 (Identification of Customary International Law) .............................. 29 3252nd Meeting, 19 May (Identification of Customary International Law) ....................................... 31 3249th Meeting, 12 May 2015 (Protection of the Atmosphere) ....................................................... 32 3246th Meeting, 6 May 2015 (Protection of the Atmosphere) ......................................................... 33 3245th Meeting, 5 May 2015 (Statement
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the International Law Commission
    Chapter XIII OTHER DECISIONS AND CONCLUSIONS OF THE COMMISSION A. Programme, procedures and working methods (c) provisional application of treaties; of the Commission and its documentation (d) the fair and equitable treatment standard in inter- 363. At its 3089th meeting, on 17 May 2011, the Com- national investment law; mission established a Planning Group for the current session.703 (e) protection of the environment in relation to armed conflicts. 364. The Planning Group held two meetings. It had before it section J of the topical summary of the discussion held in 366. During the quinquennium, the Working Group on the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly during its the long-term programme of work considered a number sixty-fifth session, prepared by the Secretariat and entitled of topics and requested members of the Working Group to “Other decisions and conclusions of the Commission” (A/ prepare drafts on these topics. The Group was guided by CN.4/638); the proposed strategic framework for the period the recommendation of the Commission at its fiftieth ses- 2012–2013,704 covering “Programme 6: Legal Affairs”; sion (1998) regarding the criteria for the selection of topics: General Assembly resolution 65/26 of 6 December 2010 on the report of the International Law Commission on the (a) the topic should reflect the needs of States in work of its sixty-second session, in particular paragraphs 7, respect of the progressive development and codification 8 and 13 to 21; General Assembly resolution 65/32 of 6 De- of international law; cember 2010 on the rule of law at the national and inter- national levels; and chapter XIII, section A.2, of the report (b) the topic should be sufficiently advanced in stage of the Commission on the work of its sixty-second session in terms of State practice to permit progressive develop- concerning the consideration of General Assembly reso- ment and codification; lution 64/116 of 16 December 2009 on the rule of law at the national and international levels.
    [Show full text]
  • Equivocal Helpers—Complicit States, Mixed Messages and International Law
    EQUIVOCAL HELPERS—COMPLICIT STATES, MIXED MESSAGES AND INTERNATIONAL LAW GEORG NOLTE*&HELMUT PHILIPP AUST** Abstract Issues of State complicity arise ever more frequently in inter- national relations. Rules which deal with the responsibility of States for aiding or assisting in the commission of internationally wrongful acts by other States are, however, not yet fully developed. States frequently support each other’s actions without necessarily considering the potential implica- tions of the rules on complicity in international law. This leads to another problem: is support given to another State automatically to be seen as rele- vant practice for the development of new customary rules or the interpret- ation of treaties through subsequent practice? Or is it possible for complicit States to play two different roles: to assist in some conduct while not en- dorsing the legal claim associated with it? This contribution aims to untangle the various facets of complicit State behaviour. It will argue that in some cases, States can indeed play two different roles. States should, however, be careful in considering the long-term implications of such behaviour. I. INTRODUCTION In the shadow of momentous events, the question of responsibility of com- plicit States has arisen more and more frequently in recent years. The best- known cases concern the implication of third party States in the US-led attack against Iraq in 2003, the roles of European States in the US policy of ‘extra- ordinary rendition’, and Serbia’s involvement in the Srebrenica genocide. The rules on complicity in international law are not sufficiently developed to allow for clear-cut determinations in all those cases.1 It is clear, however, that some of these cases have created political dilemmas.
    [Show full text]
  • Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law Developments in International Law
    Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law Developments in International Law volume 72 The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ diil Domestic Courts and the Interpretation of International Law Methods and Reasoning Based on the Swiss Example By Odile Ammann LEIDEN | BOSTON This is an open access title distributed under the terms of the CC- BY- NC 4.0 License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited. The Faculty of Law of the University of Fribourg (Switzerland) does not intend to approve or disapprove the opinions expressed in a dissertation; they must be considered as the author’s own (decision of the Faculty Council of 1 July 1916). Published with the support of the Swiss National Science Foundation. Cover illustration: Lady Justice sorting methodically through the Swiss case law on international law. © 2019 Rae Pozdro. All rights reserved. www.pozdro.net The Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data is available online at http:// catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http:// lccn.loc.gov/2019948876 Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill- typeface. issn 0924- 5332 isbn 978- 90- 04- 40986- 6 (hardback) isbn 978- 90- 04- 40987- 3 (e- book) Copyright 2020 by Odile Ammann. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the International Law Commission
    A/65/10 United Nations Report of the International Law Commission Sixty-second session (3 May-4 June and 5 July-6 August 2010) General Assembly Official Records Sixty-fifth session Supplement No. 10 (A/65/10) E. International Law Seminar 413. Pursuant to General Assembly resolution 64/114, the forty-sixth session of the International Law Seminar was held at the Palais des Nations from 5 to 23 July 2010, during the present session of the Commission. The Seminar is intended for advanced students specializing in international law and for young academics or government officials pursuing an academic or diplomatic career or in posts in the civil service in their country. 414. Twenty-six participants of different nationalities, from all the regions of the world, took part in the session.• The participants observed plenary meetings of the Commission, attended specially arranged lectures, and participated in working groups on specific topics. 415. The Seminar was opened by Mr. John Dugard, First Vice-Chairman of the Commission. Mr. Markus Schmidt, Senior Legal Adviser of the United Nations Office at Geneva (UNOG), was responsible for the administration, organization and conduct of the Seminar, assisted by Mr. Vittorio Mainetti, Legal Consultant at UNOG, and Mr. Sébastien Rosselet of the Legal Liaison Office. 416. The following lectures were given by members of the Commission: Mr. Stephen C. Vasciannie: “The International Law Commission: Patterns of Influence”; Mr. Zdzislaw Galicki: “Aut Dedere Aut Judicare Against International Terrorism”; Mr. Georg Nolte: “Treaties over Time”; Mr. Edmundo Vargas Carreño: “Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”; Mr. Giorgio Gaja: “Responsibility of International Organizations”; Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Judge Georg NOLTE (Member of the Court Since 6 February 2021) Born in Bonn, Germany, on 3 October 1959
    Judge Georg NOLTE (Member of the Court since 6 February 2021) Born in Bonn, Germany, on 3 October 1959. Education University studies in law, international relations and philosophy at the Free University of Berlin and the University of Geneva (1977-1983); First State Examination in Law, Berlin (1982); Second State Examination in Law, Stuttgart (1986); Doctorate (Dr. iur. utr.) from the University of Heidelberg (1991). Employment Professor of Public Law and International Law, Humboldt University of Berlin (2008-2021); Professor of Public Law and International Law, Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (2004-2008); Dean (2004) and Professor (1999-2004) of Public Law and International Law, University of Göttingen; Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg (1987-1999); Legal practice as Rechtsreferendar, Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe (1984-1986); Assistant Lecturer, Free University of Berlin (1983-1984). Official bodies Member of the International Law Commission (ILC) (2007-2021) - Chairperson of the ILC during its 69th session (2017), Special Rapporteur on “Subsequent Agreements and Subsequent Practice in Relation to the Interpretation of Treaties” (ILC) (2012-2018), Chairperson of the Study Group on “Treaties over Time” (ILC) (2009-2012); Member of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“Venice Commission”) of the Council of Europe (2000-2007); Member of the Advisory Council on Public International Law of the German Federal Foreign Office (2006-2021); Member of the Bundestag Commission on the Review and Safeguarding of Parliamentary Rights regarding Mandates for Bundeswehr (Federal Armed Forces) Missions Abroad (2014-2015); Member of the Advisory Council on Peace and Security Policy, Policy Planning Unit, German Federal Foreign Office (2005-2015).
    [Show full text]
  • KFG Working Paper Series • No. 7 • March 2017 Georg Nolte The
    KFG Working Paper Series • No. 7 • March 2017 Georg Nolte The International Law Commission and Community Interests 2 | KFG Working Paper No. 7 | March 2017 KFG Working Paper Series Edited by Heike Krieger, Georg Nolte and Andreas Zimmermann All KFG Working Papers are available on the KFG website at www.kfg-intlaw.de. Copyright remains with the author. Nolte, Georg, The International Law Commission and Community Interests, KFG Working Paper Series, No. 7, Berlin Potsdam Research Group “The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline?”, Berlin, March 2017. ISSN 2509-3770 (Internet) ISSN 2509-3762 (Print) This publication has been funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) Product of Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Commercial use is not permitted Berlin Potsdam Research Group International Law – Rise or Decline? Unter den Linden 9 10099 Berlin, Germany [email protected] +49 (0)30 2093-3322 www.kfg-intlaw.de The International Rule of Law – Rise or Decline? | 3 The International Law Commission and Community Interests* Georg Nolte1 Abstract: The paper looks at community interests in international law from the perspective of the International Law Commission. As the topics of the Commission are diverse, the outcome of its work is often seen as providing a sense of direction regarding general aspects of international law. After defining what he understands by “community interests”, the author looks at both secondary and primary rules of international law, as they have been articulated by the Commission, as well as their relevance for the recognition and implementation of community interests. The picture which emerges only partly fits the widespread narrative of “from self-interest to community interest”.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Court of Human Rights and the Sources of International Law
    Seminar “The Contribution of the ECtHR to the Development of Public International Law” organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic in connection with the 59th Meeting of CAHDI, Prague, 23 September 2020, The European Court of Human Rights and the Sources of International Law Georg Nolte* Dear Colleagues, Ladies and Gentlemen, I thank Mr Petr Válek for his invitation and his kind introduction. It is a pleasure to be back in beautiful Prague – but I am sorry that so many colleagues could not make it under the present difficult circumstances of COVID-19. I fondly remember my last visit to Prague in December 2018 at the invitation of Professor Pavel Šturma, my fellow Member and current Chair of the International Law Commission. I. Introduction The sources of international law concern age-old questions which have remained ever young. The modern debate about the sources of international law has started exactly one hundred years ago. In the summer of 1920, an Advisory Committee of Jurists successfully prepared a Draft Statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice.1 One of the most controversial questions was which law the Court was authorised to apply. As is well-known, the Committee settled on three sources: treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law.2 These sources were codified in Article 38 of the Statute of the Court. The debate in 1920 on the applicable law was controversial because the members of the Advisory Committee disagreed about the role and the powers of the envisaged
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Vitae Judge Bruno SIMMA Born in Quierschied
    Curriculum Vitae Judge Bruno SIMMA Born in Quierschied (Saar), Germany, on 29 March 1941. Doctorate of Law, University of Innsbruck, Austria (1966). Practice at the Bar in Innsbruck (1967). Assistant at the Faculty of Law, University of Innsbruck (1967-1972). Universitätsdozent (venia legendi) for International Law and International Relations (1971). Professor of International Law and European Community Law, Director of the Institute of International Law, University of Munich (1973-2003). Lecturer for International Law at the Training Centre for Junior Diplomats, German Federal Foreign Ministry (1981-1989). Visiting Professor at the University of Siena, Italy (1984-1985). Visiting Professor (1986 and 1995), Professor of Law (1987-1992 on joint appointment with Munich), Member of the Affiliate Overseas Faculty and William H. Cook Global Law Professor (1997 - 2012; on leave during tenure at the International Court of Justice)., Professor of Law (currently on leave) of the University of Michigan Law School in Ann Arbor, Michigan, U.S.A. Lecturer (1995 and General Course in Public International Law 2009 ), Director of Studies (1976 and 1982) at the Hague Academy of International Law. Dean of the Munich Faculty of Law (1995-1997). Member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1987-1996). Member of the United Nations International Law Commission (1996-2003). Member of the Advisory Boards on International Law and on United Nations Issues of the German Federal Foreign Ministry (until 2002). Judge at the International Court of Justice from 6 February 2003 to 5 February 2012. Judge ad hoc chosen by Costa Rica in the cases of Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v.
    [Show full text]
  • Intolerant Democracies Gregory H
    Wayne State University Law Faculty Research Publications Law School 1-1-1995 Intolerant Democracies Gregory H. Fox New York University, [email protected] Georg Nolte Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Recommended Citation Gregory Fox & Georg Nolte, Intolerant Democracies, 36 Harv. Int'l. L. J. 1 (1995). Available at: https://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/lawfrp/210 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at DigitalCommons@WayneState. It has been accepted for inclusion in Law Faculty Research Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@WayneState. VOLUME 36, NUMBER 1, WnNTER 1995 Intolerant Democracies Gregory H. Fox* Georg Nolte** If there be any among us who wish to dissolve this union, or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monu- ments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it. Thomas Jefferson1 This will always remain one of the best jokes of democracy, that it gave its deadly enemies the means by which it was destroyed. 2 Joseph Goebbels ABSTRACT International law is increasingly concerned with national transitions to democratic government. The holding of free and fair elections alone, however, provides no guarantee that a democratic system will become firmly established and capable of resisting challenges by anti-demo- cratic actors. The question thus arises of how intolerant a democracy may become toward such actors in order to preserve itself without relinquishing the claim of being democratic. This problem has arisen on a number of occasions, perhaps the most dramatically upon the cancellation of the second round of the Algerian elections in early 1992.
    [Show full text]