Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute
In the modern world, disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has atte...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa 2020-01, Vol.53 (1), p.1-20 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 20 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 1 |
container_title | The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa |
container_volume | 53 |
creator | Barrie, George N |
description | In the modern world, disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has attempted to accommodate such an eventuality. Article 62 provides for intervention by a third state if it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the ICJ’s decision in the case. Article 63 allows for member states of a multilateral treaty to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of such a treaty. Intervention under Article 62 is in the discretion of the ICJ. Intervention under Article 63 is a right. Applications to intervene under Article 62 have only been successful in three instances and, applications to intervene under Article 63 have only been successful in two instances. It is submitted that the ICJ should be more flexible in allowing third-party interventions by interpreting Articles 62 and 63 less strictly. This is more in accordance with the greater interdependence of states in the modern world and can prevent the duplication of proceedings. Such flexibility can only enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ in achieving its mandate. |
doi_str_mv | 10.25159/0010-4051/6598 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>gale_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2487466122</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A674624396</galeid><jstor_id>27327968</jstor_id><sabinet_id>https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1fdb7e09bb</sabinet_id><sourcerecordid>A674624396</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-8e844c0f766d33e0f85400b3172a0bfd466bbc6f429f075456a0b08c59ce9c6f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9UMFq3DAQFaWFLknOPRUEPTs7kiXZPpV0mzYJgR66PQvJHtVaNrIryYX8feU6ZOYw8Oa9N8Mj5AODay6Z7PYADCoBku2V7No3ZMcl51UNir8lu9fle3KV0glKScVaJnbkeBx9HKrZxPxMf2aTkd6HjPEvhuynQH2gX32al4yJfkE3RaR5fOEEs1LMmR6mJWY6OfqwpOx7vCTvnDknvHqZF-TXt9vj4a56_PH9_nDzWPW8gVy12ArRg2uUGuoawbVSANiaNdyAdYNQytpeOcE7B40UUhUY2l52PXYFry_Ip813jtOfBVPWp_JJ-ShpLtqm6BnnhXW9sX6bM2of3JSj6UsP-OT7KaDzBb9Rhc9F3aki2G-CPk4pRXR6jv7JxGfNQP-PW6-J6jVRvcZdFJ83RTLWB8w6GZwXq8ec56TH4axHE4ZyZd0xkBz07cNBMzfYBqGztjh83BxOKU_x9SBvat50qq3_AfBHkO0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2487466122</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute</title><source>HeinOnline</source><source>JSTOR</source><creator>Barrie, George N</creator><creatorcontrib>Barrie, George N</creatorcontrib><description>In the modern world, disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has attempted to accommodate such an eventuality. Article 62 provides for intervention by a third state if it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the ICJ’s decision in the case. Article 63 allows for member states of a multilateral treaty to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of such a treaty. Intervention under Article 62 is in the discretion of the ICJ. Intervention under Article 63 is a right. Applications to intervene under Article 62 have only been successful in three instances and, applications to intervene under Article 63 have only been successful in two instances. It is submitted that the ICJ should be more flexible in allowing third-party interventions by interpreting Articles 62 and 63 less strictly. This is more in accordance with the greater interdependence of states in the modern world and can prevent the duplication of proceedings. Such flexibility can only enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ in achieving its mandate.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0010-4051</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2522-3062</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.25159/0010-4051/6598</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Pretoria: Unisa Press (University of South Africa Press)</publisher><subject>63 ICJ Statute ; Articles 62 ; Book publishing ; Constitutional law ; Court hearings & proceedings ; Disputes ; Flexibility ; Interdependence ; International courts ; Intervention ; Journal note ; Mediation ; State intervention ; Third-party state intervention</subject><ispartof>The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa, 2020-01, Vol.53 (1), p.1-20</ispartof><rights>Unisa Press 2020</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2020 Sabinet Online</rights><rights>Copyright University of South Africa Mar 2020</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><orcidid>0000-0001-6274-6308</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27327968$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/27327968$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27903,27904,57996,58229</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Barrie, George N</creatorcontrib><title>Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute</title><title>The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa</title><description>In the modern world, disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has attempted to accommodate such an eventuality. Article 62 provides for intervention by a third state if it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the ICJ’s decision in the case. Article 63 allows for member states of a multilateral treaty to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of such a treaty. Intervention under Article 62 is in the discretion of the ICJ. Intervention under Article 63 is a right. Applications to intervene under Article 62 have only been successful in three instances and, applications to intervene under Article 63 have only been successful in two instances. It is submitted that the ICJ should be more flexible in allowing third-party interventions by interpreting Articles 62 and 63 less strictly. This is more in accordance with the greater interdependence of states in the modern world and can prevent the duplication of proceedings. Such flexibility can only enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ in achieving its mandate.</description><subject>63 ICJ Statute</subject><subject>Articles 62</subject><subject>Book publishing</subject><subject>Constitutional law</subject><subject>Court hearings & proceedings</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>Flexibility</subject><subject>Interdependence</subject><subject>International courts</subject><subject>Intervention</subject><subject>Journal note</subject><subject>Mediation</subject><subject>State intervention</subject><subject>Third-party state intervention</subject><issn>0010-4051</issn><issn>2522-3062</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNo9UMFq3DAQFaWFLknOPRUEPTs7kiXZPpV0mzYJgR66PQvJHtVaNrIryYX8feU6ZOYw8Oa9N8Mj5AODay6Z7PYADCoBku2V7No3ZMcl51UNir8lu9fle3KV0glKScVaJnbkeBx9HKrZxPxMf2aTkd6HjPEvhuynQH2gX32al4yJfkE3RaR5fOEEs1LMmR6mJWY6OfqwpOx7vCTvnDknvHqZF-TXt9vj4a56_PH9_nDzWPW8gVy12ArRg2uUGuoawbVSANiaNdyAdYNQytpeOcE7B40UUhUY2l52PXYFry_Ip813jtOfBVPWp_JJ-ShpLtqm6BnnhXW9sX6bM2of3JSj6UsP-OT7KaDzBb9Rhc9F3aki2G-CPk4pRXR6jv7JxGfNQP-PW6-J6jVRvcZdFJ83RTLWB8w6GZwXq8ec56TH4axHE4ZyZd0xkBz07cNBMzfYBqGztjh83BxOKU_x9SBvat50qq3_AfBHkO0</recordid><startdate>20200101</startdate><enddate>20200101</enddate><creator>Barrie, George N</creator><general>Unisa Press (University of South Africa Press)</general><general>UNISA Press</general><general>Sabinet Online</general><general>University of South Africa</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6274-6308</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20200101</creationdate><title>Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice</title><author>Barrie, George N</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c270t-8e844c0f766d33e0f85400b3172a0bfd466bbc6f429f075456a0b08c59ce9c6f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>63 ICJ Statute</topic><topic>Articles 62</topic><topic>Book publishing</topic><topic>Constitutional law</topic><topic>Court hearings & proceedings</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>Flexibility</topic><topic>Interdependence</topic><topic>International courts</topic><topic>Intervention</topic><topic>Journal note</topic><topic>Mediation</topic><topic>State intervention</topic><topic>Third-party state intervention</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Barrie, George N</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Barrie, George N</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute</atitle><jtitle>The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa</jtitle><date>2020-01-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>1</spage><epage>20</epage><pages>1-20</pages><issn>0010-4051</issn><eissn>2522-3062</eissn><abstract>In the modern world, disputes before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which are normally of a bilateral nature, increasingly also affect the interests of third states. Third states may in many instances wish to intervene in such disputes. Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute of the ICJ has attempted to accommodate such an eventuality. Article 62 provides for intervention by a third state if it has an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the ICJ’s decision in the case. Article 63 allows for member states of a multilateral treaty to intervene in cases involving the interpretation of such a treaty. Intervention under Article 62 is in the discretion of the ICJ. Intervention under Article 63 is a right. Applications to intervene under Article 62 have only been successful in three instances and, applications to intervene under Article 63 have only been successful in two instances. It is submitted that the ICJ should be more flexible in allowing third-party interventions by interpreting Articles 62 and 63 less strictly. This is more in accordance with the greater interdependence of states in the modern world and can prevent the duplication of proceedings. Such flexibility can only enhance the effectiveness of the ICJ in achieving its mandate.</abstract><cop>Pretoria</cop><pub>Unisa Press (University of South Africa Press)</pub><doi>10.25159/0010-4051/6598</doi><tpages>20</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6274-6308</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0010-4051 |
ispartof | The Comparative and international law journal of southern Africa, 2020-01, Vol.53 (1), p.1-20 |
issn | 0010-4051 2522-3062 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2487466122 |
source | HeinOnline; JSTOR |
subjects | 63 ICJ Statute Articles 62 Book publishing Constitutional law Court hearings & proceedings Disputes Flexibility Interdependence International courts Intervention Journal note Mediation State intervention Third-party state intervention |
title | Third-party State Intervention in Disputes Before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T20%3A18%3A14IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Third-party%20State%20Intervention%20in%20Disputes%20Before%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice:%20A%20Reassessment%20of%20Articles%2062%20and%2063%20of%20the%20ICJ%20Statute&rft.jtitle=The%20Comparative%20and%20international%20law%20journal%20of%20southern%20Africa&rft.au=Barrie,%20George%20N&rft.date=2020-01-01&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=20&rft.pages=1-20&rft.issn=0010-4051&rft.eissn=2522-3062&rft_id=info:doi/10.25159/0010-4051/6598&rft_dat=%3Cgale_proqu%3EA674624396%3C/gale_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2487466122&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A674624396&rft_jstor_id=27327968&rft_sabinet_id=https://hdl.handle.net/10520/EJC-1fdb7e09bb&rfr_iscdi=true |