THE EFFECTIVNESS AND EXPEDICENCY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE INTERIM MEASURES
THE EFFECTIVNESS AND EXPEDICENCY OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE INTERIM MEASURES

Summary/Abstract: The International Court of Justice is one of the three bodies of the United Nations tasked to maintain international peace and security through a peaceful resolution of disputes among member states. Moreover, this Court is able to mediate in the settlement of disputes with states that are not members of the United Nations but recognise its jurisdiction. That is the most important international court with a wide f ield of activity, the authorisation to give advisory opinions and interpretations, and with judges who are the best legal professionals. In that respect, the practice of the Court provides invaluable contribution to the interpretation and development of international public law A request to initiate proceedings before the International Court of Justice against Israel because of the conflict in the Gaza Strip was submitted by the Republic of South Africa finding that that there was violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide regarding the Palestinians in the area engulfed by the conflict. Along with the request to initiate the proceeding, a request was also made for the indication of provisional measures in accordance with Article 41 of the Court Statute and Articles 73, 74 and 75. The Rules of Procedure, to protect the rights of the Palestinian people from further, serious and irreparable damage under the Genocide Convention, and ensure that Israel honours its obligations, since it is one of the signatory states of that Convention. States signatories to the Genocide Convention have an obligation not to participate in genocide, and to prevent and punish its perpetrators. Investigations of claims for the issuance of provisional measures are urgent and they are given priority with respect to other proceedings, because the request is made for the protection of certain rights. By presenting the jurisdiction of the Court, the significance and course of proceedings, the manner of issuing provisional measures is explained as well as the possibilities that are available to it in terms of their implementation. It has not been the first time that the Court was asked to issue provisional measure of stopping armed actions. Namely, the Court indicated provisional measures in the dispute Ukraina v Russian Federation, where, apart from Russia’s stopping military activities, Ukraine requested that the Court confirmed that it did not violate the Genocide Convention. More precisely, Russia claimed that its obligation, as a member of the Genocide Convention, was to prevent the crime of genocide, which had taken place in certain regions of Ukraine, and invoked its right to self-defence, given that members of the Russian national minority were exposed to genocide in Ukraine. However, a general order, which requests the full scope suspension of all armed activities of Russia against Ukraine, is unparalleled in the Court’s practice. The Court noted that it can resort to measures different from those requested by the filer of request (Armenia versus Azerbaijan, paragraph 90). However, such position has not been consistently applied in the case of the order to stop all armed activities in the Gaza Strip. The result of the research shows that the International Court of Justice has the authority to order the parties to the dispute to undertake or refrain from undertaking certain activities, and that the successful implementation of the stated measures largely depends on the support provided by the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly to the provisional measures of this Court. Given that the International Court of Justice is one of the three most significant bodies of the United Nations system, tasked to maintain international peace and security, it is very important that all three bodies conduct activities oriented towards the achievement of the same goal. In cases when they make their decisions invoking adopted positions and conclusions of the other two bodies, the purpose of indicated provisional measures is achieved. There is still the problem of blocking resolutions that should be passed against some of permanent members of the Security Council or some of states under their patronage.

• Details
• Contents