Interim Measures of protection in the International Court of Justice order of 23 January 2020 in Case Gambia v Myanmar

• Authors: Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn Ewa

Title variants

PL

Tymczasowe środki zabezpieczające w postanowieniu Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości z 23 stycznia 2020 r. w sprawie Gambia vs Birma (Mjanmar)

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This article examines the order of the International Court of Justice indicating the provisional measures in the matter of application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) from 23 January 2020. The different aspects of the traditional requirements for indication of provisional measures will be presented, based on the ICJ jurisprudence, especially as far as its binding force is concerned, after its judgment in the LaGrand case, where the Court clarified that its orders on interim protection are binding. We will also present one new requirement – the plausibility test of the protected rights – expressed by the Court for the first time in the Belgium v Senegal case.

PL

W artykule przeanalizowano zarządzenie MTS wskazujące środki tymczasowe w sprawie stosowania Konwencji o zapobieganiu i karaniu zbrodni ludobójstwa (Gambia vs Birma) z 23 stycznia 2020 r. Różne aspekty tradycyjnych wymagań dotyczących wskazania środków tymczasowych zostaną przedstawione w oparciu o orzecznictwo MTS, szczególnie w odniesieniu do jego mocy wiążącej, po wydaniu wyroku w sprawie LaGrand, w którym Trybunał wyjaśnił, że jego postanowienia dotyczące tymczasowej ochrony są wiążące. Przedstawiony został również jeden nowy wymóg – wiarygodności praw chronionych – sformułowany przez Trybunał po raz pierwszy w sprawie Belgia vs Senegal.

Keywords

EN

Article 41I; nternational Court of Justice; provisional measures/interim measures of protection; requirements; plausibility; conditions for granting provisional measures; legal effects of provisional measures; prevention of a dispute

PL

Artykuł 41; Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości; środki tymczasowe tymczasowe środki ochrony wymogi; wiarygodność; warunki przyznawania środków tymczasowych skutki prawne środków tymczasowych; zapobieganie sporowi

• Publisher: Fundacja im. Aliny i Leszka Allerhandów
• Journal: Głos Prawa. Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda
• Year: 2020
• Volume: 3
• Issue: 1(5)
• Pages: 12-27

Contributors

author

Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn Ewa

• Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego

References

• Borgia Fiammetta, The Responsibility to Protect doctrine: between criticisms and inconsistencies, “Journal on the Use of Force and International Law” 2015, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 223-237.
• Cancado Trindade Antonio Augusto, State Responsibility in Cases of Massacres: Contemporary Advances in International Justice, Utrecht 2011.
• Cassese Antonio, International Law, Oxford 2001.
• Karazsia Zachary A., An Unfulfilled Promise: The Genocide Convention and the Obligation of Prevention, “Journal of Strategic Security” 2018, No. 4, pp. 20-31.
• Lando Massimo, Compliance with provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice, “Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2017, No. 8, pp. 22-55.
• Lando Massimo, Plausibility in the Provisional Measures. Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, “Leiden Journal of International Law” 2018, Vol. 31, Issue 3, pp. 641-668.
• Longobardo Marco, Genocide, obligations erga omnes, and the responsibility to protect: remarks on a complex convergence, “The International Journal of Human Rights” 2015, Vol. 19, No. 8, pp. 1199-1212.
• Mendelson Maurice, State responsibility for breach of interim protection orders of the International Court of Justice, [in:] Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions, eds. M. Fitzmaurice, D. Sarooshi, Oxford and Portland Oregon 2004, pp. 35-55.
• Miles Cameron, Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals, Cambridge 2017.
• Miles Cameron A., Provisional measures and the margin of appreciation before the International Court of Justice, “Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2017, No. 8, pp. 1-21.
• Miles Cameron, Provisional measures and the „new” plausibility in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, BYIL, 2018, pp. 1-46.
• Miles Cameron, Provisional measures before International Courts and Tribunals, Cambridge 2018, pp. 209-216.
• Oda Shigeru, Provisional measures: The practice of the International Court of Justice, [in:] Fifty years of the International Court of Justice, eds. V. Lowe, M. Fitzmaurice, 1996, p. 541 at [555].
• Palchetti Paolo, The Power of the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures to prevent the aggravation of a dispute, “Leiden Journal of International Law” 2008, No. 21, pp. 627-630.
• Palchetti Paolo, Responsibility for breach of provisional measures of the ICJ: between protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the judicial function, “Rivista di diritto internazionale” 2017, pp. 5-22.
• Palchetti Paolo, Making and enforcing procedural law at the International Court of Justice, QIL, (Questions of International Law), Zoom-out 61, 2019, pp. 5-20.
• Picone Paolo, Interventi delle Nazioni Unite e obblighi erga omnes, [in:] Interventi delle Nazioni Unite e diritto internazionale, ed. P. Picone, Cedam 1995, pp. 517-578.
• Rosenne Shabtai, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2005, 4 Vols., 4th ed., Leiden: Nijhoff 2006 (1st ed. 1965).
• Sakai Hironobu, New Developments of the Orders of Provisional Measures by the International Court of Justice, 52 “Japanese Yearbook of International Law” 2009, pp. 244-257.
• Salkiewicz-Munnerlyn Ewa, Interim Measures of Protection in the Two Orders of The ICJ Genocide Cases (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, “Strani pravni život” 2009, No. 1, pp. 53-71.
• Schachter Oscar, International Law in theory and practice: General course in Public International Law, 1982, vol. 178 Recueil des Cours, p. 9-396.
• Sparks Tom, Somos Mark, The humanisation of provisional measures? Plausibility and the Interim Protection of Rights before the ICJ, MPIL (Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law), Research Paper Series No. 2019-20, pp.1-24.
• Stein Ted., Contempt , Crisis and the Court: The World Court and Hostage Rescue Attempts, 1982, 76 AJIL, p. 499-531.
• Turab F. Ahmadov, The Right of Actio Popularis before International Courts and Tribunals, St Anne’s College, University of Oxford, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, Trinity 2017.
• Uchikova Inna, Provisional Measures before the International Court of Justice, 2013, 12 LPICT, (The Law and practice of International Courts and Tribunals), pp. 391-430.
• Vucic Mihajlo, Binding effect of provisional measures as an inherent judicial power: An example of cross-fertilization, Annals FLB, “Belgrade Law Review” 2018, No. 4, pp. 127-142.
• Yee Sienho, Forum Prorogatum and the indication of provisional measures in the International Court of Justice, chapter 25, The Reality of international law, Essays in honour of Ian Brownlie, Oxford 1999, pp. 565-584.
• Zimmerman Andreas, Oellers-Frahm Karin, The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary, 2012, second edition, Oxford, p. 1135-1203.
• Zyberi G., Provisional measures of the International Court of Justice in Armed Conflict situations, “Leiden Journal of International Law” 2010, No. 23, pp. 395-416.