Interim measures of protection in the International Court of Justice – order of 16 March 2022 in case Ukraine vs Russia

• Authors: Ewa Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn

Title variants

PL

Tymczasowe środki zabezpieczające w Międzynarodowym Trybunale Sprawiedliwości – postanowienie z 16 marca 2022 r. w sprawie Ukraina przeciwko Rosji

Abstracts

EN

This article, which is published in English, examines the ICJ’s order of 16 March 2022 which introduced provisional measures in relation to the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russia). It discusses the criteria necessary for the International Court of Justice to grant provisional measures. The paper is based on the ICJ’s case law, in particular with respect to their binding character, following the judgment in the LaGrand case. The Court explained in that case that its orders on provisional measures are binding. Moreover, the ICJ took into consideration a new requirement – the credibility of protected rights – formulated by the Court for the first time in the case of Belgium v. Senegal.

PL

W artykule przeanalizowano zarządzenie MTS z 16 marca 2022 r. wskazujące środki tymczasowe w sprawie stosowania Konwencji o zapobieganiu i karaniu zbrodni ludobójstwa (Ukraina vs Rosja). Zostały wyjaśnione warunki, przy zaistnieniu których MTS wskazuje tymczasowe środki zabezpieczające, w oparciu o orzecznictwo MTS, szczególnie w odniesieniu do ich mocy wiążącej, po wydaniu wyroku w sprawie LaGrand, w którym Trybunał wyjaśnił, że jego postanowienia dotyczące środków tymczasowych są wiążące. MTS wziął również pod uwagę nowy wymóg – wiarygodności praw chronionych – sformułowany przez Trybunał po raz pierwszy w sprawie Belgia vs Senegal.

Keywords

PL

Międzynarodowy Trybunał Sprawiedliwości; Artykuł 41 Statutu MTS; tymczasowe środki zabezpieczające; wiarygodność praw chronionych; warunki przyznawania środków tymczasowych; skutki prawne środków tymczasowych; sposoby zapobiegania sporom

EN

International Court of Justice; provisional measures; credibility of protected rights; conditions for granting provisional measures; legal consequences of provisional measures; prevention of disputes

• Publisher: Fundacja im. Aliny i Leszka Allerhandów
• Journal: Głos Prawa. Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda
• Year: 2022
• Volume: 5
• Issue: 1 (9)
• Pages: 219-235

Dates

published

2022

Contributors

author

Ewa Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn

• https://orcid.org/0000000226172017

References

• Articles on responsibility of States for internationally wrong ful acts, Official Records of the General Assembly, 55th session, 2001, Supp. No. 10 (A/56/10), Chapter IV.E.1.
• Barile G. (1952) Osservazioni sulla indicazione di misure cautelari nei procedimenti davanti alla 838 Corte internazionale di giustizia. Comunicazioni e Stu- di:4–154.
• Lando M. Compliance with provisional measures indicated by the International Court of Justice, “Journal of International Dispute Settlement” 2017, 8, p. 22–55.
• Lando M., Plausibility in the provisional measures of the International Court of Justice, “Leyden Journal of International Law” 2018, 31, p. 641–668.
• Lee-Iwamoto Y., The repercussions of the LaGrand Judgment: Recent ICJ Jurisprudence on provisional measures, “Japanese Yearbook of International Law” 2012, 55, p. 251–262.
• Mendelson M. , State responsibility for breach of interim protection orders of the International Court of Justice, in: Fitzmaurice M., Sarooshi D. (eds), Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions (42), Hart, Oxford 2004.
• Miles C ., Provisional measures before international courts and tribunals, Cambridge University Press 2017.
• Oellers-Frahm K., Article 41, in: A. Zimmermann et al. (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary, Oxford University Press 2012, p. 1026–1068.
• Palchetti P., The power of the International Court of Justice to indicate provisional measures to prevent aggravation of a dispute, “Leyden Journal of International Law” 2008, 21.
• Palchetti P., Making and enforcing procedural law at the International Court of Justice, QIL 2019, 951 Zoom-out 61, p. 5–20.
• Rosenne S., Provisional measures in international law, Oxford University Press 2005.
• Sałkiewicz E., Geneva, Les mesures conservatoires dand les deux Cours de la Haye, Institut des Hautes Etudes Internationales [IHEI], 1984.
• Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E., ICJ Reports, Order of 17 April 2017, Interim measures of protection (Ukraine v. Russia) – order of 19 April 2017, “European & Comparative Law Journal” 2018, 9 (2), p. 2–16. http://journals.iir.kiev.ua/index. php/pravo/ article/view/3641
• Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E., Interim Measures of Protection in the International Court of Justice order of 23 January 2020 in case Gambia v Myanmar, “Głos Prawa” 2020, t. 3, nr 1 (5), poz. 2.
• Salkiewicz-Munnerlyn E., Jurisprudence of the PCIJ and of the ICJ on Interim Measures of Protection, T.M.C . Asser Press, Hague 2022, ISBN 978-94-6265-474-7 ISBN 978-94-6265-475-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-475-4, p. 33-46.
• Sparks T., Somos M. (2019), The humanisation of provisional measures? Plausibility and the interim protection of rights before the ICJ, “Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law & International Law (MPIL), Research Paper Series”, No. 2019-20, pp 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/160 ssrn.3471141;
• Uchkunova I (2013) Provisional measures before the International Court of Justice, “The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 2013, 12, p. 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, p. 127-142.
• Zimmerman A., Oellers-Frahm K., The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary, second edition, Oxford 2012, p. 1028.

Identifiers

Biblioteka Nauki

2232225