Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  provisional measures
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Uses and Underuses of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination at the International Court of Justice

100%
Balcerzak M.
Polish Yearbook of International Law
|
2018
|
vol. 38
11-27
EN
As many as three international disputes containing allegations of infringement of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) have been brought before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), thus contributing to the number of cases allowing the Court to pronounce itself on the international human rights law. Even though none of the cases invoking violations of ICERD has been (yet) adjudicated on the merits, they have already provided an opportunity to clarify (at least in part) the compromissory clause enshrined in Art. 22 of ICERD, as well as to tackle some other issues related to provisional measures ordered by the Court. This article discusses the ICJ’s approaches to the application of ICERD in the three above-mentioned cases, while posing the question whether indeed the 1965 Convention can be useful as a tool for settling inter-state disputes. The author claims that ICERD and the broad definition of “racial discrimination” set out in its Art. 1 constitute cornerstones for the international protection of human rights, though the recourse to the procedures provided in Art. 22 of ICERD – vital as they are – should not necessarily be perceived as a better alternative to the inter-state procedures and the functions exercised by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD).
2
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

Środki tymczasowe w sporze między Ukrainą a Federacją Rosyjską dotyczącym zarzutów popełnienia zbrodni ludobójstwa a kwestia jurysdykcji Międzynarodowego Trybunału Sprawiedliwości

100%
Kamiński T., Kobielski P.
Zeszyty Prawnicze BAS
|
2022
|
issue 2(74)
9-48
EN
The authors discuss the legal measures taken by Ukraine in connection with the invasion of the Russian Federation. One such measure was a request to the International Court of Justice in the Hague to oblige Russia to halt hostilities. The ICJ issued an order on provisional measures to secure the protection of Ukrainian rights in the course of the proceedings. In this paper, the authors analyze these measures, their embedding in the current jurisdiction of the ICJ and relevant legal bases.
3
Publication available in full text mode
Content available

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

58%
Sałkiewicz-Munnerlyn E.
Głos Prawa. Przegląd Prawniczy Allerhanda
|
2022
|
vol. 5
|
issue 1 (9)
219-235
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.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.