You are currently viewing the old version of the website.
From December 5, 2019 the website is available at: http://ilpp.ru and http://academia.ilpp.ru/en
Follow Us
Contact

Institute for Law and Public Policy

Address: 129090, Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8

Mailing Address: P.O. Box 140, Moscow, 129090, Russia

Tel.: +7 (495) 608 6959, 608 6635; Fax: +7 (495) 608 6915

info@mail-ilpp.ru

Our location
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
    123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
       
“Meždunarodnoe pravosudie” (International Justice) Journal

№3 (23) 2017

Expert discussion of the Order of the International Court of Justice on indication of provisional measures in the case of Ukraine v. Russia

DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2017-3-119-135

Abstract. On May 25, 2017, an expert discussion was held at the Faculty of Law of the Higher School of Economics that centered on the Order of the International Court of Justice from April 19, 2017 imposing provisional measures in the case of Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russia). This summary was prepared based on materials from the expert discussion and includes the presentations of six speakers. The Order from April 19, 2017, was considered in the general context of the scientific discussion of problems connected to the International Court of Justice’s applying provisional measures. Among those noted were the loss of this procedural instrument’s exclusive character, the complexity of establishing the accountability of the state for not implementing provisional measures, the unsatisfactory situation of cases with execution of such orders, and also difficulties that the International Court of Justice runs into as it searches for a balance between discretion and caution in making decisions on applying provisional measures in each specific case. In the center of the following line of discussion is the question of the contents of provisional measures ordered by the International Court of Justice, and possible approaches to interpreting their scope. The discussion also identified the problem of executing the Order’s measures regarding the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, which was recognized by the Russian Federation as an extremist organization and whose operations have been banned. The discussion concluded with a perspective on the International Court of Justice’s further consideration of the case of Ukraine v. Russia as it pertains to applying the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Keywords: provisional measures; International Court of Justice; executing judicial decisions; review of judicial decisions; International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism.

Citation: (2017) Expertnoe obsuzhdenie postanovleniya Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON o primenenii vremennykh mer po delu Ukraina protiv Rossii [Expert discussion of the Order of the International Court of Justice on indication of provisional measures in the case of Ukraine v. Russia]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.119–135. (In Russian).

References

Gaeta P. (2007) On What Conditions Can a State Be Held Responsible for Genocide? European Journal of International Law, vol.18, no.4, pp.631−648.

Kempen B., Zan H. (2009) The Practice of the International Court of Justice on Provisional Measures: The Recent Development. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol.69, no.4, pp.919–929.

Kolb R. (2014) The Elgar Companion to the International Court of Justice, Cheltenham; Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Lando M. (2017) Compliance with Provisional Measures indicated by the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.8, no.1, pp.22–55.

Lee-Iwamoto Y. (2013) The ICJ as a Guardian of Community Interests? Legal Limitations on the Use of Provisional Measures. In: Byrnes A., Hayashi M., Michaelsen Ch. (eds.) International Law in the New Age of Globalization, Leiden; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, pp.71–92.

Llamzon A.P. (2007) Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law, vol.18, no.5, pp.815–852.

Palchetti P. (2017) 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, no.1, pp.5–22.

Paulson C. (2004) Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987. The American Journal of International Law, vol.98, no.3, pp.434–461.

Pellet A. (1999) Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely, Yes! European Journal of International Law, vol.10, no.2, pp.425–434.

Posner E.A., Yoo J.С. (2005) Judicial Independence in International Tribunals. California Law Review, vol.93, no.1, pp.1–74.

Rosenne Sh. (2004) Provisional Measures in International Law: The International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schulte C. (2004) Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Thirlway H. (2014) Peace, Justice and Provisional Measures. In: Gaja G., Stoutenburg J.G. (eds.) Enhancing the Rule of Law through the International Court of Justice, Leiden; Boston: Brill, pp.75–86.

 
Stay in the Loop!
Periodicals
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice 'Crystal Themis'
The Moot Court Competition on Constitutional Justice
Gallery