Provisional Measures and the Authority of the International Court of Justice: Sovereignty vs. Efficiency

1(1) Leeds Journal of Law and Criminology (2013) 45

24 Pages Posted: 25 Jan 2015

See all articles by Jake Rylatt

Jake Rylatt

University of Cambridge - Lauterpacht Centre for International Law

Date Written: September 1, 2013

Abstract

Article 41 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice ('the ICJ' or 'the Court') allows the ICJ to indicate provisional measures providing interim protection to the rights of either party to a pending dispute. Provisional measures have rarely received compliance, leading to an apparent lacuna in the authority of the Court. This article will develop an argument from two starting premises: firstly, state consent is the primary value by which we can measure the legitimacy of international law; secondly, that compliance with provisional measures, granted under the 'inherent' jurisdiction of the Court and without the 'ideal' consent provided by both parties, is a stronger indicator of the Court's authority. From this position, the author will advocate an approach for greater clarity, consistency and restraint from the ICJ. In doing so, the article will contend that the Court's jurisprudence has provided an overly broad assertion of authority, leading to recent State and judicial backlash. The article will then consider extensions to Article 41, and argue that whilst the Court has been wise to limit its power to issue orders 'proprio motu', the extent of its authority to prevent the aggravation of a dispute is questionable following the recent Temple of Preah Vihear decision. Furthermore, it shall be argued that whilst the binding nature of provisional measures has now been confirmed, the lack of both State compliance and enforcement procedures detracts from the authority of the Court. Finally, experience will be drawn from courts of the European Union in order to advocate reform that will be both practical and implementable, clarifying the scope of the Courts' powers and consequently re-injecting legitimacy into its power to indicate provisional measures.

Keywords: International Law, International Court of Justice, Provisional Measures, Temple of Preah Vihear

Suggested Citation

Rylatt, Jake, Provisional Measures and the Authority of the International Court of Justice: Sovereignty vs. Efficiency (September 1, 2013). 1(1) Leeds Journal of Law and Criminology (2013) 45, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2555009

Jake Rylatt (Contact Author)

University of Cambridge - Lauterpacht Centre for International Law ( email )

Lauterpacht Centre for International Law
5 Cranmer Centre
Cambridge, CB3 9BL
United Kingdom

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
400
Abstract Views
1,131
Rank
135,214
PlumX Metrics