International Law And International Responsibility
Added on 2022-09-12
6 Pages1356 Words13 Views
|
|
|
Running head: INTERNATIONAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note
INTERNATIONAL LAW1
Discussion
Jurisdiction, in the past years, has been considered to be a primary topic for disagreement
since the formation of ICJ in the year of 1945. A quantum of forty seven nations have agreed to
and approved the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in relation to every legal disagreements
regarding the interpretation of treaties, any particular question relating to the international law,
and violation of any international responsibility. However, it may be said that a certain quantum
of nations, which may include the Soviet Union as well as the United States, have not yet agreed
to or approved the absolute compulsory jurisdiction in connection to the ‘International Court of
Justice’. The nation of the United States rejects and declines to subject itself in connection to the
ICJ’s jurisdiction, when it is deemed by the United States that the disagreement is basically
domestic or when it is deemed by the United States that the disagreement ascends under a
particular multilateral treaty (Prott, 2019).
The Connally Amendment of the year 1946 preserves and upholds certain reservations
regarding the jurisdiction of ICJ. However, it shall not mean that the ICJ will be unable to assert
jurisdiction in any case where the nation of United States might be involved. The ICJ may decide
and settle questions in the relevance of its own authority and jurisdiction. It shall be able to hear,
decide and settle a particular case if anyone involved party does not agree. Although, it cannot be
ensured by the ICJ that decrees would be enforced. The ICJ shall be forced to shift to the
political ground, that is, the Security Council, in order to induce obedience and compliance in
relation to the decisions forwarded by the ICJ (Young, Nyhan & Charlesworth, 2019).
In relation to the aforementioned discussion, the case of The Republic of Nicaragua v The
United States [1986] I.C.J 14 shall be considered to be a relevant case. In this case, it had been
Discussion
Jurisdiction, in the past years, has been considered to be a primary topic for disagreement
since the formation of ICJ in the year of 1945. A quantum of forty seven nations have agreed to
and approved the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in relation to every legal disagreements
regarding the interpretation of treaties, any particular question relating to the international law,
and violation of any international responsibility. However, it may be said that a certain quantum
of nations, which may include the Soviet Union as well as the United States, have not yet agreed
to or approved the absolute compulsory jurisdiction in connection to the ‘International Court of
Justice’. The nation of the United States rejects and declines to subject itself in connection to the
ICJ’s jurisdiction, when it is deemed by the United States that the disagreement is basically
domestic or when it is deemed by the United States that the disagreement ascends under a
particular multilateral treaty (Prott, 2019).
The Connally Amendment of the year 1946 preserves and upholds certain reservations
regarding the jurisdiction of ICJ. However, it shall not mean that the ICJ will be unable to assert
jurisdiction in any case where the nation of United States might be involved. The ICJ may decide
and settle questions in the relevance of its own authority and jurisdiction. It shall be able to hear,
decide and settle a particular case if anyone involved party does not agree. Although, it cannot be
ensured by the ICJ that decrees would be enforced. The ICJ shall be forced to shift to the
political ground, that is, the Security Council, in order to induce obedience and compliance in
relation to the decisions forwarded by the ICJ (Young, Nyhan & Charlesworth, 2019).
In relation to the aforementioned discussion, the case of The Republic of Nicaragua v The
United States [1986] I.C.J 14 shall be considered to be a relevant case. In this case, it had been
INTERNATIONAL LAW2
contended by the Nicaraguan administration that sinking of a fishing trawler by operatives of the
CIA was in relation to a program that had been sponsored by Reagan administration in order to
cause harassment to the Nicaraguan shipping. It was requested to ICJ by the government of the
nation of Nicaragua to declare that such activities of the nation of the United States was in
violation of the International Law. The Nicaraguan government made a request for the valuation
of the damages and an injunction order in favor of Nicaragua disallowing the government of the
nation of United States from providing its support in favor of such activities. It was held by the
ICJ that United States caused a violation of the obligations as per the customary international
law, pertaining to the non-utilization of force against any other nation and the non-intervention in
the affairs of any other nation. The ICJ stated that the nation of United States shall be
accountable to make payment of compensation in favor of Nicaragua. However, it was refused
by the nation of United States to take part in connection to the proceedings, when the arguments
of the United States were rejected by the ICJ. The United States also gridlocked the
implementation of the judgment of ICJ with the help of the UN Security Council and thus
prevented the nation of Nicaragua from the procurement of any compensation.
In relation to the Chagos Advisory Opinion, two questions had been addressed by the ICJ,
which were forwarded as a request by the General Assembly of United Nations. First, had
decolonization of Mauritius been concluded when the independence was gained in the year of
1968, after the Chagos Archipelago was expurgated? Second, what would be the consequences
in the legal sense in connection to the continued administration of the United Kingdom regarding
the Archipelago? Initially, it was assumed that the Court might be nervous and cautious to
deliver an opinion in connection to this case as, debatably, it was in relation to a dispute of
bilateral sovereignty, which the nation of the United Kingdom did not agree to be resolved and
contended by the Nicaraguan administration that sinking of a fishing trawler by operatives of the
CIA was in relation to a program that had been sponsored by Reagan administration in order to
cause harassment to the Nicaraguan shipping. It was requested to ICJ by the government of the
nation of Nicaragua to declare that such activities of the nation of the United States was in
violation of the International Law. The Nicaraguan government made a request for the valuation
of the damages and an injunction order in favor of Nicaragua disallowing the government of the
nation of United States from providing its support in favor of such activities. It was held by the
ICJ that United States caused a violation of the obligations as per the customary international
law, pertaining to the non-utilization of force against any other nation and the non-intervention in
the affairs of any other nation. The ICJ stated that the nation of United States shall be
accountable to make payment of compensation in favor of Nicaragua. However, it was refused
by the nation of United States to take part in connection to the proceedings, when the arguments
of the United States were rejected by the ICJ. The United States also gridlocked the
implementation of the judgment of ICJ with the help of the UN Security Council and thus
prevented the nation of Nicaragua from the procurement of any compensation.
In relation to the Chagos Advisory Opinion, two questions had been addressed by the ICJ,
which were forwarded as a request by the General Assembly of United Nations. First, had
decolonization of Mauritius been concluded when the independence was gained in the year of
1968, after the Chagos Archipelago was expurgated? Second, what would be the consequences
in the legal sense in connection to the continued administration of the United Kingdom regarding
the Archipelago? Initially, it was assumed that the Court might be nervous and cautious to
deliver an opinion in connection to this case as, debatably, it was in relation to a dispute of
bilateral sovereignty, which the nation of the United Kingdom did not agree to be resolved and
End of preview
Want to access all the pages? Upload your documents or become a member.
Related Documents