Volkenrecht en volkenrechtelijke instellingen (1101RECVVI)
Summary
Samenvatting Sleutelarresten volkenrecht
0 purchase
Course
Volkenrecht en volkenrechtelijke instellingen (1101RECVVI)
Institution
Universiteit Antwerpen (UA)
Dit is een document waarbij alle sleutelarresten, zoals aangegeven door prof. A. Nissen zijn samengevat met de feiten en de belangrijkste juridische principes, zodat je snel kan herhalen hiermee.
Volkenrecht en volkenrechtelijke instellingen (1101RECVVI)
All documents for this subject (12)
Seller
Follow
karpovamilana96
Content preview
VOLKENRECHT – KEY ARRESTEN
INHOUDSOPGAVE
A6: ICJ LEGALITY OF THE USE BY A STATE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ARMED CONFLICT (1996) ....................... 3
ICJ AD. OP. LEGALITY OF THE TREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS (1994) .................................................................. 3
PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE (PCIJ) (1922 – 1946) LOTUS (FRANCE V. TURKEY) ................ 3
ICJ BARCELONA TRACTION (BELGIUM V SPAIN) (1970) ................................................................................... 4
A4: ICJ MILITARY AND PARAMILITARY ACTIVITIES IN AND AGAINST NICARAGUA (NICARAGUA V US) (1986) .... 4
ICJ ADV. OP. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE SEPARATION OF THE CHAGOS ARCHIPELAGO FROM MAURITIUS
(2019) .......................................................................................................................................................... 5
ICJ ADV. OP. LEGAL CONSEQUENCES OF CONSTRUCTION OF A WALL IN THE OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN
TERRITORY (2004) ........................................................................................................................................ 5
ICJ ADV. OP. FISHERIES CASE (UK V NORWAY) (1951) ..................................................................................... 5
ICJ NUCLEAR TESTS CASE (NEW ZEALAND V FRANCE) (1974)........................................................................... 6
ICJ, CORFU CHANNEL (UK V ALBANIA) (1949) ................................................................................................. 6
PCIJ LEGAL STATUS OF EASTERN GREENLAND (DENMARK V NORWAY) (1933) ................................................ 6
CANADIAN SUPREME COURT, NEVSUN CASE (2020) ...................................................................................... 7
A12: ICJ, ARMED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO (CONGO V RWANDA) (2006) ........................ 7
ICJ, PROVISIONAL MEASURES: OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE OR EXTRADITE (BELGIUM V SENEGAL) (2009) ............. 7
A25: ICJ, OBLIGATION TO PROSECUTE OR EXTRADITE (BELGIUM V SENEGAL) (2012)....................................... 7
EU COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, KADI 2005 ............................................................................................................. 8
EU COURT OF JUSTICE, KADI 2008 ....................................................................................................................... 8
ICJ, APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE (GAMBIA V. MYANMAR) (2022) ................................................................................................... 8
ICJ, APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE (GAMBIA V MYANMAR) (ORDER PROVISIONAL MEASURES) (2022) ............................................... 8
A7: GABČIKOVO-NAGYMAROS PROJECT (HUNGARY V SLOVAKIA) (1997) ....................................................... 8
A1: ICJ REPARATION FOR INJURIES SUFFERED IN THE SERVICE OF THE UN (1949) ............................................ 9
A21: ICJ, ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL LAW OF THE UNILATERAL DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE IN
RESPECT OF KOSOVO (2010) ....................................................................................................................... 10
CANADIAN SUPREME COURT (QUEBEC) (1998)............................................................................................ 10
ICJ, LAGRAND (PROVISIONAL MEASURES) (1999)......................................................................................... 11
ICJ, LAGRAND (JUDGMENT) (2001) .............................................................................................................. 11
CONSITUTIONAL COURT OF COLOMBIA (2016, 2018) .......................................................................................... 11
EUROPEES HOF RECHTEN MENS, KLIMASENIORINNEN V ZWITSERLAND (2024) ............................................ 12
ICJ NOTTEBOHM (PRELIMINARY OBJECTION) (1953) ............................................................................................... 12
ICJ, NOTTEBOHM (LIECHTENSTEIN V GUATEMALA) JUDGMENT (1955) ........................................................ 12
DISTRICT COURT OF JERUSALEM, ADOLPH EICHMANN TRIAL (1961) ............................................................ 13
ICJ, ARREST WARRANT (CONGO V BELGIË) (2002) ........................................................................................ 13
ICJ, JADHAV (INDIA V PAKISTAN) (2019)....................................................................................................... 13
ICJ JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF THE STATE (GERMANY V ITALY, GREECE INTERVENING) (2012)............. 14
ICJ, DJIBOUTI V FRANCE (2008).................................................................................................................... 14
A3: ICJ TEHRAN HOSTAGES (US V IRAN) (1980) .................................................................................................. 15
A13: ICJ APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME OF
GENOCIDE (BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA V SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO) ...................................................... 16
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, VELÁSQUEZ RODRIGUEZ (1988)............................................ 16
ICJ ADV. OPINION LEGAL CONSEQUENCES ARISING FROM THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF ISRAEL IN THE
OCCUPIED PALESTINIAN TERRITORY, INCLUDING EAST JERUSALEM (JULI 2024)............................................ 17
1
,ICJ, APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(GEORGIA V RUSSIA) (2011) ........................................................................................................................ 17
CASE CONCERNING CERTAIN CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN FRANCE (REPUBLIC OF CONGO V FRANCE) (2010). 17
ICJ ALLEGATIONS OF GENOCIDE (UKRAINE V RUSSIA) (ORDER) (2022) .......................................................... 18
EU COURT OF JUSTICE, HANDYSIDE V UK (1976) ............................................................................................... 18
TRAIL SMELTER US V CANADA (1938 EN 1941) .................................................................................................... 18
A20: ICJ, PULP MILLS (ARGENTINA V URUGUAY) (2010)................................................................................ 19
ICJ, ‘CERTAIN ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY NICARAGUA IN THE BORDER AREA (COSTA RICA V NICARAGUA)’
(2018) ........................................................................................................................................................ 19
NEDERLANDSE HOGE RAAD, URGENDA V NEDERLAND (2019)...................................................................... 20
INTER-AMERICAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, ADV. OP. ‘ENVIRONMENT AND HUMAN RIGHTS’ (2017)............................... 20
WORLD TRADE ORGANISATION (WTO): APPELLATE BODY ‘05 GAMBLING SERVICES (US) ................................................ 20
2
, A6: ICJ LEGALITY OF THE USE BY A STATE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ARMED CONFLICT
(1996)
Het ICJ oordeelde dat de Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie (WHO) geen advies kon vragen over het
gebruik van kernwapens, omdat dit buiten haar bevoegdheden valt. Volgens haar grondwet richt de
WHO zich op gezondheid en kernwapens gaan vooral over vrede en veiligheid, wat onder de VN-
Veiligheidsraad valt.
Dus verzoek tot adviserende opinie werd afgewezen, want viel niet binnen de ‘reikwijdte van de
activiteiten’ van het verzoekende orgaan (WHO) → 2de voorwaarde art. 96 UN-Charter is niet
voldaan
§13-15: Doet de rechter niet aan politiek? Nee, is wel politieke kwestie, maar gekaderd in termen
van recht → ICJ is bevoegd
ICJ AD. OP. LEGALITY OF THE TREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS ( 1994)
Advies gevraagd door VN, niet door WHO
Het Hof kon niet definitief vaststellen dat het gebruik van kernwapens in alle omstandigheden
illegaal is, maar benadrukte:
- Gebruik ervan moet in overeenstemming zijn met internationaal humanitair recht en het
Handvest van de VN
- Gebruik van kernwapens dat burgers massaal treft of onnodig lijden veroorzaakt, is
onverenigbaar met internationaal recht
- Er bestaat verplichting om onderhandelingen voort te zetten voor volledige ontwapening
van kernwapens
PERMANENT COURT OF INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE (PCIJ) (1922 – 1946) LOTUS (FRANCE
V. TURKEY)
Arrest staat uitgelegd in inleiding handleiding De Feyter!
Hof bestaat niet meer
Er zijn 2 boten gebotst, 1 uit Frankrijk en 1 uit Turkije, wat leidde tot de dood van Turkse
bemanningsleden. Na afloop, heeft de Franse boot de nog overlevenden van de Turkse boot
teruggevoerd naar Turkije. De Franse kapitein werd bij aankomst door Turkije in de boeien geslagen.
Heeft Turkije internationaal recht overtreden?
- Geschil over welke staat rechtsmacht had om de FRA kapitein te berechten → FRA kreeg
ongelijk → PCIJ: Turkije mag Franse kapitein berechten, want passief personaliteitsprincipe,
- Niet alle rechters akkoord, want verregaand; nu nog steeds redelijk controversieel
- In de praktijk niet zo vaak toegepast, omdat het ook diplomatieke problemen geeft
- Vaak ook extra voorwaarden, zoals bv. dubbele criminaliteit in BE
Kernbegrippen: relaties tussen staten, instemming en international law of co-existence &
international law of cooperation
Staat mag geen macht uitoefenen in eender welke vorm in het territorium van een andere
staat, tenzij er een toestemmende regel bestaat
3
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller karpovamilana96. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $5.35. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
