Public International Law
All judgments 2017/2018 by Tahrim Ramdjan 1
# Court & Case Name Held
1 ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf Opinio juris: States specially affected. Uniform and consistent
practice. Legal compelment.
2 ICJ Nicaragua Parallel obligation. States not acting with custom = breach of
custom, not new custom. State sovereignty. Voting behaviour of
Resolutions.
3 ICJ LaGrand Individual rights under state treaties. Interim measures binding.
4 CC Italy, Simoncioni and Ors v. Matter of constitutional conflict. National law prevails, but no
Germany exception to state immunity (as ruled by ICJ).
5 ICJ Nuclear Weapons (Adv.) No opinion juris regarding use of nuclear weapons. States full
legal capacity; IOs principle of speciality.
6 ICJ Qatar v. Bahrain Treaties valid regardless of form: here, minutes of meeting.
7 ICJ Kosovo (Adv.) Unilateral declaration of independence is in itself not illegal: law of
self-determination.
8 ECtHR S.A.S. v. France ‘Living together’ and proportionality. Ban on concealing the face is
necessary in democratic society.
9 ECSR, CEC v. Netherlands Netherlands at fault for not providing food, clothing and shelter to
undocumented migrants. Provisions of Charter applied beyond
what is mentioned in Treaty.
10 ECtHR, Ozgur Gundem v. Turkey Turkey’s measures were disproportionate and unjustified in
pursuit of legitimate aims. Not necessary in democratic society.
11 ECtHR, Axel Springer v. Germany Measures taken were not proportionate, German interference was
not necessary.
12 PCIJ, SS Lotus International law governs relations between sovereign States.
13 ICJ Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Persistent objector.
14 ICJ Agean Continental Shelf Press communiqué as treaty.
15 ICJ Preah Vihear Temple To invoke error as invalidation of treaty, error must have been
present at all times.
16 ICJ Fisheries Jurisdiction Change of circumstances not fundamental enough.
17 ICJ Reparations for Injuries (Adv.) Progressive increase in collective activities of states. UN is
intended to exercise functions and rights only on basis of large
measure of intl personality; could oth not carry out intentions.
18 ICJ Wall (Adv.) Crystallisation of right to self-determination under treaties.
Palestines have right to self-determination. Right also applies
extra-territorial. Situation in Palestine is unlawful.
19 ICJ Arrest Warrant Minister enjoys immunity. Cannot be tried: only for private acts,
after he left office.
20 ICJ Genocide Acts only attributed if under State’s direction or control. Was not
the case, but State at fault for not preventing genocide.
21 ICJ US Diplomatic and Consular The State owned the acts as if they were of their own, hence, they
Staff in Tehran attained responsibility for hostage of US officials.
22 ICJ Barcelona Traction Establishment of obligations erga omnes
23 ICJ South West Africa For dispute: claim of parties positively opposed to each other.
24 ICJ Georgia v. Russia In CERD: automatic agreement that in disputes, parties go to ICJ
25 ICJ Lockerbie Security Council resolutions of highest standing; SC and ICJ can
operate simultaneously
26 ECtHR Tyrer v. UK Convention interpreted as living instrument
27 ECtHR Airey v. Ireland Principle of effectiveness
28 ECtHR Handyside v. UK Margin of appreciation
29 ECJ Kadi ECJ cannot review legality of SC resolutions, but of EU
30 Regulations (that transposed SC resolutions)
31 HRC Lubicon Lake Band v. Committee can only treat individual complaints, not concerning
Canada group rights such as right to self-determination
32 ICJ Congo v. Uganda Extraterritorial jurisdiction ICESCR: obligation to respect and
protect abroad
33 ECtHR / HRC Mann Singh ECtHR: Margin of appreciation. HRC: Violation of religion and
identity rights.
34 ECtHR / HRC Achabal Puertas v. ECtHR: Inadmissibility. HRC: ECtHR did not consider merits of
Spain case sufficiently.
35 CRC IAM v. Denmark Principle of non-refoulement. Best interests of child.
,Public International Law
All judgments 2017/2018 by Tahrim Ramdjan 2
Judgment / Arrest 1
Court Case Title Year
ICJ North Sea Continental Shelf 1969
Claimant Defendant
Germany Denmark / the Netherlands
Facts of the case
Countries that border the North Sea have drawn boundaries to determine their continental shelves. The
Netherlands and Denmark appealed to the frontiers as drawn in the Geneva Continental Shelf
Convention; Germany, however, pointed to other rules, partially based on customary law.
Doctrine and Issue
1. Which rules are applicable to determine customary law?
2. Do these rules indicate a rule of customary law in casu?
Relevant legal rules
• -
Analysis
For international custom to be established, there need to be the objective component and the subjective
component.
Concerning the objective component, it is especially relevant for establishing the constitution of a rule of
customary international law when States “whose interests are specially affected by the custom” act in
conformity with the system. Duration is not per se an essential factor in customary international law (“the
passage of only a short period of time is not necessarily a bar to the formation of a new rule”): it is
rather more relevant that there is a “uniform and consistent practice”, especially amongst those states
whose interests were specially affected.
Concerning the subjective component, there must be evidence that States acted in a certain manner
because they felt “legally compelled” to do so; this requirement is even stricter when it may be very well
possible that “they might have been motivated by other factors”.
Conclusion
1. There has to be a uniform and consistent practice, especially of states involved (objective
requirement); and the belief that there is a legal requirement (subjective element).
2. The subjective element lacked in casu, thus there is no rule of customary international law.
,Public International Law
All judgments 2017/2018 by Tahrim Ramdjan 3
Judgment / Arrest 2
Court Case Title Year
ICJ Nicaragua 1986
Claimant Defendant
Nicaragua United States
Facts of the case
Nicaragua started a case against the United States, claiming that the United States has unlawfully used
violence in military and paramilitary activities between 1981 and 1984. The United States argued that the
prohibition on the use of force is not binding.
Doctrine and Issue
1. Is the prohibition on the use of force binding?
2. Where is this rule laid down?
3. Can the acts of the United States be attributed to it?
Relevant legal rules
• Charter of the United Nations, Art. 2(4): refrain from the treat or use of force against territorial integrities
• Charter of the United Nations, Art. 51: right to self-defence
Analysis
The prohibition on the use of force as laid down in the Charter of the United Nations reflects customary
law: it is a parallel obligation. If there is a general conduct of states, and states do not act in accordance
with that general conduct, then those acts should be seen as breach of customary law, not the
emergence of new custom. Neither does practice have to be rigorously conform with this rule. The US’
compliance with this rule of customary law is also seen in its voting behaviour when it comes to
resolutions of the United Nations.
“Each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely … [on] the choice
of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy.”
Intervention is wrongful when it regards one of these principles. Hence, the US cannot just coerce the
government of Nicaragua in a specific manner.
Conclusion
1. Yes, it is an established rule of international customary law.
2. This is a rule of international customary law, and it is also laid down in the UN Charter Art. 2(4).
3. Yes, the acts were under effective control of the United States
Implications of this case
Parallel obligations; Opinio juris
, Public International Law
All judgments 2017/2018 by Tahrim Ramdjan 4
Judgment / Arrest 3
Court Case Title Year
ICJ LaGrand 2001
Claimant Defendant
Germany United States
Facts of the case
The brothers LaGrand, both German nationals are on death row in the United States after a bank robbery
in which one person died. Germany has tried to urge the US to extradite, or to convert the death penalty to
a regular sentence. As a last resort, Germany has asked the International Court of Justice to last an
interim measure for the United States to not carry out the death penalty. The International Court of Justice
has approved this request but the United States have ignored it. Neither have the brothers had any notice
of consular assistance being available, while this is an obligation under the Vienna Convention on
Consular Relations.
Doctrine and Issue
1. Do individuals, in casu LaGrand, have rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations?
2. Did the United States violate international law by not complying with an ICJ judgment?
Relevant legal rules
• Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Art. 36: Right to consular assistance
• Statute of the ICJ, Art. 41: Interim measures
• Statute of the ICJ, Art. 59: Binding force of decisions
Analysis
The individual has rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention. This stems from the provisions of the
Convention, despite the Convention being a treaty among states. In casu, the ‘procedural default rule’ (that
a criminal defendant must be presented to a state court, before she can obtain relief at a federal court)
prevented counsel for the LaGrands to effectively challenge their convictions.
The United States argued that it had not violated a rule of international law, as the text of the ICJ Statute
regarding interim measures differs between the English and French version of the text. However, the
Court argued that the interim measures must be interpreted as binding, stemming from article 59 of the
Statute.
Conclusion
1. Yes, the LaGrands have individual rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.
2. Yes, the United States violated international law as the interim measures were binding.
Implications of this case
Individual rights under State treaties; Translation of treaties; Binding force of interim measures
