Digging Deeper into the “Plausibility of Rights”-Criterion in the Provisional Measures Jurisprudence of the ICJ

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW

Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals Pub Date : 2020-11-27 DOI:10.1163/15718034-12341428

R. Kolb

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Since 2009, the ICJ has included a plausibility requirement as a condition for indicating provisional measures as demanded by the applicant. What that criterion exactly means and how it is to be applied remains uncertain. This short contribution delves into some blind spots, which have not to date been meaningfully discussed either by the Court or in legal writings. The two main issues turn around the meaning of “preservation of rights” and the applicable standard for determining plausibility. In particular the rights-limb is replete with legal intricacies. Further, some ancillary aspects are discussed, e.g. the link of plausibility with jurisdictional issues. Various conclusions are drawn and some preferred interpretations uttered on these questions.

查看原文本刊更多论文

“权利的合理性”深挖——国际法院临时措施判例的标准

自2009年以来，国际法院将合理性要求作为申请人要求的指示临时措施的条件。这一标准的确切含义以及如何应用仍不确定。这篇简短的文章探讨了一些盲点，迄今为止，无论是法院还是法律著作都没有对这些盲点进行有意义的讨论。两个主要问题围绕着“权利保全”的含义和确定合理性的适用标准展开。特别是权利部分充满了错综复杂的法律问题。此外，还讨论了一些辅助方面，例如，合理性与管辖权问题的联系。对这些问题得出了不同的结论，并提出了一些优选的解释。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals LAW-

CiteScore

1.30

自引率

40.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.