过度表示?国际法院的临时措施和随后的不利裁决

IF 0.5 Q3 LAW
J. Merlin
{"title":"过度表示?国际法院的临时措施和随后的不利裁决","authors":"J. Merlin","doi":"10.1163/15718034-12341493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The method currently applied by the International Court of Justice for the purpose of indicating provisional measures does not fully preclude the risk that provisional measures might prove in retrospect to have been unjustified in specific circumstances. The question arises whether a litigating State might be entitled to reparation for the prejudice incurred from complying with onerous provisional measures in such cases. While the Court has only exceptionally come close to such a situation, it has not been faced with reparation claims yet. However, developments since LaGrand should prompt an examination of how the Court’s judicial practice may address the risk of problematic discrepancy between provisional measures and the Court’s final decision.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unduly Indicated? Provisional Measures and Subsequent Adverse Findings at the International Court of Justice\",\"authors\":\"J. Merlin\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-12341493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The method currently applied by the International Court of Justice for the purpose of indicating provisional measures does not fully preclude the risk that provisional measures might prove in retrospect to have been unjustified in specific circumstances. The question arises whether a litigating State might be entitled to reparation for the prejudice incurred from complying with onerous provisional measures in such cases. While the Court has only exceptionally come close to such a situation, it has not been faced with reparation claims yet. However, developments since LaGrand should prompt an examination of how the Court’s judicial practice may address the risk of problematic discrepancy between provisional measures and the Court’s final decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

国际法院目前为表明临时措施而采用的方法并不能完全排除这样一种风险,即临时措施事后可能被证明在具体情况下是不合理的。问题是,在这种情况下,诉讼国是否有权要求赔偿因遵守繁重的临时措施而造成的损害。虽然法院只是在例外情况下才接近这种情况,但它尚未面临赔偿要求。但是,自拉格朗德案以来的事态发展应促使审查法院的司法实践如何处理临时措施与法院的最后决定之间存在问题的不一致的风险。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Unduly Indicated? Provisional Measures and Subsequent Adverse Findings at the International Court of Justice
The method currently applied by the International Court of Justice for the purpose of indicating provisional measures does not fully preclude the risk that provisional measures might prove in retrospect to have been unjustified in specific circumstances. The question arises whether a litigating State might be entitled to reparation for the prejudice incurred from complying with onerous provisional measures in such cases. While the Court has only exceptionally come close to such a situation, it has not been faced with reparation claims yet. However, developments since LaGrand should prompt an examination of how the Court’s judicial practice may address the risk of problematic discrepancy between provisional measures and the Court’s final decision.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
40.00%
发文量
25
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信