Available in Russian
Author: Alexey Ispolinov
DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2024-3-54-74
Keywords: International Court of Justice; compromissory clauses; inter-state disputes; lawfare
This article examines the phenomenon of compromissory clauses in international treaties providing for the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice of the United Nations (ICJ) in disputes arising under these treaties. The significant increase in the number of disputes referred by States to the ICJ, noted by the author, can be explained by several reasons. The first is the changed attitude of States towards the possibility of using recourse to international courts to achieve their foreign policy goals. Lawsuits have come to be considered not as extraordinary events but as routine procedures which are an effective and necessary tool for implementation of foreign policy. At the same time, the claims of States in the ICJ are increasingly considered by applicant States as part of their strategically coordinated lawfare, involving all international courts and arbitrations available to the applicant State, against their opponents. Secondly, by the purely instrumental attitude of States towards compromissory clauses, these came to be considered by potential applicants as the most convenient and effective way to transfer a dispute to the ICJ. The Court itself also has contributed to the increase in the number of disputes it receives due to its liberal, in the author’s opinion, attitude towards a number of key aspects of compromissory clauses. A certain inconsistency of the Court in interpreting jurisdictional provisions may be quite pragmatic, allowing the Court to avoid adjudicating issues it is not ready to addess. The final part of the article is devoted to an analysis of the risks of compromissory clauses for the Russian Federation and its possible response to these risks. The author suggests looking at Russia’s existing international treaties containing compromissory clauses not from the point of view of minimizing possible risks but as valuable assets which can and should be used instrumentally to achieve its foreign policy goals.
About the author: Alexey Ispolinov – Doctor of Sciences in Law, Professor, Russian Foreign Trade Academy, Moscow, Russia.
Citation: Ispolinov A. (2024) Yurisdiktsionnye ogovorki (klauzuly) v praktike Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON [Compromissory clauses in the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.14, no.3, pp.54–74. (In Russian).
References
Akande D. (2016) Selection of the International Court of Justice as a Forum for Contentious and Advisory Proceedings (Including Jurisdiction). Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.7, no.2, pp.320–344.
Cannizzaro E., Bonafé B. (2005) Fragmenting International Law through Compromissory Clauses? Some Remarks on the Decision of the ICJ in the Oil Platforms Case. The European Journal of International Law, vol.16, no.3, pp.481–497.
Dimetto M. (2022) “To Fall, or Not to Fall, That Is the (Preliminary) Question”: Disputes, Compromissory Clauses and Swinging Jurisdictional Tests at the ICJ. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol.21, no.1, pp.5–34.
Fontanelli F. (2021) Once Burned, Twice Shy. The Use of Compromissory Clauses before the International Court of Justice and Their Declining Popularity in New Treaties. Rivista di Diritto Internazionale, vol.104, no.1, pp.7–39.
Harris C. (2019) Claims with an Ulterior Purpose: Characterising Disputes Concerning the “Interpretation or Application” of a Treaty. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, vol.18, no.3, pp.279–299.
Hill-Cawthorne L. (2019) International Litigation and the Disaggregation of Disputes: Ukraine-Russia as a Case Study. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, vol.68, no.4, pp.779–815.
Islam M.R., Muquim N. (2020) The Gambia v. Myanmar at the I.C.J.: Good Samaritans Testing State Responsibility for Atrocities on the Rohingya. California Western International Law Journal, vol.51, no.1, pp.77–131.
Kadysheva O. (2022) Neizvestnaya “sanktsionnaya voyna” i vozmozhnosti mezhdunarodnogo pravosudiya [Unknown “sanctions war” and the possibilities of international justice]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.12, no.4, pp.95–111. (In Russian).
Klein N. (2021) Iran and Its Encounters with the International Court of Justice. Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol.21, no.3, pp.620–652.
Lauterpacht E. (2011) Principles of Procedure in International Litigation. The Hague Academy Collected Courses Online/Recueil des cours de l’Académie de La Haye en ligne, vol.345. Available at: https://referenceworks.brill.com/display/entries/HACO/A9789004185142-02.xml (accessed: 17.07.2024).
McIntyre J. (2018) Put on Notice: The Role of the Dispute Requirement in Assessing Jurisdiction and Admissibility before the International Court. Melbourne Journal of International Law, vol.19, no.2, pp.546–587.
Ochoa-Ruiz N., Salamanca-Aguado E. (2005) Exploring the Limits of International Law Relating to the Use of Force in Self-Defence. The European Journal of International Law, vol.16, no.3, pp.499–524.
Oellers-Frahm K. (2017) The Awareness Requirement and Its Problematic Consequences for the Court’s Jurisdiction. Questions of International Law, vol.45, pp.33–41.
Ogbodo S.G. (2012) An Overview of the Challenges Facing the International Court of Justice in the 21st Century. Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law, vol.18, no.1, pp.93–113.
Papadaki M. (2014) Compromissory Clauses as the Gatekeepers of the Law to be “Used” in the ICJ and the PCIJ. Journal of International Dispute Settlement, vol.5, no.3, pp.560–604.
Pimenova S. (2023) Spor o nekotorykh iranskikh aktivakh (Iran protiv SShA): upushchennaya vozmozhnost' Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON i protsessual'nye ulovki storon [The case of Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v. USA): missed opportunity for the ICJ and procedural tricks of the parties]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.13, no.3, pp.3–17. (In Russian).
Pimenova S. (2024) Spor Ukrainy protiv Rossii v ramkakh Konventsii o genotside kak odin iz klyuchevykh etapov yuridicheskoy voyny [The dispute between Ukraine and the Russian Federation under the Genocide Convention as the high point of lawfare]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, vol.14, no.2, pp.77–94. (In Russian).
Ramsden M. (2022) Strategic Litigation before the International Court of Justice: Evaluating Impact in the Campaign for Rohingya Rights. The European Journal of International Law, vol.33, no.2, pp.441–472.
Tams C.J. (2002) All’s Well that Ends Well? Comments on the ILC’s Articles on State Responsibilty. Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht, vol.62, pp.759–808.
Tams C.J. (2009) The Continued Relevance of Compromissory Clauses as a Source of ICJ Jurisdiction. In: Giegerich T., Heinz U.E. (ed.) A Wiser Century?: Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years after the Second Hague Peace Conference, Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, pp.461–492.
Treves T. (2021) Litigating Global Crises. Setting the Scene: Legal and Political Hurdles for State-to-State Disputes. Questions of International Law, vol.85, pp.5–15.
Werner W.G. (2010) The Curious Career of Lawfare. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol.43, no.1, pp.61–72.
Vylegzhanin A.N., Zinchenko O.I. (2018) Yurisdiktsiya Mezhdunarodnogo suda OON: nekotorye teoreticheskie voprosy [The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: some theoretical issues]. Moskovskiy zhurnal mezhdunarodnogo prava, no.4, pp.6–32. (In Russian).
Zinchenko O.I. (2022) Spory, kasayushchiesya vooruzhennykh konfliktov: podkhody Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON k voprosam yurisdiktsii [Disputes relating to armed conflicts: approaches of the International Court of Justice to issues of jurisdiction]. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal, no.6, pp.23–29. (In Russian).
Zinchenko O.I. (2023) Mezhdunarodnyy Sud OON na sovremennom etape: aktual'nye vyzovy i perspektivy [The International Court of Justice today: current challenges and prospects]. Pravo i upravlenie. XXI vek, no.4, pp.32–40. (In Russian).
Zinchenko O.I. (2024) Priznanie yurisdiktsii Mezhdunarodnogo Suda OON: Dis. … kand. yurid. nauk [Recognition of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: Cand. in law sci. diss.], Moscow. (In Russian).