The Report of International Court of Justice

In the Name of God Almighty Allah Beneficient and Merciful

Statement by Sahibzada Ahmad Raza Khan Qasuri on "The Report of International Court of Justice" 01 November 2007

Mr. President,

At the very outset I would like to thank Her Excellency Judge Roslyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice for presenting the latest report of the Court on its work between August 2006 and July 2007. I would also like to thank her for the detailed and thought provoking briefing before this august General Assembly.

2. Justice and the Rule of Law are key to an orderly international society. The need for international legal order and justice was never as acutely felt as today. Justice and fairness have become an integral requirement of present day existence. It is critical to the realization of all human rights, peaceful co-existence and cooperation among Member States.
3. Pakistan recognizes the International Court of Justice as the international court of a universal character with general jurisdiction. All 192 Member States of the United Nations are states parties to the Statute of the Court. Pakistan is not only a signatory but is one of the 65 countries who have deposited a declaration to the Secretary-General to the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in accordance with Article 36 of its Statute, that speaks volume of Pakistan's respect for Rule of Law and excess to justice.
4. We have taken note of the fact that about 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties provide for the Court to have jurisdiction in the resolution of disputes arising out of their interpretation and implementation. We also recognize the Court's jurisdiction in the situations of forum prorogatum arising from the implementation of Articles 38 of the Rules of the Court.

Mr. President,

5. We support the views expressed in the recent report on the work of the Court for the period under consideration recommending that the Court may be consulted on legal questions by the General Assembly, the Security Council and other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies authorized by the General Assembly, "arising in the scope of their activities". This could facilitate peaceful settlement of disputes as annunciated in the Charter of the United Nations.
6. The Charter of the United Nations, under Chapter VI, offers vast possibilities for the United Nations and its organs to play an important role in the pacific settlement of disputes and conflict prevention. Article 36, paragraph 3 of the Charter sets out the role of the Court in the settlement of disputes. Article 1, paragraph 1 of the Charter of the United nations, recognizes that settlement of international disputes "by peaceful means and in conformity with principles of justice and international law" is one of the basic purposes of the United Nations. Hence, the Security Council should make maximum possible use of its powers under Article 36 and 37 of the Charter to recommend legal disputes to the Court as a general rule.
7. These provisions offer wide range of option to Member States and the United Nations for settlement of disputes. It is up to them to make best possible use of these facilities.

Mr. President,

8. The Court has uniquely contributed to the interpretation and development of customary international law. The Court's work and decisions are closely monitored by Member States, international legal fraternity and others as the Court is playing an important role in the implementation and promotion of rule of law at international level. We have studied the Court's five decisions, delivered during the period under consideration. The recent decisions indicate that the Court had adopted a cautious approach.
9. The Court, in January 2007, delivered a judgment in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina vs. Uruguay) case. Uruguay was of the view that an influential group of people in Argentina had blocked a vital international bridge over the Uruguay River, which was causing enormous economic damage to Uruguay. Uruguay further pleaded to the Court that Argentina should take all reasonable and appropriate steps to prevent the damage. The Court on the basis of the circumstance as those were presented to it at the time of the decision declined to use its power under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court. The factual evidence, not other limitations, provided basis for the decision.
10. The Court's decision in February 2007 in the Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina vs. Serbia and Montenegro) was very important. This was first legal case in which allegations of genocide had been made by one State against another. On the jurisdiction part of the case it was clarified that the Court had jurisdiction to give a judgment on the case as this issue was decided in an earlier case. The new basis of challenge to the Court's jurisdiction were also rejected.
11. The Court found "the killings in Srebrenica in July 1995 were committed with the specific intent to destroy in part the group of the Muslims of Bosnia and Herzegovina in the area, and that what happened there was indeed genocide". The Court found that Serbia had violated its obligations contained in Article 1 of the Genocide Convention.
12. On the point of State responsibility some new questions emerged. While draft Article 4 on State responsibility approved by the International Law Commission states that a State is responsible for an act if an organ of the State is involved in the act. The Court found that some members of the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS) main staff were involved in the genocide. To some this amounted to the involvement of a State organ, as involvement of a State organ in an act could be proved through the involvement of its personnel, especially main staff. The Court remained shy of accepting this.
13. In May 2007 Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Ahmadou vs. DRC) judgment, on the point of diplomatic protection "by substitution", the Court upheld Ahmadou's rights as an individual and direct shareholder. However, due the lack of exceptions in the customary international law on allowing protections on the basis of substitution the Court did not allow protection by substitution.
14. Rule of Law and excess to justice is a sine quo non of democracy and good governance. This in turn is the surest guarantee of world peace, human dignity and sovereign equality of Member States.

Mr. President,

15. We have noted the Court's request to the United Nations for additional staff, including nine law clerk posts and one additional post of a senior official in the Department of Legal Matters. In the recent years the Court's work has gradually expanded. The judges have few clerks on their disposal, hence, they are compelled to share these human resources. While the Court was established in 1946, one third of its judgments and one-half of its orders were rendered in last ten years. Therefore, the request for expansion of the cadre is justified and my delegation supports addition of these new posts in the Department of Legal Matters of the Court.

I thank you Mr. President.