The Report of the International Court of Justice
Statement by
Ambassador Farukh Amil, Acting Permanent Representative
on "The Report of the International Court of Justice "
(for the period 1st August 2007 to 31 July 2008)
Mr. President,
First, I would like to thank Her Excellency Judge Roslyn Higgins, President of the International Court of Justice for the excellent report she has presented to this august assembly on the work of the Court during the last year. The report adequately covers the matters related to the Courts functioning as well as substantive judicial issues related to the Court’s work.
Mr. President,
- The need for the peaceful settlement of disputes could have never been felt more seriously than in the present times. It has been mandated by the development and progress of the human society as well as the havoc wrought upon human society through the frequent use of force by State and non-State actors. It is through peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict prevention that we could ensure justice, equality and peace in our world.
- The International Court of Justice being principal judicial organ of the United Nations provides best platform to Member States and the United Nations’ organs for this endeavour. It is an International Court of a universal character with twofold general jurisdiction. In the first case, it decides upon disputes freely submitted to it by States in the exercise of their sovereignty. Currently, one hundred ninety two (192) States are party to the Statute of the Court and sixty-six States have also accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. Pakistan is a party to the Statute of the Court and we have also accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
- In addition to this, more than 300 bilateral and multilateral treaties provide jurisdiction to the Court in the settlement of disputes through interpretation of those treaties. The Court also enjoys jurisdiction in forum prorogatum situations.
- The Court is playing valuable role as far as its handling of cases related to its primary jurisdiction is concerned. We are happy to note that the number of cases decided by the Court during the last ten years has substantially increased over the similar period in the past through efficient handling of the cases brought before the Court. However, the problem comes from the States, who are reluctant to accept the Court’s jurisdiction on dispute settlement due to political considerations. We hope, with the passage of time, even those who are reluctant today, would accept the Court’s jurisdiction for the peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict prevention.
Mr. President,
- The Court’s advisory opinion jurisdiction, in accordance with Article 69 of its Statutes, covers consultations by the General Assembly and the Security Council on the legal questions arising within the scope of their activities. In the recent past, more cases of use of force under Chapter VII of the Charter were noted as compared to the referral of disputes to the Court for peaceful resolution under Article 36 of Chapter VI of the Charter. The United Nations Charter recognizes that settlement of international disputes “by peaceful means and in conformity with the principle of justice and international law” is one of the basic purposes of the United Nations. Chapter VI of the Charter offers vast possibilities for the United Nations and its organs to play an important role in pacific settlement of disputes. We strongly believe that better utilization of the Court for the peaceful settlement of disputes and conflict prevention will serve as basis for the long-term peaceful co-existence of the international community.
Mr. President,
- We are happy to note that the Court has handed down judgments on three important cases. The Court’s judgment in the case concerning “Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea” is helpful in understanding the Court’s approach to the difficult legal questions. The Court was to decide sovereignty of Nicaragua or Honduras over the Island of Bobel Cay, Savanna Cay, Port Royal Cay and South Cay. It was important to note that the Court first wanted to base its decision on the principle of uti possidetis juris. The Court sought to identify any post-colonial affectivities after it concluded that the title of the Islands could not be established by virtue of uti possidetis juris. We are of the view that this approach could help settle disputes related to small islands and the decision may not serve as a general precedent for handling of such cases.
- The Court also handed down its judgment in the case concerning Territorial and Maritime Dispute of Nicaragua vs Colombia. The case was related to the obligation of parties under treaties and interpretation of treaties. It also highlighted willingness of Nicaragua and Columbia to settle these disputes through peaceful means. The Court’s judgment in the case concerning sovereignty in the Malaysia Vs Singapore case was also an important outcome. We have noted that many aspects of the Court’s judgment on these cases were put to a vote and had to be decided on the basis of a majority decision. We have been carefully studying these judgments and their precedent setting implications on international law.
Mr. President,
- We have noted with appreciation that the Court has been systematically and regularly re-examining its ongoing proceedings and work methods. The Court’s efforts to enhance its productivity especially through regular meetings devoted to strategic planning of its work are praiseworthy. We have also noted that the Court has set for itself a particularly demanding schedule of hearings and deliberations and has cleared the backlog of cases. We appreciate the Court’s assurance to Member States that oral proceedings on the cases could now be started in a timely manner, immediately after finishing the written exchanges.
Mr. President,
- The international legal institutions, especially the International Court of Justice, have important role in defining and implementing justice and rule of law in today’s world. The principles of peaceful co-existence and respect for basic human rights could only be ensured through respect for the rule of law and justice. The International Court of Justice through its impartial and independent decisions could contribute to a rule of law based international society, however, it is willingness of the Member States, General Assembly and the Security Council which would play pivotal role in defining and promoting a rule of law based international legal system.
I thank you Mr. President.