Problem
Government refusal to accept the jurisdiction of international courts of justice
Other Names:
Government refusal to accept international tribunal arbitration Background:
In the past, particularly immediately following World War I, there was a number of cases in which legal procedures were instrumental in solving conflicts of a very diverse nature. In 1965, the USSR mediated a cease-fire between India and Pakistan in their conflict over Kashmir. In 1980, Iceland and Norway settled a dispute over the dividing line for the area of continental shelf by conciliation. Such examples show hat all legal means of dispute settlement, including mediation, conciliation, arbitration as well as adjudication, have considerable potential in the settlement of disputes between states and, if used properly, can help to significantly improve the international political climate. Incidence:
There are many cases where member states have refused to accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, or of regional courts such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Communities or the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. In 1983, of the 158 member states of the United Nations only 47 accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the UN International Court of Justice.
In 1993, out of 30 conflict situations currently dealt with by the UN, there was only one (the Slovakia/Hungary dam controversy) in which the International Court of Justice was involved.
Broader Problems:
Non-recognition of international law Reduces:
Dependence on arbitration Strategies:
Refusing jurisdiction of international courts of justiceAccepting jurisdiction of international courts of justice Subject(s):
Government → Government Law → Arbitration
Law → Judiciary
Law → Tribunals, courts
Societal Problems → Deprivation
Related UN Sustainable Development Goals:
Problem Type:
F: Fuzzy exceptional problems Date of last update
15.10.2020 – 18:06 CEST