English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
 
 
DownloadE-Mail
  Reassessing State Consent to Jurisdiction: The Indispensable Third Party Principle before the icj

Sparks, T. (2022). Reassessing State Consent to Jurisdiction: The Indispensable Third Party Principle before the icj. Nordic Journal of International Law, 91(2), 216-252. doi:10.1163/15718107-91020005.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
Nordic Journal of International Law_2022_Sparks.pdf (Publisher version), 392KB
Name:
Nordic Journal of International Law_2022_Sparks.pdf
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Hybrid
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-

Locators

show
hide
Locator:
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-91020005 (Publisher version)
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Hybrid

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Sparks, Tom1, Author           
Affiliations:
1Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Max Planck Society, ou_3029158              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: adjudication; advisory opinions; Certain Phosphate Lands; Chagos Archipelago; consent; East Timor; indispensable third party principle; International Court of Justice (icj); jurisdiction; Monetary Gold
 Abstract: In Monetary Gold Removed from Rome, the International Court of Justice first articulated the “Monetary Gold rule”: the principle that it cannot rule on cases in which the conduct of a State not party to the proceedings forms the “very subject-matter” of the dispute. That principle is taken to be a fundamental rule of international law, deriving its force from the sovereignty of States and the nature of the international legal system.

This article will dispute that claim, and will argue that the principle of consent underpinning Monetary Gold is an empty formalism. Through a comparison of the Court’s approach in its contentious and advisory jurisdictions, it will ask to what States consent and for what purpose they do so, when they “consent to jurisdiction”, and no satisfactory answer will be found. It will conclude that the focus on consent in international adjudication is discretionary.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 2022-05-092022
 Publication Status: Issued
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1163/15718107-91020005
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Nordic Journal of International Law
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: København : Nordisk tidsskrift for international ret
Pages: - Volume / Issue: 91 (2) Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 216 - 252 Identifier: ISSN: 0902-7351
CoNE: https://pure.mpg.de/cone/journals/resource/110992357255942