Judgment

Judgment

Provisional Measures (Interim Order) of the International Court of Justice: Binding or Recommendation? Look again at the International Court of Justice's Ruling on the Case of the LaGrand Brothers

Document Type : Scientific

Authors
Mohsen Mohebbi 1
Vahid Bazzar 2
1 Assistant Professor at Law, Theology and Political Science Faculty of Science and Research Branch of Islamic Azad University
2 Ph.D in International Law at Allameh Tabatabai University
Abstract
Following the condemnation of the LaGrand brothers to the execution and Implementation of sentence of one of them in the United States, Germany, invoking to the violation of Convention on Consular Relations (1963) and by reference to the first Protocol to this Convention, resorted to the International Court of Justice. Germany contended that the United States violated the right to consular which provided in Article 36 of Convention on Consular Relations and provisional measures of The Court which was issued to suspend the execution of the second brother until the final judgment of The Court. The Court declares that provisional measures is binding and creates an international legal obligation for the concerned state. The Court adds that the rights contained in the Convention on Consular Relations (Article 36), in addition to the creation of international obligations to the United States vis-à-vis other states parties, entail individual rights for LaGrand brothers. This interpretation of article 36, as well as the Court's approach to the binding nature of provisional measures and the responsibility for the violation, in particular the method of reparation of this violation, namely, continuous performance for non-repetition of internationally wrongful act, is an indication of the importance of this judicial mechanism in terms of guaranteeing the enforcement of international law.
Keywords
International Court of Justice
LaGrand
Provisional Measures
Interim Order
Consular Access

  1. فهرست منابع

    الف. منابع فارسی

    1. بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم؛ حمایت کنسولی از اتباع، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال بیستم، شماره 4، 1385، صص671-649.
    2. فابری، هلن روییز و سورل، ژان مارک؛ آیین دادرسی‌های بین‌المللی، ترجمه ابراهیم بیگ‌زاده، مجله حقوقی بین‌المللی، شماره 24، 1378، صص192-129.
    3. محبی، محسن؛ اقدامات تأمینی در داوری تجاری بین‌المللی (اصلاح قواعد داوری آنسیترال)، مجموعه مقالات همایش صدمین سال تأسیس نهاد داوری در حقوق ایران، انتشارات شهر دانش، 1391، صص182-139.
    4. محبی، محسن؛ تقریرات درس تحلیل محتوای آراء و احکام قضایی و داوری بین‌المللی، دوره دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران، 1394.
    5. موثق، هومن؛ حکم دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری در قضیه لاگراند و تحلیل محتوای آن، سالنامه ایرانی حقوق بین‌الملل و تطبیقی، سال بیستم، 1385، شماره 2، صص410-377.

    ب. منابع لاتین

    1. Aceves, William J. (2002), LaGrand (Germany v. United States), The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 96, No. 1, pp. 210-218.
    2. Antonacci, Louis. (2005), Lessons from LaGrand: An Argument for the Domestic Enforceability of Treaty-Based Rights Under International Prisoner Transfer Treaties, Santa Clara Journal of International Law, Vol. 3, Issue. 1, pp. 22-71.
    3. Cassel, Douglas. (2002), International Remedies in National Criminal Cases: ICJ Judgment in Germany v. United States, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, pp. 69-86.
    4. Deen-Racsmany, Zsuzsanna. (2002), Diplomatic Protection and the LaGrand Case, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, pp. 87-103.
    5. Fitzpatrick, Joan. (2002), The Unreality of International Law in the United States and the LaGrand Case, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, pp. 427-433.
    6. Halberstam, Malvina. (2005), Lagrand and Avena Establish a Right, but Is There a Remedy? Brief Comments on the Legal Effect of Lagrand and Avena in the U.S., ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 11, pp. 415-419.
    7. Kammerhofer, Jorg. (2003), The Binding Nature of Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice: the ‘Settlement’ of the Issue in the LaGrand Case, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, pp. 67-83.
    8. Kempen, Bernhard and He, Zan. (2009), The Practice of the International Court of Justice on Provisional Measures: The Recent Development, Zeitschrift fur auslndisches offentliches Recht und Volkerrecht, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 919-929.
    9. Lee, LT and Quigley, J. (2008), Consular Law and Practice, Oxford University Press.
    10. Lee-Iwamoto, Yoshiyuki. (2012), The Repercussions of the LaGrand Judgment: Recent ICJ Jurisprudence of Provisional Measures, Japanese Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 55, pp. 237-262.
    11. Mendelson, Maurice. (2004), State Responsibility for Breach of Interim Protection Orders of the International Court of Justice, in Issues of State Responsibility before International Judicial Institutions, edited by Malgosia Fitzmaurice and Dan Sarooshi, Hart Publishing, pp. 35-54.
    12. Oda, Shigeru. (1996), Provisional Measures, in Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice, edited by Vaughan. Lowe & Malgosia Fitzmaurice, Cambridge University Press, pp. 541-556.
    13. Oellers-Frahm, Karin. (2006), Article 41, in The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary, edited by Andreas Zimmermann and Christian Tomuschat and Karin Oellers-Frahm, Oxford University Press, pp. 925-971.
    14. Orakhelashvili, Alexander. (2002), Questions of International Judicial Jurisdiction in the LaGrand Case, Leiden Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, pp. 105-130.
    15. Ostrovsky, Aaron A. and Reavis, Brandon E. (2006), Rebus Sic Stantibus: Notification of Consular Rights After Medellin, Ostrovsky & Reavis FTP.doc, Vol. 27, pp. 1-30.
    16. Quigley, John. (2002), LaGrand: A Challenge to the U.S. Judiciary, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, pp. 435-440.
    17. Rosenne, Shabtai. (2005), Provisional Measures in International Law: The International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Oxford University Press.
    18. Sepulveda-Amor, Bernardo. (2011), Diplomatic and Consular Protection: the Rights of the State and the Rights of the Individual in the LaGrand and Avena Cases, in From Bilateralism to Community Interest: Essays in Honour of Judge Bruno Simma, edited by Ulrich Fastenrath, Rudolf Geiger, Daniel-Erasmus Khan, Andreas Paulus, Sabine von Schorlemer, and Christoph Vedder, Oxford University Press, pp. 1097-1117.
    19. Shelton, Dinah L. (2004), Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States), American Journal of International Law, Vol. 98, Issue. 3, pp. 559-566.
    20. Tams, Christian J. (2005), Recognizing Guarantees and Assurances of Non-Repetition: LaGrand and the Law of State Responsibility, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, pp. 441-444.
    21. Tams, Christian J. and Mennecke, Martin. (2009), LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 51, Issue 2, pp. 449-455.
    22. Thirlway, Hugh. (1994), Indication of Provisional Measures by the International Court of Justice, in Interim Measures Indicated by International Courts, edited by R Bernhardt, Springer-Verlag, pp. 1-36.
    23. Thirlway, Hugh. (2002), The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989, British Year Book of International Law, Vol. 72, pp. 1-130.
    24. Tisne, Philip V. (2006), The ICJ Municipal Law The Precedential Effect of the Avena and Lagrand Decisions in U.S. Courts, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 29, pp. 865-914.
    25. Trindade, Antonio Augusto Cancado. (2007), The Humanization of Consular Law: The Impact of Advisory Opinion No. 16 (1999) of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on International Case-law and Practice, Chinese Journal of International Law, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-16.
    26. Zyberi, Gentian. (2010), Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice in Armed Conflict Situations, Leiden Journal of lnternational Law, Vol. 23, pp. 571-584.
Judgment
Volume 18, Issue 95
Autumn 2018
Pages 91-115

  • Receive Date 20 August 2018
  • Revise Date 12 October 2018
  • Accept Date 15 December 2018