The historical evolution of the optional clause

Vogiatzi
{"title":"The historical evolution of the optional clause","authors":"Vogiatzi","doi":"10.1163/157180702400453265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article provides a detailed analysis of the historical origins of the Optional Clause, spanning over two international conferences and more than two decades. Declarations made under Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute, known as the Optional Clause, are a relatively novel way of conferring jurisdiction. They were introduced for the first time in the Statute of the PCIJ as a compromise between states desiring true compulsory jurisdiction and those wishing to retain the traditional consensual character of international adjudication. Today, adherence to the Optional Clause remains stable over the last fifty years. Currently, of the 189 member-states to the UN and Switzerland sixty-four of them have deposited declarations recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 (2), This brings acceptance of the Optional Clause to approximately 1/3.","PeriodicalId":399071,"journal":{"name":"Non-state Actors and International Law","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Non-state Actors and International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/157180702400453265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14

Abstract

The article provides a detailed analysis of the historical origins of the Optional Clause, spanning over two international conferences and more than two decades. Declarations made under Article 36 (2) of the ICJ Statute, known as the Optional Clause, are a relatively novel way of conferring jurisdiction. They were introduced for the first time in the Statute of the PCIJ as a compromise between states desiring true compulsory jurisdiction and those wishing to retain the traditional consensual character of international adjudication. Today, adherence to the Optional Clause remains stable over the last fifty years. Currently, of the 189 member-states to the UN and Switzerland sixty-four of them have deposited declarations recognizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 (2), This brings acceptance of the Optional Clause to approximately 1/3.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
任择条款的历史演变
本文详细分析了任择条款的历史渊源,跨越了两次国际会议和二十多年。根据《国际法院规约》第36条第2款作出的声明,即所谓的任择条款,是一种相对新颖的授予管辖权的方式。它们是第一次在《国际司法法院规约》中提出的,作为要求真正强制管辖权的国家与希望保留国际裁决传统的协商一致性质的国家之间的妥协。今天,在过去的50年里,对《任择条款》的遵守保持稳定。目前,联合国和瑞士的189个成员国中,有64个国家已交存声明,承认法院根据第36条第2款具有强制管辖权,这使得接受任择条款的国家约占三分之一。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Privatization of Human Rights Violations – Business' Impunity or Corporate Responsibility? The Case of Human Rights Abuses and Torture in Iraq The application of customary international law by national courts: Introduction UK immigration law under attack and the direct application of article 8 ECHR by the ECJ Institutionalization of Cooperation Between Inter-Governmental Organisations and NGOs: The BSEC Experience Multinational enterprises: international codes and the challenge of `sustainable development'
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1