{"title":"过度表示?国际法院的临时措施和随后的不利裁决","authors":"J. Merlin","doi":"10.1163/15718034-12341493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The method currently applied by the International Court of Justice for the purpose of indicating provisional measures does not fully preclude the risk that provisional measures might prove in retrospect to have been unjustified in specific circumstances. The question arises whether a litigating State might be entitled to reparation for the prejudice incurred from complying with onerous provisional measures in such cases. While the Court has only exceptionally come close to such a situation, it has not been faced with reparation claims yet. However, developments since LaGrand should prompt an examination of how the Court’s judicial practice may address the risk of problematic discrepancy between provisional measures and the Court’s final decision.","PeriodicalId":42613,"journal":{"name":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Unduly Indicated? Provisional Measures and Subsequent Adverse Findings at the International Court of Justice\",\"authors\":\"J. Merlin\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15718034-12341493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The method currently applied by the International Court of Justice for the purpose of indicating provisional measures does not fully preclude the risk that provisional measures might prove in retrospect to have been unjustified in specific circumstances. The question arises whether a litigating State might be entitled to reparation for the prejudice incurred from complying with onerous provisional measures in such cases. While the Court has only exceptionally come close to such a situation, it has not been faced with reparation claims yet. However, developments since LaGrand should prompt an examination of how the Court’s judicial practice may address the risk of problematic discrepancy between provisional measures and the Court’s final decision.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42613,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-12341493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
Unduly Indicated? Provisional Measures and Subsequent Adverse Findings at the International Court of Justice
The method currently applied by the International Court of Justice for the purpose of indicating provisional measures does not fully preclude the risk that provisional measures might prove in retrospect to have been unjustified in specific circumstances. The question arises whether a litigating State might be entitled to reparation for the prejudice incurred from complying with onerous provisional measures in such cases. While the Court has only exceptionally come close to such a situation, it has not been faced with reparation claims yet. However, developments since LaGrand should prompt an examination of how the Court’s judicial practice may address the risk of problematic discrepancy between provisional measures and the Court’s final decision.
期刊介绍:
The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals is firmly established as the leading journal in its field. Each issue will give you the latest developments with respect to the preparation, adoption, suspension, amendment and revision of Rules of Procedure as well as statutory and internal rules and other related matters. The Journal will also provide you with the latest practice with respect to the interpretation and application of rules of procedure and constitutional documents, which can be found in judgments, advisory opinions, written and oral pleadings as well as legal literature.