Chapter 10: Objecting to the Court’s jurisdiction
Since in most cases the seising of the Court under declarations of acceptance happens years after the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction by the parties to a dispute, thus states very often find themselves faced with proceedings instituted before the Court in legal disputes which they may never have thought to be ever submitted to the Court’s decision. In such cases one should not be suprised that the respondent states are challenging the Court’s jurisdiction in the form of preliminary objections, which is a procedural institution covered by the Rules of the Court. It should be noted that this action is typical not only for disputes submitted on the basis of declarations of acceptance, but also for cases where the title of the Court’s jurisdiction is a treaty provision. The raising of a matter of jurisdiction by a preliminary objection is a legal right of states which forms part of their litigation strategy and as Rosenne points out ‘no valid reason, legal or political, can exist to require a state to refrain from exercising its right if it is so minded’. The procedure to be followed when the respondent is exercising that right is regulated in a rather detailed manner by the Rules of the Court. Under Article 79 of the Rules one could differentiate between either objection to the jurisdiction of the Court or admissibility of the application.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.
Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.
Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.