Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
<jats:sec><jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:p>Procedurally, individuals do not have access to the Court, or standing before the ICJ. Pursuant to the relevant articles 34.1 and 65 of the ICJ Statute individuals cannot be parties in contentious cases or in advisory opinions respectively. Individuals can be heard as witnesses and experts but this does not transform the persons in question to parties. However the individual is not completely ignored by the ICJ. On the contrary, the rights of the individuals are a core element of the legal reasoning in several decisions of the Court. These rights can be dwelt upon through an examination of the relevant human rights and humanitarian law sources. Rough this approach the court can take the individual in consideration either in an abstract fashion or in a more clearly defined way. Findings of violations in abstracto without reference to named individuals were made in the Democratic Republic of Congo v. Uganda Case, and the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory Advisory Opinion. On the other hand, the Court may identify violations that affect clearly identified individuals, as was the case in the Breard, LaGrand and Avena cases. In some of these cases not only was a violation found but the Court went even further by addressing the issue of reparation owed. It is, consequently, evident that through the examination of human rights and humanitarian law sources and the decisions of the relevant human rights bodies the individual, although not a direct party to the dispute may, nevertheless, constitute a source of inspiration for the legal thought-processes of the Court.</jats:p> </jats:sec>
International Community Law Review (continuation of International Community Law Review and Non-State Actors and International Law) – Brill
Published: Jan 1, 2007
Keywords: ADVISORY OPINIONS; HUMAN RIGHTS; CONTENTIOUS CASES
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.