Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

I. the Court's Opinion and the Criticism Thereof

I. the Court's Opinion and the Criticism Thereof I. THE COURT'S OPINION AND THE CRITICISM THEREOF In so far as the United Nations is concerned, the question of its objective international personality has been clearly answered by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. In its con- clusion, the Court held unanimously that the Organization has the capacity to bring an international claim even against a non-member State. In this connexion the Court stated in its reasoning that "the Organization is an international person" and that fifty States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, in conformity with in- ternational law, to bring into being an entity possessing objective international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone, together with capacity to bring international claims.3) . This statement of the Court has, however, been criticized, notably by Schwarzenberger and Bindschedler,4) who maintain that re- cognition (or acquiescence) is necessary on the part of non-member 3) ICJ Reports, 1949, pp. 185 and 187, cf. pp. 218-19. The two statements quoted also appear to be unanimous, except possibly for Judge Hackworth, see ibid., p. 196. 4) http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Nordic Journal of International Law Brill

I. the Court's Opinion and the Criticism Thereof

Nordic Journal of International Law , Volume 34 (1-4): 9 – Jan 1, 1964
Download PDF
3 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/i-the-court-s-opinion-and-the-criticism-thereof-MNEoR8r9Gt

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1964 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
0902-7351
eISSN
1571-8107
DOI
10.1163/187529364X00023
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

I. THE COURT'S OPINION AND THE CRITICISM THEREOF In so far as the United Nations is concerned, the question of its objective international personality has been clearly answered by the International Court of Justice in its advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. In its con- clusion, the Court held unanimously that the Organization has the capacity to bring an international claim even against a non-member State. In this connexion the Court stated in its reasoning that "the Organization is an international person" and that fifty States, representing the vast majority of the members of the international community, had the power, in conformity with in- ternational law, to bring into being an entity possessing objective international personality, and not merely personality recognized by them alone, together with capacity to bring international claims.3) . This statement of the Court has, however, been criticized, notably by Schwarzenberger and Bindschedler,4) who maintain that re- cognition (or acquiescence) is necessary on the part of non-member 3) ICJ Reports, 1949, pp. 185 and 187, cf. pp. 218-19. The two statements quoted also appear to be unanimous, except possibly for Judge Hackworth, see ibid., p. 196. 4)

Journal

Nordic Journal of International Law – Brill

Published: Jan 1, 1964

There are no references for this article.