Одну секунду
Что-то сучилось. Попробуйте еще раз.
ICJ смотреть последние обновления за сегодня на .
United Nations - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the world’s highest international court. It has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by UN Member States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies of the UN system. This short film (available in over 50 languages) presents its main features. Use of this file is free for non-profit and educational/editorial purposes. The ICJ encourages its use, reproduction and distribution for the same purposes. Sale or commercial use strictly prohibited. Learn more: 🤍
This virtual tour of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) leads the viewers through the rooms of the Peace Palace used by the judges in carrying out their judicial functions. FAQ What is the International Court of Justice? The Court is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It was established by the United Nations Charter, which was signed in 1945 in San Francisco (United States), and began work in 1946 in the Peace Palace, The Hague (Netherlands). The Court, which is composed of 15 judges, has a twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes between States submitted to it by them and, second, to give advisory opinions on legal matters referred to it by duly authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies. The Court’s official languages are English and French. Who may submit cases to the Court? Only States are eligible to appear before the Court in contentious cases. The Court has no jurisdiction to deal with applications from individuals, non-governmental organizations, corporations or any other private entity. It cannot provide them with legal advice or help them in their dealings with national authorities. However, a State may take up the case of one of its nationals and invoke against another State the wrongs which its national claims to have suffered at the hands of the latter; the dispute then becomes one between States. What differentiates the International Court of Justice from the International Criminal Court and the ad hoc international criminal tribunals? The International Court of Justice has no jurisdiction to try individuals accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity. As it is not a criminal court, it does not have a prosecutor able to initiate proceedings. This task is the preserve of national courts, the ad hoc criminal tribunals established by the United Nations (such as the International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals (IRMCT), mandated to take over residual functions from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)) or in co-operation with it (such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon), and also of the International Criminal Court, set up under the Rome Statute.
The public hearing on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Ukraine in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) was concluded today. Oral arguments were presented by Ukraine. The Russian Federation did not participate in the hearing. In a letter sent on Saturday 5 March 2022, the Russian Federation informed the Court that it “ha[d] decided not to participate in the oral proceedings due to open on 7 March 2022”. During the hearing, the seat of the Court, the delegation of Ukraine was led by Anton Korynevych, Permanent Representative of the President of Ukraine in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, as Agent. At the end of the hearing, Co-Agent of Ukraine Oksana Zolotaryova presented the following submissions to the Court on behalf of Ukraine. She said, “In these extraordinary circumstances, Ukraine request the Court’s Order the following provisional measures: a. The Russian Federation shall immediately suspend the military operations commenced on 24 February 2022 that have as their stated purpose and objective the prevention and punishment of a claimed genocide in the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts of Ukraine. b. The Russian Federation shall immediately ensure that any military or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, take no steps in furtherance of the military operations which have as their stated purpose and objective preventing or punishing Ukraine for committing genocide. c. The Russian Federation shall refrain from any action and shall provide assurances that no action is taken that may aggravate or extend the dispute that is the subject of this Application, or render this dispute more difficult to resolve. d. The Russian Federation shall provide a report to the Court on measures taken to implement the Court’s Order on Provisional Measures one week after such order and then on a regular basis to be fixed by the Court.” The Co-Agent also said, “Ukraine is being supported by the civilized world. We are grateful to each and every act and effort to support Ukraine. But we need more help. We need more help from our allies. We need more help from every institution in the world. That includes this Court. On behalf of the Government of Ukraine, and on behalf of the people of Ukraine, I thank you for your attention in this matter of national life or death. I respectfully urge the Court to issue your order with utmost urgency. We are in your hands. Thank you.” The Court’s decision on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Ukraine will be delivered at a public sitting, the date of which will be announced in due course. - The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, holds public hearings on the request for the indication of provisional measures presented by Ukraine in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) on 7 and 8 March 2022 at the Peace in The Hague, the seat of the Court. Session held under the presidency of Judge Joan E. Donoghue, President of the Court. La Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ), organe judiciaire principal de l’Organisation des Nations Unies, tient, les 7 et 8 mars 2022, des audiences publiques sur la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires présentée par l’Ukraine en l’affaire relative à des Allégations de génocide au titre de la convention pour la prévention et la répression du crime de génocide (Ukraine c. Fédération de Russie) au Palais de la Paix, à La Haye, où la Cour a son siège. Séance tenue sous la présidence de Mme la juge Joan E. Donoghue, présidente de la Cour. Screenshot Credit: UN Photo/Frank van Beek Original and French: 🤍
This lecture is by Cecily Rose, an Assistant Professor of International Law and a fellow at the Grotius Centre for International Legal Studies and Leiden Law School. Do you want to learn more and practice with the content? You’ll find this online university course for free at coursera.org This video by Leiden University is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommerical-ShareAlike 3.0 Netherlands License (see 🤍 Contact: mooc🤍fgga.leidenuniv.nl
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and began work in April 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague a city of Netherlands. Of the six principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The seat of the ICJ is at The Hague, but sessions may be held elsewhere when the court considers it desirable to do so. The official languages of the court are French and English. #InternationalCourtOfJustice #ICJ #CSSWorld
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the world’s highest international court. It has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by UN Member States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies of the UN system. This short film, which is available in multiple languages, presents the ICJ's main features. Use of this file is free for non-profit and educational/editorial purposes. The ICJ encourages its use, reproduction and distribution for the same purposes. Sale or commercial use strictly prohibited. For more information: 🤍icj-cij.org
#law #internationallaw #education #lecture #legal International Court of Justice ICJ Advisory Opinion International Law Lex Animata Hesham Elrafei International Court of Justice, advisory opinion visualized The International Court of Justice may give an advisory opinion on any legal issue, at the request of whatever body may be authorized by, or in accordance with the United Nations Charter to make such a request. The General Assembly and the Security Council, and other United Nations organs are authorized to request advisory opinions as per article 96 of the charter. Advisory opinions are of their nature not binding in law, though they may establish principles of law that are followed in subsequent actions, opinions, and cases. The International Court of Justice has the discretion to deal with the request, as it is not obliged to give an advisory opinion. As long as a request is framed in terms capable of judicial examination, the Court will give an opinion; regardless of whether the request has been politically motivated, or couched in abstract terms. Still, The Court will decline a request to provide an advisory opinion, if there exist compelling reasons to do so, as indicated by the Court in the Western Sahara Case. In addition, the Court will not deliver an advisory opinion, where the request by a Specialized Agency falls outside the scope of its activities, or if the matter relates to a contentious dispute between States, or concerns factual issues but one of the parties refuses to cooperate with the Court, thereby making it difficult for the Court, to arrive at any judicial conclusion upon the question, in the absence of sufficient materials.
Russia must immediately suspend military operations in Ukraine, the UN International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled on Wednesday (16 Mar), in The Hague. By a vote of 13 to two, with Vice-President Kirill Gevorgian of Russia and Judge Xue Hanqin of China dissenting, the ICJ ruled that Russia “shall immediately suspend the military operations that it commenced on 24 February.” The court’s ruling – the first such verdict handed down by the world court since the Russian invasion began – is in response to a suit filed by Ukraine on 27 February, accusing Russia of manipulating the concept of genocide to justify its military aggression. Although the ICJ's verdicts are binding, news reports questioned whether Moscow would abide by the ruling, and the court has no direct means of enforcing them. The Court began by recalling that, on 26 February Ukraine filed an application against Russia concerning a dispute on the interpretation, application and fulfilment of the Genocide Convention. Ukraine contended that having falsely claimed acts of genocide against the people of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, Russia declared and implemented what it called a special military operation to prevent and punish the purported acts. The ICJ asked Russia to immediately suspend its attacks and cease all military operations as they were based on Moscow’s stated purpose of preventing or punishing Ukraine for committing genocide. The Court also noted that Russia had decided not to participate in oral proceedings and later, presented a document setting out its position that in this case, the Court lacks jurisdiction and requested it to refrain from indicating provisional measures and to remove the case from its list. In delivering the verdict, President Joan E. Donoghue of the United States outlined that the necessary conditions were met to give the ICJ the authority to indicate provisional measures, namely that the rights asserted by Ukraine are plausible; genocide was not committed; and the condition of urgency was met in that acts causing irreparable prejudice can occur at any moment. The ICJ President said any military operation, in particular one on the scale carried out by the Russian Federation on the territory of Ukraine, inevitably causes loss of life, mental and bodily harm, and damage to property and to the environment. Judge Donoghue said the civilian population affected by the present conflict is extremely vulnerable, adding that Russia’s aggression has resulted in numerous civilian deaths and injuries and significant material damage, including the destruction of buildings and infrastructure. Attacks are ongoing and are creating increasingly difficult living conditions for the civilian population, and many people have no access to the most basic necessities, she explained. The judges were unanimous in their order that both parties refrain from any action that might “aggravate or extend the dispute…or make it more difficult to resolve.” More information: 🤍 Photo Credit: UN Photo/Frank van Beek
ICJ တရားရုံးမှာ တန်ပြန်လျှောက်လဲချက်တင်ဖို့ အချိန်ဆွဲနေတဲ့ စစ်ကောင်စီရဲ့တောင်းဆိုချက်ကို တရားရုံးက ခွင့်ပြုပေးနေတာက မြန်မာနိုင်ငံသားအားလုံးအတွက် နစ်နာမှုရှိတယ်လို့ လူ့အခွင့်အရေး လှုပ်ရှားသူတွေက ပြောပါတယ်။ #DVBTV #ICJ #လျှောက်လဲချက် #WhatsHappeningInMyanmar Subscribe DVB Youtube - 🤍 Follow DVB on Telegram - 🤍 Follow DVB on Facebook - 🤍 Follow DVB on Twitter - 🤍 Follow DVB on Instagram - 🤍 Follow DVB on Tiktok - 🤍 Read More DVB News - 🤍 DVB English - 🤍 About DVB The DVB (Democratic Voice of Burma) is a non-profit Burmese media organization committed to independent and responsible journalism. The DVB Foundation is registered in Oslo, Norway since 1992. DVB TV - 17 05 2023
The ICJ delivers its Order in the case Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America (provisional measures) . - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) unanimously ruled today (03 Oct) that the United States “shall remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments” to the free exportation of humanitarian needs to Iran arising from its withdrawal from the nuclear deal. Iran had filed a lawsuit late August claiming that the US was in violation the 1955 “Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights” between the two countries over sanctions it imposed against Iran. The US imposed the sanctions after withdrawing from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) signed in 2015 between Iran, the US, the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany. The Court found that some of the measures complained by Iran could relate to the essential security interests of the US and as such might affect at least some of the rights invoked by Iran under the 1955 Treaty. However, these did not include measures relating to the importation and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs and the safety of civil aviation. The Court ruled that the US “shall remove, by means of its choosing, any impediments arising from the measures announced on 8 May 2018 to the free exportation to the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran of: medicines and medical devices; foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; and spare parts, equipment and associated services (including warranty, maintenance, repair services and inspections) necessary for the safety of civil aviation.” It added that the US shall ensure that licences and necessary authorizations are granted, and that payments and other transfers of funds are not subject to any restriction in so far as they relate to these goods and services. The ICJ said both parties shall refrain from any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute before the Court or make it more difficult to resolve. - THE HAGUE, 3 October 2018. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, today delivered its Order on the Request for the indication of provisional measures submitted by Iran in the case concerning Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The Court begins by recalling that, on 16 July 2018, Iran instituted proceedings against the United States with regard to alleged violations of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights concluded between the two States in 1955. The same day, Iran also submitted a Request for the indication of provisional measures, seeking to preserve its rights under the 1955 Treaty pending the Court’s final decision in the case. The Court then sets out the factual background to the case. It notes in this regard that, on 8 May 2018, the President of the United States issued a National Security Presidential Memorandum announcing the end of the participation of the United States in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — an agreement on the nuclear programme of Iran reached on 14 July 2015 by Iran, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, plus Germany and the European Union — and directing the reimposition on Iran of “sanctions lifted or waived in connection with the JCPOA”. In the Memorandum, the President observed, inter alia, that Iran had publicly declared that it would deny the International Atomic Energy Agency access to military sites, and that, in 2016, Iran had twice violated the JCPOA’s heavy-water stockpile limits. It was announced that “sanctions” would be reimposed in two steps. Upon expiry of a first wind-down period of 90 days, ending on 6 August 2018, the United States would reimpose a certain number of “sanctions” concerning, in particular, financial transactions, trade in metals, the importation of Iranian-origin carpets and foodstuffs, and the export of commercial passenger aircraft and related parts. Following a second wind-down period of 180 days, ending on 4 November 2018, the United States would reimpose additional “sanctions”. Learn More: 🤍
Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Case (1997) ICJ By Hesham Elrafei gabcikovo nagymaros dam construction case In 1977, Hungary and Czechoslovakia signed a treaty to construct a dam. In 1989, Hungary abandoned the project, but Czechoslovakia continued construction work. In May 1992, Hungary notified Czechoslovakia that it was terminating the Treaty. Five months later, Czechoslovakia diverted the river's waters into a bypass canal which caused environmental harm. In January 1993, Slovakia became an independent Country. Hungary claimed that Czechoslovakia's unilateral construction activities constituted a material breach, and that the Treaty became impossible to perform, because implementing it would cause serious environmental harm. Consequently, it argued that under the Vienna Convention, an essential object of the Treaty had been destroyed. In addition, Hungary invoked the defense of Necessity to justify its decision to abandon construction work, and that Necessity is a recognized defense to State responsibility. Hungary also argued that it was entitled to terminate the Treaty, as there had been a fundamental change of circumstances since the Treaty was concluded, as the Treaty's obligations had been changed by the collapse of communism, and the reduced economic benefits linked with the project. In September 1997, the International Court of justice held that: Slovakia, as successor to Czechoslovakia, became a party to the Treaty from January 1993 That impossibility is not a valid ground to terminate the Treaty, as Hungary's failure to carry out the construction work compromised the Treaty's performance, and that Hungary could not use the Necessity's defense, as it could not prove that its decision was made in response to a situation of imminent danger to the environment. The Court also held that the collapse of communism and the reduced economic benefits, did not radically transform Hungary's obligations, as the change of circumstance must be fundamental and unforeseen, And that Hungary did not act in good faith in suspending the project as it was not entitled to abandon it. However, Czechoslovakia was in material breach when it diverted the river's waters. lastly, the ICJ held that Hungary and Slovakia must negotiate in good faith to ensure the achievements of the Treaty, and that unless the Parties otherwise agree, a joint operation regime must be established following the Treaty; And that Hungary shall compensate Slovakia for the damage resulted from its abandonment of works, while Slovakia shall pay Hungary for the damage it has sustained. #law #internationallaw #lawschool #internationalrelations #casesummaries
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the UN, delivers its Judgment on the preliminary objection raised by Venezuela in the case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela) on 6 April 2023.
ရိုဟင်ဂျာတွေအပေါ် လူမျိုးတုံးသတ်ဖြတ်မှုစွပ်စွဲချက်အတွက် စစ်ကောင်စီဘက်က ထုချေလွှာတင်သွင်း ရမယ့်နေ့ကို နိုင်ငံတကာတရားရုံး (ICJ) က နောက်ထပ်သုံးလ ရွှေ့ဆိုင်းလိုက်တယ်လို့ ICJ ရဲ့ မေလ ၁၂ ရက်နေ့ ဆုံးဖြတ်ချက်အရ သိရပါတယ်။ အဲဒါကြောင့် သြဂုတ်လ ၂၄ ရက်နေ့မှသာ စစ်ကောင်စီဘက်ကနေ ထုချေလွှာကို တင်ရတော့မှာ ဖြစ်ပါ တယ်။ စစ်ကောင်စီဘက်က ထုချေလွှာ တင်သွင်းရမယ့်ရက်ကို နိုင်ငံတကာတရားရုံး (ICJ) က နောက်ထပ် သုံးလ ရွှေ့ဆိုင်းလိုက်တာက စစ်ကောင်စီအား ရိုဟင်ဂျာတွေအပေါ် လူမျိုးတုံးသတ်ဖြတ်မှု စွဲချက်အတွက် အချိန်ပေးနေမှုသာဖြစ်ကြောင်း လူ့အခွင့်အရေး လှုပ်ရှားသူတွေ က ပြောပါတယ်။ ဒီမတိုင်ခင်ကလည်း ထုချေလွှာတင်ရမယ့်ကာလကို ၁၀ လအထိရွှေ့ဆိုင်းပေးဖို့ ၂၀၂၂ ခုနှစ် ဖေဖော်ဝါရီလမှာ စစ်ကောင်စီဘက်ကနေ တင်ပြခဲ့ပါတယ်။ အဲဒီတင်ပြချက်အပေါ်ကိုတော့ ICJ ဘက်က လက်မခံခဲ့ပဲ နောက်ထပ် ၁ လသာ ရွှေ့ဆိုင်းပေးခဲ့တာလည်း ဖြစ်ပါတယ်။ #Political News #MizzimaTV လွတ်လပ်တဲ့ မီဒီယာအဖြစ် ရပ်တည်နိုင်ရေး မဇ္ဈိမကို ဝိုင်းဝန်းကူညီပေးဖို့ ဖိတ်ခေါ်ပါတယ်။ သင်ရဲ့ ကူညီမှုကို အောက်ပါလင့်ကို နှိပ်ပြီး လုပ်ဆောင်နိုင်ပါတယ်။ 🤍 - 🤍MizzimaTV မဇ္ဈိမကို လွတ်လပ်တဲ့ မီဒီယာအဖြစ်ရပ်တည်နိုင်ရေးအတွက် ဝိုင်းဝန်းကူညီဖို့ ဖိတ်ခေါ်လိုက်ပါရစေ. လင့်ကို နှိပ်ပြီး သင်ရဲ့အားပေးကူညီမှုကို စတင်နိုင်ပါတယ်. 🤍 Subscribe now and join the Mizzima TV family to get insights into Burma's culture and people. With Mizzima TV, you can stay informed about the latest news and events happening in Myanmar, as well as connect with the world. 🤍 Facebook | Myanmar Language - 🤍 Facebook | English language - 🤍 Facebook | Mizzima+TV - 🤍 Twitter - 🤍 Telegram - 🤍 Tiktok - 🤍 Get Mizzima TV App Free - 🤍 Website: 🤍 🤍 🤍
Welcome to the International Court of Justice Delegate guide! Throughout this playlist, we will be explaining what exactly ICJ is and guide you through the exciting process of being a delegate in ICJ. For guidance with being a delegate in all other committees of MUN, make sure to have a look at our MUN Delegates Guide playlist! MUN Delegates Guide: 🤍 ICJ Delegates Guide: 🤍
Watch this lesson to understand more on this topic because for the first time Britain has lost the elections over an Indian Candidate. The International Court of Justice is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations (UN). the court settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly. Mudit has explained all the details of ICJ and also the impact of this election on India You can find the entire course here: 🤍 Download the Unacademy Learning App from the Google Play Store here:- 🤍 Do Subscribe and be a part of the community for more such lessons here: 🤍
Israel's ambassador to the UN, Gilad Erdan, has blasted the measure to adopt a draft Palestinian resolution at the United Nations decolonisation committee on Friday, calling it part of a "long line of anti-Israel resolutions". The resolution requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands since 1967. Subscribe to our channel: 🤍 Middle East Eye Website: 🤍 Follow us on TikTok: 🤍 Follow us on Instagram: 🤍 Like us on Facebook: 🤍 Follow us on Twitter: 🤍
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the world’s highest international court. It has a dual role: to settle in accordance with international law the legal disputes submitted to it by UN Member States, and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organs and agencies of the UN system. This short film, which is available in multiple languages, presents the ICJ's main features. Use of this file is free for non-profit and educational/editorial purposes. The ICJ encourages its use, reproduction and distribution for the same purposes. Sale or commercial use strictly prohibited.
The song highlighting Vanuatu's initiative to ask the International Court of Justice to deliver an Advisory Opinion on the obligations of States under international law to prevent significant harm to human rights and the environment. 🤍VanuatuICJ.com
Aung San Suu Kyi was testified in defence of her country, which is facing charges of genocide committed against the mainly-Muslim Rohingya minority group, brought by The Gambia, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Myanmar will have “no tolerance” for human rights abuses committed in Rakhine state and will prosecute the military, if war crimes have been committed there, Aung San Suu Kyi told the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN’s main judicial body. Learn more about the ICJ case "The Gambia v. Myanmar": 🤍 UN News Story: 🤍 Screenshot Credit: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek
#lawvita #InternationalLaw #unitednations Presented by:- Aradhya Gupta Instagram page:- 🤍 . . In this video we have discussed about the Organ of UNO(United Nation Organisation):- INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE . . Missed video of Aims,Objectives,Principles and Purposes of UNO👇 🤍 Missed video of Membership and Achievements of UNO👇 🤍 Missed Video of Events which led to establishment of UNO/FORMATION of UNO👇 🤍 Missed Video of League of Nations👇 🤍 Missed Video of Nature of International Law👇 🤍 Missed Video of Basis and Functions of International Law👇 🤍 Missed video of Introduction and Definitions of International Law👇 🤍 . . 🙏Do LIKE the video if it helped u! 🙏Do also SHARE this video with your friends and colleagues to reach it more number of people, this will really motivate me to make more videos with more enthusiasm. 🙏Don't forget to SUBSCRIBE to Lawvita..... . . . Playlist of Indian Evidence Act👇 🤍 Playlist of Indian Legal History👇 🤍 Playlist of MUSLIM LAW👇 🤍 Playlist of Hindu Law👇 🤍 Playlist of INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860(IPC)👇 🤍 Playlist of Law of Torts👇 🤍 Playlist of International Law👇 🤍 . . Thankyou Tc
#internationallaw #law #animation International Court of Justice disputes ICJ Arrest Warrant Case International Law Lex Animata Hesham Elrafei Arrest Warrant Case, international law, visualized In 2000, the Democratic Republic of Congo sued Belgium before the International Court of justice, regarding an international arrest warrant issued by a Belgian judge against the Congolian Minister of Foreign Affairs. The arrest warrant sought his detention and extradition to Belgium due to his alleged violations of international humanitarian law. Congo claimed that the Court has jurisdiction, that Belgium violated its sovereignty, and that the arrest warrant violated international law, on the immunity of high-ranking State officials. In addition, Congo filed a request for the indication of a provisional measure to withdraw the arrest warrant. In 2002, the world Court held that Belgium’s objections to the court jurisdiction, mootness, and admissibility be rejected; The ICJ also affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case, as Congo’s application was admissible and the case was not moot; Third, The Court confirmed that the international arrest warrant violated the immunity, that the foreign minister enjoyed under international law; and lastly, that Belgium must withdraw the arrest warrant, and notify the States that received the warrant accordingly.
The United States has long had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice, which primarily arbitrates legal disputes among UN member nations that recognize its jurisdiction. The United States withdrew from the court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 after the court ruled it owed Nicaragua war reparations. The United States also disagreed with the court's stance that it failed to fulfill its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations in 2005 in cases involving Mexican nationals on death row. "There's always been a little bit of a love-hate relationship" between the United States and the International Court of Justice, says Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the U.S. member of the court. However, she notes that more recently, the United States has increased its engagement with the ICJ especially with respect to individuals who are facing the death penalty in the United States. She says the United States is making considerable efforts to come into compliance, despite serious obstacles within its own constitutional system. Donoghue says she does not see herself as a representative of the United States to the court. "When I was at the State Department I served my country by representing it," she says, "and now I serve my country by being independent of it." While Donoghue acknowledges that the judges' nationality plays a role, she says it is for a different reason than people think. "Nationality has shaped the way we think because of the schooling we have, the kind of legal training we have, certainly our perspectives on issues are influenced by our nationality, but we are so much more than that," she says. 🤍
To get notes/contents and more knowledge related to law Stay connected with MJ Sir : * Email & Contact- connect.mmjoshi🤍gmail.com Facebook: 🤍 facebook page : 🤍 Twitter: 🤍manmohanjoshi Youtube: 🤍youtube.com/manmohanjoshi Blog: 🤍 Brief intro of MJ Sir : Mr Manmohan Joshi as known as MJ Sir is an advocate by profession and a teacher by passion, a renowned scholar of law, Author of best seller books, Motivator, thinker, educationist, and entrepreneur. Academic Qualifications: B.Sc., LL.M, MBA, PG Diploma in Cyber Law, PG Diploma in Human Rights. Work Experience: As an Entrepreneur: Working as a CEO with Kautilya Academy. As an author: Till July 2018, Eighteen books has been published in various subjects of law including two best seller “ Translation and summarization for judicial services” and “121 Legal and Social Essays”. As a research scholar: Till July 2018, Twenty one research papers has been published in various national and international law journals. As a key note speaker : Till July 2018, delivered lectures in 270 plus colleges in various legal and social issues i.e.: Women Empowerment, Career Options, Personality Development, Stress management, Time Management, Goal setting etc. Awards and Achievements: 1) Awarded with Education excellence award 2014', 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 2) Appreciated by Hon Governor MP for one of his books named “SC and ST Prevention of atrocities act -1989” 3) Utkrisht Lekhan Samman, And Various other awards for his works. *-
Enrol to StudyIQ's Flagship UPSC IAS (Pre + Mains) LIVE Foundation Batch 9. Admissions closing on 10 DEC'22 | Enrol now - 🤍 A time-tested focused method for clearing Prelims 2023 1. Live Classes 2. Static and Current Affairs Booklets 3. Workbook-based Test Series Join our flagship ‘UPSC IAS Live SIP+ 2023 Batch’ to prepare for prelims 2023 exam. Batch starting on 19th December, 2022 | Timing - 7:00 PM Join Now : 🤍 Join our Most Requested NCERT LIVE Batch to start your UPSC Journey. Batch Starting on - 05 DEC’22| 07:00 PM Join Now - 🤍 UPSC Civil Services Examination is the most prestigious exam in the country. It is important to lay a comprehensive and strong General Studies foundation for the exam. Both Prelims and Mains can’t be cleared without a strong Foundation. Time is running out and seats are limited for the batch. Join StudyIQ’s Test Series for various examinations and evaluate your preparation. Click on this link to know more : 🤍 Optional Papers are an important component of the Mains examination. Without a good score in Optionals, it is difficult to get a good rank. Increase your chances of scoring 300+ in optionals. UPSC IAS (Mains) LIVE Optional Batches : 🤍 UPSC IAS (Mains) LIVE PSIR Optional Batch 3 Admissions closing on 5th Dec '22 | To know more visit : 🤍 Sociology Optional Live Foundation Batch 1 by Deepanshu Singh Batch Starting On 19 Dec’22| To know more visit : 🤍 UPSC IAS (Mains) LIVE Geography Optional Batch 4 Starting On 26th December’22 | To know more visit - 🤍 Join UPSC Ethics Module - GS Paper 4 to score higher marks in GS PAPER 4 Batch Starting on 19 Dec’22| 7PM Join Now : 🤍 UPSC General Studies and Optional Combo batches Get extra discount by subscribing to our Combo batches: 🤍 UPSC and State PCS Combo batches UPSC + Uttar Pradesh PSC (Pre + Mains) LIVE Foundation Combo Batch 3 Admissions Closing on 10th December'22 To Know more visit: 🤍 UPSC + Bihar PSC (Pre + Mains) LIVE Foundation Combo Batch 3 Admissions Closing on 10th December'22 | To Know more visit: 🤍 The important course features are - 1. 1000+ Hours of Live teaching by our faculties 2. One-to-one mentorship to keep you on track to achieve the target 3. Handmade and concise Lecture Notes, Handouts on static topics 4. MCQ based learning for every lecture to enhance retention 5. Answer writing program guided by our experienced faculties 6. Daily Current Affairs Programme (CAP) PDF + Videos covering multiple sources 7. Benchmarking of students through weekly revision tests for students 8. Prelims Test Series to make you battle ready for Prelims exam 9. Gyanvani sessions by senior bureaucrats, selected candidates and senior aspirants 10. CSAT Lectures to help to adapt with changing patterns of examination. Gaurav Sir Courses - One-Stop Solution for Current Affairs of all Government Exams. Gaurav Sir Current Affairs 🤍 Complete Static GK by Dr. Gaurav Garg 🤍 Banking Awareness (Static) by Dr Gaurav Garg 🤍 Vipan Sir Courses - Courses to help you gain an edge with MCQs preparation 10000 MCQs of GA by Vipan Sir 🤍 GS - Dr. Vipan Goyal 🤍 StudyIQ is known for its superlative content and UPSC Books. Check the following links to order Books Principles of Geography Amazon: 🤍 Flipkart: 🤍 Fundamentals of Geography Flipkart: 🤍 Amazon: 🤍 Indian Economy Amazon : 🤍 Flipkart: 🤍 Indian Art and Culture Amazon : 🤍 Flipkart: 🤍 Modern Indian History Amazon: 🤍 Download the App to Subscribe to the Course - 🤍 For More Information regarding the course, Visit: 🤍 For any doubt, Call 080-6897-3353 or Click here for Whatsapp Chat 🤍
Ukraine launched its case against the Russian Federation at the United Nation’s International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, hoping to receive a court order of provisional measures to impede further Russian aggression and interference in Ukraine’s east. Since 2014, an estimated 10,000 lives have been lost as a result of the conflict in annexed Crimea and occupied Ukrainian territories. According to Lyal S. Sunga, Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, “the purpose of provisional measures is to preserve the rights of parties pending judicial resolution of a dispute and to ensure no further deterioration in a situation.” Although receiving a provisional measure could take months, and would in no way force Russia to abide by the orders, Professor Sunga believes that the Ukrainian Government is taking the proper measures to peacefully solve the conflict: “If Ukraine is able to get provisional measures, it shows that it has been able to make a plausible case…to show their rights are being violated.” And while Professor Dunga highlights the flaws of International Law, particularly the difficulty of enforcing it, he says that legitimacy at the international level is very important: “It establishes more clarity from an independent body, a highly respected body the judicial arm of the UNwhat is right and what is wrong.” Volodymyr Sologub spoke to Lyal S. Sunga, Visiting Professor at the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in March, 2017. Get up to speed on Ukraine. Follow Hromadske! 🤍 Ukraine, Explained. 🤍 Facebook: 🤍 Twitter: 🤍 YouTube: 🤍
It's Syed Wajdan Rafay Bukhari, serving as a Lecturer in Law at University Law College, University of Sargodha. Gold Medalist of LL.B Honors from BZU Multan. Gold Medalist of LLM Interntional Law from International Islamic University, Islamabad. This channel is created for CSS aspirants particularly for those who will opt the International Law, LL.B students and International Relations students. The purpose of channel is to spread knowledge of international law in an easy manner. Best of Luck. Syed Wajdan Rafay Bukhari (Lecturer in University of Sargodha) Cell: +92-321-7221015 Email: wajdanrafay🤍gmail.com
Italians are still demanding compensation for Hitler's crimes. Germany has now dragged Italy to the ICJ. Berlin claims Rome may start selling German property to pay war reparation. Palki Sharma Upadhyay brings you a report. #Gravitas #Germany #ICJ About Channel: WION -The World is One News, examines global issues with in-depth analysis. We provide much more than the news of the day. Our aim to empower people to explore their world. With our Global headquarters in New Delhi, we bring you news on the hour, by the hour. We deliver information that is not biased. We are journalists who are neutral to the core and non-partisan when it comes to the politics of the world. People are tired of biased reportage and we stand for a globalised united world. So for us the World is truly One. Please keep discussions on this channel clean and respectful and refrain from using racist or sexist slurs as well as personal insults. Subscribe to our channel at 🤍 Check out our website: 🤍 Connect with us on our social media handles: Facebook: 🤍 Twitter: 🤍 Follow us on Google News for latest updates Zee News:- 🤍 Zee Bussiness:- 🤍 DNA India:- 🤍 WION: 🤍 Zee News Apps : 🤍
La Cour internationale de Justice (CIJ) est l’organe judiciaire principal de l’Organisation des Nations Unies (ONU). Elle a une double mission : régler conformément au droit international les différends d’ordre juridique qui lui sont soumis par les Etats membres des Nations Unies et donner des avis consultatifs sur les questions juridiques que peuvent lui poser les organes ou institutions spécialisées de l’ONU autorisés à le faire. Ce court film, disponible en plusieurs langues, présente ses principales caractéristiques. Fichier libre de droits pour un usage éditorial ou éducatif à but non lucratif (usage commercial interdit). Partage encouragé. Pour de plus amples informations: 🤍icj-cij.org
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivers its Order on the request for provisional measures made by The Gambia in the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) La CIJ rend son ordonnance en l’affaire Gambie c. Myanmar (mesures conservatoires). Screenshot Credit: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek Learn More: 🤍 တရားသူႀကီးမ်ား၊ ေရွ႕ေနမ်ားႏွင့္ အစိုးရေရွ႕ေနမ်ား၏ လြတ္လပ္မႈႏွင့္ တာ၀န္ယူမႈဆိုင္ရာ ႏိုင္ငံတကာ စည္းမ်ဥ္းမ်ား 🤍 The Court begins by recalling that, on 11 November 2019, The Gambia filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against Myanmar concerning alleged violations of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 9 December 1948 (hereinafter the “Genocide Convention” or the “Convention”). The Application contained a Request for the indication of provisional measures, submitted pursuant to Article 41 of the Statute and Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court with a view to preserving the rights The Gambia claims under the Convention, pending the Court’s final decision in the case. I. PRIMA FACIE JURISDICTION (PARAS. 16-38) 1. General introduction (paras. 16-19) The Court notes that Article IX of the Genocide Convention makes its jurisdiction conditional on the existence of a dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the said instrument, and that it must therefore determine prima facie the existence of such a dispute between the Parties. It observes that, in principle, the date for determining the existence of a dispute is the date on which the application is submitted. First, Myanmar having argued that there was no dispute between the Parties in view of the fact that the proceedings before the Court were instituted by The Gambia not on its own behalf but rather as a “proxy” and “on behalf of” the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (“OIC”), in circumvention of Article 34 of the Statute, the Court notes that the Applicant instituted proceedings in its own name, and that it maintains that it has a dispute with Myanmar regarding its own rights under the Convention. In the view of the Court, the fact that The Gambia may have sought and obtained the support of other States or international organizations in its endeavour to seise the Court does not preclude the existence between the Parties of a dispute relating to the Genocide Convention. Turning to the question of whether there was a dispute between the Parties at the time of the filing of the Application, the Court notes that, on 8 August 2019, the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar established by the Human Rights Council of the United Nations (hereinafter the “Fact-Finding Mission”) published a report which affirmed its previous conclusion “that Myanmar incurs State responsibility under the prohibition against genocide” and welcomed the efforts of The Gambia, Bangladesh and the OIC to pursue a case against Myanmar before the Court under the Genocide Convention. The Court further notes that, on 26 September 2019, The Gambia stated during the general debate of the seventy-fourth session of the General Assembly of the United Nations that it was ready to lead concerted efforts to take the Rohingya issue to the International Court of Justice, and that Myanmar delivered an address two days later, characterizing the Fact-Finding Mission reports as “biased and flawed, based not on facts but on narratives”. In the Court’s view, these statements suggested the existence of a divergence of views concerning the events which allegedly took place in Rakhine State in relation to the Rohingya. In addition, the Court takes into account The Gambia’s Note Verbale of 11 October 2019, in which it stated that it understood Myanmar to be in ongoing breach of its obligations under the Genocide Convention and under customary international law and insisted that Myanmar take all necessary actions to comply with these obligations. In light of the gravity of the allegations made in this Note Verbale, the Court considers that the lack of response may be another indication of the existence of a dispute between the Parties. Read More: 🤍
The International Court of Justice, also known as the ICJ and the World Court, is the world’s highest court. Its role is to give advisory opinions on matters of international legal issues and settle disputes between states. The ICJ is the United Nations’ principal judicial organ, is made up of fifteen judges, and is located in the Hague in the Netherlands. Find a transcript, lesson plans, worksheets, and more at: 🤍 Think Further Questions 1. Is the ICJ an effective system of resolving disputes between nations? Why or why not? 2. What actions can be taken to make the International Court of Justice more effective and impartial? 3. Do you think that the U.S. should opt back into compulsory jurisdiction? Why or why not? Contents 00:00 - Introduction 00:22 - Explanation 00:38 - International Court of Justice 01:00 - The History 01:58 - How It Works 05:01 - Applying It #academy4sc #civicseducation #internationalrelations
#internationallaw #law #animation Nuclear Tests Cases ICJ International Law explained Lex Animata Hesham Elrafei Nuclear Tests Cases (Australia v. France ; New Zealand v. France) 1973 I.C.J. Rep. 99; 1974 I.C.J. Rep. 253, 457 . In 1972, France conducted atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific. Australia and New Zealand, in separate but identical proceedings before the International Court of justice, claimed that the tests were inconsistent with international law, and had caused radioactive fallout damage in their countries. They instituted proceedings against France, founding the jurisdiction of the Court on the 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, and articles 36 and 37 of the Statute of the Court. In 1973 , France sent a letter to the Court stating that it considered the Court not competent and did not accept its jurisdiction. On the request of Australia and New Zealand for interim measures of protection, the Court indicated that the non-appearance of France could not by itself prevent the Court from indicating interim measures. And that, as there was a prima facie ground for the Court's jurisdiction and the possibility of uncorrectable damage to Australia and New Zealand by radioactive fallout could not be excluded, France should, pending a final decision, avoid nuclear tests causing the deposit of radioactive fallout on Australian territory. In 1974, the Court held that Australia and New Zealand's Claims no longer had any object and that the Court was therefore not called upon to give a decision, as France declared its intention to hold no further nuclear tests in the South Pacific, and consequently the dispute had accordingly disappeared.
ရိုဟင်ဂျာတွေအပေါ် လူမျိုးတုံးသတ်ဖြတ်ခဲ့ကြောင်း ဂမ်ဘီယာနိုင်ငံက အမှုစွဲတင်ထားတာကို ရင်ဆိုင်နေတဲ့ စစ်ကောင်စီဘက်က အချိန်ဆွဲဖို့ ကြိုးစားနေတယ်လို့ ကုလသမဂ္ဂဆိုင်ရာ မြန်မာသံအမတ်ကြီး ဦးကျော်မိုးထွန်းက သတိပေးလိုက်ပါတယ်။ မအင်ကြင်းနိုင်က အကြောင်းစုံကို တင်ပြမှာပါ။
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is probing into Rohingya persecutions in Myanmar. However, Myanmar said the Gambia has no standing in the case. #ICJ #Myanmar #Gambia About Channel: WION -The World is One News, examines global issues with in-depth analysis. We provide much more than the news of the day. Our aim to empower people to explore their world. With our Global headquarters in New Delhi, we bring you news on the hour, by the hour. We deliver information that is not biased. We are journalists who are neutral to the core and non-partisan when it comes to the politics of the world. People are tired of biased reportage and we stand for a globalised united world. So for us the World is truly One. Please keep discussions on this channel clean and respectful and refrain from using racist or sexist slurs as well as personal insults. Subscribe to our channel at 🤍 Check out our website: 🤍 Connect with us on our social media handles: Facebook: 🤍 Twitter: 🤍 Follow us on Google News for latest updates Zee News:- 🤍 Zee Bussiness:- 🤍 DNA India:- 🤍 WION: 🤍 Zee News Apps : 🤍
The UN's highest court is set to decide on whether it has jurisdiction to hear a complaint against Myanmar for alleged genocide against its Rohingya minority. Gambia has accused Myanmar of breaching the UN genocide convention over a crackdown in 2017. Myanmar, however, has said the International Court of Justice should dismiss the case. Subscribe to our channel here: 🤍 Subscribe to our news service on Telegram: 🤍 Follow us: CNA: 🤍 CNA Lifestyle: 🤍 Facebook: 🤍 Instagram: 🤍 Twitter: 🤍
ICJ မှာ ဒေါ်အောင်ဆန်းစုကြည်ရဲ့ တင်ပြလျှောက်လဲချက်များ ~~~~~ ■ OIC အစ္စလာမ္မစ်နိုင်ငံများ ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရွက်ရေးအဖွဲ့ ကိုယ်စား ဂမ်ဘီယာနိုင်ငံက အမှုဖွင့် တိုင်ကြားထား သလို မြန်မာနိုင်ငံမှာ လူမျိုးတုံးသတ်ဖြတ်မှု ကျူးလွန်ခြင်း မရှိတဲ့အကြောင်း နယ်သာလန်နိုင်ငံ သည်ဟိတ်မြို့ က (ICJ) အပြည်ပြည်ဆိုင်ရာတရားရုံးမှာ နိုင်ငံတော်အတိုင်ပင်ခံပုဂ္ဂိုလ် ဒေါ်အောင်ဆန်းစုကြည် ဦးဆောင်တဲ့ ဥပဒေရေးရာ ကိုယ်စားလှယ်အဖွဲ့ဝင်တွေ ခုခံချေပခဲ့ကြပါတယ်။ RFA ဝိုင်းတော်သား ကိုကျော်မင်းထွန်းက တင်ပြထားပါတယ်။ - Unicode ~~~~~~~~~~~~ ICJ မွာ ေဒၚေအာင္ဆန္းစုၾကည္ရဲ႕ တင္ျပေလွ်ာက္လဲခ်က္မ်ား ~~~~~ ■ OIC အစ္စလာမ္မစ္နိုင်ငံမ်ား ပူးပေါင်းဆောင်ရြက်ရေးအဖြဲ့ ကိုယ္စား ဂမ္ဘီယာနိုင်ငံက အမှုဖြင့် တိုင်ကြားထား သလို ျမန္မာနိုင်ငံမွာ လူမိုးတုံးသတ်ျဖတ္မှု က်ူးလြန်ျခင်း မရွိတဲ့အေကြာင်း နယ်သာလန္နိုင်ငံ သည်ဟိတ်မြို့ က (ICJ) အျပည်ျပည္ဆိုင်ရာတရားရုံးမွာ နိုင်ငံတော်အတိုင္ပင္ခံပုဂ္ဂိုလ် ဒေါ်အောင္ဆန်းစုကြည် ဦးဆောင္တဲ့ ဥပေဒေရးရာ ကိုယ္စားလွယ်အဖြဲ့ဝင်တြေ ခုခံခေ်ပခဲ့ကြပါတယ်။ RFA ဝိုင်းတော်သား ကိုကေ်္မာင်းထြန်းက တင်ျပထားပါတယ်။ - Zawgyi ~~~~~~~~~~
Excerpt - The International Court of Justice (ICJ) redrew the maritime boundary between Somalia and Kenya in what it considered to be an equitable solution to the border dispute in the Indian Ocean. Full meeting: 🤍 The new maritime border was widely viewed as closer to the line proposed by Somalia. The Court unanimously found that there was “no agreed maritime boundary” between Kenya and Somalia. Last week, Kenya reneged its recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction and, as such, the country did not have representation at today’s session. Somalia had filed the case back in 2014, arguing that the maritime border should follow the direction of the land border. شاهد هذا الفيديو باللغة العربية على موقعنا 请在联合国网络电视（UN Web TV）观看中文版视频 Regardez cette vidéo en français sur UN Web TV Vean este video en español en UN Web TV Смотрите это видео на русском на UN Web TV 🤍
The International Court of Justice has ruled that Russia must get out of Ukraine. The court says Russia must immediately stop military operations, and withdraw its troops. Public Law Expert Professor Cathleen Powell joins us now
.svg){kind=small}
