Chronicle on International Courts and Tribunals (July 2013 - June 2014)

• Author: Annina Burguin y Jorge Antonio Quindimil López
• Pages: 1-22

www.reei.org

DOI: 10.17103/reei.28.14

CHRONICLE ON INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND

TRIBUNALS (JULY 2013 – JUNE 2014)

Annina Burguin

∗

Jorge Antonio Quindimil López

∗

Summary: I.

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

OURT OF

J

USTICE

(ICJ).

II.

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

RIMINAL

C

OURT

(ICC)

.

III.

M

ECHANISM FOR

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

RIMINAL

T

RIBUNALS

(MICT)

.

IV.

S

PECIAL

C

OURT FOR

S

IERRA

L

EONE

(SCSL)

–

R

ESIDUAL

S

PECIAL

C

OURT FOR

S

IERRA

L

EONA

(RSCSL)

.

V.

E

XTRAORDINARY

C

HAMBERS IN THE

C

OURTS OF

C

AMBODIA

(ECCC)

.

VI.

S

PECIAL

T

RIBUNAL FOR THE

L

EBANON

(STL)

.

VII.

EFTA

C

OURT

.

VIII.

P

ERMANENT

T

RIBUNAL OF

R

EVISION OF

M

ERCOSUR

(PTR)

INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS

GENERAL JURISDICTION

I.

I

NTERNATIONAL

C

OURT OF

J

USTICE

(ICJ) (www.icj-cij.org)

1. Judgments

Judgment of 11 November 2013 in the Case concerning the Request for Interpretation of

the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear

(Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand). The Court found unanimously, that it has

jurisdiction under Article 60 of the Statute to entertain the Request for interpretation of the

1962 Judgment presented by Cambodia, and that this Request is admissible; and declared,

unanimously, by way of interpretation, that the Judgment of 15 June 1962 decided that

Cambodia had sovereignty over the whole territory of the promontory of Preah Vihear, as

defined in paragraph 98 of the present Judgment, and that, in consequence, Thailand was

under an obligation to withdraw from that territory the Thai military or police forces, or

other guards or keepers, that were stationed there.

Judgment of 27 January 2014 in the case concerning the Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile).

In this final resolution, the Court:

∗

PhD in Political Science. Visiting Professor of Public International Law. University of Vigo. E-mail:

aburgin@uvigo.es.

∗

PhD in Law. Associate Professor of P ublic International Law. University of A Coruña. E-mail:

jorge@udc.es.

[28]

R

EVISTA

E

LECTRÓNICA DE

E

STUDIOS

I

NTERNACIONALES

(2014)

- 2 -

DOI: 10.17103/reei.28.14

(1) Decided, by fifteen votes to one, that the starting-point of the single maritime boundary

delimiting the respective maritime areas between the Republic of Peru and the Republic of

Chile is the intersection of the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1

with the low-water

line;

(2) Decided, by fifteen votes to one, that the initial segment of the single maritime

boundary follows the parallel of latitude passing through Boundary Marker No. 1

westward;

(3) Decided, by ten votes to six, that this initial segment runs up to a point (Point A)

situated at a distance of 80 nautical miles from the starting-point of the single maritime

boundary;

(4) Decided, by ten votes to six, that from Point A, the single maritime boundary shall

continue south-westward along the line equidistant from the coasts of the Republic of Peru

and the Republic of Chile, as measured from that point, until its intersection (at Point B)

with the 200-nautical-mile limit measured from the baselines from which the territorial sea

of the Republic of Chile is measured. From Point B, the single maritime boundary shall

continue southward along that limit until it reaches the point of intersection (Point C) of the

200-nautical-mile limits measured from the baselines from which the territorial seas of the

Republic of Peru and the Republic of Chile, respectively, are measured;

(5) Decided, by fifteen votes to one, that, for the reasons given in paragraph 189 [of the

present Judgment], it does not need to rule on the second final submission of the Republic

of Peru.

Judgment of 31 March 2014 in the case concerning Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v.

Japan: New Zealand intervening). The Court found that Japan’s whaling programme in the

Antarctic (JARPA II) is not in accordance with three provisions of the Schedule to the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. In the Judgment, the Court:

(1) found, unanimously, that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by

Australia on 31 May 2010;

(2) found, by twelve votes to four, that the special permits granted by Japan in connection

with JARPA II do not fall within the provisions of Article VIII, paragraph 1, of the

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling;

(3) found, by twelve votes to four, that Japan, by granting special permits to kill, take and

treat fin, humpback and Antarctic minke whales in pursuance of JARPA II, has not acted in

conformity with its obligations under paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule to the International

Convention for the Regulation of Whaling;