Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
1. On 16 September 2004 Romania filed in the Registry of the Court an Application dated 13 September 2004, instituting proceedings against Ukraine concerning the delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea. In its Application, Romania seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on the provisions of paragraph 4 (h) of the Additional Agreement constituted by an exchange of letters of 2 June 1997 between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Romania and Ukraine. The Additional Agreement was concluded with reference to Article 2 of the Treaty on the Relations of Good Neighbourliness and Co-operation between Romania and Ukraine, signed on 2 June 1997 (hereinafter the œTreaty on Good Neighbourliness and Co-operation?). Both instruments entered into force on 22 October 1997. 2. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Registrar immediately communicated a certified copy of the Application to the Government...
Tag this Judgment!Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
1. By joint letter dated 24 July 2003, filed in the Registry of the Court on the same day, the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Malaysia and the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter œSingapore?) notified to the Registrar a Special Agreement between the two States, signed at Putrajaya on 6 February 2003 and having entered into force on 9 May 2003, the date of the exchange of instruments of ratification. 2. The text of the Special Agreement reads as follows : œThe Government of Malaysia and the Government of the Republic of Singapore (hereinafter referred to as the Parties) ; Considering that a dispute has arisen between them regarding sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge; Desiring that this dispute should be settled by the International Court of Justice (hereinafter referred to as the Court) ; Have agreed as follows : M. S. Tiwari, Principal Senior State Counsel au cabinet de lAttorney-General de la Rpublique de Singapour, M. Lionel Yee,...
Tag this Judgment!Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
1. On 5 June 2008, the United Mexican States (hereinafter œMexico?) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the United States of America (hereinafter œthe United States?), whereby, referring to Article 60 of the Statute and Articles 98 and 100 of the Rules of Court, it requests the Court to interpret paragraph 153 (9) of the Judgment delivered by the Court on 31 March 2004 in the case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (I.C.J. Reports 2004 (I), p. 12) (hereinafter œthe Avena Judgment?). 2. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Application was immediately transmitted to the Government of the United States by the Registrar ; and, pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, all States entitled to appear before the Court were notified of the Application. 3. On 5 June 2008, after filing its Application, Mexico, referring to Article 41 of the Statute and Articles 73, 74 and ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
1. On 29 September 2005 the Republic of Costa Rica (hereinafter œCosta Rica?) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application of the same date, instituting proceedings against the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter œNicaragua?) with regard to a œdispute concerning navigational and related rights of Costa Rica on the San Juan River?. In its Application, Costa Rica seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on the declaration it made on 20 February 1973 under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, as well as on the declaration which Nicaragua made on 24 September 1929 under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which is deemed, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute of the present Court, for the period which it still has to run, to be acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of this Court. Costa Rica also seeks to found the jurisdiction of the Court on the Tovar-Caldera Agreement signed between the Parties on 2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
1. On 4 May 2006, the Argentine Republic (hereinafter œArgentina?) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Eastern Republic of Uruguay (hereinafter œUruguay?) in respect of a dispute concerning the breach, allegedly committed by Uruguay, of obligations under the Statute of the River Uruguay (United Nations, Treaty Series (UNTS), Vol. 1295, No. I-21425, p. 340), a treaty signed by Argentina and Uruguay at Salto (Uruguay) on 26 February 1975 and having entered into force on 18 September 1976 (hereinafter the œ1975 Statute?); in the Application, Argentina stated that this breach arose out of œthe authorization, construction and future commissioning of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay?, with reference in particular to œthe effects of such activities on the quality of the waters of the River Uruguay and on the areas affected by the river?. In its Application, Argentina, referring to Article 36, paragraph 1, of th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : International Court of Justice ICJ
1. On 6 December 2001, the Republic of Nicaragua (hereinafter œNicaragua?) filed in the Registry of the Court an Application instituting proceedings against the Republic of Colombia (hereinafter œColombia?) in respect of a dispute consisting of a œgroup of related legal issues subsisting? between the two States œconcerning title to territory and maritime delimitation? in the western Caribbean. As a basis for the jurisdiction of the Court, the Application invoked the provisions of Article XXXI of the American Treaty on Pacific Settlement signed on 30 April 1948, officially designated, according to Article LX thereof, as the œPact of Bogot? (hereinafter referred to as such), as well as the declarations made by the Parties under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, which are deemed, for the period which they still have to run, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the present Court pursuant to Article 36, pa...
Tag this Judgment!