Acceso usuarios
Marie Ghantous
Summary Recourse to provisional measures before the lnternational Court of ]ustice (ICJ) has increased considerably but there have been significant recent developments in the nature of this practice. These developments highlight the growing power of international courts, a phenomenon attributable either to the inaction of the Security Council or to the rapid, snowball-likegrowth in the number of international criminal tribunals following the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the SovietUnion. Originally intended as a means of preserving the rights of the parties and evidence pending final resolution of the main proceedings before the le], provisional measures have become a tool in the service of international peace and security. They in effect take precedence over all other matters before the ICJand thus allowfor quick reaction to urgent situations.
Two orders for provisional measures made by the le] in 2011 confirm, on one hand, the jurisprudence of the le] concerning such measures. But on the other hand, they also extend the potential scope of provisional measures; and in so doing place the le] on a similar footing to that ofthe United Nations (UN) Security Council in its role as guardian of some of the primary objectives of the UN Charter, This concurrentjurisdiction can arise when a case before the ICJ concerns a situation being considered bythe Security Council;
but it can also manifest itselfwhen the ICJ indicates provisional measures of a military nature (for example, the establishment of a demilitarized zone) , something traditionally within the purview of the Security Council. This raises questions concerning the binding nature and enforceability of such provisional measures, but also whether they amount to abuses of process that could, paradoxically, dampen states' willingness to submit their disputes to the world court.
Sommaire Le recours aux mesures conservatoires devant la Cour internationale de]ustice (Cl]') a sensiblement augmenté mais une évolution significative a été notée dernierement. Ces développements mettent en exergue la montée en puissance des juridictions internationales soit du fait de l'immobilisme du Conseil de sécurité soit en raison d'u~ ef!e.t~oule de neige de la multiplication en u~ temps record des juridictions pénales internationales apres la chute du mur de Summary Recourse to provisional measures before the lnternational Court of ]ustice (ICJ) has increased considerably but there have been significant recent developments in the nature of this practice. These developments highlight the growing power of international courts, a phenomenon attributable either to the inaction of the Security Council or to the rapid, snowball-likegrowth in the number of international criminal tribunals following the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the SovietUnion. Originally intended as a means of preserving the rights of the parties and evidence pending final resolution of the main proceedings before the le], provisional measures have become a tool in the service of international peace and security. They in effect take precedence over all other matters before the ICJand thus allowfor quick reaction to urgent situations.
Two orders for provisional measures made by the le] in 2011 confirm, on one hand, the jurisprudence of the le] concerning such measures. But on the other hand, they also extend the potential scope of provisional measures; and in so doing place the le] on a similar footing to that ofthe United Nations (UN) Security Council in its role as guardian of some of the primary objectives of the UN Charter, This concurrentjurisdiction can arise when a case before the ICJ concerns a situation being considered bythe Security Council;
but it can also manifest itselfwhen the ICJ indicates provisional measures of a military nature (for example, the establishment of a demilitarized zone) , something traditionally within the purview of the Security Council. This raises questions concerning the binding nature and enforceability of such provisional measures, but also whether they amount to abuses of process that could, paradoxically, dampen states' willingness to submit their disputes to the world court.
Sommaire Le recours aux mesures conservatoires devant la Cour internationale de]ustice (Cl]') a sensiblement augmenté mais une évolution significative a été notée dernierement. Ces développements mettent en exergue la montée en puissance des juridictions internationales soit du fait de l'immobilisme du Conseil de sécurité soit en raison d'u~ ef!e.t~oule de neige de la multiplication en u~ temps record des juridictions pénales internationales apres la chute du mur de Summary Recourse to provisional measures before the lnternational Court of ]ustice (ICJ) has increased considerably but there have been significant recent developments in the nature of this practice. These developments highlight the growing power of international courts, a phenomenon attributable either to the inaction of the Security Council or to the rapid, snowball-likegrowth in the number of international criminal tribunals following the fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the SovietUnion. Originally intended as a means of preserving the rights of the parties and evidence pending final resolution of the main proceedings before the le], provisional measures have become a tool in the service of international peace and security. They in effect take precedence over all other matters before the ICJand thus allowfor quick reaction to urgent situations.
Two orders for provisional measures made by the le] in 2011 confirm, on one hand, the jurisprudence of the le] concerning such measures. But on the other hand, they also extend the potential scope of provisional measures; and in so doing place the le] on a similar footing to that ofthe United Nations (UN) Security Council in its role as guardian of some of the primary objectives of the UN Charter, This concurrentjurisdiction can arise when a case before the ICJ concerns a situation being considered bythe Security Council;
but it can also manifest itselfwhen the ICJ indicates provisional measures of a military nature (for example, the establishment of a demilitarized zone) , something traditionally within the purview of the Security Council. This raises questions concerning the binding nature and enforceability of such provisional measures, but also whether they amount to abuses of process that could, paradoxically, dampen states' willingness to submit their disputes to the world court.
Sommaire Le recours aux mesures conservatoires devant la Cour internationale de]ustice (Cl]') a sensiblement augmenté mais une évolution significative a été notée dernierement. Ces développements mettent en exergue la montée en puissance des juridictions internationales soit du fait de l'immobilisme du Conseil de sécurité soit en raison d'u~ ef!e.t~oule de neige de la multiplication en u~ temps record des juridictions pénales internationales apres la chute du mur de Berlin et de l'effondrement de l'URSS. Destinées a l'origine a préserver les droits des parties et a conserver les preuves lors d'une procédure principale devant la CI], les mesures conservatoires sont devenues un véritable instrument au service de la paix et la sécurité internationales. Elles ont, en effet, la priorité sur toutes autres questions portées devant la CI] et permettent ainsi de réagir .rapidement dans les situations d'urgence. Les deux ordonnances en indication de mesures conservatoires prononcées en 2011 consolident d'une part lajurisprudence de la CI]. Mais elles contribuent d'autre part a 1'extension du champ d'application des mesures édictées, mettant ainsi la CI] sur un pied d'égalité avec le Conseil de sécurité dans son róle d'organe des Nations Unies (ONU) participant a la réalisation des objectifs de la Charte de l'ONU. Cette concurrence se manifeste au niveau du Jitige dont le ConseiJ ou la CI] peuvent étre saisis,mais elle peut se manifester également dans la nature des mesures que la CI] va édicter et qui ont été dernierement de nature militaire notamment a travers la création d'une zone démilitarisée, chose qui était traditionnellement du ressort du Conseil de sécurité. Ce qui pose la question de la force obligatoire de ces ordonnances et de leur exécution mais aussi un risque de détournement de procédure qui pourrait paradoxalement refroidir le désir des États de recourir a la Cour mondiale.
