This major study of the International Court of Justice was the first comprehensive analysis of the issues confronting governments in reexamining the scope of their consent to the Court's jurisdiction. Topics include the suitability of various kinds of disputes for resolution by the Court; problems of non-appearance, non-participation, and non-performance; provisional measures; and more.

This volume is a collection of essays on the contentious issues of judicial independence and federal judicial selection, written by leading scholars from the disciplines of law, political science, history, economics, and sociology.

The Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations is a thought-provoking and valuable addition to the existing literature on the ICJ. The book’s originality lies in that it provides both the student and practitioner of international law and relations with a comprehensive evaluation of important but hitherto neglected aspects of the work of the World Court.

The evolving concept of universal jurisdiction, the modern doctrine of humanitarian intervention, and the challenges faced by legal theory in addressing issues of international terrorism are subjects of this profound study. The author ́s main intention is to reflect upon the legal and philosophical foundations of international criminal law in the context of politics. He analyzes the prospects of the International Criminal Court and compares this institution to other forms of universal jurisdiction such as the Security Council ́s ad hoc tribunals. He also points out the problem of double standards in the current practice of "humanitarian politics”. Hans Koechler was appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as international observer at the Lockerbie trial in the Netherlands. His experience gained at the "trial of the century” motivated him to reflect on the feasibility of international criminal justice and humanitarian intervention in the framework of the present unipolar world order.

Human Rights at the Crossroads brings together preeminent and emerging voices within human rights studies to think creatively about problems beyond their own disciplines, and to critically respond to what appear to be intractable problems within human rights theory and practice. It provides an integrative and interdisciplinary answer to the existing academic status quo, with broad implications for future theory and practice in all fields dealing with the problems of human rights theory and practice.

A most comprehensive book, first published in 1999, analysing the ICJ Advisory Opinions on nuclear weapons handed down in 1996.

The legal rules governing the use of force between States are one of the most fundamental, and the most controversial, aspects of international law. An essential part of this subject is the question of when, and to what extent, a State may lawfully use force against another in self-defence. However, the parameters of this inherent right remain obscure, despite the best efforts of scholars and, notably, the International Court of Justice. This book examines the burgeoning relationship between the ICJ and the right of self-defence. Since 2003 there have been three major decisions of the ICJ that have dealt directly with the law governing self-defence actions, in contrast to only two such cases in the preceding fifty years. This, then, is an opportune moment to reconsider the jurisprudence of the Court on this issue. This book is the first of its kind to comprehensively draw together and then assess the merits of this jurisprudence. It argues that the contribution of the ICJ has been confused and unhelpful, and compounds inadequacies in existing customary international law. The ICJ's fundamental conception of a primary criterion of 'armed attack' as constituting a qualitatively grave use of force is brought into question. The book then goes on to examine the underlying causes of the problems that have emerged in the jurisprudence on this crucial issue. Winner of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize 2009 Dr Green's monograph demonstrates a thorough understanding of the law of self-defence, coupled with an informed and evaluative discussion of the role and function of the International Court. It is an impressive analysis of the International Court of Justice's jurisprudence on self-defence. Professor Iain Scobbie, Judge of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize 2009, Sir Joseph Hotung Research Professor, School of Oriental and African Studies, London James Green's "The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law" usefully draws together the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice on the international law governing self-defence. The work could not be more timely in light of both contemporary State practice and the Court's recent controversial judgements on the topic. Of particular note is his analysis of the very complex, and as yet unsettled, notion of "armed attack." Professor Michael Schmitt, Chairman of the American Society of International Law's Lieber Society Book Prize Committee, Chair of Public International Law, Durham University Winner of the University of Reading Faculty of Social Sciences outputs prize for the best research output in 2010.

The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, and epitomizes the very notion of international judicial institution. Yet, it decides inter-State disputes only with the parties’ consent. This makes it more similar to international arbitral tribunals than other international courts. However, the permanent nature of the Court, the predetermination of procedural rules by the Statute and the Rules of Court, the public character of proceedings, the opportunity for third States to intervene in a case under Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute and the Court's role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations mark a structural difference between the ICJ and non-institutionalized international arbitral tribunals. This book analyses if and to what extent these features have influenced the approach of the ICJ (and of the PCIJ before it) to its own judicial function and have led it to depart from the principles established in international arbitration.

Critical review of the work and significance of the International Court of Justice over fifty years.

This landmark publication in the field of international law delivers expert assessment of new developments in the important work of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from a team of renowned editors and commentators.The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and plays a central role in both the peaceful settlement of international disputes and the development of international law. This comprehensive Commentary on the Statute of the International Court of Justice, now in its third edition, analyses in detail not only the Statute of the Court itself but also the related provisions of the United Nations Charter as well as the relevant provisions of the Court's Rules of Procedure. Six years after the publication of the second edition, the third edition of the Commentary embraces current events before the International Court of Justice as well as before other courts and tribunals relevant for the interpretation and application of its Statute.The Commentary provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of all legal questions and issues the Court has had to address in the past, and looks forward to those it will have to address in the future. It illuminates the central issues of procedure and substance that the Court and counsel appearing before it face in their day-to-day work. In addition to commentary covering all of the articles of the Statute of the ICJ, plus the relevant articles of the Charter of the United Nations, the book includes two scene-setting chapters: Historical Introduction and General Principles of Procedural Law, as well as important and instructive chapters on Counter-Claims, Discontinuation and Withdrawal, and Evidentiary Issues.