When a Dispute Exists: the Emerging Evidentiary Practice of the ICJ in Common Interests Proceedings

Abstract This contribution considers the practice of determining the existence of a dispute in proceedings before the International Court of Justice and explores the extent to which such assessment varies – or should vary – in relation to the legal interest protected. This question appears increasingly relevant in the context of common interests proceedings before the ICJ , that is, in cases in which the legal standing of the applicant(s) is based on a common interest in the compliance with erga omnes (partes) obligations. Zooming in on the requirements elaborated by the Court’s case law to date, the article argues that diverging theoretical postures – termed dialogic vs. systemic – inform the evidentiary approaches that have so far emerged and that are essentially discretionary. This contribution aims to shed light on how the Court’s evidentiary approach has adjusted to common interests proceedings to stand the test of time, while cautiously preserving the performance of the Court’s judicial function.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
Published
2024-12-06
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1163/15718034-bja10124
Primary Topic
International Arbitration and Investment Law
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When a Dispute Exists: the Emerging Evidentiary Practice of the ICJ in Common Interests Proceedings

Letizia Lo Giacco
The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals
International Arbitration and Investment Law
article

When a Dispute Exists: the Emerging Evidentiary Practice of the ICJ in Common Interests Proceedings

Letizia Lo Giacco
article en

Abstract

Abstract This contribution considers the practice of determining the existence of a dispute in proceedings before the International Court of Justice and explores the extent to which such assessment varies – or should vary – in relation to the legal interest protected. This question appears increasingly relevant in the context of common interests proceedings before the ICJ , that is, in cases in which the legal standing of the applicant(s) is based on a common interest in the compliance with erga omnes (partes) obligations. Zooming in on the requirements elaborated by the Court’s case law to date, the article argues that diverging theoretical postures – termed dialogic vs. systemic – inform the evidentiary approaches that have so far emerged and that are essentially discretionary. This contribution aims to shed light on how the Court’s evidentiary approach has adjusted to common interests proceedings to stand the test of time, while cautiously preserving the performance of the Court’s judicial function.

The Law and Practice of International Courts and TribunalsVol. 23(3)
Leiden University (NL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 61%
International Arbitration and Investment Law
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.