Sixty-first General Assembly

Plenary

41^st Meeting (PM)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IS ‘COURT OF UNITED NATIONS’ IN RAPIDLY EXPANDING

FIELD OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, GENERAL ASSEMBLY TOLD BY COURT’S PRESIDENT

Sixty Years Later, Court Stands Alone in Resolving Disputes;

Budgetary Requests Modest, But Urgent, With 12 Cases on Docket

Calling the International Court of Justice the “Court of the United Nations” and not the court of any region or personality, with 192 members and 15 judges from around the world, its President, Judge Rosalyn Higgins, upheld the Court’s unique role in the rapidly expanding and specializing body of international law and appealed to the General Assembly to provide it with adequate support.

Judge Higgins, introducing the Court’s report, said that 67 States had accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction and about 300 treaties referred to the Court in relation to the settlement of disputes.  The Court’s cases came from all around the world; four were between European States; four between Latin American States; two between African States; one between Asian States and two of an intercontinental character.  Current members of the Court hailed from China, France, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Morocco, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, United Kingdom, United States and Venezuela.

Sixty years since the Court’s creation, the Court stood virtually alone as the forum for resolving international disputes, just as it had at its founding, she said.  For a variety of reasons, new courts and tribunals had proliferated to deal with emerging international needs in all areas, from law of the sea to trade, human rights, investment and accountability for crimes.  The growth in the number of new courts and tribunals had generated a certain concern about the potential for a lack of consistency in the enunciation of legal norms and the attendant risk of fragmentation, yet that concern had not proved significant, she said.

As usual, the Court’s budgetary requests were modest, she said.  One request, that had been raised eight years ago and still remained open, was the funding of nine law clerks to achieve the full complement of a clerk for each court member.  The request was more urgent now than ever, given the increasing number of fact-intensive cases and the rising importance of research, analysis and evaluation, not only with regard to doctrinal materials, but to the application of jurisprudence to other tribunals and to testimony, she said.

On the recently established specialized regional and international courts, India’s representative said that those had been perceived as diminishing the role of the International Court of Justice in the peaceful settlement of disputes.  Legitimate questions had been raised about the legal basis underlying the Security Council’s establishment of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals.  While the Council could set up subsidiary bodies, it could not give them powers that it did not itself possess.  The International Court of Justice remained the only judicial body with legitimacy derived directly from the Charter, enjoying general jurisdiction and available to all States on all matters of international law.

Noting that the Court was fully occupied, with 12 cases on its docket, the representative of Finland, on behalf of the European Union, called on States to ensure adequate resources for the Court and the trust fund.  The obligation of States to settle disputes peacefully was at the heart of the international order.  As the 2005 World Summit Outcome document had stated, States should consider accepting the Court’s jurisdiction, if they had not yet done so.  It was of “utmost importance” for States to comply with the Court’s decisions.

Calling for clear follow-up mechanisms for the practical implementation of the Court’s decisions and opinions, Egypt’s speaker said the Court had a legal obligation to correct misinterpretation of rules and regulations of international law, by issuing advisory opinions on such issues as the right of self defence, use of force under pretexts of fighting terrorism, promoting democracy or protecting human rights and the Security Council’s encroachment on the General Assembly’s mandate.  The advisory opinion relating to the consequences of constructing a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was a clear interpretation of the well-established legal principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of land by force.

On other matters, the Assembly adopted a recommendation of its General Committee to allocate consideration of the report of the new Human Rights Council to both the plenary and the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural), with the provisory that the efficiency and practicality of that arrangement would be reviewed prior to the Assembly’s next session.

The Assembly also took a procedural decision regarding the list of candidates for the 16 November election of members of the International Law Commission.  It decided that the list would be made available as document A/61/539.  It also approved the holding of a meeting by the Executive Board of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) during the Assembly’s main session.

Also speaking today, following the presentation of the report of the International Court of Justice, were the representatives of New Zealand (on behalf of CANZ), Japan, the Sudan, Madagascar, Nigeria, Tunisia, Mexico, South Africa, Peru, Poland, Cameroon, Pakistan and Syria.

The General Assembly will meet again at 10 a.m. on Monday, 30 October, to take up the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Background

The General Assembly met today to consider a number of matters, including its organization of work, for which it had before it the third report of the General Committee (document A/61/250/Add.2), documentation for the election of the members of the International Law Commission (A/61/539) and a letter from the Chairman of the Committee on Conferences addressed to the Assembly President (document A/61/ 320/Add.1).

The Assembly was also expected to take up the report of the International Court of Justice (document A/61/4).  In addition, it was expected to consider the report of the Secretary-General on his Trust Fund to Assist States in Settling Disputes through the International Court of Justice (document A/61/380). 

Summary of Reports

The third report of its General Committee (document A/61/250/Add.2) concerned allocation of the first-ever report of the Human Rights Council to both the Assembly plenary and the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural).

A letter from the Conference Committee Chairman (document A/61/320/Add.1) requests approval for a meeting of the International Research and Training Institute for the Advancement of Women (INSTRAW) during the main part of the present Assembly session.

The report of the International Court of Justice (document A/61/4), which covers the period from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006, states that the Court is the only international judicial body of universal character with general jurisdiction, which is twofold.  It decides on disputes freely submitted by States in the exercise of their sovereignty.  States may submit a specific dispute to the Court by way of special agreement as a number have done recently.  The Court may also be consulted on any legal question by the General Assembly or the Security Council and on legal questions arising within the scope of activities by other organs of the United Nations or specialized agencies having been authorized by the General Assembly to do so.

The report explains that the subject matter of cases before the Court is extremely varied.  In addition to classic territorial and maritime delimitation disputes and disputes relating to the treatment of nationals by other States, also on the docket are issues of allegations of massive human rights violations, including genocide, the use of force and the management of shared natural resources.  The number of cases on the docket currently stands at 12.  The Court decided two cases during the period under review and issued an order on a request for the indication of provisional measures.  It further held heavy hearings in the genocide case instituted by Bosnia and Herzegovina against Serbia and Montenegro.

On 19 December 2005, the report continues, the Court handed down its judgments on the case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo ( Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda).  The Court found that Uganda, by engaging in military activities against the Democratic Republic on the latter’s territory, had violated its obligations under international law, notably the obligation, as an occupying power in Ituri district, to prevent acts of looting and plundering.  The Court also found that Uganda had an obligation to make reparation for the injury caused.  In respect to Uganda’s counterclaims, the Court found that the Democratic Republic had breached its obligations under Articles 22 and 29 of the Vienna Convention concerning diplomatic relations.  The Court pointed out that only in subsequent phases of the proceedings would a determination be made of the precise damage suffered by Uganda and the extent of the reparation to which it was entitled.

Further, the report states that on 3 February the Court handed down its judgments on its jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Democratic Republic of the Congo’s application in the case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (New Application:  2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda).  The application offered 11 bases for jurisdiction in its seizing of the Court.  The Court examined each such basis in its Judgment and concluded that none could have found its jurisdictions in the case.  It did, however, reiterate that there was a fundamental distinction between the acceptance by States of the Court’s jurisdiction and the conformity of their acts with international law.

Then on 13 July, the Court rendered an Order on a request for an indication of provisional measures submitted by Argentina in the case concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), the report recalls.   Argentina had requested the Court to indicate provisional measures requiring Uruguay to suspend the authorizations for the construction of two pulp mills on the River Uruguay and halt building work on them and to cooperate with Argentina to protect and preserve the aquatic environment of the river.

The judicial year from 2005-2006 was very busy and the upcoming year 2006-2007 will also be very busy, the report notes.  The court has already announced the opening dates for the oral proceedings in the cases Ahmadou Sadio Diallo ( Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo, Preliminary Objections and in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea ( Nicaragua v. Honduras) Merits.

To cope with the heavy workload, the Court has already taken various measures to rationalize the work of the Registry, to make greater use of information technology, to improve its own working methods and to secure greater collaboration from the parties to proceedings, the report says.  The Court had also taken steps to shorten and simplify its proceedings.  The Court was pleased that the creations of two new posts were established, however, the question of adding more law clerks needed to be addressed in order to work more efficiently.

Also before the Assembly was the report by the Secretary-General on his Trust Fund to Assist States in Settling Disputes through the International Court of Justice (document A/61/380).  In it, he recalls that the 1989 Fund was established for the purpose of providing States with financial assistance in connection with a dispute submitted to the Court by special arrangement or by way of an application, or in connection with the execution of a judgment by the Court.  During the one-year period ending 30 June, he says the Fund did not receive any application.  As at that date, the total balance of the Fund was $2,245,702.85.

Introduction of Court’s report

JUDGE ROSALYN HIGGINS, President of the International Court of Justice, said that 192 States were party to the Court’s Statute, 67 of which had accepted its compulsory jurisdiction in accordance with Article 36(2) of the Statute.  Furthermore, approximately 300 treaties referred to the Court in relation to the settlement of disputes arising from their application or interpretation. 

In the period from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006, the Court made an order with respect to a request for provisional measures in one case, held public hearings in two cases and rendered judgments in two further cases.  The Court was seized of three new cases.  There were 13 cases in the Court’s General List following the entering in August of an Application from Djibouti instituting proceedings against France.  France had consented to the Court’s jurisdiction, making it only the second instance since the adoption in 1978 of Article 38(5)that a State had accepted another State’s invitation to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with a case against it.

Judge Higgins said the cases before the Court came from all over the world:  there were four between European States; four between Latin American States; two between African States; one between Asian States; and two of an intercontinental character.  The Court’s international character was also reflected in its composition.  Following the elections held in the autumn of last year by the General Assembly and the Security Council, the Court currently had members from China, France, Germany, Japan, Jordan, Madagascar, Morocco, Mexico, New Zealand, Russian Federation, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, United Kingdom, the United States and Venezuela.  The subject matter of the cases before the Court was extremely varied and, as was frequently the case, its docket contained a number of cases concerning territorial disputes between neighbouring States seeking a determination of their land and maritime boundaries or a decision as to which of them had sovereignty over particular areas.  Another category of cases frequently referred to the Court concerned the use of force and events that the General Assembly and the Security Council had had to address.  The judgments rendered by the Court over the past year had mainly concerned Africa.

Drawing attention to the Court’s modest budgetary requests, Judge Higgins said that 2008-2009 would be particularly restrained.  One very important matter was a request for nine P-2 law clerks, which would enable the Court to achieve a full complement of one law clerk for each member of the Court.  The matter was raised eight years ago by the President of the Court and had been the subject of a specific request by another President six years ago.  The situation was even more pressing today, given the increasing number of fact-intensive cases and the rising importance of researching, analyzing and evaluating not only doctrinal materials, but also the applicable jurisprudence of other international tribunals, as well as the testimony as to alleged facts.  The Court wished to provide its judgments in a timely fashion, but it was simply impossible for it to do so if the judges had no assistance across that range of work, she declared.

Recalling the Court’s sixtieth anniversary this year, she said that a solemn sitting of the Court, in the presence of the Queen of the Netherlands, of the United Nations Secretary-General and of the President of the General Assembly, had been organized in April to mark the occasion.  The anniversary had provided an occasion for the Court to reflect on what it had achieved and where it could improve.  Sixty years ago, the International Court stood virtually alone as the forum for the resolution of international disputes.  For a variety of reasons, new courts and tribunals had burgeoned to deal with a variety of international needs, such as the law of the sea, trade, human rights, investment and the accountability of individuals for international crimes.  The growth in the number of new courts and tribunals had generated a certain concern about the potential for a lack of consistency in the enunciation of legal norms and the attendant risk of fragmentation.  Yet, those concerns had not proved significant.

She said that the ability of international judges, lawyers, scholars, the media and interested members of the general public to follow the Court’s work would be further enhanced by the Court’s new website, which would be launched shortly.  The website would contain five times more data than the current one, including every judgment, order and pleading since 1946, as well as other new features. 

The Court was the embodiment of the United Nations, being its principal judicial organ, she said in closing.  That authority accorded the Court had served the United Nations well over the years.  The Court was indeed the “court of all the Members of the United Nations”, in the sense that it was composed of 15 judges from around the world, elected by all the United Nations membership.  The decision-making process of the Court was such that all the judges were engaged in all the cases, except in those occasional circumstances where the parties themselves requested a chamber.  The Court’s judgements and opinions were written by the judges themselves.  It was not the Court of any region or any personalities; it was the Court of the United Nations, she concluded.

Statements

IRMA ERTMAN ( Finland) recalled the Court’s sixtieth anniversary and said the occasion came at a time when the international legal order was rapidly developing.  States were increasingly willing to submit disputes for settlement, which must not be seen by another party as a hostile act.  As the cornerstone of the international legal order, the Court strengthened the international rule of law and contributed to respect for the law.  It played an important role in resolving disputes, in preventing disputes from arising and in maintaining and restoring peace and security, as highlighted by the June Security Council debate on strengthening international law.

Continuing, she said that international law was increasingly governing new areas of life, with the rapid expansion of its scope and the growth of specialization, particularly in the area of special treaty regimes.  The Court had a central role in interpreting and applying that expanding body of law, as new challenges arose for the international judiciary, which included new courts of law, such as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the other tribunals and the International Criminal Court.  All complemented each other and strengthened the international legal order, but the Court of Justice was the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the only truly universal court in exercise of general jurisdiction in settling disputes between States.

Noting that the Court was fully occupied with 12 cases on its docket, she called on States to ensure adequate resources for the Court and the trust fund.  The obligation of States to settle disputes peacefully was at the heart of the international order.  As the 2005 World Summit Outcome document had stated, States should consider accepting the Court’s jurisdiction, if they had not yet done so.  It was of “utmost importance” for States to comply with the Court’s decisions.

KIRSTY GRAHAM (New Zealand), speaking on behalf of Canada and Australia (CANZ), said that the growing demands placed on the International Court of Justice showed the international community’s confidence in the institution as a fair, impartial and transparent judicial body, which contributed to the peaceful resolution of disputes between States and to the development of international law.  She hoped that leaders continued to support and explore ways to apply the international rule of law.  The Court was essential to achieving that objective.  The group’s confidence in the Court was demonstrated by their acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the Court’s Statute, and she urged other members to declare their own acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction.

Pointing to the 12 cases on the Court’s docket, she called it “fitting” to see a wide regional spread and diverse subject matter before the Court.  That reflected a willingness of States to turn to judicial settlement of disputes.  The group encouraged the Court and parties to cases before it to focus on efficient and disciplined working methods, adding that it would reflect further on the suggestion in the report regarding the need to increase the provision of individualized legal assistance for judges in the form of an increased number of law clerks.

MAGED ABDEL A. ABDELAZIZ ( Egypt) said that the establishment of the International Court of Justice had coincided with the birth of a new era in international relations based on the rule of law.  He noted the Court’s role in successfully settling nearly 100 cases related to boundaries, use of force issues, non-interference in internal affairs and relations among States, as well as its issuance of several advisory opinions reaffirming established legal principles.  He welcomed the increased tendency of States to bring their disputes before the Court, saying it reflected the international community’s belief in the Court’s neutrality and independence.

He said that the experience of the past 60 years had shown that the United Nations and its organs and specialized agencies had benefited from the work of the International Court of Justice.  Member States, both in the Security Council and the General Assembly, should request advisory opinions from the Court on issues of legal disagreement and then implement the decisions.  The Court’s decisions and advisory opinions enriched, developed and codified international law and those decisions should be respected by all members of the international community.

Particularly, he pointed to the advisory opinion issued by the Court at the request of the General Assembly relating to the consequences of constructing a wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which constituted a clear interpretation of the well-established legal principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of land by force.  Clear follow-up mechanisms for the practical implementation of decisions and advisory opinions were necessary.  The Court also had a legal obligation to correct misinterpretation of rules and regulations of international law by issuing advisory opinions on such issues as the right of self defence, use of force under pretexts of fighting terrorism, promoting democracy or protecting human rights and the Security Council’s encroachment on the General Assembly’s mandate.

Finally, referring to the draft resolution on the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the establishment of the International Court of Justice put forward by his delegation during the previous Assembly session.  He said he was pleased that the Sixth Committee (Legal) was in the process of adopting the text.

TAKAHIRO SHINYO ( Japan) said the importance of the International Court of Justice could not be overstated, in view of the ongoing globalization of legal issues.  The Court had contributed to the peaceful settlement of conflicts and his country expected that it would continue to promote peace and justice in the world by establishing and maintaining the primacy of international law. 

He urged all Member States to rely on the international judicial system to peacefully resolve conflicts and to fully support the work of the Court.  Japan viewed with extreme value, the Court’s achievements over the past year, especially the Court’s efforts to address massive violations of human rights and the management of shared natural resources. 

He congratulated the Court on its sixtieth anniversary last April, adding his country’s hope that the Court would continue to help strengthen the rule of law in the years to come.

ABDALMAHMOOD ABDALHALEEM MOHAMAD ( Sudan) said that, for 60 years, the Court had been a steadfast fortress against the use of force and for the peaceful settlement of disputes and the implementation of the international rule of law.  It was the only global judicial body with universal membership and was a fundamental tool for the maintenance of international peace and security.  The Sudan was among the States that had submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction and believed that the Court resolved cases in a comprehensive and honest manner. 

He said that the outcome of the 2005 World Summit had emphasized the need for the United Nations to enhance its mechanisms to address current challenges and one way to do that was for all States to be subjected to the Court’s jurisdiction and adhere to its decisions.  Indeed, the Court’s decisions were important and should not be used as “bargaining chips” or “implemented piecemeal”.  One of the main decisions that should be fully implemented was the one concerning the illegality of Israel’s construction of a separation wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  He also called on all States to support the voluntary trust fund to ensure that the Court had adequate resources to effectively carry out its duties. 

ZINA ADRIANARIVELO-RAZAFY ( Madagascar) congratulated the International Court of Justice for the important role it had played in the past 60 years as the United Nations principal judicial organ.  The Court would continue to play an important role in the enforcement of the rule of law in the years to come as it was the only universal organ in charge of protecting human rights and establishing the necessary conditions to protect international law.

He acknowledged that Member States recognized the jurisdiction of the Court out of their own volition and had come before it freely to end conflicts peacefully.  Over the past 60 years, the Court had ruled on cases all over the world, but to date, only 67 Member States had recognized the Court’s jurisdiction.  He urged all others to do so.  He welcomed the Court’s decision to upgrade its working methods by introducing more technological advances, which would help it accelerate its decision-making efforts.

BAYO OJO, Attorney General and Minister of Justice for Nigeria, said the Court was living up to the expectations of Member States.  For 60 years, it had demonstrated its ability to effectively discharge its dual role of deciding disputes between States and advising the United Nations, its organs and funds.  Other practical proof in the rising confidence in the Court was the steady increase in its workload, which currently numbered 12 cases, drawn from all points of the globe.  Nigeria had long adhered to the Court’s decisions and edicts, particularly those concerning the dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon over the Bakassi Peninsula. 

He noted in that, regarding that dispute on 14 August, Nigeria had lowered its flag over the Peninsula for the last time and had effectively withdrawn its presence, in accordance with the Court’s ruling.  With that final act, Nigeria had fulfilled its obligations under the terms of the agreement between the two countries and, as a reflection of the political will between both countries, the dogged determination and cooperation among senior officials, as well as the support of the international community.  Nigeria called on Member States to emulate that example of good neighbourliness and the supremacy of international law in relations between and among States.  Only by following that example could the wider international community attain global peace and security and, in the process, strengthen the Court itself. 

Nigeria was also happy to note that the Court was not just moving its work along, but was devising measures to improve its working methods and secure greater collaboration from the parties to the proceedings on its docket, he said.  Also satisfying were the Court’s efforts to rationalize the work of its registry, to revise certain provisions of its rules and to simplify its proceedings.  Given the need for the Court to handle pending cases quickly, Nigeria agreed that Member States should provide it with the necessary means to efficiently, effectively and speedily carry out its work, including by ensuring resources for adequate funding and staffing.  Member States should consider voluntary submissions to the Court’s trust fund.  He also called on States to continue bringing cases before the Court and to adhere to its decisions, as ways of enhancing that body’s relevance and universality.

ALI HACHANI ( Tunisia) said his delegation welcomed the Court’s consistent and solid contributions to the field of international law and jurisprudence over the past 60 years.  Indeed, as the world’s only universal judicial organ, the International Court of Justice continued to provide a prudent, civilized course for the settlement of disputes and the promotion of peaceful coexistence among and between States.  The Court’s ever-expanding workload required that it undergo constant efforts to reorganize and streamline its working methods.  Towards that goal, Tunisia called on all States to pay close attention to the difficulties facing the Court and to do more to ensure that it was provided with the resources it needed to officially carry out its duties.

He said Tunisia had long supported the Court and its primacy in the field of international law.  Despite the fact that some of its decisions were “advisory”, they should nevertheless be taken seriously, including its advisory opinion on Israel’s construction of a separation wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  That decision had been rendered fairly and had been based clearly on the widely held international principle that it was forbidden to occupy the territory of others by force.

He added that wider United Nations reform efforts should include the International Court of Justice -- which was the Organization’s principle judicial body -- so that it could more effectively carry out its duties.  He reiterated his hope that the Court would be given the resources it needed to maintain the pace of its work and the quality of its deliberations.

JOEL HERNANDEZ ( Mexico) congratulated the Court on its sixtieth anniversary, adding that during its tenure, the Court had demonstrated that its role as an interpreter and implementer of international law was fundamental for the protection of international peace and security.  Lauding the Court’s efforts to improve its working methods each year, he said the on-going role it played in international affairs had indicated that Member States had tremendous trust in its work and rulings.

He welcomed the selection of Rosalyn Higgins to the Presidency and urged the selection of more women judges, in the near future.  He thanked the Assembly for the nomination and approval of Bernardo Sepulveda Amor of Mexico as a member of the Court.  His selection marked the first time since 1973 that a Mexican national had been elected to the Court, continuing an old tradition of promoting the best Mexican jurists to that noble mission.  His country viewed with great importance the fact that Member States recognized the Court’s jurisdiction voluntarily and saw the Court as a venue to end conflicts through peaceful means.

Citing the Court’s decisions on Bosnia and Herzegovina versus Serbia and Montenegro, he said the Court had effectively applied international law to cases of genocide.  The Court had obtained direct evidence from witnesses and experts, but it had also taken into consideration the decisions of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  Similarly, its intervention in the conflict between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda had used legal positions from the International Law Commission.  Both rulings had helped assuage fears that there would be several international legal bodies pulling apart international law principles.  That had proven that the Court was interested in harmonizing the international legal system.  His country had published the Court’s rulings in Spanish, a decision that helped students of international law in the Spanish-speaking world understand the Court’s work.  He urged the Assembly to listen to the Court’s request to increase its number of law clerks, so it could continue the pace of its work without difficulty.

NIRUPAM SEN ( India) said that the number of recently established specialized regional and international courts had been perceived as diminishing the role of the International Court of Justice in the peaceful settlement of disputes.  Moreover, legitimate questions had been raised about the legal basis underlying the Security Council’s establishment of the ad hoc international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.  While the Council could set up subsidiary bodies, it could not give them powers that it did not itself possess.  The lack of challenge from the general United Nations membership did not mean acceptance of such exercise in the future or any general endorsement of a power that the Charter did not bestow. 

Despite those developments, the International Court of Justice remained the only judicial body with legitimacy derived directly from the Charter, enjoying general jurisdiction and available to all States on all matters pertaining to international law.  Over the past 50 years, the Court had dealt with a variety of topics, including sovereignty over islands, navigational rights, law of the sea and on the principle of good faith, equity and the use of force, among others.  The cases now before it were equally wide-ranging and its judgments had played an important role in the progressive development and codification of international law.

Despite the caution it exhibited and the sensibility it showed to the political realities and sentiments of States, the Court had asserted its judicial functions and consistently rejected arguments to deny it jurisdiction on the ground that grave political considerations were involved in a case in which it otherwise found proper jurisdiction itself, he said.  Thereby, the Court clearly emphasized the role of international law in regulating inter-State relations that were necessarily political.  In the same vein, the Court or, for that matter, any other competent judicial body should not regard itself as precluded from questioning the validity of a Security Council resolution insofar as it affected the legal rights of States.  That issue was raised very pointedly in the Lockerbie case, during which many scholars had rightly emphasized that the Court should not concede to the Council a place above the United Nations Charter, he said.

On working methods, he said that the Court’s docket had exploded and it now found itself in a position of being unable to respond effectively and in a timely manner within existing resources.  The Court’s request for individualized assistance for all its members was reasonable and must be implemented urgently.

SABELO SIVUYILE MAQUNGO ( South Africa) said that, because his country was committed to the peaceful settlement of disputes, it considered the Court to be a very important forum for resolving differences.  South Africa had been encouraged by the growing number of States, particularly in Africa and other developing regions, that were bringing disputes before the Court, rather than resorting to less peaceful means.  It had also been gratifying to witness the evident political will of States to implement the Court’s decisions.  He noted, in particular, the ongoing implementation by Nigeria and Cameroon of the decision concerning the Bakassi Peninsula, as well as positive developments in the conduct of the Ugandan Government, as it proceeded with efforts to negotiate reparations to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, following the Court’s ruling last year.

He said, however, that his Government was worried that, despite the Court’s growing workload and rising profile as a key international forum for the settlement of disputes, contributions to its voluntary trust fund were lagging.  South Africa encouraged all States and relevant entities to contribute to the fund.  On the Court’s working methods, he said that, like the United Nations International Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, the Court relied on heavy fact-finding.  But, unlike the Tribunals, the International Court of Justice did not rely on oral presentation of evidence.

So, while South Africa appreciated the different roles played by the United Nations-affiliated judicial bodies, it, nevertheless, believed that the International Court of Justice could make better use of oral testimony to resolve factual disputes, rather than depending so heavily on documents, he said.  For that reason, South Africa would favourably consider the Court’s request to increase the number of law clerks at its disposal, so that the judges could work more rapidly and effectively in carrying out their duties.

LUIS ENRIQUE CHAVEZ BASAGOITIA ( Peru) thanked the President of the Court for her comprehensive report.  The Court had had an indelible impact on the maintenance of international peace and security through the peaceful settlement of conflicts and the promotion of the international rule of law.

He said that the international community had tremendous confidence on the Court, as had been indicated by the sheer number of cases that were brought before it.  He congratulated the Judges for their excellent work in upholding international law and urged all States to consider the Court’s binding jurisdiction.  He thanked those States that had contributed to the trust fund, which had helped finance the cost of legal cases emanating from less developed Member States.

The Court should continue to streamline its working methods and rules, he said, urging it to publish its rules and regulations in all United Nations languages.  The Court’s work should be known around the world, especially by regular citizens, and he encouraged the Court to complete building its website.

REMIGIUSZ HENCZEL ( Poland), associating himself with the statement made on behalf of the European Union, expressed concern that only 68 of 192 Member States of the United Nations had made declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as compulsory.  Wider acceptance of the Court was imperative, due to the extraordinary expansion and development of the body of international law.  Furthermore, the international community needed to strengthen both the judicial and non-judicial means necessary to implement international law.

He stressed that the Court had strengthened its authority as the principal judicial institution of the United Nations, without replacing Governments in their law-making role.  Indeed, the Court had commendably demonstrated “judicial constraint”, combined with a reasonable proportion of “judicial activism”, and had offered solid, well reasoned and profound interpretations.  However, while the Court had made progress in reducing its backlog of cases, it was important that it be guided by the principle, “justice delayed, justice denied” and that the problems associated with lengthy proceedings be addressed.  Thus, Poland’s delegation supported the Court’s budgetary proposal.

MARTIN BELINGA-EBOUTOU ( Cameroon) said that the decision reached by the Court on 10 October 2002, concerning the dispute over the land and maritime border between Cameroon and Nigeria, had merited his opinion today.  Indeed, the Court’s decision had led to the withdrawal of Nigerian troops from the disputed Bakassi peninsula and repaired the relations between Cameroon and Nigeria with the signing, on 12 June 2006, of the so-called Greentree Accord.  The agreement was signed by the Heads of States from both countries and witnessed by the United Nations Secretary-General and representatives from the United States, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.  He expressed gratitude for the work of the Court in laying the foundation for the agreement and peaceful resolution of the dispute.

SYED HAIDER SHAH ( Pakistan) said that justice and the rule of law were critical to the realization of all fundamental human rights and Pakistan believed the work of the International Court of Justice, with its universal character and general jurisdiction, played an important role in advancing those principles.  Member States and United Nations organs, including the Assembly and the Security Council, must make the best use of the Court’s offices in the maintenance of international peace and security, particularly towards the peaceful settlement of disputes.

He said his country appreciated the Court’s ongoing efforts to rationalize its working methods and enhance its registry functions.  Pakistan also believed that the Court should have adequate resources to carry out its functions.  Thus, the Assembly should consider the Court’s request to boost the number of available law clerks, so that judges and other staff could smoothly and efficiently carry out their duties.  Hopefully, the Court would soon elaborate its budget and resource requirements for presentation to the Assembly for consideration during the current session.

BASHAR JA’AFARI ( Syria) expressed his country’s appreciation for the International Court of Justice and the role it had played in guaranteeing the rule of law in a world that was growing more complicated by the day.  In observing the Court’s sixtieth anniversary, he said his country remained interested in all procedures of international law and that the Charter of the United Nations was still relevant in his region.  The number of cases brought to the Court, as well as their geographic diversity, reaffirmed its credibility and the role the Court played in preserving a coherent legal order.

Highlighting recent rulings by the Court, he drew attention to the legal opinion on Israel’s construction of the separation wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.  The Court’s decision had found that Israel’s action had violated international law and that Israel was obligated to put an end to that violation and to issue compensation for the wall’s construction.  He remarked that the Security Council had not acted on the Court’s decision, because that opinion did not serve the Council’s policies or interests.  He urged the Assembly to achieve balance in the working of all United Nations organs, especially the Security Council and the General Assembly.

Syria supported the Court’s request for two professional posts and endorsed the Court’s desire to increase its number of legal clerks, he said.  The Court also needed to hire specialized foreign language employees.  All future hiring should represent all regions of the world and all different legal systems, he added.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record