Analysis:
Souza Smith writes about the 2016 Marshall Island’s Nuclear Disarmament case: “It is understandable that courts will be cautious about frivolous litigations. At the same time, they must balance this concern against the international community’s interest in providing access to justice and promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes. This is all the more important at the ICJ given how difficult it is to seize its jurisdiction.” The International Court of Justice (ICJ) cautious enforcement of justice and promotion of peaceful settlement in the Marshall Islands and United Kingdom’s dispute led to a judgment that could not have been ruled differently.
1. Elements of the ICJ:
This section will examine the ICJ’s elements and why it ruled …show more content…
In the Separate Opinion, Judge Sebutinde specified that the awareness precondition has amplified the evidentiary load on the applicant and has done so without any jurisprudential or even statutory basis (Marshall Islands Cases, para 31). Accordingly, this has a negative effect on international law development because there have been no criteria or a guideline to establish a subjective element in customary law. Therefore, the judicial process and decision can be hindered by this. And when there is another case on a similar dispute that is brought to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, the ICJ becomes reluctant to address the dispute in a full capacity. Although the judgment did take in consideration the suffering of the people of the Marshall Islands and the special reasons for concern about nuclear disarmament, it did not concrete its efforts to further examine the state practice of the United …show more content…
Such resolutions do not per se create binding international law (Ibid). Unfortunately, the international law is a matter of resistance for the smaller hands, as shown by the Marshall Islands’ decision to use litigation as a strategy to further discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament. This may generate tensions in the international relations scene between the United Kingdom and the Marshall Islands. Also, the ICJ bias results from the judges that were once diplomats or agents of the state. This indicates loop-holes in the Statute and the development of the international law. Therefore, this is a shortcoming of the
Souza Smith writes about the 2016 Marshall Island’s Nuclear Disarmament case: “It is understandable that courts will be cautious about frivolous litigations. At the same time, they must balance this concern against the international community’s interest in providing access to justice and promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes. This is all the more important at the ICJ given how difficult it is to seize its jurisdiction.” The International Court of Justice (ICJ) cautious enforcement of justice and promotion of peaceful settlement in the Marshall Islands and United Kingdom’s dispute led to a judgment that could not have been ruled differently.
1. Elements of the ICJ:
This section will examine the ICJ’s elements and why it ruled …show more content…
In the Separate Opinion, Judge Sebutinde specified that the awareness precondition has amplified the evidentiary load on the applicant and has done so without any jurisprudential or even statutory basis (Marshall Islands Cases, para 31). Accordingly, this has a negative effect on international law development because there have been no criteria or a guideline to establish a subjective element in customary law. Therefore, the judicial process and decision can be hindered by this. And when there is another case on a similar dispute that is brought to the jurisdiction of the ICJ, the ICJ becomes reluctant to address the dispute in a full capacity. Although the judgment did take in consideration the suffering of the people of the Marshall Islands and the special reasons for concern about nuclear disarmament, it did not concrete its efforts to further examine the state practice of the United …show more content…
Such resolutions do not per se create binding international law (Ibid). Unfortunately, the international law is a matter of resistance for the smaller hands, as shown by the Marshall Islands’ decision to use litigation as a strategy to further discuss the issue of nuclear disarmament. This may generate tensions in the international relations scene between the United Kingdom and the Marshall Islands. Also, the ICJ bias results from the judges that were once diplomats or agents of the state. This indicates loop-holes in the Statute and the development of the international law. Therefore, this is a shortcoming of the