This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

One unusual aspect of recent American foreign policy is the Tom Connally Amendment, the eight words appended to provision "b" of Senate Resolution 196 (1946): "as determined by the United States of America." In its final form the complete reservation provides that the International Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction over anything the United States considers essentially domestic.Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon introduced Senate Resolution 196 (1946). The italicized Amendment to the Resolution was offered by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Tom Connally from Texas. The so-called Connally Amendment to Senate Resolution 196 (1946), pertaining to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, reserved the right of the United States to deny jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice in cases involving the United States' self-interest. The reservation is self judging: a party to a justiciable dispute reserves the right to say whether or not a case exists.Using Senate Resolution 196 (1946), this study attempted to show how governmental policy and public opinion changed from a militant ideological-isolationist position before World War II to one which advocated the United States' taking a leading role in post-war planning for peace and security. This change in public opinion and the leadership of the popular President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration forced Congress to reassess the traditional American foreign policy of unilateralism.This study of Senate Resolution 196 showed how Congress, and particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Tom Connally, tried to assert itself and take a leadership role in the Senate in the development of post-war planning. This study also shows the difficulties that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee encountered in taking a leadership role. The Committee and its leadership were under constant pressure. In the end the Committee's leadership role was successfully challenged by its own chairman, who, ironically, worked so hard to build the Committee's leadership role in the Senate of the United States Congress.

This research focuses on the desirability and feasibility of allowing individuals to access the International Court of Justice when their rights under international human rights treaties have been violated. International law now recognizes individuals as its subjects and that from such recognition flows a right of access to international courts. Using the Inter-American and European Courts of Human Rights as models, it is examined whether the right of individual access supersedes the will of states, the arguments for and against a global human rights court and how the ICJ’s statute and rules could be changed to allow individuals a) to participate in the court’s proceedings and b) gain direct access to the court as parties. Individuals could have both locus standi before the ICJ if the Court modifies its procedural rules and jus standi, which requires not only procedural changes, but the modification of the U.N. Charter.

Thesis (doctoral), Universität, Düsseldorf, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 245-257).

Thesis (Ph. D. in Political Science)--Vanderbilt University, Aug. 2005. / Title from title screen. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral), Universität, Düsseldorf, 2006. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 245-257).

xi, 189 p. / Human rights advocates have championed the establishment of a regime of international legal accountability for grave violations of human rights, including genocide. Despite recent advances in establishing a regime of responsibility for individuals, when the International Court of Justice pronounced its 2007 judgment on the first case of state responsibility for genocide, Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro, it exonerated Serbia of the most serious charges. Key to the Court's judgment was its spatialized definition of genocide as 'destruction in part' and its acceptance of Serbia's calculated strategy of legal immunization of establishing the Bosnian territory it sought to annex as a formally separate political entity. Considering the Court's latitude of interpretation regarding these spatial and territorial factors in light of the law, this thesis argues that geopolitical considerations influenced a judgment that will greatly limit the future possibility of any state or individual being found responsible for genocide. / Committee in charge: Shaul Cohen, Co-Chair; Alexander B. Murphy, Co-Chair

No abstract available. / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / gm2014 / Centre for Human Rights / unrestricted

The crime of genocide in the light of a judgment of the ICJ This diploma thesis addresses the influence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) decision1 on the crime of genocide. On 22nd March 1993 Bosnia and Herzegovina brought an action against the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRJ) before the ICJ. FRJ was charged with the breach of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Convention). After 14 years, the ICJ held decision on 26th February 2007. In the beginning, the Court had to solve procedural issue concerning the position of the Respondent in the dispute and after it positive answer, it could proceed to consider the merits of the case. The important part of the Decision is dedicated to the responsibility of a state for the genocide. Although the Convention did not explicitly anchor it, the Court deduced it by interpretation of the Article I. The prohibition on the genocide is then recognized not only under the customary law, but also in the Convention. Consequently "the Court observes that the obligations in question in this case (...) and the responsibilities of the States (...) are obligations and responsibilities under international law. They are not of a criminal nature."2 Therefore, the standard of proof is not as high as beyond reasonable doubts...

This paper analyses the international obligation of solving disputes peacefully and the International Court of Justice role as a jurisdictional means of the United Nations in solving disputes. From this point, it analyses the Court role in the last years and its work solving territorial and maritime disputes, for example, the one between Peru and Chile. It presents an interesting study of the international obligations that led Peru and Chile solve the dispute peacefully and the advantages and disadvantages of it. Finally, it presents the main challenges that arise from turning to the International Court of Justice. / El artículo analiza la obligación internacional de solucionar pacíficamente las controversias y el papel de la Corte Internacional de Justicia como medio jurisdiccional de las Naciones Unidas en la solución de dichas controversias. A partir de ello, analiza el papel de la Corte en los últimos años y su labor en la resolución de disputas territoriales y marítimas, como la que surgió entre Perú y Chile. Se presenta un interesante estudio de las obligaciones internacionales que llevaron a Perú y Chile a solucionar pacíficamente la disputa así como las ventajas y desventajas de este medio. Finalmente, se exponen los principales retos que surgen al acudir a la Corte Internacional de Justicia.