In 1994-1995, the Court continued to have a record number of 13 cases before it. Eleven were contentious cases in which the parties were States from different parts of the world. Two were requests for an advisory opinion, one submitted by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the other by the General Assembly.
In the period under review, judgments have been given in two cases, in one of which hearings were held. In a third case, hearings have been postponed. In other cases a great number of pleadings have been filed within the prescribed time-limits. One contentious case and one request for an advisory opinion were brought before the Court.
The hearings in the case concerning the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), scheduled to take place in September, were postponed sine die at the joint request of the two parties.
Written comments were filed by several States by 20 June 1995, the time-limit fixed by the President of the Court by an Order of 20 June 1994 on written statements submitted in connection with the request by WHO for an advisory opinion on the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict. The written proceedings are thus closed.
In December 1994, the General Assembly laid before the Court a request for an advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. In February 1995, an Order was made fixing two time-limits, one within which written statements relating to the question might be submitted to the Court by States entitled to appear before the Court and by the United Nations, and one within which States and organizations having presented written statements might present written comments on the other written statements. Written statements have been filed by a number of States. Written comments are expected by 20 September 1995.
Public sittings for the purpose of hearing oral statements or comments will open on 30 October 1995. These oral proceedings will cover the requests for advisory opinion submitted by WHO and the General Assembly.
As each of the parties in the case concerning the Gabcvíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia) had filed a counter-memorial within the prescribed time-limit of December 1994, the President of the Court, also in December, made an Order fixing the time-limit for the filing of a reply by each of the parties. Each party having filed its reply within the prescribed time-limit, the written proceedings are now closed.
In the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), the Court, in July 1994, had delivered a judgment in which it found that the exchange of letters of December 1987 between the King of Saudi Arabia and the Amirs of Qatar and Bahrain, and the minutes signed at Doha on 25 December 1990, were international agreements creating rights and obligations for the parties, and that, by the terms of those agreements, the parties had undertaken to submit to it the whole of the dispute. The Court fixed 30 November 1994 as the time-limit within which the parties were jointly or separately to take action to that end and reserved any other matters for subsequent decision.
In February 1995, the Court delivered a judgment by which it found that it had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute between Qatar and Bahrain that had been submitted to it; that it was seized of the whole of the dispute; and that the application of Qatar as formulated on 30 November 1994 was admissible. In April the Court issued an Order fixing a time-limit for the filing by each of the parties of a memorial on the merits.
Hearings in the case concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) were held in January and February 1995. On 30 June, the Court delivered its judgment, by which it found that it could not, in the absence of the consent of Indonesia, adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it by Portugal concerning a treaty of December 1989 between Australia and Indonesia on exploitation of the continental shelf of the so-called "Timor Gap".
In the case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), the President of the Court, in March, made an Order extending the time-limit for the filing of the counter-memorial of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) filed preliminary objections in June 1995 relating to admissibility and jurisdiction. In July 1995, the President of the Court made an Order fixing the time-limit for the filing by Bosnia and Herzegovina of observations on the preliminary objections, proceedings on the merits having been suspended by operation of the Rules of Court.
In the cases concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom) and Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), the respondent States filed preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court on 16 and 20 June respectively.
On 28 March 1995, Spain instituted proceedings against Canada with respect to a dispute relating to the Canadian Coastal Fisheries Protection Act, as amended on 12 May 1994, and to the rules of application of that Act, as well as to certain measures taken on the basis of that legislation, more particularly the boarding on the high seas, on 9 March, of a fishing boat, the Estai, sailing under the Spanish flag. Taking into account the agreement concerning the procedure reached between the parties at a meeting with the President of the Court, held on 27 April, the President, by an Order of 2 May, decided that the written proceedings should first be addressed to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the dispute and fixed time-limits for the filing of the memorial of Spain and the counter-memorial of Canada.
By a letter dated 9 August, the Government of New Zealand gave the Court formal advance notice of its intention to bring France before the Court in connection with the French nuclear testing in the South Pacific.
Because of the new cases mentioned above, the Court's docket has remained well-filled. Besides the cases referred to, the following were on the Court's list during the period under review:
(a) Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal);
(b) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America);
(c) Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria).
Following the death, on 28 September 1994, of Mr. Nikolai K. Tarassov (Russian Federation), Mr. Vladlen S. Vereshchetin (Russian Federation) was elected to fill the resulting vacancy on 26 January 1995. The vacancy created by the death, on 24 February, of Mr. Roberto Ago (Italy) was filled by the election, on 21 June, of Mr. Luigi Ferrari Bravo (Italy). The vacancy created by the resignation, as at 10 July, of Sir Robert Yewdall Jennings (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) was filled by the election, on 12 July, of Mrs. Rosalyn Higgins (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland).
To return to the Table of Contents