Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
ideals of
the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907, were of course, soon smothered <br
>by the fog of the First World War. The ideal of peace and the understanding
that international cooperation was needed to achieve such peace, survived the wa
r. Or perhaps the horrors <br>of the First World War, ultimately provided a grea
t incentive. To effectuate an idea that
had been on the agenda for the Third Peace Conference,
scheduled to take place in 1915. And this idea, concerned the establishment of a
Permanent Court of International Justice. Indeed, in 1919 associated with
the newly created League of Nations, such a court was effectively instituted. On
15 February 1922, the first
session of this court took place, under the presidency of Dutchman Loder. The fo
unders of the League of Nations,
most notably the U.S. President Wilson had Utopian aspirations for a new <br>wor
ld order after the First World War. And a new court, as they soon called,
The World Court. After the Second World War,<br>the League of Nations ceased to
exist and was replaced by the United Nations, an international organization
that is still in existence today. Similarly, after the Second World War, <br>the
Permanent Court of Justice was replaced by the International Court
of Justice, a new court but largely patterned upon its predecessor. In the Unite
d Nations system,
the International Court of Justice or the ICJ as we also call it in short, is gi
ven a lead role as the principal
judicial organ of the United Nations. Moreover, in the UN system, all states are
under an obligation
to settle their disputes peacefully. This obligation is laid down in article
two, paragraph three of the UN charter. In order to comply with the obligation
to settle disputes peacefully, states can turn the ICJ, just like individuals
can turn to their national courts. However, there are major differences
between the ICJ and national courts which reflect inherent differences
between national legal orders and the international legal system. The most promi
nent differences are these. Since we do not have
an international police force, decisions of the ICJ
are difficult to enforce. Moreover, the ICJ has no
compulsory jurisdiction. Which means, it can only adjudicate those
disputes that states have referred to it. And whereas states have
explicitly consented to the ICJ have jurisdiction
to settle the case. State consent is crucial. And as you know, this is one of
the main themes of the entire MOOC. And we will discuss this with
you further in module two. We hope to see you there.