Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Logo Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

You are here: Publications Archive World Court Digest

World Court Digest



III. The International Court of Justice
2. THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
2.3. The Optional Clause
2.3.3. Reservations

¤ Legality of Use of Force
(Yugoslavia v. United Kingdom),
Request for the Indication
of Provisional Measures,
Order of 2 June 1999

[p. ] 23. Whereas the United Kingdom contends that the Courts jurisdiction cannot be founded upon Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court in this case, in view of the reservations contained in its declaration; and whereas it observes in particular that, under the terms of subparagraph (iii) of the first paragraph of that declaration, it does not recognize the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of

"(iii) disputes in respect of which any other Party to the dispute has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in relation to or for the purposes of the dispute; or where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other Party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than 12 months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute before the Court.";

whereas the United Kingdom argues that Yugoslavia's declaration "is in substance an attempt to accept the jurisdiction of the Court solely for the purpose of a single dispute"; and whereas the United Kingdom stresses that, as Yugoslavia's declaration was deposited only three days before the date of the Application, "[i]t is self-evident ... that it fails to meet the twelve month requirement in the second clause of the United Kingdom reservation"; and whereas the United Kingdom accordingly concludes that Yugoslavia's declaration "cannot provide even a prima facie basis for the exercise of jurisdiction";

24. Whereas Yugoslavia submitted no argument on this point;

25. Whereas, given that Yugoslavia deposited its declaration of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court with the Secretary-General on 26 April 1999, and filed its Application instituting proceedings with the Court on 29 April 1999, there can be no doubt that the conditions for the exclusion of the Court's jurisdiction provided for in the second part of subparagraph (iii) of the first paragraph of the United Kingdom's declaration are satisfied in this case; whereas, as the Court recalled in its Judgment of 4 December 1998 in the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) case,

"It is for each State, in formulating its declaration, to decide upon the limits it places upon its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court: '[t]his jurisdiction only exists within the limits within which it has been accepted' (Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, 1938, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 74, p. 23)" (I.C.J. Reports 1998, para. 44);

and whereas, as the Court noted in its Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), "[a]s early as 1952, it held in the case concerning Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. that ... 'jurisdiction is conferred on the Court only to the extent to which the [declarations made] coincide in conferring it' (I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 103)" (I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 298, para. 43); and whereas the declarations made by the Parties under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute manifestly cannot constitute a basis of jurisdiction in the present case, even prima facie;1

1See, mutatis mutandis, Orders of 2 June 1999, Legality of Use of Force, Yugoslavia v. Spain