The significance of third-party intervention in international courts and the existence of relevant rules in court governing instruments
Third party intervention is an important element to be considered in case of international courts as it provides opportunity to mediate between two significant parties come for justice and ensure them assistance to come in a proper agreement. Legislative laws and regulations all across the globe is now highly manipulated through partiality due to which obtaining justice as per requirement becomes difficult. In this regard, third-party intervention helps to develop roadmap of justice in an impartial manner and sufficient support is provided to the parties for gaining justice that is accurate. International courts are so much concerned to design third-party justice like a manner that in turn could help to handle any case where the respective parties are emotionally attached. For the purpose of determining the necessity of third party, international courts have developed some relevant rules by following which any case can be governed with high degree of relevance.
Among ample of rules, the first and foremost one is to choose a third part for case who has not claimed regarding the particular consequence before. The party who has not directly related with the case is termed as intervenor and his or her point of view is thoroughly monitored before providing justice. According to the rules of international courts in respect of third-party intervention, consciousness needs to be given to provide correct information to the outsider about raising of issues and its additional complexities. By justifying the actual complication to the third party, the court authority provides feasibility in arguments during justice and scope to gain more resilient results after judgement is possible. Third party involvement is actually impactful to enhance communication during case heiring, partiality becomes mitigated, appropriateness in resource distribution is acquired and judgement becomes unbiased. This essay therefore keeps a crucial eye for evaluating the importance of incorporating proper third-party intervention by international courts for settlement of bilateral disputes between states and this can also able regarding the protection of the rights. One notable case is the "Nicaragua v. United States" case before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the 1980s. The intervention of third-party states in this case highlighted the significance of external support in shaping legal arguments and presenting evidence in international courts.
Importance of balancing bilateral dispute settlement and third-party rights
Bilateral dispute settlement is a process that provides significant scope to reduce the disagreements between parties by offering suitable legislative norms and regulations. For a case where third-party involvement is a must need, there is a chance to generate dispute among parties due to opinion of a person who is not directly related with the case and turmoil condition occurs within court environment which is quite problematic for the judges to settle. The fundamental way of dispute resolution or settlement is unidirectional. However, when third-party is involved for any case, bilateral dispute settlement is required. Furthermore, rights of third-party is also needed to maintain; otherwise, injustice to that particular person happens. It is important to balance bilateral dispute settlement and third-party rights to secure a positive solution for any legal issue. By connecting the opinion of third-party to original problem claimed by the individuals, the judges are able to develop mutually acceptable results and consistency of agreement of the judgement provided by the head of the court becomes preferred clearly.
Without balancing bilateral dispute settlement and third-party rights, difficulties occur to satisfy the claimed parties and third-parties through respect even though the judgement is appropriate. Due to this, for getting appropriate result and accomplishing any legal judgement in an inexpensive way, maintenance of accurate balance of bilateral dispute settlement and third-party rights is a must require thing. Moreover, fairness and equity are obtained along with well-crafted agreement when legal framework has concern on dispute resolution and value the opinions of third-parties. The ICJ's consideration of this case involves balancing Ukraine's bilateral dispute with Russia, 2017 while also addressing the rights and protections of individuals affected by the actions at the center of the dispute.
Overview of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and Law of sea tribunal, Arbitration between courts, WTO settlement
International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one of the principal authorities governed by United Nations whose main aim is to settle any kind of dispute among different states. The mentioned court works by focusing the rules and regulations of international law and is concerned to provide justice as per the viability of the cases. Additionally, the mentioned legislative body is also focused on providing advices to the parties or any states in case of legal issues which are internationally effective either positive or negative way. IJC panel is formed with 15 judges with the help of UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine years and their judgement is the key to settle any kind of legal dispute. By developing a coherent third-party intervention, work of the court is diversified through balancing bilateral settlement and sufficient respect to the third-party opinion is also given.
Law of sea tribunal is an internationally renowned independent judicial body which function to settle dispute arising due to convention. This is also firmly related with Unite Nations and this multi-government organisation is effective to settle any kind of problem with more reliability. One notable case is the "Philippines v. China" arbitration case. The Philippines brought a case against China to the Permanent Court of Arbitration under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) concerning maritime entitlements and the legality of China's claims in the South China Sea. In 2016, the tribunal ruled in favor of the Philippines, stating that China's claims had no legal basis. However, China rejected the decision, highlighting the challenges of enforcement in such cases.
Arbitration between courts is another significant rule to provide justice for the parties claimed for any kind of justice. According to the rule of the mentioned body, the parties have independence to develop dispute resolution process without waiting for court judgement. Due to this, overall cost of judgement is less and excessive time required to get results from courts are also mitigated. Overall, transparency in decision-making during dispute is balanced and no additional problem of delayed judgement is observed. in the "Cameroon v. Nigeria" case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) settled a dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria over the Bakassi Peninsula. The ICJ's decision in 2002 resolved the territorial dispute and led to the transfer of the peninsula from Nigeria to Cameroon.
WTO settlement is another kind of settlement supported by international legal bodies through which the committee provides opportunity to ensure collective settlement between disputing parties either before or after court judgement continues. Moreover, four international legal bodies have developed different kinds of dispute settlement procedure which are legally bound to offer proper justice to all. The "US - China Trade Dispute on Intellectual Property Rights" involved the United States challenging China's intellectual property practices and forced technology transfer policies. These disputes often involve intricate legal arguments and can impact global trade dynamics.
Main Body
The Role of International Courts in Bilateral Dispute Settlement
Role of ICJ in resolving inter-state disputes
ICJ is an internationally respected organisation which work to settle any kind of inter-state dispute of dispute that occurs because of personal issues of individuals. Two different types of disputes are usually settled according to the laws and regulations of ICJ in which first one is the type of inter-state dispute submitted by disputed parties themselves. The second type is the ones submitted by global bodies like United Nations and similar other agencies to acquire advices from ICJ for mitigating any type of legal problem. For this second one, advisory committee is developed by ICJ authorities supported by mentioned international bodies to fix any kind of dispute. The two types of disputes stated here are termed as contentious cases and advisory proceedings consecutively. On a fundamental basis, ICJ plays a significant role to resolve inter-state disputes directly or provide solution through reference groups. In the case of “Nicaragua v. United state”, the ICJ's role as a forum for settling disputes between states and upholding principles of international law, including the prohibition of the use of force, respect for sovereignty, and non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states.
Drawbacks and problems faced by international courts in handling bilateral disputes
Handling of bilateral disputes is quite problematic for any judicial body due to provision of respect to all the parties and ensure a settlement by following which all of them feel satisfied. In case of ICJ, number of drawbacks and challenges are identified in order to provide resolution for bilateral disputes. The first problem is that the judges who are appointed to provide judgement for any dispute from different countries and their judicial exercise is varied from one another which ensure ample of flaws in mitigating the dispute issue. Following this, there is an imbalance of the justice process of mentioned court for bilateral dispute as the judges have not developed any provision to offer appropriate justice for individuals accused due to war. Contradiction also observed for the rules of national courts of any kind for settlement of bilateral dispute and the legislative aspect developed by ICJ. The mentioned legal authority has provided judgement in delayed manner and work progress of dispute resolution is hampered greatly due to this. Evidence suggests that the processing of dispute resolution by authorities of ICJ is one hold until multiple states claim. The court has no individual power to deal with dispute resolution and take initiative by providing own judgement.
Legal statue of ICJ is also bound to some extent as the organisation has no permission to investigate the issue by own or establish any rule of mitigation. Until and unless all the states of United Nations permitted ICJ to provide judgement, the authority has no power to fix the issue and the parties feel quite unequitable. Due to the mechanism of limited dispute mechanism, it has been so much complex for the states to reduce the potentiality of conflict and they have considered the international law as an undermine one with lack of effectiveness. As the power of the court is multi-partied, the stated which participated in any kind of dispute have complete freedom not to follow the rules provided by ICJ. Due to certain limitations, there is a question about viability of court suggestions and provide reliable judgement to the parties. In the dispute between India and Pakistan concerning the "Kulbhushan Jadhav case" before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), several challenges such as enforcement and compliance, geopolitical sensitivities, and limited jurisdiction were appeared.
Regulations governing third-party involvement in ICJ proceedings
ICJ has governed several rules and regulations in order to provide appropriate judgement to the cases in which third party involvement are necessary. According to the legislative proforma of ICJ, during any inter-state dispute, this is necessary to consider the opinion of a party who is not directly involved with such complexities like war, child right violence and other kind of criminal activities. Usually, ICJ considers the states with minimum and no concern with cases as third party to provide appropriate results. The opinion of the intervenor states is equally prioritised during judgement process and this can help to provide a reliable results of dispute resolution by assessing the point of view of all parties. In order to generate multilateral judgement process, third-parties also feel so much engaged in terms of court process and public retention enables to generate feasibility in the judgement.
Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ statutes and case law examples
Article 62 and 63 of the ICJ statues are concerned on providing a clear viewpoint whether third-party involvement is necessary for a case or not. According to the rule of article 62, a state needs to appeal for third party intervention to the courts for analysing the issue more crucially before decision-making. However, the legal aspect of ICJ confirms that it is completely the point of view of the court whether they intervene the case or make judgement by own. On the contrary, article 63 statue stated that ICJ is bound to third party intervention when multilateral convention observed. By involving third party, dispute settlement becomes quick and incidental issues like war, terrorism and similar others can be fixed with high degree of resilience.
Case example: “Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation: 32 States intervening)” is a case where the third-party rule of ICJ is not appropriately concentrated and the article related provisions are not maintained and this can be the reason for pending of this case till now or even international parties seem reluctant in this respect to ensure quick judgement.
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal): Belgium brought a case against Senegal to the ICJ concerning the prosecution or extradition of former Chadian President Hissène Habré for alleged human rights violations. The African Union and other third-party states, such as France and Chad, were allowed to intervene in the proceedings to present their legal arguments concerning the case.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States): This case involved Nicaragua accusing the United States of supporting Contra rebels and engaging in military activities in Nicaraguan territory. Several countries, including the Soviet Union and Cuba, intervened in the case to support Nicaragua's claims against the U.S. These interventions aimed to provide legal arguments and evidence in support of Nicaragua's position.
Effectiveness of rules in balancing dispute resolution and third-party rights
Implication of rules in balancing dispute resolution and third-party rights are necessary to provide clarity in judgement like a manner through which all the parties are satisfied after court proceeding. ICJ has focused on some of the rules to resolve dispute with efficacy and also respect the opinion of third-party states. Usually, the legal context mediation is thoroughly use as a backbone for balancing any type of dispute and ensure effectiveness in third-party rights. Rather than providing any legal changes to disputing parties, ICJ is so much concerned on mutual agreement by assessing the opinion of third party and the neutral individual has opportunity to assist decision-making process and pointed out the conflicting areas. According to the dispute resolution rule of ICJ through which the rights of third-party is also maintained, judgement needs to always underly in favour of the party who has affected more and only the viewpoint needs to be consider for outsides one. Overall, the judgement process has to be unidirectional and even third party is involved, their positional rights not to be violated.
Protection of Third-Party Rights and Interests
Mechanisms and practices used by international courts to safeguard third-party interests
ICJ develops some criteria regarding “protective principle” to safeguard the rights and interests of third-party. According to the rule, to ensure interest of third party involved in any internationally viable legal case, all the detailed information of the issues have to represented in front of the individuals. The court is bound not to reveal the name of third party who provides information to the judges by analysing the matters clearly. Besides that, it is the responsibility of the court to safeguard third party with proper cops’ protection or else there is a possibility to affect by the disputing parties. The rule also set not to manipulate the information of the third parties during judgement process rather than the judicial bodies have to apply ow idea to mitigate the issue as soon as possible. Generally, the jurisdiction has been set like a manner through which no damage is conduct for security system during judgement and third-party rights are protected properly.
Explanation and details about cases where third party involvement is necessary
Third party involvement is so much necessary for criminal cases and civil cases. In order to obtain appropriate judgement from international courts, different countries have been considered as third-party by focusing on whose opinion any kind of major dispute between two other countries have resolved. In this regard, civil cases are associated with third-party involvement and their point of view have been assessed thoroughly to acquire feasibility.
Balancing Bilateral Dispute Settlement and Third-Party Rights
Current international court practices
The Court's responsibilities include providing expert guidance on legal matters presented to it by specialised agencies and authorised United Nations entities, as well as resolving legal disputes that States present to it in conformity with international law. The voluntary involvement of the States in question determines how the Court will rule on international conflicts. A State must abide by the Court's ruling if it consents to take part in the action. In general, the Court's two roles are to provide advisory views on legal matters brought to it by specialised agencies and authorised UN institutions, and to decide State-submitted legal disputes in conformity with international law.
Challenges in addressing third-party concerns
The International Court of Justice's (ICJ) primary drawbacks include its unenforceability, its restricted jurisdiction, which is dependent on state permission, and the possible prejudices of its panellists. These limitations limit its capacity to guarantee adherence, resolve specific conflicts, and uphold objectivity. Its lengthy and cumbersome processing times and some cases requiring years to conclude that have drawn criticism. Furthermore, there may be actual or alleged prejudices due to the political orientation of its judges, who are chosen by the Security Council and the UN General Assembly. Moreover, there is no way to enforce for the ICJ. It is possible that the respondent state is arguing that the engagement of a third party whose interest in the dispute is important is necessary for an ultimate settlement of the dispute.
Examples of successful case
Case example: “Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)”: Eventually, the Court found that a state’s right to a continental shelf which extends over 200 nm “may not extend within 200 [nm] from the baselines of another State under customary international law”. According to the Court's ruling, Nicaragua has no right to a wider continental shelf within 200 [nm] of Colombia's the country coastline, "regardless of any scientific and technical considerations," and is therefore, as a result, Columbia has won the case. The surrounding nations have been considered as third-party for this case and their reliable participation and sharing of opinion helps the court to provide proper judgement.
Comparison with Law of sea tribunal, Arbitration between courts, WTO settlement
Approach to third party intervention
In the context of modern international law, third-party intervention in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has gained importance. Third party involvement is permitted by the International Court of Justice's Statute and Rules. Realising the goal of an entire globe free of war requires acceptance of the liberties of third parties throughout international arbitration. Therefore, any worldwide adjudicatory process ought to take into account all parties that may be impacted. In terms of international process, "intervention" refers to the means that occurs when an outside nation joins an ongoing international case that has been started at the request of multiple countries in order to safeguard its own rights. However, rules and regulations related with third-party by ICJ has some ambiguity due to which parties feel quite reluctant sometime to follow the judgement properly.
Comparative assessments
In November 1994, the Law of the Sea Convention came into effect, bringing alongside it mandatory procedures for third-party dispute resolution. It mandates that States Parties resolve their disagreements over how to apply or implement the Convention using the diplomatic channels outlined in the UN Charter. States may consent to submitting a matter to the Tribunal that would otherwise be outside the Tribunal's authority pursuant these regulations, even if it is not covered by Article 297 of the Convention or statements made under Article 298 of the Convention. In accordance with the International Court of Arbitration’s norm, interference is the right of a third party to apply to participate in the arbitration process on its own accord, either prior to or after the procedures begin and without the previous members' consent. WTO settlement follows this to ensure efficiency in its dispute resolution process and handle any kind of conflict. There are several ways in which third party intervention can be used as a conventional reaction to harmful as well as enduring social conflict. Through the procedure of arbitration, one or more indifferent, unbiased, and knowledgeable third parties examine the parties' information and testimony, evaluate it, and then render an opinion that may be legally binding or not.
Area of improvement for IJC
Dispute resolution, compliance evaluation, enforcement, and legal advice are the four distinct roles that states have specifically assigned to international courts. Through a particular arrangement, contesting States could present their disagreement collectively for the Court's decision, giving the Court authority over specific disputes. A bilateral treaty or multilateral agreement that has a compromiser provision may also establish the Court's jurisdiction. More significantly, the Court's Statute stipulated that an acknowledgment must accept the Court's mandatory jurisdiction within that voluntary section in order for it to be used for the intent of this case. A State would acknowledge the Court's jurisdiction over every legal conflict ipso facto and without specific commitment with respect to any other State embracing similar responsibilities, according to that declaration. Along with all of these, the ICJ authority have to increase the proficiency of safeguarding to the third parties to ensure adequacy in better judgement process.
Conclusion
Importance of balancing bilateral dispute settlement and third-party rights
It can be interpreted from the entire discussion that any type of legal disagreement can be resolved to the best of ability without incurring high legal costs with the use of an efficient dispute resolution procedure. A compromise reached during negotiations has the added benefit of being financially advantageous and is more probable to be followed by everyone involved because it was decided upon together. Securing a favourable resolution to a disagreement is the goal of the dispute resolution process. It is obvious that the best course of action is one that is both agreeable to the individuals involved in the dispute as well as compliant with the relevant agreements. Overall, because it is flexible, economical, time-efficient, and gives the involved parties greater influence over the course of events and their outcomes, appropriate balancing is crucial.
Reflection
I have learnt a lot of things in order to search information for current essay and all the data provide relevance to me to understand the meaning of dispute resolution and role of third-party in regards to this. Through obtaining data about current practices of third-party involvement for ICJ, I have able to analyse both the advantages and drawbacks of this international judicial body. Following this, I have been capable to acquire information about different types of international lawsuit that in turn could help me to mitigate my knowledge gap in this matter and more prominence of legal aspect understanding has enhanced. Henceforth, it is a knowledge gaining essay to me to shape my viewpoints about legal matters as well as strategies of resolution for all of these.
Potential improvements for reformation
Regarding the Court's contribution to the global community, the UN framework's indisputable diversity of the international system of regulation had prepared the path for a diverse range of individuals who shared an overarching objective of improving the lot of all individuals on the planet. A portion of that goal might be met by strengthening the position of law around the world in global affairs. The strategy makes sure that communities moved towards justice and equity. Regarding that, the Court was given a unique mission under the Charter, serving as the major judicial body of the Organisation as well as charged with the primary duty of amicably resolving disagreements between that States brought before it.
Refrences
Alexander, Atul, and Shouvik Kumar Guha. "Critical Analysis of Third-Party Intervention before the International Court of Justice." Indon. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 9 (2022): 115.
Almeida, Paula Wojcikiewicz. "Enhancing ICJ procedures for litigating in the common interest: the role of third party intervention and amicus curiae briefs." Revista de Direito da Cidade 11, no. 1 (2019): 331-361.
Almeida, Paula Wojcikiewicz. "International procedural regulation in the common interest: the role of third-party intervention and amicus curiae before the ICJ." The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 18, no. 2 (2019): 163-188.
Amr, Mohamed Sameh M. The role of the International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Vol. 40. Brill, 2021.
Ba, Oumar. States of justice: The politics of the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
Barrie, George N. "Third-party state intervention in disputes before the International Court of Justice: a reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute." Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 53, no. 1 (2020): 20-pages.
Bookman, Pamela K. "Arbitral Courts." Va. J. Int'l L. 61 (2020): 161.
Bradley, Curtis A., and Ernest A. Young. "Unpacking third-party standing." Yale LJ 131 (2021): 1.
Bradshaw, Robert. "How to obtain evidence from third parties: A comparative view." Journal of International Arbitration 36, no. 5 (2019).
Chaisse, Julien, and Xu Qian. "Conservative innovation: the ambiguities of the China International Commercial Court." American Journal of International Law 115 (2021): 17-21.
Chigara, Benedict Abrahamson. "Politico-Legal Inter-State Disputes: Should the United Nations International Law Commission Be Requested to Commence Studies on the" Opportunities for Holistic Dispute Settlement?"." Or. Rev. Int'l L. 24 (2023): 145.
Eggett, Craig, and Sarah Thin. "Third-Party Intervention before the International Court of Justice: A Tool for Litigation in the Public Interest?." In Public Interest Litigation in International Law, pp. 75-97. Routledge, 2023.
Eiriksson, Gudmundur. The international tribunal for the law of the sea. Brill, 2021.
El-Hosseny, Farouk. "Third Party Intervention at the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court." In Public Participation and Foreign Investment Law, pp. 332-360. Brill Nijhoff, 2021.
Forlati, Serena, and Paula Wojcikiewicz Almeida. "Is There a Role for Intervener States in Inducing Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice?." Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 26, no. 1 (2023): 145-172.
Ghodoosi, Farshad. "Fall of last safeguard in global dejudicialization: Protecting public interest in business disputes." Or. L. Rev. 98 (2020): 99.
icj-cij. (2023). Cameroon v. Nigeria. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/94
icj-cij. (2023). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments
icj-cij. (2023). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70/judgments
icj-cij. (2023). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70
icj-cij. (2023). Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/144
Ishizuka, Chisa. "Impact of the Ukraine Conflict on Inter-State Dispute Settlement Procedures: The Allegations of Genocide Case (Ukraine v. Russia)." In Global Impact of the Ukraine Conflict: Perspectives from International Law, pp. 115-134. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore, 2023.
Liao, Xuexia. "The Delimitation of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles: Recent Development in the Case Law." In The International Legal Order in the XXIst Century/L’ordre juridique international au XXIeme siècle/El órden jurídico internacional en el siglo XXI, pp. 835-859. Brill Nijhoff, 2023.
Martinez, Janet K. "Designing online dispute resolution." J. Disp. Resol. (2020): 135.
nbr. (2018). US - China Trade Dispute on Intellectual Property Rights. https://www.nbr.org/publication/u-s-china-intellectual-property-issues-in-a-post-phase-one-era/
Pauwelyn, Joost. "WTO dispute settlement post 2019: what to expect?." Journal of International Economic Law 22, no. 3 (2019): 297-321.
pca-cpa. (2023). Dispute Concerning Coastal State Rights in the Black Sea, Sea of Azov, and Kerch Strait (Ukraine v. the Russian Federation). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/149/
pca-cpa. (2023). The South China Sea Arbitration (The Republic of Philippines v. The People's Republic of China). https://pca-cpa.org/en/cases/7/
Peritz, Lauren J. Delivering on Promises: The Domestic Politics of Compliance in International Courts. University of Chicago Press, 2022.
Pillar, Paul R. "Counterterrorism." In Security Studies, pp. 452-467. Routledge, 2023.
Ryu, Jeheung. "How Do the Third Parties Contribute to WTO Dispute Resolution?." Journal of World Trade 56, no. 4 (2022).
Seid, Abdurahman. "The Impact of Jurisdiction on Inter-State Dispute Settlement Role of ICJ." Available at SSRN 4015583 (2022).
Thakur, Tanaya. "Reforming the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism and the host state’s right to regulate: a critical assessment." Indian Journal of International Law 59, no. 1-4 (2021): 173-208.
Wood, Michael, and Eran Sthoeger. "Third-Party Intervention and Involvement in Inter-State Arbitration." In A Bridge over Troubled Waters, pp. 61-82. Brill Nijhoff, 2020.
Zimmermann, Andreas, Christian J. Tams, Karin Oellers-Frahm, and Christian Tomuschat, eds. The Statute of the International Court of Justice: a commentary. Oxford University Press, 2019.
