Preliminary objections - Historique des versions

Arthur : /* Admissibility  */

2022-10-06T20:41:53Z

Admissibility 

← Version précédente		Version du 6 octobre 2022 à 22:41
Ligne 10 :		Ligne 10 :
	This is a procedural incident which means that a State submits arguments to the Court to prove that it should not proceed on the merits, but that it should declare itself incompetent or that it should declare the application inadmissible, as the case may be.		This is a procedural incident which means that a State submits arguments to the Court to prove that it should not proceed on the merits, but that it should declare itself incompetent or that it should declare the application inadmissible, as the case may be.

	= ~~Admissibility~~  =		= Admissibility =

	The next step would be to consider the nature of these preliminary objections in the Court's proceedings. The most important regulation of preliminary objections is found in Article 79 of the 1978 Rules of Court. The question of the nature of the preliminary objections raises the fact that they may relate either to jurisdictional aspects, or to admissibility aspects, or to aspects that are not named, such as, for example, an exception that is not categorized and that should normally fall within one or the other. So the question is, what is it that comes under what, in terms of what is "jurisdiction" and what is "admissibility" and why is the distinction made, or is the distinction and is it a rigid distinction or could we have an amphibian situation or a certain exception sometimes on the context, an exception of incompetence and other times, depending on the context, an exception of inadmissibility?		The next step would be to consider the nature of these preliminary objections in the Court's proceedings. The most important regulation of preliminary objections is found in Article 79 of the 1978 Rules of Court. The question of the nature of the preliminary objections raises the fact that they may relate either to jurisdictional aspects, or to admissibility aspects, or to aspects that are not named, such as, for example, an exception that is not categorized and that should normally fall within one or the other. So the question is, what is it that comes under what, in terms of what is "jurisdiction" and what is "admissibility" and why is the distinction made, or is the distinction and is it a rigid distinction or could we have an amphibian situation or a certain exception sometimes on the context, an exception of incompetence and other times, depending on the context, an exception of inadmissibility?

Arthur : /* Competence  */

2022-10-06T20:41:44Z

Competence 

← Version précédente		Version du 6 octobre 2022 à 22:41
Ligne 1 :		Ligne 1 :
	= ~~Competence~~  =		= Competence =
	We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would, therefore, be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.		We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would, therefore, be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.

Arthur : /* Competence  */

2020-02-29T12:17:16Z

Competence 

← Version précédente		Version du 29 février 2020 à 14:17
Ligne 2 :		Ligne 2 :
	We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would, therefore, be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.		We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would, therefore, be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.

	That is why there are preliminary objections in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. It is also possible to speak of a "~~preliminary~~ objection", but it is not really French in procedural language, it is Frenglish. In English, we will say "preliminary objection", we would not say "preliminary exception". The term "exception", in French, comes from Roman law "exceptio" which is an exception to actions.		That is why there are preliminary objections in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. It is also possible to speak of a "objection préliminaire", but it is not really French in procedural language, it is Frenglish. In English, we will say "preliminary objection", we would not say "preliminary exception". The term "exception", in French, comes from Roman law "exceptio" which is an exception to actions.

	Preliminary objections give the defendant the opportunity to remind the Court that there is a problem and that it should not decide the merits of the case. It could also happen that the plaintiff tells the Court that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the case he or she has brought before the Court. This seems paradoxical, but it happened only once in the Court's proceedings in the monetary gold case in 1953. The Court can and does ex officio verify whether the conditions are met in relation to certain issues, for example, the Court must verify whether personal jurisdiction is met, whether the entities that wish to plead before it are indeed States. It does so very regularly, but that is not because it is at the level of the Registrar that it is settled and not at the level of the Court, it does not meet, it does not make an order on this subject. There is also a whole series of natural persons who write to the Court wanting to bring a case against their State before the ICJ, this happens regularly, but it is not possible within the limits of Article 34.		Preliminary objections give the defendant the opportunity to remind the Court that there is a problem and that it should not decide the merits of the case. It could also happen that the plaintiff tells the Court that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the case he or she has brought before the Court. This seems paradoxical, but it happened only once in the Court's proceedings in the monetary gold case in 1953. The Court can and does ex officio verify whether the conditions are met in relation to certain issues, for example, the Court must verify whether personal jurisdiction is met, whether the entities that wish to plead before it are indeed States. It does so very regularly, but that is not because it is at the level of the Registrar that it is settled and not at the level of the Court, it does not meet, it does not make an order on this subject. There is also a whole series of natural persons who write to the Court wanting to bring a case against their State before the ICJ, this happens regularly, but it is not possible within the limits of Article 34.

Arthur : /* Competence  */

2020-02-29T12:15:18Z

Competence 

← Version précédente		Version du 29 février 2020 à 14:15
Ligne 1 :		Ligne 1 :
	= Competence  =		= Competence  =
	We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would therefore be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.		We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would, therefore, be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.

	That is why there are preliminary objections in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. It is also possible to speak of a "preliminary objection", but it is not really French in procedural language, it is Frenglish. In English, we will say "preliminary objection", we would not say "preliminary exception". The term "exception", in French, comes from Roman law "exceptio" which is an exception to actions.		That is why there are preliminary objections in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. It is also possible to speak of a "preliminary objection", but it is not really French in procedural language, it is Frenglish. In English, we will say "preliminary objection", we would not say "preliminary exception". The term "exception", in French, comes from Roman law "exceptio" which is an exception to actions.

Arthur : /* Annexes */

2018-10-19T10:40:25Z

Annexes

Voir les modifications

Arthur : /* Procédure (Art. 79 du Règlement de la Cour) */

2018-10-19T10:39:33Z

Procédure (Art. 79 du Règlement de la Cour)

Voir les modifications

Arthur : /* Compétence  */

2018-10-19T10:37:52Z

Compétence 

← Version précédente		Version du 19 octobre 2018 à 12:37
Ligne 1 :		Ligne 1 :
	= ~~Compétence~~  =		= Competence  =
	~~Nous avons vu qu’une Cour de justice est moins loquace qu’un corps politique~~, ~~est plus consciente de ses limites~~. ~~Une Cour de justice sait qu’elle doit d’abord vérifier si les~~ conditions ~~sont réunies afin qu’elle s’exprime sur le fond d’une affaire qui lui est soumise~~. ~~Car~~, ~~si elle parlait sans y être autorisée~~, ~~cela signifierait qu’elle empiéterait sur la souveraineté des États membres et qu’elle commettrait donc, à la fois un excès de pouvoir et une~~ violation ~~du droit~~.		We have seen that a Court of Justice is less talkative than a political body, is more aware of its limits. A Court of Justice knows that it must first check whether the conditions are met in order for it to express itself on the merits of a case submitted to it. For, if she spoke without being allowed to do so, it would mean that she would encroach on the sovereignty of the Member States and would therefore be both an abuse of power and a violation of the law.

	~~C’est la raison pour laquelle il existe des exceptions préliminaires dans la procédure de la Cour internationale de justice~~. ~~Il est aussi~~ possible ~~de parler d’«~~ objection ~~préliminaire »~~, ~~mais ce n’est pas vraiment du français dans le langage procédural~~, ~~cela est du franglais~~. ~~En anglais~~, ~~on dira «~~ preliminary objection », ~~on ne dirait pas «~~ preliminary exception ». ~~Le terme «~~ exception », ~~en français vient du droit romain «~~ exceptio ~~» qui est une~~ exception ~~aux~~ actions.		That is why there are preliminary objections in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice. It is also possible to speak of a "preliminary objection", but it is not really French in procedural language, it is Frenglish. In English, we will say "preliminary objection", we would not say "preliminary exception". The term "exception", in French, comes from Roman law "exceptio" which is an exception to actions.

	~~Les exceptions préliminaires donnent au défendeur la possibilité de rappeler à la Cour qu’il y~~ a ~~un problème et qu’elle ne devrait pas trancher le fond du litige~~. ~~Il pourrait arriver aussi que le demandeur dise à la Cour qu’elle n’est pas compétente pour traiter de l’affaire qu’il a portée lui devant la Cour~~. ~~Cela paraît paradoxal~~, ~~mais c’est arrivé une seule fois dans la procédure de la Cour dans l’affaire de l’or monétaire en~~ 1953. ~~La Cour peut vérifier d’office si les~~ conditions ~~sont réunies et elle le fait par rapport à certaines questions~~, ~~par exemple~~, ~~la Cour doit vérifier si la compétence personnelle est réunie~~, ~~si les entités qui veulent plaider devant elle sont bien des États~~. ~~Elle le fait d’ailleurs et très régulièrement~~, ~~mais ça ne soit pas parce que c’est au niveau du greffier que cela est réglé et non pas au niveau de la Cour~~, ~~elle ne se réunit pas~~, ~~elle ne formule pas une ordonnance à ce propos~~. ~~Il y~~ a ~~aussi toute une série de personnes physiques qui écrivent à la Cour voulant porter une affaire contre leur État devant la CIJ~~, ~~cela arrive régulièrement~~, ~~mais cela n’est pas~~ possible ~~à la limite de l’article~~ 34.		Preliminary objections give the defendant the opportunity to remind the Court that there is a problem and that it should not decide the merits of the case. It could also happen that the plaintiff tells the Court that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with the case he or she has brought before the Court. This seems paradoxical, but it happened only once in the Court's proceedings in the monetary gold case in 1953. The Court can and does ex officio verify whether the conditions are met in relation to certain issues, for example, the Court must verify whether personal jurisdiction is met, whether the entities that wish to plead before it are indeed States. It does so very regularly, but that is not because it is at the level of the Registrar that it is settled and not at the level of the Court, it does not meet, it does not make an order on this subject. There is also a whole series of natural persons who write to the Court wanting to bring a case against their State before the ICJ, this happens regularly, but it is not possible within the limits of Article 34.

	~~Si une affaire est portée devant la Cour est qu’il est incertain de savoir si le litige tombe vraiment dans le domaine de l’exception~~. ~~Il peut y avoir par exemple un litige sur les tarifs douaniers dans les poissons péchés en haute mer~~, ~~et la~~ question ~~est de savoir si cela est couvert par une~~ exception ~~ou c’est autre chose~~, ~~est-ce que c’est encore la pêche ou les conséquences de cette pêche qui ne sont pas couvertes par la~~ clause ~~d’exception~~. La question ~~pourrait se poser~~. ~~Un État dit que cela est couvert par sa~~ clause ~~d’exception~~, ~~donc la Cour n’est pas compétente~~, ~~et un autre État réfute disant que ce n’est pas une question qui porte sur la pêche~~, ~~mais c’est une question qui porte sur des droits douaniers~~. ~~La Cour devrait trancher ce~~ point ~~parce que selon la réponse à donner~~, ~~la Cour est compétente ou non~~. ~~Cela doit être tranché~~. ~~Est soulevé alors afin de signaler un désaccord~~, ~~une exception préliminaire~~.		If a case is brought before the Court, it is uncertain whether the dispute really falls within the scope of the exception. For example, there may be a dispute over tariffs on fish caught on the high seas, and the question is whether this is covered by an exception or something else, whether it is still the fishery or the consequences of that fishery that are not covered by the exception clause. The question might arise. One State says that this is covered by its exception clause, so the Court has no jurisdiction, and another State refutes that this is not a fisheries issue, but a customs duty issue. The Court should decide this point because, depending on the answer to be given, the Court has jurisdiction or not. This must be decided. This is then raised to report a disagreement, a preliminary objection.

	~~C’est un~~ incident ~~de procédure qui signifie qu’un État présente des~~ arguments ~~à la Cour tendant à prouver qu’elle ne doit pas procéder au fond~~, ~~mais qu’elle doit se déclarer incompétente ou qu’elle doit déclarer la demande irrecevable selon les cas~~.		This is a procedural incident which means that a State submits arguments to the Court to prove that it should not proceed on the merits, but that it should declare itself incompetent or that it should declare the application inadmissible, as the case may be.

	= ~~Recevabilité~~  =		= Admissibility  =

	~~Le prochain pas serait de regarder de quelle~~ nature ~~seraient ces exceptions préliminaires dans la procédure de la Cour~~. ~~La règlementation la plus importante des exceptions préliminaires est à l’article~~ 79 ~~du règlement de la Cour de~~ 1978. La question ~~de la~~ nature ~~des exceptions préliminaire soulève le fait qu’elles peuvent porter soit sur des~~ aspects ~~de compétence~~, ~~soit sur des~~ aspects ~~de recevabilité~~, ~~soit sur des~~ aspects ~~qui ne sont pas nommés comme~~, ~~par exemple~~, ~~une~~ exception ~~qui n’est pas catégorisée et qui normalement devrait relever de l’un ou de l’autre~~. ~~Alors~~, ~~la question est de savoir qu’est-ce qui relève de quoi~~, ~~en termes de savoir ce qu’est « compétence » et ce qu’est « recevabilité » et pourquoi fait-on la~~ distinction, ~~ou est la distinction et est-ce que cette~~ distinction ~~est une~~ distinction ~~rigide ou est-ce qu’on pourrait avoir une~~ situation ~~amphibienne ou une certaine~~ exception ~~peut être tantôt sur le contexte~~, ~~une~~ exception ~~d’incompétence et d’autre fois~~, ~~selon le contexte~~, ~~une~~ exception ~~d’irrecevabilité.~~		The next step would be to consider the nature of these preliminary objections in the Court's proceedings. The most important regulation of preliminary objections is found in Article 79 of the 1978 Rules of Court. The question of the nature of the preliminary objections raises the fact that they may relate either to jurisdictional aspects, or to admissibility aspects, or to aspects that are not named, such as, for example, an exception that is not categorized and that should normally fall within one or the other. So the question is, what is it that comes under what, in terms of what is "jurisdiction" and what is "admissibility" and why is the distinction made, or is the distinction and is it a rigid distinction or could we have an amphibian situation or a certain exception sometimes on the context, an exception of incompetence and other times, depending on the context, an exception of inadmissibility?

	= Procédure (Art. 79 du Règlement de la Cour) =		= Procédure (Art. 79 du Règlement de la Cour) =
Ligne 89 :		Ligne 89 :

	= References =		= References =
	<references/>		<references />

	[[Category:Robert Kolb]]		[[Category:Robert Kolb]]

Arthur : Page créée avec « = Compétence  = Nous avons vu qu’une Cour de justice est moins loquace qu’un corps politique, est plus consciente de ses limites. Une Cour de justice sait qu’elle... »

2018-10-19T10:37:06Z

Page créée avec « = Compétence  = Nous avons vu qu’une Cour de justice est moins loquace qu’un corps politique, est plus consciente de ses limites. Une Cour de justice sait qu’elle... »

Voir les modifications

Preliminary objections - Historique des versions

Arthur : /* Admissibility */

Arthur : /* Competence */

Arthur : /* Competence */

Arthur : /* Competence */

Arthur : /* Annexes */

Arthur : /* Procédure (Art. 79 du Règlement de la Cour) */

Arthur : /* Compétence */

Arthur : Page créée avec « = Compétence = Nous avons vu qu’une Cour de justice est moins loquace qu’un corps politique, est plus consciente de ses limites. Une Cour de justice sait qu’elle... »

Arthur : /* Admissibility  */

Arthur : /* Competence  */

Arthur : /* Competence  */

Arthur : /* Competence  */

Arthur : /* Annexes */

Arthur : /* Procédure (Art. 79 du Règlement de la Cour) */

Arthur : /* Compétence  */

Arthur : Page créée avec « = Compétence  = Nous avons vu qu’une Cour de justice est moins loquace qu’un corps politique, est plus consciente de ses limites. Une Cour de justice sait qu’elle... »