Implementation of the Implied Powers Doctrine by the UN International Court of Justice

Authors

  • Yu. V. Shchokin Национального юридического университета им. Ярослава Мудрого

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.152.224433

Keywords:

International Court of Justice, implied powers doctrine, inherent powers doctrine, charter of international intergovernmental organization

Abstract

The article provides for an overview and analysis of the UN ICJ’s practice on implementation of the implied powers doctrine. Main Court’s cases (judgments and advisory opinions) related to this doctrine were examined (Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the UN (1949), Effect of Awards of Compensation made by the UN Administrative Tribunal (1954), Certain Expenses of the UN (1962), Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (1996), and Fisheries Jurisdiction (1998)).

It is noted that the implied powers doctrine became an implementation of the principle of efficiency, which is well known in international judicial practice as the principle interpretatio fiеnda est ut res magis valeat quam pereat. It allows to interpret the charters of international organizations in a more ‘dynamic manner’. The implied powers doctrine, on the one hand, expands the limits of such interpretation, and on the other hand, it limits it. Its antipode is the doctrine of inherent powers that allows to make more broadly interpretation of the charters of international organization based only on its goals. In this connection a comparative analysis of two competing doctrines – of implied powers and inherent powers – is made.

The author of the article examined the legal positions of the International Court of Justice that allow to the supporters of the inherent powers doctrine to assert that it has wide application. But, based on the methods of interpretation used by the ICJ in making these judgments and advisory opinions, he come to the conclusion that the Court fully supports exactly the implied powers doctrine.

Author Biography

Yu. V. Shchokin , Национального юридического университета им. Ярослава Мудрого

доктор юридических наук,

доцент кафедры права Европейского союза

References

Tunkin, G.I. (2000). Teorija mezhdunarodnogo prava. Moscow: Zercalo [in Russian].

Ananidze, F.R. (2014). Kompetencija mezhdunarodnyh mezhpravitel'stvennyh organizacij: Pravo mezhdunarodnyh organizacij. A. H. Abashidze (Ed.). Moscow: Jurajt [in Russian].

Kalamkarjan, R.A. (2012). Mezhdunarodnyj sud kak organ pravosudija po razresheniju sporov mezhdu gosudarstvami. Gosudarstvo i pravo, 8, 66–75 [in Russian].

Shumilenko, A.P., Oselska, Yu.V. (2012). Kontseptsiia «domysliuvanoi kompetentsii» mizhnarodnykh mizhuriadovykh orhanizatsii u suchasnomu mizhnarodnomu pravi. Naukovyi visnyk Lvivskoho derzhavnoho universytetu vnutrishnikh sprav, 4, 134–144 [in Ukrainian].

Akande, D. (1998). The Competence of International Organizations and the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law, vol. 9, 437–467.

Akande, D. (2003). International Organizations. International Law. 1st edition / ed. by M. D. Evans. U.S.A., Oxford University Press Inc., New York.

Amerasinghe, C.F. (2005). Principles of the Institutional Law of International Organizations. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

Bhutia, W.R. Implied Powers of the United Nations. URL: http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/articles/Implied-Powers-of-the-United-Nations-2718.asp#.U5wUL_h0KUk.

Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962: I.C.J. Reports 1962. p. 151.

Chigara, B. (2001). International Organization and Custom: From 1920 to Contemporary Perspectives. Deficit in Customary International Law: A Deconstructionist Critique. Aldershot, England: Burlington, V. T.: Ashgate/Dartmonth.

Chelali, T. (2011). International Legal Personality and International Organizations. International Law Conference. Mr. Heugas-Darraspen. March 11th, 2011. 6 p.

Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the U.N. Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion of July 13th, 1954: I.C.J. Reports, 1954. p. 47.

Engström, V. (2009). Understanding Powers of International Organizations. Åbo: Åbo Akademi University Press, 2009.

Engström, V. (2012). Constructing the Powers of International Institutions. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.

Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 4 December 1998. I.C.J. Reports 1998. p. 432.

Gudbrandsen, S.J. Legal Personality of International Organizations. The University of Oslo. URL: https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/10852/18865/2304AvhSJG.pdf?sequence=3.

International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion of 11 July 1950. I.C.J. Reports 1950. p. 128.

Klabbers, J. (2009). An Introduction to International Institutional Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge University Press.

Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, I.C.J. Reports 1996. p. 66.

Nishitani, H. (1986). The Doctrine of Implied Powers with Special Reference to the International Sea-Bed Authority (I). 一橋研究. Hitotsubashi Journal of Social Sciences, Vol. 10, Issue 4, 19–59.

Shaw, M.N. (2008). International Law. 6th ed. New York, U.S.A.: Cambridge University Press.

Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949. ICJ Reports, 1949. p. 174.

Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Eighteenth Session, Geneva, 4 May – 19 July 1966 (A/6309/Rev. 1). Yearbook of the International Law Commission. 1966. Vol. II, 172–363.

Published

2021-03-29

How to Cite

Shchokin , Y. V. . (2021). Implementation of the Implied Powers Doctrine by the UN International Court of Justice. Problems of Legality, (152), 152–162. https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990X.152.224433

Issue

Section

International law