Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 79 views

    ICJ - Asylum Case (Colombia V Peru) 1950 Judgment For Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    Rem Ramirez
    The ICJ judgment deals with Colombia's request for interpretation of the court's November 20, 1950 ruling in the Asylum Case between Colombia and Peru. The ICJ held Colombia's request was inadmissible for three reasons: 1) the request aimed to obtain decisions on new points not included in the original submissions, beyond the scope of interpretation; 2) no dispute existed between the parties as required; and 3) the request came on the same day as the judgment, making a dispute impossible. The lone dissenting opinion came from Colombia's judge ad hoc.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    ICJ - Asylum Case (Colombia V Peru) 1950 Judgment For Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    Rem Ramirez
    79 views1 page
    The ICJ judgment deals with Colombia's request for interpretation of the court's November 20, 1950 ruling in the Asylum Case between Colombia and Peru. The ICJ held Colombia's request was inadmissible for three reasons: 1) the request aimed to obtain decisions on new points not included in the original submissions, beyond the scope of interpretation; 2) no dispute existed between the parties as required; and 3) the request came on the same day as the judgment, making a dispute impossible. The lone dissenting opinion came from Colombia's judge ad hoc.

    Original Description:

    International Law

    Original Title

    ICJ - Asylum Case (Colombia v Peru) 1950 Judgment for Interpretation

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The ICJ judgment deals with Colombia's request for interpretation of the court's November 20, 1950 ruling in the Asylum Case between Colombia and Peru. The ICJ held Colombia's request was inadmissible for three reasons: 1) the request aimed to obtain decisions on new points not included in the original submissions, beyond the scope of interpretation; 2) no dispute existed between the parties as required; and 3) the request came on the same day as the judgment, making a dispute impossible. The lone dissenting opinion came from Colombia's judge ad hoc.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    79 views1 page

    ICJ - Asylum Case (Colombia V Peru) 1950 Judgment For Interpretation

    Uploaded by

    Rem Ramirez
    The ICJ judgment deals with Colombia's request for interpretation of the court's November 20, 1950 ruling in the Asylum Case between Colombia and Peru. The ICJ held Colombia's request was inadmissible for three reasons: 1) the request aimed to obtain decisions on new points not included in the original submissions, beyond the scope of interpretation; 2) no dispute existed between the parties as required; and 3) the request came on the same day as the judgment, making a dispute impossible. The lone dissenting opinion came from Colombia's judge ad hoc.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice

    Not an official document

    REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT


    OF 20 NOVEMBER 1950 INTHE ASYLUM CASE
    Judgment of 27 November 1950

    The judgment deals with the request for an interpretation (c) or, on the contrary, that Colombia is bound to surren-
    of the Judgment which the Court had delivered on November der the refugee?
    20th, in the Asylum Case (Colombia-Peru).This request had On the first question, the Court found that the point had not
    been submitted to the Court in the name of the Colombian been submitted to it by the Parties: the Court had been asked
    Government on the very day when the judgment to be inter- to decide only on n submission presented by Colombia in
    preted was delivered. abstract and general terms.
    By twelve votes to one the Court, including two judges ad The other two questions in reality amount to an alterna-
    hoc, one designated by the Colombian Government and the tive, dealing with the surrender of the refugee. This point
    other by the Peruvian Government, held that the request was also had not been included in the submissions of the Parties:
    inadmissible. the Court therefore could make no decision upon it. It was for
    the Parties to present their respective claims on this point,
    which they abstained from doing. When Colombia claims to
    detect "gaps" in the:Judgment, these gaps in reality concern
    new points on whicih decision cannot be obtained by means
    of an interpretation: this interpretation may in no way go
    beyond the limits of the Judgment, as fixed in advance by the
    In its Judgment, the Court recalls that the first condition submissions of the F'arties.
    which must be fulfilled to enable it to give ;in interpretation Finally, the condition required by the Statute that there
    under the provisions of the Statute, is that the real purpose of should be a dispute is not satisfied: no dispute between the
    the request should be to obtain an interpretation of the Judg- Parties had been brought to the attention of the Court, and it
    ment. This means that its object must be solely to obtain clar- is shown by the very date of the request for an interpretation
    ification as to the meaning and scope of what had been that such a dispute clould not possibly have arisen in any way
    decided by the Judgment with binding force. It is also neces- whatever.
    sary that there should be a dispute between the Parties as to
    the meaning and scope of that Judgment. For these reasons, the Court declared that the request for
    an interpretation presented by Colombia was inadmissible.
    The Court then notes that the Governme:nt of Colombia
    asked it to reply to three questions: Is the Judgment of
    November 20th, 1950, to be construed as meaning:
    (a) that legal effects are to be attributed to the qualifica-
    tion made by the Colombian Ambassador at Lima of the
    offence imputed to M. Haya de la Torre? M. Caicedo Castilla, Judge ad hoc designated by the
    Colombian Government, declared that he was unable to join
    (b) that Peru is not entitled to demand surrender of the in the Judgment. Hiis declaration is appended to the Judg-
    refugee, and that Colombia is not bound to s~lrrenderhim? ment.

    You might also like