W.H.O. Charter of United Nation and statute of the International Court of Justice. landmark Judgement of ICJ

WHO which was established in 1946. The WHO has a Constitution and issues International Health Regulations (IHR).  Its membership is open to all Members of the United Nations and Associate Members. The WHO’s objective is the attainment by all peoples of the highest level of health. 

Framework to improve preparedness for and response to pandemic influenza and has replaced the 2009 guidance with the 2013 Pandemic Influenza Risk Management WHO Interim Guidance.

Areas of Priority

·        The WHO has six main priorities for providing leadership.  These include

·        Universal health coverage;

·        Health-related Millennium Development Goals;

·        Noncommunicable diseases, such as cancer, heart disease, and mental health disorders;

·        Social, economic, and environmental determinants;

·        Access to medical products;

·        and the International Health Regulations.

Charter of the United Nations

CHAPTER V: THE SECURITY COUNCIL

COMPOSITION

Article 23

The Security Council shall consist of fifteen Members of the United Nations.

CHAPTER VII: ACTION WITH RESPECT TO THREATS TO THE PEACE, BREACHES OF THE PEACE, AND ACTS OF AGGRESSION

Article 39

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Article 48

1.   The action required to carry out the decisions of the Security Council for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the United Nations or by some of them, as the Security Council may determine.

2.   Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the United Nations directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members.

 

STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

It consists of 5 chapters and 70 Article.

Article 1

The International Court of Justice established by the Charter of the United Nations as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations shall be constituted and shall function in accordance with the provisions of the present Statute.

CHAPTER I: ORGANIZATION OF THE COURT (Articles 2 - 33)

1. The Court shall consist of fifteen members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same state.

CHAPTER II: COMPETENCE OF THE COURT (Articles 34 - 38)

Article 36

1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force.

CHAPTER III: PROCEDURE (Articles 39 - 64)

Article 51

During the hearing any relevant questions are to be put to the witnesses and experts under the conditions laid down by the Court in the rules of procedure referred to in Article 30.

Article 60

The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.

CHAPTER IV: ADVISORY OPINIONS (Articles 65 - 68)

CHAPTER V: AMENDMENT (Articles 69 & 70)

The landmark Judgment of ICJ

Secession of Quebec (ILDC 184 (CA 1998)

It is a standard citation for every discussion on the right to self-determination in international law. The judgment illustrates that domestic courts can explain the state of international law in a way that does not compare unfavourably with many international courts. Briefed by leading international law experts, the court explains with confidence the state of international law in this area. The part that made the case particularly famous is the court’s statement that ‘it is possible’ that a unilateral right of secession (‘external self-determination’) can arise in cases where a people is blocked from the meaningful exercise of its right to internal self-determination. It is noteworthy that the court’s careful reference to a ‘possibility’ is often omitted when proponents of the right of unilateral secession refer to the case. But nonetheless the judgment is a striking example of how a single domestic decision can influence a debate in (judicial) practice and scholarship. For domestic courts with the ambition to contribute to the development of international law (see also the cases numbered 5 and 6 of this list), this case should be a lasting inspiration. 

 Border Treaty, Re, Kariņš and ors v Parliament of Latvia (ILDC 884 (LV 2007)) 

 This case, concerning the occupation of Latvia by the USSR in WWII, is much less well known, but it is highly relevant to topical questions around the world. The judgment provides a convenient source of reference for those who look for authority for the proposition that consent to deployment of foreign troops is invalid when it is given after a military threat. The judgment is even more relevant as supporting authority for the principle that unlawful acts do not create rights, and that annexation carried out as a result of an unlawful use of force cannot enjoy international legality. This provides a relevant prism for assessing the current and future situation in the Crimea. There is much in the judgment that raises questions, and the reporter’s analysis does a good job of articulating them. But such common deficiencies in domestic judgments on matters of international law (which we also find in international judgments) do not necessarily preclude sound holdings and important contributions to international law on other points. 

 Agent Orange Product Liability Litigation, Re, Vietnam Association For Victims Of Agent Orange/Dioxin and ors v Dow Chemical Company and ors (ILDC 23 (US 2005))       

No other state has more cases in ILDC than the United States—a remarkable fact given the popular wisdom that US courts are not receptive to international law. But many of the US cases do not necessarily facilitate the application of international law. The Agent Orange case really stands out for one proposition: the court could not find any basis for declaring that the US military use of herbicides from 1961 to 1971 in Vietnam violated the international obligations of the United States.

 The finding displays a remarkable disconnect between moral outrage over the use of ‘agent orange’ and legal analysis. The outcome may, however, be in line with a few general trends that emerge when one reads through the US case-law. One is that the courts find it easier to hold that an act is not unlawful under international law than to find that the act is unlawful under international law. Another is that the US has been able to immunize itself to a significant extent from successful international law claims—whether by simply not signing up to treaties or by declaring treaties to be not self-executing, or by maintaining a wide variety of avoidance techniques. None of this is unique to the United States—the general point is that domestic judicial practice is not just about facilitating effective performance, but also about avoiding or even contesting international law. That, too, is the reality of international law. 

 Germany v Mantelli and ors, Preliminary Order on Jurisdiction (ILDC 1037, IT 2008))       

This is another judgment that has been of much interest to international lawyers. It is one of the cases leading up to the ICJ judgment in Germany v Italy. The case stands out for its explicit ambition to engage in the progressive development of international law. The Court of Cassation upheld the principle established by its earlier 2004 precedent in the Ferrini case: the operation of the rule on state immunity from civil jurisdiction may in certain cases give rise to a conflict with fundamental rights that has to be resolved in favour of the latter. The Court was aware that it was largely on its own, not being able to rely on much more than the joint dissenting opinion attached to the Al-Adsani decision of the ECtHR. It justified the holding expressly as a contribution to the emergence of a rule of international law. It seems that even the judgment of the ICJ in Germany v Italy has not been able to forestall that ambition. The case thus presents the role of domestic courts in the familiar dilemma of conflict between non-compliance with and development of international law. Surely, against the background of the ICJ judgment, the decision is in breach of the international obligations of Italy—but can it be excluded that in due course it will be seen as a pivotal contribution to change? 

 Kenya section of the International Commission of Jurists v Attorney General and Minister of State for Provincial Administration and Internal Security and Kenyans for Justice and Development Trust (ILDC 1804 (KE 2011)

This is yet another case on a question of a topic of much interest: the obligations of states to cooperate with the International Criminal Court, in particular in the arrest of persons indicted by the ICC.  The court made a few quite bold statements: with the Quebec case at number1 and the Mantelli case at number. The court stated that obligations under the Rome Statute were customary international law and that as a state party to the Rome Statute, Kenya was under an obligation to prosecute those who had committed crimes under the Statute—a matter not at all as clear as the court suggested.

The court also held that the doctrine of universal jurisdiction was a ius cogens obligation under international law and that therefore states were authorized to arrest and prosecute persons engaged in international crimes, regardless of their status, if they had committed a crime under the Rome Statute—an issue that is equally rather controversial.

 Netherlands, Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom Relations and De Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij v Stichting Proefprocessenfonds Clara Wichmann and ors ILDC 1632 (NL 2010))

In this case the Netherlands Supreme Court engaged in a difficult balance between various human rights. It eventually came to the conclusion that in view of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, a political party could not exclude women from passive voting rights.

 Public Committee against Torture in Israel and Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment v Israel and ors (ILDC 597 (IL 2006)

The list ends with another high profile case, which addresses the question of whether targeted killings are lawful under international law. Apart from all the substantive aspects of the case, and aside from the obviously complex political nature of the relation between the court and the Israeli political branches, the case is particularly notable for its very extensive use of international legal materials, including scholarly literature, and the overall quality of its legal reasoning.

 Bishwa Kumar Jain # B com (h). L.L.B. DIP Cyber Law. Member International Arbitration U.K. Practice Advocate Supreme Court and High Court of Delhi.