The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation
In 1948, Brazil placed itself at the margin of the most important international tribunal of the moment by not adhering to the mandatory jurisdiction clause set out in Article 36-2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The central objective of this work is to convince the Brazil...
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Universidad del Rosario
2016-01-01
|
Series: | ACDI: Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/acdi/article/view/4492 |
id |
doaj-b1f2671433034a7f80464d64dfd49582 |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-b1f2671433034a7f80464d64dfd495822020-11-24T22:31:30ZengUniversidad del RosarioACDI: Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional2027-11312145-44932016-01-0190518010.12804/acdi9.1.2016.023000The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary ReconciliationJuliette Robichez0André Lamartin Montes1Universidade Paris I - Panthéon SorbonneUniversidade Católica de SalvadorIn 1948, Brazil placed itself at the margin of the most important international tribunal of the moment by not adhering to the mandatory jurisdiction clause set out in Article 36-2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The central objective of this work is to convince the Brazilian State to file with the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) a declaration of adherence to the mandatory jurisdiction clause of the ICJ Accordingly, the article analyzes the historical evolution of the icj, studies its role in the international system and evaluates the reasons that led Brazil to reject the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. Put another way, it analyzes the examples of countries such as France and the United States, which have also decided to reject the mandatory clause; it evaluates the arguments contrary to the position of the Court and demonstrates how it has contributed to world peace through the strengthening of international public law.http://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/acdi/article/view/4492Corte Internacional de Justicia, artículo 36-2, cláusula facultativa de jurisdicción obligatoria, Brasil, adhesión |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Juliette Robichez André Lamartin Montes |
spellingShingle |
Juliette Robichez André Lamartin Montes The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation ACDI: Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional Corte Internacional de Justicia, artículo 36-2, cláusula facultativa de jurisdicción obligatoria, Brasil, adhesión |
author_facet |
Juliette Robichez André Lamartin Montes |
author_sort |
Juliette Robichez |
title |
The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation |
title_short |
The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation |
title_full |
The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation |
title_fullStr |
The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation |
title_full_unstemmed |
The International Court of Justice and Brazil: a Necessary Reconciliation |
title_sort |
international court of justice and brazil: a necessary reconciliation |
publisher |
Universidad del Rosario |
series |
ACDI: Anuario Colombiano de Derecho Internacional |
issn |
2027-1131 2145-4493 |
publishDate |
2016-01-01 |
description |
In 1948, Brazil placed itself at the margin of the most important international tribunal of the moment by not adhering to the mandatory jurisdiction clause set out in Article 36-2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The central objective of this work is to convince the Brazilian State to file with the Secretary General of the United Nations (UN) a declaration of adherence to the mandatory jurisdiction clause of the ICJ Accordingly, the article analyzes the historical evolution of the icj, studies its role in the international system and evaluates the reasons that led Brazil to reject the contentious jurisdiction of the Court. Put another way, it analyzes the examples of countries such as France and the United States, which have also decided to reject the mandatory clause; it evaluates the arguments contrary to the position of the Court and demonstrates how it has contributed to world peace through the strengthening of international public law. |
topic |
Corte Internacional de Justicia, artículo 36-2, cláusula facultativa de jurisdicción obligatoria, Brasil, adhesión |
url |
http://revistas.urosario.edu.co/index.php/acdi/article/view/4492 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT julietterobichez theinternationalcourtofjusticeandbrazilanecessaryreconciliation AT andrelamartinmontes theinternationalcourtofjusticeandbrazilanecessaryreconciliation AT julietterobichez internationalcourtofjusticeandbrazilanecessaryreconciliation AT andrelamartinmontes internationalcourtofjusticeandbrazilanecessaryreconciliation |
_version_ |
1725736843059658752 |