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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Juliette Robichez, André Lamartin Montes
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