YouSaid · the spoken record

Judge Donoghue

lines on the record
30
first
2021-11-16
most recent
2023-01-12
sittings or episodes
3
sources
un-security-council

Every line below is reproduced as it was said and linked to the record it came from. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections

  1. “The judges of the International Court of Justice take those responsibilities seriously and are mindful of the important role bestowed upon them by the Charter in the pursuit of the Organization’s fundamental objectives.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  2. “However, the long-term strategic interests of States committed to the rule of law are best served by maintaining and bolstering a robust system of international adjudication. As a final remark, I note that the concept of the rule of law at the international level applies not only to States, but also to the organs of international organizations, including the International Court of Justice. I cannot call upon Member States to do more to align their conduct with the rule of law without also stressing that international courts and tribunals must also do their part by deciding disputes submitted to them in a conscientious and impartial manner, in accordance with international law and within the limits of the jurisdiction conferred upon them by the consent of States.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  3. “Thirdly, the rule of law requires States to comply systematically with the decisions of international courts and tribunals that are binding on them, even if they disagree with those decisions. It is encouraging to note that there has been compliance with the vast majority of cases decided by the International Court of Justice to date. Finally, the rule of law at the international level demands that States remain steadfast in their willingness to have their conduct judged by international courts and tribunals, even when adverse judicial decisions create pressure at home to retreat from the jurisdiction of those courts and tribunals. Concrete steps such as those that I suggest today may appear more difficult for national leaders than recitations of the importance of the rule of law.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  4. “In particular, the ways in which Member States engage with international adjudication can have a significant impact on the realization of the rule of law at the international level. I offer a few specific comments in that regard. First, States that are truly committed to the rule of law must entrust international courts and tribunals with the judicial settlement of legal disputes. When a State avoids binding and compulsory third-party dispute settlement, its invocations of the rule of law sound hollow. Secondly, engagement with international dispute settlement means more than accepting jurisdiction. States must also participate in proceedings that may be brought against them. If they believe that a particular body lacks the jurisdiction to decide a dispute, they should appear before that body and make that argument.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  5. “The rule of law among nations demands that States incorporate systemic community priorities within their conceptions of self-interest, even when those broader priorities might seem to be in tension with short-term objectives in relation to a particular situation. Every person in this Chamber today knows perfectly well that States prize their autonomy and strive to safeguard whatever levers of power they hold. We also know that national leaders often prioritize near-term and parochial objectives over broader and longer-term interests. At the international level, the concept of the rule of law is in a constant battle with those competing tendencies. However, this is not a time for the rule of law to wave the white flag of surrender.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  6. “That means that, as a structural constraint, international adjudication is far less robust than adjudication by independent national courts. On the international plane, it is the behaviour of States that largely determines whether the rule of law is being respected. If States mean what they say when they proclaim their fidelity to the rule of law at the international level, it is incumbent on them to exercise restraint and forbearance. They may not settle their disputes by using or threatening force and must be prepared to have the legality of their conduct evaluated by international courts and tribunals.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  7. “That difficulty is especially obvious when one considers the role of adjudication in advancing the rule of law. At the national level, one well-recognized aspect of the rule of law is the constraint imposed on what has been called the “otherwise all-powerful governing authority” of the State by the existence and operation of a judiciary that is empowered to strike down acts that exceed the powers assigned to the executive organ. Within a national system, of course, the executive organ and other entities cannot avoid the jurisdiction of national courts by refusing to consent to it. But at the international level, States can avoid compulsory and binding international dispute settlement by withholding consent to jurisdiction.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  8. “(General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), annex) Since then, the term “rule of law”, which did not appear in the Charter itself, has been used in numerous resolutions and reports produced within the Organization. The content of the rule of law has been rather well developed as applied at the national level, although, even in that context, competing definitions have been put forward. For example, some such definitions place emphasis on substantive norms, such as equality before the law, while others focus on structural elements, such as the review of executive actions by an independent judiciary. There is, however, broad agreement that the concept of the rule of law is not easily transposed from the national to the international level.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  9. “(General Assembly resolution 2625 (XXV), annex) The relationship between the obligation to settle disputes peacefully and the prohibition on the threat or use of force was further addressed, 12 years later, in the Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, which states that: “[n]either the existence of a dispute nor the failure of a procedure of peaceful settlement of disputes shall permit the use of force or threat of force by any of the States parties to the dispute.” (General Assembly resolution 37/10) A central objective of the General Assembly in adopting the Declaration on Friendly Relations was to: “promot[e] the rule of law among nations and particularly the universal application of the principles embodied in the Charter”.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  10. “Notable among those efforts is the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States, adopted by the General Assembly by consensus in 1970. Among other things, the Declaration expounded on the requirement that States: “settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered”.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  11. “Judge Donoghue: I am grateful to Japan and Foreign Minister Hayashi in particular for convening an open debate on the rule of law among nations, which I am honoured to join via video-teleconference from the seat of the International Court of Justice in the Hague, the Netherlands. I am particularly pleased to speak after the Secretary-General’s informative briefing, for which I thank him. My remarks today focus on the role of the peaceful settlement of international disputes in advancing the rule of law. Over the past several decades, Member States have made progressive efforts to articulate and affirm their commitment to the rule of law and the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.”

    2023-01-12 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9241 (2023) · source

  12. “The adoption of a convention on crimes against humanity would be one way to promote accountability for violations of some of the most fundamental obligations found in international law. The Court stands ready to decide any disputes over which it would have jurisdiction on the basis of such a convention.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  13. “Those were among the concerns that motivated the elaboration by the International Law Commission of draft articles on the prevention and punishment of crimes against humanity, which are currently under consideration by the General Assembly. I note in particular that the draft articles provide a basis for inter-State disputes to be adjudicated by the International Court of Justice or in arbitration, thereby promoting the goal of State accountability in relation to crimes against humanity. Today, when armed conflicts and mass atrocities continue to drive human suffering in various parts of the world, I take this opportunity to remind Member States that the Court can promote accountability only to the extent that Member States accord it the jurisdiction to do so.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  14. “The Court took note of that limitation in two cases arising out of conflicts in the former Yugoslavia, in which its jurisdiction was predicated only on the Genocide Convention, stating that, “[The Court] has no power to rule on alleged breaches of other obligations under international law, not amounting to genocide, particularly those protecting human rights in armed conflict. That is so even if the alleged breaches are of obligations under peremptory norms, or of obligations which protect essential humanitarian values, and which may be owed erga omnes.” Accountability for atrocities is no doubt enhanced when the governing law is clear and agreed among States and where a mechanism is in place to ensure that inter-State disputes can be adjudicated, in parallel with proceedings in which individuals are held to account.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  15. “In other cases, however, applicants have invoked as the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction the compromissory clause of a particular convention, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, or the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In such cases, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is limited by the scope of the particular convention concerned. The Court may therefore not be in a position to address the full range of the allegedly unlawful conduct that occurred as part of the relevant incidents.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  16. “In some cases, the Court has broad scope to consider the litigants’ claims and any counterclaims — for example, when both parties have recognized the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory, pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2 of its Statute. That was the case in Concerning armed activities on the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), during which the Court was able to consider a wide range of violations of international law that were alleged to have occurred in the context of hostilities involving the two States.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  17. “I shall simply recall that the Court has had opportunities to pronounce on important aspects of the legal framework of accountability, including the relationship between international human rights law and international humanitarian law in times of armed conflict, the customary nature of certain conventional obligations and the principles of reparation for mass violations that occurred in the context of armed conflict. The Court has also had occasion to decide on the responsibility of particular States for violations of those fundamental provisions of international law and on the consequent reparations. Before addressing the merits of any contentious case brought before it, however, the Court must satisfy itself that it has the jurisdiction to do so.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  18. “Applicants instituting those proceedings frequently invoke a desire for accountability as one of their key motivations for bringing a case before the Court. While there are within the United Nations system a number of mechanisms for strengthening the accountability of States, the International Court of Justice plays a special role. Its proceedings are public and are held on the basis of established procedures. Its judgments and orders on the indication of provisional measures are legally binding on the parties to a case. The limited time available does not allow me to describe in detail the many contributions made by the International Court of Justice that promote the accountability of States.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  19. “Judge Cançado Trindade joined the International Court of Justice in 2009, having already served as a Judge and President of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, as Legal Adviser to the Ministry of External Relations of Brazil and as a professor at several universities across four continents. Much more can and will be said about the contributions made by Judge Cançado Trindade to public international law, but I wanted to take this opportunity to pay tribute briefly to a colleague and friend, who will be sorely missed by the members of the Court and international lawyers around the world. I shall now turn to the remainder of my brief remarks. Over its 76-year-long history, the Court has decided a number of cases that involve injuries to persons and property in the context of armed conflict and widespread human rights abuses.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  20. “Judge Donoghue: I am grateful to His Excellency Ambassador Ferit Hoxha for inviting me to participate in this signature event, which I am pleased to join via video-teleconference from the seat of the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Netherlands. I welcome this opportunity to share with the Security Council and the broader United Nations membership some reflections on the ways in which the Court can contribute to the pursuit of accountability for atrocities that violate international law. Before I do so, allow me to say a few words about Judge Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade, who passed away in Brasilia only a few days ago.”

    2022-06-02 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.9052 (2022) · source

  21. “In my briefing, I hope to have briefly addressed some of the areas in which the role of the Court and those of other organs can complement each other with a view to the prevention of conflicts, in accordance with the United Nations Charter and the Statute of the International Court of Justice.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  22. “While the circumstances and requirements of each case vary, that example demonstrates that other United Nations organs have opportunities, within their respective purviews, to contribute to the implementation of judgments of the International Court of Justice and to the promotion of peace, security and justice. I invite the participants at this event to consider the ways in which the contributions of the Court and those of the other principal organs could be mutually reinforcing. The Court welcomes opportunities for engagement with the other principal organs of the United Nations.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  23. “In some circumstances, however, outside actors within the United Nations framework and beyond can assist the two States in moving forward from a situation of conflict to a situation where a dispute has been resolved. The principal organs of the United Nations can play a positive role in that regard. I would like to draw attention, for example, to the fundamental role played by Secretary-General Kofi Annan in bringing about the implementation of the Court’s 2012 judgment in the case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  24. “However, depending on the particulars of the case, other international organs may be able to play a role in bringing about the full implementation of the Court’s decisions. As Council members know, Article 94, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Charter sets out a specific role for the Security Council in the implementation of the Court’s decisions. The very limited practice under that provision suggests that States have found it more valuable to pursue other avenues to achieve the full implementation of judgments of the International Court of Justice in their favour. In many cases, the two States, acting individually or in concert, give effect to a judgment without the involvement of third parties.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  25. “The question whether to seek any particular advisory opinion from the Court is a matter entirely in the hands of the relevant organ or specialized agency and its members and must be carefully weighed on the basis of a range of different factors and considerations. The Court itself stands ready to receive any requests for advisory opinions that relevant United Nations organs and specialized agencies may make. Moving to a third issue addressed in the 2012 Declaration, the General Assembly reaffirmed the obligation of all States to comply with the decisions of the International Court of Justice in cases to which they are parties. Once the Court delivers its final judgment in relation to a given dispute, the case is removed from its docket. The Court is not a monitoring body. Its role in relation to a given dispute ends at that point.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  26. “More recently, the Secretary-General played a crucial role in the decades-long process that led to the submission to the Court of a dispute between Guyana and Venezuela. Turning to a second point mentioned in the 2012 Declaration, the Assembly recalled the ability of the relevant organs of the United Nations to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice. During events that take place each fall in International Law Week, including those that were held this year, Member State representatives often make general calls for increased resort by United Nations organs to the advisory opinion mechanism.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  27. “The encouragement to embrace the Court’s jurisdiction can therefore usefully be expanded beyond the deposit of those so-called Optional Clause declarations. The principal organs of the United Nations represented at this event can be, and have been, involved in other ways in the process that leads to contentious cases being submitted to the Court. For instance, under Article 36, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, the Security Council may recommend, in relation to legal disputes that endanger international peace and security, that the States involved refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice. The Security Council did that with respect to the very first case heard by the Court — the Corfu Channel case.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  28. “First, the International Court of Justice welcomes efforts by the other principal organs to promote the resort by Member States to the settlement of their disputes before the Court. In the 2012 Declaration, the General Assembly called upon States that have not yet done so to consider accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The Court welcomes related initiatives of United Nations organs and Member States, including most recently the declaration on promoting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, launched earlier this month by a core group of States. Of course, depositing a declaration recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory is only one of several ways in which a State may express its consent to that jurisdiction.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  29. “In that regard, as indicated when the meeting was scheduled, I will need to excuse myself today at noon, New York time. In your concept note (S/2021/888, annex), Mr. President, you drew attention to the Declaration of the High-level Meeting of the General Assembly on the Rule of Law at the National and International Levels (General Assembly resolution 67/1), unanimously adopted in 2012, which recognizes the respective contributions of different United Nations organs to the prevention of conflicts. Today I will touch upon three points addressed in the Declaration that highlight the indispensable interplay between the Court and other principal organs in that field.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source

  30. “Judge Donoghue: A few weeks ago, I had the honour of travelling to Headquarters in New York to deliver the traditional addresses of the President of the International Court of Justice to the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Sixth Committee and to take part in valuable meetings with United Nations officials and representatives of Member States. Today’s signature event provides the perfect opportunity to follow up on some of the points raised while I was in New York as part of the ongoing dialogue among the principal organs that seeks to identify avenues to promote our shared objectives of peace and security. I am therefore grateful to Your Excellency, Mr. President, for convening this signature event, which I am pleased to join via video-teleconference from the seat of the Court at The Hague.”

    2021-11-16 · UN Security Council · Security Council, S/PV.8906 (2021) · source