File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1163/15718034-12341421
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85091152831
- Find via
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Scopus: 0
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Provisional Measures and the Link Requirement
Title | Provisional Measures and the Link Requirement |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Article 290 UNCLOS Article 41 ICJ Statute International Court of Justice International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea link provisional measures |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Citation | Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2020, v. 19, n. 2, p. 177-199 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In the context of requests for provisional measures, the link requirement has not attracted much scholarly attention and might be regarded as raising limited controversy. However, this article argues that the link is an unnecessary requirement for granting provisional measures by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. First, the function which the link purports to fulfil is already fulfilled by other requirements (i.e., prima facie jurisdiction, plausibility and real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice). Second, if the link is understood as requiring provisional measures to be tailored to the rights of which protection is sought, the ICJ and ITLOS have the power to indicate measures different from those requested. One may suggest that the link therefore emerges as an unnecessary requirement which overburdens provisional measures proceedings. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/334689 |
ISSN | 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.253 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Lando, Massimo | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-10-20T06:49:56Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2023-10-20T06:49:56Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals, 2020, v. 19, n. 2, p. 177-199 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 1569-1853 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/334689 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In the context of requests for provisional measures, the link requirement has not attracted much scholarly attention and might be regarded as raising limited controversy. However, this article argues that the link is an unnecessary requirement for granting provisional measures by the International Court of Justice and the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. First, the function which the link purports to fulfil is already fulfilled by other requirements (i.e., prima facie jurisdiction, plausibility and real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice). Second, if the link is understood as requiring provisional measures to be tailored to the rights of which protection is sought, the ICJ and ITLOS have the power to indicate measures different from those requested. One may suggest that the link therefore emerges as an unnecessary requirement which overburdens provisional measures proceedings. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals | - |
dc.subject | Article 290 UNCLOS | - |
dc.subject | Article 41 ICJ Statute | - |
dc.subject | International Court of Justice | - |
dc.subject | International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea | - |
dc.subject | link | - |
dc.subject | provisional measures | - |
dc.title | Provisional Measures and the Link Requirement | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1163/15718034-12341421 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85091152831 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 19 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 177 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 199 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1571-8034 | - |