What type of case would be best suited to be heard before an arbitration panel versus being brought before the International Court of Justice?
Below is a Sample Solution.
Remember! This is just a sample. You can get a custom paper from one of our expert writers.
Land case
The land case is a case that is best solved through arbitration rather than International Criminal Justice because of the following reasons:
The two parties in dispute are brought together, and deliberation takes place in the presence of an arbitrator who ensures that peaceful takes proceeds by giving all parties an opportunity to present their sides of the story.
An arbitrator in such a case is a person who is highly respected and who stands for the truth and nothing else and therefore helps in solving the case in an amicable and satisfactory way.
There is sharing of facts and witnesses gives their views, and an arbitrator examines all the facts so that a better solution to all parties is reached.
The environment for mediation is good and in most cases produces better results because both parties talks and finally agree because of the environment that is conducive for all sides in land dispute case (Wehrmann, B., 2008).
All the parties are made to understand the importance of solving the case and burying the differences for continuous peaceful coexistence.
The case is fairly decided through arbitration because the truth is usually gotten due to the presence of people who knows more about the case and volunteer to give information in arbitration but not in International Court of Justice.
Reference
Wehrmann, B. (2008). Land conflicts: A practical guide to dealing with land disputes. Eschborn: GTZ.
The Court may engage two sorts of cases: lawful debate between States submitted to it by them (petulant cases) and demands for admonitory feelings on legitimate inquiries alluded to it by United Nations organs and particular offices (consultative procedures).
Hostile cases
Just (States Members of the United Nations and different States which host move toward becoming gatherings to the Statute of the Court or which have acknowledged its locale under specific conditions) might be gatherings to disagreeable cases.
The Court is skilled to engage a question just if the States concerned have acknowledged its locale in at least one of the accompanying ways:
by going into an extraordinary consent to present the debate to the Court;
by excellence of a jurisdictional proviso, i.e., normally, when they are gatherings to a bargain containing an arrangement whereby, in case of a debate of a given sort or difference over the understanding or utilization of the settlement, one of them may allude the question to the Court;
through the corresponding impact of assertions made by them under the Statute whereby each has acknowledged the ward of the Court as mandatory in case of a debate with another State having made a comparable revelation. Some of these announcements, which must be kept with the United Nations Secretary-General, contain reservations barring certain classes of question.
States have no perpetual agents licensed to the Court. They ordinarily speak with the Registrar through the medium of their Minister for Foreign Affairs or their diplomat certify to the Netherlands. Where they are gatherings to a case under the steady gaze of the Court they are spoken to by a specialist. A specialist assumes a similar part, and has similar rights and commitments, as a specialist or avoué regarding a national court. However, we are managing here with universal relations, and the operator is likewise in a manner of speaking the leader of a unique political mission with forces to confer a sovereign State. He/she gets interchanges from the Registrar concerning the case and advances to the Registrar all correspondence and pleadings properly marked or confirmed. Out in the open hearings the operator opens the contention in the interest of the administration he/she speaks to and stops the entries. As a rule, at whatever point a formal demonstration is to be finished by the legislature spoke to, it is finished by the operator. Operators are at times helped by co-specialists, representative specialists or right hand specialists and dependably have insight or backers, whose work they co-ordinate, to help them in the planning of the pleadings and the conveyance of oral contention. Since there is no extraordinary International Court of Justice Bar, there are no conditions that must be satisfied for insight or supporters to appreciate the privilege of belligerence before it with the exception of just that they more likely than not been selected by a legislature to do as such.
Procedures might be organized in one of two ways:
through the warning of an exceptional assention: this report, which is of a respective sort, can be held up with the Court by both of the States gatherings to the procedures or by them two. A unique understanding must show the subject of the debate and the gatherings thereto. Since there is neither a “candidate” State nor a “respondent” State, in the Court’s distributions their names are isolated by an angled stroke toward the finish of the official title of the case, e.g., Benin/Niger;
by methods for an application: the application, which is of a one-sided nature, is put together by a candidate State against a respondent State. It is planned for correspondence to the last State and the Rules of Court contain stricter prerequisites as for its substance. Notwithstanding the name of the gathering against which the case is brought and the subject of the question, the candidate State must, beyond what many would consider possible, show quickly on what premise – a settlement or an assertion of acknowledgment of necessary purview – it guarantees the Court has locale, and should concisely express the actualities and grounds on which it bases its case. Toward the finish of the official title of the case the names of the two gatherings are isolated by the shortening “v.” (for the Latin versus), e.g., Nicaragua v. Colombia.
References
“ICJ Practical Information”. International Court of Justice. Built between 1907 and 1913 for the Permanent Court of Arbitration thanks to a donation from Andrew Carnegie, a Scottish-born industrialist who made his fortune in the United States, the Peace Palace is situated in seven hectares of parkland in the heart of the city
Eyffinger, Arthur (1988). The Peace Palace : residence for justice, domicile of learning. Carnegie. p. 136.
“The Permanent Court of Arbitration”. City of The Hague. November 2008. Retrieved 31 July 2016.
Art. 85 Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Hague I), October 18, 1907.