Internationella domstolen, ICJ
Den Internationella domstolen (International Court of Justice, ICJ) instiftades 1945 och är FN:s främsta juridiska organ. Domstolen är en viktig del av det internationella samfundets ansträngningar att utveckla metoder att på fredlig väg lösa internationella tvister mellan stater. ICJ har sitt säte i Fredspalatset i Haag.
Domstolen kan döma i alla juridiska tvister som uppstår mellan två stater om de berörda staterna godkänt domstolens jurisdiktion (domsrätt) i förväg eller i det aktuella fallet. Domstolen tillämpar i sitt dömande internationell rätt och hjälper i sitt arbete till att nå målen i FN:s stadga, att lösa internationella tvister på fredlig väg och i överensstämmelse med rättvisa och internationell rätt. Domstolens domar är bindande för de berörda staterna och kan inte överklagas.
Domstolen kan också avge rådgivande yttranden i juridiska frågor efter förfrågan från FN:s generalförsamling, säkerhetsrådet samt vissa andra FN-organ.
- Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden, dom meddelades 28 november 1958)
- Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras, introduced to ICJ 1999)
- Application of the Genocide Convention Case (Bosnien Hercegovina v. Serbien och Montenegro, dom meddelades 26 februari 2007)
- Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, "The Yerodia case"
- Legal Consequence of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden, dom meddelades 28 november 1958)
Rubricerat mål är det enda mål Sverige haft inför ICJ.
Målet rör omhändertagande av barn som inte var svensk medborgare för skyddsuppfostran och om denna åtgärd varit förenlig med 1902 års konvention om vårdnad av barn. Sammanfattningsvis uttalade domstolen:
It thus seems to the Court that, the Swedish Law on the protection of children does not come within the scope of the 1902 Convention on guardianship. The latter cannot therefore have given rise to obligations binding upon the signatory States in a field outside the matter with which it was concerned. Accordingly, the Court did not, in the present case, find any failure to observe the Convention on the part of Sweden. By twelve votes to four, the Court rejected the request.
Maritime Delimitation between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras, introduced to ICJ 1999)
Målet rör gränsdragningen mellan Nicaragua och Honduras i Karibiska Sjön. Den 8 oktober kommer ICJ att leverera dom i målet.
UppApplication of the Genocide Convention Case (Bosnien Hercegovina v. Serbien och Montenegro, dom meddelades 26 februari 2007)
Målet rör bland annat frågan om Serbien kan anses ansvarigt för folkmord med avseende på massakern i Srebrenica 1995. Sammanfattningsvis uttalade domstolen följande:
The Court finds that Serbia has not committed genocide, through its organs or persons whose acts engage its responsibility under customary international law, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; finds that Serbia has not conspired to commit genocide, nor incited the commission of genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; finds that Serbia has not been complicit in genocide, in violation of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide; finds that Serbia has violated the obligation to prevent genocide, under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, in respect of the genocide that occurred in Srebrenica in July 1995; finds that Serbia has violated its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by having failed to transfer Ratko Mladic, indicted for genocide and complicity in genocide, for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and thus having failed fully to co-operate with that Tribunal; finds that Serbia has violated its obligation to comply with the provisional measures ordered by the Court on 8 April and 13 September 1993 in this case, inasmuch as it failed to take all measures within its power to prevent genocide in Srebrenica in July 1995;
decides that Serbia shall immediately take effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to punish acts of genocide as defined by Article II of the Convention, or any of the other acts proscribed by Article III of the Convention, and to transfer individuals accused of genocide or any of those other acts for trial by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and to co-operate fully with that Tribunal; finds that, as regards the breaches by Serbia of the obligations referred to in subparagraphs (5) and (7) above, the Court's findings in those paragraphs constitute appropriate satisfaction, and that the case is not one in which an order for payment of compensation, or, in respect of the violation referred to in subparagraph (5), a direction to provide assurances and guarantees of non-repetition, would be appropriate.
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000, "The Yerodia case"
Målet rör bland annat frågan om en sittande utrikesminister kan anses åtnjuta immunitet mot lagföring i en annan stat för krigsförbrytelser och brott mot mänskligheten. Sammanfattningsvis uttalade domstolen följande:
For these reasons, The Court finds that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo on 17 October 2000, finds that the issue against Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000, and its international circulation, constituted violations of a legal obligation of the Kingdom of Belgium towards the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in that they failed to respect the immunity from criminal jurisdiction and the inviolability which the incumbent Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the Congo enjoyed under international law, finds that the Kingdom of Belgium must, by means of its own choosing, cancel the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 and so inform the authorities to whom that warrant was circulated.
Yerodiadomen har blivit omdiskuterad och har därefter följts av ett mål mellan Republiken Kongo och Frankrike, Certain Criminal Proceedings in France, med liknande grundläggande frågeställning.
Legal Consequence of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
Frågan rör rättsenligheten av uppförandet och vidmakthållandet av barriären/muren på Palestinskt område ockuperat av Israel. Domstolen svarade på följande sätt:
The Court replies in the following manner to the question put by the General Assembly: The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and its associated régime, are contrary to international law; Israel is under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law; it is under an obligation to cease forthwith the works of construction of the wall being built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, to dismantle forthwith the structure therein situated, and to repeal or render ineffective forthwith all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto. Israel is under an obligation to make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem.
All States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction; all States parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949 have in addition the obligation, while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law as embodied in that Convention. The United Nations, and especially the General Assembly and the Security Council, should consider what further action is required to bring to an end the illegal situation resulting from the construction of the wall and the associated régime, taking due account of the present Advisory Opinion.
