Abstract
This chapter examines questions concerning access to and participation in proceedings before international courts and tribunals, with an emphasis on disputes that raise issues relevant to the environment. It compares the relevant legal framework and practice of international courts and tribunals which deal exclusively with inter-State disputes to those that primarily examine disputes between private parties and States. It argues that there are significant differences in the approach taken by these two categories of international courts and tribunals. While inter-State mechanisms can be said to have generally resisted broader access and participation of non-parties (with the limited exception of the WTO), regional human rights mechanisms and investor-State tribunals have adopted a more liberal approach. Although there may be benefits to a system which is open to non-party participation, there may also be significant risks from the standpoint of the administration of justice and the need to avoid any unnecessary burden on both the parties and the court or tribunal itself. This chapter seeks to distil and analyse why inter-State mechanisms on the one hand, and mechanisms involving private parties on the other hand, have adopted different approaches to the access to and participation in proceedings by non-parties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
- 2.
- 3.
- 4.
The origins of the participation of amicus curiae are disputed among scholars, namely as to whether they are the creation of the Roman Law or of common law systems. See, e.g., Krislov 1963, p 694; cf. Covey Jr 1960, pp. 33–35. For the historical origin and the rationale beyond amicus curiae, see Bürli 2017, pp. 19–22.
- 5.
See generally Wojcikiewicz Almeida 2019 (arguing that the ICJ should ‘assume expanded procedural powers’ to reinforce the respect for certain community interests).
- 6.
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, opened for signature 29 July 1899, 1 Bevans 230, entered into force 5 September 1900 (1899 Convention); Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, opened for signature 18 October 1907, 1 Bevans 577, entered into force 26 January 1910 (1907 Convention).
- 7.
1899 Convention, above n 6, Article 15; 1907 Convention, above n 6, Article 37.
- 8.
‘Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law’, UN Doc. A/31/98, 15 December 1976 (1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules).
- 9.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, opened for signature 10 December 1982, 1833 UNTS 3, entered into force 16 November 1994 (UNCLOS).
- 10.
Ibid., Articles 287(3) and (5). To date, the PCA has administered fourteen Annex VII arbitrations. See https://pca-cpa.org/en/services/arbitration-services/unclos/. Accessed 23 April 2021.
- 11.
See, e.g., MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Procedural Order No 3, 24 June 2003, PCA Case No 2002-01; Dispute Concerning Access to Information Under Article 9 of the OSPAR Convention (Ireland v United Kingdom), Decision, 2 July 2003, PCA Case No 2001-03, 23 RIAA 59; Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v United Kingdom), Award, 18 March 2015, PCA Case No 2011-03, 21 RIAA 359; The Arctic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v Russia), Award on the Merits, 14 August 2015, PCA Case No 2014-02, 32 RIAA 205; South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China), Award, 12 July 2016, PCA Case No 2013-19, 33 RIAA 153. See also Chap. 4.
- 12.
Wood and Sthoeger 2020, p. 72.
- 13.
UNCLOS, above n 9, Annex VII, Article 5.
- 14.
See Wood and Sthoeger 2020, p. 72 (arguing that this provision ‘confers a broad power upon the Tribunal to determine its own procedure’, with the tribunal being ‘empowered to take any and all procedural steps that it considers necessary for the good administration of justice’).
- 15.
ITLOS, The ‘Arctic Sunrise’ Case (Netherlands v Russia), Provisional Measures, Order, 22 November 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 230, para 15.
- 16.
The Artic Sunrise Arbitration (Netherlands v Russia), Procedural Order No. 3, 8 October 2014, PCA Case No 2014-2, p. 2.
- 17.
Ibid.
- 18.
See Sect. 14.2.2.1 below.
- 19.
Socialist Republic of Vietnam, ‘Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam Transmitted to the Arbitral Tribunal in the Proceedings between the Republic of the Philippines and the People’s Republic of China’ (14 December 2014), reproduced in Supplemental Written Submission of the Philippines, vol. VIII, Annex. 468.
- 20.
South China Sea Arbitration (Philippines v China), above n 11, pp. 192–193, para 36.
- 21.
Ibid., p. 188, para 15.
- 22.
Ibid., p. 193, para 36.
- 23.
Ibid., p. 195, para 43.
- 24.
Ibid., p. 196, para 50.
- 25.
See, e.g., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, opened for signature 3 March 1973, 993 UNTS 243, entered into force 1 July 1975; Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources, opened for signature 20 May 1980, 1329 UNTS 47 entered into force 7 April 1982; Protocol to the Antarctic Treaty on Environmental Protection, opened for signature 4 October 1991, 2941 UNTS 9, entered into force 14 January 1998; Convention for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, opened for signature 10 May 1993, 1819 UNTS 360, entered into force 20 May 1994; Protocol on Water and Health to the Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, opened for signature 17 June 1999, 2331 UNTS 202, entered into force 4 August 2005; Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, opened for signature 17 March 1992, 2105 UNTS 457, entered into force 19 April 2000.
- 26.
See, e.g., Iron Rhine Arbitration (Belgium/Netherlands), Decision, 24 May 2005, PCA Case No 2003-02, 23 RIAA 35; Indus Waters Kishenganga Arbitration (Pakistan v India), Final Award, 20 December 2013, PCA Case No 2011-03, 31 RIAA 309.
- 27.
PCA, ‘Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment’, available at https://docs.pca-cpa.org/2016/01/Optional-Rules-for-Arbitration-of-Disputes-Relating-to-the-Environment-and_or-Natural-Resources.pdf (last accessed 15 February 2021). See also Ratliff 2001; Meshel 2016, para 11 (acknowledging the advantage of the Environmental Rules in ensuring ‘greater accessibility to the process’ in disputes related to climate change).
- 28.
Meshel 2016, para 14.
- 29.
Statute of the ICJ, above n 1, Article 69.
- 30.
Dupuy and Hoss 2019, para 1.
- 31.
International Status of South West Africa, Advisory Opinion, 11 July 1950, ICJ Reports 1950, Correspondence, Letter No 18, p. 327.
- 32.
See, e.g., Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1971, Correspondence, Letters No 18, 21, 23, 29, 34, 35, 41, 42, 89, 94, 97, 98.
- 33.
See Lindblom 2005, pp. 303–310.
- 34.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971, ICJ Reports 1971, Letter No 21, pp. 638–639.
- 35.
Ibid.
- 36.
Wiik 2018, p. 98.
- 37.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996, p. 226, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 438.
- 38.
Ibid.
- 39.
Valencia-Ospina 2005, p. 231.
- 40.
ICJ, Practice Direction XII. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/practice-directions. Accessed 23 April 2021.
- 41.
Wiik 2018, pp. 99, 185–186.
- 42.
Watts 2004, pp. 392–393.
- 43.
- 44.
Dupuy and Hoss 2019, p. 666, para 4.
- 45.
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (DRC v Belgium), Counter-Memorial of the Kingdom of Belgium, 28 September 2001, pp. 80 and 104. See also Wiik 2018, pp. 436–437.
- 46.
Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (DRC v Belgium), Judgment, 14 February 2002, ICJ Reports 2002, Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Van den Wyngaert, pp. 154 and 165.
- 47.
See, e.g., Gabčikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia), Memorial of 2 May 1994, Vol. 5, Part 2, Annex 20, p. 841; ICJ, Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Counter-Memorial of Uruguay, 20 July 2007, paras 3.16, 5.41 and 7.29; ICJ, Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v Colombia), Memorial of Ecuador, 28 April 2009, para 6.14 and Vol. 4, Annex 162.
- 48.
- 49.
See Corfu Channel (Albania v United Kingdom), Merits, Judgment, 9 April 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, pp. 20–22; Corfu Channel (Albania v United Kingdom), Compensation, Judgment, 15 December 1949, ICJ Reports 1949, p. 244; Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States), Appointment of Expert, Order, 30 March 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p 166; Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Decision to obtain an expert opinion, Order, 31 May 2016, ICJ Reports 2016, p 235 and Appointment of experts, Order of 16 June 2016, ICJ Reports 2016, p 240; Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (DRC v Uganda), Appointment of experts, Order, 12 October 2020, available at https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/116/116-20201012-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf (last accessed 23 April 2021).
- 50.
See, e.g., Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 31 March 2014, ICJ Reports 2014, p. 226; Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Judgment, 20 April 2010, ICJ Reports 2010, p. 14, see in particular Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Al-Khasawneh and Simma, pp. 116–117, para 17; Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgment, 2 February 2018, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 15. For an excellent recent study on the environmental law dispute settlement in the Court’s jurisprudence, see Sulyok 2021.
- 51.
Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v Nicaragua), above n 50, p. 29, para 45.
- 52.
UNCLOS, above n 9, Article 291(1) and Annex VI, Statute of ITLOS, Article 20(1).
- 53.
Ibid., Article 305.
- 54.
Ibid., Annex IX, Article 1.
- 55.
Ibid., Article 291(2).
- 56.
See also Lekkas and Staker 2017, p. 2373, para 7.
- 57.
UNCLOS, above n 9, Annex VI, Statute of ITLOS, Article 20(2).
- 58.
Ibid., Article 288.
- 59.
See Treves 2017, p. 1880, para 4.
- 60.
UNCLOS, above n 9, Article 187.
- 61.
Ibid., Article 191.
- 62.
ITLOS, Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SFRC), Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, ITLOS Reports 2015, p. 22, para 58. MAC Convention stands for the Convention on the definition of the minimum access conditions and exploitation of fisheries resources within the maritime zone under the jurisdiction of SFRC Member States.
- 63.
Ibid., p. 22, para 59.
- 64.
Lando 2016.
- 65.
ITLOS Rules, Article 84.
- 66.
Ibid., Article 84(4).
- 67.
Wiik 2018, p. 101.
- 68.
ITLOS, The ‘Arctic Sunrise’ Case (Netherlands v Russian Federation), above n 15, p. 230, para 15.
- 69.
ITLOS, Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion, 1 February 2011, ITLOS Reports 2011, p. 10.
- 70.
ITLOS, Responsibilities and Obligations of States sponsoring persons and entities with respect to Activities in the Area, Order, 18 May 2010, ITLOS Reports 2010, p. 39, at p. 41.
- 71.
Gautier 2014, p. 213.
- 72.
Wiik 2018, p. 102.
- 73.
Gautier 2014, p. 215.
- 74.
ITLOS, Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Order, 24 May 2013, ITLOS Reports 2013, p. 202.
- 75.
ITLOS, Request for Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, Advisory Opinion, 2 April 2015, above n 62, p. 13, para 23.
- 76.
Gautier 2014, p. 215.
- 77.
Wiik 2018, p. 102.
- 78.
WTO, Dispute Settlement Rules: Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 2, opened for signature 14 April 1994, 1869 UNTS 401, 33 ILM 1226, Articles 4(11) and 10(2).
- 79.
Ibid., Article 17(4).
- 80.
Ibid., Article 2 sets out the competencies of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), which has ‘the authority to establish panels, adopt panel and Appellate Body reports, maintain surveillance of implementation of rulings and recommendations, and authorize suspension of concessions and other obligations under the covered agreements’.
- 81.
WTO Secretariat 2017, p. 163.
- 82.
Oesch 2014, para 1.
- 83.
WTO, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Panel Report, 15 May 1998, WT/DS58/R, para 5.1 et seq., para 7.7.
- 84.
Ibid.
- 85.
Ibid., para 7.8.
- 86.
WTO, United States—Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Appellate Body Report, 12 October 1998, WTO/DS58/AB/R, para 108.
- 87.
Ibid., para 89.
- 88.
WTO, United States—Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, Appellate Body Report, 10 May 2000, WT/DS138/AB/R, para 41.
- 89.
Ibid., paras 36 and 42.
- 90.
Ibid., para 42.
- 91.
WTO, European Communities—Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Appellate Body Report, 12 March 2001, WT/DS135/AB/R, paras 50–52 (EC—Asbestos).
- 92.
WTO General Council, Minutes of the Meeting of 22 November 2000, WT/GC/M/60, 23 January 2001, in particular paras 11–21. See also Wiik 2018, p. 110.
- 93.
EC—Asbestos, above n 91, para 56.
- 94.
See, e.g., WTO, European Communities —Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Appellate Body Report, 22 May 2014, WT/DS400/AB/R and WT/DS401/AB/R, para 1.15; WTO, United States—Measures concerning the Importation, Marketing and Sale of Tuna and Tuna Products, Appellate Body Report, 16 May 2012, WT/DS381/AB/R, para 8; WTO, Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, Appellate Body Report, 3 December 2007, WT/DS332/AB/R, para 7; WTO, United States—Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, Appellate Body Report, 19 January 2004, WT/DS257/AB/R, para 9.
- 95.
Squatrito 2018, pp. 71–73.
- 96.
See, e.g., WTO, European Communities —Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Panel Report, 18 September 2000, WT/DS135/R, para 8.12; WTO, Brazil—Measures Affecting Imports of Retreaded Tyres, Panel Report, 12 June 2007, WT/DS332/R, para 1.8; WTO, European Communities—Measures Prohibiting the Importation and Marketing of Seal Products, Panel Report, 25 November 2013, WT/DS400/R and WT/DS401/R, para 1.17.
- 97.
Squatrito 2018, p. 70.
- 98.
Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of other States, opened for signature 18 March 1965, 575 UNTS 159, entered into force 14 October 1966.
- 99.
Methanex Corporation v United States, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as ‘Amici Curiae’, 15 January 2001, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, para 24.
- 100.
Ibid., paras 31–33.
- 101.
See, e.g., Statement of the Free Trade Commission on Non-Disputing Party Participation, 7 October 2003, available at http://www.sice.oas.org/TPD/NAFTA/Commission/Nondispute_e.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2021.
- 102.
See, e.g., Glamis Gold Ltd v United States, Decision on Application and Submission by Quechan Indian Nation, 16 September 2005, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, para 8-13 and Award, 8 June 2009, para 286.
- 103.
UNCITRAL, ‘Settlement of Commercial Disputes: Revision of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules’, UN Doc. A/CN.9/WG.II/WP.143, 20 July 2006, para 69 (suggesting that Article 15(1) of the 1976 UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules ‘could be interpreted as encompassing power of the arbitral tribunal to accept such interventions, for example in the form of amicus curiae briefs’).
- 104.
UNCITRAL Rules on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration (UNCITRAL Transparency Rules), Article 4. https://www.uncitral.org/pdf/english/texts/arbitration/rules-on-transparency/Rules-on-Transparency-E.pdf. Accessed 23 April 2021. Of course, the major limitation of these rules is that they apply only to arbitrations conducted on the basis of an IIA concluded on or after 1 April 2014, unless the parties otherwise agree. The 2014 UN Convention on Transparency in Treaty-Based Investor-State Arbitration, opened for signature 10 December 2014, UNTS Registration No 54749, entered into force 18 October 2017 (Mauritius Convention), sought to address this loophole by allowing States parties to an IIA concluded before 1 April 2014 to apply the UNCITRAL Transparency Rules, regardless of whether the arbitration is conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.
- 105.
Aguas del Tunari SA v Bolivia, Decision on Respondent’s Objections to Jurisdiction, 21 October 2005, ICSID Case No ARB/02/03, para 18.
- 106.
Ibid., para 17.
- 107.
Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A. and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v Argentina, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, 19 May 2005, ICSID Case No ARB/03/19, para 9.
- 108.
ICSID Arbitration Rules, Article 37(2).
- 109.
See, e.g., Biwater Gauff (Tanzania) Ltd. v Tanzania, Procedural Order No 5, 2 February 2007, ICSID Case No ARB/05/22, para 49.
- 110.
See, e.g., Pac Rim Cayman LLC v El Salvador, Procedural Order Regarding Amici Curiae, 2 February 2011, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12. The Tribunal has done so on the basis of Rule 37(2) of ICSID Arbitration Rules and Article 10.20.3 of the Free Trade Agreement between Central America, the Dominican Republic and the United States of America (signed 5 August 2004, entered into force 1 January 2009), which provides that: ‘The tribunal shall have the authority to accept and consider amicus curiae submissions from a person or entity that is not a disputing party’. See also Apotex Holdings Inc. and Apotex Inc. v United States, Invitation to Amici Curiae, 31 January 2013, ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/12/1; Mesa Power Group LLC v Canada, Notification to Non-Disputing Parties and Potential Amicus Curiae, 28 May 2014, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2012-17; RFP v Canada, Notification to Non-Disputing Parties and Potential Amici Curiae, 8 May 2017, UNCITRAL, PCA Case No 2016-13; Alicia Grace and Others v Mexico, Procedural Order No 2 on Amicus Curiae and Non-Disputing Party Participation, 5 April 2019, ICSID Case No UNCT/18/4.
- 111.
See, e.g., Pac Rim Cayman LLC v El Salvador, Submission of Amicus Curiae Brief by the Center for International Environmental Law, 25 July 2014, ICSID Case No ARB/09/12; Infinito Gold Ltd v Costa Rica, Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 December 2017, ICSID Case No ARB/14/5, paras 124 ff.
- 112.
See, e.g., Infinito Gold Ltd v Costa Rica, Decision on Jurisdiction, 4 December 2017, ICSID Case No ARB/14/5, paras 121–140.
- 113.
See, e.g., Eco Oro Minerals Corp. v Colombia, Procedural Order No 6, 18 February 2019, ICSID Case No ARB/16/41, para 34.
- 114.
See, e.g., Bear Creek Mining Corporation v Peru, Procedural Order No 6, 21 July 2016, ICSID Case No ARB/14/21, para 38 and Partial Dissenting Opinion of Professor Philippe Sands QC appended to the Award of 30 November 2017, para 36.
- 115.
- 116.
See, e.g., Gabriel Resources Ltd and Gabriel Resources (Jersey) v Romania, Procedural Order No 19, 7 December 2018, ICSID Case No ARB/15/31, para 75.
- 117.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, opened for signature 4 November 1950, 213 UNTS 221, entered into force 3 September 1953 (European Convention of Human Rights); American Convention on Human Rights, opened for signature 22 November 1969, 1144 UNTS 123, entered into force 18 July 1978 (American Convention); African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, opened for signature 27 June 1981, 1520 UNTS 217, entered into force 21 October 1986 (African Charter).
- 118.
Note that the Protocol to the African Charter establishing the ACtHPR recognizes its jurisdiction to receive and examine communications from individuals and NGOs, but States Parties must make special declarations accepting the competence of the ACtHPR to do so. See Protocol to the African Charter (opened for signature 10 June 1998, entered into force 25 January 2004), Articles 5(3) and 34(6). Out of 30 Contracting States to the Protocol, only 9 have made such declarations. See ACtHPR, ‘Activity Report, 1 January-31 December 2019’, EX.CL/1204(XXXVI), paras 5–6.
- 119.
ACHR, Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria (the Ogoni case), Decision, 27 May 2002, Comm No 155/96.
- 120.
- 121.
ECtHR, Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria 2014, pp. 11–14, paras 20–33, available at http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Admissibility_guide_ENG.pdf Accessed 15 February 2021.
- 122.
ECHR, Article 34. See also Vajic 2005, p. 94.
- 123.
IACHR, Indigenous Community Yakey Axa of the Enxet-Lengua People v Paraguay, Admissibility, Report No 2/02, 27 February 2002, Case No 12313, para 31; IACHR, Xaxmok Kásek Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Admissibility, Report No 11/03, 20 February 2003, Case No 322/01, para 29. See also IACtHR, Kichwa Indigenous People of Sarayaku v Ecuador, Merits and Reparation, Judgment, 27 June 2012, IACtHR Ser. C, No 245, para 231 (recognizing the rights of indigenous communities ‘as collective subjects of international law and not only as members of such communities or peoples’).
- 124.
IACHR, Maria Morales de Sierra v Guatemala, Admissibility, Report No 28/98, 6 March 1998, Case No 11625, para 35.
- 125.
American Convention, above n 117, Article 44.
- 126.
Hampson et al. 2018, pp. 182–183.
- 127.
1983 Rules of the ECtHR, Rule 37(2).
- 128.
ECHR, above n 117, Article 36. See also Rules of the ECtHR, Rule 44(2)(a). For a comprehensive and up-to-date analysis of the ECtHR practice on non-party participation, see Bürli 2017, pp. 17–129.
- 129.
2009 Rules of the IACtHR, Article 44.
- 130.
2020 Rules of the ACHPR, Rule 104(1).
- 131.
Ibid., Rule 104(2) and 105.
- 132.
Ibid., Rule 61(2).
- 133.
El-Hosseny 2018, p. 224.
- 134.
See, e.g., ECtHR, Hatton and Others v the United Kingdom, Judgment, 8 July 2003, App No 36022/97, para 9; ACHR, Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of Endorois Welfare Council v Kenya, Decision, 4 February 2010, Comm No 276/2003; Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Centre for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) v Nigeria (the Ogoni case), above n 119; IACtHR, Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August 2001, IACtHR Ser. C, No 79, paras 29–62.
- 135.
Zengerling 2013, pp. 103–125; Stephens 2009, pp. 310–321. In the ECtHR context, see, e.g., Lopez Ostra v Spain, Judgment, 9 December 1994, App No 16798/90; Guerra and Others v Italy, Judgment, 19 February 1998, App No 14967/89; Taskin and Others v Turkey, Judgment, 10 November 2004, App No 46117/99; Öneryildiz v Turkey, Judgment, 30 November 2004, App No 48939/99; Fadeyeva v Russia, Judgment, 9 June 2005, App No 55723/00; Giacomelli v Italy, Judgment, 2 November 2006, App No 59909/00; Tatar v Romania, Judgment, 27 January 2009, App No 67021/01. In the IACtHR context, see, e.g., Mayagna (Sumo) Awas Tingni Community v Nicaragua, Judgment, 31 August 2001, above n 134; Yakye Axa Indigenous Community v Paraguay, Judgment, 17 June 2005, IACtHR Ser. C, No 125; Kawas-Fernández v Honduras, Judgment, 3 April 2009, IACtHR Ser. C, No 196; Kichwa Indigenous People of the Sarayaku v Ecuador, Judgment, 27 June 2012, above n 123.
- 136.
IACtHR, The Environment and Human Rights (State Obligations in Relation to the Environment in the Context of the Protection and Guarantee of the Rights to Life and to Personal Integrity—Interpretation and Scope of Articles 4(1) and 5(1) of the American Convention on Human Rights), Advisory Opinion, 15 November 2017, OC-23/17.
- 137.
Ibid., paras 62–64 and 244.
- 138.
Ibid., paras 211–241.
- 139.
Ibid., paras 6, 9 and 11.
- 140.
This also reflects the way other courts and tribunals have perceived the ICJ practice and procedure in this respect as a model for other mechanisms of dispute settlement. See, e.g., United Parcel Service Inc. v Canada, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Intervention and Participation as Amicus Curiae, 17 October 2001, NAFTA/UNCITRAL, para 64.
- 141.
- 142.
- 143.
See Lin 2017, p. 300 (arguing on the basis of three case studies in the ISDS context that ‘arbitral tribunals seemed willing to [implicitly] consider the amici submissions only to the extent that the respondent states have advanced similar arguments’).
- 144.
Baltag 2020, p. 29.
- 145.
Iovane 2008, p. 469.
References
Baltag C (2020) The Role of Amici Curiae in Light of Recent Developments in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Legitimizing the System? ICSID Review 35:1-32
Bartholomeusz L (2005) The Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals. Non-State Actors and International Law 5:209-286
Beyerlin U (2001) The Role of NGOs in International Environmental Litigation. ZaöRV 61:357-378
Born G, Forrest S (2019) Amicus Curiae Participation in Investment Arbitration. ICSID Review 34:626-665
Bürli N (2017) Third-Party intervention before the European Court of Human Rights. Intersentia, Cambridge
Chinkin C (1993) Third Parties in International Law. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Couvreur P (1999) Développements récents concernant l’accès des organisations intergouvernementales à la procédure contentieuse devant la Cour internationale de justice. In: Yakpo E, Boumedra T (eds) Liber Amicorum - Mohammed Bedjaoui. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 293-323
Covey Jr F (1960) Amicus Curiae: Friend of the Court. DePaul Law Review 9:30-37
Crema L (2013) Testing Amici Curiae in International Law: Rules and Practice. Italian Yearbook of International Law 22:91-132
Dupuy P-M, Hoss C (2019) Competence of the Court: Article 34. In: Zimmermann A, Tams C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tomuschat C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 661-683
El-Hosseny F (2018) Civil Society in Investment Treaty Arbitration: Status and Prospects. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
El-Hosseny F (2021) Third Party Intervention at the Proposed Multilateral Investment Court. In: de Brabandere E, Gazzini T, Kent A (eds) Public Participation and Foreign Investment Law. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 332–360
Francioni F (2009) Access to Justice, Denial of Justice and International Investment Law. EJIL 20:729-747
Gautier P (2014) Standing of NGOs and Third-Party Intervention before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Revue belge de droit international 47:205-224
Hampson F, Martin C, Viljoen F (2018) Inaccessible Apexes: Comparing Access to Regional Human Rights Courts and Commissions in Europe, the Americas and Africa. ICON 16:161-186
Iovane M (2008) La participation de la société civile à l’élaboration et à l’application du droit international de l’environnement. Revue générale de droit international public 112:465-519
Ishikawa T (2010) Third Party Participation in Investment Treaty Arbitration. ICLQ 59:373-412
Ishikawa T (2018) Intervention: Investment Arbitration. In: Ruiz Fabri H (ed) Max Planck Encyclopaedia of International Procedural Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Krislov S (1963) The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy. Yale Law Journal 72:694-721
Lando M (2016) The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea: Comments on the Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission. Leiden Journal of International Law 29:441-461
Lekkas S-I, Staker C (2017) Article 20 Annex VI. In: Proelss A (ed) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Hart, Oxford, pp 2370-2373
Leroux N (2006) NGOs at the World Court. International Community Law Review 8:203-221
Lin W-C (2017) Safeguarding the Environment? The Effectiveness of Amicus Curiae Submissions in Investor-State Arbitration. International Community Law Review 19:270-301
Lindblom A-K (2005) Non-Governmental Organisations in International Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Meshel T (2016) Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment: Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA). In: Ruiz Fabri H (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of International Procedural Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Miron A, Chinkin C (2019a) Chapter III. Procedure: Article 62. In: Zimmermann A, Tams C, Oellers-Frahm K (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1686-1740
Miron A, Chinkin C (2019b) Chapter III. Procedure: Article 63. In: Zimmermann A, Tams C, Oellers-Frahm K, Tomuschat C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1741-1774
Mourre A (2006) Are Amici Curiae the Proper Response to the Public’s Concerns on Transparency in Investment Arbitration? Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 5:257-271
Oesch M (2014) US-Shrimp Case. In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Paulus A (2019) Chapter IV. Advisory Opinions: Article 66. In: Zimmermann A, Tams C (eds) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1812-1834
Ratliff D (2001) The PCA Optional Rules for Arbitration of Disputes Relating to Natural Resources and/or the Environment. Leiden Journal of International Law 14:887-896
Romano C (2000) The Peaceful Settlement of International Environmental Disputes. Kluwer Law International, The Hague
Ronen Y (2012) Participation of Non-State Actors in ICJ Proceedings. Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 11:77-110
Rosenne S (2006) International Court of Justice (ICJ). In: Wolfrum R (ed) Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Shelton D (1994) The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings. AJIL 88:611-642
Squatrito T (2018) Amicus Curiae Briefs in the WTO DSM: Good or Bad News for Non-State Actor Involvement? World Trade Review 17:65-89
Stephens T (2009) International Courts and Environmental Protection. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Sulyok K (2021) Science and Judicial Reasoning: The Legitimacy of International Environmental Adjudication. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Treves T (2017) Article 291. In: Proelss A (ed) The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary. Hart, Oxford
Vajic N (2005) Some Concluding Remarks on NGOs and the European Court of Human Rights. In: Treves T et al. (eds) Civil Society, International Courts and Compliance Bodies. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 93-104
Valencia-Ospina E (2005) Non-Governmental Organisations and the International Court of Justice. In: Treves T et al. (eds) Civil Society, International Courts and Compliance Bodies. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 227-232
van den Eynde L (2013) An Empirical Look at the Amicus Curiae Practice of Human Rights NGOs before the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights 31:271-313
Vierucci L (2008) NGOs before International Courts and Tribunals. In: Dupuy P-M, Vierucci L (eds) NGOs in International Law: Efficiency in Flexibility? Elgar, Cheltenham, pp 155-180
Watts A (2004) The ICJ’s Practice Directions of 30 July 2004. Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 3:385-394
Wiik A (2018) Amicus Curiae before International Courts and Tribunals. Nomos Hart, Baden-Baden
Wojcikiewicz Almeida P (2019) International Procedural Regulation in the Common Interest: The Role of Third-Party Intervention and Amicus Curiae before the ICJ. Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 18:163-188
Wood M, Sthoeger E (2020) Third-Party Intervention and Involvement in Inter-State Arbitration. In: Ruiz Fabri H, Franckx E, Benatar M, Meshel T (eds) A Bridge over Troubled Waters. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden, pp 61–82
WTO Secretariat (2017) A Handbook on the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Zengerling C (2013) Greening International Jurisprudence: Environmental NGOs before International Courts, Tribunals and Compliance Committees. Nijhoff, Leiden
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lanovoy, V. (2022). Access to and Participation in Proceedings Before International Courts and Tribunals. In: Sobenes, E., Mead, S., Samson, B. (eds) The Environment Through the Lens of International Courts and Tribunals. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-507-2_14
Published:
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-506-5
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-507-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)