The Methods of Intervention in Cases before the International Court of Justice I: The Intervention Procedure Provided by Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice

Abstract

“Intervention” in cases before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has not attracted significant attention in the international legal community and legal doctrine over the years, primarily due to its rare use by states as well as the fact that the few intervention applications made were mostly related to border disputes, thus taking place in a more technical framework. This situation has significantly changed in recent times, particularly with the cases of Gambia v. Myanmar, Ukraine v. Russia, and South Africa v. Israel, which have been brought before the Court, leading to a surge in intervention requests in these cases. For the first time in its history, the Republic of Türkiye has also submitted an intervention request in the South Africa v. Israel case, with its intervention memorandum submitted to the Court on August 7, 2024. Intervention in cases before the ICJ is governed by Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute. The two distinct methods of intervention outlined in these articles differ significantly in terms of their raisons d’être, historical developments, legal characteristics, conditions, and the purposes they serve. This article is dedicated to the intervention method prescribed by Article 63. It focuses on the historical and conceptual development of this method, examining its legal features, functions, and outcomes, evaluating the conditions for its application, and analysing the intervention process along with the rights and obligations of both the states involved in the case and the intervening states.

Keywords

• Article 62
• Article 63
• International Court of Justice
• Statute of the International Court of Justice
• Intervention

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Önünde Görülen Davalara Müdahil Olma Yolları I: Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Statüsü’nün 63. Maddesinin Öngördüğü Müdahillik Usûlü

Abstract

Uluslararası Adalet Divanı (UAD) önünde görülmekte olan davalara müdahillik kurumu, uzun yıllar boyunca devletler tarafından nadiren kullanıldığı ve çoğunlukla sınır uyuşmazlıklarına ilişkin davalarda -dolayısıyla teknik bir düzlemde- işletildiği için uluslararası hukuk kamuoyunun ve neşriyatının ilgisini yeterince çekmemiştir. Bu durumun, yakın dönemde Divan önüne getirilen ve halen görülmekte olan Gambiya / Myanmar, Ukrayna / Rusya ve Güney Afrika / İsrail uyuşmazlıkları vesilesi ile değiştiği, bu davalara kitlesel müdahillik talepleri yapıldığı görülmektedir. Türkiye de tarihinde ilk defa, UAD önünde görülen bir davaya, Güney Afrika / İsrail davasına müdahillik beyanında bulunmuş, 7 Ağustos 2024’te müdahillik dilekçesini Divan’a sunmuştur. Müdahillik kurumu, UAD Statüsü’nün 62. ve 63. maddeleri tarafından düzenlenmekte ve bu maddelerin öngördüğü iki farklı müdahillik yöntemi, varlık sebepleri, tarihsel gelişimleri, hukukî nitelikleri, öngördükleri şartlar ve hizmet ettikleri amaçlar bakımından birbirinden farklı özellikler arz etmektedir. Elinizdeki makale 63. maddenin öngördüğü müdahillik yöntemine hasredilmiştir. Makale, 63. maddenin öngördüğü müdahillik yönteminin tarihsel ve kavramsal gelişimi üzerinde durmakta, bu müdahillik yönteminin hukukî özelliklerini, işlevini ve sonuçlarını incelemekte, başvuru şartlarını değerlendirmekte, müdahillik sürecini ve davaya taraf olan devletler ve müdahil olan devletlerin sahip oldukları hak ve yükümlülükleri irdelemektedir.

Keywords

• Madde 62
• Madde 63
• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı
• Uluslararası Adalet Divanı Statüsü
• Müdahillik

References

1. Al-Qahtani M, ‘The Status of Would-Be Intervening States before the International Court of Justice and the Application of Res Judicata’ (2003) 2 Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 269-294. google scholar
2. Barrie G N, ‘Third-Party State Intervention in Disputes before the International Court of Justice: A Reassessment of Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute’ (2020) 53 Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 1-20. google scholar
3. Bonafe B, ‘The collective dimension of bilateral litigation: The Ukraine v Russia case before the ICJ’ (2022) QIL, Zoom-out 96 27-47. google scholar
4. Chinkin C, Third Parties in International Law (Oxford University Press 1993). google scholar
5. Chinkin C, ‘Third Party Intervention before the International Court of Justice’ (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law 495-531. google scholar
6. Crawford J, State Responsibility. The General Part (Cambridge University Press 2013). google scholar
7. De Aréchaga E J, ‘Intervention under Article 62 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice’ in Bernhardt R, Geck W K, Jaenicke G, Steinberger H (eds), Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler (Springer 1983) 453-465. google scholar
8. Elias T O. ‘The Limits of the Right of Intervention in a Case before the International Court of Justice.’ in The International Court of Justice and some contemporary problems: Essays on international law. (Springer 1983) 84-99. google scholar

9. Greig D W, ‘Third Party Rights and Intervention before the International Court’ (1992) 32 Virginia Journal of International Law 285-376. google scholar
10. Hambro E, ‘Intervention under Article 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Latest Developments’ in Studi in onore di Manlio Udina (Giuffre 1975) 397-488. google scholar
11. Hudson M, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920^1924. A Treatise (New York 1943). google scholar
12. Jessup P, ‘Intervention in the International Court’ (1981) 75(4) American Journal of International Law 903-909. google scholar
13. Kolb R, The International Court of Justice (Hart Publishing 2013). google scholar
14. Licari T, ‘Intervention under Article 62 of the Statute of the ICJ’ (1982) 8 Brooklyn Journal of International Law 267-287. google scholar
15. MacDonald R S & Hughes V, ‘Intervention before the International Court of Justice’ (1993) 5 African Journal of International and Comparative Law 1-33. google scholar
16. McIntyre J, ‘The ICJ Changes the Rules for Intervention’, EJIL: Talk!, 11 March 2024 https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-icj-changes-the-rules-for-intervention/ Erişim Tarihi 28 Şubat 2025. google scholar
17. Miron A and Chinkin C, ‘Article 62’ in Zimmermann A, Tams C, Oellers-Frahm K and Tomuschat C (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2019) 2644-2726. google scholar
18. Miron A and Christine Chinkin, ‘Article 63’ in Zimmermann A, Tams C, Oellers-Frahm K and Tomuschat C (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice, A Commentary (Oxford University Press 2019) 2727-2777. google scholar
19. Milther J T, ‘Intervention in Proceedings before the International Court of Justice’ in Gross L (eds), The Future of the International Court of Justice, vol II (Oceana Publications, Inc. 1976) 542-571. google scholar
20. Oda S, ‘Intervention in the ICJ, Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute’ in Bernhardt R, Geck W K, Jaenicke G, Steinberger H (eds), Völkerrecht als Rechtsordnung, internationale Gerichtsbarkeit, Menschenrechte: Festschrift für Hermann Mosler (Springer 1983) 629-648. google scholar
21. Pirim C Z, ‘Uluslararası Hukukta Tek Taraflı Sözvermenin Bağlayıcı Niteliği’ (2013) 9 Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi 117-144. google scholar
22. Quintana J J, Litigation at the International Court of Justice Practice and Procedure (Brill / Nijhoff 2015). google scholar
23. Rosenne S, Intervention in the International Court of Justice (Martinus Nijhoff 1993). google scholar
24. Rosenne S, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2005, vol III (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 1997). google scholar
25. Thirlway H, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 1960-1989: Part Thirteen’ (2003) 74(1) British Yearbook of International Law 7-114. google scholar
26. Verzijl J H W, The Jurisprudence of the World Court: A case by case Commentary No. 2-3 (Brill Archive 1965). google scholar
27. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention (Order of 5 June 2023) ICJ Rep 354. google scholar
28. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Application for Permission to Intervene by the Government of the Republic of Poland, 23 July 2024. google scholar
29. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Declaration of Intervention under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court Submitted by the Republic of Poland, 15 September 2022 / 23 July 2024. google scholar
30. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), The Russian Federation’s Written Observations on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention submitted by France, Germany, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Sweden, The United Kingdom and The United States, 17 October 2022. google scholar
31. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), The Russian Federation’s Written Observations on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention submitted by Australia, Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal and Spain, 15 November 2022. google scholar
32. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), The Russian Federation’s Written Observations on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention submitted by Croatia and the Czech Republic, 16 December 2022. google scholar
33. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), The Russian Federation’s Written Observations on the Written Observations Submitted by Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada And The Netherlands, Croatia, Cyprus, The Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The United Kingdom, The United States, 24 March 2023. google scholar
34. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), The Russian Federation’s Written Observations on Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention submitted by Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Liechtenstein, Malta, Canada and the Netherlands, Norway, Slovakia and Slovenia, 30 January 2023. google scholar
35. Appeals from Certain Judgments of the Hungaro^Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral Tribunal [1933] PCIJ Series E, No 9, Ninth Annual Rep 156. google scholar
36. Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1989] ICJ Rep 177. google scholar
37. Application by the Government of Fiji for Permission to Intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute in the Case Concerning Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France). google scholar
38. Application Instituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court on 26 February 2022, Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation). google scholar
39. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) (Order of 3 July 2024). google scholar
40. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Request for Intervention and Declaration of Intervention of the State of Palestine, 3 June 2024. google scholar
41. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Application for permission to intervene and declaration of intervention submitted by Belize, 30 January 2025. google scholar
42. Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (Judgment) [1932] PCIJ Series A/B, no 46. google scholar
43. Case of the S. S. “Wimbledon” (Question of Intervention by Poland) [1923] PCIJ, Series A, No. 1. google scholar
44. Colombian^Peruvian Asylum Case (Judgment) [1950] ICJ Rep 266. google scholar
45. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya / Malta), Application to Intervene (Judgment) [1984] ICJ Rep 3. google scholar
46. Continental Shelf (Tunisia / Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application to Intervene (Judgment) [1981] ICJ Rep 3. google scholar
47. Declaration of intervention by New Zealand in Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening) (Judgment) [2014] ICJ Rep 226. google scholar
48. Declaration of intervention by Poland in the Case of the S. S. “Wimbledon” (Question of Intervention by Poland) [1923] PCIJ Series A, No. 1. google scholar
49. Declaration of intervention by the Government of Cuba in Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia v. Peru) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 71. google scholar
50. Declaration of intervention of the Republic of El Salvador in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Judgment) [1986] ICJ Rep 14. google scholar
51. Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights (Advisory Opinion) [1999] ICJ Rep 62. google scholar
52. Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia v. Peru) (Judgment) [1951] ICJ Rep 71. google scholar
53. LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America) (Judgment) [2001] ICJ Rep 466. google scholar
54. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador / Honduras), Application to Intervene (Judgment) [1990] ICJ Rep 92. google scholar
55. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention (Article 63 of the Statute) of the Republic of El Salvador, 15 August 1984. google scholar
56. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador (Order of 4 October 1984) [1984] ICJ Rep 215. google scholar
57. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador (Order of 4 October 1984) [1984] ICJ Rep 215, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel 223. google scholar
58. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Declaration of Intervention of the Republic of El Salvador (Order of 4 October 1984) [1984] ICJ Rep 215, Separate Opinion of Nagendra Singh, 218. google scholar
59. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 253. google scholar
60. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Application to Intervene (Order of 12 July 1973) [1973] ICJ Rep 320. google scholar
61. Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Application to Intervene (Order of 20 December 1974) [1974] ICJ Rep 530. google scholar
62. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France), Application to Intervene (Order of 20 December 1974) [1974] ICJ Rep 535. google scholar
63. Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) (Judgment) [1974] ICJ Rep 457. google scholar
64. Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Provisional Measures (Order of 14 April 1992) [1992] ICJ Rep 114. google scholar
65. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia / Malaysia), Application for Permission to Intervene (Judgment) [2001] ICJ Rep 575. google scholar
66. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene (Judgment) [2011] ICJ Rep 420. google scholar
67. Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, Request for the indication of interim measures of protection and fixing of time^limits: Memorial and Counter^Memorial, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Petrén [1973] ICJ Rep 334. google scholar
68. Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America), Provisional Measures (Order of 9 April 1998) [1998] ICJ Rep 248. google scholar
69. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand (Order of 6 February 2013) [2013] ICJ Rep 3. google scholar
70. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan), Declaration of Intervention of New Zealand (Order of 6 February 2013), Separate Opinion of Judge Cançado Trindade [2013] ICJ Rep 3. google scholar
71. Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI. google scholar
72. Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI, annex (Statute of the International Court of Justice). google scholar
73. Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (adopted 29 July 1899, entered into force 4 September 1900) 1 Bevans 230, 187 CTS 410. google scholar
74. Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (adopted 18 October 1907, entered into force 26 January 1910) UKTS 6 (1907), 1 Bevans 577, 205 CTS 233. google scholar
75. Projet de règlement pour la procédure arbitrale internationale, 1 Annuaire de l’Institut de droit international (1877) 126. google scholar
76. Rules of Court (adopted on 14 April 1978, entered into force on 1 July 1978) https://www.icj-cij.org/rules Erişim Tarihi 27 Mayıs 2025. google scholar
77. Statute for the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1921) League of Nations Treaty Series 6, 391-413. google scholar