« Provisional measures » : différence entre les versions

De Baripedia
Aucun résumé des modifications
 
(6 versions intermédiaires par le même utilisateur non affichées)
Ligne 15 : Ligne 15 :


== Request for the indication of provisional measures (Art. 73 of the Regulations of the Court) ==
== Request for the indication of provisional measures (Art. 73 of the Regulations of the Court) ==
Quand est-ce que la Cour peut-elle indiquer des mesures conservatoires ?
When can the Court indicate provisional measures?


Le terme « indiquer » est un terme qui vient directement du Statut à son article 41 stipulant que « La Cour a le pouvoir d’indiquer si elle estime que les circonstances l’exigent quelles mesures conservatoires du droit de chacun doivent être prises à titre provisoire ». Le deuxième paragraphe touche à la notification de ces mesures.
The term "indicate" is a term that comes directly from the Statute in its Article 41, which stipulates that "The Court shall have the power to indicate whether it considers that the circumstances so require which provisional measures of protection of the rights of each party should be taken". The second paragraph concerns the notification of these measures.


Sur la faculté de la Cour à indiquer de telles mesures, le Statut n’est pas clair parce qu’en 1920, la faculté de la Cour d’indiquer de sa propre autorité des mesures conservatoires était une innovation relativement hardie, car indiquer aux États ce qu’ils doivent faire, le cas échéant même avant d’avoir tranché sur la compétence et tout de même délicat. C’est la raison pour laquelle on a laissé beaucoup de questions en 1920 et en 1945 la disposition a été reprise mot à mot du Statut de l’ancienne Cour. C’est dire donc qu’on ne l’a pas précisée davantage.
As to the Court's ability to indicate such measures, the Statute is not clear because, in 1920, the Court's ability to indicate provisional measures under its own authority was a relatively bold innovation, as it indicated to States what they should do, if necessary even before they had decided on jurisdiction and still delicate. That is why many questions were left open in 1920 and in 1945 the provision was taken verbatim from the Statute of the former Court. This means that it has not been further specified.


Le terme « indiquer » est un terme imprécis parce qu’il indique correctement le processus, mais il ne dit rien sur le Statut. La Cour a le pouvoir d’indiquer, mais cela est-il contraignant ou pas, indiquer est neutre à cet égard et ne nous indique rien. Ce n’est pas la formule « La Cour a le pouvoir d’imposer aux parties ».
The term "indicate" is an imprecise term because it correctly indicates the process, but it says nothing about the Statute. The Court has the power to indicate, but is this binding or not, to indicate is neutral in this respect and tells us nothing. This is not the formula "The Court has the power to impose on the parties".


Sur la compétence, il n’y a rien de précis non plus, seulement la phrase « si elle estime que les circonstances l’exigent ». Si la Cour estime que les circonstances ne l’exigent pas, elle ne va pas indiquer des mesures conservatoires, et c’est peu dire tout de même.
On jurisdiction, there is nothing specific either, only the phrase "if it considers that the circumstances so require". If the Court considers that the circumstances do not require it, it will not indicate provisional measures, and that is an understatement.


C’est donc hors des textes en tout premier lieu, le règlement n’est qu’une rationalisation de la pratique de la Cour, c’est donc tout d’abord hors des textes que la Cour a dû répondre aux conditions auxquelles ces mesures conservatoires ont dû répondre sur tout un tas de plans et déjà sur le premier d’entre eux qui est de savoir quand elle peut les indiquer. Une Cour de justice n’aime pas être dans du discrétionnaire parce que cela a tout de suite la senteur du politique. Cela peut aller pour un organe politique le juge ne se sent pas à l’aise parce qu’entre le discrétionnaire et l’arbitraire il craindra toujours de tomber dans le deuxième et sa formation de juriste et de juge ne l’y prédispose pas.
It is therefore outside the texts in the first place, the Regulation is only a rationalisation of the Court's practice, it is therefore first of all outside the texts that the Court has had to meet the conditions to which these provisional measures have had to respond on a whole series of plans and already on the first of them, which is to know when it can indicate them. A Court of Justice does not like to be in discretionary because it immediately has the smell of politics. This may be appropriate for a political body, the judge does not feel comfortable because between discretion and arbitrariness he will always fear falling into the latter and his training as a lawyer and judge does not predispose him to it.


Quel est le problème fondamental qui se pose à la Cour en matière de compétence concernant l’indication de mesures conservatoires ? En termes plus simples, quelle question doit se poser le juge à La Haye à la CIJ pour savoir quand il peut indiquer de telles mesures, quels sont les problèmes auxquels il fait face à ce moment-là, quelles sont les données qu’il doit équilibrer, car dans la procédure, il s’agit fondamentalement toujours de cela.
What is the fundamental problem facing the Court with regard to jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures? In simpler terms, what question should the judge in The Hague ask himself to the ICJ to know when he can indicate such measures, what are the problems he is facing at that time, what are the data he must balance, because in the procedure, it is basically always about that.


D’un côté, il faut indiquer ces mesures et le cas échéant le plus vite possible, si l’objet du différend est en danger, il faut essayer de le protéger le plus vite possible, plus on attend et plus l’irrémédiable peut être arrivé et à ce moment tout l’exercice devient illusoire. Il en va de même pour l’aggravation du différend, s’il y a un risque d’aggravation, il faut agir tout de suite.
On the one hand, these measures must be indicated and, if necessary, as soon as possible, if the subject of the dispute is in danger, an attempt must be made to protect it as quickly as possible, the longer we wait and the more irremediable the situation may have occurred and at that point the whole exercise becomes illusory. The same applies to the aggravation of the dispute, if there is a risk of aggravation, action must be taken immediately.


== Indication ex officio de mesures conservatoires (Art. 75 du Règlement de la Cour) ==
== Ex officio indication of provisional measures (Art. 75 of the Regulations of the Court) ==
Quel est le problème qui se pose de faire ce genre d’observation aux États ? Un État peut déposer une requête et en même temps demander des mesures conservatoires. Est-ce que la Cour est compétente à ce stade ? Nous n’en savons rien du tout, peut-être qu’elle ne l’est même pas du tout et que la requête est purement vexatoire. Cela n’est pas évident pour la Cour, cela la met en difficulté d’indiquer de telles mesures alors qu’elle ne sait pas si elle est compétente parce que pour déterminer si elle est compétente ou si la demande est recevable, c’est une question complexe, cela ne se détermine pas tout au début de l’affaire, il faut examiner, il faut des pièces, il faut que des États soumettent des arguments et il faut cogiter en nombre, mais aussi traduire les actes.
What is the problem in making this kind of observation to States? A State may file a request and at the same time request provisional measures. Does the Court have jurisdiction at this stage? We don't know anything about it, maybe it isn't even at all, and the request is purely vexatious. This is not obvious to the Court, it makes it difficult for it to indicate such measures when it does not know whether it has jurisdiction because to determine whether it has jurisdiction or whether the application is admissible, it is a complex matter, it is not determined at the very beginning of the case, it must be examined, it requires documents, it requires States to submit arguments and it requires a large number of cogitations, but also the translation of acts.


Voilà donc la tension entre l’intérêt d’agir vite parce que les circonstances l’exigent et la nécessité de respecter le domaine de compétence de la Cour qui n’est pas de parler à tout propos, mais seulement lorsqu’elle en est autorisée parce que justement c’est une question de compétence et cela nous ne pouvons le savoir à ce stade.
This is the tension between the interest in acting quickly because circumstances require it and the need to respect the Court's area of jurisdiction, which is not to speak about everything, but only when it is authorized to do so because it is precisely a question of jurisdiction and we cannot know that at this stage.


= Conditions =
= Conditions =


== Compétence prima facie ==
== Prima facie jurisdiction ==
Compétence prima facie La Cour, dans se jurisprudence, nous a expliquée depuis for longtemps en réalité, pour ce qui est de la Cour internationale, nous le retrouvons déjà dans ses premières ordonnances dans les 1950 avec les affaires conservatoires notamment avec l’affaire de la Iranian Oil Company, qui est une magnifique affaire entre le Royaume-Uni et l’Iran où Mossadegh qui était le Premier ministre de l’Iran de l’époque qui avait étudié à l’université de Neuchâtel, y faisant sa thèse, a encore plaidé lui-même devant la Cour parce que c’était un juriste. Dans cette affaire on retrouve déjà le vocabulaire de la Cour qui dit, et c’est le critère principal pour indiquer des mesures conservatoires, tout d’abord, il faut du point de vue de la compétence que la Cour puisse se convaincre qu’elle a compétence prima facie.
Prima facie jurisdiction The Court, in its case law, has explained to us for a long time in reality, as far as the International Court is concerned, we already find it in its first orders in the 1950s with the provisional cases, in particular with the Iranian Oil Company case, which is a magnificent case between the United Kingdom and Iran where Mossadegh, who was the Prime Minister of Iran at the time, who had studied at the University of Neuchâtel, did his thesis there, pleaded himself again before the Court because he was a lawyer. In this case we already find the Court's vocabulary which states, and this is the main criterion for indicating provisional measures, first of all, from the point of view of jurisdiction, the Court must be able to convince itself that it has prima facie jurisdiction.


Il doit y avoir une prépondérance de probabilité, plus probable que plutôt que le contraire. Cela signifie que s’il est plus probable que la Cour soit compétente, elle doit, à ce moment-là, faire place à l’urgence et indiquer ces mesures parce qu’il est plus probable d’arriver à un arrêt de fond qu’il n’est probable de ne pas y arriver parce qu’il faut protéger cet arrêt de fond. Si, en revanche, il est plus probable de ne pas être compétent, qu’il n’est probable de l’être, alors il est préférable de respecter les droits du défendeur et de ne pas empiéter sur sa souveraineté en indiquant des mesures alors qu’il est plus probable de ne pas avoir le droit de s’exprimer à son égard qu’il est probable d’être compétent afin de s’exprimer à son égard. C’est une mise en balance assez ingénieuse.
There must be a preponderance of probability, more likely than not. This means that if it is more likely that the Court will have jurisdiction, it must, at that time, make room for urgency and indicate these measures because it is more likely to arrive at a substantive judgment than it is likely not to succeed because it is necessary to protect that substantive judgment. If, on the other hand, it is more likely not to be competent, that it is likely to be, then it is preferable to respect the rights of the defendant and not to infringe on his sovereignty by indicating measures when it is more likely not to have the right to express oneself to him that it is likely to be competent to express oneself to him. It's a pretty ingenious balancing act.


Il y a aussi d’autres conditions pour indiquer des mesures conservatoires, il n’y a pas que cette compétence prima facie. La Cour n’a pas examiné une recevabilité prima facie à ce stade, parce que la recevabilité prima facie sera encore plus compliquée à la déterminée. Comme ce sont des questions qui sont plus liées au fond, elle a jusqu’à présent évité à entrer dans cela.
There are also other conditions for indicating provisional measures, there is not only this prima facie jurisdiction. The Court has not considered prima facie admissibility at this stage, because prima facie admissibility will be even more complicated at the determination stage. As these are more substantive issues, she has so far avoided getting into this.


Toutes les juridictions internationales comme pour le droit de la mer à Hambourg ont également des mesures conservatoires qui ressemblent sensiblement à celles de la Cour, plus que cela même, y compris dans l’arbitrage, les arbitres en matière d’investissement se sont très souvent inspirées de la procédure de la Cour internationale en matière diverse et variée, y compris en matière de mesure conservatoire. Ce que nous discutons ici a une valeur un tout petit peu plus générale que le droit de la Cour.
All international courts, such as those for the law of the sea in Hamburg, also have provisional measures that are substantially similar to those of the Court, more than that, including in arbitration, investment arbitrators have very often drawn inspiration from the International Court's procedure in various and varied matters, including provisional measures. What we are discussing here has a slightly more general value than the law of the Court.


Le problème de la compétence prima facie et comme toujours en matière de procédure, d’équilibrer des exigences divergentes, de les mettre en balance de manière suffisamment sensée. Les deux aspects qui devait être en la matière être équilibré étaient, d’un côté l’action rapide pour que les mesures conservatoires aient leur sens, et de l’autre côté, l’exigence de ne pas empiéter sur les droits des États lorsque la Cour ne s’est pas encore assuré d’être compétente. D’où cette figure intermédiaire de compétence prima facie qui la probabilité prépondérante de compétence. Ce n’est pas là le seul critère que la Cour doit vérifier avant de pouvoir indiquer des mesures conservatoires. Il en est d’autres et notamment un autre.
The problem of prima facie jurisdiction, as always in procedural matters, to balance divergent requirements, to balance them in a sufficiently sensible way. The two aspects that had to be balanced in this matter were, on the one hand, rapid action to make provisional measures meaningful, and on the other hand, the requirement not to encroach on the rights of States when the Court has not yet ensured that it has jurisdiction. Hence this intermediate figure of prima facie competence which gives rise to the predominant probability of competence. This is not the only criterion that the Court must verify before it can indicate provisional measures. There are others, including one other.


Cette autre critère, très ancien déjà, on le retrouve dès les premières affaires de la Cour déjà développées par la Cour permanent, mais si on en reste à la Cour actuelle, dès les années 1950 notamment avec l’affaire Anglo-Iranian Oil Company en 1952, c’est le critère du préjudice irréparable. Les mesures conservatoires ne sont indiquées en principe que lorsque le préjudice qui s’en suivrait de leur non-indication apparaît au juge comme étant irréparable. C’est une notion parfois compliquée à cerner parce qu’on peut se demander ce que signifie « irréparable » en droit. Au sens très strict du terme, rien n’est irréparable puisqu’on peut toujours réparer par de l’argent par exemple en compensation, mais évidemment, ce n’est pas là le but des mesures conservatoires de laisser détruire l’objet du litige et de permettre par la suite de le liquider par des mesures équivalentes, financières ou pécuniaires.
This other criterion, which is very old already, can be found in the first cases of the Court already developed by the Permanent Court, but if we leave it to the current Court, since the 1950s, particularly with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case in 1952, it is the criterion of irreparable prejudice. Provisional measures are only indicated in principle when the damage resulting from their non-indication appears to the judge to be irreparable. It is a notion that is sometimes complicated to define because one may wonder what "irreparable" means in law. In the very strict sense of the term, nothing is irreparable since it is always possible to make reparation, for example by way of compensation, but obviously this is not the purpose of provisional measures to allow the object of the dispute to be destroyed and then to allow it to be liquidated by equivalent financial or pecuniary measures.


Pour simplifier la question et aller de l’avant, pour aller à l’essentiel. Nous avons précédemment discuté de la justification des mesures conservatoires. Leur justification fondamentale est de faire en sorte que l’arrêt final, s’il devait être rendu en faveur du demandeur, ne perdre pas son utilité et son sens. C’est-à-dire que l’objet du litige ne soit pas soit détruit, soit altéré à tel point, que la décision de la Cour ne pourrait plus, en définitive, être exécutée de manière adéquate. C’est ce critère-là qu’il faut considérer par rapport à l’objet du litige pour se demander si le dommage est irréparable ou ne l’est pas. Le critère est donc juridique et il suppose une certaine appréciation.
To simplify the issue and move forward, to get to the heart of the matter. We have previously discussed the justification for provisional measures. Their fundamental justification is to ensure that the final judgment, if it were to be rendered in favour of the plaintiff, would not lose its usefulness and meaning. That is, the subject-matter of the dispute is not destroyed or altered to such an extent that the Court's decision could no longer ultimately be properly implemented. It is this criterion that must be considered in relation to the subject matter of the dispute in order to determine whether the damage is irreparable or not. The criterion is therefore legal and requires some assessment.


== Risque d’un préjudice irréparable ==
== Risk of irreparable harm ==
Le critère du dommage irréparable est très proche de l’urgence. Il faut que les mesures apparaissent urgentes afin que la Cour les indique avant même, le cas échéant, d’avoir apuré sa compétence. Si les mesures ne paraissent pas urgentes, c’est-à-dire, s’il parait qu’on pourrait parfaitement encore se laisser du temps voir venir et les indiquer plus tard, cela équivaut à dire que le dommage prospecté n’est justement pas irréparable et à ce moment-là, la Cour s’abstient d’indiquer les mesures parce que cela serait impiété sans nécessité sur les droits, normalement du défendeur.
The criterion of irreparable damage is very close to emergency. The measures must appear urgent so that the Court can indicate them even before, if necessary, it has discharged its jurisdiction. If the measures do not appear to be urgent, i.e., if it seems that one could perfectly well allow time to see them coming and indicate them later, this amounts to saying that the damage prospected is not irreparable and at that moment, the Court refrains from indicating the measures because it would be unnecessarily impious on the rights, normally of the defendant.


Il apparaît, et c’est là un domaine qui dépasse la compétence et il est proche, que les mesures indiquées doivent être susceptibles de préserver l’objet du litige et de maintenir l’utilité de l’arrêt final si jamais il devait être rendu. C’est un problème de causalité. Les mesures demandées, ou en tout cas les mesures que la Cour indiquera doivent lui apparaître comme étant idoines à ce but, à savoir préserver l’objet du litige. Des mesures qui dépasseraient ce but, ou pire encore, qui ne seraient pas idoines pour l’assuré, ne sont pas indiquées par la Cour, ils sont étrangers à l’objet du litige et donc dans le domaine de la compétence de la Cour. On peut ainsi parfaitement demander à ce qu’en droit interne, un objet soit mis sous celé si on désire le voir protéger contre une éventuelle destruction ou évacuation, on ne verrait pas dans quel sens des mesures affectant la vie privée de l’autre personne, interdiction de bouger au-delà d’un certain rayon, etc., pourrait être utile afin de préserver cet objet du litige, et le juge n’indiquerait pas de telles mesures.
It appears, and this is an area that goes beyond jurisdiction and is close, that the measures indicated must be likely to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and maintain the usefulness of the final judgment should it ever be delivered. It's a causal problem. The measures requested, or in any event the measures which the Court indicates, must appear to it to be appropriate for that purpose, namely to preserve the subject-matter of the dispute. Measures that would go beyond this goal, or worse still, that would not be suitable for the insured, are not indicated by the Court, they are foreign to the subject matter of the dispute and therefore within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. It is thus perfectly possible to ask that, under domestic law, an object be placed under cover if one wishes to see it protected against possible destruction or evacuation, one would not see in what sense measures affecting the privacy of the other person, prohibition to move beyond a certain radius, etc., could be useful in order to preserve this object of the dispute, and the judge would not indicate such measures.


En dernier lieu et de manière négative. La Cour internationale cette fois-ci ne s’est pas jusqu’à présent beaucoup préoccupée de la plausibilité des droits au fond. Ce n’est pas une question de compétence ici. La compétence est une question de compétence prima facie en matière de mesure conservatoire. Quand est-il des droits de fond ? Est-ce qu’eux aussi doivent apparaître plausible prima facie, est-ce que, eux aussi, les droits invoqués par le demandeur doivent apparaître comme étant fondé avec plus de probabilité que le contraire. Jusqu’à présent, la Cour n’a pas développé une jurisprudence à cet égard et s’est abstenue d’entrer dans la question de la plausibilité du droit de fond. Et cela se comprend, parce que la compétence est une question, comme nous l’avons vu qui peut être tranché, pas toujours, mais dans la grande majorité des cas, au stade préliminaire. En cas de contestation, elle devrait, sauf exception très particulière, s’exprimer sur la plausibilité du droit invoqué, cela est très difficile au premier stade, parce que la Cour n’a pas les éléments nécessaires pour le faire, et on comprend que dans ces conditions, elle soit très réticente à s’y engager, parce qu’en plus, elle donnerait fâcheusement des indications sur sa propre conviction. Elle donnerait, dès le tout début, aux deux parties à l’instance, une indication si elle croit en la bonté de la cause ou pas. Une juridiction, notamment internationale, n’aime pas donner ses indications trop tôt dans la procédure et donner ainsi l’impression d’avoir déjà un parti-pris alors qu’elle ne connaît pas encore les arguments qui seront présentés plus tard au stade des pièces sur le fond, et le cas échéant, même encore précisés au moment des « plaidoiries orales ». La réalité est que ces plaidoiries à la Cour internationale de justice sont exposées oralement, mais relèvent de l’écrit. C’est assez particulier, on lit un texte à la Cour lorsqu’on plaide et nous ne pouvons avoir le loisir de faire autre chose. Il est toutefois possible de prendre quelques petites libertés, notamment lorsqu’on n’a plus le temps, il est possible d’abréger. En principe, c’est un texte parce qu’il doit être traduit et il est traduit simultanément, les traducteurs se préparent avant, il n’est pas possible d’improviser d’autant plus qu’on représente des États et qu’il n’est pas possible de dire si qui passe par la tête. Les États doivent d’abord lire ce qui va être dit et avaliser chaque mot. Par conséquent, il n’est pas possible de parler librement.
Finally and negatively. The International Court this time has not so far paid much attention to the plausibility of substantive rights. This is not a jurisdictional issue here. Jurisdiction is a question of prima facie jurisdiction in matters of provisional measures. What about substantive rights? Should they too appear plausible prima facie, should the rights invoked by the claimant also appear to be founded with a greater probability than the opposite? So far, the Court has not developed any case law in this respect and has refrained from entering into the question of the plausibility of substantive law. And that is understandable, because jurisdiction is a matter, as we have seen, that can be decided, not always, but in the vast majority of cases, at the preliminary stage. In the event of a dispute, it should, unless there is a very specific exception, express itself on the plausibility of the right invoked, which is very difficult at the first stage, because the Court does not have the necessary elements to do so, and it is understandable that in these circumstances it is very reluctant to commit itself to it, because, in addition, it would annoyingly give indications on its own conviction. It would give, from the very beginning, to both parties to the proceedings, an indication as to whether it believes in the goodness of the case or not. A court, particularly an international one, does not like to give its indications too early in the proceedings and thus give the impression of already having a bias when it does not yet know the arguments that will be presented later at the stage of the exhibits on the merits, and if necessary, even further specified at the time of the "oral arguments". The reality is that these pleadings at the International Court of Justice are presented orally, but in writing. It's quite particular, you read a text in court when you plead and you can't have the time to do anything else. However, it is possible to take a few small liberties, especially when there is no time, it is possible to shorten it. In principle, it is a text because it must be translated and it is translated simultaneously, the translators prepare themselves beforehand, it is not possible to improvise all the more since we represent States and it is not possible to say if it goes through the head. States must first read what is to be said and endorse each word. Therefore, it is not possible to speak freely.


Il est peu probable que dans les années à venir, la Cour développe cette branche de la plausibilité du droit, sans doute, le fera-t-elle tout au plus si le droit de fond devait apparaître comme totalement fantaisiste. Alors, peut-être y aurait-il un jour un précédent où la Cour refusera d’indiquer des mesures conservatoires pour cette raison. Elle n’avouera pas que ce serait à cause de la plausibilité du droit, si elle trouve un autre motif pour ne pas indiquer ces mesures, notamment l’absence d’urgence, elle préfèrera se retrancher derrière les cirières conservateurs et bien assurées de sa jurisprudence.
It is unlikely that in the coming years, the Court will develop this branch of the plausibility of the law, undoubtedly, it will do so at most if the substantive law were to appear to be totally fanciful. Then, perhaps one day there would be a precedent where the Court would refuse to indicate provisional measures for that reason. She will not admit that it would be because of the plausibility of the law, if she finds another reason not to indicate these measures, particularly the absence of urgency, she will prefer to hide behind the conservative and well-assured circuses of her case law.


Tout d’abord, de qui peut ou doit émaner la demande d’indication de mesures conservatoires ? La réponse se trouve dans le règlement de la Cour. Les procédures incidentes s’ouvrent avec la sous-section numéro 1 de la section « d », intitulée « mesures conservatoires » aux articles 73 et suivant. L’article 73, le tout premier, dans le premier paragraphe commence déjà par expliciter clairement qui est, dans la terminologie juridique, activement légitimée à demander de telles mesures : « une partie peut présenter une demande en indication de mesure conservatoire ». Cela signifie aussi est à contrario que des États qui participerait de manière incidente à la procédure, mais sans devenir partie à l’instance, ne sont pas légitimés à demander de telles mesures.
First of all, from whom can or should the request for the indication of provisional measures emanate? The answer can be found in the Court's Rules of Procedure. Incidental proceedings shall be opened with subsection 1 of section "d", entitled "provisional measures" in articles 73 et seq. Article 73, the very first, in the first paragraph already begins by clearly stating who, in legal terminology, is actively entitled to request such measures: "a party may submit an application for an indication of a provisional measure". It also means, on the other hand, that States that would participate incidentally in the proceedings, but without becoming a party to the proceedings, are not entitled to request such measures.


Qui sont d’autres États participants à la procédure sans devenir partie ? Cela serait d’États qui n’auraient pas de légitimation active afin de demander des mesures conservatoires parce qu’ils ne sont justement pas partis à l’instance. Ce sont les intervenants notamment au sens des articles 62 et 63 du Statut. Les États partis à l’instance, donc demandeur et défendeur, et il peut s’agir de plusieurs demandeurs et de plusieurs défendeurs, comme l’affaire de la légalité de l’utilisation de la force où la Serbie a porté une affaire contre 10 États de l’OTAN. Les États parties à l’instance peuvent présenter plusieurs demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires. Cela veut dire que si la Cour rejette la première demande en ce sens, cela ne signifie absolument pas que ces États ou que l’État concerné, ou l’État qui a présenté la première demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, ça sera presque toujours le demandeur, mais le défendeur peut également le faire de manière reconventionnelle, que ces États ne puissent pas répéter, revenir, redemander des mesures conservatoires et cela se comprend parce que la Cour aura rejeté la première demande, notamment quant au manque d’urgence. Mais la situation peut également évoluer à tout instant, et par conséquent, la Cour peut être amenée, avec de nouveaux éléments, à reconsidérer la question.
Who are other States participating in the proceedings without becoming a party? These would be States that do not have active legitimacy to request provisional measures because they have not gone to the proceedings. These are the interveners, in particular within the meaning of Articles 62 and 63 of the Staff Regulations. The States parties to the proceedings, i. e. plaintiff and defendant, and these may include several plaintiffs and defendants, such as the case of the legality of the use of force in which Serbia brought a case against 10 NATO States. States Parties to the proceedings may submit several requests for the indication of provisional measures. This means that if the Court rejects the first request in this sense, it does not in any way mean that these States or the State concerned, or the State which made the first request for the indication of provisional measures, will almost always be the plaintiff, but the defendant may also do so in a counterclaim, that these States may not repeat, return, request again provisional measures and this is understandable because the Court will have rejected the first request, particularly as regards the lack of urgency. But the situation may also change at any time, and therefore the Court may have to reconsider the issue with new elements.


Il y a eu des procédures longues d’ailleurs et nous pouvons penser à l’affaire du génocide qui a opposé la Bosnie à la Serbie devant la Cour, une procédure qui a duré treize ans, pendant cette procédure, les demandes en indication de mesures conservatoires sont tombées à peu près comme la neige en hiver et en plus des deux parties. La Cour a dû dans cette affaire dire qu’elle ne voulait pas indiquer de mesures supplémentaires, elle a rappelé aux parties qu’elle avait déjà indiqué de telles mesures et qu’il était temps de les mettre en œuvre avant d’en demander d’autres. En tout cas, le règlement prévoit que l’on puisse redemander des mesures conservatoires comme à l’article 75§ 3 du règlement.
There have been lengthy proceedings, and we can think of the genocide case between Bosnia and Serbia before the Court, a procedure that lasted thirteen years, during which the requests for provisional measures fell much like snow in winter and in addition to both parties. The Court had to say in this case that it did not want to indicate any additional measures, it reminded the parties that it had already indicated such measures and that it was time to implement them before requesting further measures. In any case, the Regulation provides that provisional measures may be requested again as in Article 75(3) of the Regulation.


Il est également possible de demander des mesures reconventionnellement, c’est-à-dire que le défendeur peut également redemander des mesures vis-à-vis du demandeur dans l’instance. Qui plus est, indépendamment des parties à l’instance, la Cour peut également indiquer de sa propre autorité des mesures conservatoires. Elle ne dépend donc pas de la demande d’une, voire de plusieurs parties, elle peut également, d’office indiquer les mesures qui lui semblent nécessaires. L’article 75§1 stipule que « La Cour peut à tout moment décider d’examiner d’office si les circonstances de l’affaire exigent l’indication de mesures conservatoires que les parties ou l’une d’elles devraient prendre ou exécuter ». La Cour peut donc indiquer de telles mesures, elle le fera selon sa jurisprudence fixée à peu près depuis les affaires au milieu des années 1980, à savoir Burkina Faso Mali avec l’affaire du différend frontalier en 1985, et l’affaire Nicaragua en 1983 au moment des mesures conservatoires. Les arrêts de fond de ces deux affaires sont tous les deux en 1986. La Cour l’a donc fait depuis cette époque afin de préserver non pas tant l’objet du litige, mais plutôt pour faire en sorte que le litige ne s’aggrave pas.
It is also possible to claim counterclaims, i.e. the defendant may also re-claim remedies from the plaintiff in the proceedings. Moreover, independently of the parties to the proceedings, the Court may also indicate provisional measures of its own authority. It therefore does not depend on the request of one or more parties, it may also, of its own motion, indicate the measures it considers necessary. Article 75§1 stipulates that "The Court may at any time decide to examine ex officio whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures that the parties or one of them should take or enforce". The Court can therefore indicate such measures, it will do so in accordance with its case law established more or less since the cases in the mid-1980s, namely Burkina Faso - Mali with the border dispute case in 1985, and the Nicaragua case in 1983 at the time of the provisional measures. The substantive judgments in these two cases are both in 1986. The Court has therefore done so since that time in order to preserve not so much the subject matter of the dispute, but rather to ensure that the dispute does not escalate.


La Cour a estimé que lorsque les relations entre les parties se tendent encore davantage par des actions unilatérales notamment armées, les chances de voir le règlement judiciaire avoir du succès et en définitive l’arrêt que la Cour pourra rendre exécuté diminue drastiquement et que par conséquent comme il vaut mieux de prévenir que guérir, la Cour prend les devants et essaye d’indiquer les mesures aptes à apaiser les parties. Dans les deux affaires mentionnées précédemment, il s’agissait d’opérations militaires. Dans l’affaire Burkina Faso Mali, il y avait des tensions à la frontière entre les deux États qui était un différend de délimitation. Depuis lors, la Cour a indiqué de telles mesures, elle le fait avec une certaine parcimonie, mais ne s’en prive tout de même pas. Comme l’article 75§ 1 l’indique, les mesures que la Cour prendra de sa propre initiative peut concerner les deux parties comme c’était le cas dans la situation entre le Burkina Faso et le Mali, mais peuvent aussi concerner une partie si c’est à une partie surtout qu’il faut indiquer certaines conduites aptes à assurer une désescalade. La Cour essaie d’indiquer le plus possible des mesures neutres même quand elle vise un État particulier, elle préfère indiquer des mesures conservatoires formulées pour les deux parties et puis chacune des parties se reconnaîtra derrière. La Cour n’est pas obligée de le faire, elle peut aussi adresser des mesures à une partie, ce qui est toujours un peu plus problématique de son point de vue parce que cela fait « un peu » discriminatoire.
The Court considered that when relations between the parties are further extended by unilateral actions, in particular, armed actions, the chances of success of the judicial settlement and ultimately the judgment that the Court may deliver drastically decreases and that consequently, as it is better to prevent than to cure, the Court takes the lead and tries to indicate the measures likely to calm the parties. In the two cases mentioned above, these were military operations. In the Burkina Faso - Mali case, there were tensions at the border between the two States, which was a delimitation dispute. Since then, the Court has indicated such measures, it does so with a certain parsimony, but does not deprive itself of them. As Article 75§ 1 indicates, the measures that the Court will take on its own initiative may concern both parties, as was the case in the situation between Burkina Faso and Mali, but may also concern a party if it is mainly to one party that certain conduct likely to lead to de-escalation must be indicated. The Court tries to indicate neutral measures as much as possible even when it refers to a particular State, it prefers to indicate provisional measures formulated for both parties and then each of the parties will recognize itself behind them. The Court is not obliged to do so, it can also address measures to a party, which is always a little more problematic from its point of view because it is "a little" discriminatory.


== Urgence ==
== Emergency ==
Un autre point de procédure est la priorité des demandes en mesures conservatoires. S’agissant de demandes urgentes, la Cour leur donne toute la priorité nécessaire et cette priorité ne relève pas uniquement de son bon vouloir ou de sa discrétion, mais également d’une base réglementaire. L’article 74§ 1 du règlement est très clair stipulant que « La demande en indication de mesures conservatoires a priorité sur toutes autres affaires ». Cela signifie que la planification de plaidoiries par exemple devant la Cour, souffre ces dernières années de plus en plus d’aléas parce qu’il arrive qu’au tout dernier moment, la Cour se voit confrontée à une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, et à ce moment-là, soit la Cour doit simplement rester encore pendant des jours alors qu’il devrait y avoir des vacances judiciaires, ou alors, tout simplement des audiences planifiées doivent être repoussées au dernier moment, ce qui est plus fâcheux pour les États qui cherchent à faire avancer l’affaire devant la Cour.
Another procedural point is the priority of requests for provisional measures. As these are urgent requests, the Court gives them all the necessary priority and this priority is not only a matter of its goodwill or discretion, but also of a regulatory basis. Article 74§ 1 of the Rules of Procedure is very clear that "The request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases". This means that the planning of pleadings, for example before the Court, has suffered in recent years from increasing uncertainties because at the very last moment, the Court is confronted with a request for provisional measures, and at that moment either the Court must simply stay for days when there should be judicial vacancies, or simply scheduled hearings must be postponed at the last minute, which is more unfortunate for States seeking to advance the case before the Court.


Dans des cas extrêmes, il est arrivé que le président de la Cour ait dû faire une conférence téléphonique afin de pouvoir indiquer des mesures conservatoires dans les douze heures, c’est-à-dire en moins d’une journée ; étant donné que l’Allemagne avait porté devant la Cour tardivement l’affaire des frères LaGrand qui devait être exécutés au Texas, l’Allemagne faisait valoir que toute la condamnation était douteuse parce que les deux frères d’origine et de nationalité allemande n’avaient pas pu obtenir le secours consulaire de l’Allemagne si bien que leur défense aurait été mise en difficulté. Dans le cas où il faudrait refaire un procès et redéterminer leur culpabilité, s’ils ont déjà été exécutés, cela est compliqué du point de vue de l’urgence et du point de vue du dommage irréparable. Étant donné que le délai était extrêmement court, le président a dû contacter les autres juges par téléphone et en urgence qui n’a pas eu lieu l’effet escompté, parce que le Texas a fait opposition non pas contre la Cour, mais contre Washington. L’administration américaine voulait faire exécuter l’ordonnance de la Cour et le Texas a refusé l’ordre du gouvernement central stipulant que le Texas est indépendant dans ses affaires judiciaires. Les frères ont été exécutés. Parfois, la célérité confine à la frénésie. Douze heures sont très courtes pour exécuter une ordonnance, il se trouve que les présidents ne peuvent même pas être au siège, c’est pourquoi il faut téléphoner et on peut espérer que les communications téléphoniques fonctionnent à ce moment-là.
In extreme cases, it has occurred that the President of the Court has had to hold a conference call in order to be able to indicate provisional measures within 12 hours, i.e. in less than a day; since Germany brought the LaGrand brothers' case before the Court late and was to be executed in Texas, Germany argued that the entire sentence was questionable because the two brothers of German origin and nationality had been unable to obtain consular assistance from Germany so that their defence would have been put in difficulty. In the event that it is necessary to re-trial and redetermine their guilt, if they have already been executed, this is complicated from the point of view of urgency and irreparable damage. Since the time was extremely short, the president had to contact the other judges by telephone and in urgency, which did not have the desired effect, because Texas opposed not the court but Washington. The U.S. administration wanted to enforce the court order and Texas refused the central government's order that Texas is independent in its judicial affairs. The brothers were executed. Sometimes, speed is a frenzy. Twelve hours are very short to execute an order, it just so happens that the presidents cannot even be at headquarters, which is why you have to call and hopefully the phone calls will work at that time.


== Caractère plausible du droit dont la protection est recherchée ==
== Plausibility of the right whose protection is sought ==
La Cour indique les mesures conservatoires dans une ordonnance. Pourquoi une ordonnance ? Les ordonnances sont réglées à l’article 48 du Statut et 44 et suivant du Règlement. Qu’est-ce qu’il y a comme acte judiciaire à la Cour. Il y a des ordonnances, des arrêts, des jugements ou encore des décisions.
The Court indicates the provisional measures in an order. Why a prescription? The orders are governed by article 48 of the Statute and article 44 et seq. of the Rules. What kind of judicial act is there in the Court? There are orders, judgments, judgments or decisions.


Qu’est-ce qui distingue une ordonnance d’un arrêt ? Et pourquoi donc, ici, la Cour prend-elle des ordonnances invariablement ? Il n’y a pas d’arrêt sur les mesures conservatoires et il n’y en aura pas, cela serait une erreur juridique. Pourquoi c’est une ordonnance et ce n’est pas un arrêt, ce qui implicitement ici nous indique peut-être quelle est la différence fondamentale entre les deux actes. En anglais, on parle de « order » pour une « ordonnance » et « judgement » pour « arrêt ». Il n’est pas possible de recourir contre les ordonnances, mais peut-on recours aux arrêts de la Cour ? Il est possible de recourir contre les arrêts de la Cour dans un cas très spécifique comme la demande en révision et l’interprétation des arrêts comme aux articles 60 et 61 du Statut.
What distinguishes an order from a judgment? And why, then, does the Court invariably make orders here? There is no judgment on provisional measures and there will be none, it would be a legal error. Why it is an order and not a judgment, which implicitly tells us here perhaps what the fundamental difference is between the two acts. In English, we speak of "order" for an "order" and "judgement" for "judgment". It is not possible to appeal against orders, but can the Court's judgments be used? It is possible to appeal against the Court's judgments in a very specific case such as the request for revision and the interpretation of judgments as in Articles 60 and 61 of the Statute.


Comme il y a la possibilité de « recours » contre les arrêts, il y a aussi la possibilité de faire réviser des mesures indiquées dans des ordonnances et notamment en demandant leur modification par de nouvelles demandes. Le point capital de la différence est ailleurs.
As there is the possibility of "appeals" against judgments, there is also the possibility of having measures indicated in orders reviewed, in particular by requesting their modification through new applications. The main point of the difference is elsewhere.


== Lien entre le droit protégé et les mesures demandées ==
== Link between the protected right and the measures requested ==
À quoi sert une ordonnance ? En quoi est-ce que les tribunaux prennent des ordonnances ? S’il y a des arrêts, alors la Cour devrait prendre des arrêts, pourquoi inventer une autre catégorie. Il y a une raison. L’ordonnance se sont des indications de procédure comme, par exemple, fixer des délais pour les mémoires, contre-mémoires ou encore dire lorsqu’il y aura les plaidoiries, toutes ces choses doivent être faites afin d’accompagner la procédure ; on ne fait pas dans un arrêt, mais dans une ordonnance. La différence entre l’ordonnance et l’arrêt est que l’arrêt est basé sur le principe du contradictoire. Il n’y a un arrêt que lorsqu’il y a un différend, cela veut dire qu’il y a une partie qui prétend une chose et l’autre qui s’y oppose. À ce moment-là, la Cour tranche, elle le tranche par un arrêt, elle a entendu les deux parties, les arguments contradictoires et elle tranche par un arrêt. Cela est un arrêt et cela doit être toujours un arrêt, cela ne peut pas être une ordonnance lorsqu’il y a le contradictoire. En revanche, lorsqu’il y a des mesures d’accompagnement de la procédure où il n’y soit pas de différend, les parties sont d’accord sur une date déterminée afin d’ouvrir quelque chose ou alors c’est la prérogative de la Cour sans même avoir entendu les parties de fixer quelque chose comme, par exemple, dire telle date pour le dépôt des mémoires, cela, elle le fait toujours dans l’ordonnance ce qui est juridiquement différent par rapport à l’arrêt parce que l’arrêt étant basé sur le contradictoire passe en chose jugée en principe. L’ordonnance qui n’est pas basée sur le contradictoire ne passe pas en chose jugée et peut par conséquent être modifiée à tout moment.
What is the purpose of a prescription? How do the courts make orders? If there are judgments, then the Court should take judgments, why invent another category. There is a reason. The order are procedural indications such as, for example, setting time limits for pleadings, counter-memorials or even saying when there will be pleadings, all these things must be done in order to accompany the proceedings; they are not done in a judgment, but in an order. The difference between the order and the judgment is that the judgment is based on the principle of adversarial proceedings. There is a judgment only when there is a dispute, which means that there is one party who claims one thing and the other who opposes it. At that time, the Court decides, it decides by a judgment, it has heard both parties, the contradictory arguments and it decides by a judgment. This is a judgment and it must always be a judgment, it cannot be an order when there is an adversarial situation. On the other hand, when there are accompanying measures in the proceedings where there is no dispute, the parties agree on a specific date in order to open something or it is the prerogative of the Court without even having heard the parties to fix something such as, for example, saying such a date for the filing of pleadings, it always does so in the order, which is legally different from the judgment because the judgment is based on contradictory judgment in principle. An order that is not based on the adversarial principle does not become res judicata and may therefore be amended at any time.


Les parties peuvent présenter à répétition des demandes en mesure conservatoire, elles peuvent précisément le faire parce que l’ordonnance précédente n’est pas chose jugée définitive. C’est la raison pour laquelle la Cour ne mettra jamais des mesures conservatoires dans un arrêt, cela serait une erreur juridique double. D’abord parce qu’il n’y a pas nécessairement le contradictoire, étant donné qu’il s’agit de mesures très urgentes, il n’y a pas le temps de formaliser une procédure où les différentes parties prennent position de manière cristalliser, et deuxièmement, mais si cela était le cas que les partis avaient des visions contradictoires et les avaient exposées à la Cour pour qu’elle tranche, cela ne serait tout de même pas un arrêt dans le sens qu’il s’agit ici du cas particulier de mesures qui doivent être modifiées. Ce qu’il est propre de faire est de le faire dans une ordonnance accompagnant la procédure et c’est ainsi que la Cour procédure. Donc, il y a toujours des ordonnances, ce qui laisse une entière flexibilité dans la matière.
The parties may repeatedly submit requests for a protective measure, they may do so precisely because the previous order is not considered final. That is why the Court will never put provisional measures in a judgment, this would be a double legal error. First, because there is not necessarily contradictory, since these are very urgent measures, there is no time to formalize a procedure in which the various parties take a crystallized position, and second, but if this were the case that the parties had contradictory visions and had presented them to the Court for a decision, it would not be a judgment in the sense that this is the particular case of measures that must be modified. What is proper to do is to do it in an order accompanying the proceedings and that is how the Court proceeds. So there are always ordinances, which leaves complete flexibility in the matter.


Ces ordonnances ont également un autre avantage. Comme les ordonnances sont greffées sur la procédure en cours, elle tombe automatiquement avec la fin de la procédure, et il n’y a pas besoin de refaire une ordonnance pour mettre fin à une ordonnance précédente. Si on indique des mesures conservatoires, elles continuent à courir tant que la Cour ne les a pas modifiées jusqu’à la fin de la procédure, c’est-à-dire jusqu’à l’arrêt final. Après l’arrêt final, il n’y a plus besoin de maintenir des mesures conservatoires parce que maintenant il y a le jugement et c’est qui doit être exécuté et rien d’autre.
These prescriptions also have another advantage. As the orders are grafted onto the current proceeding, it automatically falls with the end of the proceeding, and there is no need to make a new order to terminate a previous order. If provisional measures are indicated, they continue to run until the Court has amended them until the end of the proceedings, i.e. until the final judgment. After the final judgment, there is no longer any need to maintain provisional measures because now there is the judgment and it is what must be executed and nothing else.


La Cour n’a pas besoin d’indiquer ou d’adopter une nouvelle ordonnance afin de dire que les mesures conservatoires sont terminées. Cela serait évidemment le cas si c’était un arrêt, il faudrait avoir un nouvel arrêt ou il faudrait insérer dans l’arrêt principal une clause pour mettre hors de fonction les mesures conservatoires indiquées avant. Mais cela n’est pas nécessaire étant donné qu’il s’agit d’une ordonnance, elle se greffe sur la procédure. Dès que la procédure est terminée, elle n’a plus d’objet, elle tombe donc automatiquement.
The Court does not need to indicate or adopt a new order in order to say that the provisional measures have been completed. This would obviously be the case if it were a judgment, there would have to be a new judgment or a clause would have to be inserted in the main judgment to disable the provisional measures indicated before. But this is not necessary since it is an order, it is added to the procedure. As soon as the procedure is completed, it has no more object, so it falls automatically.


Un dernier point de procédure est la notification au secrétaire général des Nations Unies qui, à son tour, transmet au Conseil de sécurité. Il est prévu que la Cour, c’est-à-dire la Cour à travers son greffier qui est à la tête du greffe, notifie au secrétaire général des Nations Unies toute mesure conservatoire indiquée par la Cour. Le secrétaire général transmet cette information au Conseil de sécurité comme stipulé à l’article 42§ 2 du Statut et article 77 du règlement.  
A final procedural point is the notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who in turn transmits it to the Security Council. It is provided that the Court, i. e. the Court through its Registrar who is at the head of the Registry, shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any provisional measure indicated by the Court. The Secretary-General shall transmit this information to the Security Council as provided for in Article 42(2) of the Statute and Article 77 of the Regulations.


Pourquoi le Conseil de sécurité doit-il être mis au courant de ces mesures conservatoires ? Quelle est la position du Conseil de sécurité par rapport à la Cour ? Autrement dit, quelle est la fonction spécifique qu’a le Conseil de sécurité par rapport à la Cour ? L’article 94 de la Charte donne quelques indications. Il est le gardien ultime de l’exécution des arrêts de la Cour.  
Why should the Security Council be informed of these provisional measures? What is the Security Council's position on the Court? In other words, what is the specific function of the Security Council in relation to the Court? Article 94 of the Charter provides some guidance. It is the ultimate guardian of the execution of the Court's judgments.


Dans la mesure où le Conseil de sécurité pourrait être approché afin de faire exécuter des mesures prises par la Cour, comme c’est l’agent d’exécution des arrêts de la Cour, il est adéquat de lui notifier des mesures conservatoires de manière à ce que le Conseil soit au courant. Il pourrait consulter le Conseil également, mais c’est un acte de courtoisie que de lui transmettre.  
To the extent that the Security Council could be approached to enforce measures taken by the Court, as it is the agent for the execution of the Court's judgments, it is appropriate to notify it of provisional measures so that the Council is aware of them. He could also consult the Council, but it is an act of courtesy to transmit it to it.


Qui plus est, il arrive que des mesures conservatoires intéressent plus directement le Conseil de sécurité. La Cour en indique de sa propre autorité et elle le fait souvent dans des cas où il y a des actions armées lors de différends de délimitation entre autres. Comme les actions armées et le maintien de la paix sont du ressors principal du Conseil de sécurité, il n’est pas complètement inadéquat que le Conseil soit mis au courant des mesures que la Cour a indiquées aux parties dans des affaires que par ailleurs, il y a de très fortes chances qu’il traite.  
Moreover, provisional measures may be of more direct interest to the Security Council. The Court indicates this on its own authority and often does so in cases where there are armed actions in delimitation disputes, among others. Since armed actions and peacekeeping are the main focus of the Security Council, it is not completely inappropriate for the Council to be made aware of the measures that the Court has indicated to the parties in cases that are otherwise very likely to be dealt with by the Council.


Le Statut dit de manière très pudique, dans son article 41 que la Cour peut indiquer des mesures conservatoires. Mais « indiquer » ne veut rien dire juridiquement, cela ne veut rien dire de plus qu’elle a la compétence de formuler des mesures conservatoires. Quel est le statut de ces mesures, et en particulier, sont-elles contraignantes pour les parties à l’instance, ou ne le sont-elles pas ? S’agit-il d’une décision ou uniquement d’une recommandation ?  
The Statute states in a very modest way, in Article 41, that the Court may indicate provisional measures. But "to indicate" does not mean anything legally, it does not mean anything more than that it has the competence to formulate provisional measures. What is the status of these measures, and in particular, are they binding on the parties to the proceedings, or are they not? Is it a decision or just a recommendation?


Pendant très longtemps, cette question a été incroyablement controversée avec des disputes assez épiques dans la doctrine et des arguments juridiques d’une grande subtilité avancée par les uns et par les autres pour essayer d’apporter une réponse à cette question. C’était une question vivement complexe. Entre temps, elle a été tirée au clair dans la jurisprudence de la Cour.
For a very long time, this issue has been incredibly controversial with rather epic doctrinal disputes and highly subtle legal arguments put forward by both sides to try to provide an answer to this question. It was a very complex issue. In the meantime, it has been clarified in the Court's case law.


= Caractère contraignant des mesures conservatoires 
=
= Binding nature of provisional measures 
=
Dans l’affaire LaGrand, la question s’est posée à la Cour, et pour une fois, elle n’a pas pu éviter de prendre position sur elle parce qu’en principe la Cour n’avait pas à prendre position sur le sors de ces mesures conservatoires, elle les indique et ensuite les États agissent. Comme la Cour ne se saisit pas d’office de la violation de ses ordonnances ou de ses arrêts, elle n’avait jamais auparavant tranché la question du caractère obligatoire de ses mesures conservatoires. Dans l’affaire LaGrand, l’Allemagne a eu l’intelligence de redemander une réparation de la part des États-Unis pour violation des mesures conservatoires de la Cour. Cette fois-ci, la Cour ne pouvait pas éviter de prendre position sur la question puisqu’on lui demandait d’octroyer une réparation pour la violation de ses mesures, or, cette réparation ne pouvait être fondée en droit que si les mesures étaient contraignantes. Si les mesures n’étaient qu’une simple recommandation, l’Allemagne n’aurait pas pu demander une réparation pour leur violation.
In the LaGrand case, the question arose before the Court, and for once, it could not avoid taking a position on it because in principle the Court did not have to take a position on the outcome of these provisional measures, it indicated them and then the States acted. As the Court does not automatically take up the violation of its orders or judgments, it had never before decided the question of the binding nature of its provisional measures. In the LaGrand case, Germany had the intelligence to reapply for compensation from the United States for violation of the Court's provisional measures. This time, the Court could not avoid taking a position on the issue since it was asked to award compensation for the violation of its measures, but this compensation could only be founded in law if the measures were binding. If the measures were merely a recommendation, Germany could not have sought compensation for their violation.


La Cour a donc dû prendre position et elle l’a fait dans l’arrêt de 2001 dans le sens de dire que les mesures conservatoires indiquées par la Cour, sauf si la Cour devait indiquer spécifiquement qu’elles ne sont pas contraignantes, mais si elle n’indique rien, ses mesures sont contraignantes pour les États partis à la procédure, donc partie à l’instance.  
The Court therefore had to take a position and did so in the 2001 judgment in the sense of saying that the provisional measures indicated by the Court, unless the Court were to specifically indicate that they are not binding, but if it does not indicate anything, its measures are binding on the States parties to the proceedings, and therefore parties to the proceedings.


Pour arriver à ce résultat, la Cour a dû interpréter le Statut notamment dans son article 41. Le Statut ne dit rien à ce propos parce qu’en 1919 1920, la question était trop épineuse, on l’a laissée en suspens, les règlements par la suite ne s’expriment pas non plus. Si bien que du point de vue textuel, la Cour ne peut pas faire beaucoup. Il y a une petite différence entre le texte français et anglais, mais l’essentiel est ailleurs. L’interprétation que donne la Cour afin d’arriver au résultat du caractère contraignant est une interprétation téléologique.
To achieve this result, the Court had to interpret the Statute, in particular in its Article 41. The Statute says nothing about this because in 1919-1920 the issue was too thorny, it was left open, the rules later did not express themselves either. So from a textual point of view, the Court cannot do much. There is a small difference between the French and English text, but the main thing is elsewhere. The interpretation given by the Court in order to arrive at the result of the binding character is a teleological interpretation.


En termes très simples, la Cour dit que le but même des mesures conservatoires serait manqué si elles n’avaient pas de force contraignante parce que ces mesures sont indiquées pour préserver l’utilité de l’instance, pour préserver l’objet du litige. Au fond, afin de faire en sorte que le caractère contraignant de l’arrêt final soit préservé. Si les mesures n’étaient pas contraignantes, ce but serait manqué. Si les États pouvaient faire ce qu’ils veulent de ces mesures, cela voudrait dire qu’en réalité, il ne serait pas possible de protéger efficacement l’objet du litige et l’arrêt final pris pourrait devenir simplement théorique donc inexécutable. Le Statut le prévoit à l’article 59 et la Charte le prévoit également à l’article 94§ 1 que l’arrêt final est contraignant. Mais pour que cet arrêt final ait un sens dans son caractère contraignant, les mesures conservatoires indiquées précisément pour préserver l’utilité de l’instance doivent également être considérées contraignantes. C’est une argumentation essentiellement téléologique.  
In very simple terms, the Court says that the very purpose of provisional measures would be missed if they were not binding because they are appropriate to preserve the utility of the proceedings, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute. Basically, in order to ensure that the binding nature of the final judgment is preserved. If the measures were not binding, this goal would be missed. If States could do what they want with these measures, it would mean that, in reality, it would not be possible to effectively protect the subject matter of the dispute and the final judgment could become merely theoretical and therefore unenforceable. The Statute provides for this in Article 59 and the Charter also provides in Article 94§ 1 that the final judgment is binding. But for this final judgment to have any meaning in its binding nature, the provisional measures indicated precisely to preserve the utility of the proceedings must also be considered binding. This is essentially a teleological argument.


Le bilan des mesures conservatoires avant l’arrêt LaGrand était très contrasté. Dans beaucoup de cas, ces mesures conservatoires n’étaient pas mises en œuvre, dans certains cas elles ont été mises en œuvre, mais on ne peut pas tirer beaucoup de conclusions de cette pratique ancienne pour la simple raison qu’il n’était pas clair à l’époque si ces mesures étaient contraignantes ou pas, on ne le savait tout simplement pas. Il y avait des opinions très divergentes sur la question. Dans ce cas là, lorsqu’il y a doute, on ne pouvait pas reprocher aux États de considérer que ces mesures étaient de simples recommandations. Après tout, il y avait des opinions doctrinales très fortes dans ce sens, il y avait donc de bons arguments dans ce sens.  
The record of provisional measures before the LaGrand judgment was very mixed. In many cases, these provisional measures were not implemented, in some cases they were implemented, but many conclusions cannot be drawn from this old practice for the simple reason that it was not clear at the time whether these measures were binding or not, we simply did not know. There were very divergent opinions on the issue. In this case, where there was doubt, States could not be accused of considering these measures as mere recommendations. After all, there were very strong doctrinal opinions in this direction, so there were good arguments in this direction.


À partir du moment où la Cour a considéré que ses mesures sont contraignantes, le bilan s’est un tout petit peu amélioré. Les États savent maintenant que les mesures sont contraignantes et que si elles ne les mettent pas en œuvre, le cas échéant, le demandeur peut en demander une sanction.
Once the Court considered that its measures were binding, the balance sheet improved slightly. States now know that the measures are binding and that if they do not implement them, if necessary, the applicant may request a sanction.


= Annexes =
= Annexes =

Version actuelle datée du 26 août 2021 à 13:04

This is an incidental procedure. It is not with infinite surprise that we can see in the 1978 Regulations of the Court, under section "d", which has the eloquent title of "incidental proceedings", in subsection number 1, the title is "provisional measures". In French, the term "mesures conservatoires" is used, in Italian "misure cautelari", in German "einstweilige Maßnahme".

Concept[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

What is the purpose of these provisional measures? If we mean the term "provisional measures" or "mesures conservatoires" which means "mesures provisoires", what could be the justification for an incidental procedure, which means that we are in the context of a main procedure, a case has been brought before the Court and we are somewhere between the time of the request and the time of the final decision. Now, there is this procedural incident with precautionary measures. What could be the purpose of provisional measures? What is the danger if there is no provisional measures?

It is sometimes necessary to safeguard the very object to which the proceedings relate, or else, in a more general but not false formula, to ensure that the subjective rights in question are protected or safeguarded. Consider a proceeding before a domestic court involving an object X whose ownership is disputed and where the procedure is lengthy and sometimes years, and it is quite conceivable that a defendant who does not want to give this object to the plaintiff because the two have hated each other for years can, of course, especially if he anticipates that he will lose, destroy the object of the dispute or sell it to others or otherwise make provisions on the object of the dispute which would mean that the judgment given by the court against him could no longer be executed. Because if it is a work of art and it is the subject of the dispute, we could take a measure that would be a conservatory measure meaning that we would raise the object to put it in a deposit for example during the time of the judgment.

But there is also something else in provisional measures. There are basically two things in provisional measures. One is more a matter for the Court than for the parties, safeguarding the subject matter of the proceedings, this mainly safeguards the rights of the States concerned or the parties, it is usually the parties who ask the Court to indicate provisional measures.

If there is a dispute, especially if the parties are acrimonious or towards each other, it also happens to States, but it can also depend on the subject of the dispute. If the subject of the dispute concerns military operations in a border region, such a dispute can quickly and effectively escalate. The entire peaceful procedure before the Court could be put at risk because if a military confrontation escalates, a settlement of disputes with a judgment of the Court and with a chance of execution decreases accordingly. There is therefore also a public interest in the Court being able to intervene relatively early and try to calm the waters.

These are the two objects recognized for provisional measures. The first object is mainly in the interest of the parties, even if the Court obviously has an interest in protecting the object of the dispute, the second is mainly a public interest, i.e. an interest to which the Court itself must pay attention. This refers to Rule 73 et seq. of the Rules of Procedure.

Basis of jurisdiction (Article 41 of the Statute of the Court)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Request for the indication of provisional measures (Art. 73 of the Regulations of the Court)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

When can the Court indicate provisional measures?

The term "indicate" is a term that comes directly from the Statute in its Article 41, which stipulates that "The Court shall have the power to indicate whether it considers that the circumstances so require which provisional measures of protection of the rights of each party should be taken". The second paragraph concerns the notification of these measures.

As to the Court's ability to indicate such measures, the Statute is not clear because, in 1920, the Court's ability to indicate provisional measures under its own authority was a relatively bold innovation, as it indicated to States what they should do, if necessary even before they had decided on jurisdiction and still delicate. That is why many questions were left open in 1920 and in 1945 the provision was taken verbatim from the Statute of the former Court. This means that it has not been further specified.

The term "indicate" is an imprecise term because it correctly indicates the process, but it says nothing about the Statute. The Court has the power to indicate, but is this binding or not, to indicate is neutral in this respect and tells us nothing. This is not the formula "The Court has the power to impose on the parties".

On jurisdiction, there is nothing specific either, only the phrase "if it considers that the circumstances so require". If the Court considers that the circumstances do not require it, it will not indicate provisional measures, and that is an understatement.

It is therefore outside the texts in the first place, the Regulation is only a rationalisation of the Court's practice, it is therefore first of all outside the texts that the Court has had to meet the conditions to which these provisional measures have had to respond on a whole series of plans and already on the first of them, which is to know when it can indicate them. A Court of Justice does not like to be in discretionary because it immediately has the smell of politics. This may be appropriate for a political body, the judge does not feel comfortable because between discretion and arbitrariness he will always fear falling into the latter and his training as a lawyer and judge does not predispose him to it.

What is the fundamental problem facing the Court with regard to jurisdiction to indicate provisional measures? In simpler terms, what question should the judge in The Hague ask himself to the ICJ to know when he can indicate such measures, what are the problems he is facing at that time, what are the data he must balance, because in the procedure, it is basically always about that.

On the one hand, these measures must be indicated and, if necessary, as soon as possible, if the subject of the dispute is in danger, an attempt must be made to protect it as quickly as possible, the longer we wait and the more irremediable the situation may have occurred and at that point the whole exercise becomes illusory. The same applies to the aggravation of the dispute, if there is a risk of aggravation, action must be taken immediately.

Ex officio indication of provisional measures (Art. 75 of the Regulations of the Court)[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

What is the problem in making this kind of observation to States? A State may file a request and at the same time request provisional measures. Does the Court have jurisdiction at this stage? We don't know anything about it, maybe it isn't even at all, and the request is purely vexatious. This is not obvious to the Court, it makes it difficult for it to indicate such measures when it does not know whether it has jurisdiction because to determine whether it has jurisdiction or whether the application is admissible, it is a complex matter, it is not determined at the very beginning of the case, it must be examined, it requires documents, it requires States to submit arguments and it requires a large number of cogitations, but also the translation of acts.

This is the tension between the interest in acting quickly because circumstances require it and the need to respect the Court's area of jurisdiction, which is not to speak about everything, but only when it is authorized to do so because it is precisely a question of jurisdiction and we cannot know that at this stage.

Conditions[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Prima facie jurisdiction[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Prima facie jurisdiction The Court, in its case law, has explained to us for a long time in reality, as far as the International Court is concerned, we already find it in its first orders in the 1950s with the provisional cases, in particular with the Iranian Oil Company case, which is a magnificent case between the United Kingdom and Iran where Mossadegh, who was the Prime Minister of Iran at the time, who had studied at the University of Neuchâtel, did his thesis there, pleaded himself again before the Court because he was a lawyer. In this case we already find the Court's vocabulary which states, and this is the main criterion for indicating provisional measures, first of all, from the point of view of jurisdiction, the Court must be able to convince itself that it has prima facie jurisdiction.

There must be a preponderance of probability, more likely than not. This means that if it is more likely that the Court will have jurisdiction, it must, at that time, make room for urgency and indicate these measures because it is more likely to arrive at a substantive judgment than it is likely not to succeed because it is necessary to protect that substantive judgment. If, on the other hand, it is more likely not to be competent, that it is likely to be, then it is preferable to respect the rights of the defendant and not to infringe on his sovereignty by indicating measures when it is more likely not to have the right to express oneself to him that it is likely to be competent to express oneself to him. It's a pretty ingenious balancing act.

There are also other conditions for indicating provisional measures, there is not only this prima facie jurisdiction. The Court has not considered prima facie admissibility at this stage, because prima facie admissibility will be even more complicated at the determination stage. As these are more substantive issues, she has so far avoided getting into this.

All international courts, such as those for the law of the sea in Hamburg, also have provisional measures that are substantially similar to those of the Court, more than that, including in arbitration, investment arbitrators have very often drawn inspiration from the International Court's procedure in various and varied matters, including provisional measures. What we are discussing here has a slightly more general value than the law of the Court.

The problem of prima facie jurisdiction, as always in procedural matters, to balance divergent requirements, to balance them in a sufficiently sensible way. The two aspects that had to be balanced in this matter were, on the one hand, rapid action to make provisional measures meaningful, and on the other hand, the requirement not to encroach on the rights of States when the Court has not yet ensured that it has jurisdiction. Hence this intermediate figure of prima facie competence which gives rise to the predominant probability of competence. This is not the only criterion that the Court must verify before it can indicate provisional measures. There are others, including one other.

This other criterion, which is very old already, can be found in the first cases of the Court already developed by the Permanent Court, but if we leave it to the current Court, since the 1950s, particularly with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company case in 1952, it is the criterion of irreparable prejudice. Provisional measures are only indicated in principle when the damage resulting from their non-indication appears to the judge to be irreparable. It is a notion that is sometimes complicated to define because one may wonder what "irreparable" means in law. In the very strict sense of the term, nothing is irreparable since it is always possible to make reparation, for example by way of compensation, but obviously this is not the purpose of provisional measures to allow the object of the dispute to be destroyed and then to allow it to be liquidated by equivalent financial or pecuniary measures.

To simplify the issue and move forward, to get to the heart of the matter. We have previously discussed the justification for provisional measures. Their fundamental justification is to ensure that the final judgment, if it were to be rendered in favour of the plaintiff, would not lose its usefulness and meaning. That is, the subject-matter of the dispute is not destroyed or altered to such an extent that the Court's decision could no longer ultimately be properly implemented. It is this criterion that must be considered in relation to the subject matter of the dispute in order to determine whether the damage is irreparable or not. The criterion is therefore legal and requires some assessment.

Risk of irreparable harm[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The criterion of irreparable damage is very close to emergency. The measures must appear urgent so that the Court can indicate them even before, if necessary, it has discharged its jurisdiction. If the measures do not appear to be urgent, i.e., if it seems that one could perfectly well allow time to see them coming and indicate them later, this amounts to saying that the damage prospected is not irreparable and at that moment, the Court refrains from indicating the measures because it would be unnecessarily impious on the rights, normally of the defendant.

It appears, and this is an area that goes beyond jurisdiction and is close, that the measures indicated must be likely to preserve the subject matter of the dispute and maintain the usefulness of the final judgment should it ever be delivered. It's a causal problem. The measures requested, or in any event the measures which the Court indicates, must appear to it to be appropriate for that purpose, namely to preserve the subject-matter of the dispute. Measures that would go beyond this goal, or worse still, that would not be suitable for the insured, are not indicated by the Court, they are foreign to the subject matter of the dispute and therefore within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction. It is thus perfectly possible to ask that, under domestic law, an object be placed under cover if one wishes to see it protected against possible destruction or evacuation, one would not see in what sense measures affecting the privacy of the other person, prohibition to move beyond a certain radius, etc., could be useful in order to preserve this object of the dispute, and the judge would not indicate such measures.

Finally and negatively. The International Court this time has not so far paid much attention to the plausibility of substantive rights. This is not a jurisdictional issue here. Jurisdiction is a question of prima facie jurisdiction in matters of provisional measures. What about substantive rights? Should they too appear plausible prima facie, should the rights invoked by the claimant also appear to be founded with a greater probability than the opposite? So far, the Court has not developed any case law in this respect and has refrained from entering into the question of the plausibility of substantive law. And that is understandable, because jurisdiction is a matter, as we have seen, that can be decided, not always, but in the vast majority of cases, at the preliminary stage. In the event of a dispute, it should, unless there is a very specific exception, express itself on the plausibility of the right invoked, which is very difficult at the first stage, because the Court does not have the necessary elements to do so, and it is understandable that in these circumstances it is very reluctant to commit itself to it, because, in addition, it would annoyingly give indications on its own conviction. It would give, from the very beginning, to both parties to the proceedings, an indication as to whether it believes in the goodness of the case or not. A court, particularly an international one, does not like to give its indications too early in the proceedings and thus give the impression of already having a bias when it does not yet know the arguments that will be presented later at the stage of the exhibits on the merits, and if necessary, even further specified at the time of the "oral arguments". The reality is that these pleadings at the International Court of Justice are presented orally, but in writing. It's quite particular, you read a text in court when you plead and you can't have the time to do anything else. However, it is possible to take a few small liberties, especially when there is no time, it is possible to shorten it. In principle, it is a text because it must be translated and it is translated simultaneously, the translators prepare themselves beforehand, it is not possible to improvise all the more since we represent States and it is not possible to say if it goes through the head. States must first read what is to be said and endorse each word. Therefore, it is not possible to speak freely.

It is unlikely that in the coming years, the Court will develop this branch of the plausibility of the law, undoubtedly, it will do so at most if the substantive law were to appear to be totally fanciful. Then, perhaps one day there would be a precedent where the Court would refuse to indicate provisional measures for that reason. She will not admit that it would be because of the plausibility of the law, if she finds another reason not to indicate these measures, particularly the absence of urgency, she will prefer to hide behind the conservative and well-assured circuses of her case law.

First of all, from whom can or should the request for the indication of provisional measures emanate? The answer can be found in the Court's Rules of Procedure. Incidental proceedings shall be opened with subsection 1 of section "d", entitled "provisional measures" in articles 73 et seq. Article 73, the very first, in the first paragraph already begins by clearly stating who, in legal terminology, is actively entitled to request such measures: "a party may submit an application for an indication of a provisional measure". It also means, on the other hand, that States that would participate incidentally in the proceedings, but without becoming a party to the proceedings, are not entitled to request such measures.

Who are other States participating in the proceedings without becoming a party? These would be States that do not have active legitimacy to request provisional measures because they have not gone to the proceedings. These are the interveners, in particular within the meaning of Articles 62 and 63 of the Staff Regulations. The States parties to the proceedings, i. e. plaintiff and defendant, and these may include several plaintiffs and defendants, such as the case of the legality of the use of force in which Serbia brought a case against 10 NATO States. States Parties to the proceedings may submit several requests for the indication of provisional measures. This means that if the Court rejects the first request in this sense, it does not in any way mean that these States or the State concerned, or the State which made the first request for the indication of provisional measures, will almost always be the plaintiff, but the defendant may also do so in a counterclaim, that these States may not repeat, return, request again provisional measures and this is understandable because the Court will have rejected the first request, particularly as regards the lack of urgency. But the situation may also change at any time, and therefore the Court may have to reconsider the issue with new elements.

There have been lengthy proceedings, and we can think of the genocide case between Bosnia and Serbia before the Court, a procedure that lasted thirteen years, during which the requests for provisional measures fell much like snow in winter and in addition to both parties. The Court had to say in this case that it did not want to indicate any additional measures, it reminded the parties that it had already indicated such measures and that it was time to implement them before requesting further measures. In any case, the Regulation provides that provisional measures may be requested again as in Article 75(3) of the Regulation.

It is also possible to claim counterclaims, i.e. the defendant may also re-claim remedies from the plaintiff in the proceedings. Moreover, independently of the parties to the proceedings, the Court may also indicate provisional measures of its own authority. It therefore does not depend on the request of one or more parties, it may also, of its own motion, indicate the measures it considers necessary. Article 75§1 stipulates that "The Court may at any time decide to examine ex officio whether the circumstances of the case require the indication of provisional measures that the parties or one of them should take or enforce". The Court can therefore indicate such measures, it will do so in accordance with its case law established more or less since the cases in the mid-1980s, namely Burkina Faso - Mali with the border dispute case in 1985, and the Nicaragua case in 1983 at the time of the provisional measures. The substantive judgments in these two cases are both in 1986. The Court has therefore done so since that time in order to preserve not so much the subject matter of the dispute, but rather to ensure that the dispute does not escalate.

The Court considered that when relations between the parties are further extended by unilateral actions, in particular, armed actions, the chances of success of the judicial settlement and ultimately the judgment that the Court may deliver drastically decreases and that consequently, as it is better to prevent than to cure, the Court takes the lead and tries to indicate the measures likely to calm the parties. In the two cases mentioned above, these were military operations. In the Burkina Faso - Mali case, there were tensions at the border between the two States, which was a delimitation dispute. Since then, the Court has indicated such measures, it does so with a certain parsimony, but does not deprive itself of them. As Article 75§ 1 indicates, the measures that the Court will take on its own initiative may concern both parties, as was the case in the situation between Burkina Faso and Mali, but may also concern a party if it is mainly to one party that certain conduct likely to lead to de-escalation must be indicated. The Court tries to indicate neutral measures as much as possible even when it refers to a particular State, it prefers to indicate provisional measures formulated for both parties and then each of the parties will recognize itself behind them. The Court is not obliged to do so, it can also address measures to a party, which is always a little more problematic from its point of view because it is "a little" discriminatory.

Emergency[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

Another procedural point is the priority of requests for provisional measures. As these are urgent requests, the Court gives them all the necessary priority and this priority is not only a matter of its goodwill or discretion, but also of a regulatory basis. Article 74§ 1 of the Rules of Procedure is very clear that "The request for the indication of provisional measures shall have priority over all other cases". This means that the planning of pleadings, for example before the Court, has suffered in recent years from increasing uncertainties because at the very last moment, the Court is confronted with a request for provisional measures, and at that moment either the Court must simply stay for days when there should be judicial vacancies, or simply scheduled hearings must be postponed at the last minute, which is more unfortunate for States seeking to advance the case before the Court.

In extreme cases, it has occurred that the President of the Court has had to hold a conference call in order to be able to indicate provisional measures within 12 hours, i.e. in less than a day; since Germany brought the LaGrand brothers' case before the Court late and was to be executed in Texas, Germany argued that the entire sentence was questionable because the two brothers of German origin and nationality had been unable to obtain consular assistance from Germany so that their defence would have been put in difficulty. In the event that it is necessary to re-trial and redetermine their guilt, if they have already been executed, this is complicated from the point of view of urgency and irreparable damage. Since the time was extremely short, the president had to contact the other judges by telephone and in urgency, which did not have the desired effect, because Texas opposed not the court but Washington. The U.S. administration wanted to enforce the court order and Texas refused the central government's order that Texas is independent in its judicial affairs. The brothers were executed. Sometimes, speed is a frenzy. Twelve hours are very short to execute an order, it just so happens that the presidents cannot even be at headquarters, which is why you have to call and hopefully the phone calls will work at that time.

Plausibility of the right whose protection is sought[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

The Court indicates the provisional measures in an order. Why a prescription? The orders are governed by article 48 of the Statute and article 44 et seq. of the Rules. What kind of judicial act is there in the Court? There are orders, judgments, judgments or decisions.

What distinguishes an order from a judgment? And why, then, does the Court invariably make orders here? There is no judgment on provisional measures and there will be none, it would be a legal error. Why it is an order and not a judgment, which implicitly tells us here perhaps what the fundamental difference is between the two acts. In English, we speak of "order" for an "order" and "judgement" for "judgment". It is not possible to appeal against orders, but can the Court's judgments be used? It is possible to appeal against the Court's judgments in a very specific case such as the request for revision and the interpretation of judgments as in Articles 60 and 61 of the Statute.

As there is the possibility of "appeals" against judgments, there is also the possibility of having measures indicated in orders reviewed, in particular by requesting their modification through new applications. The main point of the difference is elsewhere.

Link between the protected right and the measures requested[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

What is the purpose of a prescription? How do the courts make orders? If there are judgments, then the Court should take judgments, why invent another category. There is a reason. The order are procedural indications such as, for example, setting time limits for pleadings, counter-memorials or even saying when there will be pleadings, all these things must be done in order to accompany the proceedings; they are not done in a judgment, but in an order. The difference between the order and the judgment is that the judgment is based on the principle of adversarial proceedings. There is a judgment only when there is a dispute, which means that there is one party who claims one thing and the other who opposes it. At that time, the Court decides, it decides by a judgment, it has heard both parties, the contradictory arguments and it decides by a judgment. This is a judgment and it must always be a judgment, it cannot be an order when there is an adversarial situation. On the other hand, when there are accompanying measures in the proceedings where there is no dispute, the parties agree on a specific date in order to open something or it is the prerogative of the Court without even having heard the parties to fix something such as, for example, saying such a date for the filing of pleadings, it always does so in the order, which is legally different from the judgment because the judgment is based on contradictory judgment in principle. An order that is not based on the adversarial principle does not become res judicata and may therefore be amended at any time.

The parties may repeatedly submit requests for a protective measure, they may do so precisely because the previous order is not considered final. That is why the Court will never put provisional measures in a judgment, this would be a double legal error. First, because there is not necessarily contradictory, since these are very urgent measures, there is no time to formalize a procedure in which the various parties take a crystallized position, and second, but if this were the case that the parties had contradictory visions and had presented them to the Court for a decision, it would not be a judgment in the sense that this is the particular case of measures that must be modified. What is proper to do is to do it in an order accompanying the proceedings and that is how the Court proceeds. So there are always ordinances, which leaves complete flexibility in the matter.

These prescriptions also have another advantage. As the orders are grafted onto the current proceeding, it automatically falls with the end of the proceeding, and there is no need to make a new order to terminate a previous order. If provisional measures are indicated, they continue to run until the Court has amended them until the end of the proceedings, i.e. until the final judgment. After the final judgment, there is no longer any need to maintain provisional measures because now there is the judgment and it is what must be executed and nothing else.

The Court does not need to indicate or adopt a new order in order to say that the provisional measures have been completed. This would obviously be the case if it were a judgment, there would have to be a new judgment or a clause would have to be inserted in the main judgment to disable the provisional measures indicated before. But this is not necessary since it is an order, it is added to the procedure. As soon as the procedure is completed, it has no more object, so it falls automatically.

A final procedural point is the notification to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who in turn transmits it to the Security Council. It is provided that the Court, i. e. the Court through its Registrar who is at the head of the Registry, shall notify the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any provisional measure indicated by the Court. The Secretary-General shall transmit this information to the Security Council as provided for in Article 42(2) of the Statute and Article 77 of the Regulations.

Why should the Security Council be informed of these provisional measures? What is the Security Council's position on the Court? In other words, what is the specific function of the Security Council in relation to the Court? Article 94 of the Charter provides some guidance. It is the ultimate guardian of the execution of the Court's judgments.

To the extent that the Security Council could be approached to enforce measures taken by the Court, as it is the agent for the execution of the Court's judgments, it is appropriate to notify it of provisional measures so that the Council is aware of them. He could also consult the Council, but it is an act of courtesy to transmit it to it.

Moreover, provisional measures may be of more direct interest to the Security Council. The Court indicates this on its own authority and often does so in cases where there are armed actions in delimitation disputes, among others. Since armed actions and peacekeeping are the main focus of the Security Council, it is not completely inappropriate for the Council to be made aware of the measures that the Court has indicated to the parties in cases that are otherwise very likely to be dealt with by the Council.

The Statute states in a very modest way, in Article 41, that the Court may indicate provisional measures. But "to indicate" does not mean anything legally, it does not mean anything more than that it has the competence to formulate provisional measures. What is the status of these measures, and in particular, are they binding on the parties to the proceedings, or are they not? Is it a decision or just a recommendation?

For a very long time, this issue has been incredibly controversial with rather epic doctrinal disputes and highly subtle legal arguments put forward by both sides to try to provide an answer to this question. It was a very complex issue. In the meantime, it has been clarified in the Court's case law.

Binding nature of provisional measures 
[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

In the LaGrand case, the question arose before the Court, and for once, it could not avoid taking a position on it because in principle the Court did not have to take a position on the outcome of these provisional measures, it indicated them and then the States acted. As the Court does not automatically take up the violation of its orders or judgments, it had never before decided the question of the binding nature of its provisional measures. In the LaGrand case, Germany had the intelligence to reapply for compensation from the United States for violation of the Court's provisional measures. This time, the Court could not avoid taking a position on the issue since it was asked to award compensation for the violation of its measures, but this compensation could only be founded in law if the measures were binding. If the measures were merely a recommendation, Germany could not have sought compensation for their violation.

The Court therefore had to take a position and did so in the 2001 judgment in the sense of saying that the provisional measures indicated by the Court, unless the Court were to specifically indicate that they are not binding, but if it does not indicate anything, its measures are binding on the States parties to the proceedings, and therefore parties to the proceedings.

To achieve this result, the Court had to interpret the Statute, in particular in its Article 41. The Statute says nothing about this because in 1919-1920 the issue was too thorny, it was left open, the rules later did not express themselves either. So from a textual point of view, the Court cannot do much. There is a small difference between the French and English text, but the main thing is elsewhere. The interpretation given by the Court in order to arrive at the result of the binding character is a teleological interpretation.

In very simple terms, the Court says that the very purpose of provisional measures would be missed if they were not binding because they are appropriate to preserve the utility of the proceedings, to preserve the subject matter of the dispute. Basically, in order to ensure that the binding nature of the final judgment is preserved. If the measures were not binding, this goal would be missed. If States could do what they want with these measures, it would mean that, in reality, it would not be possible to effectively protect the subject matter of the dispute and the final judgment could become merely theoretical and therefore unenforceable. The Statute provides for this in Article 59 and the Charter also provides in Article 94§ 1 that the final judgment is binding. But for this final judgment to have any meaning in its binding nature, the provisional measures indicated precisely to preserve the utility of the proceedings must also be considered binding. This is essentially a teleological argument.

The record of provisional measures before the LaGrand judgment was very mixed. In many cases, these provisional measures were not implemented, in some cases they were implemented, but many conclusions cannot be drawn from this old practice for the simple reason that it was not clear at the time whether these measures were binding or not, we simply did not know. There were very divergent opinions on the issue. In this case, where there was doubt, States could not be accused of considering these measures as mere recommendations. After all, there were very strong doctrinal opinions in this direction, so there were good arguments in this direction.

Once the Court considered that its measures were binding, the balance sheet improved slightly. States now know that the measures are binding and that if they do not implement them, if necessary, the applicant may request a sanction.

Annexes[modifier | modifier le wikicode]

References[modifier | modifier le wikicode]