Search

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has generally dealt with questions raised by cases concerning the common interests of States in an episodic, fragmentary, and at times contradictory manner. However, a number of significant rulings have thus far been given, and recent developments have brought the issue of public interest litigation back into the spotlight. This article aims to bring together into a coherent and systematic framework the relevant data that can be drawn from the ICJ's contentious case law. To this end, the examination is divided into three parts, distinguishing respectively between questions that can be considered to have been already resolved (i.e. questions concerning the jurisdiction in public interest cases), those that are currently being clarified (i.e. the issue of standing to institute proceedings for the protection of common interests) and those that are still entirely open (i.e. the qualification of the legal position of the omnes , the relationship between the standing of the specially affected State and that of the other omnes , and the remedies that the omnes are entitled to claim from the wrongdoer). The article highlights the ICJ's unwillingness to address the question as to whether Article 48 ARSIWA may currently be deemed to reflect customary international law and some inconsistencies between the approaches of the ILC and the ICJ as regards collective obligations. This proves that, despite considerable progress in recent case law, the legal regime of collective obligations remains far from being clear, and many aspects still deserve close scrutiny. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article addresses the role of third States in public interest litigation – i.e., ongoing proceedings concerning interests which they share with the international community. It scrutinizes third-State intervention in inter-State cases through the prism of rules and principles arising in public interest litigation, and aims to clarify the limits of such participation. Having synthesized the relevant law and doctrine of intervention practice before the ICJ and other institutional courts, it considers the extent to which third-State interests find expression through Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute. It examines the invocation of international legal responsibility on the basis of obligations erga omnes and erga omnes partes , as well as the prospect of intervention on this basis. It then identifies and addresses jurisdictional and procedural questions arising in these and other instances of "public interest" intervention. It concludes by envisaging the prospective institutional development of multilateral participation in public interest litigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With Germany's signature to the Aarhus Convention in 1998, the country committed to strengthening the legal position of environmental Non-Governmental Organisations (eNGOs). Since, traditionally, in Germany, "public interest litigation" was legally impossible, the country had to consider fundamental changes to its system of judicial review. More than 20 years later, the German implementation of Article 9(3) of the Aarhus Convention (AC) has seen several amendments, but is still cause for controversy. Despite Germany's prolonged efforts to adapt its legislation, there are, currently, two admitted complaints concerning Germany's system of legal standing of eNGOs waiting for a (final) decision by the AC Compliance Committee, while several CJEU judgments have clarified the much-needed interpretation of Article 9(3) AC particularly also in view of the notion of effective judicial protection. These developments, together with scholarly criticism, indicate a need for further legal change in the German approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The final verdict to the Urgenda case provided by the Dutch Supreme Court has been called a victory in the fight to limit climate change and a milestone in public interest litigation, at least in the Netherlands. As a consequence, the Dutch state will have to reduce GHG-emissions by 25% compared with 1990 at the end of 2020. The judgment has attracted widespread acclaim for being 'courageous' and exploring unknown legal territory. However, a closer look at the reasoning of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court still leaves many questions, which are address in this manuscript. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]