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]

Recent developments in marine environmental public interest litigation in China raise questions about the procedure and operation of the procuratorial organ – a body that can support public interest aspects of litigation. This article examines the legal basis of public interest litigation in both a civil and criminal context. It considers the practice of other States, including the United States, as a point of comparison. A key issue is to determine the meaning of public interest, and how this relates to national or social interests, since this will influence the work of procuratorial organs. [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]

This article explores the opportunities to use international human rights law to protect one's right to life against the effects of climate change. It discusses four legal avenues: greening the existing human rights paradigm, formulating a new substantive right to the environment, public interest litigation and intergenerational justice. This is illustrated with case law from the European Court of Human Rights and various national jurisdictions. The main finding is that the human rights system should become more open towards public interest litigation and intergenerational justice, complemented by a broadening of the standing requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The military conflict within India's borders whose origins are in the marginalisation of tribal peoples involves the government forces and the Naxalite rebels. This conflict has become more intense in the last decade with land being acquired to enable corporations to mine resources and the lack of redress for the Adivasi, who are the indigenous people who inhabit these territories. The alienation of the rural communities tribes from the north eastern states, which are located on the 'red corridor' is because the government has failed to implement protection for Scheduled Tribes who carry a protected status in the Indian constitution. The Naxalite movement has channelled in a violent struggle which has led to an emergency declared under Article 355, and there has been an incremental increase in the rate of fatalities. The failure of public interest litigation and the enforcement of the Armed Forces Special Power Act (AFSPA) means that the domestic remedies for empowerment are not successful. The breach of human rights has to be assessed against the insurgency of the Naxalite guerillas and the Geneva Conventions that are applicable under the Non International Armed Conflict (NIAC). This paper will assess the rural origins of the conflict, environmental damage and the litigation by the Adivasi communities before addressing the rules under which the protections are available under the international humanitarian law. This will argue for the strict implementation of the Geneva Conventions and for NIAC to be liable for intervention as an International Armed Conflict (IAC). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]