Litigation before the International Court of Justice during the pandemic

[...]Section 4 draws some conclusions and recommendations. When the Dutch Government imposed measures to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, including a ban on foreign travel and the requirement to work from home except for staff in vital professions, the Court initially decided to suspend all hearings and meetings of the Court until 16 April 2020.9 Hearings in Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela), which were scheduled for March 2020, were postponed until further notice.10 The suspension period was then extended until 31 May 2020.11 Likewise, the hearing on preliminary objections in Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates) was postponed by a few months in consultation with the parties.12 Other postponements were requested by the parties by invoking delays and challenges associated with the pandemic. In Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), The Gambia requested and obtained a three-month extension for the filing of the initial pleadings.14 In Guatemala’s Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize), the Court granted Guatemala an additional six months (instead of the requested 12 months) to file its Memorial, and gave Belize a one-year extension.15 Finally, in Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) the Court initially granted a four-month extension to the Russian Federation for the filing of its Memorial.16 Following a second request for an extension submitted by the Russian Federation, the Court granted an additional three months.17 In the face of a third request for an extension, the Russian Federation was permitted to further extend the time limit for filing its Memorial by one month.18 Meanwhile, the Court adapted its working methods to the new reality. To ensure business continuity, the Court provided judges and staff with the necessary hardware and software to work remotely.19 According to a press release issued by the Court, ‘[t]hrough the use of modern technologies, the Court has made the necessary arrangements to hold virtual meetings and adapted its working methods to the need to work remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic’.20 On 23 April 2020, the Court held the first remote plenary meeting in its history.21 New arrangements were made for the electronic filing of certain documents (such as reports on the implementation of provisional measures and judges’ folders for oral pleadings), but written pleadings and the signed original reports on provisional measures were still filed in hard copy.22 On 25 June 2020, the Court amended Articles 59 and 94 of the Rules of Court to permit the holding of hearings and the reading of judgments, respectively, ‘by video link’ in whole or in part, if health, security or other compelling reasons so demand.23 Article 59(2) of the Rules further provides that the parties shall be consulted on the organization of the hearing.