Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Challenges of Litigating Joint International Responsibility before ‎International Judicial Bodies

Document Type : Article

Authors

Delaram Ahmadi Bakhtiari 1
Seyed Hadi Mahmoudi 2

1 Graduated Student of Masters of International law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, ‎Tehran, Iran‎

2 Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran‎

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2024.373675.3496
Abstract
Just as in domestic court cases, the legal involvement of two or more parties in causing a harmful result and subsequently establishing the responsibility of multiple individuals is a common issue, a similar situation can also arise in international law. In this context, the concept of joint international responsibility emerges; specifically, if a single outcome results from the wrongful conduct of multiple states and actors, it is possible to share international responsibility among these parties. Undoubtedly, the procedural rules governing such cases are of significant importance, as the unique nature of these cases can sometimes lead courts to face confusions, such as challenges regarding jurisdiction over multiple defendants, how to manage the case and the parties involved, and assessing the impact of the absence of individuals who are somehow related to the case and the alleged international responsibility. The main finding of this research is the lack of a consistent approach among international courts, including the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, regarding the procedures for handling cases related to joint international responsibility. This issue may be attributed to the underutilization of the existing legal frameworks and the absence of appropriate solutions for scenarios that create joint responsibility in the context of multilateral disputes.

Keywords

concerted adjudication
‎admissibility‏ ‏of lawsuits
‎monetary gold principle
‎jurisdictional rules of ‎international tribunals
‎international shared ‎responsibility.‎
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. Argent, P. (2014). Invocation of Responsibility‏. In Principles of Shared Responsibility in International Law: An Appraisal of the State of the Art. edited by Nollkaemper, A. & Plakokefalos, I. Cambridge University Press.
    3. Bonafé, B. I. (2015). Indispensable Party, Max Planck Encyclopedias of International Law. Oxford University Press.
    4. Fitzmaurice, M. (1985). Rosenne’s The Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920–1996. 2nd ed. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
    5. Kolb, R. (2006). General Principles of Procedural Law. In The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. by Zimmermann, A.; Tams, C. J. & Oellers-Frahm, k. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    6. Mani, V.S. (1980), International Adjudication: Procedural Aspects. Brill Nijhoff.
    7. Merrills, J. G. (2005). International Dispute Settlement. 4th ed. Cambridge University Press.
    8. Orakhelashvili, A., Crawford, J., Pellet, A., Olleson, S., & Parlett, K. (2010) Division of Reparation between Responsible Entities. In The Law of International Responsibility. Oxford Commentaries on Interna.

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bartels, L. (2013). Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in the WTO Dispute Settlement System. Journal of International Dispute Settlement.4(2), 343-359.
    3. Den Heijer, M. (2013). Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in the European Court of Human Rights. Journal of International Dispute Settlement. 4(2), 361-383.
    4. Den Heijer, M. (2013). Shared Responsibility Before the European Court of Human Rights. Netherlands International Law Review.60(3), 411-440.
    5. Nollkaemper, A. & Jacobs, D. (2012). Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Conceptual Framework. Mich. J. Int’l L. 34(2), 359.
    6. Nollkaemper, A. (2013). Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in International Adjudication: Introduction. Amsterdam Law School Legal Studies Research Paper. 18.

    13.Nollkaemper, A. (2014). Concerted Adjudication in Cases of Shared Responsibility. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. 46(3), 809–847.

    1. Nollkaemper, A.; d’Aspremont, J.; Ahlborn, C.; Boutin, B.; Nedeski, N.; Plakokefalos, I. & Jacobs, D. (2020). Guiding principles on shared responsibility in international law. European Journal of International Law.31(1), 15-72.
    2. Orakhelashvili, A. (2011). The Competence of the International Court of Justice and the Doctrine of the Indispensable Party: from Monetary Gold to East Timor and Beyond. Journal of International Dispute Settlement.2(2), 373-392.
    3. Paparinskis, M. (2013). Procedural Aspects of Shared Responsibility in the International Court of Justice. Journal of International Dispute Settlement. 4(2), 295–318.

     

    1. C) Documents
    2. European Court of Human Rights. (2023). “Rules of Court,” Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
    3. European Court of Human Rights. (June 1, 2010). “European Convention on Human Rights,” Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
    4. International Court of Justice. (1978). “Rules of Court”.
    5. International Law Commission. (January 1996). “Draft Articles on State Responsibility with Commentary”.
    6. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. (28 October 1997). “Rules of the Tribunal,” ITLOS/8.
    7. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. (1982). “Statute of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea,” 1833 UNTS 3.
    8. World Trade Organization. (1994). "Annex 2: Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes," WTO Agreement.
    9. World Trade Organization. (2017). “Dispute Settlement Understanding,” Annex 2 of the WTO Agreement.

     

    Cases

    1. ECHR. (10 May 2001). Cyprus v Turkey, No. 25781/94.
    2. ECHR. (2 May 2007). Behrami and Behrami v France and Saramati v France, Germany and Norway, Nos. 71412/01 and 78166/01.
    3. ECHR. (21 January 2011) Bankovic and others v Belgium and 16 other States, No 52207/99.
    4. ECHR. (21 January 2011). M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, No. 30696/09.
    5. ECHR. (23 April 2002). Aziz v Cyprus, Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom, No. 69949/01.
    6. ECHR. (24 October 2002). Mastromatteo v. Italy, No. 37703/97.
    7. ECHR. (27 Oct 2011). Stojkovic v. France and Belgium, No 25303/08.
    8. ECHR. (28 July 1998). Loizidou v. Turkey, No. 40/1993/435/514.
    9. ECHR. (30 June 2006). Bosphorus v Ireland, No 45036/98.
    10. ECHR. (7 July 2011). Al-Jedda v. the United Kingdom, No. 27021/08.
    11. ECHR. (8 July 2004). Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia, No. 48787/99.
    12. ICJ. (15 June 1954). Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America), No. 19.
    13. ICJ. (26 May 1959). Aerial Incident of July 27th 1955 (Israel v Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep 127.
    14. ICJ. (26 May 1959). Aerial Incident of July 27th 1955 (UK v Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep 264.
    15. ICJ. (30 May 1960). Aerial Incident of July 27th 1955 (US v Bulgaria), Order, ICJ Rep 146.
    16. ICJ. (26 June 1992). Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia), Preliminary Objections, Separate Opinion Judge Shahabuddeen.
    17. ICJ. (26 June 1992). Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), No. 616.
    18. ICJ. (27 February 1998). Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya v UK), Preliminary Objections, ICJ Rep 9, Joint Declaration of Judges Bedjaoui, Guillaume and Ranjeva.
    19. ICJ. (23 June 1999). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi), Application of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    20. ICJ. (23 June 1999). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Application of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    21. ICJ. (23 June 1999). Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Application of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
    22. ICJ. (2 February 1973). Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), No. 55.
    23. ICJ. (2 February 2018). Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), No. 165.
    24. ICJ. (2 February 2018). Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), No. 157.
    25. ICJ. (15 December 2004). Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment.
    26. ICJ. (26 February 2007). Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), No. 91.
    27. ICJ. (26 November 1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), No. 70.
    28. ICJ. (30 June 1995). Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia).
    29. ICJ. (6 November 2003). Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Separate Opinion of Judge Simma, No. 90.
    30. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. (10 April 2019). The M/V “Norstar” Case (Panama v Italy), No. 25.

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Ebrahimgol, A. (2017). The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally wrongful Acts with Commentaries. Tehran: Shahre Danesh (In Persian).
    3. Beigzadeh, E. (2012). Law of International Organizations. Tehran: Majd (In Persian).
    4. Crawford, J. (2016). State Responsibility (The General Part). Translated by Alireza Ebrahimgol, Tehran: Sanglaj (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Bagherzadeh, R. (2022). International Adjudication in the Contemporary International Legal Order. International Law Review, 39 (66) (In Persian).
    3. Jalali, S. (2020). The Impact of European Court of Human Rights on National Legal Order. Comparative Law Review, 11 (1), 59-79 (In Persian).
    4. Ziai bigdeli, M., & Tarazi, N. (2020). Distribution of Reparation in the Context of International Shared Responsibility. International Law Review, 63, 29-50. (in Persian)
    5. Falsafi, H. (1994). Implementation of International Law Regulations. Legal Research Quarterly, 13 &14, 29-98 (In Persian).
Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 55, Issue 2 - Serial Number 42
Summer 2025
Summer 2025
Pages 1035-1055

  • Receive Date 14 March 2024
  • Revise Date 13 May 2024
  • Accept Date 15 September 2024

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us