1 Professor, Public and International Law Department, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

2 PhD Student, International Law, Faculty of law and political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran


The "Friend of the court" is a natural or legal person that although not a party to the dispute, still expresses its oral or written remarks on the facts and the law governing the claim. A review of the jurisprudence reveals Non-Governmental Organizations as the key players of this field. However, their participation in the dispute settlement process is faced with many challenges and obstacles. This article argues that despite the fact that a number of courts such as the International Court of Justice have avoided this legal concept, as it has been received in areas such as Human Rights as well as Trade and Investment Arbitrations, the mentioned practice can assist courts to improve the accuracy and quality of decisions with its perceived advantages.


1. Bastin, Lucas, (2012). “The Amicus Curiae in Investor–State Arbitration”, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 1, Issue, 3, pp. 208-234.
2. Buergental, Thomas, (1985). “The advisory practice of the Inter-American Human Rights Court”, American Journal of International Law, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 1-27.
3. Crema, Luigi, (2012). “Testing Amici Curiae in International Law: Rules and Practice”, The Italian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 22, pp. 91-132.
4. Katia, Fach Gómez, (2012). “Rethinking the Role of Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: How to Draw the Line Favorably for the Public Interest”, Fordham International Law Journal, Vol. 35, p. 510, pp. 510-564.
5. Johnson, Lise & Niranjali Amerasinghe, (2009). “Protecting the Public Interest in International Dispute Settlement: The Amicus Curiae. Phenomenon”, pp. 2-31. available at:
6. Mialhe, Jorge Luís, “The NGOs as Amici Curiae in the International Tribunals”, World International Studies Committee (WISC) 3rd Global International Studies Conference: World Crisis. Revolution or Evolution in the International Community?, Porto, Portugal 17th - 20th August 2011, pp. 1-10.
7. Palchetti, paolo, (2002). “Opening the International Court of Justic to Third States: Intervention and Beyond”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 6, pp. 139-181.
8. Razzaque, Jona, (2001). “Changing Role of Friends of the Court in the International Courts and Tribunals”, Non State Actors and International Law, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 169-200.
9. Re, Loretta, (1983-1984). “Amicus Curiae Brief: Access to the Courts for Public Interest Associations”, 14 Melb. U. L. Rev. 522.
10. Shelton, Dinah, (1994). “The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 88, No. 4, pp. 611- 642.
11. The Statute of the International Court of Justice A Commentary, (2012). Andreas Zimmermann, Karin Oellers-Frahm, Christian Tomuschat, and Christian J. Tams (eds), Second Edition, Oxford Commentaries on International Law, UK, Oxford University Press.
12. Vinuales, Jorge E, (2006). “Human rights and investment arbitration: the role of amici curiae”, International Law: Revista Colombiana de Derecho Internacional, No. 8, pp. 231-274.
13. VanDuzer, J. Anthony, (2007). “Enhancing the Procedural Legitimacy of Investor-State Arbitration Through Transparency and Amicus Curiae Participation”, McGill Law Journal, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 681-723.
14. Willmott, Lindy, Ben White & Donna Cooper, (2005). “Interveners or Interferers: Intervention in Decisions to Withhold and Withdraw Life-Sustaining Medical Treatment”, The Sydney Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 597-621.
Documents and Jurisprudence
15. Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1949.
16. Rules of Court, adopted on 14 April 1978 and entered into force on 1 july 1987.
17. Practice Direction XII, ICJ, As amended on 20 January 2009 and 21 March 2013.
18. European Convention on Human Rights, 4 November 1950, as amended by Protocols Nos. 11 and 14.
19. World Trade Organization, Marrakesh Declaration of 15 April 1994, Annex 2, Dispute Settlement Understanding.
20. International Council of Societies of Industrial Design (ICSID), Arbitration Rule, 2003.
21. ICSID, Rules of Procedure for Arbitration Proceedings (Arbitration Rules), April 2006.
22. Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), ICJ Rep 23 October 2001, Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Weeramantry.
23. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1971.
24. ------, ICJ Pleadings, Vol. II.
25. Letter from the Registrar, ICJ Pleadings 1950 (South West Africa).
26. International Status of South West Africa, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Pleadings.
27. Letter from the Registrar, 1950 ICJ Pleadings (South West Africa).
28. Robert Delson, Letter to the Registrar, ICJ Pleadings 1950 (2 Asylum) 227 (Mar. 7, 1950).
29. Aguas Argentinas, S. A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S. A., and Vivendi Universal, S. A. v. The Argentine Republic, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), case No. ARB/03/19, Order in Response to a Petition for Transparency and Participation as Amicus Curiae, May 19, 2005.
30. Aguas Provinciales de Santa Fe S. A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona S. A. and InterAguas Servicios Integrales del Agua S. A. v. The Argentine Republic, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), case No. ARB/03/17, Order in Response to a Petition for Participation as Amicus Curiae, March 17, 2006.
31. Young, James & Webster v. UK, European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) Case, 44 Eur. Ct. H. R. (ser. A) (1981).
32. World Trade Organization, United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998.
33. WTO, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-Containing Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS135/AB/ R, 12 March 2001.
34. Methanex Corporation v. United States of America, (UNCITRAL/NAFTA), Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions from Third Persons to Intervene as Amici Curiae, 15 January 2001.
35. United Parcel Service of America Inc. v. Government of Canada (UNCITRAL/NAFTA), Decision on Petitions for Intervention and Participation of Amici Curiae, 17 October 2001.