#pcij

[rhk111sblog]

US President Donald Trump stops funding for NED, which is the biggest financier of Rappler and Vera Files – Rigoberto Tiglao

[weidli]

i hate writing something in german that involves the international court of justice / international criminal court / permanent court of international justice etc while citing almost exclusively books in english it's just SUCH a mess of acronyms. igh icj stigh pcij icc istgh you guys are just throwing up the same letters on the page over and over again

[knick-nudiex]

The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour internationale de justice, CIJ), or colloquially the World Court, is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.

The ICJ is the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which was established in 1920 by the League of Nations. After the Second World War, the League and the PCIJ were replaced by the United Nations and ICJ, respectively. The Statute of the ICJ, which sets forth its purpose and structure, draws heavily from that of its predecessor, whose decisions remain valid. All member states of the UN are party to the ICJ Statute and may initiate contentious legal cases; however, advisory proceedings may be submitted only by certain UN organs and agencies.

The ICJ consists of a panel of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms. No more than one judge of each nationality may be represented on court at the same time, and judges collectively must reflect the principal civilizations and legal systems of the world. Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands, the ICJ is the only principal UN organ not located in New York City. Its official working languages are English and French.

Since the entry of its first case on 22 May 1947, the ICJ has entertained 191 cases through 13 November 2023. Pursuant to Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the court's rulings and opinions are binding on the parties with respect to the particular case ruled on by the court.

History

The first permanent institution established for the purpose of settling international disputes was the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), which was created by the Hague Peace Conference of 1899. Initiated by the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, the conference involved all the world's major powers, as well as several smaller states, and resulted in the first multilateral treaties concerned with the conduct of warfare. Among these was the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which set forth the institutional and procedural framework for arbitral proceedings, which would take place in The Hague, Netherlands. Although the proceedings would be supported by a permanent bureau—whose functions would be equivalent to that of a secretariat or court registry—the arbitrators would be appointed by the disputing states from a larger pool provided by each member of the convention. The PCA was established in 1900 and began proceedings in 1902.

A second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, which involved most of the world's sovereign states, revised the convention and enhanced the rules governing arbitral proceedings before the PCA. During this conference, the United States, Great Britain and Germany submitted a joint proposal for a permanent court whose judges would serve full-time. As the delegates could not agree how the judges would be selected, the matter was shelved pending an agreement to be adopted at a later convention.

The Hague Peace Conferences, and the ideas that emerged therefrom, influenced the creation of the Central American Court of Justice, which was established in 1908 as one of the earliest regional judicial bodies. Various plans and proposals were made between 1911 and 1919 for the establishment of an international judicial tribunal, which would not be realized in the formation of a new international system following the First World War.

The Permanent Court of International Justice

Main article: Permanent Court of International Justice

The unprecedented bloodshed of the First World War led to the creation of the League of Nations, established by the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the first worldwide intergovernmental organization aimed at maintaining peace and collective security. Article 14 League's Covenant called for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which would be responsible for adjudicating any international dispute submitted to it by the contesting parties, as well as to provide an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the League of Nations.

In December 1920, following several drafts and debates, the Assembly of the league unanimously adopted the statute of the PCIJ, which was signed and ratified the following year by a majority of members. Among other things, the new Statute resolved the contentious issues of selecting judges by providing that the judges be elected by both the council and the Assembly of the league concurrently but independently. The makeup of the PCIJ would reflect the "main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world". The PCIJ would be permanently placed at the Peace Palace in The Hague, alongside Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The PCIJ represented a major innovation in international jurisprudence in several ways:

Unlike previous international arbitral tribunals, it was a permanent body governed by its statutory provisions and rules of procedure

It had a permanent registry that served as a liaison with governments and international bodies

Its proceedings were largely public, including pleadings, oral arguments, and all documentary evidence

It was accessible to all states and could be declared by states to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes

The PCIJ Statute was the first to list sources of law it would draw upon, which in turn became sources of international law

Judges were more representative of the world and its legal systems than any prior international judicial body

Unlike the ICJ, the PCIJ was not part of the league, nor were members of the league automatically a party to its Statute. The United States, which played a key role in both the second Hague Peace Conference and the Paris Peace Conference, was notably not a member of the league. However, several of its nationals served as judges of the court.

From its first session in 1922 until 1940, the PCIJ dealt with 29 interstate disputes and issued 27 advisory opinions. The court's widespread acceptance was reflected by the fact that several hundred international treaties and agreements conferred jurisdiction upon it over specified categories of disputes. In addition to helping resolve several serious international disputes, the PCIJ helped clarify several ambiguities in international law that contributed to its development.

The United States played a major role in setting up the PCIJ but never joined.[8] Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but did not get the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a treaty.[9]

Establishment of the International Court of Justice

Following a peak of activity in 1933, the PCIJ began to decline in its activities due to the growing international tension and isolationism that characterized the era. The Second World War effectively put an end to the court, which held its last public session in December 1939 and issued its last orders in February 1940. In 1942 the United States and United Kingdom jointly declared support for establishing or re-establishing an international court after the war, and in 1943, the U.K. chaired a panel of jurists from around the world, the "Inter-Allied Committee", to discuss the matter. Its 1944 report recommended that:

The statute of any new international court should be based on that of the PCIJ;

The new court should retain an advisory jurisdiction;

Acceptance of the new court's jurisdiction should be voluntary;

The court should deal only with judicial and not political matters

Several months later at the Moscow conference in 1943, the major Allied Powers—China, the USSR, the U.K., and the U.S.—issued a joint declaration recognizing the necessity "of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security".

The following Allied conference at Dumbarton Oaks, in the United States, published a proposal in October 1944 that called for the establishment of an intergovernmental organization that would include an international court. A meeting was subsequently convened in Washington, D.C., in April 1945, involving 44 jurists from around the world to draft a statute for the proposed court. The draft statute was substantially similar to that of the PCIJ, and it was questioned whether a new court should even be created. During the San Francisco Conference, which took place from 25 April to 26 June 1945 and involved 50 countries, it was decided that an entirely new court should be established as a principal organ of the new United Nations. The statute of this court would form an integral part of the United Nations Charter, which, to maintain continuity, expressly held that the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was based upon that of the PCIJ.

Consequently, the PCIJ convened for the last time in October 1945 and resolved to transfer its archives to its successor, which would take its place at the Peace Palace. The judges of the PCIJ all resigned on 31 January 1946, with the election of the first members of the ICJ taking place the following February at the First Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. In April 1946, the PCIJ was formally dissolved, and the ICJ, in its first meeting, was elected President José Gustavo Guerrero of El Salvador, who had served as the last president of the PCIJ. The court also appointed members of its Registry, mainly drawn from that of the PCIJ, and held an inaugural public sitting later that month.

The first case was submitted in May 1947 by the United Kingdom against Albania concerning incidents in the Corfu Channel.

[quietmovement98]

The Republic of Crocs🐊

Political dynasties have a deep-rooted influence in the Philippines, shaping both local and national politics for decades. Families such as the Marcoses, Dutertes, and Romualdezes hold significant power, with members occupying a range of government positions—from the presidency and Congress down to local government units. Studies from institutions like the Ateneo School of Government and reports from the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) reveal that around 70% of Congress seats are filled by individuals from these dynasties. This consolidation of power enables these families to exert influence across multiple branches and levels of government, often protecting their interests and ensuring political continuity within their families.

Analysts argue that these political dynasties contribute to issues of corruption, nepotism, and policy-making that favors elite interests over public welfare. The practice of passing down power within families leads to a concentration of wealth and authority, often hindering progress and reforms that could benefit ordinary citizens. For example, despite longstanding poverty and inequality, significant policy changes addressing these issues remain limited or stagnant. Critics highlight that because of dynastic influence, government resources can be disproportionately channeled to areas where these families have vested interests, rather than where they're most needed.

Efforts to pass anti-dynasty laws, which are provided for under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, have repeatedly stalled in Congress. Attempts to curb dynastic power through legislation face substantial opposition from lawmakers who themselves belong to political dynasties or benefit from such systems. Consequently, the absence of a law to regulate family dominance in politics has allowed the cycle to continue unabated, often at the expense of genuine democratic representation and the public’s right to elect leaders based on merit.

In this environment, political dynasties contribute to an imbalance in governance where public office can become a family asset, raising concerns about accountability, transparency, and the preservation of democratic principles. For the Philippines to move toward a more inclusive political system, experts assert that reforms are needed to reduce the grip of these dynasties, promote fairer electoral competition, and ensure that public service remains truly in service of the people.

[pannaginip]

Journalists in Southeast Asia believe that freedom of information (FOI) in the region is in poor condition, affecting their duty to expose corruption in government.

This and other challenges faced by the press were front and center during a two-day meeting held in Manila on Tuesday, March 19, and Wednesday, March 20. Attendees included reporters from the Philippines, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Thailand, and Timor Leste.

In the Philippines, an executive order on FOI was signed by then-president Rodrigo Duterte in 2016, mandating full public disclosure in all government offices.

Nearly a decade since then, Filipino journalists still have difficulty accessing information. There have been instances where the Philippine government’s FOI mechanism was unresponsive to those who request government data.

Journalists also mentioned other factors that hamper their work, such as physical and online threats against them, the weaponization of libel laws, their poor financial state, and the lack of opportunities for media workers.

After a series of meetings, the journalists from Southeast Asia established their network called Journalist Against Corruption (JAC) and launched it on Wednesday. [...]

The network, led by PCIJ, is in partnership with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), with support from the Swedish government and the US International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

2024 Mar. 20

[marichulambino]

#SONA2023 “The silence of Bongbong Marcos on attacks vs press freedom in 2nd SONA speaks volumes” by Cherry Salazar, PCIJ at: t.ly/Z2m5Y

“The silence of Bongbong Marcos on attacks vs press freedom in 2nd SONA speaks volumes”by Cherry Salazar of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) July 24, 2023at:https://pcij.org/article/10476/marcos-silent-on-attacks-vs-press-freedomagain Here is a small snippet of the article, used here non-commercially for academic purposes: My observations and analysis in the interview…

[astudentsinsanity]

August 7th, 2019

Today I have three ICJ/PCIJ cases + dissenting opinions to study and a Hermeneutics reading to do, so it's going to be an intense afternoon.

I actually started my bullet journal (btw, thanks for the advice everyone) just in time for the semester to start. I'm Brazilian and it's winter around here, so we only have a 3-week break on July. My classes started this Monday and, even though I'm not super excited for the subjects I have to take this semester, I feel motivated to be a better student. Last semester was very draining and a big part of that was my fault for not being as disciplined as I should and used to be.

I also know that this semester is going to be a lot harder, since there are more classes, personal projects and I'm about to start an internship at a courthouse, so I'll need to be more organized than ever.

[victorkintanar]

Arrived just in time to boost morale. Thanks @pcijdotorg! @plorinsyana thank you! #ijconferenceph #pcij #investigativejournalism #nationalendowmentfordemocracy https://www.instagram.com/p/CYcxJ2Hv7sV/?utm_medium=tumblr

[stanleygajete]

With courage. ❤️ Our loyalty is to the country, to our feloowmen, and not to any leader. #nationalheroesday #pcij #journalism #journey #journalist #media #story #live #love #life https://www.instagram.com/p/CEiisHjD6hl/?igshid=npu0s0m2noxy

[moneyhealthfinance-blog]

PCIJ REPORT| Dutertes mix up data on 23 business interests, posts of 16 relatives in gov’t Last of Three Parts By Floreen Simon and Malou Mangahas <img src=" alt class="alignleft size-full wp-image-66558" srcset=" 850w, Business News

[itonje]

[ID: a screenshot of a twitter post by @ChelDiokno reading ‘What do if your community pantry is visited by the police [THREAD]

Kung bisitahin ng pulis o ibang law enforcement agents ang community pantry ninyo, here are some tips:/END ID]

this thread is from twitter but i thought it would be pertinent to post here for anyone involved with community pantries in the PH:

If they are in uniform, take note of their names. Kung civilian attire, magalang na hingin ang gov't ID at isulat ang pangalan at affiliation (PNP, NBI, etc.). Kung hindi pumayag, politely say that you can’t accommodate them, dahil di mo alam kung law enforcers ba talaga sila.

You might be asked to fill up a form like this. Tandaan, wala kang kahit anong obligasyon na mag-fill up ng form o magbigay ng personal information sa law enforcers. Tandaan din itong paalala ni Data Privacy Commissioner Raymund E. Liboro

If the community pantry is in private property, di pwede pumasok ang law enforcers kung walang search warrant, unless pumayag ang may-ari. Ask for a warrant signed by a judge; kung wala, sabihin: “Pasensya na po, pero di kayo pwedeng pumasok kung wala kayong search warrant." If the police insist, or imply that you are hiding something (“Kung wala naman kayong tinatago ba’t ayaw nyo kaming papasukin?”), assert your right. Tell them: “Karapatan ko po yan, at yan po ang advice sa akin ng abogado.”

Kung nasa public land ang community pantry, hindi kailangan ng pulis ng search warrant para pumasok—but they still need a search warrant to search the community pantry or any other private property that is on the public land. If the community pantry is on public land, make sure you are not obstructing traffic, littering, or otherwise violating any similar local regulations.

Kung hingan kayo ng business permit (also known as a “Mayor’s Permit”): sabihin na based on your understanding, hindi kailangan ng permit dahil hindi naman kayo nagnenegosyo; your only purpose is to help the needy and marginalized.

Kung hingan kayo ng barangay permit: sabihin na the DILG and Anti-Red Tape Authority have publicly stated in separate announcements na hindi kailangan ng barangay permit.

Kung hingan kayo ng authority to solicit from DSWD: sabihin na based on your understanding, required lang ang authority to solicit sa regional and national fund campaigns, at hindi ito naga-apply sa community pantry.

8. Kung sabihan kayo na you cannot continue operating because it violates IATF guidelines or regulations, ito ang sabihin ninyo: a. IATF guidelines/regulations are only recommendatory and do not have the force of law unless they are adopted by the LGU as a local ordinance. b. Even under IATF guidelines, mass gatherings for authorized humanitarian activities are allowed sa ECQ at MECQ. Since a permit is not required to operate a community pantry, and the poor are urgently in need of food, a community pantry is an authorized humanitarian activity. c. Community pantries do not violate the IATF guidelines on humanitarian activities since no permit or license is required for them to operate.

Kung subukan nilang i-demolish o dismantle ang community pantry, politely and firmly object, but do not physically resist. Kumuha ng pictures o video recording to document what they are doing. Tandaang hindi mo kailangan ng consent nila para mag-record. The Anti-Wiretapping Act only requires the consent of the parties kung private conversation or communication ito.

If law enforcers arrest you, or try to search you, others, or the community pantry, tandaan ang mga karapatan ninyo. You can refer to the primer made by FLAG, PCIJ, and the Foundation for Media Alternatives, which you can access through this linktree:

Kung papirmahin kayo ng kahit anong dokumento (like an acknowledgment na binisita kayo), basahing maiigi at sabihing kailangan nyo muna kumonsulta ng abogado bago pumirma. Posibleng may waiver of rights ito, and this can prejudice your right to file a case kung kailangan. Kunan ng picture ang dokumento at iforward sa abogado. Kung mapilit ang pulis, pwedeng gamitin ang non-dominant hand (halimbawa kung kaliwete, gamitin ang kanang kamay), o gumamit ng pirma other than your regular signature, so you can later explain that you were forced to sign.

Kung maaari, mag-set up na din ng CCTV cameras sa lugar ng community pantry, at siguraduhing nagre-record ang mga ito 24/7. Sa lahat ng patuloy na tumutulong at nag-aambag sa mga community pantry, maraming salamat sa inyo. Sana makatulong ito sa inyo. You can also reach out to our FREE LEGAL HELPDESK anytime, i-message nyo lang kami sa http://m.me/cheldiokno. Mag-iingat kayong lahat, mga kakampi.

[derechointernacionalpublico]

Some Thoughts on the Jadhav Case: Jurisdiction, Merits, and the Effect of a Presidential Communication

Some Thoughts on the Jadhav Case: Jurisdiction, Merits, and the Effect of a Presidential Communication

On 8 May, India instituted proceedings at the International Court of Justice against Pakistan relating to the latter’s imprisonment and award of death penalty to Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national. Pakistan claims it arrested Mr Jadhav on 3 March 2016, in Balochistan (a Pakistani province), where he was engaged in espionage and sabotage activities. A military court sentenced him to death on 10 April 2017. India alleges that Mr Jadhav was abducted from Iran, where he was engaged in business following retirement from the Indian Navy. India further claims that following his arrest and throughout his trial, sentencing and now imprisonment pending execution of sentence, it has not been allowed consular access to Mr Jadhav.

India’s application asks the Court to declare that the sentence imposed by Pakistan is ‘in brazen defiance’ of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), and of the ‘elementary human rights of the accused’ (para. 60). It asks the Court to direct Pakistan to annul the decision; or, if, Pakistan is unable to do so, to declare the decision illegal, and direct Pakistan to release Mr Jadhav immediately (Id.). India has also requested that the Court indicate provisional measures preventing Pakistan from executing him pending resolution of the dispute.

Oral hearings on provisional measures are listed to begin on 15 May. Meanwhile, President Abraham has issued an urgent communication to Pakistan, pursuant to his powers under Article 74(4) of the 1978 Rules of the Court. This provides:

Pending the meeting of the Court, the President may call upon the parties to act in such a way as will enable any order the Court may make on the request for provisional measures to have its appropriate effects.

In this post, we offer a brief account of several issues. We first note a few points in relation to India’s claims as to the Court’s jurisdiction and the merits of the claim proper. We then discuss the scope and effects of the President’s Article 74(4) communication. Our attention was caught by the fact that this communication was reported in the Indian media as a ‘stay’ on Mr Jadhav’s execution, with India’s Foreign Minister even tweeting that she had told Mr Jadhav’s mother ‘about the order of President, ICJ […]’. This squarely raises the question: can the Article 74(4) communication be read as a mandatory ‘order’ in the same way as provisional measures ordered under Article 41 of the Court’s Statute? And, if not, could a state in any way be found legally accountable in for its breach?

India’s Jurisdictional and Merits Claims

India’s application is founded on Article 36(1) of the ICJ Statute, read with Article 1 of the Optional Protocol to the VCCR. As the LaGrand case has previously confirmed, this is an appropriate jurisdictional basis to test breaches of VCCR Article 36 provisions on consular access.

Pakistan may claim that the VCCR is irrelevant to the present case, because the relations between the parties are governed by a 2008 bilateral agreement on consular access (Application, Annex 10). There is more to be said about this agreement, but its text does not, prima facie, indicate an intention to contract out of the VCCR. In any event, the application of the VCCR in light of this agreement is itself an issue that the Court can adjudicate on the present basis of jurisdiction.

Moreover, India’s claim that VCCR Art 36 has been violated appears sound: at least on the facts as alleged. Pakistan’s stance that India’s requests for consular access ‘shall be considered in light of’ its assistance in the investigation of Mr Jadhav (Application, Annex 3), does not find support in the VCCR; Article 36 does not permit states to impose such conditions on consular access.

There is, however, some doubt as to the ultimate relief that the Court can provide. The jurisdictional basis invoked limits the Court to findings vis-à-vis the VCCR. However, India further claims that Pakistan has violated Mr Jadhav’s right to a fair trial under the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights—the Court does not appear to have jurisdiction vis-à-vis this separate treaty. It is on the cumulative breach of both treaties that India bases its request that the Court declare the death sentence illegal and void. Can the Court grant this relief, if it cannot adjudicate whether Mr Jadhav was given a fair trial?

Assistance on this point may be found in LaGrand and Avena, cases brought under the VCCR and involving the imposition of the death penalty by the United States upon foreign nationals. In LaGrand, the Court found that ‘in cases where the individuals concerned have been […] sentenced to severe penalties’:

[I]t would be incumbent upon the United States to allow the review and reconsideration of the conviction and sentence by taking account of the violation of the rights set forth in the Convention. This obligation can be carried out in various ways. The choice of means must be left to the United States. (para. 125)

In Avena, it emphasized that the review and reconsideration must be effective, examine conviction and sentence, and guarantee that the possible prejudice caused by violation of the VCCR will be fully taken into account. A clemency procedure would not suffice (paras. 138, 143). It is probable that a similar approach will be taken in the present case.

The Article 74(4) Communication

As regards President Abraham’s communication to Pakistan, the perception that it amounts to an ‘order’ is interesting, if inaccurate, and made us think more carefully about the scope and effects of such communications. We note the following.

First, and foremost, an Article 74(4) communication should not be confused with provisional measures ordered under Article 41 of the Statute. The Article 74(4) procedure is separate, taken by the President alone prior to any sitting of the Court, and—as Cameron has previously noted—is widely seen not to be binding. Pakistan could arguably go ahead and execute the sentence without anything more than moral censure; though that would obviously be without prejudice to the ultimate question regarding breach of VCCR Article 36.

That said, ICSID tribunals have found provisional ‘holding requests’—conceptually similar, some might think, to communications under Article 74(4)—to be as binding as provisional measures ordered under Article 47 of the ICSID Convention. But such requests are made by the tribunal as a whole and are not the subject of express mention in the ICSID Rules—they may thus be regarded as articulations of Article 47 proper, even if issued proprio motu by the Tribunal.

All the same, to defy an Article 74(4) request in a truly irreversible way would certainly be to breach the general principle of non-escalation and good faith in dispute settlement identified by the PCIJ in the Electricity Company case of 1939. There, the Court referred to:

[T]he principle universally accepted by international tribunals […] to the effect that the parties to a case must abstain from any of the measures capable of exercising a prejudicial effect in regard to the execution of the decision to be given and, in general, not allow any step of any kind to be taken which might aggravate and extend the dispute.

This principle underpins the Article 41 provisional measures issued by the Court, but is a freestanding rule of international law.

But, it is not clear that the Court can adjudicate a breach of this principle under the limited mandate of the VCCR Optional Protocol. Given that an Article 74(4) request is non-binding in and of itself, the Court would need to look to a source external to incidental jurisdiction to determine a breach of international law. Of course, the Court might fall back upon its inherent power to regulate its own jurisdiction, but the parameters of that jurisdiction have always been a little unclear.

There may be some temptation to read Article 74(4) as producing some degree of binding effect, such that non-compliance would attract legal as well as moral censure. Perhaps, one might think, this would represent a natural step forward from the LaGrand finding that provisional measures were binding—a point that had been disputed for some 80 years.

However, there are good reasons not to succumb to that temptation, principally that Article 74(4) vests discretion in the President, and not the Court. Were such communications taken to be binding, we would expect to see a repeat of the trend that has followed vis-à-vis provisional measures after LaGrand. There has been a noticeable tightening of the restrictions on the award of such measures, with the Court now required to satisfy itself that: is has prima facie jurisdiction, there is linkage between the rights to be protected and those judged on the merits, the claim on merits is plausible, and irreparable prejudice will result from a failure to indicate measures. To require the President, acting alone, to similarly satisfy himself on these points, would be to add a rather cumbersome prelude to what is above all a ‘rapid reaction’ device.

A Historical Nugget

Interestingly, a President of the World Court, sitting alone, has ordered binding interim relief in the past. In their first (1922) iteration, the Rules of the PCIJ provided in Article 57 that:

When the Court is not sitting, any measures for the preservation in the meantime of the respective rights of the parties shall be indicated by the President. Any refusal by the parties to conform to the suggestions of the Court or of the President, with regard to such measures, will be placed on the record.

Unlike Article 74(4) of the current Rules, Article 57 did not give the President a separate procedural power—rather, it placed the full authority of Article 41 of the Statute in the President’s hands. The provision was drafted in the days before affordable commercial air travel, wherein a large number of the Court’s members could be expected to take days, even weeks, to return to The Hague if the PCIJ was not in session. The President was expected to ‘man’ the fort. Thus, President Max Huber ordered interim relief in the Sino-Belgium Treaty case (the first ever decision under Article 41), after the Belgian application landed on the Court’s doorstep in the winter of 1926–1927.

Nevertheless, that Article 57 power does not provide precedent for the present case. Aside from the fact that it was merely an articulation of Article 41 of the Statute, its raison has vanished. In truly urgent cases, the members of the Court can be expected to return promptly to the Peace Palace. Indeed, advances in air travel—along with concerns as to the political burden that the giving of interim relief under such conditions imposed on the President—led to Article 57 being drastically revised in 1931, and this power was removed.

To Conclude

Coming back to the present, we fully expect the Court will speedily decide on provisional measures. Based on past precedents such as LaGrand and Aevena, the order may well be in India’s favour. We close by expressing the hope that, in the interim, the effects of a Presidential communication will not be tested by way of their disregard.

[via EJIL: Talk!]

http://www.dipublico.org/105932/some-thoughts-on-the-jadhav-case-jurisdiction-merits-and-the-effect-of-a-presidential-communication/

[euphoriaxnyc]

Pacifica Appreciation Post 🌊 Do you like Coconut 🥥 scented products? Just a little @pacifica haul I picked up from @ultabeauty 💙 Have you tried any of these clean, vegan, & cruelty-free products? If you like these jaw clips, you can pick them up at @mykitsch Get 15% off using my code ZANETAORTIZ15 at https://www.mykitsch.com/discount/ZANETAORTIZ15?ref=prxhm7vongp . . . . . . . . . . . . #notsponsored #pacificabeauty #pacifica #jawclip #hairclips #coconutscented #cleanbodycare #cleandeodorant #aluminumfree #detanglingspray #veganbeauty #crueltyfreebodycare #scalpserum #kindvibesalways #ulta #ultabeauty #ultabeautyhaul #hairelixir #mykitsch #blueaesthetic #coconutlovers #deodorant #rosemaryserum #hairaccessories #coconutmilk #coconutcream (at New York, New York) https://www.instagram.com/p/CdwX7v-pCIj/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

[marichulambino]

an hour ago

an hour ago: Interview with the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) on the state of the media in the Philippines (via Zoom for documentation) 20 July 2023: Abangan!

[diwangpalaboy]

DS 123 Hiraya and Kalinangan

Form a group of three members. Choose a set of topics from the list below. Avoid duplication. Present an elevator pitch about your chosen topic from your group’s list of topics. Present in Filipino or English. Wear white for the shoot. Upload the video recoded output (one file per group) on or before May 17 (Monday) in the Google Drive to be setup by Ms Cruz (Hiraya) and Ms Cambiado (Kalinangan). Present the video recorded output on May 18 (Tuesday).

HIRAYA Set A - agenda setting, framing, priming Set B - parachute journalism, pack journalism, envelopmental journalism Set C - C4D, ICT4D, KM4D Set D - hegemonic, negotiated, opposition (Hall’s coding/decoding model) Set E - copyright, patent, trademark Set F - information literacy, media literacy, digital literacy Set G - Shiela Coronel, Maria Ressa, Chit Estella Set H - indigenous communication, indigenous media, umalohokan

KALINANGAN Set A - Rappler, Vera Files, PCIJ Set B - Luis Teodoro, Danilo Arao, Rolando Tolentino Set C - cultivation theory, spiral of silence theory, media system dependency theory Set D - development communication, governance communication, science communication Set E - news for sale, the manipulated press, manufacturing consent Set F - misinformation, disinformation, malinformation Set G - visual sociology, visual anthropology, visual ethnography Set H - MDC, DComm, BA in Multimedia Studies (UPOU)

[trendingph]

Kinder post-pandemic Philippine cities: an animated fairytale Read the Filipino version here. The Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (PCIJ) presents “Ang Bata at ang Butete Sa Bayan Ng Hiling (The Girl and the Magic Blowfish in the City of Wishes),” a short animated film produced by Ur... https://trendingph.net/kinder-post-pandemic-philippine-cities-an-animated-fairytale/?feed_id=137932&_unique_id=603f576a454c8 #animated #cities #fairytale #kinder #philippine #philippinenews #philippinesnews #postpandemic #trendingph