Book Review of Victor Stoica, Remedies before the International Court of Justice: A Systemic Analysis

Abstract

1. The book under review is Victor Stoica, Remedies before the International Court of Justice: A Systemic Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 2021, 288 pp. The ICJ’s analysis of remedies has always remained on the fringes. The author through this work attempts to study comprehensively the remedies before the ICJ and the consequences. The author has divided the book into nine chapters, highlighting the various dimensions of remedies and the ICJ’s approach to them. 2. Chapter 1 highlights the jurisdictional competence of the ICJ to grant compensation; accordingly, States have challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ to grant remedies, especially if no legal instruments confer this power. 3. Chapter 2 studies the availability of remedies at the provisional measures phase; as the author opines, “the availability of provisional measures or protective measures is a general principle of international law and national law” (p.13). Although in the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), the remedies sought were not granted during provisional measures, in the Chorzow factory case, the PCIJ couldn’t provide remedy as it would amount to an “interim judgment” (p.14). However, the ICJ granted restitution in kind through its provisional measures; in the Tehran Hostage case, it was observed in the said case that “Iran should ensure that the premise of the embassy of the United States is restored to its possession” (p.17). Also, cessation was granted in the “Nicaragua case” for the breaches of international obligations and specific performance in the Avena Judgment. Further, for the “breach of provisional measures” (p.19), States are provided “satisfaction”, i.e., “declaratory relief rather than coercive remedies such as compensation” (p.20). The author concludes by stating that remedies are available for non-compliance with provisional measures. However, it is argued through S.S. Wimbledon, Chorzow Factory and subsequent cases that the ICJ is competent to grant remedies even though the treaty did not contain an express provision; in the Corfu channel case, it was underscored that the ICJ is competent to decide the quantum of compensation, this position was maintained in the subsequent cases.