About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


57 German Y.B. Int'l L. 321 (2014)
Third States and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: The Monetary Gold Principle

handle is hein.journals/gyil57 and id is 322 raw text is: Third States and the Jurisdiction of the International Court ofJustice: The Monetary Gold Principle TOBIAS THIENEL* ABSTRACT: The Monetary Gold principle is widely recognised as preventing the Interna- tional Court ofJustice from deciding a case between two parties where the legal interests of a third State take centre stage. The principle takes its name and much of its authority from the 1954 judgment in the Monetary Gold case. It has received judicial attention in important subsequent cases, and together with those later cases, it has received a great deal of academic attention. Even so, the precise doctrinal basis of the principle remains somewhat unsettled. Moreover, there remains some uncertainty as to when the Monetary Gold principle applies and even as to whether it is actually correct. This article seeks to explore the underlying logic of the Monetary Gold principle, and against that background to explain how the principle applies. The material reach of resjudicata is exposed as a decisive criterion in delineating the application of the Monetary Gold principle. KEYWORDS: International Court ofJustice, Jurisdiction, Admissibility, Procedure, Third States, ResJudicata, Intervention I. Introduction The year 2014 marks not only the centenary of the Walther Schiicking Institute for International Law, where this Yearbook is edited, but also the 60th anniversary of the judgment of the International Court ofJustice (ICJ) in the Case ofthe Monetary * Lawyer (Rechtsanwalt) with WEISSLEDER EWER, Kiel. This article is based on my doctoral thesis entitled Drittstaaten und dieJurisdiktion des Internationalen Gerichtshofs, Die Monetary Gold- Doktrin, currently being published with Duncker & Humblot, Berlin. I am indebted to my supervisor, Professor Andreas Zimmermann, as well as to the second examiner, Professor Kerstin Odendahl. I am also indebted to Nicki Boldt and Bjorn Elberling for many discussions.