CYIL vol. 12 (2021)

CYIL 12 (2021) The Connally Reservation (Self-judging Reservation) to Declaration … The Connally Reservation (Self-judging Reservation) to Declaration of Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the ICJ under Article 36(2) of the Statute Milan Lipovský Abstract: Under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, states may accept jurisdiction of the Court by the form of unilateral declaration. They are also allowed to exclude certain topics from the acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction. Practice of these reservations to the jurisdiction of the ICJ included also so-called Connally reservations that exclude “matters within domestic jurisdiction of the declarant state, as the State considers them”. The self-judging part of such reservation has been source of controversy and several states withdrew it. Four states however maintain to use it and this article is dedicated to presenting and discussing opinions as to the validity and effects of them. Resumé: Na základě článku 36 odst. 2 Statutu Mezinárodního soudního dvora mohou státy přijmout jurisdikci Soudu formou jednostranného prohlášení. Jsou přitom oprávněni vyhradit určité oblasti jako nepodléhající tomuto souhlasu. Praxe států v těchto výhradách zahrnuje i použití tzv. Connallyho výhrad, které ze souhlasu vyjímají „záležitosti, které spa- dají do vnitrostátní jurisdikce, na základě posouzení deklarujícím státem“. Self-judging část této výhrady se se stala zdrojem kontroverzí, některé státy od jejího použití ustoupily, Čtyři státy ji však stále užívají. Cílem článku je posoudit možné dopady jejího užití. Key words: Connally reservation; compulsory jurisdiction; International Court of Justice On the author: JUDr. Milan Lipovský, Ph.D. is a senior lecturer and researcher at the Department of International Law of the Faculty of Law, Charles University (Prague). 1. Introduction Unlike in domestic judicial proceedings that are usually based on the obligation of anyone to accept the court’s jurisdiction and automatic active and passive legitimation (to be a party either as a plaintiff or a defendant), the international judicial dispute settlement is influenced by the principle of sovereign equality of states which is reflected in the need of consent. If states decide to solve their disputes, they are obliged to do so peacefully. But general international law does not require them to attempt to solve a dispute. That is also why dispute settlement is rooted upon the grounds of consent. This applies to the judicial dispute settlement as well as it is proven among others by the concept of acceptance of jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ or the Court). This article focuses on a particular issue of consent and the restrictions that parties can set to it in contentious proceedings before the ICJ. It is an issue that was first raised in 1946 and has been playing a controversial role till today. It is the so-called Connally reservation. Before we dig into the topic, it is necessary to explain which stage of proceedings the matter applies to. Before going to the merits of a case, any international judicial organ needs to establish whether it is even endowed with the competence to settle the dispute, i.e., whether the parties have endowed it with the right to do so. If any of the parties disagree, they

101