CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

PAVEL ŠTURMA CYIL 14 (2023) formally have a role in the development of international law; its Statute excludes the stare decisis doctrine. “The role of the Court is to settle disputes between States and to do so on the basis of State-made and State-developed law. Yet, though without a formal mandate to develop international law, the Court has had an immense impact on the development of international law.” (p. 84) Chapter 4, written by Professor Tom Ginsburg, deals with the institutional context of the ICJ. The author examines the Court’s institutional grounding as an organ of the United Nations and its relationship with the United Nations. He recalls that the ICJ is profoundly limited by its institutional design (the centrality of State consent) and the nature of international system. In Chapter 5, professors Rotem Giladi and Yuval Shany assess the effectiveness of the ICJ. They set out an evaluative framework for assessing the effectiveness, adopting a goal based analysis. By reference to specific examples, the authors consider whether the ICJ has achieved its goals in practice, concluding that it produces mixed results. However, “the record of the Court’s resilience and durability, together with the fact that judges, States, and scholars continue to subscribe to and express shared beliefs as to its goals and actual functioning, attest to a success in projecting the continuing promise of international adjudication.” (p. 119) Part II of the Companion starts with Chapter 6 on the jurisdiction of the Court. Professor Jean-Marc Thouvenin addresses the Court’s jurisdiction in contentious cases and its jurisdiction in advisory opinions. In conclusion, he supports the plea for compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ and points out that the consent to jurisdiction has been overcome via the advisory jurisdiction of the Court in Chagos case. In Chapter 7, Professor Robert Kolb focuses on the issue of preliminary measures. He identifies a significant evolution in the Court’s practice on provisional measures. Then, he sets out four conditions that have to be met for indication of provisional measures according to the newer case law. He also concludes that the jurisprudence of the ICJ has been influential on other international courts and tribunals. Chapter 8, by Professor Jean d’Aspremont, views the ICJ as “the master of the sources”. Starting from the closed list of sources in Article 38 of the Statute, it considers the “repressive dimension” of this article. Next, it turns to consider the ways in which the Court has used its role in respect of sources of international law. He concludes that the repressive construction of Article 38 has simultaneously been constitutive of the Court’s uncontested mastery of the sources of international law. In Chapter 9, on fact-finding and expert evidence, Dr. James Devaney considers how the Court has treated competing evidentiary claims and how it engages in a fact-finding process. Any failure to establish the facts could lead to a judgment which is not capable of being implemented. Therefore, the author concludes with some practical suggestions as to how the Court could increase confidence in its fact-finding process. Chapter 10 addresses the issue of integration and fragmentation among the ICJ and other courts and tribunals. Professor Philippa Webb considers three factors that influence the degree of integration: the identity of the court, the substance of the law, and the procedures employed. In this chapter, she focuses on three legal issues considered by the ICJ and other courts and tribunals, namely jurisdiction over issues of immunity; inferring specific intent for genocide; and the nature of consular assistance as a treaty obligation, individual right or

504