CYIL vol. 14 (2023)

CYIL 14 (2023)

THE MONETARY GOLD PRINCIPLE

6. Summary Based on the case law, it is possible the established basics of the Monetary Gold principle as follows: – the core of the principle means that if legal interests (rather than rights 76 ) of a third state, not party to a dispute, might be affected by a decision on the merits in the case at hand, and if the legal interests of the third state form the very subject-matter of the raised claim, the claim may be declared inadmissible. A simple possibility that third state’s legal interests might be affected, is not enough. The third state’s legal interests must form the very subject-matter of the judgment asked. 77 – The “legal interests” of a third state, not party to the dispute, do not include factual situations. Thus, although not judicially settled yet, the Monetary Gold principle does not render a claim inadmissible if the judicial body needs to make an assumption upon a third states’ activity from the factual point of view, but does not need to make an assessment of its (i)llegality under international law. 78 – An exception to the application of the Monetary Gold principle can likely be if the preceding question containing a legal interest of the third party has already been settled authoritatively by the UN Security Council. Also based on the above, there are questions that remain to be answered and they include the following: – In order to apply the Monetary Gold principle, the assessment of the third state’s legal interests forming subject-matter of the claim, must be a precondition to the assessment of the claim itself. Whether it can also be a situation where the third state’s legal interests are affected as a consequence of the decision on the merits, is not completely established upon firm grounds yet. – Success of the inadmissibility objection might be potentially circumvented if the third state, whose legal interests form the very subject-matter of the case at hand, has the right to request intervention in the proceedings. – Another exception to the Monetary Gold principle may possibly be formulated by “a given” formulated by universal agreement among the international community. 7. Conclusions Despite its decades long evolution, the Monetary Gold principle still remains a controversial topic. The International Court of Justice formulated its basics but up until now has not (by majority decision) respond to some significant questions regarding exceptions to its applicability. Some of the judges have expressed their dissatisfaction with the situation in their dissenting and separate opinions and indicated the way the judicial bodies applying the principle may tend in the future. Considering the increasing interconnectedness of the world, it must be expected that the principle will be brought up more often and the judicial bodies will have to formulate their 76 PCA, Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom , 1999-01, Award (5 February 2001), paras. 11.22. 77 ICJ, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Preliminary Objections, Judgment (11 June 1998), ICJ Reports 1998, para. 79. 78 PCA, Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom , 1999-01, Award (5 February 2001), paras. 11.24.

77