مجله حقوقی بین المللی

مجله حقوقی بین المللی

Legal Interpretation or Political Condemnation? Third-Party Intervention before the International Court of Justice with Reference to Iran in South Africa v. Israel

نوع مقاله : پژوهشی

نویسنده
Assistant Professor at University of Guilan
10.22066/cilamag.2025.2065403.2755
چکیده
The exceptional number of third-party intervention requests, fourteen States filing either applications for permission to intervene under Article 62 or declarations under Article 63 of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Statute, raises critical questions regarding the admissibility threshold, the distinction between legitimate legal interest and political signaling, and the broader impact on procedural efficiency. This study investigates the legal framework governing third-party intervention before the ICJ, with particular attention to obligations under the Genocide Convention and the erga omnes partes obligations. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on the Court’s jurisprudence, the research examines how States, including the Islamic Republic of Iran, navigate the strategic and legal considerations surrounding intervention. While Iran has not formally articulated its reasons for non-participation, scholarly discourse suggests that concerns over potential implications, such as perceived recognition of Israel, may influence its cautious stance. The study argues that a clearer doctrinal separation between interventions under Articles 62 and 63, along with a more rigorous standard for demonstrating legal interest distinct from that of the principal parties, could enhance the Court’s procedural integrity and reduce its susceptibility to politicisation.
 
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات


مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از 06 مهر 1404

  • تاریخ دریافت 19 تیر 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 30 شهریور 1404
  • تاریخ پذیرش 06 مهر 1404