The Revival of Third-State Participation Before the International Court of Justice: Rethinking Intervention Under Articles 62 and 63
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23857068Trefwoorden:
Third-state intervention,, International Court of Justice,, Article 62, Article 63, Genocide Convention, Abuse of Process, Multilateral Treaty InterpretationSamenvatting
The growing practice of third-state intervention before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reflects an important development in international adjudication, particularly in disputes concerning multilateral treaty obligations. This article examines the evolving relationship between Articles 62 and 63 of the ICJ Statute, focusing on their distinct legal foundations, admissibility requirements, and implications for the participation of non-party states. While Article 62 requires a state to demonstrate an interest of a legal nature that may be affected by the Court’s decision, Article 63 provides a treaty-based right of intervention to states that are parties to the relevant multilateral convention. The comparatively accessible requirements of Article 63 have contributed to its increasing prominence in contemporary proceedings. Drawing primarily on Ukraine v. Russian Federation, alongside The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel, the article analyses the expansion of third-state participation, particularly in disputes concerning the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It further examines concerns regarding political alignment, judicial impartiality, and the potential abuse of process arising from mass intervention. The analysis argues that political motivations alone should not render an intervention inadmissible where the applicable legal requirements are satisfied. Nevertheless, a valid procedural basis should not automatically immunise intervention from scrutiny where clear evidence of procedural misuse exists. The article concludes that the growing use of Article 63 presents both opportunities and institutional challenges for the ICJ. Although third-state participation can enrich treaty interpretation and facilitate the collective development of international law, its exercise must remain within the permissible scope of intervention and preserve the integrity and orderly administration of international judicial proceedings.
Downloads
Referenties
1. Advisory Committee of Jurists, Draft Scheme for the Institution of the Permanent Court of International Justice (League of Nations, September 1920) LNOJ Special Supplement No. 2.
2. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Application Instituting Proceedings, 26 February 2022) .
3. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention, Order of 5 June 2023) .
4. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) (Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020) .
5. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) (Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention, Order of 25 July 2024) [2024] ICJ Reports 729.
6. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar) (Order of 25 July 2025), Declaration of Judge Cleveland.
7. Bernárdez ST, ‘L’Intervention dans la Procédure de la Cour internationale de Justice’ (1995) 256 Recueil des cours 426.
8. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application by Malta for Permission to Intervene, Judgment [1981] ICJ Reports 3.
9. Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (adopted 29 July 1899) 1 Bevans 230.
10. Haya de la Torre Case (Colombia v Peru) [1951] ICJ Reports 71.
11. Huremagić H, ‘Article 63 of the ICJ Statute and the Legal Effects of Judgments on Intervening States – An Attempt for More Clarity’ (2024) 23 The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 413.
12. Huremagić H, ‘Intervening for the Community?—The Law and Politics of Third-Party Intervention before the International Court of Justice’ (2026) 17(1) Journal of International Dispute Settlement .
13. Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v France) (Preliminary Objections, Judgment) [2018] ICJ Reports 292.
14. Institute of International Law, Draft Regulations for International Arbitral Procedure (1875) art 16.
15. International Court of Justice, ‘Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation)’ (Press Release No 2024/59, 6 August 2024).
16. International Court of Justice, ‘Intervention in Ukraine v Russian Federation’ .
17. International Court of Justice, ‘Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem’ (Press Release No 2023/43, 7 August 2023).
18. International Court of Justice, ‘Ukraine Files Application against Russian Federation and Requests Indication of Provisional Measures’ (Press Release No 2022/4, 27 February 2022).
19. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras) — not included: it does not appear to be cited in the footnotes of this manuscript.
20. McGarry B, ‘Mass Intervention?: The Joint Statement of 41 States on Ukraine v Russia’ (EJIL: Talk!, 30 May 2022) .
21. McIntyre J, ‘Less a Wave than a Tsunami: Procedural Implications for the ICJ of the Article 63 Interventions in Ukraine v Russia’ (Völkerrechtsblog, 11 October 2022) .
22. McIntyre J, Guilfoyle D and Paige TP, ‘Is International Law Powerless against Russian Aggression in Ukraine? No, but it’s Complicated’ (The Conversation, 25 February 2022) .
23. Mani VS, International Adjudication: Procedural Aspects (Nijhoff 1980).
24. Miron A and Chinkin C, ‘Article 63’ in Zimmermann A and others (eds), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (3rd edn, Oxford University Press 2019).
25. Permanent Court of International Justice, Acts and Documents Concerning the Organisation of the Court: Revision of the Rules (1922).
26. Rules of Court (International Court of Justice, adopted 14 April 1978, as amended).
27. Shaw MN, Rosenne’s Law and Practice of the International Court: 1920–2015 (5th edn, Brill 2016).
28. Simma B, ‘When “Community Interest” Intervenes: Article 62 of the ICJ Statute Facing Obligations erga omnes (partes)’ (2025) 1 The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals.
29. Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945) 33 UNTS 993.
30. South Africa v Israel, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (Application Instituting Proceedings, 29 December 2023) .
31. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Application by Costa Rica for Permission to Intervene, Judgment [2011] ICJ Reports 348.
32. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v Colombia), Application by Honduras for Permission to Intervene, Judgment [2011] ICJ Reports 420.
33. Territorial and Maritime Dispute in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v Honduras), Judgment [2007] ICJ Reports 659.
34. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan) (Declaration of Intervention, Order of 6 February 2013) [2013] ICJ Reports 3.
35. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan), Declaration of Judge Gaja.
36. Fitzmaurice G, ‘The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice, 1951–4: Questions of Jurisdiction, Competence and Procedure’ (1958) 34 British Yearbook of International Law 1.
37. Forlati S and Almeida PW, ‘Is There a Role for Intervener States in Inducing Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice?’ (2023) 26 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law Online 145.
38. Farnelli GM and Sardu A, ‘Third-Party Participation in International Adjudication: Recent Trends and Ongoing Issues’ (2023) 1 Questions of International Law.
39. Ukraine v Russian Federation (Preliminary Objections of the Russian Federation, 3 October 2022).
40. Ukraine v Russian Federation (Written Observations of the Russian Federation, 18 October 2022).
41. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan) (Declaration of Intervention, Order of 6 February 2013) [2013] ICJ Reports 3.
42. Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation) (Order of 5 June 2023) [51]–[52], [84].
43. The Gambia v Myanmar (Admissibility of the Declarations of Intervention, Order of 25 July 2025), Declaration of Judge Cleveland.
Downloads
Gepubliceerd
Verklaring beschikbaarheid gegevens
The research presented in this article is based on publicly available primary and secondary sources, including judicial decisions, orders and pleadings of the International Court of Justice, international legal instruments, academic literature and other publicly accessible materials. No original datasets were generated or analyzed for this research. The sources relied upon are cited in the article.
Nummer
Sectie
URN
Licentie
Auteursrecht (c) 2026 Oxford Law Review
Dit artikel is gelicentieerd onder de Naamsvermelding 4.0 Internationaal licentie.
Content published by Oxford Law Review is made available subject to the copyright and licensing terms applicable to the individual article.
Unless otherwise stated on the article page, the following terms apply:
1. Copyright
Copyright in published articles remains subject to the rights and terms specified for the respective publication. Authors and users should respect all applicable copyright and intellectual property laws.
2. Use of Published Material
Published articles may be accessed, read, cited and referenced for legitimate scholarly, educational and research purposes, subject to applicable copyright and licensing restrictions.
3. Reproduction
Reproduction, redistribution, adaptation or commercial use of published material is permitted only where expressly authorised by the applicable licence or by the relevant copyright holder.
4. Citation and Attribution
Any permitted use of material published by Oxford Law Review must provide appropriate bibliographic attribution, including the author, article title, Journal name and publication details, and a persistent link to the original article where available.
5. Third-Party Material
Material belonging to third parties, including photographs, illustrations, tables, datasets or other copyrighted content, may be subject to separate copyright or licensing conditions. Users are responsible for obtaining any permission required for such use.
6. Author Rights
Authors retain such rights as are provided under the applicable publication and licensing agreement. The specific rights applicable to each article are indicated with the published work where appropriate.
7. Changes to Licensing Terms
Oxford Law Review may update its licensing terms from time to time. The terms applicable to a published article will be those stated with or otherwise governing that article.
For the licensing status of a particular article, please refer to the licence information displayed on its publication page.
Citeerhulp
