Abstract
AbstractThe UK proudly describes its longstanding commitment to the International Court of Justice as a sign of its broader commitment to international adjudication and, in turn, the international rule of law. This article calls into question this narrative suggesting that, despite official pledges and rhetoric to the contrary, the UK cannot be said to have truly accepted the authority of the Court to scrutinize its conduct, nor to have consistently acted in a manner that is respectful of that institution. To the extent that the UK wishes to present itself as a genuine supporter of the international rule of law, this article posits that it should reformulate its approach to the Court with regard to both its contentious and advisory jurisdictions.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference31 articles.
1. Arajärvi N (2021) The core requirements of the international rule of law in the practice of states. Hague J Rule Law 13:173–193
2. Beaulac S (2009) The rule of law in international law today. In: Palombella G, Walker N (eds) Relocating the rule of law. Hart, Oxford, pp 197–223
3. Bingham T (2011) The rule of law. Penguin, London
4. Briggs H (1958) Reservations to the acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Collected Courses Hague Acad Int Law 93:223–367
5. Burgess P (2019) Deriving the international rule of law: an unnecessary, impractical and unhelpful exercise. Transnatl Leg Theory 10(1):65–96