Cookies Policy

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

I accept this policy

Find out more here

Note on New International Case-law Concerning the Binding Character of Provisional Measures

No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
The full text of this article is not currently available.

Brill’s MyBook program is exclusively available on BrillOnline Books and Journals. Students and scholars affiliated with an institution that has purchased a Brill E-Book on the BrillOnline platform automatically have access to the MyBook option for the title(s) acquired by the Library. Brill MyBook is a print-on-demand paperback copy which is sold at a favorably uniform low price.

Access this article

+ Tax (if applicable)
Add to Favorites
You must be logged in to use this functionality

image of Nordic Journal of International Law

Three recent judicial or quasi-judicial cases deal with the question as to if provisional measures indicated by the respective body are binding on the parties to the dispute or not. In all three cases, the constitutive instruments under which the body acted were silent on the question of the binding nature of the measures at stake. Traditionally, the point as to the bindingness of such measures, in the absence of any special provision granting them a binding force, was extremely controversial. Now, through these three recent cases, the jurisprudence forcefully affirmed such bindingness. The reasoning on which the three cases are based is similar: according to the caselaw, teleological reasons compel to consider that the provisional measures indicated are binding, since to hold otherwise would allow one party to frustrate the object and purpose of the whole proceeding while the matter is pending. It may thus well be that these three recent precedents established a new (procedural) customary presumption, by a sort of quick speed customary law. Thus, in the absence of special provision to the contrary, provisional measures indicated by an international judicial or quasi-judicial body would be binding, at least when such measures are taken in order to safeguard the respective rights of the parties.


Full text loading...


Data & Media loading...

Article metrics loading...



Can't access your account?
  • Tools

  • Add to Favorites
  • Printable version
  • Email this page
  • Subscribe to ToC alert
  • Get permissions
  • Recommend to your library

    You must fill out fields marked with: *

    Librarian details
    Your details
    Why are you recommending this title?
    Select reason:
    Nordic Journal of International Law — Recommend this title to your library
  • Export citations
  • Key

  • Full access
  • Open Access
  • Partial/No accessInformation