Counter-Claims before the International Court of Justice: Incidental yet Independent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article examines the role and practice of counter-claims at the International Court of Justice. Through its procedural rules (Rules of Court) and case law, the Court has clarified the material requirements that govern the admissibility of counter-claims. Nonetheless, several issues concerning their admissibility remain unsettled, namely: (a) the relationship between the Court’s material requirements for the admissibility of counter-claims; (b) the temporal dimension of the first of those requirements, which concerns the Court’s jurisdiction over the counter-claims in question; and (c) the content of the requirement that there be a direct connection between the counter-claims and the subject-matter of the claims in the principal proceedings. These issues bear upon fundamental tenets of the consensual nature of the Court’s jurisdiction and the need to ensure good administration of justice, which calls inter alia for the respect of the procedural equality of the parties and judicial economy. This article offers critical reflections on the Court’s recent case law in which these issues have been raised. It is argued that the key obstacle to the settlement of these issues lies in the hybrid character of counter-claims, which are neither fully independent (autonomous) nor purely incidental in respect of the claims advanced by the applicant in a case.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".