There is a need − both conceptual and practical − to distinguish clearly the procedures applicable to interpretation and revision at the ICJ. To do so, the article first undertakes an analysis of the relevant provisions of the Statute – Articles 60 and 61 – and of the Rules of Court. The differences between both proceedings with regard to their introduction before the Court, the ICJ’s jurisdiction to consider them, and their different admissibility requirements will be addressed. Then, it considers issues pertaining to the relationship between an original judgment – the one to be interpreted or revised – and the judgment in interpretation or revision. The pivotal role of the principle of res judicata is taken into account. Furthermore, the piece attempts to attribute a proper characterisation to interpretation and revision proceedings, as either new cases, incidental proceedings, or a hybrid conception between those two more conventional denominations.

On 12 October 2021, the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) issued its judgment on the merits in Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya). The judgment raises questions of significance in respect of two issues upon which this comment elaborates. First, the Court failed to distinguish adequately between the notions of acquiescence and tacit agreement, which were at the basis of Kenya’s claim for an agreed boundary running along a parallel of latitude. Second, in drawing the boundary as requested by Somalia, the Court departed from its usual approach concerning the adjustment of the provisional equidistance line established in the first stage of its three-stage delimitation process.

No abstract

No abstract