2024년 ICJ의 法院 規則 개정에 따른 訴訟參加의 변동

On February 28, 2024, the ICJ amended Articles 81, 82, and 86 of its Rules of Court, which entered into force on June 1 of the same year. This amendment was prompted by the mass intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute in the Gambia v. Myanmar, Ukraine v. Russia, and South Africa v. Israel cases. In particular, in the Ukraine v. Russia case, 33 States, all on the side of Ukraine, filed 32 declarations of intervention, raising some legal issues, namely, whether such mass intervention would undermine the equality of the parties or affect the sound administration of justice, or whether such mass intervention would constitute an abuse of process. This amendment of the Rules of Court seems to be a kind of response to these legal problems. The period of time for the filing of declarations of intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute is to be shorter than before, and there is no guarantee that States intervening under this Article should be entitled to submit their observations during the oral proceedings. For a State desiring to avail itself of a right of intervention conferred upon it by Article 63 of the ICJ Statute, both the time to prepare its declaration of intervention and the political advantages that could be expected from filing it have been reduced. This will likely reduce the possibility of a repeat of mass intervention under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute as occurred in the Ukraine v. Russia case. On the other hand, this amendment may cause new problems. If an application for permission to intervene pursuant to Article 62 of the ICJ Statute is granted, the intervening State is guaranteed the opportunity to submit its observations in the course of the oral proceedings as set out in Article 85 of the Rules of Court, but the intervening State pursuant to Article 63 of the ICJ Statute is not guaranteed such an opportunity as set out in Article 86 of the amended Rules. While an intervening State as non-party under Article 62 of the ICJ Statute is entitled to submit its observations during the oral proceedings even if it is not bound by the ICJ’s judgments, an intervening State under Article 63 of the ICJ Statute is not guaranteed an opportunity to submit its observations in the course of the oral proceedings even though it is bound by the construction of the Convention given in the judgment of the ICJ. It seems unfair at first glance if the latter State is not guaranteed such an opportunity.