Practice question
A prior ICJ judgment between A and B identifies a customary navigation rule after examining State practice and opinio juris. In a later dispute between C and D, C says the judgment itself conclusively binds D despite D's nonparticipation. D says the whole judgment must be ignored. Which position is best?
- Neither: the reasoning may assist in identifying the rule, but the earlier judgment is not binding on D merely under Article 59.
- C is correct because every judgment is global legislation.
- D is correct because nonparty status erases all legal relevance.
- The rule exists only if D purchases the judgment.
- The earlier judgment automatically supplies jurisdiction in the new dispute.
Legal references
- ICJ Statute, Articles 38(1)(d) and 59: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/statute-of-the-international-court-of-justice
- ILC, Conclusions on Identification of Customary International Law (2018), Conclusions 2 and 12–14: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/draft_articles/1_13_2018.pdf
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.