•  
  •  
 

Abstract

This brief article endeavours to tackle the thorny question of the judicial control of acts adopted by United Nations Organs. The analysis is strictly confined to the international judicial control of two specific organs, i.e. Security Council and General Assembly. Contrary to many domestic legal systems, where such judicial control is envisaged either by an explicit empowerment or by a constitutional custom, a similar entrustment is not envisaged by the United Nations Charter. Therefore, a specific jurisdictional entitlement is needed for the International Court of Justice to assess the validity of a resolution adopted by the two aforementioned organs. This has been the case through the seisine, in the case of a contentious case brought before her, or a through a specific request of advisory opinion made by one of the organs vested with this power by the United Nations Charter, that is to say, according to its Article 96 (1), Security Council and General Assembly. This has in fact hitherto occurred 7 times since the entry into force of the United Nations Charter. Finally, one of the most far-reaching international judicial reviews of the validity of acts adopted by a United Nations organ, has been wielded by a Court outside the UN System, i.e. the Court of Justice of European Union. This article eventually delves into all these judgments and advisory opinions rendered by the International Court of Justice and the Court of Luxembourg.

Download

Share

COinS