The compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the Pact of Bogotá

• Autor: Méndez Chang, Elvira
• Formato: artículo
• Fecha de Publicación: 2023
• Institución: Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Repositorio: Revistas - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú
• Lenguaje: español
• OAI Identifier: oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/27434
• Enlace del recurso: http://revistas.pucp.edu.pe/index.php/derechoysociedad/article/view/27434
• Nivel de acceso: acceso abierto
• Materia: Pacto de Bogotá; Corte Internacional de Justicia; Jurisdicción obligatoria; Solución de controversias; Pact of Bogota; International Court of Justice; Compulsory jurisdiction; Conflict resolution

Article XXXI of Pact of Bogotá (1948) created the obligation for States parties to submit their disputes to the International Court of Justice “in conformity with” article 36 paragraph 2 of its Statute. In this regard, Honduras held the position that Article XXXI required each State party to make a declaration in accordance with its Statute in order to unilaterally bring the case to the International Court of Justice in the case concerning Border and transborder armed actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras). Then, a question arises: what is the relationship between these two articles? After analyzing international law, jurisprudence and doctrine, the conclusion is that these articles are not related to each other because they are two independent titles of jurisdiction whose differences are found in the source of the State consent, to whom they apply and the disputes that can be settled by the International Court of Justice.