Treść książki

Przejdź do opcji czytnikaPrzejdź do nawigacjiPrzejdź do informacjiPrzejdź do stopki
USESANDUNDERUSES...
27
4.ARETHEICERDDISPUTESETTLEMENTPROCEDURES
“UNDERUSED”?
TakingintoconsiderationthatthecompromissoryclauseinArt.22oftheCon-
ventionhasbeeninvokedonlythreetimesinthesixtyyearssincetheICERD’sentry
intoforce,andthatthecompetenceofCERDtoengageintheconciliationofinter-
statedisputeshasneverbeenavailedofuntil2018,itwouldbedifculttoarguethat
stateshaveshownmuchwillingnesstousethesettlementdisputeproceduresthey
themselvescreatedin1965.WhereasthecasesbroughttotheattentionoftheICJand
CERDinrecentyearsshouldprobablynotbeconsideredasabreakthroughinreversing
thistrend,theycouldhoweverstimulatediscussionontheKunder-usage”ofthedispute
settlementproceduresprovidedforintheConvention.
Asregardsinter-statedisputes,muchelorthasbeenputbytherespondentstatesin
thecasesbroughttotheICJintoarguingthatKnegotiationsortheproceduresprovided
inICERD”mustbeexhaustedpriortosubmittingacaseunderArt.22ofthetreaty.It
isstillnotclearifstateshavetogothroughbothnegotiationsandtheproceduresset
outinArts.11-13ofICERDtosuccessfullybringaclaimtotheICJ.Essentially,states
shouldbeallowedtomakeaneducatedchoiceastowhichforumandlegalremedy
hasthebestchancetoresolvethedisputeandproviderelief,forthebenefitofthose
protectedunderICERD.Anobligationtogothroughafutileandtime-consuming
conciliatoryprocedurewithadoomed-to-failresultdoesnotbestservetheideaofef-
fectiveinternationaljustice.Ontheotherhand,onecouldimaginethataninter-state
disputeovertheinterpretationorapplicationofICERDmightwellbeexaminedand
resolvedthroughCERD’sgoodofcesandconciliationproceduresinaccordancewith
theConventionprovisions,withoutrecoursetoArt.22ofICERD.
Tegeneralanswertothequestionposedinthetitleofthissectionisthusinthe
afrmative.ICERDinter-statedisputesettlementproceduresboththeKinternal”
onesaswellastheoneallowingforseisinoftheICJareunderused.Tesamecould
beobservedabouttheindividualcomplaintprocedureunderArt.14ofICERD,which
unliketheinter-stateapplicationsusuallyrefertoasituationoccurringinthestate-
partyoftheclaimant’soriginorresidence.Itisunrealistictoexpectadramaticincrease
inthenumberofdisputesinvolvingICERDKinternal”proceduresnorasignificant
increaseinthenumberofcasesbroughttotheICJunderArt.22ofICERD.Never-
theless,thedebateaboutresolvingdisputesinvolvingICERDprovisionsisaboutthe
electivenessofproceduralprotectionagainstracialdiscrimination.Inabroadersense,
itisabouttheutilityandelectivenessofahumanrightstreaty’sobligationsassuch.In
thiscontext,muchremainstobedonetoensurethatthedisputesettlementprocedures
providedforinICERDaretrulyelectiveandthatstatesshowmoreopennesstothe
jurisdictionoftheICJunderitsArt.22.