The applicant sought an advisory order from the court to interpret the meaning of United Nations Security Council resolution no 1441 with regard to steps to be taken under the resolution in the event of the failure of Iraq to comply.
Held: A review was granted, but the court then declined to allow itself jurisdiction to interpret an international resolution of this sort, when necessarily the issues at stake were not ones of British law. A domestic court sought to assert itself as to the application of English law within the jurisdiction, but not outside it. An attempt to do so would be likely also to damage public interest in the field of international law. An order was made limiting the costs to andpound;25,000. The court considered the principle ‘whereby the court has no jurisdiction to declare the true interpretation of an international instrument which has not been incorporated into English domestic law and which it is unnecessary to interpret for the purposes of determining a person’s rights and duties under domestic law’.
Judges:
Lord Justice Simon Brown, Mr Justice Maurice Kay, Mr Justice Richards
Citations:
Times 27-Dec-2002, [2002] EWHC 2759 (QB)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2) Admn 5-Dec-2002
The claimants intended to seek a judicial review requesting an interpretation of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. They sought first, an order pre-emptively to limit their liability for costs.
Held: To make such a protective . .
See Also – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) v Prime Minister and others Admn 17-Dec-2002
CND sought an advisory declaration as to the meaning of UN Security Council resolution 1441, which had given Iraq ‘a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations’ and whether the resolution authorised states to take military action . .
Cited by:
Cited – A B and others v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust QBD 9-May-2003
The claimants were involved in a group litigation with regard to the removal of organs without consent from deceased children. The defendant sought an order capping the costs which might be claimed.
Held: In GLO cases the desirability of . .
Cited – Jones and Milling, Olditch and Pritchard, and Richards v Gloucestershire Crown Prosecution Service CACD 21-Jul-2004
The court considered the extent to which the defendants in the proceedings can rely on their beliefs as to the unlawfulness of the United Kingdom’s actions in preparing for, declaring, and waging war in Iraq in 2003 in a defence to a charge of . .
Cited – Occidental Exploration and Production Company vRepublic of Ecuador CA 9-Sep-2005
The parties had arbitrated their dispute in London under a bilateral investment treaty between the US and Ecuador. The republic sought to appeal the arbitration. The applicant now appealed an order that the English High Court had jurisdiction to . .
See Also – The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament v The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom,The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Secretary of State for Defence (2) Admn 5-Dec-2002
The claimants intended to seek a judicial review requesting an interpretation of a resolution of the United Nations Security Council. They sought first, an order pre-emptively to limit their liability for costs.
Held: To make such a protective . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Judicial Review, International, Constitutional, Jurisdiction, Costs
Updated: 28 May 2022; Ref: scu.178526
