1.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
2.
Romano C, Alter KJ, Shany Y, editors. The Oxford handbook of international adjudication [Internet]. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2014. Available from: https://doi-org.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/10.1093/law/9780199660681.001.0001
3.
Merrills JG. International dispute settlement. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
4.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
5.
Webb P. International judicial integration and fragmentation. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2013.
6.
Boisson de Chazournes L, Kohen MG, Viñuales JE. Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement [Internet]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2013. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9789004209985
7.
Shany Y. Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts [Internet]. Oxford Scholarship; 2013. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199643295.001.0001/acprof-9780199643295
8.
Sands P. Lawless world: making and breaking global rules. London: Penguin; 2006.
9.
Evans MD. Remedies in international law: the institutional dilemma. Oxford, England: Hart Publishing; 1998.
10.
Treaty Series. No. 9. 1901. International Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes; signed at the Hague, July 29, 1899. 20th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers [Internet]. Available from: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1902-001880
11.
Treaty Series No. 6 (1971). Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the Hague, 18th October, 1907. 20th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers [Internet]. I.643. Available from: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1970-059763
12.
Treaty Series No. 32 (1931). General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes (Geneva, September, 1928). 20th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers [Internet]. 335. Available from: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1930-031285
13.
Nations U. United Nations Charter [Internet]. United Nations; Available from: http://www.un.org/en/index.html
14.
George H. Aldrich and Christine M. Chinkin. Introduction. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 2000;94(1):1–3. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555227?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
15.
George H. Aldrich and Christine M. Chinkin. A Century of Achievement and Unfinished Work. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 2000;94(1):90–98. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555233?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
16.
David D. Caron. War and International Adjudication: Reflections on the 1899 Peace Conference. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 2000;94(1):4–30. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2555228?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
17.
Synoptic Chart [Internet]. Project on International Courts and Tribunals; Available from: http://www.pict-pcti.org/
18.
Romano, Cesare P.R. Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle, The. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics [Internet]. New York University School of Law; 1998;31. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=709&handle=hein.journals%2Fnyuilp31&collection=journals
19.
Romano C. The Price of International Justice. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2005 Jul 1;4(2):281–328.
20.
International Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes; signed at the Hague, July 29, 1899. 20th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers [Internet]. Available from: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1902-001880
21.
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. the Hague, 18th October 1907. 20th Century House of Commons Sessional Papers [Internet]. Available from: http://gateway.proquest.com/openurl?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&res_dat=xri:hcpp&rft_dat=xri:hcpp:rec:1968-057818
22.
Nations U. United Nations Charter [Internet]. United Nations; Available from: http://www.un.org/en/
23.
Nations U. Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations - UN Documents: Gathering a body of global agreements [Internet]. United Nations; 1970. Available from: http://www.un.org/
24.
Nations U. Manila Declaration on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes [Internet]. United Nations; 1982. Available from: http://www.un.org/en/
25.
London School of Economics and Political Science. Report of the Rainbow Warrior Affair. International law reports. London: Butterworth; 74.
26.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
27.
Merrills JG. International dispute settlement. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
28.
Anderson D. Negotiation and Dispute Settlement. Remedies in international law: the institutional dilemma. Oxford, England: Hart Publishing; 1998.
29.
Franck TM. Administrative Impartiality as Fairness: the UN Secretary-Generals Good Offices and other third party functions. Fairness in International Law and Institutions [Internet]. Oxford Scholarship; 1995. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198267850.001.0001/acprof-9780198267850-chapter-6
30.
Bercovitch J. Conflict Resolution in the Twenty-first Century [Internet]. University of Michigan Press; 2009. Available from: http://muse.jhu.edu/books/9780472022182
31.
S. Ahmed LB. In Pursuit of Sustainable Peace: the Seven Deadly Sins of Mediation [Internet]. Center on International Cooperation; 2008. Available from: http://peacemaker.un.org/
32.
Boisson de Chazournes L, Kohen MG, Viñuales JE. Diplomatic and judicial means of dispute settlement [Internet]. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 2013. Available from: http://www.vlebooks.com/vleweb/product/openreader?id=UCL&isbn=9789004209985
33.
Merrills JG. International dispute settlement. 5th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.
34.
Developments in Dispute settlement: Inter-State Arbitration since 1945. The British year book of international law [Internet]. 1992;63. Available from: http://ucl-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/primo_library/libweb/action/display.do?tabs=detailsTab&ct=display&fn=search&doc=dedupmrg121768888&indx=1&recIds=dedupmrg121768888&recIdxs=0&elementId=0&renderMode=poppedOut&displayMode=full&frbrVersion=&dscnt=0&dum=true&frbg=&scp.scps=scope%3A%28UCL%29%2Cprimo_central_multiple_fe&tab=local&dstmp=1425307476866&srt=rank&vl(freeText0)=bRITISH%20YEARBOOK%20OF%20INTERNATIONAL%20LAW&vid=UCL_VU1&mode=Basic
35.
Permanent Court of Arbitration. Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes, 1899 [Internet]. Permanent Court of Arbitration; 1899. Available from: http://www.pca-cpa.org/
36.
UNCITRAL. UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration 1985 [Internet]. UNCITRAL; 1985. Available from: http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/uncitral_texts/arbitration/1985Model_arbitration.html
37.
UN. UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Annex VII [Internet]. UN; Available from: http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/convention_overview_convention.htm
38.
ICSID. ICSID Convention Arbitration Rules [Internet]. ICSID; Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/icsiddocs/Pages/ICSID-Convention-Arbitration-Rules.aspx
39.
Government of the Republic of Slovenia. Arbitration agreement between the government of the Republic of Slovenia and the government of the Republic fo Croatia. [Internet]. Government of the Republic of Slovenia; 2009. Available from: http://www.vlada.si/fileadmin/dokumenti/si/projekti/2010/Arbitrazni_sporazum/10.a_Arbitra%C5%BEni_sporazum_-_podpisan_EN.pdf
40.
Commission O. OSPAR Convention - Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic [Internet]. OSPAR Commission; 1992. Available from: http://www.ospar.org/content/content.asp?menu=01481200000000_000000_000000
41.
PCA. Ireland-UK, Rules of procedure for the Arbitral Tribunal Constituted under the OSPAR Convention pursuant to the Request of Ireland dated 15 June 2001 [Internet]. PCA; 2001. Available from: http://pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1158
42.
PCA. Republic of Ecuador v United States of America [Internet]. PCA; Available from: http://www.pca-cpa.org/
43.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
44.
Hirsch M. The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. The arbitration mechanism of the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. Dordrecht: M. Nijhoff; 1993.
45.
ICC. ICC Statute - Rome Statute [Internet]. ICC; Available from: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx
46.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
47.
ICJ. ICJ Statute [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php
48.
ICC. ICC Statute - The Rome Statute [Internet]. ICC; Available from: http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/Pages/default.aspx
49.
CCJ. Agreement establishing the Caribbean Court of Justice [Internet]. CCJ; Available from: http://www.caribbeancourtofjustice.org/
50.
ECHR. ECHR, Advisory opinion on certain legal questions concerning the lists of candidates submitted with a view to the election of judges to the European Court of Human Rights, 12 February 2008 [Internet]. ECHR; 2008. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home&c=
51.
Council of Europe. Resolution CM/Res (2010) 26 on the establishment of an Advisory Panel of Experts on Candidates for Election as Judge to the European Court of Human Rights [Internet]. Council of Europe; 2010. Available from: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=1704555&Site=CM
52.
CJEU. Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, [Internet]. CJEU; Available from: http://europa.eu/index_en.htm
53.
Court S. Speech by Lord Mance - The Composition of the European Court of Justice, 19 October 2011 [Internet]. Supreme Court; 2011. Available from: https://www.supremecourt.uk/
54.
Sands, Philippe. Global Governance and the International Judiciary: Choosing Our Judges. Current Legal Problems [Internet]. 2003;56(1). Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1564009330/86A77CD95B2247DDPQ/1?accountid=14511
55.
Selecting International Judges: Principle, Process, and Politics - Oxford Scholarship [Internet]. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580569.001.0001/acprof-9780199580569
56.
Limbach J. Judicial Independence: Law and Practice of Appointments to the European Court of Human Rights [Internet]. Interights; Available from: http://www.interights.org/jud-ind-en/index.html
57.
Mowbray A. The Consideration of Gender in the Process of Appointing Judges to the European Court of Human Rights. Human Rights Law Review. 2008 Jan 1;8(3):549–559.
58.
Kate Malleson. Promoting Judicial Independence in the International Courts: Lessons from the Caribbean. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 2009;58(3):671–687. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25622231?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
59.
Lauterpacht E. The International Lawyer as Judge. The International Lawyer as Practitioner. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law; 2000. p. 125–144.
60.
Elsig M, Pollack MA. Agents, trustees, and international courts: The politics of judicial appointment at the World Trade Organization. European Journal of International Relations. 2014 Jun 1;20(2):391–415.
61.
Von Bogdandy A, Venzke I. On the Functions of International Courts: An Appraisal in Light of Their Burgeoning Public Authority. Leiden Journal of International Law. 2013 Mar;26(01):49–72.
62.
Stephen M. Schwebel. Ad Hoc Chambers of the International Court of Justice. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 1987;81(4):831–854. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203413?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
63.
Valencia-Ospina E. The Use of Chambers of the International Court of Justice. Fifty years of the International Court of Justice: essays in honour of Sir Robert Jennings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1996. p. 503–527.
64.
Shelton D. Legal Norms for Independence and Accountability of International Tribunals. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2003 Jan 1;2(1):27–62.
65.
Brown C. Evolution and Application of Independence Rules of International Judiciary. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2003 Jan 1;2(1):63–96.
66.
Guillaume G. Some Thoughts on Independence of International Judges. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2003 Jan 1;2(1):163–168.
67.
de Bertodano S. Judicial Independence in the International Criminal Court. Leiden Journal of International Law. 2002 Jun;15(2):409–430.
68.
Charnovitz S. Judicial Independence in the World Trade Organization. International organizations and international dispute settlement: trends and prospects. Ardsley, N.Y.: Transnational Publishers; 2002.
69.
Mackenzie, Ruth. International Courts and Tribunals and the Independence of the International Judge. Harvard International Law Journal [Internet]. 2003;44. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=271&handle=hein.journals%2Fhilj44&collection=journals
70.
International Law Association Study Group on the Law and Procedure of International Tribunals. Burgh House Principles on the Independence of the International Judiciary [Internet]. Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/cict/
71.
ICTY. Prosecutor v. Anto Furundzija, Appeals Chamber, Judgment of 21 July 2000 [Internet]. 21AD. Available from: http://www.icty.org/
72.
ICJ. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=5a&PHPSESSID=63fe2ddc2f12b8922fe3eff89c4e0691&case=131&code=mwp&p3=3
73.
Prosecutor v Sesay, Decision on defence motion, seeking the disqualification of Justice Robertson from the Appeals Chamber, Special Court for Sierra Leone. BHRC; 13AD;16. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=4DN2-S820-TWP1-F0NG&csi=274794&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
74.
Prosecutor v Sam Hinga Norman, Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack of Jurisdiction (Judicial Independence), Appeals Chamber. LRC; 13AD;3. Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com.libproxy.ucl.ac.uk/uk/legal/docview/getDocForCuiReq?lni=531V-8V31-DYJ0-830D&csi=280207&oc=00240&perma=true&elb=t
75.
ICSID. Urbaser S.A. and Consorcio de Aguas Bilbao Bizkaia, Bilbao Biskaia Ur Partzuergoa v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/07/26. Decision on Claimants’ Proposal to Disqualify Professor Campbell McLachlan, Arbitrator [Internet]. ICSID; 12AD. Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Pages/default.aspx
76.
PCA. Republic of Mauritius v United Kingdom, Reasoned Decision on Challenge to Judge Greenwood, 30 November 2011 [Internet]. PCA; 30AD. Available from: http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=363
77.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
78.
Sands, Philippe. Treaty, Custom and the Cross-fertilization of International Law. 1998;1. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/yhurdvl1&div=7&collection=journals&set_as_cursor=1&men_tab=srchresults&terms=Sands,%20Philippe&type=matchall
79.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
80.
WTO. European Communities – Measures Affecting the Approval and Marketing of Biotech Products, WT/DS291/R,WT/DS292/R, WT/DS293/R, Reports of the Panel, 29 September 2006 [Internet]. WTO; 29AD. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds291_e.htm
81.
WTO. United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products,DS58/AB/R, 12 October 1998 [Internet]. WTO; 12AD. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds58_e.htm
82.
World Trade Organization Appellate body: report of the Appellate Body in United States - Standards for reformulated and conventional gasoline. International Legal Materials [Internet]. 1996;35(3):603–634. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20698564?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
83.
ICJ. Case Concerning the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), ICJ Reps1997 [Internet]. ICJ; 1997. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=92&code=hs&p3=4
84.
ICJ. Oil Platforms Case (Iran v US), Judgment of 6 November 2003 [Internet]. ICJ; 6AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?p1=3&p2=3&case=90&code=op&p3=4
85.
PCA. The MOX Plant Case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Annex VII Tribunal, Order of June 2003 [Internet]. PCA; Available from: http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=363
86.
Guyana v Suriname, Arbitral Award of 17 September 2007 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.pca-cpa.org/
87.
International Law Commission. Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, 13 April 2006 [Internet]. International Law Commission; 13AD. Available from: http://www.un.org/law/ilc/
88.
Teitel, Ruti. Cross-Judging: Tribunalization in a Fragmented but Interconnected Global Order. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics [Internet]. 2009;41. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=959&handle=hein.journals%2Fnyuilp41&collection=journals
89.
Pellet A. The role of the international lawyer in international litigation. The International Lawyer as Practitioner. London: British Institute of International and Comparative Law; 2000. p. 147–162.
90.
Bowett D. The Conduct of International Litigation. International Court of Justice: Process, Practise and Procedure. BIICL; 1997. p. 1–20.
91.
Shaw, Malcolm N. International Court of Justice: A Practical Perspective, The. International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 1997;46. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=831&handle=hein.journals%2Fincolq46&collection=journals
92.
WTO. European Communities Regime for the Importation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas, 2 August 1997, WT/DS27/AB/R, 9 September 1997 [Internet]. WTO; 9AD. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds27_e.htm
93.
ICJ. ICJ, Practice Directions VII and VIII [Internet]. ICJ; 2002. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/index.php?lang=en
94.
ICC. Code of Professional Conduct for Counsel, Resolution 1 of the fourth meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to the ICC Statute [Internet]. ICC; Available from: http://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/default.aspx
95.
International Law Association Study Group on the Practice and Procedure of International Tribunals. The Hague Principles on Ethical Standards for Counsel appearing before International Courts and Tribunals [Internet]. UCL; 2010. Available from: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/laws/cict/
96.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
97.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
98.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
99.
Merrills. The Optional Clause Today. The British year book of international law. 1979;50.
100.
Merrills. The Optional Clause Revisited. The British year book of international law. 1993;64.
101.
ICJ. Speech of HE Judge Rosalyn Higgins, President of the ICJ, to the Sixth Committee of the United Nations, 31 October 2008 [Internet]. ICJ; 31AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/1/14841.pdf
102.
ICJ. ICJ, Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment of 4 December 1998 [Internet]. ICJ; 4AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=ac&case=96&code=ec&p3=4
103.
ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Judgment on Preliminary Objections, 1 April 2011 [Internet]. ICJ; 1AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&case=140&code=GR&p3=4
104.
ICJ. Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application 2002) (Democratic Republic of Congo v. Rwanda) Judgment on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 3 February 2006 [Internet]. ICJ; 3AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=19&case=126&code=crw&p3=4
105.
PCA. The Republic of Mauritius v. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland [Internet]. PCA; Available from: http://pca-cpa.org/
106.
PCA. Mauritius v United Kingdom (Procedural Order No. 2) 15th of January 2013, Decision on Bifurcation (joining jurisdiction to the merits) [Internet]. PCA; 15AD. Available from: http://www.pca-cpa.org/
107.
ITLOS. ARA Libertad (Ghana v Argentina) Order of the 15th December 2012 [Internet]. ITLOS; 15AD. Available from: https://www.itlos.org/en/main/latest-news/
108.
ICSID. Southern Bluefin Tuna Case - Australia and New Zealand v. Japan [Internet]. ICSID; Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/about/Pages/Southern-Bluefin-Tuna-Case---Australia-and-New-Zealand-v.-Japan.aspx
109.
ITLOS. MOX Plant Case (Ireland v. UK) ITLOS, Order of 3 Dec. 2001 [Internet]. ITLOS; 3AD. Available from: https://www.itlos.org/
110.
ECHR. Bankovic v. Belgium et al, Eur.Ct.H.R. Admissibility Decision, 12th Dec. 2001 [Internet]. ECHR; 12AD. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
111.
ICJ. Case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, (Georgia v. Russia), Judgment on Preliminary Objections, 1 April 2011 [Internet]. ICJ; 1AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=4d&case=140&code=GR&p3=4
112.
ICJ. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation) [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=4d&case=140&code=GR&p3=1
113.
ICJ, ICJ. Oral Proceedings, CR 2010/9, 14 September 2010 [Internet]. ICJ; 14AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=4d&case=140&code=GR&p3=2
114.
ICJ. Oral Proceedings, CR 2010/10, 15 September 2010 [Internet]. ICJ; 15AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=4d&case=140&code=GR&p3=2
115.
ICJ. Oral Proceedings, CR 2010/11, 16 September 2010 [Internet]. ICJ; 16AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=4d&case=140&code=GR&p3=2
116.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
117.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
118.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
119.
Jennings R. Reflections on the Term ‘Dispute’’. Essays in Honour of Wang Tieya.
120.
ICJ. Case Concerning East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) 1995 ICJ Rep. 13 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=84&code=pa&p3=4
121.
ICJ. US Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States v. Iran) 1980 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=64&code=usir&p3=4
122.
ICJ. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France) 1974 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/
123.
ICJ. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (1970-1971) 1970 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=a7&case=53&code=nam&p3=4
124.
ICJ. Legality of the Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Belgium) 1999 ICJ Rep [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=25&case=105&code=ybe&p3=3
125.
ICJ. Nottebohm Case, 1955 ICJ Reports, 4 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=5&p3=-1&y=1955
126.
Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v. Spain) 1970, ICJ Reports 3 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=50&code=bt2&p3=4
127.
ICJ. Northern Cameroons, ICJ Rep. 1963, 15 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=289&code=cuk&p1=3&p2=3&case=48&k=1c&p3=5
128.
ICJ, Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), ICJ Rep. 1974, 327 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=78&case=58&code=af&p3=4
129.
ECHR EC of HR. ECHR, Ireland v. United Kingdom, [Internet]. 1978. Available from: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/ext/app/document?crumb-action=reset&docguid=ICAAE77E0E42711DA8FC2A0F0355337E9&entityID=https://shib-idp.ucl.ac.uk/shibboleth
130.
ICJ. ICJ, South West Africa cases , ICJ Rep. 1966, 6 (Ethiopia v. South Africa) (Liberia v. South Africa) [Internet]. ICJ; 1966. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=5&p3=-1&y=1966
131.
ICJ. ICJ, Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (New Application: 1962) (Belgium v. Spain) 1970 ICJ Reports, 3 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=50&code=bt2&p3=4
132.
Paulsson J. Jurisdiction and Admissibility. Global Reflections on International Law, Commerce and Dispute Resolution: LIber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner [Internet]. ICC Publishing; 2005. Available from: http://www.arbitration-icca.org/index.html
133.
Shany Y. Jurisdiction and Admissibility. In: Romano C, Alter KJ, Shany Y, editors. The Oxford handbook of international adjudication [Internet]. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 779–805. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42603/chapter/357546658
134.
ICJ. Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America) ICJ Reps 1954, 19 [Internet]. ICJ; 15AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=19&code=gold&p3=4
135.
ICJ. Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia) ICJ Reps 1992, 240 [Internet]. ICJ; 26AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=e2&case=80&code=naus&p3=4
136.
ICJ. East Timor case (Portugal v Australia), ICJ Reps 1995 , 90 [Internet]. ICJ; 30AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=66&case=84&code=pa&p3=4
137.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
138.
C. M. Chinkin. Third-Party Intervention Before the International Court of Justice. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 1986;80(3):495–531. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2201772?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
139.
Chinkin CM. Third parties in international law. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993.
140.
Schwebel SM. Review of ‘Third parties in International Law’ by Christine Chinkin. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 1995;89(4). Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203944?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
141.
ICJ. Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Libya/Malta), Application for Permission to Intervene by Italy, 21 March 1984, 1984 ICJ Reps 3 [Internet]. ICJ; 21AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=68&code=lm&p3=4
142.
ICJ. Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Order of 21 October 1999 [Internet]. ICJ; 21AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=94&code=cn&p3=3
143.
ICJ. Case concerning Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan, Application by the Philippines for Permission to Intervene, 23 October 2001 [Internet]. ICJ; 23AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=df&case=102&code=inma&p3=4
144.
ICJ. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan, New Zealand intervening), Declaration of Intervention by New Zealand, Order of 6 February 2013 (Article 63) [Internet]. ICJ; 6AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&case=148&code=aj&p3=3
145.
Angell E. The Amicus Curiae American Development of English Institutions. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 1967;16(4):1017–1044. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/756883?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
146.
Krislov S. The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy. The Yale Law Journal [Internet]. 1963;72(4):694–721. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/794698?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
147.
Dinah Shelton. The Participation of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Judicial Proceedings. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 1994;88(4):611–642. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2204133?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
148.
Mackenzie R. The Amicus Curiae in International Courts: Towards Common Procedural Approaches? Civil society, international courts and compliance bodies. The Hague: T.M.C. Asser Press; 2005.
149.
De Brabandere, Eric. NGOs and the ‘Public Interest’: The Legality and Rationale of Amicus Curiae Interventions in International Economic and Investment Disputes. Chicago Journal of International Law [Internet]. University of Chicago Law School; 12(1):85–113. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/883133824?accountid=14511
150.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
151.
ICJ Practice Direction XII [Internet]. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=4&p3=0
152.
WTO. US-Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS/58/AB/R, 12 October 1999 [Internet]. WTO; 12AD. Available from: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds58_e.htm
153.
WTO. US – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the UK, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS138/AB/R, 10 May 2000 [Internet]. WTO; 10AD. Available from: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds138_e.htm
154.
WTO. WTO, European Communities – Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos-containing Products – Communication from the Appellate Body, WT/DS135/9, 8 November 2000 [Internet]. WTO; 8AD. Available from: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds135_e.htm
155.
Amicus Brief Storm Highlights WTO Unease with External Transparency. Bridges [Internet]. 4(9). Available from: http://www.ictsd.org/downloads/2009/03/bridges04-9.pdf
156.
Appleton, Arthur E. Amicus Curiae Submissions in the Carbon Steel Case: Another Rabbit from the Appellate Body’s Hat. Journal of International Economic Law [Internet]. 2000;3. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=691&handle=hein.journals%2Fjiel3&collection=journals
157.
Marceau, Gabrielle. Practical suggestions for amicus curiae briefs before WTO adjudicating bodies. Journal of International Economic Law [Internet]. Oxford Publishing Limited(England); 4(1):155–187. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/218099523?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:primo&accountid=14511
158.
NAFTA. Methanex Corporation v. USA, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Third Persons to Intervene as "Amici Curiae” 15 January 2001 [Internet]. NAFTA; 15AD. Available from: http://www.naftaclaims.com/
159.
NAFTA. UPS v. Canada, Decision of the Tribunal on Petitions for Intervention and Participation as Amici Curiae, 17 October 2001 and Procedural Directions for Amicus Submissions, 4 April 2003 [Internet]. NAFTA; 17AD. Available from: http://www.naftaclaims.com/
160.
ICSID. Aguas Argentinas S.A., Suez, Sociedad General de Aguas de Barcelona, S.A .and Vivendi Universal, S.A. v. Argentine Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/03/19) [Internet]. ICSID; 19AD. Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/Pages/default.aspx
161.
Levine E. Amicus Curiae in International Investment Arbitration: The Implications of an Increase in Third-Party Participation. Berkeley Journal of International Law [Internet]. 2011;29(1):200–224. Available from: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=bsu&AN=60706503&site=ehost-live&scope=site
162.
Amerasinghe C. Evidence in International Litigation. Martinus Nijhoff; 2005.
163.
Highet K. Evidence and Proof of Facts. The International Court of Justice at a crossroads. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Transnational Publishers; 1987. p. 355–375.
164.
May, Richard. Trends in International Criminal Evidence: Nuremberg, Tokyo, The Hague, and Arusha. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law [Internet]. 1998;37. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=725&handle=hein.journals%2Fcjtl37&collection=journals
165.
Plant B. Evidence before the International Court of Justice. BIICL; 2009.
166.
Gattini, Andrea. Evidentiary Issues in the ICJ’s Genocide Judgment. Journal of International Criminal Justice [Internet]. 2007;5. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=889&handle=hein.journals%2Fjicj5&collection=journals
167.
Cheng B. General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1994.
168.
Grando, Michelle T. Allocating the Burden of Proof in WTO Disputes: A Critical Analysis. Journal of International Economic Law [Internet]. Oxford Publishing Limited(England); 9(3). Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/218087369?accountid=14511
169.
Keith Highet. Evidence, the Court, and the Nicaragua Case. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 1987;81(1):1–56. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2202130?origin=crossref&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
170.
Kazazi M. Burden of Proof and Related Issues – A Study on Evidence Before International Tribunals. Kluwer Law International; 1996.
171.
Kokott J. The burden of proof in comparative and international human rights law: civil and common law approaches with special reference to the American and German legal systems. The Hague: Kluwer Law International; 1998.
172.
Lillich RB. Fact-Finding before International Tribunals. Transnational publications; 1991.
173.
May R, Wierda M. International Criminal Evidence. Transnational Publishers; 2002.
174.
Sandifer DV. Evidence before international tribunals. Rev. ed. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia; 1975.
175.
Wald, Patricia M. To Establish Incredible Events by Credible Evidence: The Use of Affidavit Testimony in Yugoslavia War Crimes Tribunal Proceedings. Harvard International Law Journal [Internet]. 2001;42. Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?page=535&handle=hein.journals%2Fhilj42&collection=journals
176.
ICJ. Case concerning Oil Platforms (Iran v US), Judgment of 6 November 2003 [Internet]. ICJ; 6AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?p1=3&p2=3&case=90&code=op&p3=4
177.
ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment of 26 February 2007, [Internet]. ICJ; 26AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=91&p3=4
178.
ICJ. Case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment of 19 December 2005 [Internet]. ICJ; 19AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=51/&case=116&code=co&p3=4
179.
ICTY. Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Trial Chamber Judgment of 1 September 2004 [Internet]. ICTY; 1AD. Available from: http://www.icty.org/sid/8368
180.
ECHR. Nachova and Others v. Bulgaria, Judgment of 6 July 2005 [Internet]. ECHR; 6AD. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
181.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Case of Velásquez-Rodríguez v. Honduras, Judgment of July 29, 1988 [Internet]. Inter-American Court of Human Rights; 29AD. Available from: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/index.php/en
182.
ICJ. Case Concerning Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United [Internet]. ICJ; 27AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?p1=3&p2=3&case=70&code=nus&p3=4
183.
ICJ. Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Dicrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation) Judgment of the 1st April 2011 [Internet]. ICJ; 1AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&case=140&code=GR&p3=4
184.
ICJ. Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v Japan, New Zealand intervening) [Internet]. ICJ; 31AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&case=148&code=aj&p3=5
185.
ICTY. Prosecutor v. Tadic, Appeals Chamber Judgment of 15 July 1999, [Internet]. ICTY; 15AD. Available from: http://www.icty.org/case/tadic/4
186.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
187.
Rosenne S. Provisional Measures in International Law [Internet]. Oxford Scholarship; 2005. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199268061.001.0001/acprof-9780199268061
188.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
189.
Collins L. Interim measures in International Tribunals. Essays in international litigation and the conflict of laws. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993. p. 214–233.
190.
J. G. Merrills. Interim Measures of Protection in the Recent Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 1995;44(1):90–146. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/760861
191.
ICJ. Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia-Herzegovina v Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro)), Order of 8 April 1993 [Internet]. ICJ; 8AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=f4&case=91&code=bhy&p3=3
192.
ITLOS. Southern Bluefin Tuna Cases (Australia and New Zealand v Japan), Order of 27 August 1999 [Internet]. ITLOS; 27AD. Available from: http://www.itlos.org/en/cases/list-of-cases/case-no-3-4/
193.
ITLOS. MOX Plant case (Ireland v UK), Order of 3 December 2001 [Internet]. ITLOS; 3AD. Available from: http://www.itlos.org/index.php?id=102
194.
ICJ. Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v Uruguay), Order of 13 July 2006, Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures [Internet]. ICJ; 13AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=135&code=au&p3=3
195.
ICJ. Request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand) [Internet]. ICJ; 18AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=1&k=89&case=151&code=ct2&p3=3
196.
ICJ. La Grand Case (Germany v USA), Order of 3 March 1999 [Internet]. ICJ; 3AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=104&code=gus&p3=3
197.
ICJ. La Grand Case (Germany v USA), Judgment of 27 June 2001 [Internet]. ICJ; 27AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=104&code=gus&p3=4
198.
ECHR. Mamatkulov and Askarov v Turkey, Judgment of 4 February 2005 [Internet]. ECHR; 4AD. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
199.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
200.
Brown C. Remedies in International Adjudication. A Common Law of International Adjudication [Internet]. OUP; 2007. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206506.001.0001/acprof-9780199206506-chapter-7
201.
Gray C. Chapter 40: Remedies. In: Romano C, Alter KJ, Shany Y, editors. The Oxford handbook of international adjudication [Internet]. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2014. p. 871–898. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/42603/chapter/357546675
202.
Gray CD. International Arbitral practice. International Arbitral Practice [Internet]. Clarenden; 1990. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198254324.001.0001/acprof-9780198254324-chapter-2
203.
ILC. International Law Commission - Articles on State Responsibility [Internet]. ILC; 2001. Available from: http://www.un.org/law/ilc/
204.
Schultz C. Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice - Oxford Scholarship [Internet]. Oxford University Press; 2004. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199276721.001.0001/acprof-9780199276721
205.
Llamzon A. Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice. European Journal of International Law [Internet]. 2007;18:815–852. Available from: http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/18/5/250.pdf
206.
ICJ. La Grand Case (Germany v US) [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=104&code=gus&p3=1
207.
Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Advisory Opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights on the Right to Information on Consular Assistance in the Framework of the Guarantees of the Due Process of Law, Advisory Opinion OC-16/99 of October 1, 1999 Requested by the United Mexican States, Inter-American Court of Human Rights [Internet]. Inter-American Court of Human Rights; 1AD. Available from: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/docs/opiniones/seriea_16_ing.pdf
208.
ICJ. Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium), [Internet]. ICJ; 14AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=121&p3=4
209.
Mackenzie R, Romano C, Shany Y, Sands P. Manual on international courts and tribunals. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
210.
Brown C. Power of International Courts to Interpret and Revise Judgments and Awards [Internet]. A Common Law of International Adjudication. OUP; 2007. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199206506.001.0001/acprof-9780199206506-chapter-6
211.
ICJ. Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24th Feb. 1982 in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libya) 10 December 1985 [Internet]. ICJ; 10AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=05&case=71&code=tltl&p3=4
212.
ICJ. Application for Revision of the Judgment in the Genocide Case, Judgment of 3 February 2003 [Internet]. ICJ; 3AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3cari&k=8d&PHPSESSID=d8ad9d6013d807680991459a0b88d6f8&case=122&code=ybh&p3=4
213.
ICJ. Case concerning the Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Judgment of 15 December 2004 [Internet]. ICJ; 15AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=d6&case=105&code=ybe&p3=4
214.
ICJ. Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11th June 1998 in the Case Concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Judgment of 25 March 1999 [Internet]. ICJ; 25AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&k=52&case=101&code=nc&p3=4
215.
The Courts of British Columbia. United Mexican States v. Metalclad, 2001 BCSC 664 [Internet]. The Courts of British Columbia; 2AD. Available from: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/
216.
ECHR. Hatton and Others v. United Kingdom, European Court of Human Rights, 8 July 2003 [Internet]. ECHR; 8AD. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home
217.
WTO. Understanding on rules and procedures governing the settlement of disputes [Internet]. WTO; Available from: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/dsu_e.htm
218.
ICSID. ICSID Convention [Internet]. ICSID; 14AD. Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/icsiddocs/Pages/ICSID-Convention.aspx
219.
Caron D. Reputation and Reality in the ICSID Annulment Process: Understanding the Distinction between Annulment and Appeal. ICSID Review: Foreign Investment Law Journal [Internet]. 7(1):21–56. Available from: http://icsidreview.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/1.toc
220.
Schreuer C. From ICSID Annulment to Appeal Half Way Down the Slippery Slope. The Law & Practice of International Courts and Tribunals. 2011 Jan 1;10(2):211–225.
221.
ICSID. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, Decision of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 25 September 2007 [Internet]. ICSID; 25AD. Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/01/8&tab=DOC
222.
ICSID. Enron Corp. Ponderosa Asset, L.P. v Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/3, Decision on the Application for Annulment of the Argentine Republic, 30 July 2010 [Internet]. ICSID; 30AD. Available from: http://italaw.com/documents/EnronAnnulmentDecision.pdf
223.
ICSID. Sempra Energy Int’l v Argentine Republic, ICSID (W. Bank) Case No. ARB/02/16, Decision on Argentine Republic’s Request for Annulment of the Award, June 2010 [Internet]. ICSID; 29AD. Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/cases/Pages/casedetail.aspx?CaseNo=ARB/02/16&tab=DOC
224.
ICSID. Secretariat, Background Paper on Annulment for the Administrative Council of ICSID, August 10, 2012 [Internet]. ICSID; 10AD. Available from: https://icsid.worldbank.org/apps/ICSIDWEB/resources/Pages/Background-Papers.aspx
225.
Collier JG, Lowe AV. The settlement of disputes in international law: institutions and procedures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.
226.
ICJ. Legal Consequences Of The Construction Of A Wall In The Occupied Palestinian Territory, ICJ, Advisory Opinion, 9 July [Internet]. ICJ; 9AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&case=131&code=mwp&p3=4
227.
ICJ. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975 [Internet]. ICJ; 16AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&case=61&code=sa&p3=4
228.
ICJ. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict ICJ, 8 July 1996 [Internet]. ICJ; 8AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&case=93&code=anw&p3=4
229.
ICJ. Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July 2010 [Internet]. ICJ; 22AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&case=141&p3=4
230.
Roberto Ago. ‘Binding’ Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice. The American Journal of International Law [Internet]. 1991;85(3):439–451. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2203106?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
231.
ITLOS. Request for Advisory Opinion from the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission, 27 March 2013 [Internet]. ITLOS; 27AD. Available from: https://www.itlos.org/en/cases/list-of-cases/
232.
ECHR. Decision on the Competence of the Court to Give an Advisory Opinion ECtHR, 2 June 2004 [Internet]. ECHR; 2AD. Available from: http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=caselaw&c=#n1347456340010_pointer
233.
IACHR. Other Treaties’ subject to the consultative jurisdiction of the Court (art. 64 of the American Convention on Human Rights) Advisory Opinion OC-1/82, 24 September 1982 [Internet]. IACHR; 24AD. Available from: http://www.corteidh.or.cr/index.php/en/advisory-opinions
234.
ICJ. Speech of President Guillaume to the Sixth Committee of UN General Assembly, October 2000 [Internet]. ICJ; Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?pr=85&pt=3&p1=1&p2=3&p3=1
235.
New York University Journal of International Law and Politics. New York University School of Law; 1999;31(4). Available from: http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Index?index=journals%2Fnyuilp&collection=journals
236.
Hague Academy of International Law. Is International Law Threatened by Multiple International Tribunals?,. Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye: Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International L. Leiden: Sijthoff; 1998;271.
237.
Rosalyn Higgins. A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the Bench. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly [Internet]. 2006;55(4):791–804. Available from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4092619?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
238.
Shany Y. Competing Jurisdictions of International Courts and Tribunals [Internet]. Oxford Scholarship; 2004. Available from: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199274284.001.0001/acprof-9780199274284
239.
Webb P. International judicial integration and fragmentation. First edition. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press; 2013.
240.
ICJ. Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal) [Internet]. ICJ; 20AD. Available from: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&case=144&code=bs&p3=4
241.
PCA. The MOX Plant case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Order No. 3, Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, and Request for Further Provisional Measures, 24 June 2003 [Internet]. PCA; 24AD. Available from: http://www.pcacases.com/
242.
PCA. The MOX Plant case (Ireland v United Kingdom), Order No. 4, Further Suspension of Proceedings on Jurisdiction and Merits, 14 November 2003 [Internet]. PCA; 14AD. Available from: http://www.pcacases.com/
243.
European Court of Justice. Commission v Ireland, Case C-459/03, Judgment of the Court of 30 May 2006 [Internet]. European Court of Justice; 30AD. Available from: http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/jcms/j_6/
