Majority opinion

About: Majority opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4107 publications have been published within this topic receiving 54845 citations. The topic is also known as: opinion of the court.

Expenses of the United Nations for Peace-Keeping Operations: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice

Abstract: The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice adopted by 9 votes to 5 on July 20, 1962, affirmed that the expenditures authorized for operations in the Congo (ONUC) by General Assembly resolutions from December 20, i960, to October 30, 1961, and the expenditures authorized for the operations of the UN Emergency Force (UNEF) in the Middle East from November 26, 1956, to December 20, 1960, constitute “Expenses of the Organization” within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations. Though the Court, for reasons discussed below, refrained from declaring it explicitly, the opinion had the effect of holding that Members of the UN were legally bound to pay the assessments made by the Assembly to defray the costs of the two operations. The Court arrived at this conclusion by a relatively simple process of reasoning: first, it found that the text of Article 17, paragraph 2, related to expenses incurred in carrying out the purposes of the Organization; second, it examined the expenditures referred to above, and found that they were incurred with that end in view; thirdly and finally, it examined arguments which had been advanced against its conclusion and found them without merit. Some of these arguments will be examined later.

Extending Enforcement: The Coalition for the International Criminal Court

Abstract: With judges chosen, cases underway, and judgments rendered, the International Criminal Court has officially begun operations. As the Court has proceeded with its activities, its potential has become enhanced. The creation of the Court through the 1998 Rome Statute came through cooperation of an exceptionally broad coalition of NGOs with like-minded states. This article examines the historical background to the Court’s establishment, exploring why seemingly favorable conditions after the World Wars failed to result in a permanent judicial institution. Even post-1948 genocides in Southeast Asia, Central Africa, and elsewhere did not lead to international steps. Unexpected events, including the end of the Cold War and special tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, reopened the possibility for action. Despite opposition from most Permanent Members of the Security Council, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court—the major focus of this study—coordinated a network of citizen groups to exert pressure successfully. The 2010 Review Conference for the International Criminal Court reaffirmed the Court’s basic directions, and broadened the areas over which it exercises powers of judgment. The 1998 “miracle on the Tiber” and subsequent steps strengthening the Court thus call into question long-standing assumptions about the relative significance of states and civil society.

The Supreme Court Appointment Process: In Search of Constitutional Roles and Responsibilities

Abstract: Appointment of a United States Supreme Court Justice is the product of a constitutional power sharing scheme between the executive and legislative branches. The president is empowered to nominate "Judges of the [S]upreme Court." Confirmation, however, is subject to "the Advice and Consent of the Senate." Given the role of seeking out and designating a candidate, the executive branch is an active force in the selection process. The Senate, given largely a veto function, exercises influence to the extent that it may reject a nomination. Disapproval of a nominee, therefore, only occurs if a majority of the Senate becomes sufficiently aroused to mobilize in opposition.Standards for rejecting a nominee are not constitutionally defined. A review of Senate responses to Court nominations reveals considerable variation in pattern and criteria. In its most combative movements, the Senate has spurned multiple nominees for the same seat. At other times, it has deferred to presidential judgment even if not necessarily comfortable with the political philosophy or policy values of the nominee.