LAW / Referencing for Law Students / AGLC 3rd ed

160

10International Arbitral and Tribunal Decisions

10.1State–State Decisions

10.1.1Reported Decisions

Rule State–state arbitral and tribunal decisions published in a report series should be cited in accordance with rule 9.2, as shown above. In particular:

•the case name should adhere to rule 9.2.1;

•the phase should adhere to rule 9.2.3; and

•pinpoint references should adhere to rule 9.2.7.

However:

•the parties’ names should appear in the conventional shortened form, not the full elaborate form, regardless of how they appear on the decision;

•the year, volume and report series should adhere to rules 2.2– 2.3; and

•the starting page should adhere to rule 2.4.

Judges’ or arbitrators’ names should be included in accordance with rule 9.2.8 (so should appear only after pinpoint references to separate or dissenting opinions or declarations). However, tribunal members may be referred to by a title other than ‘Mr’ or ‘Ms’ (such as ‘Dr’, ‘Prof’, etc).

162 Part IV — International Materials

A case number should be included only if it appears in the decision. It should appear as it does on the title page, preceded by ‘Case No’ (in accordance with rule 8.2.10). If there is no full date, as much of the full date as appears should be included.

Pinpoint references should adhere to rules 1.1.5–1.1.6. Where a decision has paragraph numbers, pinpoints should be to paragraph numbers. Where a decision has only page numbers, pinpoints should be to page numbers.

Judges’ or arbitrators’ names should be included after pinpoint references in accordance with rule 9.2.8 (so should appear only after pinpoint references to separate or dissenting opinions or declarations).

Examples Access to Information under Article 9 of the Ospar Convention (Ireland v United Kingdom) (Final Award) (Permanent Court of Arbitration, 2 July 2003) [146].

Maritime Boundary (Barbados v Trinidad and Tobago) (Award)

(UNCLOS Arbitral Tribunal, 11 April 2006) [198]. [Not: … (Arbitral Tribunal Constituted Pursuant to Article 287, and in Accordance with Annex VII, of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, …]

Ports — Ethiopia’s Claim 6 (Ethiopia v Eritrea) (Final Award)

(Eritrea Ethiopia Claims Commission, 19 December 2005) [26].

10.2Individual–State Decisions (including Investor– State Decisions)

10.2.1Reported Decisions

164 Part IV — International Materials

Parties’ names should adhere to rule 2.1. A phase should be included only if it appears in the decision. The name of the arbitral body or tribunal, case number and full date should adhere to rule 10.1.2.

Pinpoint references should adhere to rules 1.1.5–1.1.6. Where a decision has paragraph numbers, pinpoints should be to paragraph numbers. Where a decision has only page numbers, pinpoints should be to page numbers.

Judges’ or arbitrators’ names should be included after pinpoint references in accordance with rule 9.2.8 (so should appear only after pinpoint references to separate or dissenting opinions or declarations).

Examples Re Polystyrene and Impact Crystal from the United States of America (United States of America v Mexico) (Panel Decision) (North American Free Trade Agreement Chapter 19 Panel, Case No MEX- 94-1904-03, 12 September 1996).

Keeney v Secretary-General of the United Nations (United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Judgement No 6, 4 September 1951).

Phoenix Action Ltd v Czech Republic (Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/06/5, 15 April 2009) [54].

Trans-Global Petroleum Inc v Jordan (Consent Award) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/07/25, 8 April 2009) [12].

CMS Gas Transmission Co v Argentina (Annulment) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/01/8, 25 September 2007) [158]–[159].

Tokelés v Ukraine (Jurisdiction) (ICSID Arbitral Tribunal, Case No ARB/02/18, 29 April 2004) [27] (President Weil).

10.3Subsequent References

Rule ‘Ibid’ should be used for all materials in this chapter (in accordance with rule 1.4.1).

166

11International Criminal Tribunals and Courts

11.1Basic Documents

11.1.1Constitutive Documents

Rule Constitutive documents of international criminal tribunals and courts should be cited in accordance with the appropriate rules of this Guide for the source type.

Where the constitutive document of an international criminal tribunal or court was (partly) created by a UN Security Council resolution, an appropriate short title (usually that of the instrument or an abbreviated version) should be included in accordance with rules 8.5 or 8.2.12 after the initial citation to the resolution or the relevant annex (for example, ‘Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda’). Subsequent references should appear in the form:

Short Title Pinpoint .

Where an amendment is important, or where it is important to indicate the state of a constitutive document at a particular point in time, the amending instrument should be included in the form:

Citation to Original Constitutive Document , as amended by

Citation to Amending Instrument .

Where this is the first reference to a constitutive document, the short title should appear after the citation to the amending instrument.

Pinpoint references should adhere to rule 7.5 and should generally be to articles and paragraphs.

Examples 22 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002).

168 Part IV — International Materials

11.2Cases

11.2.1Parties’ Names

Prosecutor v Surname of Defendant

The order of the names should be reversed for appeals (if they are on the decision itself). Where there are multiple defendants or appellants, only the name of the first defendant or appellant should be included.

Examples Prosecutor v Nikolić (Sentencing Judgement) (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber II, Case No IT-94- 2-S, 18 December 2003).

Prosecutor v Lubanga (Decision on the Manner of Questioning Witnesses by the Legal Representatives of Victims) (International Criminal Court, Trial Chamber I, Case No ICC-01/04-01/06-2127, 16 September 2009) [6]. [Not: Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo …]

Simba v Prosecutor (Judgement) (International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Appeals Chamber, Case No ICTR-01-76-A, 27 November 2007) [40]–[41].

Prosecutor v Prlić (Decision on Defence Motion to Reopen Its Case)

(International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, Trial Chamber III, Case No IT-04-74-T, 3 July 2009). [Not: The Prosecutor v Jadranko Prlić, Bruno Stojić, Slobodan Praljak, Milivoj Petković, Valentin Ćorić, Berislav Pušić … nor Prosecutor v Prlić et al …]