Revision Of Judgment Under Article 61 Of The Statute Of The International Court Of Justice

Revision is an important post-adjudication measure and an judicial remedy of the International Court of Justice.Article 61 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and article 99 together with article 100 of the Rules of the International Court of Justice constitute the legal basis for revision procedure.Satisfying the requirements of Article 61 of the Statute,the State Party may apply to the court for a revision of the original judgment of a case.At present,a total of four parties have filed a revision application,and the International Court of Justice has rendered a judgment on three of them.The enrichment of the judicial practice of the International Court of Justice has attracted attention to revision studies.Scholars and judges have begun to explore the legal basis of the revision and discuss various issues in practice.The research theme of this paper is produced in such context.On the basis of literature review,the paper aims to summarize the historical development of Revision,make short commentary on relevant statutes articles and spot the key issues in current research of revision.Then,the paper draws its conclusions through cases studies of International Court of Justice.Chapter 1 begins with a review of the historical development and practice of the revision.It reviews a series of changes and developments since the first appearance of revision in the nineteenth century.It briefly summarizes the current four applications for review by the International Court of Justice.Then,based on the theory of international law,the nature of the revision and the source of power are analyzed.It is considered that revision is the inherent power of the court.As to the relationship between revision and Res Judicata,the former should be considered as an exception to the principle of res judicata.Although the concept of revision may seem to have adversely affect on the principle of res Judicata,they have a same ultimate goal to maintain the stability of jural relation.Finally,a brief commentary on Article 61 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and Articles 99 and 100 of the Rules was carried out,and a comparison was made between the revision and interpretation,appeal as well as correction of errors.Chapter 2 explores the key issues of admissibility of revision application including the identification of “new facts”,the identification of “ignorance was not due to negligence” and the determination of “decisive nature”.Most of the assertions of “new facts” should be interpreted in terms of a general understanding of "facts," that is,new facts refer to newly discovered facts rather than newly generated facts.The facts should include objective substances such as documents,but also state status,state of the country,etc.The Court holds that “consequences of facts” are not "facts",but do not further explain the difference between the two.Distinguishing the general consequences and legal consequences of facts seems to be helpful to understand this issue.As for the determination of “ignorance was not due to negligence”,the object should be content of facts rather than the existence of facts,even though the two are sometimes difficult to distinguish.Due to the different national conditions of each country,the standard of “not due to negligence” cannot follow a same objective behavior.A primarily way to the test of negligence in discovery may be an objective appreciation of the facts based on the reasonable expectations of a State's conduct in the circumstances of the case.As for the decisive nature,the court's general approach is to put the alleged new facts into the original judgment context to examine its decisive influence.If the new facts are only exceptions that the court did not consider at the outset,or simply provide more specific information,simply reaffirm the known facts,or simply question the evidence on which the original judgment was based,they cannot be proved decisive.Chapter 3 takes the procedural matters of the revision as the research object,and analyzes the two-stage procedure of the revision of the judgment,the composition of the court and the joint application of revision and interpretation.The International Court of Justice expressly stipulates that the procedures of revision should be divided into two stages.The first stage will examine the admissibility of the application for revision,and the second stage will be opened by the admissible judgment of the court,and the application will be substantively reviewed.On the question of the composition of the court,the most ideal situation is that the judge who hears the revision case is composed of the judges of the original case,but in practice,for various reasons,the appointment and composition of the judge just be in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the International Court of Justice.It does not have to be exactly the same as the original case.In the relationship between the application for revision and the application for interpretation,the court accepts the joint application for revision and interpretation.There is no formal special provision.In practice,some parties have filed a joint application.