69. [...] Les deux Parties reconnaissent qu’un certain nombre d’Etats accréditaires, tous parties à la convention de Vienne, imposent expressément aux Etats accréditants d’obtenir leur accord préalable pour acquérir et utiliser des locaux à des fins diplomatiques. [...] La Cour ne considère pas que cette pratique démontre nécessairement «l’accord des parties» au sens d’une règle codifiée à l’alinéa b) du paragraphe 3 de l’article 31 de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités en ce qui concerne l’existence d’une obligation d’obtenir un accord préalable, ou les modalités selon lesquelles un Etat accréditaire peut communiquer son objection à la désignation, par l’Etat accréditant, d’un immeuble comme faisant partie des locaux de sa mission diplomatique. Néanmoins, la pratique de plusieurs Etats, qui exige clairement l’accord préalable de l’Etat accréditaire avant qu’un immeuble puisse acquérir le statut de «locaux de la mission», et l’absence de toute objection à cette pratique, sont des facteurs qui vont à l’encontre de la conclusion selon laquelle l’Etat accréditant aurait le droit au titre de la convention de Vienne de désigner unilatéralement les locaux de sa mission diplomatique.
「事後の実行」には至らない散発的な（しかし重要そうに見える）国家実行を現行の条約解釈規則に照らしてどう位置付けて考慮できるかは（研究でも実務でも模擬裁判でも）悩ましい前提問題でしたが、（31条・32条のどのルールにあたるかはともかく）「要素」だというのが裁判所の立場のようです。ちなみに、国連国際法委員会の立場は、事後の実行を確立するには至らない国家実行は第32条の「解釈の補足的手段」の1つとして考慮できるというものでしたので（これのp. 20, paras. 8-9）、裁判所はこれには与しなかった（あるいは事情が異なると考えた）ということかもしれません。
国連総会の要請により、国連事務総長により設立される見通しです。Judicial Fellow（旧University Trainee、いずれにせよ、日本語訳は難しいです）プログラムは、候補者を送り出す側の大学が資金面での負担を負うため、財政的制約により、候補者を派遣できる機関が米国ロースクールを中心とした特定地域の大学に偏ってしまうという課題があり、その是正措置と位置付けられます。
基金の対象は、「途上国にある大学出身の途上国国民（nationals of developing countries from universities based in developing countries）」とのことです（15項）。残念ながら、先進国にはあるけども財政的には制約がある大学出身の場合には対象とならないようです。
"Taking account of the escalation of the conflict, the Court has decided to apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures) again. It now calls on all States directly or indirectly involved in the conflict, including Turkey, to refrain from actions that contribute to breaches of the Convention rights of civilians, and to respect their obligations under the Convention".
"Argentina will adjust certain aspects of the collective action clauses in its New Bond documentation to address proposals submitted by members of the creditor community that seek to strengthen the effectiveness of the contractual framework as a basis for the resolution of sovereign debt restructurings upon the support for such adjustments of the broader international community".
"The Panel discusses these tweets, not because they are attributable to the Government of Saudi Arabia, but because they are evidence that beoutQ was promoted by prominent individuals and newspapers within Saudi Arabia, which is relevant to the question of whether beoutQ is operated by individuals or entities subject to the criminal jurisdiction of Saudi Arabia".
"The Panel considers that Saudi Arabia's statement that "unofficial, non-government tweets are not usually recognized by legal adjudicators or attributed to a government without explicit approval" is beside the point, because most of the tweets in question are in fact governmental tweets. Article 11 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility, entitled "Conduct acknowledged and adopted by a State as its own", provides that "[c]onduct which is not attributable to a State … shall nevertheless be considered an act of that State under international law if and to the extent that the State acknowledges and adopts the conduct in question as its own." By its terms, the principle only applies to conduct that is not otherwise attributable to a state. However, as already noted above, under general international law principles of state responsibility, actions at all levels of government (local, municipal, federal), or by any agency within any level of government, are attributable to the State".
"The Court takes the view that statements of this kind, emanating from high-ranking official political figures. sometimes indeed of the highest rank, are of particular probative value when they acknowledge facts or conduct unfavourable to the State represented by the person who made them. They may then be construed as a form of admission" (ICJ Reports 1986, p. 41, para. 64).
1180. [...] China has been free to represent itself in these proceedings in the manner it considered most appropriate, including by refraining from any formal appearance, as it has in fact done. The decision of how best to represent China’s position is a matter for China, not the Tribunal. [...]
131. With respect to the duty to satisfy itself that the Philippines’ claims are well founded in fact and law, the Tribunal notes that Article 9 of Annex VII does not operate to change the burden of proof or to raise or lower the standard of proof normally expected of a party to make out its claims or defences. [...]
991. The Tribunal cannot make a definitive finding that China has prepared an environmental impact assessment, but nor can it definitely find that it has failed to do so in light of the repeated assertions by Chinese officials and scientists that China has undertaken thorough studies. Such a finding, however, is not necessary in order to find a breach of Article 206. To fulfil the obligations of Article 206, a State must not only prepare an EIA but also must communicate it. The Tribunal directly asked China for a copy of any EIA it had prepared; China did not provide one. While acknowledging that China is not participating in the arbitration, China has nevertheless found occasions and means to communicate statements by its own officials, or by others writing in line with China’s interests. Therefore had it wished to draw attention to the existence and content of an EIA, the Tribunal has no doubt it could have done so. [...] Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that China has not fulfilled its duties under Article 206 of the Convention.
812. In the Tribunal’s view, it is not necessary to explore the limits on the protection due in customary international law to the acquired rights of individuals and communities engaged in traditional fishing. The Tribunal is satisfied that the complete prevention by China of fishing by Filipinos at Scarborough Shoal over significant periods of time after May 2012 is not compatible with the respect due under international law to the traditional fishing rights of Filipino fishermen. [...]
805. Based on the record before it, the Tribunal is of the view that Scarborough Shoal has been a traditional fishing ground for fishermen of many nationalities, including the Philippines, China (including from Taiwan), and Viet Nam. The stories of most of those who have fished at Scarborough Shoal in generations past have not been the subject of written records, and the Tribunal considers that traditional fishing rights constitute an area where matters of evidence should be approached with sensitivity. [...]
805. [...] That certain livelihoods have not been considered of interest to official record keepers or to the writers of history does not make them less important to those who practise them. With respect to Scarborough Shoal, the Tribunal accepts that the claims of both the Philippines and China to have traditionally fished at the shoal are accurate and advanced in good faith.
On January 21, 2020, President Xi Jinping of China reportedly pressured you not to declare the corona virus outbreak an emergency. You gave in to this pressure the next day and told the world that the coronavirus did not pose a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. Just over one week later, on January 30, 2020, overwhelming evidence to the contrary forced you to reverse course.
On 22 January, the members of the Emergency Committee expressed divergent views on whether this event constitutes a PHEIC or not. At that time, the advice was that the event did not constitute a PHEIC, but the Committee members agreed on the urgency of the situation and suggested that the Committee should be reconvened in a matter of days to examine the situation further.
(b) International organizations, their property and their assets, wherever located, and by whomsoever held, shall enjoy the same immunity from suit and every form of judicial process as is enjoyed by foreign governments, except to the extent that such organizations may expressly waive their immunity for the purpose of any proceedings or by the terms of any contract.
(a) The Organization shall enjoy in the territory of each Member such privileges and immunities as may be necessary for the fulfilment of its objective and for the exercise of its functions.(b) Representatives of Members, persons designated to serve on the Board and technical and administrative personnel of the Organization shall similarly enjoy such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the independent exercise of their functions in connexion with the Organization.
"A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—(2) in which the action is based upon [...] an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States".
"A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case—(5) [...] in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death, or damage to or loss of property, occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state [...]".
"A foreign state shall not be immune from the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States in any case in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for physical injury to person or property or death occurring in the United States and caused by—(1) an act of international terrorism in the United States".
"19. On information and belief, the Communist Party is not an organ or political subdivision of the PRC, nor is it owned by the PRC or a political subdivision of the PRC, and thus it is not protected by sovereign immunity. See, e.g., Yaodi Hu v. Communist Party of China, 2012 WL 7160373, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 20, 2012) (holding that the Communist Party of China is not entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)".
"1. In the event of a dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of these Regulations, the States Parties concerned shall seek in the first instance to settle the dispute through negotiation or any other peaceful means of their own choice, including good offices, mediation or conciliation. Failure to reach agreement shall not absolve the parties to the dispute from the responsibility of continuing to seek to resolve it.[...]3. A State Party may at any time declare in writing to the Director-General that it accepts arbitration as compulsory with regard to all disputes concerning the interpretation or application of these Regulations to which it is a party or with regard to a specific dispute in relation to any other State Party accepting the same obligation".
"Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Constitution which is not settled by negotiation or by the Health Assembly shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the Statute of the Court, unless the parties concerned agree on another mode of settlement".
"in order to determine the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae under a compromissory clause concerning disputes relating to the interpretation or application of a treaty, it is necessary to ascertain whether the acts of which the applicant complains 'fall within the provisions' of the treaty containing the clause" (Ukraine v. Russia, Objections (2019), para. 57).
"Each State Party shall notify WHO, by the most efficient means of communication available, by way of the National IHR Focal Point, and within 24 hours of assessment of public health information, of all events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory in accordance with the decision instrument, as well as any health measure implemented in response to those events."
"At the present stage of the proceedings, an examination by the Court of the alleged wrongful acts or of the plausibility of the claims is not generally warranted. The Court’s task, as reflected in Article 79 of the Rules of Court of 14 April 1978 as amended on 1 February 2001, is to consider the questions of law and fact that are relevant to the objection to its jurisdiction" (Ukraine v. Russia, Objections (2019), para. 58).