1887

Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXX

image of Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. XXX

This publication was conceived in 1948 as a collection of international awards or decisions rendered between States, including cases involving espousing or respondent Governments on behalf of individual claimants. The present volume reproduces the awards in two arbitration cases, namely, the case between Guyana and Suriname concerning the delimitation of their shared maritime boundary, and the case between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army regarding the delimitation of the Abyei Area. The volume also includes two tables providing a comprehensive listing, in alphabetical and chronological order, respectively, of all the cases published in volumes I to XXX

English, French

.

Award in the Arbitration regarding the delimitation of the Abyei Area between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-Army

Review of validity of Boundary Commission delimitation of Abyei Area—de novo review only permissible once “excess of mandate” established—principles of review applicable in public international law and national legal systems relevant as “general principles of law and practices”—established case law regarding excès de pouvoir of arbitral tribunals may mutatis mutandis inform the interpretation of “excess of mandate”—scope of review in international proceedings leading to the annulment of a prior decision generally very limited—reviewing body’s task cannot take the form of an appeal with respect to the “correctness” of the findings of the original decision-maker when the reviewing body’s methodology differs from that of the original decision-maker—partial annulment within the authority of a court or tribunal seized with a review function—contracting out of the general principle of law allowing for severability and partial nullity to be evidenced by a clear and unequivocal expression of intention of the Parties—Tribunal’s scope of review limited to decisions made ultra petita, and not including putative violations of procedural rights—procedural irregularity alone cannot invalidate a decision; a significant injustice must have also occurred as a result of the irregularity.

English, French

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error