Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

An increasing reference to equity can be seen in recent international treaties, despite the general, & sustainable, criticism of its application to the legal relations between states on the grounds of its subjectivity. Be that as it may, States tend to insert equitable provisions in treaties, either in the preamble or in the operative clauses, particularly those dealing with dispute settlement. This is a direct reflection of the States' awareness of the need for a practical response to changes or new developments in international relations which cause or may cause gaps in the existing rules of international law. There are many unresolved territorial & boundary disputes in the world today, & Japan has its share of them. Logically, all such disputes require settlement, but experience shows that they tend to remain unsettled unless some urgent impulse is given, such as the need to explore or exploit hydrocarbon resources in the disputed area. Recent international arbitral & judicial decisions in this area seem to be based on an equitable solution based on the consideration of the relevant circumstances. The fact that this study is included in the International Law in Japanese Perspective series does not mean that it offers practical solutions for the many Japanese territorial disputes: rather, it is an analytical study of equitable considerations in past cases of territorial & boundary dispute settlement. A careful reader, however, will detect what may be called a Japanese perspective in the manner in which the arbitrations are analyzed, & in the discussion of the theoretical aspects in Chapters III & IV.Szafarz, Renata is the author of 'Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice' with ISBN 9780792319894 and ISBN 0792319893.