Abstract Observers of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have noted a rise in requests for provisional measures since the LaGrand Judgment, which declared provisional measures orders to be legally binding. Several ICJ judges have maintained that the Court should accordingly become more cautious in its consideration of such requests. Yet systematic evidence on any possible changes in the behaviour of litigating states and the Court remains limited. This article examines patterns in both the demand for and the supply of provisional measures before and after LaGrand. We argue that the declaration that such measures are binding may encourage states to make more requests, and the Court to address them with greater caution. Using an original dataset with information on each requested measure, we find patterns that are broadly consistent with our theoretical expectations. Our findings advance the scholarship on the use and significance of provisional measures in international adjudication.
Saengkrai et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: