Since 2009, the ICJ has included a plausibility requirement as a condition for indicating provisional measures as demanded by the applicant. What that criterion exactly means and how it is to be applied remains uncertain. This short contribution delves into some blind spots, which have not to date been meaningfully discussed either by the Court or in legal writings. The two main issues turn around the meaning of “preservation of rights” and the applicable standard for determining plausibility. In particular the rights-limb is replete with legal intricacies. Further, some ancillary aspects are discussed, e.g. the link of plausibility with jurisdictional issues. Various conclusions are drawn and some preferred interpretations uttered on these questions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Robert Kolb (2020) studied this question.