The Standard of Review before the International Court of Justice

Acknowledgements
List of Tables
Table of Cases

1 Introduction
I. Significance of the Standard of Review
II. Definition of the Term 'Standard of Review'
III. Structure of the Book
IV. Methodology
V. Key Empirical Insights

2 Old Wine in New Skins?
I. The Doctrine of Non-Justiciability in the International Order
II. State Arguments for a Deferential Standard of Review
III. A Common Denominator: the Better-Placed Contention
IV. Standard of Review Claims as Old Wine in New Skins?

3 Something New under the Sun: Standards of Review as a Judicial Avoidance Technique
I. Judicial Avoidance: Dubious from an Orthodox Point of View, yet a Practical Necessity
II. Pronouncements Serving as Merits-Avoidance Techniques
III. Pronouncements Serving as Issue-Avoidance Techniques
IV. Deferential Standards of Review as a Judicial Avoidance Technique

4 Absence of Judicial Oversight
I. National Security Interests
II. Domestic Matters
III. Political Determinations
IV. Scientific Determinations: Explicit Rejection in Whaling
V. Conclusion for the Absence of Judicial Oversight

5 Good Faith
I. A Textual Basis for the Application of the Good Faith Standard
II. Good Faith Standard as Counterbalancing: Bosnian Genocide
III. Conclusion for Good Faith

6 Reasonableness
I. National Security Interests
II. Domestic Measures
III. Political Determinations: Conditions of Admission to the UN
IV. Scientific Determinations
V. Conclusion for Reasonableness

7 De Novo
I. National Security Interests
II. Domestic Measures
III. Political Determinations
IV. Scientific Determinations: Whaling
V. Conclusion for De Novo

8 Conclusion
I. De Novo as the Court's Default, but far from Constant Standard of Review
II. Rarely Autonomous Adoption of a Deferential Standard of Review
III. Mostly Stricter Standard of Review than Invoked by the Respondents
IV. Subject-Matter as a Factor for the Adoption of a Deferential Standard of Review
V. Strategic Use of Deferential Standards of Review

Bibliography