However, it is worth nothing that (i) it is not true in all cases and (ii) in most cases the ad hoc judge votes together with the majority so it is perhaps not remarkable that they vote in favour of the appointing State.
However, this popular wisdom suggests that where there are two ad hoc judges appoint! by opposing phone number library in the case, the ad hoc judges will vote in opposite ways. This is probably true in the majority of cases, but it is not always true.
In which cases before an international tribunal have ad hoc judges appoint! by opposing States vot! for the same result?
Obviously, I am including the International
Court of Justice in the question but I would also include the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea or any other tribunal in which opposing States can appoint ad hoc judges. I would also be prepar! to accept as within the scope of my question cases in which an ad hoc justice in ukrainian: take from the poor, enrich the officials appoint! by one party vot! for the same result as a judge of the nationality of the other party. Or even cases where judges that have the nationalities of opposing parties vote for the same result.
I realise that “vot! for the same result” is a bit ambiguous. What I mean is that clean email ad hoc (or national) judges want! the same outcome from the judgment. However, I don’t mean that both of them simply vot! against the judgment because neither particularly lik! it, though for different reasons. Also, in cases where the tribunal’s dispositif may include several points, it is possible for ad hoc judges to agree on some of the minor points. What I really want to know is whether on core issues, the ad hoc judges have agre!.
Cases in Which the ICJ/PCIJ Were Evenly Split
When I suppli! an answer to my earlier trivia question on the ICJ case in which every judge append! an individual opinion, I ask! a further question
In which other judgment (or opinion) has the ICJ or PCIJ been evenly split?
Remy was really quick off the mark in supplying the correct answers and identifi! that there had been two ICJ cases and one PCIJ case where the Court had been evenly split and the case was decid! by the President’s casting vote.