nam 22 uu 4500 10.59704/3fd1c177aaac3d5c DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 251017s2025||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.59704/3fd1c177aaac3d5c doi eng 342 23 Foysal, Quazi Omar Author aut Pick and Choose at the ICJ - An Appraisal of the Recent Provisional Measures Orders of the ICJ Foysal, Quazi Omar Verfassungsblog 2025-10-17 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier The International Court of Justice has recently begun to deviate from its own standards. Three cases illustrate the emergence of a new approach to assessing “circumstances” required for the indication of provisional measures under Article 41 of the ICJ Statute. Traditionally, the Court has applied a structured five-prong chronological test, established in Belgium v. Senegal. In contrast, it now seems to adopt a more selective, “pick-and-choose” approach to that test. While giving the Court a certain degree of flexibility in assessing the circumstances, this approach creates risks of arbitrariness and unpredictability. CC BY-SA 4.0 Article 41 of the ICJ Statute ICJ International Law Internationaler Gerichtshof | Den Haag Provisional Measures (DE-588)36344-3 gnd Internationaler Gerichtshof | Den Haag Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/icj-pmo-five-prong-test/ raw object