{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.011691348402182385, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009353078721745909, 'mean_word_length': 4.917050691244239, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interim measures of protection for rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations

The number of requests for interim orders of protection registered with the International Court of Justice showed a marked increase between 1990 and 1999. Despite the growing resort to this remedy, the full legal significance of ICJ interim measures remains a matter of continuing debate. The recent requests for and responses to ICJ interim measures to protect rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Breard and LaGrand cases) have rekindled the debate as to the binding nature of such orders. Through a review of these recent cases, this article argues that the text of Article 41 alone of the Statute of the ICJ, under which interim orders are made, is an insufficient guide to the legal effect of the orders made thereunder. Despite the imprecision of the language of Article 41, there is adequate evidence based on the principles of interpretation to lend weight to the binding nature of ICJ provisional measures. It is clear form the review of the cases that the direct impact of provisional measures on the protection of human rights makes this conclusion a compelling one. The article also reviews the consequences of the United States' response to the ICJ orders.