Does Judge Barak have an obligation to correct himself? Or does one of the counsels have to request it?

  • 1
    What makes you so certain that any of these numbers is correct? At this time, any number would be either a guess or biased.
    – PMF
    Jan 28 at 12:18
  • 1
    Regarding the Israeli official claim, about deaths in Gaza. it's very possible that it's inaccurate (due to fog of war). Regarding, deaths during the 7th of October, The numbers are very highly reliable. "The identities and ages of the victims are available via Bituah Leumi, Israel's social security agency" according to France 24
    – Ona
    Jan 28 at 13:21

1 Answer 1


Revision of a judgment

The ICJ Statute, art. 61 provides the rules for requesting revision:

  1. An application for revision of a judgment may be made only when it is based upon the discovery of some fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, which fact was, when the judgment was given, unknown to the Court and also to the party claiming revision, always provided that such ignorance was not due to negligence.

  2. The proceedings for revision shall be opened by a judgment of the Court expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing that it has such a character as to lay the case open to revision, and declaring the application admissible on this ground.

  3. The Court may require previous compliance with the terms of the judgment before it admits proceedings in revision.

  4. The application for revision must be made at latest within six months of the discovery of the new fact.

  5. No application for revision may be made after the lapse of ten years from the date of the judgment.

So, to answer your question:

As of 2021, there had been five applications for revision of ICJ judgments, and the Court had not revised any of its judgments (McIntyre, p. 480).

Correcting an accidental slip or omission

There is likely a power for the ICJ to correct inadvertent slips or accidental omissions. This is referred to as "rectification of error" or "rectification d'erreur matérielle." Despite the literal translation as "material error," these are not the kinds of contentious revisions that would have to go through the procedure above for revision of a judgment.

If the judge had just inadvertently included an error in the judgment (e.g. they meant to write 1200, and instead wrote 2100), where this is brought to their attention, the Court has acknowledged that it "of course [has] the power to correct, in one of its judgments, any mistakes which might be described as "erreur matérielle" (see Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of Continental Shelf (Tunis./Libya), 1985, Institution of Proceedings, pp. 30-31; Judgment, p. 198).


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .