{"case_id": "001", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland", "case_id": "001", "case_name": "Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Award the United Kingdom 700,087 pounds sterling in respect of the total loss of the destroyer H.M.S. Saumarez, representing the replacement value of the ship at the time of its loss in 1946 (after deducting the value of usable equipment and scrap) together with the value of stores lost.", "Award the United Kingdom 93,812 pounds sterling in respect of the damage caused to H.M.S. Volage, covering the cost of repairs and the stores and equipment lost.", "Award the United Kingdom 50,048 pounds sterling in respect of the deaths and injuries of naval personnel, representing pensions and other grants made to victims or their dependants and the costs of administration and medical treatment.", "Fix the total amount of compensation due from the People's Republic of Albania to the United Kingdom at 843,947 pounds sterling."], "decision_stage": "compensation", "respondent": "Albania", "year_introduced": 1947}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland\", \"case_id\": \"001\", \"case_name\": \"Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Award the United Kingdom 700,087 pounds sterling in respect of the total loss of the destroyer H.M.S. Saumarez, representing the replacement value of the ship at the time of its loss in 1946 (after deducting the value of usable equipment and scrap) together with the value of stores lost.\", \"Award the United Kingdom 93,812 pounds sterling in respect of the damage caused to H.M.S. Volage, covering the cost of repairs and the stores and equipment lost.\", \"Award the United Kingdom 50,048 pounds sterling in respect of the deaths and injuries of naval personnel, representing pensions and other grants made to victims or their dependants and the costs of administration and medical treatment.\", \"Fix the total amount of compensation due from the People's Republic of Albania to the United Kingdom at 843,947 pounds sterling.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"compensation\", \"respondent\": \"Albania\", \"year_introduced\": 1947}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "003", "input": {"case_id": "003", "case_name": "Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter)", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article?", "In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution of 17 November 1947)", "year_introduced": 1947}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"003\", \"case_name\": \"Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter)\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is a Member of the United Nations which is called upon, in virtue of Article 4 of the Charter, to pronounce itself by its vote, either in the Security Council or in the General Assembly, on the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, juridically entitled to make its consent to the admission dependent on conditions not expressly provided by paragraph 1 of the said Article?\", \"In particular, can such a Member, while it recognizes the conditions set forth in that provision to be fulfilled by the State concerned, subject its affirmative vote to the additional condition that other States be admitted to membership in the United Nations together with that State?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution of 17 November 1947)\", \"year_introduced\": 1947}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "004", "input": {"case_id": "004", "case_name": "Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Question I (a): In the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of a State, has the United Nations, as an Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused to the United Nations?", "Question I (b): In the same event, has the United Nations, as an Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused to the victim or to persons entitled through him?", "Question II: In the event of an affirmative reply on point I (b), how is action by the United Nations to be reconciled with such rights as may be possessed by the State of which the victim is a national?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 1948}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"004\", \"case_name\": \"Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Question I (a): In the event of an agent of the United Nations in the performance of his duties suffering injury in circumstances involving the responsibility of a State, has the United Nations, as an Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused to the United Nations?\", \"Question I (b): In the same event, has the United Nations, as an Organization, the capacity to bring an international claim against the responsible de jure or de facto government with a view to obtaining the reparation due in respect of the damage caused to the victim or to persons entitled through him?\", \"Question II: In the event of an affirmative reply on point I (b), how is action by the United Nations to be reconciled with such rights as may be possessed by the State of which the victim is a national?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 1948}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_3\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "005", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom", "case_id": "005", "case_name": "Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That Norway is entitled to a belt of territorial waters of fixed breadth, the breadth of which cannot as a maximum exceed 4 sea miles.", "That, in consequence, the outer limit of Norway's territorial waters must never be more than 4 sea miles from some point on the base-line.", "That, subject to points 4, 9 and 10, the base-line must be the low-water mark on permanently dry land which is part of Norwegian territory, or the proper closing line of Norwegian internal waters.", "That where a low-tide elevation lies within 4 sea miles of permanently dry land or of the proper closing line of internal waters, the outer limit may be measured 4 sea miles from its outer edge at low tide; in no other case may a low-tide elevation be taken into account.", "That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian internal waters, on historic grounds, all fjords and sunds which fall within the conception of a bay as defined in international law, whether the proper closing line of the indentation is more or less than 10 sea miles long.", "That the definition of a bay in international law is a well-marked indentation whose penetration inland is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to constitute the indentation more than a mere curvature of the coast.", "That, where an area of water is a bay, the closing line should be drawn between the natural geographical entrance points where the indentation ceases to have the configuration of a bay.", "That a legal strait is any geographical strait which connects two portions of the high seas.", "That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian territorial waters, on historic grounds, all the waters of the fjords and sunds having the character of legal straits, the limit being formed by the outer rims of the overlapping maritime belts or, where they do not overlap, by those rims until they intersect the straight line joining the natural entrance points.", "That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Norwegian territorial waters at the south-westerly end of the fjord is the pecked green line shown on Charts Nos. 8 and 9 of Annex 35 of the Reply.", "That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and sunds, is entitled to claim either as internal or as territorial waters the areas lying between the island fringe and the mainland, those areas being classified by applying the definitions of a bay and of a legal strait set out above.", "That Norway is not entitled, as against the United Kingdom, to enforce any claim to waters not covered by the preceding principles, and that waters off the Norwegian coast north of parallel 66 degrees 28.8 minutes N. which are not Norwegian under those principles are high seas.", "That the Norwegian Royal Decree of 12 July 1935 is not enforceable against the United Kingdom to the extent that it claims as Norwegian internal or territorial waters areas of water not covered by points 1 to 11.", "That Norway is under an international obligation to pay compensation to the United Kingdom in respect of all the arrests since 16 September 1948 of British fishing vessels in waters which are high seas by virtue of the application of the preceding principles."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Norway", "year_introduced": 1949}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"005\", \"case_name\": \"Fisheries (United Kingdom v. Norway)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That Norway is entitled to a belt of territorial waters of fixed breadth, the breadth of which cannot as a maximum exceed 4 sea miles.\", \"That, in consequence, the outer limit of Norway's territorial waters must never be more than 4 sea miles from some point on the base-line.\", \"That, subject to points 4, 9 and 10, the base-line must be the low-water mark on permanently dry land which is part of Norwegian territory, or the proper closing line of Norwegian internal waters.\", \"That where a low-tide elevation lies within 4 sea miles of permanently dry land or of the proper closing line of internal waters, the outer limit may be measured 4 sea miles from its outer edge at low tide; in no other case may a low-tide elevation be taken into account.\", \"That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian internal waters, on historic grounds, all fjords and sunds which fall within the conception of a bay as defined in international law, whether the proper closing line of the indentation is more or less than 10 sea miles long.\", \"That the definition of a bay in international law is a well-marked indentation whose penetration inland is in such proportion to the width of its mouth as to constitute the indentation more than a mere curvature of the coast.\", \"That, where an area of water is a bay, the closing line should be drawn between the natural geographical entrance points where the indentation ceases to have the configuration of a bay.\", \"That a legal strait is any geographical strait which connects two portions of the high seas.\", \"That Norway is entitled to claim as Norwegian territorial waters, on historic grounds, all the waters of the fjords and sunds having the character of legal straits, the limit being formed by the outer rims of the overlapping maritime belts or, where they do not overlap, by those rims until they intersect the straight line joining the natural entrance points.\", \"That, in the case of the Vestfjord, the outer limit of Norwegian territorial waters at the south-westerly end of the fjord is the pecked green line shown on Charts Nos. 8 and 9 of Annex 35 of the Reply.\", \"That Norway, by reason of her historic title to fjords and sunds, is entitled to claim either as internal or as territorial waters the areas lying between the island fringe and the mainland, those areas being classified by applying the definitions of a bay and of a legal strait set out above.\", \"That Norway is not entitled, as against the United Kingdom, to enforce any claim to waters not covered by the preceding principles, and that waters off the Norwegian coast north of parallel 66 degrees 28.8 minutes N. which are not Norwegian under those principles are high seas.\", \"That the Norwegian Royal Decree of 12 July 1935 is not enforceable against the United Kingdom to the extent that it claims as Norwegian internal or territorial waters areas of water not covered by points 1 to 11.\", \"That Norway is under an international obligation to pay compensation to the United Kingdom in respect of all the arrests since 16 September 1948 of British fishing vessels in waters which are high seas by virtue of the application of the preceding principles.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Norway\", \"year_introduced\": 1949}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_13\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_14\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "006", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "006", "case_name": "Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (France v. Egypt)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["France requests, under Article 69 of the Rules of Court, that it be allowed not to go on with the proceedings it instituted by its Application of 13 October 1949 and that its case against Egypt be removed from the general list of the Court, the measures taken by Egypt against French nationals and protected persons having been withdrawn."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Egypt", "year_introduced": 1949}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"006\", \"case_name\": \"Protection of French Nationals and Protected Persons in Egypt (France v. Egypt)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"France requests, under Article 69 of the Rules of Court, that it be allowed not to go on with the proceedings it instituted by its Application of 13 October 1949 and that its case against Egypt be removed from the general list of the Court, the measures taken by Egypt against French nationals and protected persons having been withdrawn.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Egypt\", \"year_introduced\": 1949}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "007", "input": {"applicant": "Colombia", "case_id": "007", "case_name": "Asylum (Colombia/Peru)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that Colombia, as the State granting asylum, is competent to qualify the offence of the refugee for the purpose of that asylum, within the limits of the obligations resulting in particular from the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of 18 July 1911, the Havana Convention on Asylum of 20 February 1928, and American international law in general.", "Declare that Peru, as the territorial State, is bound in this case to give the guarantees necessary for the departure of Victor Raul Haya de la Torre from the country, with due regard to the inviolability of his person.", "Declare that Peru's counter-claim presented on 21 March 1950 is inadmissible for lack of direct connexion with Colombia's Application, under Article 63 of the Rules of Court.", "Declare that the further counter-claim presented by Peru on 3 October 1950 during the oral proceedings is inadmissible, as presented in violation of Article 63 of the Rules of Court, outside the Court's jurisdiction, and without direct connexion with Colombia's Application.", "Counter-claim: declare that the grant of asylum by the Colombian Ambassador at Lima to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was made in violation of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928.", "Counter-claim: declare that the grant of that asylum was made in violation of Article 2, paragraph 2, item 1 (inciso primero), of the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928.", "Counter-claim: declare that in any case the maintenance of the asylum at the present time constitutes a violation of the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Peru", "year_introduced": 1949}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Colombia\", \"case_id\": \"007\", \"case_name\": \"Asylum (Colombia/Peru)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that Colombia, as the State granting asylum, is competent to qualify the offence of the refugee for the purpose of that asylum, within the limits of the obligations resulting in particular from the Bolivarian Agreement on Extradition of 18 July 1911, the Havana Convention on Asylum of 20 February 1928, and American international law in general.\", \"Declare that Peru, as the territorial State, is bound in this case to give the guarantees necessary for the departure of Victor Raul Haya de la Torre from the country, with due regard to the inviolability of his person.\", \"Declare that Peru's counter-claim presented on 21 March 1950 is inadmissible for lack of direct connexion with Colombia's Application, under Article 63 of the Rules of Court.\", \"Declare that the further counter-claim presented by Peru on 3 October 1950 during the oral proceedings is inadmissible, as presented in violation of Article 63 of the Rules of Court, outside the Court's jurisdiction, and without direct connexion with Colombia's Application.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that the grant of asylum by the Colombian Ambassador at Lima to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was made in violation of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that the grant of that asylum was made in violation of Article 2, paragraph 2, item 1 (inciso primero), of the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that in any case the maintenance of the asylum at the present time constitutes a violation of the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Peru\", \"year_introduced\": 1949}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "008", "input": {"case_id": "008", "case_name": "Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Question III: If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized to appoint the third member of the Commission upon the request of the other party to a dispute according to the provisions of the respective Treaties?", "Question IV: Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative of one party and a third member appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a Commission, within the meaning of the relevant Treaty articles, competent to make a definitive and binding decision in settlement of a dispute?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution of 22 October 1949)", "year_introduced": 1949}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"008\", \"case_name\": \"Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Question III: If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized to appoint the third member of the Commission upon the request of the other party to a dispute according to the provisions of the respective Treaties?\", \"Question IV: Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative of one party and a third member appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a Commission, within the meaning of the relevant Treaty articles, competent to make a definitive and binding decision in settlement of a dispute?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution of 22 October 1949)\", \"year_introduced\": 1949}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "009", "input": {"case_id": "009", "case_name": "Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Can the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter, be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority or of the negative vote of a permanent Member upon a resolution so to recommend?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution of 22 November 1949, resolution 296 (IV))", "year_introduced": 1949}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"009\", \"case_name\": \"Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Can the admission of a State to membership in the United Nations, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, of the Charter, be effected by a decision of the General Assembly when the Security Council has made no recommendation for admission by reason of the candidate failing to obtain the requisite majority or of the negative vote of a permanent Member upon a resolution so to recommend?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution of 22 November 1949, resolution 296 (IV))\", \"year_introduced\": 1949}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "010", "input": {"case_id": "010", "case_name": "International Status of South West Africa", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["What is the international status of the Territory of South-West Africa and what are the international obligations of the Union of South Africa arising therefrom?", "(a) Does the Union of South Africa continue to have international obligations under the Mandate for South-West Africa and, if so, what are those obligations?", "(b) Are the provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter applicable and, if so, in what manner, to the Territory of South-West Africa?", "(c) Has the Union of South Africa the competence to modify the international status of the Territory of South-West Africa, or, in the event of a negative reply, where does competence rest to determine and modify the international status of the Territory?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 1949}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"010\", \"case_name\": \"International Status of South West Africa\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"What is the international status of the Territory of South-West Africa and what are the international obligations of the Union of South Africa arising therefrom?\", \"(a) Does the Union of South Africa continue to have international obligations under the Mandate for South-West Africa and, if so, what are those obligations?\", \"(b) Are the provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter applicable and, if so, in what manner, to the Territory of South-West Africa?\", \"(c) Has the Union of South Africa the competence to modify the international status of the Territory of South-West Africa, or, in the event of a negative reply, where does competence rest to determine and modify the international status of the Territory?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 1949}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_3\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_4\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "011", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "011", "case_name": "Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the privileges of nationals of the United States in Morocco are only those resulting from the text of Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty of 16 September 1836 between the United States and Morocco.", "Adjudge and declare that, since the most-favoured-nation clause in Article 24 of that Treaty can no longer be invoked by the United States in the present state of the international obligations of the Shereefian Empire, nothing justifies granting United States nationals preferential treatment contrary to the treaties.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States is not entitled to claim that the application of all laws and regulations to its nationals in Morocco requires its express consent.", "Adjudge and declare that United States nationals in Morocco are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the Shereefian Empire, in particular the regulation of 30 December 1948 on imports not involving an allocation of currency, without the prior consent of the United States.", "Adjudge and declare that the decree of 30 December 1948 regulating imports not involving an allocation of currency conforms to the economic system applicable to Morocco under the conventions binding France and the United States.", "Adjudge and declare that Article 95 of the Act of Algeciras defines value for customs purposes as the value of the merchandise at the time and place where it is presented for customs clearance.", "Adjudge and declare that no treaty has conferred on the United States fiscal immunity for its nationals in Morocco, either directly or through the most-favoured-nation clause.", "Adjudge and declare that the fiscal laws and regulations put into force in the Shereefian Empire are applicable to United States nationals without the prior consent of the United States Government.", "Adjudge and declare that, consequently, the consumption taxes provided by the Dahir of 28 February 1948 were legally collected from United States nationals and should not be refunded to them.", "Counter-claim: declare that under Article 95 of the Act of Algeciras the value of imports from the United States must be assessed by adding to the purchase value in the United States the expenses of transport to the Moroccan custom-house, and that valuing such goods by reference to the local Moroccan market breaches the Act of Algeciras and international law.", "Counter-claim: declare that the treaties exempt American nationals from taxes save as the treaties specify, so that the consumption taxes provided by the Dahir of 28 February 1948 and collected from American nationals up to 15 August 1950, the date of United States consent, were illegally collected and should be refunded.", "Counter-claim: declare that Moroccan laws do not become applicable to American citizens until they have received the prior assent of the United States Government, so that the absence of such assent to the Dahir of 28 February 1948 rendered the collection of the consumption taxes it provided illegal."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1950}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"011\", \"case_name\": \"Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the privileges of nationals of the United States in Morocco are only those resulting from the text of Articles 20 and 21 of the Treaty of 16 September 1836 between the United States and Morocco.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, since the most-favoured-nation clause in Article 24 of that Treaty can no longer be invoked by the United States in the present state of the international obligations of the Shereefian Empire, nothing justifies granting United States nationals preferential treatment contrary to the treaties.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States is not entitled to claim that the application of all laws and regulations to its nationals in Morocco requires its express consent.\", \"Adjudge and declare that United States nationals in Morocco are subject to the laws and regulations in force in the Shereefian Empire, in particular the regulation of 30 December 1948 on imports not involving an allocation of currency, without the prior consent of the United States.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the decree of 30 December 1948 regulating imports not involving an allocation of currency conforms to the economic system applicable to Morocco under the conventions binding France and the United States.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Article 95 of the Act of Algeciras defines value for customs purposes as the value of the merchandise at the time and place where it is presented for customs clearance.\", \"Adjudge and declare that no treaty has conferred on the United States fiscal immunity for its nationals in Morocco, either directly or through the most-favoured-nation clause.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the fiscal laws and regulations put into force in the Shereefian Empire are applicable to United States nationals without the prior consent of the United States Government.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, consequently, the consumption taxes provided by the Dahir of 28 February 1948 were legally collected from United States nationals and should not be refunded to them.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that under Article 95 of the Act of Algeciras the value of imports from the United States must be assessed by adding to the purchase value in the United States the expenses of transport to the Moroccan custom-house, and that valuing such goods by reference to the local Moroccan market breaches the Act of Algeciras and international law.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that the treaties exempt American nationals from taxes save as the treaties specify, so that the consumption taxes provided by the Dahir of 28 February 1948 and collected from American nationals up to 15 August 1950, the date of United States consent, were illegally collected and should be refunded.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that Moroccan laws do not become applicable to American citizens until they have received the prior assent of the United States Government, so that the absence of such assent to the Dahir of 28 February 1948 rendered the collection of the consumption taxes it provided illegal.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1950}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "012", "input": {"case_id": "012", "case_name": "Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["In respect of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where a State ratifies or accedes subject to a reservation: can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention while still maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others?", "If the answer to Question I is in the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and the parties which object to the reservation?", "If the answer to Question I is in the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and those parties which accept it?", "What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to Question I if an objection to a reservation is made by a signatory which has not yet ratified?", "What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to Question I if an objection to a reservation is made by a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 1950}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"012\", \"case_name\": \"Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"In respect of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, where a State ratifies or accedes subject to a reservation: can the reserving State be regarded as being a party to the Convention while still maintaining its reservation if the reservation is objected to by one or more of the parties to the Convention but not by others?\", \"If the answer to Question I is in the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and the parties which object to the reservation?\", \"If the answer to Question I is in the affirmative, what is the effect of the reservation as between the reserving State and those parties which accept it?\", \"What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to Question I if an objection to a reservation is made by a signatory which has not yet ratified?\", \"What would be the legal effect as regards the answer to Question I if an objection to a reservation is made by a State entitled to sign or accede but which has not yet done so?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 1950}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_3\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_4\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_5\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "013", "input": {"applicant": "Colombia", "case_id": "013", "case_name": "Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Interpret the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum case as meaning that the qualification made by the Colombian Ambassador in Lima of the offence attributed to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was correct.", "Declare that legal effect must consequently be attributed to that qualification of the offence, in so far as the Court confirmed it in the Judgment of 20 November 1950.", "Interpret that Judgment as meaning that the Government of Peru is not entitled to demand the surrender of the political refugee Haya de la Torre.", "Declare that Colombia is consequently not bound to surrender Haya de la Torre, even if Peru were to request his surrender.", "In the alternative, state whether the Court's decision on Peru's counter-claim implies that Colombia is bound to surrender Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities even if they do not demand it, given that he is a political offender and that the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928 does not provide for the surrender of political offenders."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Peru", "year_introduced": 1950}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Colombia\", \"case_id\": \"013\", \"case_name\": \"Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum Case (Colombia v. Peru)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Interpret the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum case as meaning that the qualification made by the Colombian Ambassador in Lima of the offence attributed to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre was correct.\", \"Declare that legal effect must consequently be attributed to that qualification of the offence, in so far as the Court confirmed it in the Judgment of 20 November 1950.\", \"Interpret that Judgment as meaning that the Government of Peru is not entitled to demand the surrender of the political refugee Haya de la Torre.\", \"Declare that Colombia is consequently not bound to surrender Haya de la Torre, even if Peru were to request his surrender.\", \"In the alternative, state whether the Court's decision on Peru's counter-claim implies that Colombia is bound to surrender Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities even if they do not demand it, given that he is a political offender and that the Havana Convention on Asylum of 1928 does not provide for the surrender of political offenders.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Peru\", \"year_introduced\": 1950}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "014", "input": {"applicant": "Colombia", "case_id": "014", "case_name": "Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Under Article 7 of the Protocol of Friendship and Co-operation between Colombia and Peru signed at Rio de Janeiro on 24 May 1934, to state in what manner the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum case shall be executed by Colombia and Peru.", "To adjudge and declare that Colombia is not bound, in execution of the Judgment of 20 November 1950, to deliver Victor Raul Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities.", "In the event that the Court does not rule on the foregoing submission, to adjudge and declare, in the exercise of its ordinary competence and in accordance with the law in force between the Parties and particularly American international law, that Colombia is not bound to deliver the politically accused Victor Raul Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities.", "Counter-claim: Peru requests the Court to state in what manner the Judgment of 20 November 1950 shall be executed by Colombia.", "Counter-claim: Peru requests the Court to dismiss Colombia's submission asking the Court to state solely (sans plus) that Colombia is not bound to deliver Victor Raul Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities.", "Counter-claim: Peru requests the Court, if it does not rule on Peru's first submission, to adjudge and declare that the asylum granted to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre on 3 January 1949 and maintained since, having been judged contrary to Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Havana Convention of 1928, ought to have ceased immediately after the delivery of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 and must in any case cease forthwith so that Peruvian justice may resume its normal course."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Peru", "year_introduced": 1950}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Colombia\", \"case_id\": \"014\", \"case_name\": \"Haya de la Torre (Colombia v. Peru)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Under Article 7 of the Protocol of Friendship and Co-operation between Colombia and Peru signed at Rio de Janeiro on 24 May 1934, to state in what manner the Judgment of 20 November 1950 in the Asylum case shall be executed by Colombia and Peru.\", \"To adjudge and declare that Colombia is not bound, in execution of the Judgment of 20 November 1950, to deliver Victor Raul Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities.\", \"In the event that the Court does not rule on the foregoing submission, to adjudge and declare, in the exercise of its ordinary competence and in accordance with the law in force between the Parties and particularly American international law, that Colombia is not bound to deliver the politically accused Victor Raul Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities.\", \"Counter-claim: Peru requests the Court to state in what manner the Judgment of 20 November 1950 shall be executed by Colombia.\", \"Counter-claim: Peru requests the Court to dismiss Colombia's submission asking the Court to state solely (sans plus) that Colombia is not bound to deliver Victor Raul Haya de la Torre to the Peruvian authorities.\", \"Counter-claim: Peru requests the Court, if it does not rule on Peru's first submission, to adjudge and declare that the asylum granted to Victor Raul Haya de la Torre on 3 January 1949 and maintained since, having been judged contrary to Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Havana Convention of 1928, ought to have ceased immediately after the delivery of the Judgment of 20 November 1950 and must in any case cease forthwith so that Peruvian justice may resume its normal course.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Peru\", \"year_introduced\": 1950}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "015", "input": {"applicant": "Greece", "case_id": "015", "case_name": "Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Hold that the Ambatielos claim, based upon the provisions of the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 10 November 1886, does not prima facie appear to be unconnected with those provisions.", "Decide, as a consequence, that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to submit to arbitration, in accordance with the Declaration annexed to the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 16 July 1926, the difference as to the validity of the Ambatielos claim.", "Declare that the Court will itself assume the functions of the arbitral tribunal in this case in the event of the Parties accepting its jurisdiction in their final submissions.", "Fix time-limits for the filing by the Parties of a Reply and a Rejoinder upon the merits of the dispute."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 1951}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Greece\", \"case_id\": \"015\", \"case_name\": \"Ambatielos (Greece v. United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Hold that the Ambatielos claim, based upon the provisions of the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 10 November 1886, does not prima facie appear to be unconnected with those provisions.\", \"Decide, as a consequence, that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to submit to arbitration, in accordance with the Declaration annexed to the Greco-British Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of 16 July 1926, the difference as to the validity of the Ambatielos claim.\", \"Declare that the Court will itself assume the functions of the arbitral tribunal in this case in the event of the Parties accepting its jurisdiction in their final submissions.\", \"Fix time-limits for the filing by the Parties of a Reply and a Rejoinder upon the merits of the dispute.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 1951}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "016", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom", "case_id": "016", "case_name": "Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the United Kingdom has altered the subject of its claim as set out in the Application, and the two principal claims of its Memorial, restitution of the enterprise to the concessionary company and determination of the damages due to it, are inadmissible because the United Kingdom abandoned them by its declaration of 3 August 1951.", "Objection: the further claim that the compensation provisions of the Nationalization Act are inadequate under international law is inadmissible because no such request was made in the Application, and in any event the Court has no jurisdiction over it because it was formulated after Iran's denunciation on 10 July 1951 of its declaration under the Optional Clause.", "Objection: the Court should declare ex officio that it lacks jurisdiction in application of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter, the matters dealt with by the Nationalization Laws of 20 March and 1 May 1951 being essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States.", "Objection: the Iranian Declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute limits jurisdiction to disputes concerning treaties or conventions accepted by Persia after the ratification of that Declaration, whereas the United Kingdom claims rest on the treaties of 1857 and 1903 invoked through the most-favoured-nation clause, on the exchange of notes of 10 May 1928, and on an alleged tacit agreement of 1933, none of which qualifies, so the Court lacks jurisdiction.", "Objection: a prima facie examination suffices to show that the British claims have no relation to the treaties or alleged treaties invoked, which manifestly do not have the scope attributed to them, and on this ground also the Court should declare that it lacks jurisdiction.", "Objection: the claim concerning the amount of compensation due to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is inadmissible because the Company has not exhausted the local remedies provided by Iranian law.", "Objection: the reservation in both Parties' Declarations of questions within the exclusive jurisdiction of States must, given the substitution of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter for Article 15, paragraph 8, of the Covenant, be read as extending to questions essentially within domestic jurisdiction, which is an additional reason for the Court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction.", "In the alternative, place on record Iran's declaration that, in so far as may be necessary, it avails itself of the right reserved in its Declaration to require suspension of the proceedings, the dispute having been submitted to and being under examination by the Security Council."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Iran", "year_introduced": 1951}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"016\", \"case_name\": \"Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the United Kingdom has altered the subject of its claim as set out in the Application, and the two principal claims of its Memorial, restitution of the enterprise to the concessionary company and determination of the damages due to it, are inadmissible because the United Kingdom abandoned them by its declaration of 3 August 1951.\", \"Objection: the further claim that the compensation provisions of the Nationalization Act are inadequate under international law is inadmissible because no such request was made in the Application, and in any event the Court has no jurisdiction over it because it was formulated after Iran's denunciation on 10 July 1951 of its declaration under the Optional Clause.\", \"Objection: the Court should declare ex officio that it lacks jurisdiction in application of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the United Nations Charter, the matters dealt with by the Nationalization Laws of 20 March and 1 May 1951 being essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States.\", \"Objection: the Iranian Declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute limits jurisdiction to disputes concerning treaties or conventions accepted by Persia after the ratification of that Declaration, whereas the United Kingdom claims rest on the treaties of 1857 and 1903 invoked through the most-favoured-nation clause, on the exchange of notes of 10 May 1928, and on an alleged tacit agreement of 1933, none of which qualifies, so the Court lacks jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: a prima facie examination suffices to show that the British claims have no relation to the treaties or alleged treaties invoked, which manifestly do not have the scope attributed to them, and on this ground also the Court should declare that it lacks jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: the claim concerning the amount of compensation due to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company is inadmissible because the Company has not exhausted the local remedies provided by Iranian law.\", \"Objection: the reservation in both Parties' Declarations of questions within the exclusive jurisdiction of States must, given the substitution of Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter for Article 15, paragraph 8, of the Covenant, be read as extending to questions essentially within domestic jurisdiction, which is an additional reason for the Court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction.\", \"In the alternative, place on record Iran's declaration that, in so far as may be necessary, it avails itself of the right reserved in its Declaration to require suspension of the proceedings, the dispute having been submitted to and being under examination by the Security Council.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Iran\", \"year_introduced\": 1951}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "017", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "017", "case_name": "Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Determine, under Article I of the Special Agreement of 29 December 1950, whether sovereignty over the islets and rocks of the Ecrehos group, in so far as they are capable of appropriation, belongs to the United Kingdom or to the French Republic.", "Determine, under Article I of the same Special Agreement, whether sovereignty over the islets and rocks of the Minquiers group, in so far as they are capable of appropriation, belongs to the United Kingdom or to the French Republic.", "The United Kingdom asks the Court to declare that it is entitled under international law to full and undivided sovereignty over all the islets and rocks of the Minquiers and Ecrehos groups, by reason of an ancient title supported throughout by effective possession, or alternatively by long continued effective possession alone.", "France asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it possesses an original title to the islets and rocks of the Minquiers group and of the Ecrehos group, confirmed at all times by an effective exercise of its sovereignty so far as the character of those islets and rocks allowed.", "France asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Convention of 2 August 1839 created a zone of common fishery in which the two groups lie, so that acts performed by either Party after 2 August 1839 cannot be set up against the other as manifestations of territorial sovereignty, sovereignty belonging today to the Party to whom it belonged before that date."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 1951}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"017\", \"case_name\": \"Minquiers and Ecrehos (France/United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Determine, under Article I of the Special Agreement of 29 December 1950, whether sovereignty over the islets and rocks of the Ecrehos group, in so far as they are capable of appropriation, belongs to the United Kingdom or to the French Republic.\", \"Determine, under Article I of the same Special Agreement, whether sovereignty over the islets and rocks of the Minquiers group, in so far as they are capable of appropriation, belongs to the United Kingdom or to the French Republic.\", \"The United Kingdom asks the Court to declare that it is entitled under international law to full and undivided sovereignty over all the islets and rocks of the Minquiers and Ecrehos groups, by reason of an ancient title supported throughout by effective possession, or alternatively by long continued effective possession alone.\", \"France asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it possesses an original title to the islets and rocks of the Minquiers group and of the Ecrehos group, confirmed at all times by an effective exercise of its sovereignty so far as the character of those islets and rocks allowed.\", \"France asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Convention of 2 August 1839 created a zone of common fishery in which the two groups lie, so that acts performed by either Party after 2 August 1839 cannot be set up against the other as manifestations of territorial sovereignty, sovereignty belonging today to the Party to whom it belonged before that date.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 1951}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "018", "input": {"applicant": "Liechtenstein", "case_id": "018", "case_name": "Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Hold and declare that a dispute exists between Liechtenstein and Guatemala which forms the subject-matter of the Application and is admissible for adjudication without further diplomatic communication or negotiations between the Parties.", "Find and declare that the naturalization of Friedrich Nottebohm in Liechtenstein on 13 October 1939 was not contrary to international law, and that Liechtenstein's claim on his behalf as a Liechtenstein national is admissible before the Court.", "Declare that, as regards the person of Friedrich Nottebohm, he was prevented from exhausting local remedies in Guatemala and that in any event such remedies would have been ineffective.", "Declare that, as regards the properties on which the Minister gave no decision on Nottebohm's application for exoneration, he exhausted the remedies available to him under Guatemalan municipal law and international law.", "Declare that, as regards the properties on which the Minister did give a decision, Nottebohm was not required under international law to exhaust local remedies.", "In the alternative, declare the claim admissible on the ground that the facts disclose a breach of international law by Guatemala in its treatment of the person and property of Friedrich Nottebohm.", "Adjourn the oral proceedings for not less than three months so that Liechtenstein may obtain and assemble documents in support of its comments on the new documents produced by Guatemala.", "Request Guatemala to produce the original or a certified copy of the 1922 agreements referred to in the agreements of 8 January 1924 and 15 March 1938.", "Adjudge and declare that Guatemala, in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property without compensation, acted in breach of its obligations under international law and must make reparation.", "Order Guatemala to pay Liechtenstein, for the wrongful arrest, detention, expulsion and refusal to readmit Mr. Nottebohm, special damages of not less than 20,000 Swiss francs and general damages of 645,000 Swiss francs.", "Order Guatemala to submit an account of the profits accruing on the seized property since seizure and to pay the Swiss-franc equivalent with interest at 6 per cent, together with damages (estimated at 300,000 Swiss francs per annum) for the additional income the property would have earned under its lawful owner.", "Order Guatemala to restore to Mr. Nottebohm all the property it seized and retained, with damages for its deterioration, or alternatively to pay Liechtenstein 6,510,596 Swiss francs representing the estimated present market value of that property in its original condition.", "Order, under Article 50 of the Statute, such inquiry as may be necessary into the account of profits and the quantification of damages."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Guatemala", "year_introduced": 1951}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Liechtenstein\", \"case_id\": \"018\", \"case_name\": \"Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Hold and declare that a dispute exists between Liechtenstein and Guatemala which forms the subject-matter of the Application and is admissible for adjudication without further diplomatic communication or negotiations between the Parties.\", \"Find and declare that the naturalization of Friedrich Nottebohm in Liechtenstein on 13 October 1939 was not contrary to international law, and that Liechtenstein's claim on his behalf as a Liechtenstein national is admissible before the Court.\", \"Declare that, as regards the person of Friedrich Nottebohm, he was prevented from exhausting local remedies in Guatemala and that in any event such remedies would have been ineffective.\", \"Declare that, as regards the properties on which the Minister gave no decision on Nottebohm's application for exoneration, he exhausted the remedies available to him under Guatemalan municipal law and international law.\", \"Declare that, as regards the properties on which the Minister did give a decision, Nottebohm was not required under international law to exhaust local remedies.\", \"In the alternative, declare the claim admissible on the ground that the facts disclose a breach of international law by Guatemala in its treatment of the person and property of Friedrich Nottebohm.\", \"Adjourn the oral proceedings for not less than three months so that Liechtenstein may obtain and assemble documents in support of its comments on the new documents produced by Guatemala.\", \"Request Guatemala to produce the original or a certified copy of the 1922 agreements referred to in the agreements of 8 January 1924 and 15 March 1938.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Guatemala, in arresting, detaining, expelling and refusing to readmit Mr. Nottebohm and in seizing and retaining his property without compensation, acted in breach of its obligations under international law and must make reparation.\", \"Order Guatemala to pay Liechtenstein, for the wrongful arrest, detention, expulsion and refusal to readmit Mr. Nottebohm, special damages of not less than 20,000 Swiss francs and general damages of 645,000 Swiss francs.\", \"Order Guatemala to submit an account of the profits accruing on the seized property since seizure and to pay the Swiss-franc equivalent with interest at 6 per cent, together with damages (estimated at 300,000 Swiss francs per annum) for the additional income the property would have earned under its lawful owner.\", \"Order Guatemala to restore to Mr. Nottebohm all the property it seized and retained, with damages for its deterioration, or alternatively to pay Liechtenstein 6,510,596 Swiss francs representing the estimated present market value of that property in its original condition.\", \"Order, under Article 50 of the Statute, such inquiry as may be necessary into the account of profits and the quantification of damages.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Guatemala\", \"year_introduced\": 1951}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_13\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "019", "input": {"applicant": "Italy", "case_id": "019", "case_name": "Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection (Italy): the Court should adjudicate, as a preliminary question under Article 62 of the Rules, on its jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the claim set out in submission No. 1 of Italy's Application of 19 May 1953.", "Objection (Italy): the Washington Statement of 25 April 1951 accompanying publication of the Agreement between France, the United Kingdom and the United States for the submission to an arbitrator of certain claims to gold looted from Rome is not a sufficient basis on which to found the Court's jurisdiction over the merits of that first claim.", "Objection (Italy): the Court is consequently without jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of that claim, the proceedings contemplated by the Washington Statement being in reality directed against Albania, which is not a party to the suit.", "Objection (Italy): whatever the Court's decision on the question of jurisdiction above, the Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims contained in Nos. 1 and 2 of the United Kingdom's submissions of 26 March 1954.", "Objection (United Kingdom): in view of Italy's objection on the ground of the alleged lack of competence of the Court, Italy's Application of 19 May 1953 does not conform to the conditions and intentions of the Tripartite Washington Statement of 25 April 1951 and is therefore invalid and void.", "Objection (United Kingdom, alternative): Italy's Application of 19 May 1953 has in effect been withdrawn or cancelled by Italy and is therefore invalid and void.", "Objection (United Kingdom): Italy is in the circumstances to be deemed not to have made any application to the Court within the meaning and for the purposes of the Tripartite Washington Statement.", "Request (United Kingdom, alternative): if the Court holds that the Italian Application is still valid and subsisting, it should declare that it has jurisdiction to determine on their merits the questions put to it in that Application."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America", "year_introduced": 1953}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Italy\", \"case_id\": \"019\", \"case_name\": \"Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection (Italy): the Court should adjudicate, as a preliminary question under Article 62 of the Rules, on its jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the claim set out in submission No. 1 of Italy's Application of 19 May 1953.\", \"Objection (Italy): the Washington Statement of 25 April 1951 accompanying publication of the Agreement between France, the United Kingdom and the United States for the submission to an arbitrator of certain claims to gold looted from Rome is not a sufficient basis on which to found the Court's jurisdiction over the merits of that first claim.\", \"Objection (Italy): the Court is consequently without jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of that claim, the proceedings contemplated by the Washington Statement being in reality directed against Albania, which is not a party to the suit.\", \"Objection (Italy): whatever the Court's decision on the question of jurisdiction above, the Court is without jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claims contained in Nos. 1 and 2 of the United Kingdom's submissions of 26 March 1954.\", \"Objection (United Kingdom): in view of Italy's objection on the ground of the alleged lack of competence of the Court, Italy's Application of 19 May 1953 does not conform to the conditions and intentions of the Tripartite Washington Statement of 25 April 1951 and is therefore invalid and void.\", \"Objection (United Kingdom, alternative): Italy's Application of 19 May 1953 has in effect been withdrawn or cancelled by Italy and is therefore invalid and void.\", \"Objection (United Kingdom): Italy is in the circumstances to be deemed not to have made any application to the Court within the meaning and for the purposes of the Tripartite Washington Statement.\", \"Request (United Kingdom, alternative): if the Court holds that the Italian Application is still valid and subsisting, it should declare that it has jurisdiction to determine on their merits the questions put to it in that Application.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"France, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1953}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "020", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "020", "case_name": "Electricité de Beyrouth Company (France v. Lebanon)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["France informs the Court, by letter of 23 July 1954 and under Article 69, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that following ratification of the Agreement of 26 March 1954 it is not going on with the proceedings instituted by its Application of 14 August 1953.", "France requests that the case concerning the \"Electricite de Beyrouth\" Company be removed from the Court's List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Lebanon", "year_introduced": 1953}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"020\", \"case_name\": \"Electricité de Beyrouth Company (France v. Lebanon)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"France informs the Court, by letter of 23 July 1954 and under Article 69, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that following ratification of the Agreement of 26 March 1954 it is not going on with the proceedings instituted by its Application of 14 August 1953.\", \"France requests that the case concerning the \\\"Electricite de Beyrouth\\\" Company be removed from the Court's List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Lebanon\", \"year_introduced\": 1953}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "021", "input": {"case_id": "021", "case_name": "Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Having regard to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and to any other relevant instruments and to the relevant records, has the General Assembly the right on any grounds to refuse to give effect to an award of compensation made by that Tribunal in favour of a staff member of the United Nations whose contract of service has been terminated without his assent?", "If the answer given by the Court to question (1) is in the affirmative, what are the principal grounds upon which the General Assembly could lawfully exercise such a right?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 1953}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"021\", \"case_name\": \"Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Having regard to the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal and to any other relevant instruments and to the relevant records, has the General Assembly the right on any grounds to refuse to give effect to an award of compensation made by that Tribunal in favour of a staff member of the United Nations whose contract of service has been terminated without his assent?\", \"If the answer given by the Court to question (1) is in the affirmative, what are the principal grounds upon which the General Assembly could lawfully exercise such a right?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 1953}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "022", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "022", "case_name": "Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (United States of America v. Hungarian Peoples Republic)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court proceed on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute: the United States submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and asks that Hungary, which has filed no declaration, be able to take the steps needed to complete the Court's jurisdiction over both parties.", "That the present Application against Hungary and the simultaneous Application against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the same incident be considered and dealt with together so far as convenient and proper.", "That the issues of law and fact in the dispute be heard and decided by the Court in accordance with its Statute and Rules.", "That the Court decide that Hungary and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are jointly and severally liable to the United States for the damage caused by the seizure of the United States Air Force C-47 aircraft and the treatment of its crew of four United States nationals on and after 19 November 1951.", "That the Court award damages in favour of the United States against Hungary in the sum of $637,894.11, with interest, as demanded in the notes of 17 March 1953 annexed to the Application.", "That the Court determine the nature and extent of such other reparation and redress as it may deem fit and proper.", "That the Court make the necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to give effect to its determinations."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Hungarian Peoples Republic", "year_introduced": 1954}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"022\", \"case_name\": \"Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (United States of America v. Hungarian Peoples Republic)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court proceed on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute: the United States submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of this case and asks that Hungary, which has filed no declaration, be able to take the steps needed to complete the Court's jurisdiction over both parties.\", \"That the present Application against Hungary and the simultaneous Application against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics concerning the same incident be considered and dealt with together so far as convenient and proper.\", \"That the issues of law and fact in the dispute be heard and decided by the Court in accordance with its Statute and Rules.\", \"That the Court decide that Hungary and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are jointly and severally liable to the United States for the damage caused by the seizure of the United States Air Force C-47 aircraft and the treatment of its crew of four United States nationals on and after 19 November 1951.\", \"That the Court award damages in favour of the United States against Hungary in the sum of $637,894.11, with interest, as demanded in the notes of 17 March 1953 annexed to the Application.\", \"That the Court determine the nature and extent of such other reparation and redress as it may deem fit and proper.\", \"That the Court make the necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to give effect to its determinations.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Hungarian Peoples Republic\", \"year_introduced\": 1954}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "023", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "023", "case_name": "Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The United States asks the Court to entertain its Application against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the United States submitting to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of the case and inviting the Soviet Government, which has filed no declaration, to take the steps necessary for the Court's jurisdiction over both parties to be confirmed.", "The United States asks that this Application and its simultaneous Application against the Hungarian People's Republic concerning the same matter, and the proceedings on them, be considered and dealt with together so far as convenient and proper.", "The United States asks the Court to decide that the Soviet and Hungarian Governments are jointly and severally liable to the United States for the damage caused by the interception and seizure of aircraft C-47 No. 316026 and its cargo and by the detention and treatment of its four crew members.", "The United States asks the Court to award damages against the Soviet Government in the sum of $637,894.11, with interest at 6 per cent.", "The United States asks the Court to determine the nature and extent of such other reparation and redress as it may deem fit and proper, and to make the necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to give effect to its determinations."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "year_introduced": 1954}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"023\", \"case_name\": \"Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The United States asks the Court to entertain its Application against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the United States submitting to the Court's jurisdiction for the purposes of the case and inviting the Soviet Government, which has filed no declaration, to take the steps necessary for the Court's jurisdiction over both parties to be confirmed.\", \"The United States asks that this Application and its simultaneous Application against the Hungarian People's Republic concerning the same matter, and the proceedings on them, be considered and dealt with together so far as convenient and proper.\", \"The United States asks the Court to decide that the Soviet and Hungarian Governments are jointly and severally liable to the United States for the damage caused by the interception and seizure of aircraft C-47 No. 316026 and its cargo and by the detention and treatment of its four crew members.\", \"The United States asks the Court to award damages against the Soviet Government in the sum of $637,894.11, with interest at 6 per cent.\", \"The United States asks the Court to determine the nature and extent of such other reparation and redress as it may deem fit and proper, and to make the necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to give effect to its determinations.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics\", \"year_introduced\": 1954}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "024", "input": {"case_id": "024", "case_name": "Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South West Africa", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["(a) Is the following rule on the voting procedure to be followed by the General Assembly a correct interpretation of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 11 July 1950: 'Decisions of the General Assembly on questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa shall be regarded as important questions within the meaning of Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations'?", "(b) If this interpretation of the advisory opinion of the Court is not correct, what voting procedure should be followed by the General Assembly in taking decisions on questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution 904 (IX) of 23 November 1954)", "year_introduced": 1954}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"024\", \"case_name\": \"Voting Procedure on Questions relating to Reports and Petitions concerning the Territory of South West Africa\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"(a) Is the following rule on the voting procedure to be followed by the General Assembly a correct interpretation of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 11 July 1950: 'Decisions of the General Assembly on questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa shall be regarded as important questions within the meaning of Article 18, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations'?\", \"(b) If this interpretation of the advisory opinion of the Court is not correct, what voting procedure should be followed by the General Assembly in taking decisions on questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Territory of South-West Africa?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution 904 (IX) of 23 November 1954)\", \"year_introduced\": 1954}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "025", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "025", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (United States of America v. Czechoslovakia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court entertain the Application filed by the United States on 22 March 1955 against Czechoslovakia and take further steps upon it, jurisdiction being founded on Article 36 (1) of the Statute: the United States submits to the Court's jurisdiction, and Czechoslovakia, which has filed no declaration, is invited to take the steps needed to confirm jurisdiction over both parties."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Czechoslovakia", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"025\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 10 March 1953 (United States of America v. Czechoslovakia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court entertain the Application filed by the United States on 22 March 1955 against Czechoslovakia and take further steps upon it, jurisdiction being founded on Article 36 (1) of the Statute: the United States submits to the Court's jurisdiction, and Czechoslovakia, which has filed no declaration, is invited to take the steps needed to confirm jurisdiction over both parties.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Czechoslovakia\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "026", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom", "case_id": "026", "case_name": "Antarctica (United Kingdom v. Argentina)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court proceed on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute: the United Kingdom submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the questions raised in the Application, and asks that Argentina, which has filed no declaration accepting jurisdiction, be able upon notification to take the steps that would constitute the Court's jurisdiction as regards both Parties.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United Kingdom holds title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies lying between longitudes 25 and 74 degrees West and south of latitude 60 degrees South, principally the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, Graham Land and Coats Land.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the pretensions advanced by Argentina to sovereignty over those territories, and the acts by which Argentina has given effect to them, violate the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Argentina", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"026\", \"case_name\": \"Antarctica (United Kingdom v. Argentina)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court proceed on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute: the United Kingdom submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the questions raised in the Application, and asks that Argentina, which has filed no declaration accepting jurisdiction, be able upon notification to take the steps that would constitute the Court's jurisdiction as regards both Parties.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United Kingdom holds title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies lying between longitudes 25 and 74 degrees West and south of latitude 60 degrees South, principally the South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia, the South Orkneys, the South Shetlands, Graham Land and Coats Land.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the pretensions advanced by Argentina to sovereignty over those territories, and the acts by which Argentina has given effect to them, violate the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Argentina\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "027", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom", "case_id": "027", "case_name": "Antarctica (United Kingdom v. Chile)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court proceed on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute: the United Kingdom submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the questions raised in the Application, and asks that Chile, which has filed no declaration accepting jurisdiction, be able upon notification to take the steps that would constitute the Court's jurisdiction as regards both Parties.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United Kingdom holds title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies lying between longitudes 53 degrees and 80 degrees West and southwards of latitude 58 degrees South, principally the South Shetland Islands and Graham Land together with its coastal archipelagos.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the pretensions advanced by Chile in its Presidential Decree of 6 November 1940 to sovereignty over territory in the sector between longitudes 53 degrees and 90 degrees West, and Chile's encroachments in the South Shetlands and northern Graham Land, violate the sovereignty of the United Kingdom."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Chile", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"027\", \"case_name\": \"Antarctica (United Kingdom v. Chile)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court proceed on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute: the United Kingdom submits to the Court's jurisdiction for the questions raised in the Application, and asks that Chile, which has filed no declaration accepting jurisdiction, be able upon notification to take the steps that would constitute the Court's jurisdiction as regards both Parties.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United Kingdom holds title to sovereignty over the islands and lands of the Falkland Islands Dependencies lying between longitudes 53 degrees and 80 degrees West and southwards of latitude 58 degrees South, principally the South Shetland Islands and Graham Land together with its coastal archipelagos.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the pretensions advanced by Chile in its Presidential Decree of 6 November 1940 to sovereignty over territory in the sector between longitudes 53 degrees and 90 degrees West, and Chile's encroachments in the South Shetlands and northern Graham Land, violate the sovereignty of the United Kingdom.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Chile\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "028", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "028", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The United States asks the Court to entertain its Application against the Soviet Union and to found jurisdiction on Article 36 (1) of the Statute: the United States submits to the Court's jurisdiction for this case, and the Soviet Union, invited to file a declaration or conclude a Special Agreement, may take the steps confirming jurisdiction over both parties.", "The United States asks the Court to find the Soviet Union liable to it for the damage caused by the attack of 7 October 1952 on the United States Air Force B-29 aircraft and its crew of eight off Hokkaido, Japan.", "The United States asks the Court to award it damages against the Soviet Union in the sum of US$1,620,295.01, with interest, and such other reparation and redress as the Court may deem fit and proper.", "The United States asks the Court to make all other necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to give effect to its determinations."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"028\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 7 October 1952 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The United States asks the Court to entertain its Application against the Soviet Union and to found jurisdiction on Article 36 (1) of the Statute: the United States submits to the Court's jurisdiction for this case, and the Soviet Union, invited to file a declaration or conclude a Special Agreement, may take the steps confirming jurisdiction over both parties.\", \"The United States asks the Court to find the Soviet Union liable to it for the damage caused by the attack of 7 October 1952 on the United States Air Force B-29 aircraft and its crew of eight off Hokkaido, Japan.\", \"The United States asks the Court to award it damages against the Soviet Union in the sum of US$1,620,295.01, with interest, and such other reparation and redress as the Court may deem fit and proper.\", \"The United States asks the Court to make all other necessary orders and awards, including an award of costs, to give effect to its determinations.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "029", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "029", "case_name": "Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the subject of the dispute, as defined in the French Application of 6 July 1955, lies within the domain of municipal law and not of international law, whereas the Declarations of 16 November 1946 and 1 March 1949 restrict the Court's compulsory jurisdiction as between the Parties to disputes concerning international law.", "Objection: as regards the bonds issued by the Mortgage Bank of Norway and by the Norwegian Small Holding and Workers' Housing Bank, those banks have a legal personality distinct from the Norwegian State, so proceedings cannot be instituted against the State as borrower; the Court's jurisdiction is in any event limited to disputes between States.", "Objection: the holders of bond certificates for whose protection the French Government claims to institute international proceedings have not previously exhausted the local remedies available in Norway, so the claim is inadmissible."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Norway", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"029\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the subject of the dispute, as defined in the French Application of 6 July 1955, lies within the domain of municipal law and not of international law, whereas the Declarations of 16 November 1946 and 1 March 1949 restrict the Court's compulsory jurisdiction as between the Parties to disputes concerning international law.\", \"Objection: as regards the bonds issued by the Mortgage Bank of Norway and by the Norwegian Small Holding and Workers' Housing Bank, those banks have a legal personality distinct from the Norwegian State, so proceedings cannot be instituted against the State as borrower; the Court's jurisdiction is in any event limited to disputes between States.\", \"Objection: the holders of bond certificates for whose protection the French Government claims to institute international proceedings have not previously exhausted the local remedies available in Norway, so the claim is inadmissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Norway\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "030", "input": {"case_id": "030", "case_name": "Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints Made against UNESCO", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Was the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear the complaints introduced against UNESCO on 5 February 1955 by Messrs. Duberg and Leff and Mrs. Wilcox, and on 28 June 1955 by Mrs. Bernstein?", "In the case of an affirmative answer to question I: was the Administrative Tribunal competent to determine whether the power of the Director-General not to renew fixed-term appointments has been exercised for the good of the service and in the interest of the Organization?", "In the case of an affirmative answer to question I: was the Administrative Tribunal competent to pronounce on the attitude which the Director-General, under the terms of the Constitution of UNESCO, ought to maintain in his relations with a Member State, particularly as regards the execution of the policy of the Government authorities of that Member State?", "In any case, what is the validity of the decisions given by the Administrative Tribunal in its Judgments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 21?"], "requesting_body": "Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"030\", \"case_name\": \"Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the ILO upon Complaints Made against UNESCO\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Was the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organisation competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear the complaints introduced against UNESCO on 5 February 1955 by Messrs. Duberg and Leff and Mrs. Wilcox, and on 28 June 1955 by Mrs. Bernstein?\", \"In the case of an affirmative answer to question I: was the Administrative Tribunal competent to determine whether the power of the Director-General not to renew fixed-term appointments has been exercised for the good of the service and in the interest of the Organization?\", \"In the case of an affirmative answer to question I: was the Administrative Tribunal competent to pronounce on the attitude which the Director-General, under the terms of the Constitution of UNESCO, ought to maintain in his relations with a Member State, particularly as regards the execution of the policy of the Government authorities of that Member State?\", \"In any case, what is the validity of the decisions given by the Administrative Tribunal in its Judgments Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 21?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Executive Board of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_3\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_4\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "031", "input": {"case_id": "031", "case_name": "Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is it consistent with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 11 July 1950 for the Committee on South West Africa, established by General Assembly resolution 749 A (VIII) of 28 November 1953, to grant oral hearings to petitioners on matters relating to the Territory of South West Africa?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution 942 A (X) of 3 December 1955)", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"031\", \"case_name\": \"Admissibility of Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on South West Africa\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is it consistent with the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 11 July 1950 for the Committee on South West Africa, established by General Assembly resolution 749 A (VIII) of 28 November 1953, to grant oral hearings to petitioners on matters relating to the Territory of South West Africa?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution 942 A (X) of 3 December 1955)\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "032", "input": {"applicant": "Portugal", "case_id": "032", "case_name": "Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Recognise and declare that Portugal holds a right of passage between its coastal territory of Daman and its enclaved territories of Dadra and Nagar-Aveli, and between those two enclaves, to the extent required by the effective exercise of Portuguese sovereignty over them.", "Recognise and declare that this right of passage comprises the transit of private persons and goods as well as the passage of representatives of the authorities and of armed forces and other upholders of law and order, without restrictions or difficulties, as necessary for the full exercise of Portuguese sovereignty in those territories.", "Declare that India must respect that right, must abstain from any act capable of hampering or impeding its exercise, and must not allow such acts to be carried out on its territory.", "Adjudge and declare that India has acted and continues to act contrary to those obligations, in particular by refusing since July 1954 the transit facilities requested by Portugal and by maintaining the prohibition of Portuguese transit to the enclaves.", "Call upon India to put an end to this unlawful state of affairs by allowing Portugal to exercise the right of passage in the conditions set out; in the alternative, should the Court find the passage of Portuguese armed forces rightfully suspended in present circumstances, limit that suspension in scope and in duration and hold that India must refrain from any measure consolidating the situation relied on to justify it.", "Reject India's Fifth Preliminary Objection, joined to the merits by the Judgment of 26 November 1957, which contends that the dispute relates to a question falling by international law exclusively within India's jurisdiction and so falls outside India's Declaration of 28 February 1940.", "Reject India's Sixth Preliminary Objection, joined to the merits by the Judgment of 26 November 1957, which contends that the dispute falls outside the reservation ratione temporis in the Declaration of 28 February 1940 covering disputes arising after 5 February 1930 with regard to situations or facts subsequent to that date."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "India", "year_introduced": 1955}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Portugal\", \"case_id\": \"032\", \"case_name\": \"Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Recognise and declare that Portugal holds a right of passage between its coastal territory of Daman and its enclaved territories of Dadra and Nagar-Aveli, and between those two enclaves, to the extent required by the effective exercise of Portuguese sovereignty over them.\", \"Recognise and declare that this right of passage comprises the transit of private persons and goods as well as the passage of representatives of the authorities and of armed forces and other upholders of law and order, without restrictions or difficulties, as necessary for the full exercise of Portuguese sovereignty in those territories.\", \"Declare that India must respect that right, must abstain from any act capable of hampering or impeding its exercise, and must not allow such acts to be carried out on its territory.\", \"Adjudge and declare that India has acted and continues to act contrary to those obligations, in particular by refusing since July 1954 the transit facilities requested by Portugal and by maintaining the prohibition of Portuguese transit to the enclaves.\", \"Call upon India to put an end to this unlawful state of affairs by allowing Portugal to exercise the right of passage in the conditions set out; in the alternative, should the Court find the passage of Portuguese armed forces rightfully suspended in present circumstances, limit that suspension in scope and in duration and hold that India must refrain from any measure consolidating the situation relied on to justify it.\", \"Reject India's Fifth Preliminary Objection, joined to the merits by the Judgment of 26 November 1957, which contends that the dispute relates to a question falling by international law exclusively within India's jurisdiction and so falls outside India's Declaration of 28 February 1940.\", \"Reject India's Sixth Preliminary Objection, joined to the merits by the Judgment of 26 November 1957, which contends that the dispute falls outside the reservation ratione temporis in the Declaration of 28 February 1940 covering disputes arising after 5 February 1930 with regard to situations or facts subsequent to that date.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"India\", \"year_introduced\": 1955}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "033", "input": {"applicant": "Netherlands", "case_id": "033", "case_name": "Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that the Swedish measure of protective education ('skyddsuppfostran') in respect of the infant Marie Elisabeth Boll curtails the Netherlands guardianship protected by the Convention of 12 June 1902 governing the guardianship of infants.", "Declare that ordre public cannot prevail against the 1902 Convention, because ordre public generally cannot be invoked against conventions.", "Declare that, even if ordre public could be invoked against the Convention, the Court is fully competent under the Statute to appreciate, in the light of all the relevant facts and of the nature of the municipal provisions applied, whether the conditions for ordre public have been complied with.", "Declare that in the present case ordre public is not warranted, either by the character of the case or by the character of the provision of Swedish law as applied to it.", "Adjudge and declare that the measure taken and maintained by the Swedish authorities in respect of Marie Elisabeth Boll, namely the 'skyddsuppfostran' instituted and maintained by the decrees of 5 May 1954, 22 June 1954, 5 October 1954, 3 June 1955 and 21 February 1956, is not in conformity with the obligations binding upon Sweden vis-a-vis the Netherlands under the 1902 Convention.", "Adjudge and declare that Sweden is under an obligation to end that measure."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Sweden", "year_introduced": 1957}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Netherlands\", \"case_id\": \"033\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention of 1902 Governing the Guardianship of Infants (Netherlands v. Sweden)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that the Swedish measure of protective education ('skyddsuppfostran') in respect of the infant Marie Elisabeth Boll curtails the Netherlands guardianship protected by the Convention of 12 June 1902 governing the guardianship of infants.\", \"Declare that ordre public cannot prevail against the 1902 Convention, because ordre public generally cannot be invoked against conventions.\", \"Declare that, even if ordre public could be invoked against the Convention, the Court is fully competent under the Statute to appreciate, in the light of all the relevant facts and of the nature of the municipal provisions applied, whether the conditions for ordre public have been complied with.\", \"Declare that in the present case ordre public is not warranted, either by the character of the case or by the character of the provision of Swedish law as applied to it.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the measure taken and maintained by the Swedish authorities in respect of Marie Elisabeth Boll, namely the 'skyddsuppfostran' instituted and maintained by the decrees of 5 May 1954, 22 June 1954, 5 October 1954, 3 June 1955 and 21 February 1956, is not in conformity with the obligations binding upon Sweden vis-a-vis the Netherlands under the 1902 Convention.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Sweden is under an obligation to end that measure.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Sweden\", \"year_introduced\": 1957}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "034", "input": {"applicant": "Switzerland", "case_id": "034", "case_name": "Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["First Preliminary Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine the matters raised by the Swiss Application and Memorial, because the dispute arose before 26 August 1946, the date on which the United States acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction became effective.", "Second Preliminary Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine those matters, because the dispute arose before 28 July 1948, the date on which the United States acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction became binding as regards Switzerland.", "Third Preliminary Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine those matters, because Interhandel, whose case Switzerland is espousing, has not exhausted the local remedies available to it in the United States courts.", "Fourth Preliminary Objection (a): the Court has no jurisdiction over any issue concerning the sale or disposition of the vested shares of General Aniline and Film Corporation, including the passing of title, because the United States has determined, pursuant to paragraph (b) of the conditions attached to its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, that such sale or disposition is a matter essentially within its domestic jurisdiction.", "Fourth Preliminary Objection (b): the Court has no jurisdiction over any issue concerning the seizure and retention of the vested shares of General Aniline and Film Corporation, because such seizure and retention are, according to international law, matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1957}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Switzerland\", \"case_id\": \"034\", \"case_name\": \"Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"First Preliminary Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine the matters raised by the Swiss Application and Memorial, because the dispute arose before 26 August 1946, the date on which the United States acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction became effective.\", \"Second Preliminary Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine those matters, because the dispute arose before 28 July 1948, the date on which the United States acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction became binding as regards Switzerland.\", \"Third Preliminary Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to hear or determine those matters, because Interhandel, whose case Switzerland is espousing, has not exhausted the local remedies available to it in the United States courts.\", \"Fourth Preliminary Objection (a): the Court has no jurisdiction over any issue concerning the sale or disposition of the vested shares of General Aniline and Film Corporation, including the passing of title, because the United States has determined, pursuant to paragraph (b) of the conditions attached to its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction, that such sale or disposition is a matter essentially within its domestic jurisdiction.\", \"Fourth Preliminary Objection (b): the Court has no jurisdiction over any issue concerning the seizure and retention of the vested shares of General Aniline and Film Corporation, because such seizure and retention are, according to international law, matters within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1957}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "035", "input": {"applicant": "Israel", "case_id": "035", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Bulgarian Declaration of 12 August 1921 accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice ceased to be in force on the dissolution of that Court in 1946, so Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute cannot transfer it and the Court is without jurisdiction.", "Objection: the dispute relates to situations or facts prior to Bulgaria's accession to the Statute on 14 December 1955, and on the basis of reciprocity with the temporal limitation in Israel's own Declaration, the Court is without jurisdiction ratione temporis.", "Objection: Israel may act only in defence of its own nationals and has not shown the Israel nationality of the insurers, so it has no capacity to present claims to an indemnity assigned to or subrogated in favour of non-Israel insurance companies.", "Objection: the dispute arises from action by the Bulgarian anti-aircraft defence forces in Bulgarian airspace, falls within Bulgaria's exclusive jurisdiction and is essentially within its domestic jurisdiction, so that by reciprocity with reservation (b) of Israel's Declaration the Court is without jurisdiction.", "Objection: the Israel nationals whose claims Israel presents did not exhaust the remedies available to them in the Bulgarian courts, so the claim cannot at the present stage be submitted to the Court."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Bulgaria", "year_introduced": 1957}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Israel\", \"case_id\": \"035\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Bulgarian Declaration of 12 August 1921 accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice ceased to be in force on the dissolution of that Court in 1946, so Article 36, paragraph 5, of the Statute cannot transfer it and the Court is without jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: the dispute relates to situations or facts prior to Bulgaria's accession to the Statute on 14 December 1955, and on the basis of reciprocity with the temporal limitation in Israel's own Declaration, the Court is without jurisdiction ratione temporis.\", \"Objection: Israel may act only in defence of its own nationals and has not shown the Israel nationality of the insurers, so it has no capacity to present claims to an indemnity assigned to or subrogated in favour of non-Israel insurance companies.\", \"Objection: the dispute arises from action by the Bulgarian anti-aircraft defence forces in Bulgarian airspace, falls within Bulgaria's exclusive jurisdiction and is essentially within its domestic jurisdiction, so that by reciprocity with reservation (b) of Israel's Declaration the Court is without jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: the Israel nationals whose claims Israel presents did not exhaust the remedies available to them in the Bulgarian courts, so the claim cannot at the present stage be submitted to the Court.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Bulgaria\", \"year_introduced\": 1957}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "036", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "036", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United States of America v. Bulgaria)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The United States of America, by a communication received in the Registry on 16 May 1960 and referring to Article 69 of the Rules of Court, requests the discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by its Application of 24 October 1957 against Bulgaria and the removal of the case from the Court's List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Bulgaria", "year_introduced": 1957}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"036\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United States of America v. Bulgaria)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The United States of America, by a communication received in the Registry on 16 May 1960 and referring to Article 69 of the Rules of Court, requests the discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by its Application of 24 October 1957 against Bulgaria and the removal of the case from the Court's List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Bulgaria\", \"year_introduced\": 1957}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "037", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom", "case_id": "037", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United Kingdom v. Bulgaria)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by the United Kingdom, under Article 69 of the Rules of Court, that the Court be informed of its decision to discontinue the proceedings instituted by the Application of 19 November 1957 against Bulgaria, and place that discontinuance on record."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Bulgaria", "year_introduced": 1957}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"037\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (United Kingdom v. Bulgaria)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by the United Kingdom, under Article 69 of the Rules of Court, that the Court be informed of its decision to discontinue the proceedings instituted by the Application of 19 November 1957 against Bulgaria, and place that discontinuance on record.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Bulgaria\", \"year_introduced\": 1957}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "038", "input": {"applicant": "Belgium", "case_id": "038", "case_name": "Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the plots shown in the survey and known from 1836 to 1843 as Nos. 91 and 92, Section A, Zondereygen, belongs to the Kingdom of Belgium.", "The Netherlands asks the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the same plots Nos. 91 and 92, Section A, Zondereygen, belongs to the Kingdom of the Netherlands."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Netherlands", "year_introduced": 1957}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Belgium\", \"case_id\": \"038\", \"case_name\": \"Sovereignty over Certain Frontier Land (Belgium/Netherlands)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the plots shown in the survey and known from 1836 to 1843 as Nos. 91 and 92, Section A, Zondereygen, belongs to the Kingdom of Belgium.\", \"The Netherlands asks the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over the same plots Nos. 91 and 92, Section A, Zondereygen, belongs to the Kingdom of the Netherlands.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Netherlands\", \"year_introduced\": 1957}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "039", "input": {"applicant": "Honduras", "case_id": "039", "case_name": "Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the Government of Nicaragua is under an obligation to give effect to the arbitral award made on 23 December 1906 by the King of Spain.", "Place on record the reservation formulated by Honduras of its right to ask for compensation in respect of the prejudice caused to it by the non-execution of that arbitral award.", "Reject the submissions of Nicaragua.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that Nicaragua violated no undertaking in failing to execute the decision of King Alfonso XIII of 23 December 1906, its Government having pointed from the beginning to the obscurities and contradictions that made execution impossible and having offered arbitration or mediation on the validity of that decision.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the decision given by King Alfonso XIII is not an arbitral award made in conformity with the Gamez-Bonilla Treaty of 7 October 1894 and has no binding force, the Treaty having expired, the King having been designated in breach of it, and the decision being vitiated by essential errors, excess of jurisdiction and want of reasons.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the so-called arbitral decision is in any case incapable of execution by reason of its obscurities and contradictions.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare in consequence that Nicaragua and Honduras are, in respect of their frontier, in the same legal situation as before 23 December 1906.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that, as all phases of the disagreement are not settled by the Judgment, the Parties are bound under the Organization of American States Council resolution of 5 July 1957 to conclude, within three months of the Judgment, an additional agreement submitting their frontier disagreement to the arbitral procedure of the Pact of Bogota."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Nicaragua", "year_introduced": 1958}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Honduras\", \"case_id\": \"039\", \"case_name\": \"Arbitral Award Made by the King of Spain on 23 December 1906 (Honduras v. Nicaragua)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the Government of Nicaragua is under an obligation to give effect to the arbitral award made on 23 December 1906 by the King of Spain.\", \"Place on record the reservation formulated by Honduras of its right to ask for compensation in respect of the prejudice caused to it by the non-execution of that arbitral award.\", \"Reject the submissions of Nicaragua.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that Nicaragua violated no undertaking in failing to execute the decision of King Alfonso XIII of 23 December 1906, its Government having pointed from the beginning to the obscurities and contradictions that made execution impossible and having offered arbitration or mediation on the validity of that decision.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the decision given by King Alfonso XIII is not an arbitral award made in conformity with the Gamez-Bonilla Treaty of 7 October 1894 and has no binding force, the Treaty having expired, the King having been designated in breach of it, and the decision being vitiated by essential errors, excess of jurisdiction and want of reasons.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the so-called arbitral decision is in any case incapable of execution by reason of its obscurities and contradictions.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare in consequence that Nicaragua and Honduras are, in respect of their frontier, in the same legal situation as before 23 December 1906.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that, as all phases of the disagreement are not settled by the Judgment, the Parties are bound under the Organization of American States Council resolution of 5 July 1957 to conclude, within three months of the Judgment, an additional agreement submitting their frontier disagreement to the arbitral procedure of the Pact of Bogota.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Nicaragua\", \"year_introduced\": 1958}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "040", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "040", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The United States asks the Court to entertain its claim against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics arising from certain wilful acts committed on 4 September 1954 by Soviet military aircraft in the international air space over the Sea of Japan against a United States Navy P2-V (Neptune) aircraft and its crew.", "The United States asks the Court to found its jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, submitting to that jurisdiction itself and inviting the Soviet Government, upon notification of the Application by the Registrar, to take the steps necessary for the Court's jurisdiction over both parties to be confirmed.", "Objection: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states that under Article 36 of the Statute a dispute may be submitted to the Court only by common consent of both sides, that it withholds its consent, and that the United States therefore acted in disaccord with the Statute in filing the Application."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "year_introduced": 1958}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"040\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 4 September 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The United States asks the Court to entertain its claim against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics arising from certain wilful acts committed on 4 September 1954 by Soviet military aircraft in the international air space over the Sea of Japan against a United States Navy P2-V (Neptune) aircraft and its crew.\", \"The United States asks the Court to found its jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, submitting to that jurisdiction itself and inviting the Soviet Government, upon notification of the Application by the Registrar, to take the steps necessary for the Court's jurisdiction over both parties to be confirmed.\", \"Objection: the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics states that under Article 36 of the Statute a dispute may be submitted to the Court only by common consent of both sides, that it withholds its consent, and that the United States therefore acted in disaccord with the Statute in filing the Application.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics\", \"year_introduced\": 1958}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "041", "input": {"applicant": "Belgium", "case_id": "041", "case_name": "Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Belgium, by letter of 23 March 1961 invoking Article 69 of the Rules of Court, informs the Court that it is not going on with the proceedings it instituted against Spain concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and thereby asks that the proceedings be discontinued."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Spain", "year_introduced": 1958}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Belgium\", \"case_id\": \"041\", \"case_name\": \"Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Belgium, by letter of 23 March 1961 invoking Article 69 of the Rules of Court, informs the Court that it is not going on with the proceedings it instituted against Spain concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and thereby asks that the proceedings be discontinued.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Spain\", \"year_introduced\": 1958}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "042", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "042", "case_name": "Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and Société Radio-Orient (France v. Lebanon)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["France notifies the Court, by letter of 24 May 1960, that arrangements concluded with Lebanon following conversations between the Lebanese Government and the French Embassy at Beirut have put an end to the disputes submitted by its Application of 13 February 1959, so that the proceedings need not continue.", "Lebanon confirms, by letters of 22 and 26 August 1960 transmitting the Convention of 13 April 1960 with the Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepots de Beyrouth and the Council of Ministers Decision of 11 May 1960 concerning the Societe Radio-Orient, that both disputes have been settled, and asks that these communications be placed on record."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Lebanon", "year_introduced": 1959}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"042\", \"case_name\": \"Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepôts de Beyrouth and Société Radio-Orient (France v. Lebanon)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"France notifies the Court, by letter of 24 May 1960, that arrangements concluded with Lebanon following conversations between the Lebanese Government and the French Embassy at Beirut have put an end to the disputes submitted by its Application of 13 February 1959, so that the proceedings need not continue.\", \"Lebanon confirms, by letters of 22 and 26 August 1960 transmitting the Convention of 13 April 1960 with the Compagnie du Port, des Quais et des Entrepots de Beyrouth and the Council of Ministers Decision of 11 May 1960 concerning the Societe Radio-Orient, that both disputes have been settled, and asks that these communications be placed on record.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Lebanon\", \"year_introduced\": 1959}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "043", "input": {"case_id": "043", "case_name": "Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, which was elected on 15 January 1959, constituted in accordance with the Convention for the Establishment of the Organization?"], "requesting_body": "Assembly of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization", "year_introduced": 1959}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"043\", \"case_name\": \"Constitution of the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is the Maritime Safety Committee of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization, which was elected on 15 January 1959, constituted in accordance with the Convention for the Establishment of the Organization?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Assembly of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organization\", \"year_introduced\": 1959}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "044", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "044", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The United States asks the Court to entertain proceedings against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on account of the destruction on 7 November 1954 of a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft in Japanese territorial air space over Hokkaido.", "The United States asks the Court to found its jurisdiction on Article 36 (1) of the Statute, the Soviet Union having filed no declaration, and invites the Soviet Union to take the steps that would confirm the Court's jurisdiction over both Parties."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Union of Soviet Socialist Republics", "year_introduced": 1959}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"044\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 7 November 1954 (United States of America v. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The United States asks the Court to entertain proceedings against the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on account of the destruction on 7 November 1954 of a United States Air Force B-29 aircraft in Japanese territorial air space over Hokkaido.\", \"The United States asks the Court to found its jurisdiction on Article 36 (1) of the Statute, the Soviet Union having filed no declaration, and invites the Soviet Union to take the steps that would confirm the Court's jurisdiction over both Parties.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Union of Soviet Socialist Republics\", \"year_introduced\": 1959}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "045", "input": {"applicant": "Cambodia", "case_id": "045", "case_name": "Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the map of the Dangrek sector (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia) was drawn up and published in the name and on behalf of the Mixed Delimitation Commission set up by the Treaty of 13 February 1904, sets forth that Commission's decisions, and thereby has treaty character.", "Adjudge and declare that the frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand in the disputed region in the neighbourhood of the Temple of Preah Vihear is the line marked on the map of the Commission of Delimitation between Indo-China and Siam (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia).", "Adjudge and declare that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Cambodia.", "Adjudge and declare that the Kingdom of Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw the detachments of armed forces it has stationed since 1954 in Cambodian territory in the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear.", "Adjudge and declare that the sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery removed from the Temple by the Thai authorities since 1954 are to be returned by the Government of Thailand to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Thailand", "year_introduced": 1959}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Cambodia\", \"case_id\": \"045\", \"case_name\": \"Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the map of the Dangrek sector (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia) was drawn up and published in the name and on behalf of the Mixed Delimitation Commission set up by the Treaty of 13 February 1904, sets forth that Commission's decisions, and thereby has treaty character.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the frontier line between Cambodia and Thailand in the disputed region in the neighbourhood of the Temple of Preah Vihear is the line marked on the map of the Commission of Delimitation between Indo-China and Siam (Annex I to the Memorial of Cambodia).\", \"Adjudge and declare that the Temple of Preah Vihear is situated in territory under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Cambodia.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the Kingdom of Thailand is under an obligation to withdraw the detachments of armed forces it has stationed since 1954 in Cambodian territory in the ruins of the Temple of Preah Vihear.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the sculptures, stelae, fragments of monuments, sandstone model and ancient pottery removed from the Temple by the Thai authorities since 1954 are to be returned by the Government of Thailand to the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Thailand\", \"year_introduced\": 1959}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "046", "input": {"applicant": "Ethiopia", "case_id": "046", "case_name": "South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that South West Africa is a territory under the Mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa, accepted by His Britannic Majesty on its behalf, and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 17 December 1920.", "Declare that the Respondent continues to have the international obligations stated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in the Mandate for South West Africa, including the obligation to transmit petitions from the inhabitants and to submit annual reports, the supervisory functions being exercised by the United Nations.", "Declare that the Respondent has practised apartheid, distinguishing as to race, colour, national or tribal origin in establishing the rights and duties of the inhabitants, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to cease that practice in the Territory.", "Declare that the Respondent, by its economic, political, social and educational policies in the Territory, has failed to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants, judged by applicable international standards, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and must cease those violations.", "Declare that the Respondent has treated the Territory in a manner inconsistent with its international status and has impeded self-determination by its inhabitants, in violation of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it must cease such actions and accord full faith and respect to that international status.", "Declare that the Respondent has established military bases within the Territory in violation of Article 4 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to remove all such bases and to refrain from establishing military bases within the Territory.", "Declare that the Respondent has failed to render to the General Assembly of the United Nations annual reports containing information on the Territory and on the measures taken to carry out its obligations under the Mandate, in violation of Article 6 of the Mandate, and that it has the duty forthwith to render such reports.", "Declare that the Respondent has failed to transmit to the General Assembly of the United Nations petitions from the Territory's inhabitants addressed to the General Assembly, in violation of its obligations as Mandatory, and that it has the duty to transmit such petitions.", "Declare that the Respondent has attempted to modify substantially the terms of the Mandate without the consent of the United Nations, in violation of Article 7 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that such consent is a necessary prerequisite and condition precedent to any such attempt."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "South Africa", "year_introduced": 1960}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Ethiopia\", \"case_id\": \"046\", \"case_name\": \"South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that South West Africa is a territory under the Mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa, accepted by His Britannic Majesty on its behalf, and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 17 December 1920.\", \"Declare that the Respondent continues to have the international obligations stated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in the Mandate for South West Africa, including the obligation to transmit petitions from the inhabitants and to submit annual reports, the supervisory functions being exercised by the United Nations.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has practised apartheid, distinguishing as to race, colour, national or tribal origin in establishing the rights and duties of the inhabitants, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to cease that practice in the Territory.\", \"Declare that the Respondent, by its economic, political, social and educational policies in the Territory, has failed to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants, judged by applicable international standards, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and must cease those violations.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has treated the Territory in a manner inconsistent with its international status and has impeded self-determination by its inhabitants, in violation of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it must cease such actions and accord full faith and respect to that international status.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has established military bases within the Territory in violation of Article 4 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to remove all such bases and to refrain from establishing military bases within the Territory.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has failed to render to the General Assembly of the United Nations annual reports containing information on the Territory and on the measures taken to carry out its obligations under the Mandate, in violation of Article 6 of the Mandate, and that it has the duty forthwith to render such reports.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has failed to transmit to the General Assembly of the United Nations petitions from the Territory's inhabitants addressed to the General Assembly, in violation of its obligations as Mandatory, and that it has the duty to transmit such petitions.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has attempted to modify substantially the terms of the Mandate without the consent of the United Nations, in violation of Article 7 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that such consent is a necessary prerequisite and condition precedent to any such attempt.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"South Africa\", \"year_introduced\": 1960}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "047", "input": {"applicant": "Liberia", "case_id": "047", "case_name": "South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that South West Africa is a territory under the Mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa, accepted by His Britannic Majesty on its behalf, and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 17 December 1920.", "Declare that the Respondent continues to have the international obligations stated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in the Mandate for South West Africa, including the obligation to transmit petitions from the inhabitants and to submit annual reports, the supervisory functions being exercised by the United Nations.", "Declare that the Respondent has practised apartheid, distinguishing as to race, colour, national or tribal origin in establishing the rights and duties of the inhabitants, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to cease that practice in the Territory.", "Declare that the Respondent, by its economic, political, social and educational policies in the Territory, has failed to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants, judged by applicable international standards, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and must cease those violations.", "Declare that the Respondent has treated the Territory in a manner inconsistent with its international status and has impeded self-determination by its inhabitants, in violation of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it must cease such actions and accord full faith and respect to that international status.", "Declare that the Respondent has established military bases within the Territory in violation of Article 4 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to remove all such bases and to refrain from establishing military bases within the Territory.", "Declare that the Respondent has failed to render to the General Assembly of the United Nations annual reports containing information on the Territory and on the measures taken to carry out its obligations under the Mandate, in violation of Article 6 of the Mandate, and that it has the duty forthwith to render such reports.", "Declare that the Respondent has failed to transmit to the General Assembly of the United Nations petitions from the Territory's inhabitants addressed to the General Assembly, in violation of its obligations as Mandatory, and that it has the duty to transmit such petitions.", "Declare that the Respondent has attempted to modify substantially the terms of the Mandate without the consent of the United Nations, in violation of Article 7 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that such consent is a necessary prerequisite and condition precedent to any such attempt."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "South Africa", "year_introduced": 1960}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Liberia\", \"case_id\": \"047\", \"case_name\": \"South West Africa (Liberia v. South Africa)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that South West Africa is a territory under the Mandate conferred upon His Britannic Majesty by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers, to be exercised on his behalf by the Government of the Union of South Africa, accepted by His Britannic Majesty on its behalf, and confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on 17 December 1920.\", \"Declare that the Respondent continues to have the international obligations stated in Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and in the Mandate for South West Africa, including the obligation to transmit petitions from the inhabitants and to submit annual reports, the supervisory functions being exercised by the United Nations.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has practised apartheid, distinguishing as to race, colour, national or tribal origin in establishing the rights and duties of the inhabitants, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to cease that practice in the Territory.\", \"Declare that the Respondent, by its economic, political, social and educational policies in the Territory, has failed to promote to the utmost the material and moral well-being and social progress of the inhabitants, judged by applicable international standards, in violation of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and must cease those violations.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has treated the Territory in a manner inconsistent with its international status and has impeded self-determination by its inhabitants, in violation of the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it must cease such actions and accord full faith and respect to that international status.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has established military bases within the Territory in violation of Article 4 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that it has the duty forthwith to remove all such bases and to refrain from establishing military bases within the Territory.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has failed to render to the General Assembly of the United Nations annual reports containing information on the Territory and on the measures taken to carry out its obligations under the Mandate, in violation of Article 6 of the Mandate, and that it has the duty forthwith to render such reports.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has failed to transmit to the General Assembly of the United Nations petitions from the Territory's inhabitants addressed to the General Assembly, in violation of its obligations as Mandatory, and that it has the duty to transmit such petitions.\", \"Declare that the Respondent has attempted to modify substantially the terms of the Mandate without the consent of the United Nations, in violation of Article 7 of the Mandate and Article 22 of the Covenant, and that such consent is a necessary prerequisite and condition precedent to any such attempt.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"South Africa\", \"year_introduced\": 1960}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "048", "input": {"applicant": "Cameroon", "case_id": "048", "case_name": "Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction in this case, for the reasons set out in Part I of the United Kingdom Counter-Memorial.", "Objection: the Application does not comply with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, which requires the Application to state the subject of the dispute and the precise nature of the claim.", "Objection: there has not at any time been a dispute between Cameroon and the United Kingdom as alleged in the Application.", "Objection: there was no dispute on 30 May 1961, the date of the Application, falling within Article 19 of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, on which the Application founds jurisdiction.", "Objection: in any event there is no dispute before the Court upon which the Court is entitled to adjudicate, so that the Court should not proceed to examine the merits."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 1961}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Cameroon\", \"case_id\": \"048\", \"case_name\": \"Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction in this case, for the reasons set out in Part I of the United Kingdom Counter-Memorial.\", \"Objection: the Application does not comply with Article 32, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, which requires the Application to state the subject of the dispute and the precise nature of the claim.\", \"Objection: there has not at any time been a dispute between Cameroon and the United Kingdom as alleged in the Application.\", \"Objection: there was no dispute on 30 May 1961, the date of the Application, falling within Article 19 of the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of the Cameroons under United Kingdom Administration, on which the Application founds jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: in any event there is no dispute before the Court upon which the Court is entitled to adjudicate, so that the Court should not proceed to examine the merits.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 1961}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "049", "input": {"case_id": "049", "case_name": "Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter)", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Do the expenditures authorized in General Assembly resolutions 1583 (XV), 1590 (XV), 1595 (XV), 1619 (XV) and 1633 (XVI) relating to the United Nations operations in the Congo, undertaken in pursuance of the Security Council resolutions of 14 and 22 July and 9 August 1960 and 21 February and 24 November 1961 and General Assembly resolutions 1474 (ES-IV), 1599 (XV), 1600 (XV) and 1601 (XV), constitute 'expenses of the Organization' within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations?", "Do the expenditures authorized in General Assembly resolutions 1122 (XI), 1089 (XI), 1090 (XI), 1151 (XII), 1204 (XII), 1337 (XIII), 1441 (XIV) and 1575 (XV) relating to the operations of the United Nations Emergency Force, undertaken in pursuance of General Assembly resolutions 997 (ES-I), 998 (ES-I), 999 (ES-I), 1000 (ES-I), 1001 (ES-I), 1121 (XI) and 1263 (XIII), constitute 'expenses of the Organization' within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 1961}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"049\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter)\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Do the expenditures authorized in General Assembly resolutions 1583 (XV), 1590 (XV), 1595 (XV), 1619 (XV) and 1633 (XVI) relating to the United Nations operations in the Congo, undertaken in pursuance of the Security Council resolutions of 14 and 22 July and 9 August 1960 and 21 February and 24 November 1961 and General Assembly resolutions 1474 (ES-IV), 1599 (XV), 1600 (XV) and 1601 (XV), constitute 'expenses of the Organization' within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations?\", \"Do the expenditures authorized in General Assembly resolutions 1122 (XI), 1089 (XI), 1090 (XI), 1151 (XII), 1204 (XII), 1337 (XIII), 1441 (XIV) and 1575 (XV) relating to the operations of the United Nations Emergency Force, undertaken in pursuance of General Assembly resolutions 997 (ES-I), 998 (ES-I), 999 (ES-I), 1000 (ES-I), 1001 (ES-I), 1121 (XI) and 1263 (XIII), constitute 'expenses of the Organization' within the meaning of Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter of the United Nations?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 1961}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "050", "input": {"applicant": "BELGIUM", "case_id": "050", "case_name": "Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Belgium requests the Court to adjudge and declare that its Application is admissible.", "Belgium requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Spain is responsible for the damage sustained by Belgium in the person of its nationals, shareholders in Barcelona Traction, as a result of acts contrary to international law committed by Spanish organs which led to the spoliation of the Barcelona Traction group.", "Belgium requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Spain is under an obligation to ensure reparation of that damage.", "Belgium requests the Court to assess that damage at US$78,000,000, representing 88 per cent of the net value, on 12 February 1948, of the property of which the Barcelona Traction group was despoiled.", "Belgium requests that Spain be ordered to pay compensatory interest at 6 per cent on that sum of US$78,000,000 from 12 February 1948 to the date of judgment, as an all-embracing payment to cover loss of enjoyment.", "Belgium requests that Spain be ordered to pay a sum provisionally assessed at US$3,800,000 to cover the expenses incurred by the Belgian nationals in defending their rights since 12 February 1948.", "Belgium requests that Spain be held liable for GBP 433,821, the principal and interest on 4 January 1952 of the Barcelona Traction sterling bonds held by those nationals, and for US$1,623,127, a debt owed to one of them by a subsidiary company including lump-sum compensation for loss of profits on premature termination of a contract, with interest at 6 per cent from those dates to the date of judgment.", "Belgium requests that Spain be ordered to pay interest on the amount of compensation awarded, at a rate determined by reference to prevailing rates, from the date of the decision fixing that compensation until payment.", "In the alternative to the requests on the amount of the damage, the interest and the expenses, Belgium requests that the compensation due to it be established by means of an expert enquiry ordered by the Court.", "Should the Court consider that it cannot fix the final amount of compensation without an expert enquiry, Belgium requests an immediate award of provisional compensation on account, in an amount left to the Court's discretion.", "Objection joined to the merits: Spain requests the Court to declare the Belgian claim inadmissible because Belgium lacks jus standi to make a claim on behalf of Belgian shareholders in Barcelona Traction, a company of Canadian nationality.", "Objection joined to the merits: Spain requests the Court to declare the Belgian claim inadmissible because the local remedies available in the Spanish legal order in respect of the acts complained of were not used and exhausted, as required by general international law and by Article 3 of the 1927 Hispano-Belgian Treaty of Conciliation, Judicial Settlement and Arbitration."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "SPAIN", "year_introduced": 1962}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"BELGIUM\", \"case_id\": \"050\", \"case_name\": \"Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain) (New Application: 1962)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Belgium requests the Court to adjudge and declare that its Application is admissible.\", \"Belgium requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Spain is responsible for the damage sustained by Belgium in the person of its nationals, shareholders in Barcelona Traction, as a result of acts contrary to international law committed by Spanish organs which led to the spoliation of the Barcelona Traction group.\", \"Belgium requests the Court to adjudge and declare that Spain is under an obligation to ensure reparation of that damage.\", \"Belgium requests the Court to assess that damage at US$78,000,000, representing 88 per cent of the net value, on 12 February 1948, of the property of which the Barcelona Traction group was despoiled.\", \"Belgium requests that Spain be ordered to pay compensatory interest at 6 per cent on that sum of US$78,000,000 from 12 February 1948 to the date of judgment, as an all-embracing payment to cover loss of enjoyment.\", \"Belgium requests that Spain be ordered to pay a sum provisionally assessed at US$3,800,000 to cover the expenses incurred by the Belgian nationals in defending their rights since 12 February 1948.\", \"Belgium requests that Spain be held liable for GBP 433,821, the principal and interest on 4 January 1952 of the Barcelona Traction sterling bonds held by those nationals, and for US$1,623,127, a debt owed to one of them by a subsidiary company including lump-sum compensation for loss of profits on premature termination of a contract, with interest at 6 per cent from those dates to the date of judgment.\", \"Belgium requests that Spain be ordered to pay interest on the amount of compensation awarded, at a rate determined by reference to prevailing rates, from the date of the decision fixing that compensation until payment.\", \"In the alternative to the requests on the amount of the damage, the interest and the expenses, Belgium requests that the compensation due to it be established by means of an expert enquiry ordered by the Court.\", \"Should the Court consider that it cannot fix the final amount of compensation without an expert enquiry, Belgium requests an immediate award of provisional compensation on account, in an amount left to the Court's discretion.\", \"Objection joined to the merits: Spain requests the Court to declare the Belgian claim inadmissible because Belgium lacks jus standi to make a claim on behalf of Belgian shareholders in Barcelona Traction, a company of Canadian nationality.\", \"Objection joined to the merits: Spain requests the Court to declare the Belgian claim inadmissible because the local remedies available in the Spanish legal order in respect of the acts complained of were not used and exhausted, as required by general international law and by Article 3 of the 1927 Hispano-Belgian Treaty of Conciliation, Judicial Settlement and Arbitration.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"SPAIN\", \"year_introduced\": 1962}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "051", "input": {"applicant": "Federal Republic of Germany", "case_id": "051", "case_name": "North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the delimitation of the continental shelf between the Parties in the North Sea is governed by the principle that each coastal State is entitled to a just and equitable share.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method, by which every point of the boundary is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, is not a rule of customary international law.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the rule in the second sentence of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, prescribing equidistance absent agreement or special circumstances, has not become customary international law.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that, even if that rule were applicable between the Parties, special circumstances within the meaning of the rule would exclude the application of the equidistance method in the present case.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method cannot be used to delimit the continental shelf unless it is established, by agreement, arbitration or otherwise, that it will achieve a just and equitable apportionment among the States concerned.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the Kingdom of Denmark cannot rely on the application of the equidistance method for the delimitation in the North Sea, since it would not lead to an equitable apportionment.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that consequently the delimitation on which the Parties must agree under Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement is determined by the principle of the just and equitable share, based on criteria relevant to the particular geographical situation in the North Sea.", "Denmark asks the Court to declare that the delimitation as between the Parties of the areas of the continental shelf in the North Sea is governed by the principles and rules of international law expressed in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.", "Denmark asks the Court to declare that, the Parties being in disagreement and unless another boundary is justified by special circumstances, the boundary is to be determined by application of the principle of equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured.", "Denmark asks the Court to declare that, special circumstances justifying another boundary line not having been established, the boundary between the Parties is to be determined by application of that principle of equidistance.", "Denmark asks the Court to declare, in the alternative, that if those principles and rules do not apply between the Parties the boundary is to be determined on the basis of each Party's exclusive rights over the shelf adjacent to its coast and of the principle that it leaves to each Party every point nearer to its own coast."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Denmark", "year_introduced": 1967}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Federal Republic of Germany\", \"case_id\": \"051\", \"case_name\": \"North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the delimitation of the continental shelf between the Parties in the North Sea is governed by the principle that each coastal State is entitled to a just and equitable share.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method, by which every point of the boundary is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, is not a rule of customary international law.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the rule in the second sentence of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, prescribing equidistance absent agreement or special circumstances, has not become customary international law.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that, even if that rule were applicable between the Parties, special circumstances within the meaning of the rule would exclude the application of the equidistance method in the present case.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method cannot be used to delimit the continental shelf unless it is established, by agreement, arbitration or otherwise, that it will achieve a just and equitable apportionment among the States concerned.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the Kingdom of Denmark cannot rely on the application of the equidistance method for the delimitation in the North Sea, since it would not lead to an equitable apportionment.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that consequently the delimitation on which the Parties must agree under Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement is determined by the principle of the just and equitable share, based on criteria relevant to the particular geographical situation in the North Sea.\", \"Denmark asks the Court to declare that the delimitation as between the Parties of the areas of the continental shelf in the North Sea is governed by the principles and rules of international law expressed in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.\", \"Denmark asks the Court to declare that, the Parties being in disagreement and unless another boundary is justified by special circumstances, the boundary is to be determined by application of the principle of equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured.\", \"Denmark asks the Court to declare that, special circumstances justifying another boundary line not having been established, the boundary between the Parties is to be determined by application of that principle of equidistance.\", \"Denmark asks the Court to declare, in the alternative, that if those principles and rules do not apply between the Parties the boundary is to be determined on the basis of each Party's exclusive rights over the shelf adjacent to its coast and of the principle that it leaves to each Party every point nearer to its own coast.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Denmark\", \"year_introduced\": 1967}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "052", "input": {"applicant": "Federal Republic of Germany", "case_id": "052", "case_name": "North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the delimitation of the continental shelf between the Parties in the North Sea is governed by the principle that each coastal State is entitled to a just and equitable share.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method, by which every point of the boundary is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, is not a rule of customary international law.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the rule in the second sentence of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, prescribing equidistance absent agreement or special circumstances, has not become customary international law.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that, even if that rule were applicable between the Parties, special circumstances within the meaning of the rule would exclude the application of the equidistance method in the present case.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method cannot be used to delimit the continental shelf unless it is established, by agreement, arbitration or otherwise, that it will achieve a just and equitable apportionment among the States concerned.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands cannot rely on the application of the equidistance method for the delimitation in the North Sea, since it would not lead to an equitable apportionment.", "The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that consequently the delimitation on which the Parties must agree under Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement is determined by the principle of the just and equitable share, based on criteria relevant to the particular geographical situation in the North Sea.", "The Netherlands asks the Court to declare that the delimitation as between the Parties of the areas of the continental shelf in the North Sea is governed by the principles and rules of international law expressed in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.", "The Netherlands asks the Court to declare that, the Parties being in disagreement and unless another boundary is justified by special circumstances, the boundary is to be determined by application of the principle of equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured.", "The Netherlands asks the Court to declare that, special circumstances justifying another boundary line not having been established, the boundary between the Parties is to be determined by application of that principle of equidistance.", "The Netherlands asks the Court to declare, in the alternative, that if those principles and rules do not apply between the Parties the boundary is to be determined on the basis of each Party's exclusive rights over the shelf adjacent to its coast and of the principle that it leaves to each Party every point nearer to its own coast."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Netherlands", "year_introduced": 1967}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Federal Republic of Germany\", \"case_id\": \"052\", \"case_name\": \"North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the delimitation of the continental shelf between the Parties in the North Sea is governed by the principle that each coastal State is entitled to a just and equitable share.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method, by which every point of the boundary is equidistant from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured, is not a rule of customary international law.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the rule in the second sentence of Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, prescribing equidistance absent agreement or special circumstances, has not become customary international law.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that, even if that rule were applicable between the Parties, special circumstances within the meaning of the rule would exclude the application of the equidistance method in the present case.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the equidistance method cannot be used to delimit the continental shelf unless it is established, by agreement, arbitration or otherwise, that it will achieve a just and equitable apportionment among the States concerned.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that the Kingdom of the Netherlands cannot rely on the application of the equidistance method for the delimitation in the North Sea, since it would not lead to an equitable apportionment.\", \"The Federal Republic of Germany asks the Court to declare that consequently the delimitation on which the Parties must agree under Article 1, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement is determined by the principle of the just and equitable share, based on criteria relevant to the particular geographical situation in the North Sea.\", \"The Netherlands asks the Court to declare that the delimitation as between the Parties of the areas of the continental shelf in the North Sea is governed by the principles and rules of international law expressed in Article 6, paragraph 2, of the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf.\", \"The Netherlands asks the Court to declare that, the Parties being in disagreement and unless another boundary is justified by special circumstances, the boundary is to be determined by application of the principle of equidistance from the nearest points of the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea of each State is measured.\", \"The Netherlands asks the Court to declare that, special circumstances justifying another boundary line not having been established, the boundary between the Parties is to be determined by application of that principle of equidistance.\", \"The Netherlands asks the Court to declare, in the alternative, that if those principles and rules do not apply between the Parties the boundary is to be determined on the basis of each Party's exclusive rights over the shelf adjacent to its coast and of the principle that it leaves to each Party every point nearer to its own coast.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Netherlands\", \"year_introduced\": 1967}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "053", "input": {"case_id": "053", "case_name": "Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["What are the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia, notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970)?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations Security Council (resolution 284 (1970) of 29 July 1970, under Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter)", "year_introduced": 1970}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"053\", \"case_name\": \"Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970)\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"What are the legal consequences for States of the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia, notwithstanding Security Council resolution 276 (1970)?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations Security Council (resolution 284 (1970) of 29 July 1970, under Article 96, paragraph 1, of the Charter)\", \"year_introduced\": 1970}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "054", "input": {"applicant": "India", "case_id": "054", "case_name": "Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["India asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the decisions rendered by the Council of ICAO on 29 July 1971 on India's preliminary objections are illegal, null and void, or erroneous, and to reverse and set them aside.", "Ground A: India asks the Court to hold that the Council has no jurisdiction to handle the matters presented by Pakistan in its Application and Complaint, because the Chicago Convention of 1944 and the International Air Services Transit Agreement of 1944 have been terminated or suspended as between the two States.", "Ground B: India asks the Court to hold that the Council has no jurisdiction to consider Pakistan's Complaint, since India has taken no action under the Transit Agreement and could take none, that Agreement having been terminated or suspended between the two States.", "Ground C: India asks the Court to hold that overflight of Pakistan by Indian aircraft and of India by Pakistan aircraft is governed by the bilateral Special Regime of 1966 and not by the Convention or the Transit Agreement, so that any dispute can arise only under that Agreement, over which the Council has no jurisdiction.", "Ground D: India asks the Court to hold that the manner and method employed by the Council in reaching its decisions render those decisions improper, unfair, prejudicial to India and bad in law.", "India asks the Court to order that the costs of the proceedings be paid by Pakistan."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Pakistan", "year_introduced": 1971}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"India\", \"case_id\": \"054\", \"case_name\": \"Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"India asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the decisions rendered by the Council of ICAO on 29 July 1971 on India's preliminary objections are illegal, null and void, or erroneous, and to reverse and set them aside.\", \"Ground A: India asks the Court to hold that the Council has no jurisdiction to handle the matters presented by Pakistan in its Application and Complaint, because the Chicago Convention of 1944 and the International Air Services Transit Agreement of 1944 have been terminated or suspended as between the two States.\", \"Ground B: India asks the Court to hold that the Council has no jurisdiction to consider Pakistan's Complaint, since India has taken no action under the Transit Agreement and could take none, that Agreement having been terminated or suspended between the two States.\", \"Ground C: India asks the Court to hold that overflight of Pakistan by Indian aircraft and of India by Pakistan aircraft is governed by the bilateral Special Regime of 1966 and not by the Convention or the Transit Agreement, so that any dispute can arise only under that Agreement, over which the Council has no jurisdiction.\", \"Ground D: India asks the Court to hold that the manner and method employed by the Council in reaching its decisions render those decisions improper, unfair, prejudicial to India and bad in law.\", \"India asks the Court to order that the costs of the proceedings be paid by Pakistan.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Pakistan\", \"year_introduced\": 1971}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "055", "input": {"applicant": "United Kingdom", "case_id": "055", "case_name": "Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that Iceland's claim to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to a zone of 50 nautical miles around Iceland, announced for 1 September 1972 and given effect by the Icelandic Regulations of 14 July 1972, is without foundation in international law and invalid.", "Declare that the measures of exclusion of foreign fishing vessels contained in those Regulations cannot be opposed by Iceland to fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom, which remain entitled to continue fishing in the waters beyond the 12-mile fishery limit agreed in the Exchange of Notes of 11 March 1961."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Iceland", "year_introduced": 1972}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"055\", \"case_name\": \"Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that Iceland's claim to extend its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to a zone of 50 nautical miles around Iceland, announced for 1 September 1972 and given effect by the Icelandic Regulations of 14 July 1972, is without foundation in international law and invalid.\", \"Declare that the measures of exclusion of foreign fishing vessels contained in those Regulations cannot be opposed by Iceland to fishing vessels registered in the United Kingdom, which remain entitled to continue fishing in the waters beyond the 12-mile fishery limit agreed in the Exchange of Notes of 11 March 1961.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Iceland\", \"year_introduced\": 1972}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "056", "input": {"applicant": "Federal Republic of Germany", "case_id": "056", "case_name": "Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that the unilateral extension by Iceland of its zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles from the present baselines, put into effect by Regulations No. 189/1972 of 14 July 1972, has, as against the Federal Republic of Germany, no basis in international law and cannot be opposed to the Federal Republic or to fishing vessels registered there.", "Declare that those Regulations, and any other regulations Iceland might issue to implement its claim to a 50-mile exclusive fisheries zone, shall not be enforced against the Federal Republic of Germany, vessels registered there, their crews or other persons connected with the fishing activities of such vessels.", "Declare that if Iceland establishes a need for conservation measures for fish stocks beyond the limits agreed in the Exchange of Notes of 19 July 1961, such measures, so far as they affect German-registered vessels, may be taken only by agreement between the Parties, with due regard to Iceland's special dependence on fisheries and to German traditional fisheries there.", "Declare that the acts of interference by Icelandic coastal patrol boats with German-registered fishing vessels or their fishing operations, by the threat or use of force, are unlawful under international law, and that Iceland is under an obligation to make compensation to the Federal Republic of Germany."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Iceland", "year_introduced": 1972}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Federal Republic of Germany\", \"case_id\": \"056\", \"case_name\": \"Fisheries Jurisdiction (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that the unilateral extension by Iceland of its zone of exclusive fisheries jurisdiction to 50 nautical miles from the present baselines, put into effect by Regulations No. 189/1972 of 14 July 1972, has, as against the Federal Republic of Germany, no basis in international law and cannot be opposed to the Federal Republic or to fishing vessels registered there.\", \"Declare that those Regulations, and any other regulations Iceland might issue to implement its claim to a 50-mile exclusive fisheries zone, shall not be enforced against the Federal Republic of Germany, vessels registered there, their crews or other persons connected with the fishing activities of such vessels.\", \"Declare that if Iceland establishes a need for conservation measures for fish stocks beyond the limits agreed in the Exchange of Notes of 19 July 1961, such measures, so far as they affect German-registered vessels, may be taken only by agreement between the Parties, with due regard to Iceland's special dependence on fisheries and to German traditional fisheries there.\", \"Declare that the acts of interference by Icelandic coastal patrol boats with German-registered fishing vessels or their fishing operations, by the threat or use of force, are unlawful under international law, and that Iceland is under an obligation to make compensation to the Federal Republic of Germany.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Iceland\", \"year_introduced\": 1972}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "057", "input": {"case_id": "057", "case_name": "Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Has the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as contended in the applicant's application to the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (A/AC.86/R.59)?", "Has the Tribunal committed a fundamental error in procedure which has occasioned a failure of justice as contended in the applicant's application to the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (A/AC.86/R.59)?"], "requesting_body": "Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (decision of 20 June 1972 under Article 11 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal)", "year_introduced": 1972}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"057\", \"case_name\": \"Application for Review of Judgment No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Has the Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it as contended in the applicant's application to the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (A/AC.86/R.59)?\", \"Has the Tribunal committed a fundamental error in procedure which has occasioned a failure of justice as contended in the applicant's application to the Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (A/AC.86/R.59)?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (decision of 20 June 1972 under Article 11 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal)\", \"year_introduced\": 1972}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "058", "input": {"applicant": "Australia", "case_id": "058", "case_name": "Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the carrying out of further atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in the South Pacific Ocean is not consistent with applicable rules of international law.", "Order that the French Republic shall not carry out any further such atmospheric nuclear weapon tests.", "Declare and adjudge that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute that is the subject of the Application filed by Australia on 9 May 1973.", "Declare and adjudge that the Application is admissible, and that Australia is accordingly entitled to a declaration and judgment that the Court has full competence to proceed to entertain the Application on the merits of the dispute."], "decision_stage": "jurisdiction_and_admissibility", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 1973}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Australia\", \"case_id\": \"058\", \"case_name\": \"Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the carrying out of further atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in the South Pacific Ocean is not consistent with applicable rules of international law.\", \"Order that the French Republic shall not carry out any further such atmospheric nuclear weapon tests.\", \"Declare and adjudge that the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute that is the subject of the Application filed by Australia on 9 May 1973.\", \"Declare and adjudge that the Application is admissible, and that Australia is accordingly entitled to a declaration and judgment that the Court has full competence to proceed to entertain the Application on the merits of the dispute.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"jurisdiction_and_admissibility\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 1973}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "059", "input": {"applicant": "New Zealand", "case_id": "059", "case_name": "Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court adjudge and declare that the conduct by the French Government of nuclear tests in the South Pacific region that give rise to radio-active fall-out constitutes a violation of New Zealand's rights under international law.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that those rights of New Zealand will be violated by any further such tests.", "That the Court declare and adjudge that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by New Zealand and to deal with the merits of the dispute.", "That the Court declare and adjudge that the Application of New Zealand is admissible.", "Objection: the Court is without jurisdiction because the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 26 September 1928, invoked with Articles 36 (1) and 37 of the Statute, was an integral part of the League of Nations system, has lost its effectivity and fallen into desuetude, and cannot found the Court's competence.", "Objection: the Court is without jurisdiction because paragraph 3 of the French declaration of 20 May 1966 under Article 36 (2) of the Statute excepts disputes concerning activities connected with national defence, and this dispute over French nuclear tests in the Pacific falls within that exception.", "That the Court order that the case be removed from its list, as requested by France in the letter of its Ambassador to the Netherlands of 16 May 1973."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 1973}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"New Zealand\", \"case_id\": \"059\", \"case_name\": \"Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court adjudge and declare that the conduct by the French Government of nuclear tests in the South Pacific region that give rise to radio-active fall-out constitutes a violation of New Zealand's rights under international law.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that those rights of New Zealand will be violated by any further such tests.\", \"That the Court declare and adjudge that it has jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by New Zealand and to deal with the merits of the dispute.\", \"That the Court declare and adjudge that the Application of New Zealand is admissible.\", \"Objection: the Court is without jurisdiction because the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 26 September 1928, invoked with Articles 36 (1) and 37 of the Statute, was an integral part of the League of Nations system, has lost its effectivity and fallen into desuetude, and cannot found the Court's competence.\", \"Objection: the Court is without jurisdiction because paragraph 3 of the French declaration of 20 May 1966 under Article 36 (2) of the Statute excepts disputes concerning activities connected with national defence, and this dispute over French nuclear tests in the Pacific falls within that exception.\", \"That the Court order that the case be removed from its list, as requested by France in the letter of its Ambassador to the Netherlands of 16 May 1973.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 1973}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "060", "input": {"applicant": "Pakistan", "case_id": "060", "case_name": "Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by Pakistan, in its Agent's letter of 14 December 1973, that the Court make an Order officially recording the discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by the Application of 11 May 1973, with a view to facilitating further negotiations with India following the agreement signed at New Delhi on 28 August 1973."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "India", "year_introduced": 1973}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Pakistan\", \"case_id\": \"060\", \"case_name\": \"Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by Pakistan, in its Agent's letter of 14 December 1973, that the Court make an Order officially recording the discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by the Application of 11 May 1973, with a view to facilitating further negotiations with India following the agreement signed at New Delhi on 28 August 1973.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"India\", \"year_introduced\": 1973}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "061", "input": {"case_id": "061", "case_name": "Western Sahara", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["I. Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?", "II. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution 3292 (XXIX) of 13 December 1974, under Article 96 of the Charter)", "year_introduced": 1974}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"061\", \"case_name\": \"Western Sahara\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"I. Was Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of colonization by Spain a territory belonging to no one (terra nullius)?\", \"II. If the answer to the first question is in the negative, what were the legal ties between this territory and the Kingdom of Morocco and the Mauritanian entity?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution 3292 (XXIX) of 13 December 1974, under Article 96 of the Charter)\", \"year_introduced\": 1974}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "062", "input": {"applicant": "Greece", "case_id": "062", "case_name": "Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Greek Application is premature, because the two Governments had not yet begun negotiations on the substance of the Aegean continental shelf delimitation and had always contemplated reaching an agreement acceptable to both of them.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1928, invoked by Greece under Article 17 of that Act read with Articles 36 (1) and 37 of the Statute, is no longer a treaty in force between Greece and Turkey.", "Objection: even if the 1928 General Act were in force, it is inapplicable as between Greece and Turkey here, because reservation (b) to Greece's instrument of accession of 14 September 1931 excludes disputes relating to the territorial status of Greece, within which this continental shelf dispute falls.", "Objection: the conditions for the frank and serious negotiations the parties agreed to pursue, under Security Council resolution 395 (1976) and the Berne Agreement of 11 November 1976, are not reconcilable with the continuation of judicial proceedings, so the Court should not proceed with the case.", "Objection: the dispute between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean continental shelf is of a highly political nature and is therefore not a matter the Court should entertain."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Turkey", "year_introduced": 1976}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Greece\", \"case_id\": \"062\", \"case_name\": \"Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turkey)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Greek Application is premature, because the two Governments had not yet begun negotiations on the substance of the Aegean continental shelf delimitation and had always contemplated reaching an agreement acceptable to both of them.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1928, invoked by Greece under Article 17 of that Act read with Articles 36 (1) and 37 of the Statute, is no longer a treaty in force between Greece and Turkey.\", \"Objection: even if the 1928 General Act were in force, it is inapplicable as between Greece and Turkey here, because reservation (b) to Greece's instrument of accession of 14 September 1931 excludes disputes relating to the territorial status of Greece, within which this continental shelf dispute falls.\", \"Objection: the conditions for the frank and serious negotiations the parties agreed to pursue, under Security Council resolution 395 (1976) and the Berne Agreement of 11 November 1976, are not reconcilable with the continuation of judicial proceedings, so the Court should not proceed with the case.\", \"Objection: the dispute between Greece and Turkey over the Aegean continental shelf is of a highly political nature and is therefore not a matter the Court should entertain.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Turkey\", \"year_introduced\": 1976}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "063", "input": {"applicant": "Tunisia", "case_id": "063", "case_name": "Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["State, in answer to the first question of Article 1 of the Special Agreement of 10 June 1977, the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining to Tunisia and to Libya, taking account of equitable principles, the relevant circumstances characterizing the area and the recent trends admitted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.", "Specify, in answer to the second question of Article 1 of the Special Agreement, the practical way in which those principles and rules apply in this particular situation, so that the experts of the two countries may delimit the areas without difficulty.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation is to be effected, taking account of the physical and natural characteristics of the area, so as to leave to each Party all those parts of the continental shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the other.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation must not at any point encroach upon the area in which Tunisia possesses well-established historic rights, defined laterally towards Libya by the line ZV-45 degrees and seawards by the 50-metre isobath.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation must be effected in conformity with equitable principles and all the relevant circumstances, a balance being struck between those circumstances so as to reach an equitable result without refashioning nature.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that those rules are to be applied taking into account that the natural prolongation of Tunisia extends eastwards as far as the areas between the 250-metre and 300-metre isobaths and south-eastwards as far as the zone constituted by the Zira and Zuwarah Ridges.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, to the east and south-east of that region, the delimitation must take account of the other relevant circumstances, in particular Tunisia's islands, islets and low-tide elevations, the correspondence between the coastal configuration and the bathymetric curves, the potential cut-off effect of the angulation of the Tuniso-Libyan littoral, the irregularity of the Tunisian coasts, and delimitations with third States whose coasts lie opposite Tunisia.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation should lead to a line not appreciably departing from the lines resulting from the geomorphological factors peculiar to the region, in particular the crestline of the Zira and Zuwarah Ridges and the orientation of the natural prolongations of the two territories towards the abyssal plain of the Ionian Sea.", "Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation line could be constituted either by a line drawn at the Tuniso-Libyan frontier parallel to the bisector of the angle formed by the Tuniso-Libyan littoral in the Gulf of Gabes, or by a line determined according to the angle of aperture of the coastline at that frontier in proportion to the lengths of the relevant coasts of the two States."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "year_introduced": 1978}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Tunisia\", \"case_id\": \"063\", \"case_name\": \"Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"State, in answer to the first question of Article 1 of the Special Agreement of 10 June 1977, the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of the areas of continental shelf appertaining to Tunisia and to Libya, taking account of equitable principles, the relevant circumstances characterizing the area and the recent trends admitted at the Third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.\", \"Specify, in answer to the second question of Article 1 of the Special Agreement, the practical way in which those principles and rules apply in this particular situation, so that the experts of the two countries may delimit the areas without difficulty.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation is to be effected, taking account of the physical and natural characteristics of the area, so as to leave to each Party all those parts of the continental shelf that constitute a natural prolongation of its land territory into and under the sea, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the other.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation must not at any point encroach upon the area in which Tunisia possesses well-established historic rights, defined laterally towards Libya by the line ZV-45 degrees and seawards by the 50-metre isobath.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation must be effected in conformity with equitable principles and all the relevant circumstances, a balance being struck between those circumstances so as to reach an equitable result without refashioning nature.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that those rules are to be applied taking into account that the natural prolongation of Tunisia extends eastwards as far as the areas between the 250-metre and 300-metre isobaths and south-eastwards as far as the zone constituted by the Zira and Zuwarah Ridges.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, to the east and south-east of that region, the delimitation must take account of the other relevant circumstances, in particular Tunisia's islands, islets and low-tide elevations, the correspondence between the coastal configuration and the bathymetric curves, the potential cut-off effect of the angulation of the Tuniso-Libyan littoral, the irregularity of the Tunisian coasts, and delimitations with third States whose coasts lie opposite Tunisia.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation should lead to a line not appreciably departing from the lines resulting from the geomorphological factors peculiar to the region, in particular the crestline of the Zira and Zuwarah Ridges and the orientation of the natural prolongations of the two territories towards the abyssal plain of the Ionian Sea.\", \"Tunisia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation line could be constituted either by a line drawn at the Tuniso-Libyan frontier parallel to the bisector of the angle formed by the Tuniso-Libyan littoral in the Gulf of Gabes, or by a line determined according to the angle of aperture of the coastline at that frontier in proportion to the lengths of the relevant coasts of the two States.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya\", \"year_introduced\": 1978}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "064", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "064", "case_name": "United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court adjudge and declare that Iran, in permitting, tolerating, encouraging, adopting and endeavouring to exploit, as well as in failing to prevent and punish, the conduct described in the Statement of the Facts, violated its obligations to the United States under Articles 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, 44 and 47 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Articles 5, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 and 72 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Articles II (4), XIII, XVIII and XIX of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, and Articles 2, 4 and 7 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.", "That Iran immediately ensure that the premises of the United States Embassy, Chancery and Consulates are restored to the possession of the United States authorities under their exclusive control, and ensure their inviolability and effective protection.", "That Iran ensure the immediate release, without exception, of all persons of United States nationality held in the United States Embassy, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran or as hostages elsewhere, and afford them full protection.", "That Iran afford all United States diplomatic and consular personnel the protection, privileges and immunities to which they are entitled, including immunity from any form of criminal jurisdiction and freedom and facilities to leave Iranian territory.", "That Iran ensure that no such personnel is obliged to appear on trial or as a witness, deponent or source of information in any proceedings initiated by or with the acquiescence of the Iranian Government, however denominated.", "That Iran submit to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, or extradite to the United States, those persons responsible for the crimes committed against the personnel and premises of the United States Embassy and Consulates in Iran.", "That the United States is entitled to the payment to it, in its own right and in the exercise of its right of diplomatic protection of its nationals held hostage, of reparation by Iran for those violations, in a sum to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Iran", "year_introduced": 1979}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"064\", \"case_name\": \"United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court adjudge and declare that Iran, in permitting, tolerating, encouraging, adopting and endeavouring to exploit, as well as in failing to prevent and punish, the conduct described in the Statement of the Facts, violated its obligations to the United States under Articles 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 37, 44 and 47 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Articles 5, 27, 28, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 40 and 72 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, Articles II (4), XIII, XVIII and XIX of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights, and Articles 2, 4 and 7 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons.\", \"That Iran immediately ensure that the premises of the United States Embassy, Chancery and Consulates are restored to the possession of the United States authorities under their exclusive control, and ensure their inviolability and effective protection.\", \"That Iran ensure the immediate release, without exception, of all persons of United States nationality held in the United States Embassy, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Tehran or as hostages elsewhere, and afford them full protection.\", \"That Iran afford all United States diplomatic and consular personnel the protection, privileges and immunities to which they are entitled, including immunity from any form of criminal jurisdiction and freedom and facilities to leave Iranian territory.\", \"That Iran ensure that no such personnel is obliged to appear on trial or as a witness, deponent or source of information in any proceedings initiated by or with the acquiescence of the Iranian Government, however denominated.\", \"That Iran submit to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, or extradite to the United States, those persons responsible for the crimes committed against the personnel and premises of the United States Embassy and Consulates in Iran.\", \"That the United States is entitled to the payment to it, in its own right and in the exercise of its right of diplomatic protection of its nationals held hostage, of reparation by Iran for those violations, in a sum to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Iran\", \"year_introduced\": 1979}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "065", "input": {"case_id": "065", "case_name": "Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["1. Are the negotiation and notice provisions of Section 37 of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the World Health Organization and Egypt applicable in the event that either party to the Agreement wishes to have the Regional Office transferred from the territory of Egypt?", "2. If so, what would be the legal responsibilities of both the World Health Organization and Egypt, with regard to the Regional Office in Alexandria, during the two-year period between notice and termination of the Agreement?"], "requesting_body": "World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (resolution WHA33.16 of 20 May 1980, under Article 96, paragraph 2, of the Charter, Article 76 of the WHO Constitution and Article X, paragraph 2, of the WHO-United Nations Agreement)", "year_introduced": 1980}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"065\", \"case_name\": \"Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"1. Are the negotiation and notice provisions of Section 37 of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the World Health Organization and Egypt applicable in the event that either party to the Agreement wishes to have the Regional Office transferred from the territory of Egypt?\", \"2. If so, what would be the legal responsibilities of both the World Health Organization and Egypt, with regard to the Regional Office in Alexandria, during the two-year period between notice and termination of the Agreement?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (resolution WHA33.16 of 20 May 1980, under Article 96, paragraph 2, of the Charter, Article 76 of the WHO Constitution and Article X, paragraph 2, of the WHO-United Nations Agreement)\", \"year_introduced\": 1980}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "066", "input": {"case_id": "066", "case_name": "Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is the judgement of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in Judgement No. 273, Mortished v. the Secretary-General, warranted in determining that General Assembly resolution 34/165 of 17 December 1979 could not be given immediate effect in requiring, for the payment of repatriation grants, evidence of relocation to a country other than the country of the staff member's last duty station?"], "requesting_body": "Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (decision of 13 July 1981 under Article 11 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, on an application presented by the United States of America)", "year_introduced": 1981}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"066\", \"case_name\": \"Application for Review of Judgment No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is the judgement of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal in Judgement No. 273, Mortished v. the Secretary-General, warranted in determining that General Assembly resolution 34/165 of 17 December 1979 could not be given immediate effect in requiring, for the payment of repatriation grants, evidence of relocation to a country other than the country of the staff member's last duty station?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (decision of 13 July 1981 under Article 11 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, on an application presented by the United States of America)\", \"year_introduced\": 1981}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "067", "input": {"applicant": "Canada", "case_id": "067", "case_name": "Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Under Article II (1) of the Special Agreement of 29 March 1979, the Parties jointly ask the Chamber to decide, in accordance with the principles and rules of international law applicable between them, the course of the single maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and fisheries zones of Canada and the United States from a point at latitude 44 deg 11' 12\" N, longitude 67 deg 16' 46\" W to a point to be determined by the Chamber within the triangle bounded by 40N/67W, 40N/65W and 42N/65W.", "Under Article II (2) of the Special Agreement, the Parties ask the Chamber to describe the course of that boundary in terms of geodetic lines connecting geographic coordinates of points, and, for illustrative purposes, to depict it on Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart No. 4003 and United States National Ocean Survey Chart No. 13006.", "Canada asks the Chamber to declare and adjudge that the single maritime boundary is defined by geodetic lines connecting the twelve coordinates set out in its Memorial, running from 44 deg 11' 12\" N, 67 deg 16' 46\" W to 40 deg 05' 36\" N, 66 deg 41' 59\" W.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the application of equitable principles, taking account of the relevant circumstances in the area, to produce an equitable solution.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the equitable principles applicable here include respect for the relationship between the Parties' relevant coasts and the maritime areas in front of them (non-encroachment, proportionality, and natural prolongation in its geographic sense or coastal-front extension), facilitating conservation and management of the natural resources of the area, minimizing the potential for disputes, and taking account of the relevant circumstances.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the equidistance method is neither obligatory nor preferred, whether by treaty or as a rule of customary international law, and that any method or combination of methods producing an equitable solution may be used.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the relevant geographical circumstances include the coastal-front extension of Maine and New Hampshire, the adjacency of the Parties, the general northeastern direction of the coast, the location of the boundary terminus, the changes in direction of the Canadian coast at the Chignecto Isthmus, the protrusion of the Nova Scotia peninsula, the concavity of the coast, relative coastal lengths, and the Northeast Channel, Georges Bank, Browns Bank and German Bank as special features.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the relevant environmental circumstances include the three ecological regimes of the Gulf of Maine Basin, Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf, and the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing those regimes and most of the commercially important fish stocks.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the relevant circumstances include the predominant interest of the United States evidenced by the longer and larger extent of United States fishing, the development and near-exclusive domination of the Georges Bank fisheries by United States fishermen, and more than 200 years of United States responsibility for aids to navigation, search and rescue, defence, scientific research and fisheries management.", "The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the boundary should be a line perpendicular to the general direction of the coast in the Gulf of Maine area, starting at the point fixed by Article II of the Special Agreement and running into the triangle described there, adjusted so as not to divide German Bank and Browns Bank, which would be left entirely to Canada, and defined by the eleven geodetic coordinates listed in the United States submissions."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1981}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Canada\", \"case_id\": \"067\", \"case_name\": \"Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Under Article II (1) of the Special Agreement of 29 March 1979, the Parties jointly ask the Chamber to decide, in accordance with the principles and rules of international law applicable between them, the course of the single maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and fisheries zones of Canada and the United States from a point at latitude 44 deg 11' 12\\\" N, longitude 67 deg 16' 46\\\" W to a point to be determined by the Chamber within the triangle bounded by 40N/67W, 40N/65W and 42N/65W.\", \"Under Article II (2) of the Special Agreement, the Parties ask the Chamber to describe the course of that boundary in terms of geodetic lines connecting geographic coordinates of points, and, for illustrative purposes, to depict it on Canadian Hydrographic Service Chart No. 4003 and United States National Ocean Survey Chart No. 13006.\", \"Canada asks the Chamber to declare and adjudge that the single maritime boundary is defined by geodetic lines connecting the twelve coordinates set out in its Memorial, running from 44 deg 11' 12\\\" N, 67 deg 16' 46\\\" W to 40 deg 05' 36\\\" N, 66 deg 41' 59\\\" W.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that delimitation of a single maritime boundary requires the application of equitable principles, taking account of the relevant circumstances in the area, to produce an equitable solution.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the equitable principles applicable here include respect for the relationship between the Parties' relevant coasts and the maritime areas in front of them (non-encroachment, proportionality, and natural prolongation in its geographic sense or coastal-front extension), facilitating conservation and management of the natural resources of the area, minimizing the potential for disputes, and taking account of the relevant circumstances.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the equidistance method is neither obligatory nor preferred, whether by treaty or as a rule of customary international law, and that any method or combination of methods producing an equitable solution may be used.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the relevant geographical circumstances include the coastal-front extension of Maine and New Hampshire, the adjacency of the Parties, the general northeastern direction of the coast, the location of the boundary terminus, the changes in direction of the Canadian coast at the Chignecto Isthmus, the protrusion of the Nova Scotia peninsula, the concavity of the coast, relative coastal lengths, and the Northeast Channel, Georges Bank, Browns Bank and German Bank as special features.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the relevant environmental circumstances include the three ecological regimes of the Gulf of Maine Basin, Georges Bank and the Scotian Shelf, and the Northeast Channel as the natural boundary dividing those regimes and most of the commercially important fish stocks.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the relevant circumstances include the predominant interest of the United States evidenced by the longer and larger extent of United States fishing, the development and near-exclusive domination of the Georges Bank fisheries by United States fishermen, and more than 200 years of United States responsibility for aids to navigation, search and rescue, defence, scientific research and fisheries management.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the boundary should be a line perpendicular to the general direction of the coast in the Gulf of Maine area, starting at the point fixed by Article II of the Special Agreement and running into the triangle described there, adjusted so as not to divide German Bank and Browns Bank, which would be left entirely to Canada, and defined by the eleven geodetic coordinates listed in the United States submissions.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1981}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "068", "input": {"applicant": "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "case_id": "068", "case_name": "Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles and taking account of all relevant circumstances, in order to achieve an equitable result.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the natural prolongation of the respective land territories of the Parties into and under the sea is the basis of title to the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of them.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation should leave to each Party as much as possible of the continental shelf areas that constitute the natural prolongation of its land territory, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the other.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that a criterion for delimitation can be derived from the principle of natural prolongation because a fundamental discontinuity in the sea-bed and subsoil divides the area into two distinct natural prolongations.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that equitable principles do not require that a State possessing a restricted coastline be treated as if it possessed an extensive coastline.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in this geographical situation, equitable principles require the delimitation to take account of the significant difference in the lengths of the respective coastlines facing the area of delimitation.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation should reflect a reasonable degree of proportionality between the extent of the shelf areas appertaining to each State and the lengths of the relevant parts of their coasts, account being taken of other delimitations in the same region.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that application of the equidistance method is not obligatory and that its application in the circumstances of this case would not lead to an equitable result.", "Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the principles and rules can in practice be applied by agreement on a delimitation within, and following the general direction of, the Rift Zone as defined in the Libyan Memorial.", "Malta asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelf areas appertaining to Malta and Libya are that the delimitation shall be effected on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable result.", "Malta asks the Court to adjudge and declare that in practice those principles and rules are applied by means of a median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines of Malta and the low-water mark of the coasts of Libya."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Malta", "year_introduced": 1982}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya\", \"case_id\": \"068\", \"case_name\": \"Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation is to be effected by agreement in accordance with equitable principles and taking account of all relevant circumstances, in order to achieve an equitable result.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the natural prolongation of the respective land territories of the Parties into and under the sea is the basis of title to the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of them.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation should leave to each Party as much as possible of the continental shelf areas that constitute the natural prolongation of its land territory, without encroachment on the natural prolongation of the other.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that a criterion for delimitation can be derived from the principle of natural prolongation because a fundamental discontinuity in the sea-bed and subsoil divides the area into two distinct natural prolongations.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that equitable principles do not require that a State possessing a restricted coastline be treated as if it possessed an extensive coastline.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in this geographical situation, equitable principles require the delimitation to take account of the significant difference in the lengths of the respective coastlines facing the area of delimitation.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the delimitation should reflect a reasonable degree of proportionality between the extent of the shelf areas appertaining to each State and the lengths of the relevant parts of their coasts, account being taken of other delimitations in the same region.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that application of the equidistance method is not obligatory and that its application in the circumstances of this case would not lead to an equitable result.\", \"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the principles and rules can in practice be applied by agreement on a delimitation within, and following the general direction of, the Rift Zone as defined in the Libyan Memorial.\", \"Malta asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the principles and rules of international law applicable to the delimitation of the continental shelf areas appertaining to Malta and Libya are that the delimitation shall be effected on the basis of international law in order to achieve an equitable result.\", \"Malta asks the Court to adjudge and declare that in practice those principles and rules are applied by means of a median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines of Malta and the low-water mark of the coasts of Libya.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Malta\", \"year_introduced\": 1982}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "069", "input": {"applicant": "Burkina Faso", "case_id": "069", "case_name": "Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, west of the point at longitude 0 deg 40' 47\" W and latitude 15 deg 00' 03\" N, the frontier is the line shown on the 1:200,000 scale map of the French Institut geographique national (1960 edition), the villages of Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou and Koubo being located in Burkinabe territory.", "Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, east of that point, the frontier corresponds to the information given in letter 191 CM2 of 19 February 1935 and on the 1:500,000 scale map, 1925 edition, as far as the northern point of the pool of In Abao.", "Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, from the northern point of the pool of In Abao, the frontier follows the course shown on the 1:500,000 scale map, 1925 edition, leaving the region of the Beli to Burkina Faso, as far as the tripoint with the frontier of Niger formed by the heights of N'Gouma, north of the Kabia ford.", "Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to appoint three experts to assist the Parties in the demarcation operation, which is to be completed within one year of the delivery of the judgment.", "Mali asks the Chamber to state that the frontier line in the disputed area runs through Lofou, the mosque-shaped enclosure 2 kilometres north of Diguel, a point 3 kilometres south of Kounia, the Selba baobab, the Tondigaria, Fourfare Tiaiga, Fourfare Wande, Gariol, Gountoure Kiri, a point east of the pool of Ketiouaire at longitude 0 deg 44' 47\" W and latitude 14 deg 56' 52\" N, and the pool of Raf Naman, and from there follows the marigot through the pools of Fadar-Fadar, In Abao, Tin Akoff and In Tangoum, terminating at the Kabia ford.", "Mali asks the Chamber to refrain from determining the tripoint between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.", "Mali asks the Chamber to nominate, in its Judgment, three experts to assist the Parties in the demarcation operation, pursuant to Article IV, paragraph 3, of the Special Agreement of 16 September 1983."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Republic of Mali", "year_introduced": 1983}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Burkina Faso\", \"case_id\": \"069\", \"case_name\": \"Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, west of the point at longitude 0 deg 40' 47\\\" W and latitude 15 deg 00' 03\\\" N, the frontier is the line shown on the 1:200,000 scale map of the French Institut geographique national (1960 edition), the villages of Dioulouna, Oukoulou, Agoulourou and Koubo being located in Burkinabe territory.\", \"Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, east of that point, the frontier corresponds to the information given in letter 191 CM2 of 19 February 1935 and on the 1:500,000 scale map, 1925 edition, as far as the northern point of the pool of In Abao.\", \"Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, from the northern point of the pool of In Abao, the frontier follows the course shown on the 1:500,000 scale map, 1925 edition, leaving the region of the Beli to Burkina Faso, as far as the tripoint with the frontier of Niger formed by the heights of N'Gouma, north of the Kabia ford.\", \"Burkina Faso asks the Chamber to appoint three experts to assist the Parties in the demarcation operation, which is to be completed within one year of the delivery of the judgment.\", \"Mali asks the Chamber to state that the frontier line in the disputed area runs through Lofou, the mosque-shaped enclosure 2 kilometres north of Diguel, a point 3 kilometres south of Kounia, the Selba baobab, the Tondigaria, Fourfare Tiaiga, Fourfare Wande, Gariol, Gountoure Kiri, a point east of the pool of Ketiouaire at longitude 0 deg 44' 47\\\" W and latitude 14 deg 56' 52\\\" N, and the pool of Raf Naman, and from there follows the marigot through the pools of Fadar-Fadar, In Abao, Tin Akoff and In Tangoum, terminating at the Kabia ford.\", \"Mali asks the Chamber to refrain from determining the tripoint between Mali, Burkina Faso and Niger.\", \"Mali asks the Chamber to nominate, in its Judgment, three experts to assist the Parties in the demarcation operation, pursuant to Article IV, paragraph 3, of the Special Agreement of 16 September 1983.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Republic of Mali\", \"year_introduced\": 1983}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "070", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "070", "case_name": "Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua, has violated and is violating its obligations under Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, Articles 18 and 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States, and Article I, Third, of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has violated and is violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua by armed attacks by air, land and sea, incursions into Nicaraguan territorial waters, aerial trespass into Nicaraguan airspace, and efforts by direct and indirect means to coerce and intimidate the Government of Nicaragua.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has used and is using force and the threat of force against Nicaragua.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has intervened and is intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has infringed and is infringing the freedom of the high seas and is interrupting peaceful maritime commerce.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has killed, wounded and kidnapped and is killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States is under a particular duty to cease and desist immediately from all use or threat of force against Nicaragua, from all violations of its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence including all direct or indirect intervention, from all support of any kind to any nation, group, organization, movement or individual engaged or planning to engage in military or paramilitary actions in or against Nicaragua, from all efforts to restrict, block or endanger access to or from Nicaraguan ports, and from all killings, woundings and kidnappings of Nicaraguan citizens.", "That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States has an obligation to pay Nicaragua, in its own right and as parens patriae for its citizens, reparation for damage to person, property and the Nicaraguan economy caused by those violations.", "That the Court receive evidence and determine, in a subsequent phase of the proceedings, the quantum of damages to be assessed as the compensation due to Nicaragua, on its own behalf and in respect of wrongs inflicted upon its nationals.", "That, without prejudice to that request, the Court award Nicaragua the sum of 370,200,000 United States dollars, being the minimum valuation of the direct damages, with the exception of damages for the killing of Nicaraguan nationals, resulting from the violations alleged."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1984}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"070\", \"case_name\": \"Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in recruiting, training, arming, equipping, financing, supplying and otherwise encouraging, supporting, aiding and directing military and paramilitary actions in and against Nicaragua, has violated and is violating its obligations under Article 2 (4) of the United Nations Charter, Articles 18 and 20 of the Charter of the Organization of American States, Article 8 of the Convention on Rights and Duties of States, and Article I, Third, of the Convention concerning the Duties and Rights of States in the Event of Civil Strife.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has violated and is violating the sovereignty of Nicaragua by armed attacks by air, land and sea, incursions into Nicaraguan territorial waters, aerial trespass into Nicaraguan airspace, and efforts by direct and indirect means to coerce and intimidate the Government of Nicaragua.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has used and is using force and the threat of force against Nicaragua.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has intervened and is intervening in the internal affairs of Nicaragua.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has infringed and is infringing the freedom of the high seas and is interrupting peaceful maritime commerce.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States, in breach of general and customary international law, has killed, wounded and kidnapped and is killing, wounding and kidnapping citizens of Nicaragua.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States is under a particular duty to cease and desist immediately from all use or threat of force against Nicaragua, from all violations of its sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence including all direct or indirect intervention, from all support of any kind to any nation, group, organization, movement or individual engaged or planning to engage in military or paramilitary actions in or against Nicaragua, from all efforts to restrict, block or endanger access to or from Nicaraguan ports, and from all killings, woundings and kidnappings of Nicaraguan citizens.\", \"That the Court adjudge and declare that the United States has an obligation to pay Nicaragua, in its own right and as parens patriae for its citizens, reparation for damage to person, property and the Nicaraguan economy caused by those violations.\", \"That the Court receive evidence and determine, in a subsequent phase of the proceedings, the quantum of damages to be assessed as the compensation due to Nicaragua, on its own behalf and in respect of wrongs inflicted upon its nationals.\", \"That, without prejudice to that request, the Court award Nicaragua the sum of 370,200,000 United States dollars, being the minimum valuation of the direct damages, with the exception of damages for the killing of Nicaraguan nationals, resulting from the violations alleged.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1984}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "071", "input": {"applicant": "Tunisia", "case_id": "071", "case_name": "Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that there is a new fact, the co-ordinates of the north-western boundary of Libyan petroleum Concession No. 137 fixed by the Resolution of the Libyan Council of Ministers of 28 March 1968, of such a character as to lay the Judgment of 24 February 1982 open to revision within the meaning of Article 61 of the Statute, as regards the first sector of the delimitation.", "Declare that Tunisia's application for revision of the 1982 Judgment is on that account admissible.", "Subsidiarily, construe the 1982 Judgment as to the first sector: the delimitation line starts where the outer limit of the territorial sea is intersected by a straight line drawn from Ras Ajdir and aligned on the south-eastern boundary of the Tunisian permit of 21 October 1966, avoiding any encroachment on that concession area.", "Declare, on that interpretation, that the line runs north-east on the same bearing to its intersection with the parallel through the most westerly point of the Tunisian coastline between Ras Kaboudia and Ras Ajdir.", "Declare that the co-ordinates of the sea point and the bearing east of north stated in the operative part of the 1982 Judgment were given only by way of indication, so that it is for the experts of the two Parties to calculate them accurately.", "Correct the error in section C (2) of paragraph 133 of the 1982 Judgment by replacing the co-ordinates 33 deg 55' N, 12 deg E with 33 deg 50' 17\" N, 11 deg 59' 53\" E.", "As regards the second sector, declare that the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes lies on latitude 34 deg 05' 20\" N (Carthage).", "Altogether subsidiarily on the second sector, order an expert survey to ascertain the exact co-ordinates of the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "year_introduced": 1984}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Tunisia\", \"case_id\": \"071\", \"case_name\": \"Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that there is a new fact, the co-ordinates of the north-western boundary of Libyan petroleum Concession No. 137 fixed by the Resolution of the Libyan Council of Ministers of 28 March 1968, of such a character as to lay the Judgment of 24 February 1982 open to revision within the meaning of Article 61 of the Statute, as regards the first sector of the delimitation.\", \"Declare that Tunisia's application for revision of the 1982 Judgment is on that account admissible.\", \"Subsidiarily, construe the 1982 Judgment as to the first sector: the delimitation line starts where the outer limit of the territorial sea is intersected by a straight line drawn from Ras Ajdir and aligned on the south-eastern boundary of the Tunisian permit of 21 October 1966, avoiding any encroachment on that concession area.\", \"Declare, on that interpretation, that the line runs north-east on the same bearing to its intersection with the parallel through the most westerly point of the Tunisian coastline between Ras Kaboudia and Ras Ajdir.\", \"Declare that the co-ordinates of the sea point and the bearing east of north stated in the operative part of the 1982 Judgment were given only by way of indication, so that it is for the experts of the two Parties to calculate them accurately.\", \"Correct the error in section C (2) of paragraph 133 of the 1982 Judgment by replacing the co-ordinates 33 deg 55' N, 12 deg E with 33 deg 50' 17\\\" N, 11 deg 59' 53\\\" E.\", \"As regards the second sector, declare that the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes lies on latitude 34 deg 05' 20\\\" N (Carthage).\", \"Altogether subsidiarily on the second sector, order an expert survey to ascertain the exact co-ordinates of the most westerly point of the Gulf of Gabes.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya\", \"year_introduced\": 1984}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "072", "input": {"case_id": "072", "case_name": "Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["In its Judgement No. 333 of 8 June 1984 (AT/DEC/333), did the United Nations Administrative Tribunal fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not responding to the question whether a legal impediment existed to the further employment in the United Nations of the Applicant after the expiry of his contract on 26 December 1983?", "Did the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, in the same Judgement No. 333, err on questions of law relating to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations?"], "requesting_body": "Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (acting under Article 11 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal)", "year_introduced": 1984}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"072\", \"case_name\": \"Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"In its Judgement No. 333 of 8 June 1984 (AT/DEC/333), did the United Nations Administrative Tribunal fail to exercise jurisdiction vested in it by not responding to the question whether a legal impediment existed to the further employment in the United Nations of the Applicant after the expiry of his contract on 26 December 1983?\", \"Did the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, in the same Judgement No. 333, err on questions of law relating to provisions of the Charter of the United Nations?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgements (acting under Article 11 of the Statute of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal)\", \"year_introduced\": 1984}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "073", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "073", "case_name": "Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Nicaragua asks the Court, by the communication of its Agent of 12 August 1987 under Article 89 of the Rules of Court, to place on record its discontinuance of the proceedings instituted against Costa Rica by the Application filed on 28 July 1986.", "Nicaragua asks, as the consequence of that discontinuance under Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that the case be removed from the Court's General List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Costa Rica", "year_introduced": 1986}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"073\", \"case_name\": \"Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Nicaragua asks the Court, by the communication of its Agent of 12 August 1987 under Article 89 of the Rules of Court, to place on record its discontinuance of the proceedings instituted against Costa Rica by the Application filed on 28 July 1986.\", \"Nicaragua asks, as the consequence of that discontinuance under Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, that the case be removed from the Court's General List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Costa Rica\", \"year_introduced\": 1986}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "074", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "074", "case_name": "Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Application of Nicaragua is inadmissible because it is a politically-inspired, artificial request which the Court should not entertain consistently with its judicial character.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because it is vague and the allegations contained in it are not properly particularized, so that the Court cannot entertain it without substantial prejudice to Honduras.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because Nicaragua has failed to show that, in the opinion of the Parties, the dispute cannot be settled by direct negotiations, and so fails to satisfy an essential precondition to the use of the procedures established by the Pact of Bogota, which include reference of disputes to the Court.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because Nicaragua, having accepted the Contadora process as a 'special procedure' within the meaning of Article II of the Pact of Bogota, is precluded by Article IV of the Pact and by elementary considerations of good faith from commencing any other procedure for pacific settlement until that process has been concluded, and that time has not arrived.", "Objection: the Court is not competent because the dispute as alleged by Nicaragua is excluded from its jurisdiction by the terms of the Honduran declaration of 22 May 1986, which applies whether jurisdiction is said to rest on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota or on Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute.", "Objection: alternatively, the Court is not competent because Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota cannot be invoked as a basis of jurisdiction independently of Article XXXII, and Article XXXII precludes any unilateral application except where conciliation procedures have been undergone without a solution and the parties have not agreed on an arbitral procedure, neither condition being satisfied here.", "Objection: the Court is not competent on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, because States parties to the Pact of Bogota agreed in Article XXXII that a unilateral application based on the Pact can only be made when those two conditions are satisfied, which is not the case with Nicaragua's Application."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Honduras", "year_introduced": 1986}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"074\", \"case_name\": \"Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Application of Nicaragua is inadmissible because it is a politically-inspired, artificial request which the Court should not entertain consistently with its judicial character.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because it is vague and the allegations contained in it are not properly particularized, so that the Court cannot entertain it without substantial prejudice to Honduras.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because Nicaragua has failed to show that, in the opinion of the Parties, the dispute cannot be settled by direct negotiations, and so fails to satisfy an essential precondition to the use of the procedures established by the Pact of Bogota, which include reference of disputes to the Court.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because Nicaragua, having accepted the Contadora process as a 'special procedure' within the meaning of Article II of the Pact of Bogota, is precluded by Article IV of the Pact and by elementary considerations of good faith from commencing any other procedure for pacific settlement until that process has been concluded, and that time has not arrived.\", \"Objection: the Court is not competent because the dispute as alleged by Nicaragua is excluded from its jurisdiction by the terms of the Honduran declaration of 22 May 1986, which applies whether jurisdiction is said to rest on Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota or on Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute.\", \"Objection: alternatively, the Court is not competent because Article XXXI of the Pact of Bogota cannot be invoked as a basis of jurisdiction independently of Article XXXII, and Article XXXII precludes any unilateral application except where conciliation procedures have been undergone without a solution and the parties have not agreed on an arbitral procedure, neither condition being satisfied here.\", \"Objection: the Court is not competent on the basis of Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, because States parties to the Pact of Bogota agreed in Article XXXII that a unilateral application based on the Pact can only be made when those two conditions are satisfied, which is not the case with Nicaragua's Application.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Honduras\", \"year_introduced\": 1986}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "075", "input": {"applicant": "El Salvador", "case_id": "075", "case_name": "Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Delimit the course of the land frontier between El Salvador and Honduras in the sectors of the boundary that remain in dispute between the two States.", "Determine the legal situation of the islands in dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, the island component of the frontier dispute submitted to the Chamber by the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986.", "Determine the juridical situation of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca.", "Determine the juridical situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf of Fonseca, in the Pacific Ocean."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Honduras", "year_introduced": 1986}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"El Salvador\", \"case_id\": \"075\", \"case_name\": \"Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Delimit the course of the land frontier between El Salvador and Honduras in the sectors of the boundary that remain in dispute between the two States.\", \"Determine the legal situation of the islands in dispute between El Salvador and Honduras, the island component of the frontier dispute submitted to the Chamber by the Special Agreement of 24 May 1986.\", \"Determine the juridical situation of the maritime spaces within the Gulf of Fonseca.\", \"Determine the juridical situation of the maritime spaces outside the Gulf of Fonseca, in the Pacific Ocean.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Honduras\", \"year_introduced\": 1986}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "076", "input": {"applicant": "United States of America", "case_id": "076", "case_name": "Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The United States asks the Chamber to dismiss Italy's objection that the Application is inadmissible because local remedies were not exhausted, the United States contending that all reasonable local remedies have been exhausted.", "The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article III of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 2 February 1948, in that its acts and omissions prevented Raytheon and Machlett from exercising their right to manage and control ELSI, an Italian corporation they wholly owned.", "The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article V of that Treaty, in that its acts and omissions failed to afford the full protection and security required by the Treaty and by international law and amounted to a taking of Raytheon's and Machlett's interests in property without just compensation and due process of law.", "The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article VII of that Treaty, in that its acts and omissions denied Raytheon and Machlett the right to dispose of their interests in immovable property on terms no less favourable than an Italian corporation would enjoy on a reciprocal basis.", "The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article I of the Supplementary Agreement of 26 September 1951, in that the treatment afforded Raytheon and Machlett was arbitrary and discriminatory and impaired their legally acquired rights and interests.", "The United States asks the Chamber to declare that, owing to those violations singly and in combination, it is entitled to reparation equal to the full damage suffered by Raytheon and Machlett, including losses on investment, guaranteed loans and open accounts, legal expenses, and interest at the United States prime rate from the date of loss to payment, compounded annually.", "The United States asks the Chamber to order Italy to pay it the sum of US$12,679,000, plus interest computed as described."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Italy", "year_introduced": 1987}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"United States of America\", \"case_id\": \"076\", \"case_name\": \"Elettronica Sicula S.p.A. (ELSI) (United States of America v. Italy)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The United States asks the Chamber to dismiss Italy's objection that the Application is inadmissible because local remedies were not exhausted, the United States contending that all reasonable local remedies have been exhausted.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article III of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation of 2 February 1948, in that its acts and omissions prevented Raytheon and Machlett from exercising their right to manage and control ELSI, an Italian corporation they wholly owned.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article V of that Treaty, in that its acts and omissions failed to afford the full protection and security required by the Treaty and by international law and amounted to a taking of Raytheon's and Machlett's interests in property without just compensation and due process of law.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article VII of that Treaty, in that its acts and omissions denied Raytheon and Machlett the right to dispose of their interests in immovable property on terms no less favourable than an Italian corporation would enjoy on a reciprocal basis.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to declare that Italy violated Article I of the Supplementary Agreement of 26 September 1951, in that the treatment afforded Raytheon and Machlett was arbitrary and discriminatory and impaired their legally acquired rights and interests.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to declare that, owing to those violations singly and in combination, it is entitled to reparation equal to the full damage suffered by Raytheon and Machlett, including losses on investment, guaranteed loans and open accounts, legal expenses, and interest at the United States prime rate from the date of loss to payment, compounded annually.\", \"The United States asks the Chamber to order Italy to pay it the sum of US$12,679,000, plus interest computed as described.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Italy\", \"year_introduced\": 1987}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "077", "input": {"case_id": "077", "case_name": "Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["In the light of facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General [A/42/915 and Add.1], is the United States of America, as a party to the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations [see resolution 169 (II)], under an obligation to enter into arbitration in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution 42/229 B of 2 March 1988)", "year_introduced": 1988}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"077\", \"case_name\": \"Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"In the light of facts reflected in the reports of the Secretary-General [A/42/915 and Add.1], is the United States of America, as a party to the Agreement between the United Nations and the United States of America regarding the Headquarters of the United Nations [see resolution 169 (II)], under an obligation to enter into arbitration in accordance with section 21 of the Agreement?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution 42/229 B of 2 March 1988)\", \"year_introduced\": 1988}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "078", "input": {"applicant": "Denmark", "case_id": "078", "case_name": "Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that Greenland is entitled to a full 200-mile fishery zone and continental shelf area vis-a-vis the island of Jan Mayen.", "Draw a single line of delimitation of the fishery zone and continental shelf area of Greenland in the waters between Greenland and Jan Mayen at a distance of 200 nautical miles measured from Greenland's baseline, along the geodesics joining the points listed in Denmark's submissions.", "If the Court does not find it possible to draw that 200-mile line, decide in accordance with international law where the line of delimitation between the Parties' fisheries zones and continental shelf areas in the waters between Greenland and Jan Mayen shall be drawn, and draw that line.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the median line constitutes the boundary for the delimitation of the relevant areas of the continental shelf between Norway and Denmark in the region between Jan Mayen and Greenland.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the median line constitutes the boundary for the delimitation of the relevant areas of the adjoining fisheries zones in the region between Jan Mayen and Greenland.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the Danish claims are without foundation and invalid and that the Danish submissions and claims are rejected."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Norway", "year_introduced": 1988}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Denmark\", \"case_id\": \"078\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that Greenland is entitled to a full 200-mile fishery zone and continental shelf area vis-a-vis the island of Jan Mayen.\", \"Draw a single line of delimitation of the fishery zone and continental shelf area of Greenland in the waters between Greenland and Jan Mayen at a distance of 200 nautical miles measured from Greenland's baseline, along the geodesics joining the points listed in Denmark's submissions.\", \"If the Court does not find it possible to draw that 200-mile line, decide in accordance with international law where the line of delimitation between the Parties' fisheries zones and continental shelf areas in the waters between Greenland and Jan Mayen shall be drawn, and draw that line.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the median line constitutes the boundary for the delimitation of the relevant areas of the continental shelf between Norway and Denmark in the region between Jan Mayen and Greenland.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the median line constitutes the boundary for the delimitation of the relevant areas of the adjoining fisheries zones in the region between Jan Mayen and Greenland.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the Danish claims are without foundation and invalid and that the Danish submissions and claims are rejected.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Norway\", \"year_introduced\": 1988}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "079", "input": {"applicant": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "case_id": "079", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Joint request by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, notified by their Agents on 22 February 1996, that the proceedings instituted by Iran's Application of 17 May 1989 be discontinued by agreement of the Parties and the case removed from the list, the two Governments having concluded an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, claims and counter-claims raised by or capable of arising out of the case."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1989}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"case_id\": \"079\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Joint request by the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States of America, notified by their Agents on 22 February 1996, that the proceedings instituted by Iran's Application of 17 May 1989 be discontinued by agreement of the Parties and the case removed from the list, the two Governments having concluded an agreement in full and final settlement of all disputes, claims and counter-claims raised by or capable of arising out of the case.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1989}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "080", "input": {"applicant": "Nauru", "case_id": "080", "case_name": "Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because Australia's declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute excludes any dispute in regard to which the parties have agreed to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement, and the rehabilitation dispute was subject to the United Nations trusteeship supervision machinery and the Agreement of 14 November 1967.", "Objection: Nauru's claim is inadmissible because the Nauruan authorities waived, before independence, all claims relating to rehabilitation of the worked-out phosphate lands, implicitly through the Agreement of 14 November 1967 and through Head Chief DeRoburt's statements at the United Nations in the autumn of 1967.", "Objection: Nauru's claim is inadmissible because termination of the Trusteeship by the United Nations General Assembly, by resolution 2347 (XXII) of 19 December 1967 and without any express reservation, precludes allegations of breaches of the Trusteeship Agreement and of Article 76 of the Charter from now being examined by the Court.", "Objection: Nauru's claim is inadmissible because it was not submitted within a reasonable time, Nauru having become independent on 31 January 1968 but having formally raised its position with Australia only in December 1988, to Australia's prejudice as regards evidence and applicable law.", "Objection: the Court should, in the exercise of its discretion and in order to uphold judicial propriety, decline to hear Nauru's claims because Nauru has failed to act consistently and in good faith in relation to rehabilitation.", "Objection: Nauru's claims are inadmissible and the Court lacks jurisdiction because New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which with Australia jointly constituted the Administering Authority, are not parties to the proceedings, so that any judgment would involve the responsibility of third States that have not consented to the Court's jurisdiction.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction over, and should declare inadmissible, Nauru's submission that it has a legal entitlement to the Australian allocation of the overseas assets of the British Phosphate Commissioners disposed of under the trilateral Agreement of 9 February 1987."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Australia", "year_introduced": 1989}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nauru\", \"case_id\": \"080\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because Australia's declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute excludes any dispute in regard to which the parties have agreed to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement, and the rehabilitation dispute was subject to the United Nations trusteeship supervision machinery and the Agreement of 14 November 1967.\", \"Objection: Nauru's claim is inadmissible because the Nauruan authorities waived, before independence, all claims relating to rehabilitation of the worked-out phosphate lands, implicitly through the Agreement of 14 November 1967 and through Head Chief DeRoburt's statements at the United Nations in the autumn of 1967.\", \"Objection: Nauru's claim is inadmissible because termination of the Trusteeship by the United Nations General Assembly, by resolution 2347 (XXII) of 19 December 1967 and without any express reservation, precludes allegations of breaches of the Trusteeship Agreement and of Article 76 of the Charter from now being examined by the Court.\", \"Objection: Nauru's claim is inadmissible because it was not submitted within a reasonable time, Nauru having become independent on 31 January 1968 but having formally raised its position with Australia only in December 1988, to Australia's prejudice as regards evidence and applicable law.\", \"Objection: the Court should, in the exercise of its discretion and in order to uphold judicial propriety, decline to hear Nauru's claims because Nauru has failed to act consistently and in good faith in relation to rehabilitation.\", \"Objection: Nauru's claims are inadmissible and the Court lacks jurisdiction because New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which with Australia jointly constituted the Administering Authority, are not parties to the proceedings, so that any judgment would involve the responsibility of third States that have not consented to the Court's jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction over, and should declare inadmissible, Nauru's submission that it has a legal entitlement to the Australian allocation of the overseas assets of the British Phosphate Commissioners disposed of under the trilateral Agreement of 9 February 1987.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Australia\", \"year_introduced\": 1989}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "081", "input": {"case_id": "081", "case_name": "Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Whether Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is applicable in the case of Mr. Dumitru Mazilu as Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities."], "requesting_body": "United Nations Economic and Social Council (resolution 1989/75 of 24 May 1989)", "year_introduced": 1989}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"081\", \"case_name\": \"Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Whether Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations is applicable in the case of Mr. Dumitru Mazilu as Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities.\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations Economic and Social Council (resolution 1989/75 of 24 May 1989)\", \"year_introduced\": 1989}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "082", "input": {"applicant": "Guinea-Bissau", "case_id": "082", "case_name": "Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that the decision issued as an arbitral award on 31 July 1989 by the Arbitration Tribunal for the Determination of the Maritime Boundary between the two States is inexistent, one of the two arbitrators forming the apparent majority having appended a declaration expressing a view contradicting his vote.", "Subsidiarily, declare that decision null and void, because the Tribunal did not answer the second question put by Article 2 of the Arbitration Agreement of 12 March 1985 and reached no single delimitation line recorded on a map, as Article 9 required.", "Subsidiarily, declare that decision null and void, because the Tribunal gave no reasons for the restrictions it thus placed upon its own jurisdiction.", "Declare that the Government of Senegal is accordingly not justified in seeking to require the Government of Guinea-Bissau to apply the award of 31 July 1989."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Senegal", "year_introduced": 1989}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Guinea-Bissau\", \"case_id\": \"082\", \"case_name\": \"Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that the decision issued as an arbitral award on 31 July 1989 by the Arbitration Tribunal for the Determination of the Maritime Boundary between the two States is inexistent, one of the two arbitrators forming the apparent majority having appended a declaration expressing a view contradicting his vote.\", \"Subsidiarily, declare that decision null and void, because the Tribunal did not answer the second question put by Article 2 of the Arbitration Agreement of 12 March 1985 and reached no single delimitation line recorded on a map, as Article 9 required.\", \"Subsidiarily, declare that decision null and void, because the Tribunal gave no reasons for the restrictions it thus placed upon its own jurisdiction.\", \"Declare that the Government of Senegal is accordingly not justified in seeking to require the Government of Guinea-Bissau to apply the award of 31 July 1989.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Senegal\", \"year_introduced\": 1989}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "083", "input": {"applicant": "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "case_id": "083", "case_name": "Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that there exists no boundary, east of Toummo, between Libya and Chad by virtue of any existing international agreement.", "Libya asks the Court to declare that, in attributing the respective territories under the applicable rules of international law, the relevant factors are that the territory in question was at no relevant time terra nullius and that title was vested in the indigenous peoples owing allegiance to the Senoussi Order.", "Libya asks the Court to declare that on the international plane there existed a community of title between the indigenous peoples' title and the rights and titles of the Ottoman Empire, passed to Italy in 1912 and inherited by Libya in 1951, while Chad's claim rests only on the claim inherited from France.", "Libya asks the Court to declare that the French claim to the disputed area rested on 'actes internationaux' that did not create a territorial boundary east of Toummo and that there is no valid alternative basis for it.", "Libya asks the Court to declare that Libya has clear title to all territory north of the line shown on Map 105 of its Memorial, running from the intersection of the eastern boundary of Niger with 18 degrees N latitude south-east to 15 degrees N latitude, then east along that parallel to the existing Chad-Sudan boundary.", "Chad asks the Court to adjudge and declare that its frontier with Libya runs from the intersection of 24 degrees E longitude with 19 degrees 30 minutes N latitude to the intersection of the Tropic of Cancer with 16 degrees E longitude, and thence along a line running towards the well of Toummo as far as 15 degrees E longitude."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Chad", "year_introduced": 1990}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya\", \"case_id\": \"083\", \"case_name\": \"Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Chad)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Libya asks the Court to adjudge and declare that there exists no boundary, east of Toummo, between Libya and Chad by virtue of any existing international agreement.\", \"Libya asks the Court to declare that, in attributing the respective territories under the applicable rules of international law, the relevant factors are that the territory in question was at no relevant time terra nullius and that title was vested in the indigenous peoples owing allegiance to the Senoussi Order.\", \"Libya asks the Court to declare that on the international plane there existed a community of title between the indigenous peoples' title and the rights and titles of the Ottoman Empire, passed to Italy in 1912 and inherited by Libya in 1951, while Chad's claim rests only on the claim inherited from France.\", \"Libya asks the Court to declare that the French claim to the disputed area rested on 'actes internationaux' that did not create a territorial boundary east of Toummo and that there is no valid alternative basis for it.\", \"Libya asks the Court to declare that Libya has clear title to all territory north of the line shown on Map 105 of its Memorial, running from the intersection of the eastern boundary of Niger with 18 degrees N latitude south-east to 15 degrees N latitude, then east along that parallel to the existing Chad-Sudan boundary.\", \"Chad asks the Court to adjudge and declare that its frontier with Libya runs from the intersection of 24 degrees E longitude with 19 degrees 30 minutes N latitude to the intersection of the Tropic of Cancer with 16 degrees E longitude, and thence along a line running towards the well of Toummo as far as 15 degrees E longitude.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Chad\", \"year_introduced\": 1990}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "084", "input": {"applicant": "Portugal", "case_id": "084", "case_name": "East Timor (Portugal v. Australia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Portugal asks the Court to dismiss the objections raised by Australia and to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction to deal with Portugal's Application and that the Application is admissible.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the rights of the people of East Timor to self-determination, to territorial integrity and unity and to permanent sovereignty over its wealth and natural resources, and the duties, powers and rights of Portugal as administering Power of East Timor, are opposable to Australia, which is under an obligation to respect them.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Australia, by negotiating, concluding and beginning to perform the Agreement of 11 December 1989 with Indonesia, legislating for its application, continuing delimitation negotiations and contemplating exploration of the Timor Gap on a plurilateral title to which Portugal is not a party, has infringed the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination, to territorial integrity and unity and to permanent sovereignty over its natural resources.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the same conduct has infringed the powers of Portugal as administering Power of East Timor, impedes the fulfilment of its duties to the people of East Timor and to the international community, and infringes Portugal's right to fulfil its responsibilities.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the same conduct contravenes Security Council resolutions 384 (1975) and 389 (1976), breaches the Charter obligation to accept and carry out Security Council resolutions, disregards the binding character of United Nations resolutions on East Timor and breaches the obligation of Member States to co-operate in good faith with the United Nations.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by excluding any negotiation with Portugal as administering Power concerning the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf in the Timor Gap, Australia has failed in its duty to negotiate in order to harmonize the respective rights in the event of a conflict of rights or claims over maritime areas.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by those breaches, Australia has incurred international responsibility and caused damage for which it owes reparation to the people of East Timor and to Portugal, in such form and manner as the Court may indicate.", "Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Australia is bound to cease all breaches of the rights and norms invoked, and in particular, until the people of East Timor have exercised their right to self-determination, to refrain from negotiating, signing or ratifying any agreement with a State other than the administering Power on the delimitation, exploration or exploitation of, or jurisdiction over, the continental shelf in the Timor Gap, and from any act relating to that shelf on the basis of a plurilateral title to which Portugal is not a party.", "Objection: Australia submits that the Court should adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the Portuguese claims, or that those claims are inadmissible.", "Australia submits, in the alternative, that the Court should adjudge and declare that the actions of Australia invoked by Portugal do not give rise to any breach by Australia of the rights under international law asserted by Portugal."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Australia", "year_introduced": 1991}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Portugal\", \"case_id\": \"084\", \"case_name\": \"East Timor (Portugal v. Australia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Portugal asks the Court to dismiss the objections raised by Australia and to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction to deal with Portugal's Application and that the Application is admissible.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the rights of the people of East Timor to self-determination, to territorial integrity and unity and to permanent sovereignty over its wealth and natural resources, and the duties, powers and rights of Portugal as administering Power of East Timor, are opposable to Australia, which is under an obligation to respect them.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Australia, by negotiating, concluding and beginning to perform the Agreement of 11 December 1989 with Indonesia, legislating for its application, continuing delimitation negotiations and contemplating exploration of the Timor Gap on a plurilateral title to which Portugal is not a party, has infringed the right of the people of East Timor to self-determination, to territorial integrity and unity and to permanent sovereignty over its natural resources.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the same conduct has infringed the powers of Portugal as administering Power of East Timor, impedes the fulfilment of its duties to the people of East Timor and to the international community, and infringes Portugal's right to fulfil its responsibilities.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the same conduct contravenes Security Council resolutions 384 (1975) and 389 (1976), breaches the Charter obligation to accept and carry out Security Council resolutions, disregards the binding character of United Nations resolutions on East Timor and breaches the obligation of Member States to co-operate in good faith with the United Nations.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by excluding any negotiation with Portugal as administering Power concerning the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf in the Timor Gap, Australia has failed in its duty to negotiate in order to harmonize the respective rights in the event of a conflict of rights or claims over maritime areas.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by those breaches, Australia has incurred international responsibility and caused damage for which it owes reparation to the people of East Timor and to Portugal, in such form and manner as the Court may indicate.\", \"Portugal asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Australia is bound to cease all breaches of the rights and norms invoked, and in particular, until the people of East Timor have exercised their right to self-determination, to refrain from negotiating, signing or ratifying any agreement with a State other than the administering Power on the delimitation, exploration or exploitation of, or jurisdiction over, the continental shelf in the Timor Gap, and from any act relating to that shelf on the basis of a plurilateral title to which Portugal is not a party.\", \"Objection: Australia submits that the Court should adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction to decide the Portuguese claims, or that those claims are inadmissible.\", \"Australia submits, in the alternative, that the Court should adjudge and declare that the actions of Australia invoked by Portugal do not give rise to any breach by Australia of the rights under international law asserted by Portugal.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Australia\", \"year_introduced\": 1991}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "085", "input": {"applicant": "Guinea-Bissau", "case_id": "085", "case_name": "Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court, under Article 89 of the Rules of Court, place on record Guinea-Bissau's discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by its Application of 12 March 1991 concerning the maritime delimitation with Senegal, notified by its Agent's letter of 2 November 1995 and agreed to by Senegal on 6 November 1995, and order the case removed from the list."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Senegal", "year_introduced": 1991}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Guinea-Bissau\", \"case_id\": \"085\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court, under Article 89 of the Rules of Court, place on record Guinea-Bissau's discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by its Application of 12 March 1991 concerning the maritime delimitation with Senegal, notified by its Agent's letter of 2 November 1995 and agreed to by Senegal on 6 November 1995, and order the case removed from the list.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Senegal\", \"year_introduced\": 1991}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "086", "input": {"applicant": "Finland", "case_id": "086", "case_name": "Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Finland, by a letter of its Agent dated 3 September 1992 and acting under Article 89 of the Rules of Court, notifies the Court that a settlement of the dispute with Denmark has been reached and asks the Court to record its discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by the Application of 17 May 1991 and to remove the case from the Court's list."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Denmark", "year_introduced": 1991}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Finland\", \"case_id\": \"086\", \"case_name\": \"Passage through the Great Belt (Finland v. Denmark)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Finland, by a letter of its Agent dated 3 September 1992 and acting under Article 89 of the Rules of Court, notifies the Court that a settlement of the dispute with Denmark has been reached and asks the Court to record its discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by the Application of 17 May 1991 and to remove the case from the Court's list.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Denmark\", \"year_introduced\": 1991}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "087", "input": {"applicant": "Qatar", "case_id": "087", "case_name": "Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the State of Qatar has sovereignty over the Hawar islands.", "Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah shoals are low-tide elevations which are under Qatar's sovereignty.", "Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the State of Bahrain has no sovereignty over the island of Janan.", "Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the State of Bahrain has no sovereignty over Zubarah.", "Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that any claim by Bahrain concerning archipelagic baselines and areas for fishing for pearls and swimming fish is irrelevant for the purpose of maritime delimitation in the present case.", "Qatar asks the Court to draw a single maritime boundary between the sea-bed, subsoil and superjacent waters of the two States on the basis that Zubarah, the Hawar islands and Janan appertain to Qatar, running from point 2 of the 1971 Bahrain-Iran agreement through BLV, the line of the British decision of 23 December 1947, NSLB and point L to point S1 of the 1958 Bahrain-Saudi Arabia agreement.", "Counter-claim: Bahrain asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Bahrain is sovereign over Zubarah.", "Counter-claim: Bahrain asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Bahrain is sovereign over the Hawar Islands, including Janan and Hadd Janan.", "Counter-claim: Bahrain asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in view of Bahrain's sovereignty over all the insular and other features comprising the Bahraini archipelago, including Fasht ad Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah, the maritime boundary between Bahrain and Qatar is as described in Part Two of Bahrain's Memorial."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Bahrain", "year_introduced": 1991}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Qatar\", \"case_id\": \"087\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the State of Qatar has sovereignty over the Hawar islands.\", \"Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah shoals are low-tide elevations which are under Qatar's sovereignty.\", \"Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the State of Bahrain has no sovereignty over the island of Janan.\", \"Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the State of Bahrain has no sovereignty over Zubarah.\", \"Qatar asks the Court to adjudge and declare that any claim by Bahrain concerning archipelagic baselines and areas for fishing for pearls and swimming fish is irrelevant for the purpose of maritime delimitation in the present case.\", \"Qatar asks the Court to draw a single maritime boundary between the sea-bed, subsoil and superjacent waters of the two States on the basis that Zubarah, the Hawar islands and Janan appertain to Qatar, running from point 2 of the 1971 Bahrain-Iran agreement through BLV, the line of the British decision of 23 December 1947, NSLB and point L to point S1 of the 1958 Bahrain-Saudi Arabia agreement.\", \"Counter-claim: Bahrain asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Bahrain is sovereign over Zubarah.\", \"Counter-claim: Bahrain asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Bahrain is sovereign over the Hawar Islands, including Janan and Hadd Janan.\", \"Counter-claim: Bahrain asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in view of Bahrain's sovereignty over all the insular and other features comprising the Bahraini archipelago, including Fasht ad Dibal and Qit'at Jaradah, the maritime boundary between Bahrain and Qatar is as described in Part Two of Bahrain's Memorial.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Bahrain\", \"year_introduced\": 1991}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "088", "input": {"applicant": "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "case_id": "088", "case_name": "Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 14, paragraph 1, of the 1971 Montreal Convention because Libya has failed to show that a legal dispute exists between the Parties and that any such dispute concerns the interpretation or application of that Convention.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction over Libya's submission that the United Kingdom must respect Libya's right not to have the Montreal Convention set aside by means at variance with the United Nations Charter and general international law, since Article 14, paragraph 1, does not empower the Court to rule on the lawfulness of actions taken to secure the surrender of the two alleged offenders.", "Objection: even if the Montreal Convention conferred on Libya the rights it claims, those rights were superseded by Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), which by Articles 25 and 103 of the Charter prevail, so that the only dispute is between Libya and the Security Council and falls outside Article 14, paragraph 1.", "Objection: the Libyan Application is inadmissible because the matters Libya puts in issue are now regulated by binding Chapter VII decisions of the Security Council which, under Article 103 of the Charter, have overriding effect over any rights or obligations under the Montreal Convention."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 1992}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya\", \"case_id\": \"088\", \"case_name\": \"Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 14, paragraph 1, of the 1971 Montreal Convention because Libya has failed to show that a legal dispute exists between the Parties and that any such dispute concerns the interpretation or application of that Convention.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction over Libya's submission that the United Kingdom must respect Libya's right not to have the Montreal Convention set aside by means at variance with the United Nations Charter and general international law, since Article 14, paragraph 1, does not empower the Court to rule on the lawfulness of actions taken to secure the surrender of the two alleged offenders.\", \"Objection: even if the Montreal Convention conferred on Libya the rights it claims, those rights were superseded by Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), which by Articles 25 and 103 of the Charter prevail, so that the only dispute is between Libya and the Security Council and falls outside Article 14, paragraph 1.\", \"Objection: the Libyan Application is inadmissible because the matters Libya puts in issue are now regulated by binding Chapter VII decisions of the Security Council which, under Article 103 of the Charter, have overriding effect over any rights or obligations under the Montreal Convention.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 1992}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "089", "input": {"applicant": "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya", "case_id": "089", "case_name": "Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 14, paragraph 1, of the 1971 Montreal Convention because Libya has failed to show that a legal dispute exists between the Parties and that any such dispute concerns the interpretation or application of that Convention.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction over Libya's submission that the United States must respect Libya's right not to have the Montreal Convention set aside by means at variance with the United Nations Charter and general international law, since Article 14, paragraph 1, does not empower the Court to rule on the lawfulness of actions taken to secure the surrender of the two alleged offenders.", "Objection: even if the Montreal Convention conferred on Libya the rights it claims, those rights were superseded by Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), which by Articles 25 and 103 of the Charter prevail, so that the only dispute is between Libya and the Security Council and falls outside Article 14, paragraph 1.", "Objection: the Libyan Application is inadmissible because Security Council resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), adopted under Chapter VII, supersede any claims Libya may have under the Montreal Convention and define the obligations governing the dispute.", "Objection: Libya's claims have become moot, Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) having rendered them without object, so that any judgment on them would be devoid of practical purpose.", "In the alternative, should the Court hold that it has jurisdiction and decide to exercise it, the United States asks the Court to resolve the case in substance now by deciding, as a preliminary matter, that the relief sought by Libya is precluded."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1992}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Libyan Arab Jamahiriya\", \"case_id\": \"089\", \"case_name\": \"Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 14, paragraph 1, of the 1971 Montreal Convention because Libya has failed to show that a legal dispute exists between the Parties and that any such dispute concerns the interpretation or application of that Convention.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction over Libya's submission that the United States must respect Libya's right not to have the Montreal Convention set aside by means at variance with the United Nations Charter and general international law, since Article 14, paragraph 1, does not empower the Court to rule on the lawfulness of actions taken to secure the surrender of the two alleged offenders.\", \"Objection: even if the Montreal Convention conferred on Libya the rights it claims, those rights were superseded by Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), which by Articles 25 and 103 of the Charter prevail, so that the only dispute is between Libya and the Security Council and falls outside Article 14, paragraph 1.\", \"Objection: the Libyan Application is inadmissible because Security Council resolutions 731 (1992), 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), adopted under Chapter VII, supersede any claims Libya may have under the Montreal Convention and define the obligations governing the dispute.\", \"Objection: Libya's claims have become moot, Security Council resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993) having rendered them without object, so that any judgment on them would be devoid of practical purpose.\", \"In the alternative, should the Court hold that it has jurisdiction and decide to exercise it, the United States asks the Court to resolve the case in substance now by deciding, as a preliminary matter, that the relief sought by Libya is precluded.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1992}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "090", "input": {"applicant": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "case_id": "090", "case_name": "Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Iran asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in attacking and destroying on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 the oil platforms referred to in Iran's Application, the United States breached its obligations to Iran under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, and that the United States bears responsibility for the attacks.", "Iran asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the United States is accordingly under an obligation to make full reparation to Iran for the violation and the injury caused, in a form and amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.", "Counter-claim: the United States asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in attacking vessels in the Gulf with mines and missiles and otherwise engaging in military actions that were dangerous and detrimental to commerce and navigation between the territories of the United States and Iran, Iran breached its obligations to the United States under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty.", "Counter-claim: the United States asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Iran is accordingly under an obligation to make full reparation to the United States for its breach of the 1955 Treaty, in a form and amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1992}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"case_id\": \"090\", \"case_name\": \"Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Iran asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in attacking and destroying on 19 October 1987 and 18 April 1988 the oil platforms referred to in Iran's Application, the United States breached its obligations to Iran under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights, and that the United States bears responsibility for the attacks.\", \"Iran asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the United States is accordingly under an obligation to make full reparation to Iran for the violation and the injury caused, in a form and amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.\", \"Counter-claim: the United States asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, in attacking vessels in the Gulf with mines and missiles and otherwise engaging in military actions that were dangerous and detrimental to commerce and navigation between the territories of the United States and Iran, Iran breached its obligations to the United States under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty.\", \"Counter-claim: the United States asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Iran is accordingly under an obligation to make full reparation to the United States for its breach of the 1955 Treaty, in a form and amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1992}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "091", "input": {"applicant": "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "case_id": "091", "case_name": "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, directly or through its surrogates, has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by destroying in part and attempting to destroy in whole national, ethnical or religious groups within but not limited to its territory, including in particular the Muslim population, by killing members of the group.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by causing deliberate bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by conspiring to commit genocide, by complicity in genocide, by attempting to commit genocide and by incitement to commit genocide.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by aiding and abetting individuals and groups engaged in acts of genocide.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by virtue of having failed to prevent and to punish acts of genocide.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia must immediately cease the above conduct and take immediate and effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia must wipe out the consequences of its internationally wrongful acts and restore the situation existing before the violations of the Genocide Convention were committed.", "Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia is required to pay, and that Bosnia and Herzegovina is entitled to receive in its own right and as parens patriae for its citizens, full compensation for the damages and losses caused, in an amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent phase of the proceedings."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Serbia and Montenegro", "year_introduced": 1993}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Bosnia and Herzegovina\", \"case_id\": \"091\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, directly or through its surrogates, has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by destroying in part and attempting to destroy in whole national, ethnical or religious groups within but not limited to its territory, including in particular the Muslim population, by killing members of the group.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by causing deliberate bodily or mental harm to members of the protected group.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by conspiring to commit genocide, by complicity in genocide, by attempting to commit genocide and by incitement to commit genocide.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by aiding and abetting individuals and groups engaged in acts of genocide.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia has violated and is violating the Genocide Convention by virtue of having failed to prevent and to punish acts of genocide.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia must immediately cease the above conduct and take immediate and effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia must wipe out the consequences of its internationally wrongful acts and restore the situation existing before the violations of the Genocide Convention were committed.\", \"Bosnia and Herzegovina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Yugoslavia is required to pay, and that Bosnia and Herzegovina is entitled to receive in its own right and as parens patriae for its citizens, full compensation for the damages and losses caused, in an amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent phase of the proceedings.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"year_introduced\": 1993}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "092", "input": {"applicant": "Hungary", "case_id": "092", "case_name": "Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on the Nagymaros Project and on the part of the Gabcikovo Project for which the 1977 Treaty attributed responsibility to Hungary.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was not entitled to proceed to the 'provisional solution', the damming up of the Danube at river kilometre 1851.7 on Czechoslovak territory and its consequences for the water and navigation course.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its Declaration of 19 May 1992, it validly terminated the Treaty of 16 September 1977 on the Construction and Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Treaty of 16 September 1977 has never been in force between Hungary and the Slovak Republic.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia bears responsibility to Hungary for maintaining in operation the 'provisional solution'.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is internationally responsible for the damage and loss suffered by Hungary and by its nationals as a result of the 'provisional solution'.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to make reparation for such damage and loss, the amount to be determined by the Court if the Parties cannot agree it within six months of the date of the Judgment.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to return the waters of the Danube to their course along the international frontier between the two States, that is, the main navigable channel as defined by applicable treaties.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to restore the Danube to the situation it was in prior to the putting into effect of the 'provisional solution'.", "Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to provide appropriate guarantees against the repetition of the damage and loss suffered by Hungary and by its nationals.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the 1977 Treaty concerning the construction and operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks and related instruments, to which Slovakia is the successor State, has never ceased to be in force and so remains, and that Hungary's notification of purported termination of 19 May 1992 was without legal effect.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on the Nagymaros Project and on that part of the Gabcikovo Project for which the 1977 Treaty attributes responsibility to Hungary.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled, in November 1991, to proceed with the 'provisional solution' and to put this system into operation from October 1992, and that Slovakia was, and remains, entitled to continue its operation.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary shall cease forthwith all conduct which impedes the bona fide implementation of the 1977 Treaty and shall take all necessary steps to fulfil its own obligations under the Treaty without further delay, subject to any amendments agreed between the Parties.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary shall give appropriate guarantees that it will not impede the performance of the Treaty and the continued operation of the system.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary shall, in addition to resuming performance of its Treaty obligations, pay full compensation for the loss and damage, including loss of profits, caused by its breaches of the 1977 Treaty, together with interest thereon.", "Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Parties shall immediately begin negotiations, in particular on a new timetable and measures for implementing the Treaty and on the amount of compensation due, and that if they cannot agree within six months either may request an additional Judgment determining the modalities for executing the Judgment."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Slovakia", "year_introduced": 1993}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Hungary\", \"case_id\": \"092\", \"case_name\": \"Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it was entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on the Nagymaros Project and on the part of the Gabcikovo Project for which the 1977 Treaty attributed responsibility to Hungary.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was not entitled to proceed to the 'provisional solution', the damming up of the Danube at river kilometre 1851.7 on Czechoslovak territory and its consequences for the water and navigation course.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its Declaration of 19 May 1992, it validly terminated the Treaty of 16 September 1977 on the Construction and Operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros Barrage System.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Treaty of 16 September 1977 has never been in force between Hungary and the Slovak Republic.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia bears responsibility to Hungary for maintaining in operation the 'provisional solution'.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is internationally responsible for the damage and loss suffered by Hungary and by its nationals as a result of the 'provisional solution'.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to make reparation for such damage and loss, the amount to be determined by the Court if the Parties cannot agree it within six months of the date of the Judgment.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to return the waters of the Danube to their course along the international frontier between the two States, that is, the main navigable channel as defined by applicable treaties.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to restore the Danube to the situation it was in prior to the putting into effect of the 'provisional solution'.\", \"Hungary asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Slovakia is under an obligation to provide appropriate guarantees against the repetition of the damage and loss suffered by Hungary and by its nationals.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the 1977 Treaty concerning the construction and operation of the Gabcikovo-Nagymaros System of Locks and related instruments, to which Slovakia is the successor State, has never ceased to be in force and so remains, and that Hungary's notification of purported termination of 19 May 1992 was without legal effect.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary was not entitled to suspend and subsequently abandon the works on the Nagymaros Project and on that part of the Gabcikovo Project for which the 1977 Treaty attributes responsibility to Hungary.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic was entitled, in November 1991, to proceed with the 'provisional solution' and to put this system into operation from October 1992, and that Slovakia was, and remains, entitled to continue its operation.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary shall cease forthwith all conduct which impedes the bona fide implementation of the 1977 Treaty and shall take all necessary steps to fulfil its own obligations under the Treaty without further delay, subject to any amendments agreed between the Parties.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary shall give appropriate guarantees that it will not impede the performance of the Treaty and the continued operation of the system.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Hungary shall, in addition to resuming performance of its Treaty obligations, pay full compensation for the loss and damage, including loss of profits, caused by its breaches of the 1977 Treaty, together with interest thereon.\", \"Slovakia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the Parties shall immediately begin negotiations, in particular on a new timetable and measures for implementing the Treaty and on the amount of compensation due, and that if they cannot agree within six months either may request an additional Judgment determining the modalities for executing the Judgment.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Slovakia\", \"year_introduced\": 1993}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_13\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_14\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_15\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_16\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_17\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "093", "input": {"case_id": "093", "case_name": "Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?"], "requesting_body": "World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (resolution WHA46.40 of 14 May 1993)", "year_introduced": 1993}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"093\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"World Health Assembly of the World Health Organization (resolution WHA46.40 of 14 May 1993)\", \"year_introduced\": 1993}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "094", "input": {"applicant": "Cameroon", "case_id": "094", "case_name": "Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Cameroon asks the Court to declare that the land boundary with Nigeria runs from the Lake Chad point at longitude 14 degrees 04 minutes 59.9999 seconds east and latitude 13 degrees 05 minutes 00.0001 seconds north, then along the course fixed by the Franco-British Declaration of 10 July 1919 and the Thomson-Marchand Declaration confirmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931, to Mount Kombon, then to Pillar 64 and on under the Anglo-German Obokum Agreement of 12 April 1913 to Pillar 114 on the Cross River, and thence under the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 to the Akwayafe.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula is Cameroonian.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that sovereignty over the disputed parcel occupied by Nigeria in the Lake Chad area, in particular Darak and its region, is Cameroonian.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that the maritime boundary from the intersection of the Bakassi Point to King Point line with the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe up to point G is determined by the compromise line of the Yaounde Declaration of 4 April 1971 and by the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that beyond point G the maritime boundary swings south-westward through points H, I, J and K, up to the outer limit of the maritime zones which international law places under the respective jurisdictions of the two States, as an equitable solution.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that, by contesting and by attempting to modify unilaterally and by force the land and maritime boundaries so defined, Nigeria has violated and is violating the principle of respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris) and its legal commitments on land and maritime delimitation.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that, by using force against Cameroon, by militarily occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in the Lake Chad area and the Bakassi Peninsula, and by repeated civilian and military incursions all along the boundary, Nigeria has violated and is violating its obligations under treaty law and customary international law.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that Nigeria has the express duty to put an end to its civilian and military presence in Cameroonian territory, to effect an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from the Bakassi Peninsula, and to refrain from such acts in the future.", "Cameroon asks the Court to declare that those internationally wrongful acts engage the responsibility of Nigeria and that reparation, in a form to be determined by the Court, is due for the material and non-material damage inflicted, with the amount of compensation to be assessed at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.", "Counter-claim: Nigeria asks the Court to declare that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria for the frontier incidents and incursions from the Cameroonian side set out in Part VI of its Counter-Memorial, the reparation due, if not agreed between the Parties within six months of the date of judgment, to be determined by the Court in a further judgment."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Nigeria", "year_introduced": 1994}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Cameroon\", \"case_id\": \"094\", \"case_name\": \"Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that the land boundary with Nigeria runs from the Lake Chad point at longitude 14 degrees 04 minutes 59.9999 seconds east and latitude 13 degrees 05 minutes 00.0001 seconds north, then along the course fixed by the Franco-British Declaration of 10 July 1919 and the Thomson-Marchand Declaration confirmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931, to Mount Kombon, then to Pillar 64 and on under the Anglo-German Obokum Agreement of 12 April 1913 to Pillar 114 on the Cross River, and thence under the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 to the Akwayafe.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula is Cameroonian.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that sovereignty over the disputed parcel occupied by Nigeria in the Lake Chad area, in particular Darak and its region, is Cameroonian.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that the maritime boundary from the intersection of the Bakassi Point to King Point line with the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe up to point G is determined by the compromise line of the Yaounde Declaration of 4 April 1971 and by the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that beyond point G the maritime boundary swings south-westward through points H, I, J and K, up to the outer limit of the maritime zones which international law places under the respective jurisdictions of the two States, as an equitable solution.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that, by contesting and by attempting to modify unilaterally and by force the land and maritime boundaries so defined, Nigeria has violated and is violating the principle of respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris) and its legal commitments on land and maritime delimitation.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that, by using force against Cameroon, by militarily occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in the Lake Chad area and the Bakassi Peninsula, and by repeated civilian and military incursions all along the boundary, Nigeria has violated and is violating its obligations under treaty law and customary international law.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that Nigeria has the express duty to put an end to its civilian and military presence in Cameroonian territory, to effect an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from the Bakassi Peninsula, and to refrain from such acts in the future.\", \"Cameroon asks the Court to declare that those internationally wrongful acts engage the responsibility of Nigeria and that reparation, in a form to be determined by the Court, is due for the material and non-material damage inflicted, with the amount of compensation to be assessed at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.\", \"Counter-claim: Nigeria asks the Court to declare that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria for the frontier incidents and incursions from the Cameroonian side set out in Part VI of its Counter-Memorial, the reparation due, if not agreed between the Parties within six months of the date of judgment, to be determined by the Court in a further judgment.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Nigeria\", \"year_introduced\": 1994}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "095", "input": {"case_id": "095", "case_name": "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?"], "requesting_body": "General Assembly of the United Nations", "year_introduced": 1995}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"095\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"General Assembly of the United Nations\", \"year_introduced\": 1995}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "096", "input": {"applicant": "Spain", "case_id": "096", "case_name": "Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon Spain's Application of 28 March 1995, because the dispute arises out of or concerns conservation and management measures taken by Canada for vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area and their enforcement, and so falls within reservation (d) of Canada's declaration of 10 May 1994."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Canada", "year_introduced": 1995}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Spain\", \"case_id\": \"096\", \"case_name\": \"Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon Spain's Application of 28 March 1995, because the dispute arises out of or concerns conservation and management measures taken by Canada for vessels fishing in the NAFO Regulatory Area and their enforcement, and so falls within reservation (d) of Canada's declaration of 10 May 1994.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Canada\", \"year_introduced\": 1995}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "097", "input": {"applicant": "UKRAINE", "case_id": "097", "case_name": "Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Courts Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["New Zealand asks the Court, on the basis of paragraph 63 of the Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) case, to examine the situation arising from France's announced series of underground nuclear tests and thereby to resume the case begun by its Application of 9 May 1973.", "New Zealand asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the conduct of the proposed nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls will constitute a violation of the rights under international law of New Zealand, as well as of other States.", "In the alternative, New Zealand asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it is unlawful for France to conduct such nuclear tests before it has undertaken an environmental impact assessment according to accepted international standards establishing that the tests will not give rise to radioactive contamination of the marine environment.", "As a provisional measure, New Zealand requests that France refrain from conducting any further nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls.", "As a provisional measure, New Zealand requests that France undertake an environmental impact assessment of the proposed tests according to accepted international standards and refrain from the tests unless that assessment establishes that they will not give rise to radioactive contamination of the marine environment.", "As a provisional measure, New Zealand requests that France and New Zealand ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute or prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect of the carrying out of whatever decisions the Court may give.", "Australia requests permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute in the proceedings on New Zealand's Request for an Examination of the Situation and Further Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures.", "Samoa, Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia each request permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute and file a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute in the same proceedings."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "RUSSIAN FEDERATION", "year_introduced": 1995}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"UKRAINE\", \"case_id\": \"097\", \"case_name\": \"Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Courts Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"New Zealand asks the Court, on the basis of paragraph 63 of the Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) case, to examine the situation arising from France's announced series of underground nuclear tests and thereby to resume the case begun by its Application of 9 May 1973.\", \"New Zealand asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the conduct of the proposed nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls will constitute a violation of the rights under international law of New Zealand, as well as of other States.\", \"In the alternative, New Zealand asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it is unlawful for France to conduct such nuclear tests before it has undertaken an environmental impact assessment according to accepted international standards establishing that the tests will not give rise to radioactive contamination of the marine environment.\", \"As a provisional measure, New Zealand requests that France refrain from conducting any further nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa Atolls.\", \"As a provisional measure, New Zealand requests that France undertake an environmental impact assessment of the proposed tests according to accepted international standards and refrain from the tests unless that assessment establishes that they will not give rise to radioactive contamination of the marine environment.\", \"As a provisional measure, New Zealand requests that France and New Zealand ensure that no action of any kind is taken which might aggravate or extend the dispute or prejudice the rights of the other Party in respect of the carrying out of whatever decisions the Court may give.\", \"Australia requests permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute in the proceedings on New Zealand's Request for an Examination of the Situation and Further Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures.\", \"Samoa, Solomon Islands, the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia each request permission to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute and file a declaration of intervention under Article 63 of the Statute in the same proceedings.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"RUSSIAN FEDERATION\", \"year_introduced\": 1995}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "098", "input": {"applicant": "Botswana", "case_id": "098", "case_name": "Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Botswana asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the northern and western channel of the Chobe River in the vicinity of Kasikili/Sedudu Island constitutes the 'main channel' of the Chobe River within the meaning of Article III (2) of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1 July 1890.", "Botswana asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, consequently, sovereignty in respect of Kasikili/Sedudu Island vests exclusively in the Republic of Botswana.", "Botswana asks the Court to determine the boundary around Kasikili/Sedudu Island on the basis of the thalweg in the northern and western channel of the Chobe River.", "Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the channel lying to the south of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is the main channel of the Chobe River.", "Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the channel lying to the north of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is not the main channel of the Chobe River.", "Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Namibia and its predecessors occupied and used Kasikili Island and exercised sovereign jurisdiction over it, with the knowledge and acquiescence of Botswana and its predecessors, since at least 1890.", "Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the boundary between Namibia and Botswana around Kasikili/Sedudu Island lies in the centre, that is to say the thalweg, of the southern channel of the Chobe River.", "Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the legal status of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is that it forms part of the territory under the sovereignty of Namibia."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Namibia", "year_introduced": 1996}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Botswana\", \"case_id\": \"098\", \"case_name\": \"Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana/Namibia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Botswana asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the northern and western channel of the Chobe River in the vicinity of Kasikili/Sedudu Island constitutes the 'main channel' of the Chobe River within the meaning of Article III (2) of the Anglo-German Agreement of 1 July 1890.\", \"Botswana asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, consequently, sovereignty in respect of Kasikili/Sedudu Island vests exclusively in the Republic of Botswana.\", \"Botswana asks the Court to determine the boundary around Kasikili/Sedudu Island on the basis of the thalweg in the northern and western channel of the Chobe River.\", \"Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the channel lying to the south of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is the main channel of the Chobe River.\", \"Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the channel lying to the north of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is not the main channel of the Chobe River.\", \"Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Namibia and its predecessors occupied and used Kasikili Island and exercised sovereign jurisdiction over it, with the knowledge and acquiescence of Botswana and its predecessors, since at least 1890.\", \"Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the boundary between Namibia and Botswana around Kasikili/Sedudu Island lies in the centre, that is to say the thalweg, of the southern channel of the Chobe River.\", \"Namibia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the legal status of Kasikili/Sedudu Island is that it forms part of the territory under the sovereignty of Namibia.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Namibia\", \"year_introduced\": 1996}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "099", "input": {"applicant": "Paraguay", "case_id": "099", "case_name": "Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Paraguay asks, by letter of its Agent dated 2 November 1998, to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings instituted by its Application of 3 April 1998 against the United States concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and that the case be removed from the Court's List.", "The United States states, by letter of its Agent dated 3 November 1998, that it does not oppose and concurs in Paraguay's discontinuance with prejudice and in its request that the case be removed from the List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1998}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Paraguay\", \"case_id\": \"099\", \"case_name\": \"Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Paraguay asks, by letter of its Agent dated 2 November 1998, to discontinue with prejudice the proceedings instituted by its Application of 3 April 1998 against the United States concerning alleged violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and that the case be removed from the Court's List.\", \"The United States states, by letter of its Agent dated 3 November 1998, that it does not oppose and concurs in Paraguay's discontinuance with prejudice and in its request that the case be removed from the List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1998}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "100", "input": {"case_id": "100", "case_name": "Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["The legal question of the applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in the case of Dato' Param Cumaraswamy as Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the independence of judges and lawyers, taking into account the circumstances set out in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the note by the Secretary-General.", "The legal obligations of Malaysia in this case."], "requesting_body": "United Nations Economic and Social Council", "year_introduced": 1998}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"100\", \"case_name\": \"Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"The legal question of the applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations in the case of Dato' Param Cumaraswamy as Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the independence of judges and lawyers, taking into account the circumstances set out in paragraphs 1 to 15 of the note by the Secretary-General.\", \"The legal obligations of Malaysia in this case.\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations Economic and Social Council\", \"year_introduced\": 1998}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "101", "input": {"applicant": "Nigeria", "case_id": "101", "case_name": "Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that its Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be interpreted as meaning that, so far as concerns the international responsibility Nigeria is said to bear for certain alleged incidents, the dispute before the Court does not include any alleged incidents other than (at most) those specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and Additional Application of 6 June 1994.", "Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be interpreted as meaning that Cameroon's freedom to present additional facts and legal considerations relates (at most) only to those incidents specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and Additional Application of 6 June 1994.", "Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be interpreted as meaning that the question whether facts alleged by Cameroon are established or not relates (at most) only to those incidents specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and Additional Application of 6 June 1994.", "Cameroon requests the Court, primarily, to declare Nigeria's request for interpretation inadmissible and to adjudge and declare that there is no reason to interpret the Judgment of 11 June 1998.", "Cameroon requests the Court, alternatively, to adjudge and declare that Cameroon is entitled to rely on all facts, irrespective of their date, that go to establish the continuing violation by Nigeria of its international obligations, and to rely on such facts in assessing the damage suffered and the reparation due.", "Cameroon requests the Court, in conformity with Article 97 of the Rules of Court, to charge Nigeria with the additional costs caused to Cameroon by Nigeria's request for interpretation.", "Cameroon leaves it to the Court to decide whether it has jurisdiction under Article 60 of the Statute to rule on a request for interpretation of a decision handed down in incidental proceedings, and in particular of a judgment on preliminary objections raised by the defending Party."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Cameroon", "year_introduced": 1998}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nigeria\", \"case_id\": \"101\", \"case_name\": \"Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that its Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be interpreted as meaning that, so far as concerns the international responsibility Nigeria is said to bear for certain alleged incidents, the dispute before the Court does not include any alleged incidents other than (at most) those specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and Additional Application of 6 June 1994.\", \"Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be interpreted as meaning that Cameroon's freedom to present additional facts and legal considerations relates (at most) only to those incidents specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and Additional Application of 6 June 1994.\", \"Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be interpreted as meaning that the question whether facts alleged by Cameroon are established or not relates (at most) only to those incidents specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and Additional Application of 6 June 1994.\", \"Cameroon requests the Court, primarily, to declare Nigeria's request for interpretation inadmissible and to adjudge and declare that there is no reason to interpret the Judgment of 11 June 1998.\", \"Cameroon requests the Court, alternatively, to adjudge and declare that Cameroon is entitled to rely on all facts, irrespective of their date, that go to establish the continuing violation by Nigeria of its international obligations, and to rely on such facts in assessing the damage suffered and the reparation due.\", \"Cameroon requests the Court, in conformity with Article 97 of the Rules of Court, to charge Nigeria with the additional costs caused to Cameroon by Nigeria's request for interpretation.\", \"Cameroon leaves it to the Court to decide whether it has jurisdiction under Article 60 of the Statute to rule on a request for interpretation of a decision handed down in incidental proceedings, and in particular of a judgment on preliminary objections raised by the defending Party.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Cameroon\", \"year_introduced\": 1998}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "102", "input": {"applicant": "Indonesia", "case_id": "102", "case_name": "Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Indonesia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia.", "Indonesia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia.", "Malaysia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan belongs to Malaysia.", "Malaysia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Malaysia", "year_introduced": 1998}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Indonesia\", \"case_id\": \"102\", \"case_name\": \"Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Indonesia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia.\", \"Indonesia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan belongs to the Republic of Indonesia.\", \"Malaysia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan belongs to Malaysia.\", \"Malaysia requests the Court to adjudge and declare that sovereignty over Pulau Sipadan belongs to Malaysia.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Malaysia\", \"year_introduced\": 1998}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "103", "input": {"applicant": "Republic of Guinea", "case_id": "103", "case_name": "Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$250,000 for the mental and moral damage suffered by Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, including injury to his reputation, as a result of his arbitrary detentions and expulsion.", "Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$6,430,148 for Mr. Diallo's loss of earnings during his detentions and following his expulsion.", "Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$550,000 for other material damage suffered by Mr. Diallo.", "Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$4,360,000 for Mr. Diallo's loss of potential earnings.", "Guinea asks the Court to award statutory default interest in addition to the total of US$11,590,148 claimed under the four heads of damage.", "Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$500,000 for the unrecoverable costs it incurred in having to institute these proceedings, and to order the DRC to pay all the costs.", "Counter-claim: the DRC asks the Court to adjudge and declare that US$30,000 is due to Guinea for Mr. Diallo's non-pecuniary injury, that no default interest is due on it, that the DRC has six months from the judgment to pay, that no compensation is due for the other material damage claimed, and that each Party bears its own costs."], "decision_stage": "compensation", "respondent": "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "year_introduced": 1998}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Republic of Guinea\", \"case_id\": \"103\", \"case_name\": \"Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of the Congo)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$250,000 for the mental and moral damage suffered by Mr. Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, including injury to his reputation, as a result of his arbitrary detentions and expulsion.\", \"Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$6,430,148 for Mr. Diallo's loss of earnings during his detentions and following his expulsion.\", \"Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$550,000 for other material damage suffered by Mr. Diallo.\", \"Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$4,360,000 for Mr. Diallo's loss of potential earnings.\", \"Guinea asks the Court to award statutory default interest in addition to the total of US$11,590,148 claimed under the four heads of damage.\", \"Guinea asks the Court to order the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay it US$500,000 for the unrecoverable costs it incurred in having to institute these proceedings, and to order the DRC to pay all the costs.\", \"Counter-claim: the DRC asks the Court to adjudge and declare that US$30,000 is due to Guinea for Mr. Diallo's non-pecuniary injury, that no default interest is due on it, that the DRC has six months from the judgment to pay, that no compensation is due for the other material damage claimed, and that each Party bears its own costs.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"compensation\", \"respondent\": \"Democratic Republic of the Congo\", \"year_introduced\": 1998}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "104", "input": {"applicant": "Germany", "case_id": "104", "case_name": "LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that the United States, by not informing Karl and Walter LaGrand without delay after their arrest of their rights under Article 36, subparagraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by depriving Germany of the possibility of rendering consular assistance, violated its obligations to Germany under Articles 5 and 36, paragraph 1, both in Germany's own right and in its right of diplomatic protection.", "Declare that the United States, by applying rules of its domestic law, in particular the doctrine of procedural default, which barred Karl and Walter LaGrand from raising their Vienna Convention claims, and by ultimately executing them, violated Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which requires full effect to be given to the purposes of the Article 36 rights.", "Declare that the United States, by failing to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand was not executed pending the Court's final decision, violated its obligation to comply with the Order indicating provisional measures of 3 March 1999 and to refrain from any action which might interfere with the subject-matter of a dispute while judicial proceedings are pending.", "Declare that the United States shall provide Germany an assurance that it will not repeat its unlawful acts and that in any future cases of detention of or criminal proceedings against German nationals the United States will ensure in law and practice the effective exercise of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.", "Declare that, in particular in cases involving the death penalty, the United States must provide effective review of and remedies for criminal convictions impaired by a violation of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Germany\", \"case_id\": \"104\", \"case_name\": \"LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that the United States, by not informing Karl and Walter LaGrand without delay after their arrest of their rights under Article 36, subparagraph 1 (b), of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, and by depriving Germany of the possibility of rendering consular assistance, violated its obligations to Germany under Articles 5 and 36, paragraph 1, both in Germany's own right and in its right of diplomatic protection.\", \"Declare that the United States, by applying rules of its domestic law, in particular the doctrine of procedural default, which barred Karl and Walter LaGrand from raising their Vienna Convention claims, and by ultimately executing them, violated Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Convention, which requires full effect to be given to the purposes of the Article 36 rights.\", \"Declare that the United States, by failing to take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Walter LaGrand was not executed pending the Court's final decision, violated its obligation to comply with the Order indicating provisional measures of 3 March 1999 and to refrain from any action which might interfere with the subject-matter of a dispute while judicial proceedings are pending.\", \"Declare that the United States shall provide Germany an assurance that it will not repeat its unlawful acts and that in any future cases of detention of or criminal proceedings against German nationals the United States will ensure in law and practice the effective exercise of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.\", \"Declare that, in particular in cases involving the death penalty, the United States must provide effective review of and remedies for criminal convictions impaired by a violation of the rights under Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "105", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "105", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the case should be removed from the General List in limine litis, because the Applicant itself now maintains that it was not a party to the Statute when it instituted proceedings, so the Court need not rule on the objections to jurisdiction.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not being the continuator of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in United Nations membership (General Assembly resolution 47/1), was not a party to the Statute and could not subscribe to the optional clause.", "Objection: Article IX of the Genocide Convention affords no jurisdiction, because the Applicant's allegations concerning the bombing campaign fall outside the scope of that Convention and disclose no intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group within the meaning of Article II.", "Objection: Article 4 of the 1930 Convention of Conciliation, Judicial Settlement and Arbitration between Belgium and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia cannot found jurisdiction, and the ground invoking it should be struck out as introduced belatedly; in the alternative it confers jurisdiction on the Permanent Court of International Justice, and in the further alternative its preliminary procedures were not exhausted.", "Objection: the Application of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against Belgium is inadmissible."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Belgium", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"105\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the case should be removed from the General List in limine litis, because the Applicant itself now maintains that it was not a party to the Statute when it instituted proceedings, so the Court need not rule on the objections to jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, not being the continuator of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in United Nations membership (General Assembly resolution 47/1), was not a party to the Statute and could not subscribe to the optional clause.\", \"Objection: Article IX of the Genocide Convention affords no jurisdiction, because the Applicant's allegations concerning the bombing campaign fall outside the scope of that Convention and disclose no intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group within the meaning of Article II.\", \"Objection: Article 4 of the 1930 Convention of Conciliation, Judicial Settlement and Arbitration between Belgium and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia cannot found jurisdiction, and the ground invoking it should be struck out as introduced belatedly; in the alternative it confers jurisdiction on the Permanent Court of International Justice, and in the further alternative its preliminary procedures were not exhausted.\", \"Objection: the Application of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against Belgium is inadmissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Belgium\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "106", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "106", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute because the applicant's declaration of 25 April 1999 covers only disputes arising after its signature, and the dispute over the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia arose before that date; by reciprocity that temporal limitation also binds the applicant.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, because the applicant's declaration is a nullity, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia not being a Member of the United Nations as a successor State in view of Security Council resolution 777 (1992) and General Assembly resolution 47/1, and so not a party to the Statute.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention because the facts alleged in the Application bear no genuine relation to that Convention, the applicant having made no showing of the intent to destroy a group required by Article II.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible; Canada filed preliminary objections to both jurisdiction and admissibility on 5 July 2000, but the grounds of the admissibility objections are not stated anywhere in the pre-decision record."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Canada", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"106\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Canada)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute because the applicant's declaration of 25 April 1999 covers only disputes arising after its signature, and the dispute over the bombing of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia arose before that date; by reciprocity that temporal limitation also binds the applicant.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, because the applicant's declaration is a nullity, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia not being a Member of the United Nations as a successor State in view of Security Council resolution 777 (1992) and General Assembly resolution 47/1, and so not a party to the Statute.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention because the facts alleged in the Application bear no genuine relation to that Convention, the applicant having made no showing of the intent to destroy a group required by Article II.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible; Canada filed preliminary objections to both jurisdiction and admissibility on 5 July 2000, but the grounds of the admissibility objections are not stated anywhere in the pre-decision record.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Canada\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "107", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "107", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection (principal, as put at the hearings): the case should be removed from the General List in limine litis, because Serbia and Montenegro now asserts that it was not a party to the Statute when it filed the Application, so no dispute as to jurisdiction subsists between the Parties.", "Objection (principal, in the written Preliminary Objections of 5 July 2000): the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the Application filed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against France.", "Objection (in the alternative): the Application is inadmissible."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"107\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection (principal, as put at the hearings): the case should be removed from the General List in limine litis, because Serbia and Montenegro now asserts that it was not a party to the Statute when it filed the Application, so no dispute as to jurisdiction subsists between the Parties.\", \"Objection (principal, in the written Preliminary Objections of 5 July 2000): the Court lacks jurisdiction to rule on the Application filed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against France.\", \"Objection (in the alternative): the Application is inadmissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "108", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "108", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention, because the subject-matter of the claims brought by Yugoslavia does not relate to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of that Convention, including the responsibility of a State for genocide or for the other acts listed in Article III.", "Objection: the breaches of international obligations alleged by Yugoslavia, even if established, do not fall within the definition of genocide in Article II of the Genocide Convention, so no dispute capable of founding jurisdiction under Article IX arises.", "Objection: Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court affords no basis of jurisdiction in this case, because Germany does not accept Yugoslavia's proposal to found jurisdiction on a consent yet to be given."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Germany", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"108\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Germany)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention, because the subject-matter of the claims brought by Yugoslavia does not relate to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of that Convention, including the responsibility of a State for genocide or for the other acts listed in Article III.\", \"Objection: the breaches of international obligations alleged by Yugoslavia, even if established, do not fall within the definition of genocide in Article II of the Genocide Convention, so no dispute capable of founding jurisdiction under Article IX arises.\", \"Objection: Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court affords no basis of jurisdiction in this case, because Germany does not accept Yugoslavia's proposal to found jurisdiction on a consent yet to be given.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Germany\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "109", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "109", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: no decision is called for on the Application of 29 April 1999, as supplemented by the Memorial of 5 January 2000, because there is no longer any dispute between Serbia and Montenegro and Italy, or because the subject-matter of the dispute has disappeared.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione personarum, because Serbia and Montenegro was not a party to the Statute when the Application was filed and does not consider itself a party to a \"treaty in force\" conferring jurisdiction under Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Statute.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae, because Serbia and Montenegro does not regard itself as bound by Article IX of the Genocide Convention, having made a reservation to it on accession in March 2001.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae because the dispute arising from the Application, as supplemented by the Memorial, is not a dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention within the meaning of Article IX.", "Objection: the Application, as supplemented by the Memorial, is inadmissible in its entirety, because Serbia and Montenegro seeks a decision on the legality of action undertaken by subjects of international law not present, or not all present, in the proceedings.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible with respect to the eleventh submission, raised for the first time in the Memorial, because Serbia and Montenegro thereby seeks to introduce a dispute altogether different from the dispute deriving from the Application."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Italy", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"109\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Italy)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: no decision is called for on the Application of 29 April 1999, as supplemented by the Memorial of 5 January 2000, because there is no longer any dispute between Serbia and Montenegro and Italy, or because the subject-matter of the dispute has disappeared.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione personarum, because Serbia and Montenegro was not a party to the Statute when the Application was filed and does not consider itself a party to a \\\"treaty in force\\\" conferring jurisdiction under Article 35, paragraph 2, of the Statute.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae, because Serbia and Montenegro does not regard itself as bound by Article IX of the Genocide Convention, having made a reservation to it on accession in March 2001.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae because the dispute arising from the Application, as supplemented by the Memorial, is not a dispute relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Genocide Convention within the meaning of Article IX.\", \"Objection: the Application, as supplemented by the Memorial, is inadmissible in its entirety, because Serbia and Montenegro seeks a decision on the legality of action undertaken by subjects of international law not present, or not all present, in the proceedings.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible with respect to the eleventh submission, raised for the first time in the Memorial, because Serbia and Montenegro thereby seeks to introduce a dispute altogether different from the dispute deriving from the Application.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Italy\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "110", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "110", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction, or should decline to exercise jurisdiction, because the Parties in fact agree that the Court has no jurisdiction and there is no longer a dispute between them on that question, so that the case should be dismissed in limine litis.", "Objection: Serbia and Montenegro is not entitled to appear before the Court, because at the date the Application was filed it was neither a Member of the United Nations nor a party to the Statute, and so had no access to the Court.", "Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction over the claims brought against the Netherlands by Serbia and Montenegro.", "Objection: the claims brought against the Netherlands by Serbia and Montenegro are inadmissible.", "Objection: the declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute afford no jurisdiction ratione temporis, because the applicant's declaration of 25 April 1999 covers only disputes arising after its signature, and the dispute over the bombing of Yugoslav territory arose before that date.", "Objection: the applicant could not validly make a declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, being neither a Member of the United Nations nor a party to the Statute, and it did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Security Council resolution 9 (1946) for acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction by a State not a party to the Statute.", "Objection: Article IX of the Genocide Convention affords no jurisdiction ratione materiae, because the Application does not point to any evidence of the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such, which is the core of the crime of genocide under the Convention.", "Objection: Article 4 of the 1931 Treaty of Judicial Settlement, Arbitration and Conciliation between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia affords no basis of jurisdiction, because it was invoked only in the second round of oral argument on provisional measures, the Treaty is no longer in force between the Parties, and its procedural requirements, in particular the period of notice of one month, were not complied with."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Netherlands", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"110\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Netherlands)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction, or should decline to exercise jurisdiction, because the Parties in fact agree that the Court has no jurisdiction and there is no longer a dispute between them on that question, so that the case should be dismissed in limine litis.\", \"Objection: Serbia and Montenegro is not entitled to appear before the Court, because at the date the Application was filed it was neither a Member of the United Nations nor a party to the Statute, and so had no access to the Court.\", \"Objection: the Court has no jurisdiction over the claims brought against the Netherlands by Serbia and Montenegro.\", \"Objection: the claims brought against the Netherlands by Serbia and Montenegro are inadmissible.\", \"Objection: the declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute afford no jurisdiction ratione temporis, because the applicant's declaration of 25 April 1999 covers only disputes arising after its signature, and the dispute over the bombing of Yugoslav territory arose before that date.\", \"Objection: the applicant could not validly make a declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, being neither a Member of the United Nations nor a party to the Statute, and it did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Security Council resolution 9 (1946) for acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction by a State not a party to the Statute.\", \"Objection: Article IX of the Genocide Convention affords no jurisdiction ratione materiae, because the Application does not point to any evidence of the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such, which is the core of the crime of genocide under the Convention.\", \"Objection: Article 4 of the 1931 Treaty of Judicial Settlement, Arbitration and Conciliation between the Netherlands and the Kingdom of Yugoslavia affords no basis of jurisdiction, because it was invoked only in the second round of oral argument on provisional measures, the Treaty is no longer in force between the Parties, and its procedural requirements, in particular the period of notice of one month, were not complied with.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Netherlands\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "111", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "111", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not a Member of the United Nations and therefore not a party to the Statute, so it has no access to the Court (Security Council resolutions 777 (1992) and 821 (1993); General Assembly resolutions 47/1 and 48/88).", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article 36, paragraph 2, because Yugoslavia's declaration signed 25 April 1999 covers only disputes arising, and situations or facts, after that signature, whereas the dispute over the bombing campaign arose when it began on 24 March 1999.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention because Portugal was not a party to that Convention at the date the Application was filed.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article IX of the Genocide Convention because the acts complained of disclose neither the objective nor the subjective elements of genocide, in particular the intent to destroy a group as such, so no dispute on the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention exists.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible as an abuse of process, the optional-clause declaration having been deposited only a few days before the Application was filed.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible as an abuse of process because Yugoslavia asks the Court to pursue an objective already rejected by the Security Council, the organ competent ratione materiae."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Portugal", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"111\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Portugal)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute because the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia is not a Member of the United Nations and therefore not a party to the Statute, so it has no access to the Court (Security Council resolutions 777 (1992) and 821 (1993); General Assembly resolutions 47/1 and 48/88).\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article 36, paragraph 2, because Yugoslavia's declaration signed 25 April 1999 covers only disputes arising, and situations or facts, after that signature, whereas the dispute over the bombing campaign arose when it began on 24 March 1999.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention because Portugal was not a party to that Convention at the date the Application was filed.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article IX of the Genocide Convention because the acts complained of disclose neither the objective nor the subjective elements of genocide, in particular the intent to destroy a group as such, so no dispute on the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the Convention exists.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible as an abuse of process, the optional-clause declaration having been deposited only a few days before the Application was filed.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible as an abuse of process because Yugoslavia asks the Court to pursue an objective already rejected by the Security Council, the organ competent ratione materiae.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Portugal\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "112", "input": {"applicant": "Yugoslavia", "case_id": "112", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Spain)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Yugoslavia requests the Court to indicate the provisional measure that the Kingdom of Spain shall cease immediately its acts of use of force and shall refrain from any act of threat or use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.", "Respondent's request: Spain asks the Court to declare that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Application filed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, its declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute excluding disputes where the other party accepted compulsory jurisdiction less than 12 months before the filing of the application.", "Respondent's request: Spain asks the Court to reject Yugoslavia's request for the indication of provisional measures in relation to the Kingdom of Spain.", "Respondent's request: Spain asks the Court to decide to remove the case from the General List of the Court."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Spain", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Yugoslavia\", \"case_id\": \"112\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. Spain)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Yugoslavia requests the Court to indicate the provisional measure that the Kingdom of Spain shall cease immediately its acts of use of force and shall refrain from any act of threat or use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.\", \"Respondent's request: Spain asks the Court to declare that it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the Application filed by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, its declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute excluding disputes where the other party accepted compulsory jurisdiction less than 12 months before the filing of the application.\", \"Respondent's request: Spain asks the Court to reject Yugoslavia's request for the indication of provisional measures in relation to the Kingdom of Spain.\", \"Respondent's request: Spain asks the Court to decide to remove the case from the General List of the Court.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Spain\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "113", "input": {"applicant": "Serbia and Montenegro", "case_id": "113", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the United Kingdom asks the Court to remove the case from its List in limine litis, without ruling on the objections to jurisdiction, on the ground that the Applicant now itself contends that it was not a party to the Statute when it instituted the proceedings.", "Objection: the United Kingdom asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against the United Kingdom by Serbia and Montenegro, the Applicant having invoked Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article IX of the Genocide Convention.", "Objection: the United Kingdom asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the claims brought against the United Kingdom by Serbia and Montenegro are inadmissible."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Serbia and Montenegro\", \"case_id\": \"113\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the United Kingdom asks the Court to remove the case from its List in limine litis, without ruling on the objections to jurisdiction, on the ground that the Applicant now itself contends that it was not a party to the Statute when it instituted the proceedings.\", \"Objection: the United Kingdom asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against the United Kingdom by Serbia and Montenegro, the Applicant having invoked Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute and Article IX of the Genocide Convention.\", \"Objection: the United Kingdom asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the claims brought against the United Kingdom by Serbia and Montenegro are inadmissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "114", "input": {"applicant": "Yugoslavia", "case_id": "114", "case_name": "Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Yugoslavia requests the Court to indicate the provisional measure that the United States of America shall cease immediately its acts of use of force and shall refrain from any act of threat or use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Yugoslavia\", \"case_id\": \"114\", \"case_name\": \"Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Yugoslavia requests the Court to indicate the provisional measure that the United States of America shall cease immediately its acts of use of force and shall refrain from any act of threat or use of force against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "115", "input": {"applicant": "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "case_id": "115", "case_name": "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Democratic Republic of the Congo, by a letter of 15 January 2001 and referring to Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, notifies the Court that it wishes to discontinue the proceedings instituted by its Application of 23 June 1999 against the Republic of Burundi, while reserving the right to invoke new grounds of jurisdiction subsequently."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Burundi", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Democratic Republic of the Congo\", \"case_id\": \"115\", \"case_name\": \"Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Burundi)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Democratic Republic of the Congo, by a letter of 15 January 2001 and referring to Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, notifies the Court that it wishes to discontinue the proceedings instituted by its Application of 23 June 1999 against the Republic of Burundi, while reserving the right to invoke new grounds of jurisdiction subsequently.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Burundi\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "116", "input": {"applicant": "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "case_id": "116", "case_name": "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Award the DRC compensation for loss of life, that is for the civilians killed in the course of Uganda's unlawful military activities and its occupation of Ituri between 6 August 1998 and 2 June 2003.", "Award the DRC compensation for injuries to persons, that is for the civilians wounded or mutilated in the same period.", "Award the DRC compensation for rape and other acts of sexual violence committed against the Congolese population.", "Award the DRC compensation for the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers.", "Award the DRC compensation for the displacement of populations caused by Uganda's conduct, in Ituri and elsewhere in the DRC.", "Award the DRC compensation for damage to property, covering property destroyed or pillaged in Ituri and outside Ituri, the installations of the Societe nationale d'electricite (SNEL), and military property of the DRC.", "Award the DRC compensation for damage related to the looting and exploitation of minerals, namely gold, diamonds, coltan, tin and tungsten.", "Award the DRC compensation for damage related to flora, namely coffee and timber, and for the environmental damage resulting from deforestation.", "Award the DRC compensation for damage related to fauna, that is the wildlife of the protected areas affected by Uganda's conduct.", "Award the DRC compensation for macroeconomic damage suffered by the Congolese economy as a result of the 1998-2003 war.", "Order satisfaction, in addition to compensation, for the internationally wrongful acts found in the Judgment of 19 December 2005.", "Order Uganda to pay the costs incurred by the DRC in these reparation proceedings.", "Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the sums claimed.", "Decide that the Court will remain seised of the case until Uganda has made full reparation."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Uganda", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Democratic Republic of the Congo\", \"case_id\": \"116\", \"case_name\": \"Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Award the DRC compensation for loss of life, that is for the civilians killed in the course of Uganda's unlawful military activities and its occupation of Ituri between 6 August 1998 and 2 June 2003.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for injuries to persons, that is for the civilians wounded or mutilated in the same period.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for rape and other acts of sexual violence committed against the Congolese population.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for the displacement of populations caused by Uganda's conduct, in Ituri and elsewhere in the DRC.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for damage to property, covering property destroyed or pillaged in Ituri and outside Ituri, the installations of the Societe nationale d'electricite (SNEL), and military property of the DRC.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for damage related to the looting and exploitation of minerals, namely gold, diamonds, coltan, tin and tungsten.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for damage related to flora, namely coffee and timber, and for the environmental damage resulting from deforestation.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for damage related to fauna, that is the wildlife of the protected areas affected by Uganda's conduct.\", \"Award the DRC compensation for macroeconomic damage suffered by the Congolese economy as a result of the 1998-2003 war.\", \"Order satisfaction, in addition to compensation, for the internationally wrongful acts found in the Judgment of 19 December 2005.\", \"Order Uganda to pay the costs incurred by the DRC in these reparation proceedings.\", \"Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest on the sums claimed.\", \"Decide that the Court will remain seised of the case until Uganda has made full reparation.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Uganda\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_13\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_14\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "117", "input": {"applicant": "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "case_id": "117", "case_name": "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Democratic Republic of the Congo, by a letter of 15 January 2001 and referring to Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, notifies the Court that it wishes to discontinue the proceedings instituted by its Application of 23 June 1999 against the Rwandese Republic, while reserving the right to invoke new grounds of jurisdiction subsequently."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Rwanda", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Democratic Republic of the Congo\", \"case_id\": \"117\", \"case_name\": \"Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Democratic Republic of the Congo, by a letter of 15 January 2001 and referring to Article 89, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, notifies the Court that it wishes to discontinue the proceedings instituted by its Application of 23 June 1999 against the Rwandese Republic, while reserving the right to invoke new grounds of jurisdiction subsequently.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Rwanda\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "118", "input": {"applicant": "Croatia", "case_id": "118", "case_name": "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare, on the basis of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, that Serbia (successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is responsible for violations of that Convention, as claimed in Croatia's Application of 2 July 1999.", "Counter-claim: declare that Croatia violated the Genocide Convention by committing, during and after Operation Storm in August 1995, killings, acts causing serious bodily or mental harm, and the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about partial physical destruction, with intent to destroy the Serb national and ethnical group living in the Krajina Region (United Nations Protected Areas North and South).", "Counter-claim, in the alternative: declare that Croatia has violated the Genocide Convention by conspiring to commit genocide against the part of the Serb national and ethnical group living in the Krajina Region.", "Counter-claim, as a subsidiary finding: declare that Croatia has violated the Genocide Convention by having failed, and still failing, to punish acts of genocide committed against the part of the Serb national and ethnical group living in the Krajina Region.", "Counter-claim: declare that those violations are wrongful acts attributable to Croatia which entail its international responsibility.", "Counter-claim: order Croatia to take immediate and effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation to punish acts of genocide under Article II of the Convention, or any other acts proscribed by Article III, committed on its territory before, during and after Operation Storm.", "Counter-claim: order Croatia to pay full compensation to the members of the Serb national and ethnic group from Croatia for all damages and losses caused by the acts of genocide.", "Counter-claim: order Croatia to establish the legal conditions and secure environment for the safe and free return of members of the Serb national and ethnical group to their homes in Croatia, and to ensure their peaceful and normal life with full respect for their national and human rights.", "Counter-claim: order Croatia to amend its Law on Public Holidays, Remembrance Days and Non-Working Days by removing from the list of public holidays the 'Day of Victory and Homeland Gratitude' and the 'Day of Croatian Defenders', celebrated on 5 August."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Serbia", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Croatia\", \"case_id\": \"118\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia v. Serbia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare, on the basis of Article IX of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, that Serbia (successor to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) is responsible for violations of that Convention, as claimed in Croatia's Application of 2 July 1999.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that Croatia violated the Genocide Convention by committing, during and after Operation Storm in August 1995, killings, acts causing serious bodily or mental harm, and the deliberate infliction of conditions of life calculated to bring about partial physical destruction, with intent to destroy the Serb national and ethnical group living in the Krajina Region (United Nations Protected Areas North and South).\", \"Counter-claim, in the alternative: declare that Croatia has violated the Genocide Convention by conspiring to commit genocide against the part of the Serb national and ethnical group living in the Krajina Region.\", \"Counter-claim, as a subsidiary finding: declare that Croatia has violated the Genocide Convention by having failed, and still failing, to punish acts of genocide committed against the part of the Serb national and ethnical group living in the Krajina Region.\", \"Counter-claim: declare that those violations are wrongful acts attributable to Croatia which entail its international responsibility.\", \"Counter-claim: order Croatia to take immediate and effective steps to ensure full compliance with its obligation to punish acts of genocide under Article II of the Convention, or any other acts proscribed by Article III, committed on its territory before, during and after Operation Storm.\", \"Counter-claim: order Croatia to pay full compensation to the members of the Serb national and ethnic group from Croatia for all damages and losses caused by the acts of genocide.\", \"Counter-claim: order Croatia to establish the legal conditions and secure environment for the safe and free return of members of the Serb national and ethnical group to their homes in Croatia, and to ensure their peaceful and normal life with full respect for their national and human rights.\", \"Counter-claim: order Croatia to amend its Law on Public Holidays, Remembrance Days and Non-Working Days by removing from the list of public holidays the 'Day of Victory and Homeland Gratitude' and the 'Day of Croatian Defenders', celebrated on 5 August.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Serbia\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "119", "input": {"applicant": "Pakistan", "case_id": "119", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: India contends that Pakistan's Application does not refer to any treaty or convention in force between India and Pakistan conferring jurisdiction on the Court under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute.", "Objection: India contends that Pakistan's Application fails to take account of the reservations to India's declaration of 15 September 1974 under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and in particular that Pakistan, being a Commonwealth country, cannot invoke the Court's jurisdiction because subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of that declaration excludes disputes with any State which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.", "Objection: India contends that subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of its declaration of 15 September 1974 bars Pakistan from invoking the Court's jurisdiction in any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of a multilateral treaty unless all parties to that treaty are joined in the case, that Pakistan's reliance on the United Nations Charter brings the claim within that reservation, and that India has given no consent and concluded no special agreement waiving the requirement."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "India", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Pakistan\", \"case_id\": \"119\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 10 August 1999 (Pakistan v. India)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: India contends that Pakistan's Application does not refer to any treaty or convention in force between India and Pakistan conferring jurisdiction on the Court under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute.\", \"Objection: India contends that Pakistan's Application fails to take account of the reservations to India's declaration of 15 September 1974 under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and in particular that Pakistan, being a Commonwealth country, cannot invoke the Court's jurisdiction because subparagraph 2 of paragraph 1 of that declaration excludes disputes with any State which is or has been a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.\", \"Objection: India contends that subparagraph 7 of paragraph 1 of its declaration of 15 September 1974 bars Pakistan from invoking the Court's jurisdiction in any dispute concerning the interpretation or application of a multilateral treaty unless all parties to that treaty are joined in the case, that Pakistan's reliance on the United Nations Charter brings the claim within that reservation, and that India has given no consent and concluded no special agreement waiving the requirement.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"India\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "120", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "120", "case_name": "Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the bisector of the lines representing the coastal fronts of the two Parties, drawn from a fixed point at 15 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds North and 83 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds West, is the single maritime boundary delimiting the disputed territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the region of the Nicaraguan Rise.", "Adjudge and declare that the starting-point of the delimitation is the thalweg of the main mouth of the River Coco, such as it may be at any given moment, as determined by the Award of the King of Spain of 1906.", "Decide the question of sovereignty over the islands and cays within the area in dispute.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that Bobel Cay, South Cay, Savanna Cay and Port Royal Cay, together with all other islands, cays, rocks, banks and reefs claimed by Nicaragua that lie north of the 15th parallel, are under the sovereignty of Honduras.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the starting-point of the maritime boundary shall be 14 degrees 59.8 minutes North, 83 degrees 05.8 minutes West, the stretch from the point fixed by the Mixed Commission in 1962 to that starting-point being agreed between the Parties on the basis of the binding Award of the King of Spain of 23 December 1906.", "Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that east of 14 degrees 59.8 minutes North, 83 degrees 05.8 minutes West the single maritime boundary dividing the Parties' territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves follows the parallel 14 degrees 59.8 minutes North as the existing maritime boundary, or an adjusted equidistance line, until the jurisdiction of a third State is reached."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Honduras", "year_introduced": 1999}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"120\", \"case_name\": \"Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Honduras)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the bisector of the lines representing the coastal fronts of the two Parties, drawn from a fixed point at 15 degrees 02 minutes 00 seconds North and 83 degrees 05 minutes 26 seconds West, is the single maritime boundary delimiting the disputed territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf in the region of the Nicaraguan Rise.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the starting-point of the delimitation is the thalweg of the main mouth of the River Coco, such as it may be at any given moment, as determined by the Award of the King of Spain of 1906.\", \"Decide the question of sovereignty over the islands and cays within the area in dispute.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that Bobel Cay, South Cay, Savanna Cay and Port Royal Cay, together with all other islands, cays, rocks, banks and reefs claimed by Nicaragua that lie north of the 15th parallel, are under the sovereignty of Honduras.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that the starting-point of the maritime boundary shall be 14 degrees 59.8 minutes North, 83 degrees 05.8 minutes West, the stretch from the point fixed by the Mixed Commission in 1962 to that starting-point being agreed between the Parties on the basis of the binding Award of the King of Spain of 23 December 1906.\", \"Counter-claim: adjudge and declare that east of 14 degrees 59.8 minutes North, 83 degrees 05.8 minutes West the single maritime boundary dividing the Parties' territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and continental shelves follows the parallel 14 degrees 59.8 minutes North as the existing maritime boundary, or an adjusted equidistance line, until the jurisdiction of a third State is reached.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Honduras\", \"year_introduced\": 1999}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "121", "input": {"applicant": "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "case_id": "121", "case_name": "Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That by issuing and internationally circulating the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 against Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, Belgium violated, in regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the customary rule of the absolute inviolability and immunity from criminal process of incumbent foreign ministers, and thereby the principle of sovereign equality among States.", "That a formal finding by the Court of the unlawfulness of that act constitutes an appropriate form of satisfaction, providing reparation for the consequent moral injury to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.", "That the violations of international law underlying the issue and international circulation of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 preclude any State, including Belgium, from executing it.", "That Belgium shall be required to recall and cancel the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 and to inform the foreign authorities to whom the warrant was circulated that Belgium renounces its request for their co-operation in executing the unlawful warrant."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Belgium", "year_introduced": 2000}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Democratic Republic of the Congo\", \"case_id\": \"121\", \"case_name\": \"Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That by issuing and internationally circulating the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 against Mr. Abdulaye Yerodia Ndombasi, Belgium violated, in regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the customary rule of the absolute inviolability and immunity from criminal process of incumbent foreign ministers, and thereby the principle of sovereign equality among States.\", \"That a formal finding by the Court of the unlawfulness of that act constitutes an appropriate form of satisfaction, providing reparation for the consequent moral injury to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.\", \"That the violations of international law underlying the issue and international circulation of the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 preclude any State, including Belgium, from executing it.\", \"That Belgium shall be required to recall and cancel the arrest warrant of 11 April 2000 and to inform the foreign authorities to whom the warrant was circulated that Belgium renounces its request for their co-operation in executing the unlawful warrant.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Belgium\", \"year_introduced\": 2000}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "122", "input": {"applicant": "Yugoslavia", "case_id": "122", "case_name": "Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that there are newly discovered facts of such a character as to lay the Judgment of 11 July 1996 on preliminary objections open to revision under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, namely its admission to the United Nations as a new Member on 1 November 2000 and the consequences said to follow from it, that it was not a party to the Statute at the time of that Judgment and did not remain bound by Article IX of the Genocide Convention.", "The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that its Application for revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 is therefore admissible."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Bosnia and Herzegovina", "year_introduced": 2001}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Yugoslavia\", \"case_id\": \"122\", \"case_name\": \"Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that there are newly discovered facts of such a character as to lay the Judgment of 11 July 1996 on preliminary objections open to revision under Article 61 of the Statute of the Court, namely its admission to the United Nations as a new Member on 1 November 2000 and the consequences said to follow from it, that it was not a party to the Statute at the time of that Judgment and did not remain bound by Article IX of the Genocide Convention.\", \"The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that its Application for revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 is therefore admissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Bosnia and Herzegovina\", \"year_introduced\": 2001}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "123", "input": {"applicant": "Liechtenstein", "case_id": "123", "case_name": "Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because there exists no dispute between Liechtenstein and Germany in the sense required by the Statute of the Court and Article 27 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article 27 (a) of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, because all the relevant facts occurred before that Convention entered into force as between the Parties on 18 February 1980.", "Objection: the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes does not apply because the occurrences on which Liechtenstein bases its claims fall within the domestic jurisdiction of Germany.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because Liechtenstein's claims have not been sufficiently substantiated as required by Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute and Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because adjudicating Liechtenstein's claims would require the Court to pass judgment on the rights and obligations of the successor States of the former Czechoslovakia, in particular the Czech Republic, in their absence and without their consent.", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because the alleged Liechtenstein victims of the measures of confiscation carried out by Czechoslovakia have failed to exhaust the available local remedies."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Germany", "year_introduced": 2001}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Liechtenstein\", \"case_id\": \"123\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because there exists no dispute between Liechtenstein and Germany in the sense required by the Statute of the Court and Article 27 of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes of 29 April 1957.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article 27 (a) of the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, because all the relevant facts occurred before that Convention entered into force as between the Parties on 18 February 1980.\", \"Objection: the European Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes does not apply because the occurrences on which Liechtenstein bases its claims fall within the domestic jurisdiction of Germany.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because Liechtenstein's claims have not been sufficiently substantiated as required by Article 40, paragraph 1, of the Statute and Article 38, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because adjudicating Liechtenstein's claims would require the Court to pass judgment on the rights and obligations of the successor States of the former Czechoslovakia, in particular the Czech Republic, in their absence and without their consent.\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because the alleged Liechtenstein victims of the measures of confiscation carried out by Czechoslovakia have failed to exhaust the available local remedies.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Germany\", \"year_introduced\": 2001}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "124", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "124", "case_name": "Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that it has sovereignty over all maritime features off its Caribbean coast not proven to be part of the San Andres Archipelago, in particular the Cayos de Alburquerque, the Cayos del Este Sudeste, Roncador, North Cay and Southwest Cay and any other cays on the Serrana bank, East Cay and Beacon Cay and any other cays on the Serranilla bank, and Low Cay and any other cays on Bajo Nuevo.", "Nicaragua asks the Court, if it finds that features on the Quitasueno bank qualify as islands under international law, to find that sovereignty over those features rests with Nicaragua.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that the appropriate form of delimitation between the mainland coasts of Nicaragua and Colombia is a continental shelf boundary dividing by equal parts the overlapping continental shelf entitlements of the two Parties.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that the islands of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina be enclaved and accorded a maritime entitlement of 12 nautical miles as the equitable solution justified by the geographical and legal framework.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that the equitable solution for any cay found to be Colombian is to delimit a maritime boundary by drawing a 3 nautical mile enclave around it.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Colombia is not acting in accordance with its obligations under international law by stopping and otherwise hindering Nicaragua from accessing and disposing of its natural resources to the east of the 82nd meridian."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Colombia", "year_introduced": 2001}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"124\", \"case_name\": \"Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that it has sovereignty over all maritime features off its Caribbean coast not proven to be part of the San Andres Archipelago, in particular the Cayos de Alburquerque, the Cayos del Este Sudeste, Roncador, North Cay and Southwest Cay and any other cays on the Serrana bank, East Cay and Beacon Cay and any other cays on the Serranilla bank, and Low Cay and any other cays on Bajo Nuevo.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court, if it finds that features on the Quitasueno bank qualify as islands under international law, to find that sovereignty over those features rests with Nicaragua.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that the appropriate form of delimitation between the mainland coasts of Nicaragua and Colombia is a continental shelf boundary dividing by equal parts the overlapping continental shelf entitlements of the two Parties.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that the islands of San Andres, Providencia and Santa Catalina be enclaved and accorded a maritime entitlement of 12 nautical miles as the equitable solution justified by the geographical and legal framework.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that the equitable solution for any cay found to be Colombian is to delimit a maritime boundary by drawing a 3 nautical mile enclave around it.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Colombia is not acting in accordance with its obligations under international law by stopping and otherwise hindering Nicaragua from accessing and disposing of its natural resources to the east of the 82nd meridian.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Colombia\", \"year_introduced\": 2001}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "125", "input": {"applicant": "Benin", "case_id": "125", "case_name": "Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Benin asks the Chamber to decide that the boundary, from the point at latitude 11 degrees 54 minutes 15 seconds North and longitude 2 degrees 25 minutes 10 seconds East, follows the median line of the River Mekrou as far as the point at latitude 12 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds North and longitude 2 degrees 49 minutes 38 seconds East.", "Benin asks the Chamber to decide that, from that point, the boundary follows the left bank of the River Niger as far as the point at latitude 11 degrees 41 minutes 44 seconds North and longitude 3 degrees 36 minutes 44 seconds East.", "Benin asks the Chamber to decide that sovereignty over all of the islands in the River Niger, and in particular the island of Lete, lies with Benin.", "Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the boundary follows the line of deepest soundings in the River Niger, in so far as that line could be established at the date of independence, from the point at latitude 12 degrees 24 minutes 27 seconds North, longitude 2 degrees 49 minutes 36 seconds East, to the point at latitude 11 degrees 41 minutes 40.7 seconds North, longitude 3 degrees 36 minutes 44 seconds East.", "Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that that line determines which islands belong to each Party, the islands between it and the right bank of the river, namely Pekinga, Tondi Kwaria Barou, Koki Barou, Sandi Tounga Barou, Gandegabi Barou Kaina, Dan Kore Guirawa, Barou Elhadji Dan Djoda, Koundou Barou and Elhadji Chaibou Barou Kaina, belonging to Benin.", "Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the islands between that line and the left bank of the river, namely Boumba Barou Beri, Boumba Barou Kaina, Kouassi Barou, Sansan Goungou, Lete Goungou, Monboye Tounga Barou, Sini Goungou, Lama Barou, Kotcha Barou, Gagno Goungou, Kata Goungou, Gandegabi Barou Beri, Guirawa Barou, Elhadji Chaibou Barou Beri, Goussou Barou, Beyo Barou and Dole Barou, belong to Niger.", "Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the attribution of the islands according to the line of deepest soundings as determined at the date of independence shall be regarded as final.", "Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, with regard to the Gaya-Malanville bridges, the boundary passes through the middle of each of those structures.", "Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the boundary in the River Mekrou sector follows a two-part line: a straight line from the confluence of the Mekrou with the Niger to where the Paris meridian meets the Atacora mountain range, then a line to where the former Say-Fada cercle boundary meets the former Fada-Atacora cercle boundary."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Niger", "year_introduced": 2002}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Benin\", \"case_id\": \"125\", \"case_name\": \"Frontier Dispute (Benin/Niger)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Benin asks the Chamber to decide that the boundary, from the point at latitude 11 degrees 54 minutes 15 seconds North and longitude 2 degrees 25 minutes 10 seconds East, follows the median line of the River Mekrou as far as the point at latitude 12 degrees 24 minutes 29 seconds North and longitude 2 degrees 49 minutes 38 seconds East.\", \"Benin asks the Chamber to decide that, from that point, the boundary follows the left bank of the River Niger as far as the point at latitude 11 degrees 41 minutes 44 seconds North and longitude 3 degrees 36 minutes 44 seconds East.\", \"Benin asks the Chamber to decide that sovereignty over all of the islands in the River Niger, and in particular the island of Lete, lies with Benin.\", \"Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the boundary follows the line of deepest soundings in the River Niger, in so far as that line could be established at the date of independence, from the point at latitude 12 degrees 24 minutes 27 seconds North, longitude 2 degrees 49 minutes 36 seconds East, to the point at latitude 11 degrees 41 minutes 40.7 seconds North, longitude 3 degrees 36 minutes 44 seconds East.\", \"Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that that line determines which islands belong to each Party, the islands between it and the right bank of the river, namely Pekinga, Tondi Kwaria Barou, Koki Barou, Sandi Tounga Barou, Gandegabi Barou Kaina, Dan Kore Guirawa, Barou Elhadji Dan Djoda, Koundou Barou and Elhadji Chaibou Barou Kaina, belonging to Benin.\", \"Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the islands between that line and the left bank of the river, namely Boumba Barou Beri, Boumba Barou Kaina, Kouassi Barou, Sansan Goungou, Lete Goungou, Monboye Tounga Barou, Sini Goungou, Lama Barou, Kotcha Barou, Gagno Goungou, Kata Goungou, Gandegabi Barou Beri, Guirawa Barou, Elhadji Chaibou Barou Beri, Goussou Barou, Beyo Barou and Dole Barou, belong to Niger.\", \"Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the attribution of the islands according to the line of deepest soundings as determined at the date of independence shall be regarded as final.\", \"Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that, with regard to the Gaya-Malanville bridges, the boundary passes through the middle of each of those structures.\", \"Niger asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that the boundary in the River Mekrou sector follows a two-part line: a straight line from the confluence of the Mekrou with the Niger to where the Paris meridian meets the Atacora mountain range, then a line to where the former Say-Fada cercle boundary meets the former Fada-Atacora cercle boundary.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Niger\", \"year_introduced\": 2002}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "126", "input": {"applicant": "Democratic Republic of the Congo", "case_id": "126", "case_name": "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection (Rwanda): the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against Rwanda by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, none of the compromissory clauses invoked in the Application (in the Racial Discrimination, Discrimination against Women, Genocide, Torture and Montreal Conventions, the WHO and Unesco Constitutions and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities) conferring jurisdiction.", "Objection (Rwanda, alternative): if one or more of the bases of jurisdiction invoked were found to give the Court jurisdiction, the claims brought against Rwanda by the Democratic Republic of the Congo are nevertheless inadmissible."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Rwanda", "year_introduced": 2002}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Democratic Republic of the Congo\", \"case_id\": \"126\", \"case_name\": \"Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection (Rwanda): the Court lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against Rwanda by the Democratic Republic of the Congo, none of the compromissory clauses invoked in the Application (in the Racial Discrimination, Discrimination against Women, Genocide, Torture and Montreal Conventions, the WHO and Unesco Constitutions and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities) conferring jurisdiction.\", \"Objection (Rwanda, alternative): if one or more of the bases of jurisdiction invoked were found to give the Court jurisdiction, the claims brought against Rwanda by the Democratic Republic of the Congo are nevertheless inadmissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Rwanda\", \"year_introduced\": 2002}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "127", "input": {"applicant": "El Salvador", "case_id": "127", "case_name": "Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["El Salvador asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that its Application is admissible on the basis of the existence of new facts of such a nature as to lay open to revision, under Article 61 of the Statute, the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case.", "El Salvador asks the Chamber, once the Application is admitted, to proceed to a revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 so that a new judgment fixes the boundary line in the sixth disputed sector of the land boundary as starting at the old mouth of the Goascoran river at the Estero de la Cutu and following the old bed of that river for 17,300 metres to the place known as Rompicion de los Amates."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Honduras", "year_introduced": 2002}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"El Salvador\", \"case_id\": \"127\", \"case_name\": \"Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Case concerning the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v. Honduras)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"El Salvador asks the Chamber to adjudge and declare that its Application is admissible on the basis of the existence of new facts of such a nature as to lay open to revision, under Article 61 of the Statute, the Judgment of 11 September 1992 in the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case.\", \"El Salvador asks the Chamber, once the Application is admitted, to proceed to a revision of the Judgment of 11 September 1992 so that a new judgment fixes the boundary line in the sixth disputed sector of the land boundary as starting at the old mouth of the Goascoran river at the Estero de la Cutu and following the old bed of that river for 17,300 metres to the place known as Rompicion de los Amates.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Honduras\", \"year_introduced\": 2002}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "128", "input": {"applicant": "Mexico", "case_id": "128", "case_name": "Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that the United States, in arresting, detaining, trying, convicting and sentencing the 52 Mexican nationals described in Mexico's Memorial, violated its obligations to Mexico, in its own right and in the exercise of diplomatic protection, by failing to inform them without delay of their rights under Article 36 (1) (b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and by depriving Mexico and those nationals of consular protection under Article 36 (1) (a) and (c).", "Declare that the obligation in Article 36 (1) of the Vienna Convention requires notification of consular rights and a reasonable opportunity for consular access before the competent authorities of the receiving State take any action potentially detrimental to the foreign national's rights.", "Declare that the United States violated Article 36 (2) of the Vienna Convention by failing to provide meaningful and effective review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences impaired by a violation of Article 36 (1), by substituting clemency proceedings for such review, and by applying the procedural default doctrine and other municipal law doctrines.", "Declare that, for the injuries suffered by Mexico in its own right and in the exercise of diplomatic protection of its nationals, Mexico is entitled to full reparation in the form of restitutio in integrum.", "Declare that this restitution consists of the obligation to restore the status quo ante by annulling or otherwise depriving of full force or effect the convictions and sentences of all 52 Mexican nationals.", "Declare that this restitution also includes the obligation to take all measures necessary to ensure that a prior violation of Article 36 shall not affect the subsequent proceedings.", "Declare that, to the extent that any of the 52 convictions or sentences are not annulled, the United States shall provide, by means of its own choosing, meaningful and effective review and reconsideration of those convictions and sentences, an obligation that cannot be satisfied by clemency proceedings or where any municipal law rule or doctrine inconsistent with Article 36 (2) is applied.", "Declare that the United States shall cease its violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention with regard to Mexico and its 52 nationals, and shall provide appropriate guarantees and assurances that it will take measures sufficient to achieve increased compliance with Article 36 (1) and to ensure compliance with Article 36 (2)."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 2003}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Mexico\", \"case_id\": \"128\", \"case_name\": \"Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that the United States, in arresting, detaining, trying, convicting and sentencing the 52 Mexican nationals described in Mexico's Memorial, violated its obligations to Mexico, in its own right and in the exercise of diplomatic protection, by failing to inform them without delay of their rights under Article 36 (1) (b) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and by depriving Mexico and those nationals of consular protection under Article 36 (1) (a) and (c).\", \"Declare that the obligation in Article 36 (1) of the Vienna Convention requires notification of consular rights and a reasonable opportunity for consular access before the competent authorities of the receiving State take any action potentially detrimental to the foreign national's rights.\", \"Declare that the United States violated Article 36 (2) of the Vienna Convention by failing to provide meaningful and effective review and reconsideration of convictions and sentences impaired by a violation of Article 36 (1), by substituting clemency proceedings for such review, and by applying the procedural default doctrine and other municipal law doctrines.\", \"Declare that, for the injuries suffered by Mexico in its own right and in the exercise of diplomatic protection of its nationals, Mexico is entitled to full reparation in the form of restitutio in integrum.\", \"Declare that this restitution consists of the obligation to restore the status quo ante by annulling or otherwise depriving of full force or effect the convictions and sentences of all 52 Mexican nationals.\", \"Declare that this restitution also includes the obligation to take all measures necessary to ensure that a prior violation of Article 36 shall not affect the subsequent proceedings.\", \"Declare that, to the extent that any of the 52 convictions or sentences are not annulled, the United States shall provide, by means of its own choosing, meaningful and effective review and reconsideration of those convictions and sentences, an obligation that cannot be satisfied by clemency proceedings or where any municipal law rule or doctrine inconsistent with Article 36 (2) is applied.\", \"Declare that the United States shall cease its violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention with regard to Mexico and its 52 nationals, and shall provide appropriate guarantees and assurances that it will take measures sufficient to achieve increased compliance with Article 36 (1) and to ensure compliance with Article 36 (2).\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 2003}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "129", "input": {"applicant": "Republic of the Congo", "case_id": "129", "case_name": "Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Officially record the discontinuance of the proceedings, the Republic of the Congo having stated by letter of 5 November 2010, referring to Article 89 of the Rules of Court, that it withdraws the Application instituting proceedings filed on 9 December 2002 against the French Republic.", "Direct the removal of the case from the Court's General List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 2003}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Republic of the Congo\", \"case_id\": \"129\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Criminal Proceedings in France (Republic of the Congo v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Officially record the discontinuance of the proceedings, the Republic of the Congo having stated by letter of 5 November 2010, referring to Article 89 of the Rules of Court, that it withdraws the Application instituting proceedings filed on 9 December 2002 against the French Republic.\", \"Direct the removal of the case from the Court's General List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 2003}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "130", "input": {"applicant": "Malaysia", "case_id": "130", "case_name": "Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Determine, under Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003, whether sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore.", "Determine, under Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003, whether sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore.", "Determine, under Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003, whether sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Singapore", "year_introduced": 2003}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Malaysia\", \"case_id\": \"130\", \"case_name\": \"Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Determine, under Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003, whether sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore.\", \"Determine, under Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003, whether sovereignty over Middle Rocks belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore.\", \"Determine, under Article 2 of the Special Agreement of 6 February 2003, whether sovereignty over South Ledge belongs to Malaysia or to the Republic of Singapore.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Singapore\", \"year_introduced\": 2003}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "131", "input": {"case_id": "131", "case_name": "Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly, Tenth Emergency Special Session", "year_introduced": 2003}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"131\", \"case_name\": \"Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"What are the legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as described in the report of the Secretary-General, considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, and relevant Security Council and General Assembly resolutions?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly, Tenth Emergency Special Session\", \"year_introduced\": 2003}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "132", "input": {"applicant": "Romania", "case_id": "132", "case_name": "Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Romania asks the Court to draw a single maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea, running from Point F at 45 deg 05 min 21 sec N, 30 deg 02 min 27 sec E on the 12-nautical-mile arc around Serpents' Island to Point X at 45 deg 14 min 20 sec N, 30 deg 29 min 12 sec E.", "Romania asks that the boundary continue in a straight segment from Point X to Point Y at 45 deg 11 min 59 sec N, 30 deg 49 min 16 sec E, then follow the line equidistant between the relevant adjacent Romanian and Ukrainian coasts from Point Y through Point D to Point T at 45 deg 09 min 45 sec N, 31 deg 08 min 40 sec E, and then the median line between the relevant opposite coasts from Point T to Point Z at 43 deg 26 min 50 sec N, 31 deg 20 min 10 sec E.", "Counter-claim: Ukraine asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the line delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones runs from Point 1 identified in Article 1 of the 2003 State Border Regime Treaty, at 45 deg 05 min 21 sec N, 30 deg 02 min 27 sec E, along a straight line to Point 2 at 44 deg 54 min 00 sec N, 30 deg 06 min 00 sec E.", "Counter-claim: Ukraine asks that from Point 2 the line run along an azimuth of 156 degrees to Point 3 at 43 deg 20 min 37 sec N, 31 deg 05 min 39 sec E, and continue along the same azimuth until it reaches a point where the interests of third States potentially come into play, all co-ordinates being referenced to the Pulkovo datum and all lines being loxodromes."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Ukraine", "year_introduced": 2004}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Romania\", \"case_id\": \"132\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Romania asks the Court to draw a single maritime boundary dividing the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones of Romania and Ukraine in the Black Sea, running from Point F at 45 deg 05 min 21 sec N, 30 deg 02 min 27 sec E on the 12-nautical-mile arc around Serpents' Island to Point X at 45 deg 14 min 20 sec N, 30 deg 29 min 12 sec E.\", \"Romania asks that the boundary continue in a straight segment from Point X to Point Y at 45 deg 11 min 59 sec N, 30 deg 49 min 16 sec E, then follow the line equidistant between the relevant adjacent Romanian and Ukrainian coasts from Point Y through Point D to Point T at 45 deg 09 min 45 sec N, 31 deg 08 min 40 sec E, and then the median line between the relevant opposite coasts from Point T to Point Z at 43 deg 26 min 50 sec N, 31 deg 20 min 10 sec E.\", \"Counter-claim: Ukraine asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the line delimiting the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zones runs from Point 1 identified in Article 1 of the 2003 State Border Regime Treaty, at 45 deg 05 min 21 sec N, 30 deg 02 min 27 sec E, along a straight line to Point 2 at 44 deg 54 min 00 sec N, 30 deg 06 min 00 sec E.\", \"Counter-claim: Ukraine asks that from Point 2 the line run along an azimuth of 156 degrees to Point 3 at 43 deg 20 min 37 sec N, 31 deg 05 min 39 sec E, and continue along the same azimuth until it reaches a point where the interests of third States potentially come into play, all co-ordinates being referenced to the Pulkovo datum and all lines being loxodromes.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Ukraine\", \"year_introduced\": 2004}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "133", "input": {"applicant": "Costa Rica", "case_id": "133", "case_name": "Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to allow all Costa Rican vessels and their passengers to navigate freely on the San Juan for purposes of commerce, including communication and the transportation of passengers and tourism.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to impose any charges or fees on Costa Rican vessels and their passengers for navigating on the river.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to require persons exercising the right of free navigation on the river to carry passports or obtain Nicaraguan visas.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to require Costa Rican vessels and their passengers to stop at any Nicaraguan post along the river.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to impose other impediments on the exercise of the right of free navigation, including timetables for navigation and conditions relating to flags.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to allow Costa Rican vessels and their passengers engaged in such navigation to land on any part of the bank where navigation is common, without paying any charges unless expressly agreed by both Governments.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to allow Costa Rican official vessels to navigate the San Juan, including for re-supply and exchange of personnel of the border posts on the right bank with their official equipment, service arms and ammunition, and for purposes of protection as established in the relevant instruments and in particular the second article of the Cleveland Award.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to facilitate and expedite traffic on the San Juan within the terms of the Treaty of 15 April 1858 as interpreted by the Cleveland Award of 1888, in accordance with Article 1 of the bilateral Agreement of 9 January 1956.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to permit riparians of the Costa Rican bank to fish in the river for subsistence purposes.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by reason of those violations, Nicaragua is obliged immediately to cease all the breaches of obligations which have a continuing character.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is obliged to make reparation for all injuries caused to Costa Rica, in the form of restoration of the situation prior to the breaches and compensation in an amount to be determined in a separate phase of the proceedings.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is obliged to give appropriate assurances and guarantees that it shall not repeat its unlawful conduct, in such form as the Court may order.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Costa Rica is obliged to comply with the regulations for navigation and landing on the San Juan imposed by the Nicaraguan authorities, in particular those relating to matters of health and security.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Costa Rica has to pay for any special services provided by Nicaragua in the use of the San Juan, either for navigation or for landing on the Nicaraguan banks.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Costa Rica has to comply with all reasonable charges for modern improvements in the navigation of the river as compared with its situation in 1858.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that revenue service boats may only be used during and with special reference to the actual transit of the merchandise authorized by the Treaty.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan in order to return the flow of water to that obtaining in 1858, even if this affects the flow of water to other present-day recipients of that flow such as the Colorado River."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Nicaragua", "year_introduced": 2005}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Costa Rica\", \"case_id\": \"133\", \"case_name\": \"Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to allow all Costa Rican vessels and their passengers to navigate freely on the San Juan for purposes of commerce, including communication and the transportation of passengers and tourism.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to impose any charges or fees on Costa Rican vessels and their passengers for navigating on the river.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to require persons exercising the right of free navigation on the river to carry passports or obtain Nicaraguan visas.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to require Costa Rican vessels and their passengers to stop at any Nicaraguan post along the river.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation not to impose other impediments on the exercise of the right of free navigation, including timetables for navigation and conditions relating to flags.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to allow Costa Rican vessels and their passengers engaged in such navigation to land on any part of the bank where navigation is common, without paying any charges unless expressly agreed by both Governments.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to allow Costa Rican official vessels to navigate the San Juan, including for re-supply and exchange of personnel of the border posts on the right bank with their official equipment, service arms and ammunition, and for purposes of protection as established in the relevant instruments and in particular the second article of the Cleveland Award.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to facilitate and expedite traffic on the San Juan within the terms of the Treaty of 15 April 1858 as interpreted by the Cleveland Award of 1888, in accordance with Article 1 of the bilateral Agreement of 9 January 1956.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has violated the obligation to permit riparians of the Costa Rican bank to fish in the river for subsistence purposes.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by reason of those violations, Nicaragua is obliged immediately to cease all the breaches of obligations which have a continuing character.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is obliged to make reparation for all injuries caused to Costa Rica, in the form of restoration of the situation prior to the breaches and compensation in an amount to be determined in a separate phase of the proceedings.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua is obliged to give appropriate assurances and guarantees that it shall not repeat its unlawful conduct, in such form as the Court may order.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Costa Rica is obliged to comply with the regulations for navigation and landing on the San Juan imposed by the Nicaraguan authorities, in particular those relating to matters of health and security.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Costa Rica has to pay for any special services provided by Nicaragua in the use of the San Juan, either for navigation or for landing on the Nicaraguan banks.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Costa Rica has to comply with all reasonable charges for modern improvements in the navigation of the river as compared with its situation in 1858.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that revenue service boats may only be used during and with special reference to the actual transit of the merchandise authorized by the Treaty.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to declare that Nicaragua has the right to dredge the San Juan in order to return the flow of water to that obtaining in 1858, even if this affects the flow of water to other present-day recipients of that flow such as the Colorado River.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Nicaragua\", \"year_introduced\": 2005}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_13\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_14\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_15\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_16\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_17\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "134", "input": {"applicant": "Commonwealth of Dominica", "case_id": "134", "case_name": "Status vis-à -vis the Host State of a Diplomatic Envoy to the United Nations (Commonwealth of Dominica v. Switzerland)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Commonwealth of Dominica requests the Court to make an Order officially recording the unconditional discontinuance of the proceedings it instituted against the Swiss Confederation by its Application of 26 April 2006.", "The Commonwealth of Dominica requests the Court to direct the removal of the case from the General List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Switzerland", "year_introduced": 2006}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Commonwealth of Dominica\", \"case_id\": \"134\", \"case_name\": \"Status vis-à -vis the Host State of a Diplomatic Envoy to the United Nations (Commonwealth of Dominica v. Switzerland)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Commonwealth of Dominica requests the Court to make an Order officially recording the unconditional discontinuance of the proceedings it instituted against the Swiss Confederation by its Application of 26 April 2006.\", \"The Commonwealth of Dominica requests the Court to direct the removal of the case from the General List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Switzerland\", \"year_introduced\": 2006}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "135", "input": {"applicant": "Argentina", "case_id": "135", "case_name": "Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Argentina asks the Court to find that, by authorizing the construction of the CMB (ENCE) mill, Uruguay has violated the obligations incumbent on it under the Statute of the River Uruguay of 26 February 1975 and has engaged its international responsibility.", "Argentina asks the Court to find that, by authorizing the construction and commissioning of the Orion (Botnia) mill and its associated facilities on the left bank of the River Uruguay, Uruguay has violated its obligations under the 1975 Statute and has engaged its international responsibility.", "Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must resume strict compliance with its obligations under the Statute of the River Uruguay of 1975.", "Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must cease immediately the internationally wrongful acts by which it has engaged its responsibility.", "Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must re-establish on the ground and in legal terms the situation that existed before those internationally wrongful acts were committed.", "Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must pay compensation to Argentina for the damage caused by those internationally wrongful acts that would not be remedied by that situation being restored, in an amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.", "Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must provide adequate guarantees that it will refrain in future from preventing the 1975 Statute from being applied, in particular the consultation procedure established by Chapter II of that Treaty.", "Counter-claim: Uruguay asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Argentina's claims are rejected and that Uruguay's right to continue operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute is affirmed."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Uruguay", "year_introduced": 2006}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Argentina\", \"case_id\": \"135\", \"case_name\": \"Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Argentina asks the Court to find that, by authorizing the construction of the CMB (ENCE) mill, Uruguay has violated the obligations incumbent on it under the Statute of the River Uruguay of 26 February 1975 and has engaged its international responsibility.\", \"Argentina asks the Court to find that, by authorizing the construction and commissioning of the Orion (Botnia) mill and its associated facilities on the left bank of the River Uruguay, Uruguay has violated its obligations under the 1975 Statute and has engaged its international responsibility.\", \"Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must resume strict compliance with its obligations under the Statute of the River Uruguay of 1975.\", \"Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must cease immediately the internationally wrongful acts by which it has engaged its responsibility.\", \"Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must re-establish on the ground and in legal terms the situation that existed before those internationally wrongful acts were committed.\", \"Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must pay compensation to Argentina for the damage caused by those internationally wrongful acts that would not be remedied by that situation being restored, in an amount to be determined by the Court at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.\", \"Argentina asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Uruguay must provide adequate guarantees that it will refrain in future from preventing the 1975 Statute from being applied, in particular the consultation procedure established by Chapter II of that Treaty.\", \"Counter-claim: Uruguay asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Argentina's claims are rejected and that Uruguay's right to continue operating the Botnia plant in conformity with the provisions of the 1975 Statute is affirmed.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Uruguay\", \"year_introduced\": 2006}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "136", "input": {"applicant": "Djibouti", "case_id": "136", "case_name": "Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that France has violated the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 27 September 1986 by not acting upon its undertaking of 27 January 2005 to execute Djibouti's letter rogatory of 3 November 2004; in the alternative, by its refusals under Article 1 of 6 June 2005 or 31 May 2005.", "Adjudge and declare that France shall, immediately after delivery of the Judgment, transmit the 'Borrel file' in its entirety to Djibouti, or in the alternative transmit it on terms and conditions determined by the Court.", "Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law not to attack the immunity, honour and dignity of the President of Djibouti, by the witness summonses of 17 May 2005 and 14 February 2007, by circulating both to the French media, and by not responding appropriately to the Ambassador's protests.", "Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law to prevent attacks on the immunity, honour and dignity of the President of Djibouti.", "Adjudge and declare that France shall, immediately after delivery of the Judgment, withdraw the witness summons of 17 May 2005 and declare it null and void.", "Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law not to attack the person, freedom and honour of the procureur general of Djibouti and of the Head of National Security of Djibouti.", "Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law to prevent attacks on the person, freedom and honour of the procureur general of Djibouti and of the Head of National Security of Djibouti.", "Adjudge and declare that France shall, immediately after delivery of the Judgment, withdraw the summonses to attend as temoins assistes and the arrest warrants issued against the procureur general of Djibouti and the Head of National Security of Djibouti, and declare them null and void.", "Adjudge and declare that France, by acting contrary to or failing to act in accordance with Articles 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation of 27 June 1977, individually or collectively, has violated the spirit and purpose of that Treaty and the obligations deriving from it.", "Adjudge and declare that France shall cease its wrongful conduct and abide strictly by the obligations incumbent on it in the future.", "Adjudge and declare that France shall provide Djibouti with specific assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of the wrongful acts complained of."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 2006}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Djibouti\", \"case_id\": \"136\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that France has violated the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters of 27 September 1986 by not acting upon its undertaking of 27 January 2005 to execute Djibouti's letter rogatory of 3 November 2004; in the alternative, by its refusals under Article 1 of 6 June 2005 or 31 May 2005.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France shall, immediately after delivery of the Judgment, transmit the 'Borrel file' in its entirety to Djibouti, or in the alternative transmit it on terms and conditions determined by the Court.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law not to attack the immunity, honour and dignity of the President of Djibouti, by the witness summonses of 17 May 2005 and 14 February 2007, by circulating both to the French media, and by not responding appropriately to the Ambassador's protests.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law to prevent attacks on the immunity, honour and dignity of the President of Djibouti.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France shall, immediately after delivery of the Judgment, withdraw the witness summons of 17 May 2005 and declare it null and void.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law not to attack the person, freedom and honour of the procureur general of Djibouti and of the Head of National Security of Djibouti.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France has violated its obligation under customary and general international law to prevent attacks on the person, freedom and honour of the procureur general of Djibouti and of the Head of National Security of Djibouti.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France shall, immediately after delivery of the Judgment, withdraw the summonses to attend as temoins assistes and the arrest warrants issued against the procureur general of Djibouti and the Head of National Security of Djibouti, and declare them null and void.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France, by acting contrary to or failing to act in accordance with Articles 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 of the Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation of 27 June 1977, individually or collectively, has violated the spirit and purpose of that Treaty and the obligations deriving from it.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France shall cease its wrongful conduct and abide strictly by the obligations incumbent on it in the future.\", \"Adjudge and declare that France shall provide Djibouti with specific assurances and guarantees of non-repetition of the wrongful acts complained of.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 2006}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "137", "input": {"applicant": "Peru", "case_id": "137", "case_name": "Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the delimitation between the respective maritime zones of Peru and Chile is a line starting at Point Concordia, the intersection with the low-water mark of a 10-kilometre radius arc centred on the first bridge over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway, equidistant from both Parties' baselines and running 200 nautical miles.", "Adjudge and declare that beyond the point where the common maritime border ends, Peru is entitled to exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime area lying out to 200 nautical miles from its baselines."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Chile", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Peru\", \"case_id\": \"137\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Dispute (Peru v. Chile)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the delimitation between the respective maritime zones of Peru and Chile is a line starting at Point Concordia, the intersection with the low-water mark of a 10-kilometre radius arc centred on the first bridge over the River Lluta of the Arica-La Paz railway, equidistant from both Parties' baselines and running 200 nautical miles.\", \"Adjudge and declare that beyond the point where the common maritime border ends, Peru is entitled to exercise exclusive sovereign rights over a maritime area lying out to 200 nautical miles from its baselines.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Chile\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "138", "input": {"applicant": "Ecuador", "case_id": "138", "case_name": "Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by Ecuador, notified by letter of its Agent dated 12 September 2013 under Article 89 of the Rules of Court and referring to an Agreement between the Parties of 9 September 2013 settling Ecuador's claims, that the proceedings instituted by its Application of 31 March 2008 concerning Colombia's aerial spraying of herbicides be discontinued and the case removed from the List, Colombia having stated by letter of the same day that it made no objection."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Colombia", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Ecuador\", \"case_id\": \"138\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Herbicide Spraying (Ecuador v. Colombia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by Ecuador, notified by letter of its Agent dated 12 September 2013 under Article 89 of the Rules of Court and referring to an Agreement between the Parties of 9 September 2013 settling Ecuador's claims, that the proceedings instituted by its Application of 31 March 2008 concerning Colombia's aerial spraying of herbicides be discontinued and the case removed from the List, Colombia having stated by letter of the same day that it made no objection.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Colombia\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "139", "input": {"applicant": "Mexico", "case_id": "139", "case_name": "Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the obligation incumbent upon the United States under paragraph 153 (9) of the Avena Judgment of 31 March 2004 is an obligation of result, the United States being left only the means of its own choosing for providing review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States, acting through all its competent organs and constituent subdivisions, including all branches of government and any state or federal official exercising government authority, must take all measures necessary to provide the review and reconsideration mandated by paragraph 153 (9) of the Avena Judgment.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States, acting through all its competent organs and constituent subdivisions, must take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national entitled to review and reconsideration under the Avena Judgment is executed unless and until that review and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted from the violation.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States breached the Court's Order of 16 July 2008 indicating provisional measures by executing Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas on 5 August 2008 without having provided him review and reconsideration consistent with the terms of the Avena Judgment.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States breached the Avena Judgment of 31 March 2004 by executing Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas without having provided him review and reconsideration consistent with the terms of that Judgment.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States is required to guarantee that no other Mexican national entitled to review and reconsideration under the Avena Judgment is executed unless and until that review and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted from the violation."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Mexico\", \"case_id\": \"139\", \"case_name\": \"Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) (Mexico v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the obligation incumbent upon the United States under paragraph 153 (9) of the Avena Judgment of 31 March 2004 is an obligation of result, the United States being left only the means of its own choosing for providing review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States, acting through all its competent organs and constituent subdivisions, including all branches of government and any state or federal official exercising government authority, must take all measures necessary to provide the review and reconsideration mandated by paragraph 153 (9) of the Avena Judgment.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States, acting through all its competent organs and constituent subdivisions, must take all measures necessary to ensure that no Mexican national entitled to review and reconsideration under the Avena Judgment is executed unless and until that review and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted from the violation.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States breached the Court's Order of 16 July 2008 indicating provisional measures by executing Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas on 5 August 2008 without having provided him review and reconsideration consistent with the terms of the Avena Judgment.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States breached the Avena Judgment of 31 March 2004 by executing Jose Ernesto Medellin Rojas without having provided him review and reconsideration consistent with the terms of that Judgment.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States is required to guarantee that no other Mexican national entitled to review and reconsideration under the Avena Judgment is executed unless and until that review and reconsideration is completed and it is determined that no prejudice resulted from the violation.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "140", "input": {"applicant": "Georgia", "case_id": "140", "case_name": "Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection (Russian Federation): there was no dispute between Georgia and the Russian Federation with respect to the interpretation or application of CERD concerning the situation in and around Abkhazia and South Ossetia at the date Georgia filed its Application, 12 August 2008.", "Objection (Russian Federation): the procedural requirements of Article 22 of CERD for recourse to the Court, namely that the dispute be one not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention, have not been fulfilled.", "Objection (Russian Federation): the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione loci, because the alleged wrongful conduct took place outside the territory of the Russian Federation.", "Objection (Russian Federation): any jurisdiction the Court might have is limited ratione temporis to events which occurred after CERD entered into force as between the Parties on 2 July 1999."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Russian Federation", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Georgia\", \"case_id\": \"140\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection (Russian Federation): there was no dispute between Georgia and the Russian Federation with respect to the interpretation or application of CERD concerning the situation in and around Abkhazia and South Ossetia at the date Georgia filed its Application, 12 August 2008.\", \"Objection (Russian Federation): the procedural requirements of Article 22 of CERD for recourse to the Court, namely that the dispute be one not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention, have not been fulfilled.\", \"Objection (Russian Federation): the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione loci, because the alleged wrongful conduct took place outside the territory of the Russian Federation.\", \"Objection (Russian Federation): any jurisdiction the Court might have is limited ratione temporis to events which occurred after CERD entered into force as between the Parties on 2 July 1999.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Russian Federation\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "141", "input": {"case_id": "141", "case_name": "Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"141\", \"case_name\": \"Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo in accordance with international law?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "142", "input": {"applicant": "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia", "case_id": "142", "case_name": "Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to reject Greece's objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Applicant's claims.", "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Greece, through its State organs and agents, has violated its obligations under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995.", "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to order Greece immediately to take all necessary steps to comply with its obligations under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord.", "The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to order Greece to cease and desist from objecting, directly or indirectly, to the Applicant's membership of NATO or of any other international, multilateral and regional organization or institution of which Greece is a member, where the Applicant is to be referred to there by the designation in paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 817 (1993)."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Greece", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia\", \"case_id\": \"142\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to reject Greece's objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Applicant's claims.\", \"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Greece, through its State organs and agents, has violated its obligations under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995.\", \"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to order Greece immediately to take all necessary steps to comply with its obligations under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord.\", \"The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia asks the Court to order Greece to cease and desist from objecting, directly or indirectly, to the Applicant's membership of NATO or of any other international, multilateral and regional organization or institution of which Greece is a member, where the Applicant is to be referred to there by the designation in paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 817 (1993).\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Greece\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "143", "input": {"applicant": "Germany", "case_id": "143", "case_name": "Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that Italy, by allowing civil claims based on violations of international humanitarian law by the German Reich during the Second World War between September 1943 and May 1945 to be brought against Germany, violated international law in that it failed to respect the jurisdictional immunity Germany enjoys under international law.", "Adjudge and declare that Italy, by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni, German State property used for government non-commercial purposes, also violated Germany's jurisdictional immunity.", "Adjudge and declare that Italy, by declaring Greek judgments based on occurrences similar to those in the first request enforceable in Italy, committed a further breach of Germany's jurisdictional immunity.", "Adjudge and declare that the international responsibility of Italy is engaged.", "Adjudge and declare that Italy must, by means of its own choosing, take any and all steps to ensure that all decisions of its courts and other judicial authorities infringing Germany's sovereign immunity become unenforceable.", "Adjudge and declare that Italy must take any and all steps to ensure that in future Italian courts do not entertain legal actions against Germany founded on the occurrences described in the first request."], "decision_stage": "merits", "respondent": "Italy", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Germany\", \"case_id\": \"143\", \"case_name\": \"Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that Italy, by allowing civil claims based on violations of international humanitarian law by the German Reich during the Second World War between September 1943 and May 1945 to be brought against Germany, violated international law in that it failed to respect the jurisdictional immunity Germany enjoys under international law.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Italy, by taking measures of constraint against Villa Vigoni, German State property used for government non-commercial purposes, also violated Germany's jurisdictional immunity.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Italy, by declaring Greek judgments based on occurrences similar to those in the first request enforceable in Italy, committed a further breach of Germany's jurisdictional immunity.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the international responsibility of Italy is engaged.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Italy must, by means of its own choosing, take any and all steps to ensure that all decisions of its courts and other judicial authorities infringing Germany's sovereign immunity become unenforceable.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Italy must take any and all steps to ensure that in future Italian courts do not entertain legal actions against Germany founded on the occurrences described in the first request.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"merits\", \"respondent\": \"Italy\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "144", "input": {"applicant": "Belgium", "case_id": "144", "case_name": "Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal breached its international obligations by failing to incorporate in due time in its domestic law the provisions necessary to enable the Senegalese judicial authorities to exercise the universal jurisdiction provided for in Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention against Torture.", "Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal has breached and continues to breach its obligations under Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture, and under other rules of international law, by failing to bring criminal proceedings against Hissene Habre for acts characterised in particular as torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, or otherwise to extradite him to Belgium.", "Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal may not invoke financial or other difficulties to justify the breaches of its international obligations.", "Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal is required to cease these internationally wrongful acts by submitting the Hissene Habre case without delay to its competent authorities for prosecution.", "Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, failing prosecution, Senegal is required to cease these internationally wrongful acts by extraditing Hissene Habre to Belgium without further ado."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Senegal", "year_introduced": 2009}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Belgium\", \"case_id\": \"144\", \"case_name\": \"Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal breached its international obligations by failing to incorporate in due time in its domestic law the provisions necessary to enable the Senegalese judicial authorities to exercise the universal jurisdiction provided for in Article 5, paragraph 2, of the Convention against Torture.\", \"Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal has breached and continues to breach its obligations under Article 6, paragraph 2, and Article 7, paragraph 1, of the Convention against Torture, and under other rules of international law, by failing to bring criminal proceedings against Hissene Habre for acts characterised in particular as torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, or otherwise to extradite him to Belgium.\", \"Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal may not invoke financial or other difficulties to justify the breaches of its international obligations.\", \"Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Senegal is required to cease these internationally wrongful acts by submitting the Hissene Habre case without delay to its competent authorities for prosecution.\", \"Belgium asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, failing prosecution, Senegal is required to cease these internationally wrongful acts by extraditing Hissene Habre to Belgium without further ado.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Senegal\", \"year_introduced\": 2009}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "145", "input": {"applicant": "Belgium", "case_id": "145", "case_name": "Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Belgium requests the Court to make an order recording Belgium's discontinuance of the proceedings it instituted against Switzerland by its Application of 21 December 2009.", "Belgium requests the Court to direct that the case be removed from the General List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Switzerland", "year_introduced": 2009}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Belgium\", \"case_id\": \"145\", \"case_name\": \"Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Belgium v. Switzerland)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Belgium requests the Court to make an order recording Belgium's discontinuance of the proceedings it instituted against Switzerland by its Application of 21 December 2009.\", \"Belgium requests the Court to direct that the case be removed from the General List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Switzerland\", \"year_introduced\": 2009}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "146", "input": {"case_id": "146", "case_name": "Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["I. Was the ILOAT competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear the complaint introduced against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (hereby the Fund) on 8 July 2008 by Ms A. T. S. G., an individual who was a member of the staff of the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (hereby the Convention) for which the Fund acts merely as housing organization?", "II. Given that the record shows that the parties to the dispute underlying the ILOAT's Judgment No. 2867 were in agreement that the Fund and the Global Mechanism are separate legal entities and that the Complainant was a member of the staff of the Global Mechanism, and considering all the relevant documents, rules and principles, was the ILOAT's statement, made in support of its decision confirming its jurisdiction, that 'the Global Mechanism is to be assimilated to the various administrative units of the Fund for all administrative purposes' and that the 'effect of this is that administrative decisions taken by the Managing Director in relation to staff in the Global Mechanism are, in law, decisions of the Fund' outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "III. Was the ILOAT's general statement, made in support of its decision confirming its jurisdiction, that 'the personnel of the Global Mechanism are staff members of the Fund' outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "IV. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant's plea alleging an abuse of authority by the Global Mechanism's Managing Director outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "V. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant's plea that the Managing Director's decision not to renew the Complainant's contract constituted an error of law outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "VI. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to interpret the Memorandum of Understanding between the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa and IFAD (hereby the MoU), the Convention, and the Agreement Establishing IFAD beyond its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "VII. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to determine that by discharging an intermediary and supporting role under the MoU, the President was acting on behalf of IFAD outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "VIII. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to substitute the discretionary decision of the Managing Director of the Global Mechanism with its own outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?", "IX. What is the validity of the decision given by the ILOAT in its Judgment No. 2867?"], "requesting_body": "Executive Board of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)", "year_introduced": 2010}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"146\", \"case_name\": \"Judgment No. 2867 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization upon a Complaint Filed against the International Fund for Agricultural Development\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"I. Was the ILOAT competent, under Article II of its Statute, to hear the complaint introduced against the International Fund for Agricultural Development (hereby the Fund) on 8 July 2008 by Ms A. T. S. G., an individual who was a member of the staff of the Global Mechanism of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa (hereby the Convention) for which the Fund acts merely as housing organization?\", \"II. Given that the record shows that the parties to the dispute underlying the ILOAT's Judgment No. 2867 were in agreement that the Fund and the Global Mechanism are separate legal entities and that the Complainant was a member of the staff of the Global Mechanism, and considering all the relevant documents, rules and principles, was the ILOAT's statement, made in support of its decision confirming its jurisdiction, that 'the Global Mechanism is to be assimilated to the various administrative units of the Fund for all administrative purposes' and that the 'effect of this is that administrative decisions taken by the Managing Director in relation to staff in the Global Mechanism are, in law, decisions of the Fund' outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"III. Was the ILOAT's general statement, made in support of its decision confirming its jurisdiction, that 'the personnel of the Global Mechanism are staff members of the Fund' outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"IV. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant's plea alleging an abuse of authority by the Global Mechanism's Managing Director outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"V. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to entertain the Complainant's plea that the Managing Director's decision not to renew the Complainant's contract constituted an error of law outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"VI. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to interpret the Memorandum of Understanding between the Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa and IFAD (hereby the MoU), the Convention, and the Agreement Establishing IFAD beyond its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"VII. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to determine that by discharging an intermediary and supporting role under the MoU, the President was acting on behalf of IFAD outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"VIII. Was the ILOAT's decision confirming its jurisdiction to substitute the discretionary decision of the Managing Director of the Global Mechanism with its own outside its jurisdiction and/or did it constitute a fundamental fault in the procedure followed by the ILOAT?\", \"IX. What is the validity of the decision given by the ILOAT in its Judgment No. 2867?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Executive Board of the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)\", \"year_introduced\": 2010}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_3\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_4\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_5\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_6\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_7\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_8\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_9\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "147", "input": {"applicant": "Honduras", "case_id": "147", "case_name": "Certain Questions concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v. Brazil)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Honduras informs the Court that it is not going on with the proceedings instituted by its Application against Brazil, and so requests that the discontinuance of those proceedings be recorded.", "Honduras requests, in so far as necessary, the withdrawal of that Application from the Registry."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Brazil", "year_introduced": 2009}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Honduras\", \"case_id\": \"147\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Questions concerning Diplomatic Relations (Honduras v. Brazil)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Honduras informs the Court that it is not going on with the proceedings instituted by its Application against Brazil, and so requests that the discontinuance of those proceedings be recorded.\", \"Honduras requests, in so far as necessary, the withdrawal of that Application from the Registry.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Brazil\", \"year_introduced\": 2009}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "148", "input": {"applicant": "Australia", "case_id": "148", "case_name": "Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims presented by Australia.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan is in breach of its international obligations in authorizing and implementing the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic Phase II (JARPA II) in the Southern Ocean.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, Japan has violated its obligation under paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling to observe the zero catch limit for the killing of whales for commercial purposes.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan has violated its obligation under paragraph 7 (b) of the Schedule to refrain from undertaking commercial whaling of fin whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan has violated its obligation under paragraph 10 (d) of the Schedule to observe the moratorium on taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan has violated its obligation to comply with the requirements of paragraph 30 of the Schedule.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that JARPA II is not a program for purposes of scientific research within the meaning of Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall refrain from authorizing or implementing any special permit whaling which is not for purposes of scientific research within the meaning of Article VIII.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall cease with immediate effect the implementation of JARPA II.", "Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall revoke any authorization, permit or licence that allows the implementation of JARPA II."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Japan", "year_introduced": 2010}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Australia\", \"case_id\": \"148\", \"case_name\": \"Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction to hear the claims presented by Australia.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan is in breach of its international obligations in authorizing and implementing the Japanese Whale Research Program under Special Permit in the Antarctic Phase II (JARPA II) in the Southern Ocean.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, Japan has violated its obligation under paragraph 10 (e) of the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling to observe the zero catch limit for the killing of whales for commercial purposes.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan has violated its obligation under paragraph 7 (b) of the Schedule to refrain from undertaking commercial whaling of fin whales in the Southern Ocean Sanctuary.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan has violated its obligation under paragraph 10 (d) of the Schedule to observe the moratorium on taking, killing or treating of whales, except minke whales, by factory ships or whale catchers attached to factory ships.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan has violated its obligation to comply with the requirements of paragraph 30 of the Schedule.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that JARPA II is not a program for purposes of scientific research within the meaning of Article VIII of the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall refrain from authorizing or implementing any special permit whaling which is not for purposes of scientific research within the meaning of Article VIII.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall cease with immediate effect the implementation of JARPA II.\", \"Australia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Japan shall revoke any authorization, permit or licence that allows the implementation of JARPA II.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Japan\", \"year_introduced\": 2010}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "149", "input": {"applicant": "Burkina Faso", "case_id": "149", "case_name": "Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Both Parties, under Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement: place on record the Parties' agreement on the results of the work of the Joint Technical Commission on Demarcation as regards the sector from the heights of N'Gouma to the Tong-Tong astronomic marker and the sector from the beginning of the Botou bend to the River Mekrou.", "Burkina Faso: adjudge and declare that from the heights of N'Gouma to the Tong-Tong astronomic marker the frontier follows a series of straight lines joining Mount N'Gouma, Kabia ford, Mount Arwaskoye, Mount Belle Banguia, Takabougou, Mount Douma Fende and the Tong-Tong marker, at the co-ordinates set out in its submissions.", "Burkina Faso: adjudge and declare that from the Tong-Tong astronomic marker to the beginning of the Botou bend the frontier runs in a straight line to the Tao astronomic marker, then to the River Sirba at Bossebangou, along the right bank of the Sirba, along the 1960 IGN map line, south to the Sirba at the Say parallel, and thence to Tyenkilibi.", "Burkina Faso: adjudge and declare that from the beginning of the Botou bend to the River Mekrou the frontier follows straight lines through Jackal Mountain, Laguil and Nonbokoli, then the Dantiabonga marigot, the Dyamongou and Tapoa rivers and the former boundary of the Fada and Say cercles as far as the Mekrou.", "Burkina Faso: pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Special Agreement, nominate three experts in the Judgment to assist the Parties as necessary for the purposes of demarcation.", "Niger: adjudge and declare that in the Tera sector the frontier runs from the Tong-Tong astronomic marker in straight lines to the Vibourie marker and the Tao astronomic marker, then along the 1960 IGN line and the intermediate points set out in its submissions, as far as the tripoint of the former boundaries of the Say, Tillabery and Dori cercles.", "Niger: adjudge and declare that in the Say sector the frontier runs from that tripoint in a straight line to where it cuts the River Sirba at the Say parallel, then via a point south-west of Dogona and a frontier marker to the point agreed between the Parties at 12 deg 36 min 18 sec N, 01 deg 52 min 07 sec E.", "Niger: in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Special Agreement, nominate three experts in the Judgment to assist the two countries as necessary in the demarcation of the common frontier."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Niger", "year_introduced": 2010}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Burkina Faso\", \"case_id\": \"149\", \"case_name\": \"Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Niger)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Both Parties, under Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Special Agreement: place on record the Parties' agreement on the results of the work of the Joint Technical Commission on Demarcation as regards the sector from the heights of N'Gouma to the Tong-Tong astronomic marker and the sector from the beginning of the Botou bend to the River Mekrou.\", \"Burkina Faso: adjudge and declare that from the heights of N'Gouma to the Tong-Tong astronomic marker the frontier follows a series of straight lines joining Mount N'Gouma, Kabia ford, Mount Arwaskoye, Mount Belle Banguia, Takabougou, Mount Douma Fende and the Tong-Tong marker, at the co-ordinates set out in its submissions.\", \"Burkina Faso: adjudge and declare that from the Tong-Tong astronomic marker to the beginning of the Botou bend the frontier runs in a straight line to the Tao astronomic marker, then to the River Sirba at Bossebangou, along the right bank of the Sirba, along the 1960 IGN map line, south to the Sirba at the Say parallel, and thence to Tyenkilibi.\", \"Burkina Faso: adjudge and declare that from the beginning of the Botou bend to the River Mekrou the frontier follows straight lines through Jackal Mountain, Laguil and Nonbokoli, then the Dantiabonga marigot, the Dyamongou and Tapoa rivers and the former boundary of the Fada and Say cercles as far as the Mekrou.\", \"Burkina Faso: pursuant to Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Special Agreement, nominate three experts in the Judgment to assist the Parties as necessary for the purposes of demarcation.\", \"Niger: adjudge and declare that in the Tera sector the frontier runs from the Tong-Tong astronomic marker in straight lines to the Vibourie marker and the Tao astronomic marker, then along the 1960 IGN line and the intermediate points set out in its submissions, as far as the tripoint of the former boundaries of the Say, Tillabery and Dori cercles.\", \"Niger: adjudge and declare that in the Say sector the frontier runs from that tripoint in a straight line to where it cuts the River Sirba at the Say parallel, then via a point south-west of Dogona and a frontier marker to the point agreed between the Parties at 12 deg 36 min 18 sec N, 01 deg 52 min 07 sec E.\", \"Niger: in accordance with Article 7, paragraph 4, of the Special Agreement, nominate three experts in the Judgment to assist the two countries as necessary in the demarcation of the common frontier.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Niger\", \"year_introduced\": 2010}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "150", "input": {"applicant": "Costa Rica", "case_id": "150", "case_name": "Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Costa Rica claims compensation for quantifiable environmental damage caused by Nicaragua's excavation of the 2010 caño and the 2013 eastern caño in the northern part of Isla Portillos, valued on the ecosystem services approach of the Fundación Neotrópica report; it makes no claim for the 2013 western caño.", "Costa Rica claims compensation for costs and expenses incurred in relation to Nicaragua's unlawful activities in the northern part of Isla Portillos between October 2010 and April 2011.", "Costa Rica claims compensation for costs and expenses incurred in monitoring the northern part of Isla Portillos following the withdrawal of Nicaragua's military personnel and in implementing the Court's Orders of 8 March 2011 and 22 November 2013 on provisional measures.", "Costa Rica claims compensation for costs and expenses incurred in preventing irreparable prejudice to the environment, namely the construction of a dyke across the 2013 eastern caño and the assessment of its effectiveness.", "Costa Rica requests the Court to order Nicaragua to pay it immediately US$6,711,685.26, the figure in its Reply (US$6,708,776.96 in its Memorial).", "Costa Rica requests pre-judgment interest in a total amount of US$501,997.28 until 3 April 2017, to be updated to reflect the date of the Court's judgment on the claim for compensation.", "Costa Rica requests that, if Nicaragua does not make immediate payment, the Court order Nicaragua to pay post-judgment interest at an annual rate of 6 per cent."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Nicaragua", "year_introduced": 2010}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Costa Rica\", \"case_id\": \"150\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Costa Rica claims compensation for quantifiable environmental damage caused by Nicaragua's excavation of the 2010 caño and the 2013 eastern caño in the northern part of Isla Portillos, valued on the ecosystem services approach of the Fundación Neotrópica report; it makes no claim for the 2013 western caño.\", \"Costa Rica claims compensation for costs and expenses incurred in relation to Nicaragua's unlawful activities in the northern part of Isla Portillos between October 2010 and April 2011.\", \"Costa Rica claims compensation for costs and expenses incurred in monitoring the northern part of Isla Portillos following the withdrawal of Nicaragua's military personnel and in implementing the Court's Orders of 8 March 2011 and 22 November 2013 on provisional measures.\", \"Costa Rica claims compensation for costs and expenses incurred in preventing irreparable prejudice to the environment, namely the construction of a dyke across the 2013 eastern caño and the assessment of its effectiveness.\", \"Costa Rica requests the Court to order Nicaragua to pay it immediately US$6,711,685.26, the figure in its Reply (US$6,708,776.96 in its Memorial).\", \"Costa Rica requests pre-judgment interest in a total amount of US$501,997.28 until 3 April 2017, to be updated to reflect the date of the Court's judgment on the claim for compensation.\", \"Costa Rica requests that, if Nicaragua does not make immediate payment, the Court order Nicaragua to pay post-judgment interest at an annual rate of 6 per cent.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Nicaragua\", \"year_introduced\": 2010}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "151", "input": {"applicant": "Cambodia", "case_id": "151", "case_name": "Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Cambodia asks the Court, under Article 60 of the Statute, to respond to its request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Temple of Preah Vihear case.", "Cambodia asks the Court to declare that the finding that the Temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia (first operative paragraph of the 1962 Judgment) is the legal consequence of the Temple lying on the Cambodian side of the frontier recognized by the Court, namely the line on the Annex I map.", "Cambodia asks the Court to declare that Thailand's obligation to withdraw forces stationed at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory (second operative paragraph of the 1962 Judgment) is a particular consequence of the general and continuing obligation to respect Cambodia's territorial integrity, that territory being delimited near the Temple by the Annex I map line.", "Thailand asks the Court to declare that Cambodia's request for interpretation does not satisfy the conditions of Article 60 of the Statute and that, consequently, the Court has no jurisdiction to respond to it and/or that the request is inadmissible.", "Thailand asks the Court to declare, in the alternative, that there are no grounds to grant Cambodia's request to construe the 1962 Judgment and no reason to interpret it.", "Thailand asks the Court to declare, in the further alternative, that the 1962 Judgment does not determine with binding force the boundary line between Thailand and Cambodia, nor fix the limit of the vicinity of the Temple."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Thailand", "year_introduced": 2011}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Cambodia\", \"case_id\": \"151\", \"case_name\": \"Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand) (Cambodia v. Thailand)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Cambodia asks the Court, under Article 60 of the Statute, to respond to its request for interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Temple of Preah Vihear case.\", \"Cambodia asks the Court to declare that the finding that the Temple is situated in territory under the sovereignty of Cambodia (first operative paragraph of the 1962 Judgment) is the legal consequence of the Temple lying on the Cambodian side of the frontier recognized by the Court, namely the line on the Annex I map.\", \"Cambodia asks the Court to declare that Thailand's obligation to withdraw forces stationed at the Temple or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory (second operative paragraph of the 1962 Judgment) is a particular consequence of the general and continuing obligation to respect Cambodia's territorial integrity, that territory being delimited near the Temple by the Annex I map line.\", \"Thailand asks the Court to declare that Cambodia's request for interpretation does not satisfy the conditions of Article 60 of the Statute and that, consequently, the Court has no jurisdiction to respond to it and/or that the request is inadmissible.\", \"Thailand asks the Court to declare, in the alternative, that there are no grounds to grant Cambodia's request to construe the 1962 Judgment and no reason to interpret it.\", \"Thailand asks the Court to declare, in the further alternative, that the 1962 Judgment does not determine with binding force the boundary line between Thailand and Cambodia, nor fix the limit of the vicinity of the Temple.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Thailand\", \"year_introduced\": 2011}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "152", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "152", "case_name": "Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, in a transboundary context, before and during the construction of Route 1856 along the San Juan River.", "Order Costa Rica to provide Nicaragua, immediately and unconditionally, with the Environmental Impact Assessment Study and all technical reports and assessments on the measures necessary to mitigate significant environmental harm to the San Juan River.", "Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached Article 14 of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity in relation to the road works.", "Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation to notify and consult Nicaragua about the construction of the road and its effects on the San Juan River.", "Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation not to cause significant transboundary harm to Nicaragua, by delivering sediment and debris from the road into the San Juan River and its wetlands.", "Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation to respect Nicaragua's territorial integrity and its sovereignty over the San Juan River, which belongs to Nicaragua under the 1858 Treaty of Limits.", "Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica must make reparation for the harm caused by the construction of the road."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Costa Rica", "year_introduced": 2011}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"152\", \"case_name\": \"Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation to carry out an environmental impact assessment, in a transboundary context, before and during the construction of Route 1856 along the San Juan River.\", \"Order Costa Rica to provide Nicaragua, immediately and unconditionally, with the Environmental Impact Assessment Study and all technical reports and assessments on the measures necessary to mitigate significant environmental harm to the San Juan River.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached Article 14 of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity in relation to the road works.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation to notify and consult Nicaragua about the construction of the road and its effects on the San Juan River.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation not to cause significant transboundary harm to Nicaragua, by delivering sediment and debris from the road into the San Juan River and its wetlands.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica breached its obligation to respect Nicaragua's territorial integrity and its sovereignty over the San Juan River, which belongs to Nicaragua under the 1858 Treaty of Limits.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Costa Rica must make reparation for the harm caused by the construction of the road.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Costa Rica\", \"year_introduced\": 2011}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "153", "input": {"applicant": "Bolivia", "case_id": "153", "case_name": "Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that Chile has the obligation to negotiate with Bolivia in order to reach an agreement granting Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.", "Declare that Chile has breached that obligation to negotiate.", "Declare that Chile must perform that obligation in good faith, promptly, formally, within a reasonable time and effectively, so as to grant Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Chile", "year_introduced": 2013}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Bolivia\", \"case_id\": \"153\", \"case_name\": \"Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that Chile has the obligation to negotiate with Bolivia in order to reach an agreement granting Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.\", \"Declare that Chile has breached that obligation to negotiate.\", \"Declare that Chile must perform that obligation in good faith, promptly, formally, within a reasonable time and effectively, so as to grant Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Chile\", \"year_introduced\": 2013}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "154", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "154", "case_name": "Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare the precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of them beyond the boundary determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012, following geodetic lines connecting the eight points listed in Nicaragua's Memorial and Reply, from 14 deg 43' 20.6\" N, 74 deg 34' 49.1\" W to 12 deg 15' 38.3\" N, 77 deg 47' 56.3\" W.", "Adjudge and declare that the islands of San Andres and Providencia are entitled to a continental shelf up to a line consisting of 200-nautical-mile arcs from the baselines from which the territorial sea of Nicaragua is measured, connecting the points A, C and B listed in Nicaragua's Memorial and Reply.", "Adjudge and declare that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are enclaved and granted a territorial sea of twelve nautical miles, and that Serrana is enclaved as decided in the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012.", "Answer the first question put by the Order of 4 October 2022 in the affirmative: under customary international law, a State's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured may extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State.", "Adjudge and declare that paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea reflect customary international law.", "Fix a timetable to hear and decide upon all of the outstanding requests in Nicaragua's pleadings."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Colombia", "year_introduced": 2013}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"154\", \"case_name\": \"Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 nautical miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare the precise course of the maritime boundary between Nicaragua and Colombia in the areas of continental shelf appertaining to each of them beyond the boundary determined by the Court in its Judgment of 19 November 2012, following geodetic lines connecting the eight points listed in Nicaragua's Memorial and Reply, from 14 deg 43' 20.6\\\" N, 74 deg 34' 49.1\\\" W to 12 deg 15' 38.3\\\" N, 77 deg 47' 56.3\\\" W.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the islands of San Andres and Providencia are entitled to a continental shelf up to a line consisting of 200-nautical-mile arcs from the baselines from which the territorial sea of Nicaragua is measured, connecting the points A, C and B listed in Nicaragua's Memorial and Reply.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Serranilla and Bajo Nuevo are enclaved and granted a territorial sea of twelve nautical miles, and that Serrana is enclaved as decided in the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012.\", \"Answer the first question put by the Order of 4 October 2022 in the affirmative: under customary international law, a State's entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured may extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State.\", \"Adjudge and declare that paragraphs 2 to 6 of Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea reflect customary international law.\", \"Fix a timetable to hear and decide upon all of the outstanding requests in Nicaragua's pleadings.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Colombia\", \"year_introduced\": 2013}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "155", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "155", "case_name": "Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, Colombia has breached its obligation not to violate Nicaragua's maritime zones as delimited in paragraph 251 of the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012, and Nicaragua's sovereign rights and jurisdiction in those zones.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia consequently has the obligation to wipe out the legal and material consequences of its internationally wrongful acts and to make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must cease all its continuing internationally wrongful acts that affect, or are likely to affect, the rights of Nicaragua.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must restore the situation to the status quo ante, in particular by revoking laws and regulations incompatible with the 2012 Judgment, including Decree 1946 of 9 September 2013 and Decree 1119 of 17 June 2014 as they apply to maritime areas recognized as appertaining to Nicaragua.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must revoke the permits it has granted to fishing vessels operating in Nicaraguan waters, and must ensure that the decision of Colombia's Constitutional Court of 2 May 2014, or of any other national authority, will not bar compliance with the 2012 Judgment.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must compensate all damage caused in so far as it is not made good by restitution, including loss of profits, with the amount of compensation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the case.", "Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must give appropriate guarantees of non-repetition of its internationally wrongful acts.", "Counter-claim: Colombia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has failed to respect the traditional and historic artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants of the San Andres Archipelago, including the indigenous Raizal people, in the waters to which those rights pertain.", "Counter-claim: Colombia asks the Court to order Nicaragua to ensure that the inhabitants of the San Andres Archipelago enjoy unfettered access to the waters covered by their traditional and historic fishing rights, to desist promptly from its violations, to compensate Colombia for all damage caused including loss of profits with the amount to be determined at a later phase, and to give appropriate guarantees of non-repetition.", "Counter-claim: Colombia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua's Decree No. 33-2013 of 19 August 2013 establishing straight baselines violates international law and Colombia's maritime rights and spaces, and to order Nicaragua to adjust that Decree so that it complies with the rules of international law on the drawing of baselines."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Colombia", "year_introduced": 2013}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"155\", \"case_name\": \"Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea (Nicaragua v. Colombia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that, by its conduct, Colombia has breached its obligation not to violate Nicaragua's maritime zones as delimited in paragraph 251 of the Court's Judgment of 19 November 2012, and Nicaragua's sovereign rights and jurisdiction in those zones.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia consequently has the obligation to wipe out the legal and material consequences of its internationally wrongful acts and to make full reparation for the harm caused by those acts.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must cease all its continuing internationally wrongful acts that affect, or are likely to affect, the rights of Nicaragua.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must restore the situation to the status quo ante, in particular by revoking laws and regulations incompatible with the 2012 Judgment, including Decree 1946 of 9 September 2013 and Decree 1119 of 17 June 2014 as they apply to maritime areas recognized as appertaining to Nicaragua.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must revoke the permits it has granted to fishing vessels operating in Nicaraguan waters, and must ensure that the decision of Colombia's Constitutional Court of 2 May 2014, or of any other national authority, will not bar compliance with the 2012 Judgment.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must compensate all damage caused in so far as it is not made good by restitution, including loss of profits, with the amount of compensation to be determined in a subsequent phase of the case.\", \"Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Colombia must give appropriate guarantees of non-repetition of its internationally wrongful acts.\", \"Counter-claim: Colombia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua has failed to respect the traditional and historic artisanal fishing rights of the inhabitants of the San Andres Archipelago, including the indigenous Raizal people, in the waters to which those rights pertain.\", \"Counter-claim: Colombia asks the Court to order Nicaragua to ensure that the inhabitants of the San Andres Archipelago enjoy unfettered access to the waters covered by their traditional and historic fishing rights, to desist promptly from its violations, to compensate Colombia for all damage caused including loss of profits with the amount to be determined at a later phase, and to give appropriate guarantees of non-repetition.\", \"Counter-claim: Colombia asks the Court to adjudge and declare that Nicaragua's Decree No. 33-2013 of 19 August 2013 establishing straight baselines violates international law and Colombia's maritime rights and spaces, and to order Nicaragua to adjust that Decree so that it complies with the rules of international law on the drawing of baselines.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Colombia\", \"year_introduced\": 2013}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "156", "input": {"applicant": "Timor-Leste", "case_id": "156", "case_name": "Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Timor-Leste: place on record its discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by the Application filed on 17 December 2013 and remove the case from the Court's List, Timor-Leste having notified the Court by letter of 2 June 2015 that it wished to discontinue following Australia's return of the seized documents and data on 12 May 2015."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Australia", "year_introduced": 2013}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Timor-Leste\", \"case_id\": \"156\", \"case_name\": \"Questions relating to the Seizure and Detention of Certain Documents and Data (Timor-Leste v. Australia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Timor-Leste: place on record its discontinuance of the proceedings instituted by the Application filed on 17 December 2013 and remove the case from the Court's List, Timor-Leste having notified the Court by letter of 2 June 2015 that it wished to discontinue following Australia's return of the seized documents and data on 12 May 2015.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Australia\", \"year_introduced\": 2013}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "157", "input": {"applicant": "Costa Rica", "case_id": "157", "case_name": "Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Costa Rica asks the Court to determine the complete course of a single maritime boundary between all the maritime areas appertaining to Costa Rica and to Nicaragua in the Pacific Ocean, on the basis of international law.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to determine the complete course of a single maritime boundary between all the maritime areas appertaining to Costa Rica and to Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea, on the basis of international law.", "Costa Rica asks the Court to fix the precise geographical co-ordinates of the Pacific boundary, running by geodetic lines from the starting point SP-P (11 04 00.0 N, 85 44 28.0 W) through 23 listed points to the intersection with the 200-nautical-mile limit (09 43 05.7 N, 89 11 23.5 W).", "Costa Rica asks the Court to fix the precise geographical co-ordinates of the Caribbean boundary, running by geodetic lines from the starting point SP-C (10 56 26.0 N, 83 41 53.0 W) through 14 listed points to the intersection with Costa Rica's 200-nautical-mile limit (12 19 15.9 N, 80 33 59.2 W).", "Costa Rica asks the Court to determine the precise location of the land boundary separating the Los Portillos / Harbor Head Lagoon sandbar from Isla Portillos (case concerning the Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos, joined to this case by the Order of 2 February 2017).", "Costa Rica asks the Court to rule on Nicaragua's establishment of a military camp on the beach of Isla Portillos (same joined case)."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Nicaragua", "year_introduced": 2014}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Costa Rica\", \"case_id\": \"157\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Costa Rica asks the Court to determine the complete course of a single maritime boundary between all the maritime areas appertaining to Costa Rica and to Nicaragua in the Pacific Ocean, on the basis of international law.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to determine the complete course of a single maritime boundary between all the maritime areas appertaining to Costa Rica and to Nicaragua in the Caribbean Sea, on the basis of international law.\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to fix the precise geographical co-ordinates of the Pacific boundary, running by geodetic lines from the starting point SP-P (11 04 00.0 N, 85 44 28.0 W) through 23 listed points to the intersection with the 200-nautical-mile limit (09 43 05.7 N, 89 11 23.5 W).\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to fix the precise geographical co-ordinates of the Caribbean boundary, running by geodetic lines from the starting point SP-C (10 56 26.0 N, 83 41 53.0 W) through 14 listed points to the intersection with Costa Rica's 200-nautical-mile limit (12 19 15.9 N, 80 33 59.2 W).\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to determine the precise location of the land boundary separating the Los Portillos / Harbor Head Lagoon sandbar from Isla Portillos (case concerning the Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos, joined to this case by the Order of 2 February 2017).\", \"Costa Rica asks the Court to rule on Nicaragua's establishment of a military camp on the beach of Isla Portillos (same joined case).\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Nicaragua\", \"year_introduced\": 2014}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "158", "input": {"applicant": "Marshall Islands", "case_id": "158", "case_name": "Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["The Marshall Islands asks the Court to reject the objections to its jurisdiction over the Marshall Islands' claims submitted by India in its Counter-Memorial of 16 September 2015.", "The Marshall Islands asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction over the claims submitted in the Application of 24 April 2014.", "Objection: India asks the Court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction because the Applicant has not shown that, at the date the Application was filed, a legal dispute existed between the Parties as to an alleged failure to pursue negotiations in good faith on cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament.", "Objection: India asks the Court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction because of the absence from the proceedings of indispensable parties, in particular the other States possessing nuclear weapons.", "Objection: India asks the Court to declare that its jurisdiction is precluded by reservations in India's declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, including the reservation on disputes relating to or connected with hostilities or the use of force and the reservation on disputes concerning matters within domestic jurisdiction.", "Objection: India asks the Court, should it find that it has jurisdiction, to decline to exercise it, and to hold the claims inadmissible, on the ground that a judgment on the merits would serve no legitimate purpose and have no practical consequence."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "India", "year_introduced": 2014}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Marshall Islands\", \"case_id\": \"158\", \"case_name\": \"Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. India)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"The Marshall Islands asks the Court to reject the objections to its jurisdiction over the Marshall Islands' claims submitted by India in its Counter-Memorial of 16 September 2015.\", \"The Marshall Islands asks the Court to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction over the claims submitted in the Application of 24 April 2014.\", \"Objection: India asks the Court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction because the Applicant has not shown that, at the date the Application was filed, a legal dispute existed between the Parties as to an alleged failure to pursue negotiations in good faith on cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and on nuclear disarmament.\", \"Objection: India asks the Court to declare that it lacks jurisdiction because of the absence from the proceedings of indispensable parties, in particular the other States possessing nuclear weapons.\", \"Objection: India asks the Court to declare that its jurisdiction is precluded by reservations in India's declaration under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, including the reservation on disputes relating to or connected with hostilities or the use of force and the reservation on disputes concerning matters within domestic jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: India asks the Court, should it find that it has jurisdiction, to decline to exercise it, and to hold the claims inadmissible, on the ground that a judgment on the merits would serve no legitimate purpose and have no practical consequence.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"India\", \"year_introduced\": 2014}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "159", "input": {"applicant": "Marshall Islands", "case_id": "159", "case_name": "Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Reject the objections to the Court's jurisdiction and to the admissibility of the Marshall Islands' claims submitted by Pakistan in its Counter-Memorial of 1 December 2015.", "Adjudge and declare that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims submitted by the Marshall Islands in its Application of 24 April 2014, on the basis of the declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute by Pakistan on 12 September 1960 and by the Marshall Islands on 15 March 2013.", "Adjudge and declare that the Marshall Islands' claims are admissible."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Pakistan", "year_introduced": 2014}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Marshall Islands\", \"case_id\": \"159\", \"case_name\": \"Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. Pakistan)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Reject the objections to the Court's jurisdiction and to the admissibility of the Marshall Islands' claims submitted by Pakistan in its Counter-Memorial of 1 December 2015.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims submitted by the Marshall Islands in its Application of 24 April 2014, on the basis of the declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute by Pakistan on 12 September 1960 and by the Marshall Islands on 15 March 2013.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the Marshall Islands' claims are admissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Pakistan\", \"year_introduced\": 2014}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "160", "input": {"applicant": "Marshall Islands", "case_id": "160", "case_name": "Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, and/or the claim is inadmissible, because on 24 April 2014, the date the Application was filed, there was no justiciable dispute between the Parties concerning an alleged failure to pursue negotiations in good faith towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, no prior notice of claim having been given.", "Objection: the Court's jurisdiction is precluded by a reservation contained in the Parties' declarations recognizing compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute (second preliminary objection).", "Objection: the Court's jurisdiction is precluded by a further reservation contained in the Parties' declarations recognizing compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute (third preliminary objection).", "Objection: the Court cannot proceed because of the absence from the proceedings of third parties, in particular the other States possessing nuclear weapons, whose essential interests are said to be engaged.", "Objection: the Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction because a judgment on the merits would have no practical consequence."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 2014}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Marshall Islands\", \"case_id\": \"160\", \"case_name\": \"Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, and/or the claim is inadmissible, because on 24 April 2014, the date the Application was filed, there was no justiciable dispute between the Parties concerning an alleged failure to pursue negotiations in good faith towards cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament, no prior notice of claim having been given.\", \"Objection: the Court's jurisdiction is precluded by a reservation contained in the Parties' declarations recognizing compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute (second preliminary objection).\", \"Objection: the Court's jurisdiction is precluded by a further reservation contained in the Parties' declarations recognizing compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute (third preliminary objection).\", \"Objection: the Court cannot proceed because of the absence from the proceedings of third parties, in particular the other States possessing nuclear weapons, whose essential interests are said to be engaged.\", \"Objection: the Court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction because a judgment on the merits would have no practical consequence.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 2014}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "161", "input": {"applicant": "Somalia", "case_id": "161", "case_name": "Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Somalia asks the Court to determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.", "Somalia asks the Court to determine the precise geographical co-ordinates of that single maritime boundary.", "Somalia asks the Court to adjudge that Kenya, by unilateral activities in the disputed maritime area since 2014, including the award of and operations in petroleum exploration blocks on the Somali side of a provisional equidistance line, has violated its international obligations.", "Kenya's submission: dismiss the requests in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the submissions at pages 147 and 148 of Somalia's Memorial of 13 July 2015.", "Kenya's submission: adjudge and declare that the maritime boundary between Somalia and Kenya in the Indian Ocean shall follow the parallel of latitude at 1 deg 39' 43.2\" S, extending from Primary Beacon 29 to the outer limit of the continental shelf."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Kenya", "year_introduced": 2014}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Somalia\", \"case_id\": \"161\", \"case_name\": \"Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Somalia asks the Court to determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.\", \"Somalia asks the Court to determine the precise geographical co-ordinates of that single maritime boundary.\", \"Somalia asks the Court to adjudge that Kenya, by unilateral activities in the disputed maritime area since 2014, including the award of and operations in petroleum exploration blocks on the Somali side of a provisional equidistance line, has violated its international obligations.\", \"Kenya's submission: dismiss the requests in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the submissions at pages 147 and 148 of Somalia's Memorial of 13 July 2015.\", \"Kenya's submission: adjudge and declare that the maritime boundary between Somalia and Kenya in the Indian Ocean shall follow the parallel of latitude at 1 deg 39' 43.2\\\" S, extending from Primary Beacon 29 to the outer limit of the continental shelf.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Kenya\", \"year_introduced\": 2014}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "162", "input": {"applicant": "Chile", "case_id": "162", "case_name": "Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Chile asks the Court to declare that the Silala River system, together with the subterranean portions of its system, is an international watercourse the use of which is governed by customary international law.", "Chile asks the Court to declare that it is entitled to the equitable and reasonable utilization of the waters of the Silala River system in accordance with customary international law.", "Chile asks the Court to declare that, under the standard of equitable and reasonable utilization, it is entitled to its current use of the waters of the Silala River.", "Chile asks the Court to declare that Bolivia has an obligation to take all appropriate measures to prevent and control pollution and other forms of harm to Chile resulting from its activities in the vicinity of the Silala River.", "Chile asks the Court to declare that Bolivia has an obligation to co-operate, to give Chile timely notification of planned measures which may have an adverse effect on shared water resources, to exchange data and information, and to conduct an environmental impact assessment where appropriate.", "Chile asks the Court to declare that Bolivia has breached those obligations so far as concerns its duty to notify and consult Chile with respect to activities that may affect the waters of the Silala River or Chile's utilization of them.", "Counter-claim: Bolivia asks the Court to declare that it has sovereignty over the artificial canals and drainage mechanisms in the Silala located in its territory and the right to decide whether and how to maintain them.", "Counter-claim: Bolivia asks the Court to declare that it has sovereignty over the artificial flow of Silala waters engineered, enhanced or produced in its territory, and that Chile has no acquired right to that artificial flow.", "Counter-claim: Bolivia asks the Court to declare that any request by Chile for delivery of the enhanced flow of the Silala, and the conditions and modalities of such delivery, including the compensation to be paid for it, is subject to the conclusion of an agreement with Bolivia."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Bolivia", "year_introduced": 2016}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Chile\", \"case_id\": \"162\", \"case_name\": \"Dispute over the Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Chile asks the Court to declare that the Silala River system, together with the subterranean portions of its system, is an international watercourse the use of which is governed by customary international law.\", \"Chile asks the Court to declare that it is entitled to the equitable and reasonable utilization of the waters of the Silala River system in accordance with customary international law.\", \"Chile asks the Court to declare that, under the standard of equitable and reasonable utilization, it is entitled to its current use of the waters of the Silala River.\", \"Chile asks the Court to declare that Bolivia has an obligation to take all appropriate measures to prevent and control pollution and other forms of harm to Chile resulting from its activities in the vicinity of the Silala River.\", \"Chile asks the Court to declare that Bolivia has an obligation to co-operate, to give Chile timely notification of planned measures which may have an adverse effect on shared water resources, to exchange data and information, and to conduct an environmental impact assessment where appropriate.\", \"Chile asks the Court to declare that Bolivia has breached those obligations so far as concerns its duty to notify and consult Chile with respect to activities that may affect the waters of the Silala River or Chile's utilization of them.\", \"Counter-claim: Bolivia asks the Court to declare that it has sovereignty over the artificial canals and drainage mechanisms in the Silala located in its territory and the right to decide whether and how to maintain them.\", \"Counter-claim: Bolivia asks the Court to declare that it has sovereignty over the artificial flow of Silala waters engineered, enhanced or produced in its territory, and that Chile has no acquired right to that artificial flow.\", \"Counter-claim: Bolivia asks the Court to declare that any request by Chile for delivery of the enhanced flow of the Silala, and the conditions and modalities of such delivery, including the compensation to be paid for it, is subject to the conclusion of an agreement with Bolivia.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Bolivia\", \"year_introduced\": 2016}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "163", "input": {"applicant": "Equatorial Guinea", "case_id": "163", "case_name": "Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["To adjudge and declare that France, by entering the building located at 42 avenue Foch in Paris, which is used for the purposes of the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea in Paris, and by searching, attaching and confiscating that building, its furnishings and other property therein, has acted in violation of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.", "To adjudge and declare that France must recognize the status of the building located at 42 avenue Foch in Paris as the premises of the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea and, accordingly, ensure its protection as required by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.", "To adjudge and declare that the responsibility of France is engaged on account of the violations of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.", "To adjudge and declare that France has an obligation to make reparation for the harm suffered by Equatorial Guinea, the amount of which will be determined at a later stage."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 2016}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Equatorial Guinea\", \"case_id\": \"163\", \"case_name\": \"Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"To adjudge and declare that France, by entering the building located at 42 avenue Foch in Paris, which is used for the purposes of the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea in Paris, and by searching, attaching and confiscating that building, its furnishings and other property therein, has acted in violation of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.\", \"To adjudge and declare that France must recognize the status of the building located at 42 avenue Foch in Paris as the premises of the diplomatic mission of Equatorial Guinea and, accordingly, ensure its protection as required by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.\", \"To adjudge and declare that the responsibility of France is engaged on account of the violations of its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.\", \"To adjudge and declare that France has an obligation to make reparation for the harm suffered by Equatorial Guinea, the amount of which will be determined at a later stage.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 2016}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "164", "input": {"applicant": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "case_id": "164", "case_name": "Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that, by its failure to recognise the separate juridical status, including the separate legal personality, of all Iranian companies including Bank Markazi, the United States has breached its obligations to Iran under, inter alia, Article III (1) of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights.", "Adjudge and declare that, by its unfair and inequitable treatment and its unreasonable and discriminatory treatment of Iranian companies and their property, which impairs their legally acquired rights and interests, the United States has breached its obligations under, inter alia, Articles III (2), IV (1), IV (2) and V (1) of the Treaty of Amity.", "Adjudge and declare that, by failing to assure that the lawful contractual rights of Iranian companies are afforded effective means of enforcement and by failing to accord them freedom of access to the United States courts, the United States has breached, inter alia, Articles III (2), IV (1), IV (2) and V (1) of the Treaty of Amity.", "Adjudge and declare that, by failing to accord Iranian companies and their property the most constant protection and security required by international law, by expropriating their property and by failing to respect their right to acquire and dispose of property, the United States has breached, inter alia, Articles III (2), IV (1), IV (2) and V (1) of the Treaty.", "Adjudge and declare that, by applying restrictions to Iranian companies on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the United States and by interfering with the freedom of commerce, the United States has breached its obligations under, inter alia, Articles VII (1) and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity.", "Adjudge and declare that the aforementioned violations of international law entail the international responsibility of the United States.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States is obliged to put an end to the situation brought about by those violations by ceasing the acts complained of.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States must make full reparation for the injury caused by those acts, in an amount to be determined in a later phase of the proceedings.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States must offer a formal apology to the Islamic Republic of Iran for those wrongful acts and injuries.", "Adjudge and declare that the United States shall, by enacting appropriate legislation or by other methods of its choosing, ensure that the measures adopted by its Legislature and Executive and the decisions of its courts and other authorities infringing the rights of Iran and of Iranian companies cease to have effect.", "Adjudge and declare that no steps are to be taken against the assets or interests of Iran or of any Iranian entity or national that involve or imply the recognition or enforcement of the United States acts complained of.", "Order that Iran present to the Court, by a date to be fixed by the Court, a precise evaluation of the reparations due for the injuries caused by the acts of the United States alleged to breach the Treaty of Amity.", "Order that the United States pay the costs incurred by Iran in the presentation of this case and the defence of its rights under the Treaty of Amity, the details to be presented by Iran by a date to be fixed by the Court.", "Respondent's request: dismiss all claims brought under the Treaty of Amity on the basis that Iran comes to the Court with unclean hands.", "Respondent's request: dismiss as outside the Court's jurisdiction all claims brought under Articles III, IV and V of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on the treatment accorded to Bank Markazi.", "Respondent's request: dismiss as outside the Court's jurisdiction all claims brought under Articles III, IV and V of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on the treatment accorded to companies that have failed to exhaust local remedies.", "Respondent's request: dismiss, on the basis of Article XX (1) (c) and (d) of the Treaty of Amity, all claims that United States measures blocking or freezing the assets of the Iranian Government or of Iranian financial institutions, as defined in Executive Order 13599, violate any provision of the Treaty.", "Respondent's request: dismiss all claims brought under Articles III, IV, V, VII and X of the Treaty of Amity on the basis that the United States did not breach its obligations to Iran under any of those Articles.", "Respondent's request: to the extent the Court concludes that Iran has established one or more of its claims under the Treaty of Amity, reject those claims on the basis that Iran's invocation of its purported rights under the Treaty constitutes an abuse of right."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 2016}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"case_id\": \"164\", \"case_name\": \"Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that, by its failure to recognise the separate juridical status, including the separate legal personality, of all Iranian companies including Bank Markazi, the United States has breached its obligations to Iran under, inter alia, Article III (1) of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, by its unfair and inequitable treatment and its unreasonable and discriminatory treatment of Iranian companies and their property, which impairs their legally acquired rights and interests, the United States has breached its obligations under, inter alia, Articles III (2), IV (1), IV (2) and V (1) of the Treaty of Amity.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, by failing to assure that the lawful contractual rights of Iranian companies are afforded effective means of enforcement and by failing to accord them freedom of access to the United States courts, the United States has breached, inter alia, Articles III (2), IV (1), IV (2) and V (1) of the Treaty of Amity.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, by failing to accord Iranian companies and their property the most constant protection and security required by international law, by expropriating their property and by failing to respect their right to acquire and dispose of property, the United States has breached, inter alia, Articles III (2), IV (1), IV (2) and V (1) of the Treaty.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, by applying restrictions to Iranian companies on the making of payments and other transfers of funds to or from the United States and by interfering with the freedom of commerce, the United States has breached its obligations under, inter alia, Articles VII (1) and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the aforementioned violations of international law entail the international responsibility of the United States.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States is obliged to put an end to the situation brought about by those violations by ceasing the acts complained of.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States must make full reparation for the injury caused by those acts, in an amount to be determined in a later phase of the proceedings.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States must offer a formal apology to the Islamic Republic of Iran for those wrongful acts and injuries.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the United States shall, by enacting appropriate legislation or by other methods of its choosing, ensure that the measures adopted by its Legislature and Executive and the decisions of its courts and other authorities infringing the rights of Iran and of Iranian companies cease to have effect.\", \"Adjudge and declare that no steps are to be taken against the assets or interests of Iran or of any Iranian entity or national that involve or imply the recognition or enforcement of the United States acts complained of.\", \"Order that Iran present to the Court, by a date to be fixed by the Court, a precise evaluation of the reparations due for the injuries caused by the acts of the United States alleged to breach the Treaty of Amity.\", \"Order that the United States pay the costs incurred by Iran in the presentation of this case and the defence of its rights under the Treaty of Amity, the details to be presented by Iran by a date to be fixed by the Court.\", \"Respondent's request: dismiss all claims brought under the Treaty of Amity on the basis that Iran comes to the Court with unclean hands.\", \"Respondent's request: dismiss as outside the Court's jurisdiction all claims brought under Articles III, IV and V of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on the treatment accorded to Bank Markazi.\", \"Respondent's request: dismiss as outside the Court's jurisdiction all claims brought under Articles III, IV and V of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on the treatment accorded to companies that have failed to exhaust local remedies.\", \"Respondent's request: dismiss, on the basis of Article XX (1) (c) and (d) of the Treaty of Amity, all claims that United States measures blocking or freezing the assets of the Iranian Government or of Iranian financial institutions, as defined in Executive Order 13599, violate any provision of the Treaty.\", \"Respondent's request: dismiss all claims brought under Articles III, IV, V, VII and X of the Treaty of Amity on the basis that the United States did not breach its obligations to Iran under any of those Articles.\", \"Respondent's request: to the extent the Court concludes that Iran has established one or more of its claims under the Treaty of Amity, reject those claims on the basis that Iran's invocation of its purported rights under the Treaty constitutes an abuse of right.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 2016}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_11\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_12\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_13\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_14\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_15\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_16\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_17\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_18\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_19\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "165", "input": {"applicant": "Costa Rica", "case_id": "165", "case_name": "Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Determine the precise location of the land boundary separating both ends of the Los Portillos/Harbor Head Lagoon sandbar from Isla Portillos.", "Determine that the only Nicaraguan territory in the area of Isla Portillos today is the enclave of Los Portillos/Harbor Head Lagoon and the sandbar separating it from the Caribbean Sea, insofar as that sandbar stays above water at all times, the boundary therefore running from each of the Lagoon's northern corners by the shortest line to the sea.", "Adjudge and declare that, by establishing and maintaining a new military camp on the beach of Isla Portillos, Nicaragua has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Costa Rica.", "Adjudge and declare that, by establishing and maintaining that military camp, Nicaragua is in breach of the Court's Judgment of 16 December 2015 in the Certain Activities case.", "Declare that Nicaragua must withdraw its military camp situated in Costa Rican territory and fully comply with the Court's Judgment of 16 December 2015.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the stretch of coast abutting the Caribbean Sea which lies between Harbor Head Lagoon and the mouth of the San Juan River constitutes Nicaraguan territory.", "Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the military camp it set up is located on Nicaraguan territory."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Nicaragua", "year_introduced": 2017}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Costa Rica\", \"case_id\": \"165\", \"case_name\": \"Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Determine the precise location of the land boundary separating both ends of the Los Portillos/Harbor Head Lagoon sandbar from Isla Portillos.\", \"Determine that the only Nicaraguan territory in the area of Isla Portillos today is the enclave of Los Portillos/Harbor Head Lagoon and the sandbar separating it from the Caribbean Sea, insofar as that sandbar stays above water at all times, the boundary therefore running from each of the Lagoon's northern corners by the shortest line to the sea.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, by establishing and maintaining a new military camp on the beach of Isla Portillos, Nicaragua has violated the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Costa Rica.\", \"Adjudge and declare that, by establishing and maintaining that military camp, Nicaragua is in breach of the Court's Judgment of 16 December 2015 in the Certain Activities case.\", \"Declare that Nicaragua must withdraw its military camp situated in Costa Rican territory and fully comply with the Court's Judgment of 16 December 2015.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the stretch of coast abutting the Caribbean Sea which lies between Harbor Head Lagoon and the mouth of the San Juan River constitutes Nicaraguan territory.\", \"Counter-claim: Nicaragua asks the Court to adjudge and declare that the military camp it set up is located on Nicaraguan territory.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Nicaragua\", \"year_introduced\": 2017}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "166", "input": {"applicant": "Ukraine", "case_id": "166", "case_name": "Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Declare that the Russian Federation violated Article 18 of the Terrorism Financing Convention (ICSFT) by supplying funds, including in-kind contributions of weapons and training, to illegal armed groups that engage in acts of terrorism in Ukraine, including the DPR, the LPR and the Kharkiv Partisans, and by failing to take all practicable measures to prevent and counter the financing of terrorism by Russian public and private actors.", "Declare that the Russian Federation violated Articles 8 and 18 of the ICSFT by failing to take appropriate measures to detect, freeze and seize funds used to assist those illegal armed groups.", "Declare that the Russian Federation violated Articles 9, 10, 11 and 18 of the ICSFT by failing to investigate, prosecute or extradite perpetrators of the financing of terrorism found within its territory.", "Declare that the Russian Federation violated Articles 12 and 18 of the ICSFT by failing to provide Ukraine with the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations into the financing of terrorism.", "Declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, the shelling of civilians in Volnovakha, Mariupol and Kramatorsk, and the bombing of civilians in Kharkiv.", "Order the Russian Federation to comply with the ICSFT, including by ceasing all support to those armed groups, withdrawing weaponry, controlling its border, freezing accounts used to support them, prosecuting officials who finance terrorism, co-operating with Ukraine's requests for assistance, and making full reparation for the acts of terrorism concerned.", "Declare that the Russian Federation violated CERD by systematically discriminating against and mistreating the Crimean Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian communities in Crimea in furtherance of a policy of cultural erasure, including by holding an illegal referendum, perpetrating and tolerating disappearances and murders of Crimean Tatars, imposing an arbitrary regime of searches and detention, and silencing Crimean Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian media.", "Declare that the Russian Federation violated CERD by suppressing the political and cultural expression of Crimean Tatar identity, including through the persecution of Crimean Tatar leaders, the ban on the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, and the prevention of gatherings commemorating important cultural events of Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians.", "Declare that the Russian Federation violated CERD by suppressing Crimean Tatar language education and the community's educational institutions, and by suppressing Ukrainian language education relied on by ethnic Ukrainians.", "Order the Russian Federation to comply with CERD, including by ceasing the policy of cultural erasure, restoring the rights of the Mejlis and of Crimean Tatar leaders, restoring cultural gatherings, media licences and education in the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages, investigating the disappearances, and making full reparation to all victims."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Russian Federation", "year_introduced": 2017}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Ukraine\", \"case_id\": \"166\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Declare that the Russian Federation violated Article 18 of the Terrorism Financing Convention (ICSFT) by supplying funds, including in-kind contributions of weapons and training, to illegal armed groups that engage in acts of terrorism in Ukraine, including the DPR, the LPR and the Kharkiv Partisans, and by failing to take all practicable measures to prevent and counter the financing of terrorism by Russian public and private actors.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation violated Articles 8 and 18 of the ICSFT by failing to take appropriate measures to detect, freeze and seize funds used to assist those illegal armed groups.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation violated Articles 9, 10, 11 and 18 of the ICSFT by failing to investigate, prosecute or extradite perpetrators of the financing of terrorism found within its territory.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation violated Articles 12 and 18 of the ICSFT by failing to provide Ukraine with the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations into the financing of terrorism.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation bears international responsibility for the acts of terrorism committed by its proxies in Ukraine, including the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, the shelling of civilians in Volnovakha, Mariupol and Kramatorsk, and the bombing of civilians in Kharkiv.\", \"Order the Russian Federation to comply with the ICSFT, including by ceasing all support to those armed groups, withdrawing weaponry, controlling its border, freezing accounts used to support them, prosecuting officials who finance terrorism, co-operating with Ukraine's requests for assistance, and making full reparation for the acts of terrorism concerned.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation violated CERD by systematically discriminating against and mistreating the Crimean Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian communities in Crimea in furtherance of a policy of cultural erasure, including by holding an illegal referendum, perpetrating and tolerating disappearances and murders of Crimean Tatars, imposing an arbitrary regime of searches and detention, and silencing Crimean Tatar and ethnic Ukrainian media.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation violated CERD by suppressing the political and cultural expression of Crimean Tatar identity, including through the persecution of Crimean Tatar leaders, the ban on the Mejlis of the Crimean Tatar People, and the prevention of gatherings commemorating important cultural events of Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians.\", \"Declare that the Russian Federation violated CERD by suppressing Crimean Tatar language education and the community's educational institutions, and by suppressing Ukrainian language education relied on by ethnic Ukrainians.\", \"Order the Russian Federation to comply with CERD, including by ceasing the policy of cultural erasure, restoring the rights of the Mejlis and of Crimean Tatar leaders, restoring cultural gatherings, media licences and education in the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages, investigating the disappearances, and making full reparation to all victims.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Russian Federation\", \"year_introduced\": 2017}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "167", "input": {"applicant": "Malaysia", "case_id": "167", "case_name": "Application for revision of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)  (Malaysia v. Singapore)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by Malaysia, notified by letter of its Co-Agent dated 28 May 2018 and agreed to by Singapore by letter of 29 May 2018, that the Court discontinue the proceedings instituted by Malaysia's Application of 2 February 2017 for revision, under Article 61 of the Statute, of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 on sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, and remove the case from the List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Singapore", "year_introduced": 2017}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Malaysia\", \"case_id\": \"167\", \"case_name\": \"Application for revision of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore)  (Malaysia v. Singapore)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by Malaysia, notified by letter of its Co-Agent dated 28 May 2018 and agreed to by Singapore by letter of 29 May 2018, that the Court discontinue the proceedings instituted by Malaysia's Application of 2 February 2017 for revision, under Article 61 of the Statute, of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 on sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge, and remove the case from the List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Singapore\", \"year_introduced\": 2017}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "168", "input": {"applicant": "India", "case_id": "168", "case_name": "Jadhav (India v. Pakistan)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform India, without delay, of the arrest and detention of Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.", "Adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by failing to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under that Article.", "Adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by declining consular access to Mr. Jadhav, contrary to the right of India's consular officers to visit him in custody, detention or prison, to converse and correspond with him, and to arrange for his legal representation.", "Declare that the sentence of the military court, reached in defiance of the Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), and of the rights mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is violative of international law and of the provisions of the Vienna Convention.", "Declare that India is entitled to restitutio in integrum.", "Restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or the conviction in any manner.", "Direct Pakistan to release the Indian national, Mr. Jadhav, forthwith and to facilitate his safe passage to India.", "In the alternative, if the Court were to find that Mr. Jadhav is not to be released, restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military court and direct it to take such steps to annul the decision of the military court as may be available to it under the laws in force in Pakistan.", "In the alternative, direct a trial under the ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding the confession recorded without affording consular access, in strict conformity with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with full consular access and with a right to India to arrange for his legal representation."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Pakistan", "year_introduced": 2017}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"India\", \"case_id\": \"168\", \"case_name\": \"Jadhav (India v. Pakistan)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by failing to inform India, without delay, of the arrest and detention of Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by failing to inform Mr. Jadhav of his rights under that Article.\", \"Adjudge and declare that Pakistan acted in breach of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention by declining consular access to Mr. Jadhav, contrary to the right of India's consular officers to visit him in custody, detention or prison, to converse and correspond with him, and to arrange for his legal representation.\", \"Declare that the sentence of the military court, reached in defiance of the Vienna Convention rights under Article 36, particularly Article 36, paragraph 1 (b), and of the rights mandated under Article 14 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, is violative of international law and of the provisions of the Vienna Convention.\", \"Declare that India is entitled to restitutio in integrum.\", \"Restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence or the conviction in any manner.\", \"Direct Pakistan to release the Indian national, Mr. Jadhav, forthwith and to facilitate his safe passage to India.\", \"In the alternative, if the Court were to find that Mr. Jadhav is not to be released, restrain Pakistan from giving effect to the sentence awarded by the military court and direct it to take such steps to annul the decision of the military court as may be available to it under the laws in force in Pakistan.\", \"In the alternative, direct a trial under the ordinary law before civilian courts, after excluding the confession recorded without affording consular access, in strict conformity with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with full consular access and with a right to India to arrange for his legal representation.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Pakistan\", \"year_introduced\": 2017}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "169", "input": {"case_id": "169", "case_name": "Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and having regard to international law, including obligations reflected in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967?", "What are the consequences under international law, including obligations reflected in the above-mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued administration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Chagos Archipelago, including with respect to the inability of Mauritius to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 2017}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"169\", \"case_name\": \"Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Was the process of decolonization of Mauritius lawfully completed when Mauritius was granted independence in 1968, following the separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius and having regard to international law, including obligations reflected in General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 2232 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967?\", \"What are the consequences under international law, including obligations reflected in the above-mentioned resolutions, arising from the continued administration by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland of the Chagos Archipelago, including with respect to the inability of Mauritius to implement a programme for the resettlement on the Chagos Archipelago of its nationals, in particular those of Chagossian origin?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 2017}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "170", "input": {"applicant": "Malaysia", "case_id": "170", "case_name": "Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Malaysia v. Singapore)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by the Parties, notified by Malaysia's Co-Agent on 28 May 2018 and confirmed by Singapore's Agent on 29 May 2018, that the proceedings instituted by Malaysia on 30 June 2017 for interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh case be discontinued by agreement and the case removed from the General List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Singapore", "year_introduced": 2017}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Malaysia\", \"case_id\": \"170\", \"case_name\": \"Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the case concerning Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia/Singapore) (Malaysia v. Singapore)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by the Parties, notified by Malaysia's Co-Agent on 28 May 2018 and confirmed by Singapore's Agent on 29 May 2018, that the proceedings instituted by Malaysia on 30 June 2017 for interpretation of the Judgment of 23 May 2008 in the Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh case be discontinued by agreement and the case removed from the General List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Singapore\", \"year_introduced\": 2017}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "171", "input": {"applicant": "Guyana", "case_id": "171", "case_name": "Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: Guyana's Application is inadmissible because the United Kingdom is an indispensable third party whose legal interests would form the very subject-matter of any decision on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, and the United Kingdom has not consented to the Court's jurisdiction.", "Objection: Guyana lacks standing to bring the claims made in its Application of 29 March 2018.", "Venezuela requests the Court to uphold its preliminary objections to the admissibility of Guyana's Application and to terminate the ongoing proceedings.", "Guyana requests the Court, pursuant to Article 79ter of the Rules of Court, to dismiss Venezuela's preliminary objection as inadmissible, or to reject it on the basis of the Parties' written submissions without oral hearings.", "Guyana requests the Court to fix a date for the filing of Venezuela's Counter-Memorial on the merits no later than nine months from the date of the Court's ruling on Venezuela's preliminary objection."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Venezuela", "year_introduced": 2018}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Guyana\", \"case_id\": \"171\", \"case_name\": \"Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v. Venezuela)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: Guyana's Application is inadmissible because the United Kingdom is an indispensable third party whose legal interests would form the very subject-matter of any decision on the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award, and the United Kingdom has not consented to the Court's jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: Guyana lacks standing to bring the claims made in its Application of 29 March 2018.\", \"Venezuela requests the Court to uphold its preliminary objections to the admissibility of Guyana's Application and to terminate the ongoing proceedings.\", \"Guyana requests the Court, pursuant to Article 79ter of the Rules of Court, to dismiss Venezuela's preliminary objection as inadmissible, or to reject it on the basis of the Parties' written submissions without oral hearings.\", \"Guyana requests the Court to fix a date for the filing of Venezuela's Counter-Memorial on the merits no later than nine months from the date of the Court's ruling on Venezuela's preliminary objection.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Venezuela\", \"year_introduced\": 2018}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "172", "input": {"applicant": "Qatar", "case_id": "172", "case_name": "Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 22 of CERD because the measures of which Qatar complains, taken against Qatari nationals on the basis of their current nationality, do not amount to racial discrimination based on 'national origin' within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD and so fall outside the Convention.", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because Qatar has not satisfied the procedural preconditions in Article 22 of CERD, namely that the dispute be one 'not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for' in the Convention, Qatar having placed the same matter before the CERD Committee under Article 11.", "Objection: Qatar's Application of 11 June 2018 is inadmissible (the third of the three independent preliminary objections the UAE states it raises; its specific ground is not recoverable from the material available here)."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "United Arab Emirates", "year_introduced": 2018}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Qatar\", \"case_id\": \"172\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 22 of CERD because the measures of which Qatar complains, taken against Qatari nationals on the basis of their current nationality, do not amount to racial discrimination based on 'national origin' within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD and so fall outside the Convention.\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction because Qatar has not satisfied the procedural preconditions in Article 22 of CERD, namely that the dispute be one 'not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for' in the Convention, Qatar having placed the same matter before the CERD Committee under Article 11.\", \"Objection: Qatar's Application of 11 June 2018 is inadmissible (the third of the three independent preliminary objections the UAE states it raises; its specific ground is not recoverable from the material available here).\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"United Arab Emirates\", \"year_introduced\": 2018}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "173", "input": {"applicant": "Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates", "case_id": "173", "case_name": "Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council's decision of 29 June 2018 on the preliminary objections in Qatar's Application (A) reflects a manifest failure to act judicially and a manifest lack of due process in the procedure adopted by the Council, in a manner so extreme as to deprive the proceedings of any judicial character.", "Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is without jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, because the real subject-matter of the disagreement submitted by Qatar concerns Qatar's obligations and the appellants' countermeasures outside the field of civil aviation (first preliminary objection, jurisdiction).", "In the alternative, adjudge and declare that Qatar's claims before the ICAO Council are inadmissible, because it would be contrary to judicial propriety and prejudicial to the appellants' rights for the Council to exercise jurisdiction over them (first preliminary objection, admissibility).", "Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is without jurisdiction because Qatar failed to satisfy the precondition in Article 84 of the Chicago Convention of attempting to settle the disagreement by negotiation before submitting its claims to the Council (second preliminary objection, jurisdiction).", "In the alternative, adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is not competent to adjudicate upon Qatar's Application (A) because Qatar did not comply with Article 2, subparagraph (g), of the ICAO Rules for the Settlement of Differences, which requires a statement that negotiations took place but were unsuccessful.", "Adjudge and declare that the decision of the ICAO Council dated 29 June 2018 in respect of Qatar's Application (A) is null and void and without effect, and uphold the appellants' appeal."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Qatar", "year_introduced": 2018}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates\", \"case_id\": \"173\", \"case_name\": \"Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council's decision of 29 June 2018 on the preliminary objections in Qatar's Application (A) reflects a manifest failure to act judicially and a manifest lack of due process in the procedure adopted by the Council, in a manner so extreme as to deprive the proceedings of any judicial character.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is without jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 84 of the Chicago Convention, because the real subject-matter of the disagreement submitted by Qatar concerns Qatar's obligations and the appellants' countermeasures outside the field of civil aviation (first preliminary objection, jurisdiction).\", \"In the alternative, adjudge and declare that Qatar's claims before the ICAO Council are inadmissible, because it would be contrary to judicial propriety and prejudicial to the appellants' rights for the Council to exercise jurisdiction over them (first preliminary objection, admissibility).\", \"Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is without jurisdiction because Qatar failed to satisfy the precondition in Article 84 of the Chicago Convention of attempting to settle the disagreement by negotiation before submitting its claims to the Council (second preliminary objection, jurisdiction).\", \"In the alternative, adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is not competent to adjudicate upon Qatar's Application (A) because Qatar did not comply with Article 2, subparagraph (g), of the ICAO Rules for the Settlement of Differences, which requires a statement that negotiations took place but were unsuccessful.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the decision of the ICAO Council dated 29 June 2018 in respect of Qatar's Application (A) is null and void and without effect, and uphold the appellants' appeal.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Qatar\", \"year_introduced\": 2018}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "174", "input": {"applicant": "Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates", "case_id": "174", "case_name": "Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Uphold the appeal of Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates against the Decision rendered by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization on 29 June 2018 in the proceedings commenced by Qatar's Application (B) of 30 October 2017 under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement.", "Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council's Decision of 29 June 2018 reflects a manifest failure to act judicially on the part of the Council, and a manifest lack of due process in the procedure it adopted.", "Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is not competent to adjudicate upon the disagreement between Qatar and the Appellants submitted to the Council by Qatar's Application (B) of 30 October 2017.", "Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council's Decision of 29 June 2018 in respect of Application (B) is null and void and without effect."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Qatar", "year_introduced": 2018}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates\", \"case_id\": \"174\", \"case_name\": \"Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement (Bahrain, Egypt and United Arab Emirates v. Qatar)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Uphold the appeal of Bahrain, Egypt and the United Arab Emirates against the Decision rendered by the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization on 29 June 2018 in the proceedings commenced by Qatar's Application (B) of 30 October 2017 under Article II, Section 2, of the 1944 International Air Services Transit Agreement.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council's Decision of 29 June 2018 reflects a manifest failure to act judicially on the part of the Council, and a manifest lack of due process in the procedure it adopted.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council is not competent to adjudicate upon the disagreement between Qatar and the Appellants submitted to the Council by Qatar's Application (B) of 30 October 2017.\", \"Adjudge and declare that the ICAO Council's Decision of 29 June 2018 in respect of Application (B) is null and void and without effect.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Qatar\", \"year_introduced\": 2018}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "175", "input": {"applicant": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "case_id": "175", "case_name": "Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity because the true subject-matter of the dispute is the application of the JCPOA, an instrument distinct from that Treaty; Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as outside the Court's jurisdiction.", "Objection: Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as inadmissible, by reason of an alleged abuse of process and on grounds of judicial propriety.", "Objection: Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as precluded by Article XX, paragraph 1 (b), of the Treaty of Amity, concerning measures relating to fissionable materials, with a decision on this point requested before any further proceedings on the merits.", "Objection: Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as precluded by Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the Treaty of Amity, concerning measures necessary to protect essential security interests, with a decision on this point requested before any further proceedings on the merits.", "Objection: all claims brought under any provision of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on 'third country measures', that is measures principally concerning trade and transactions between Iran and third countries or their nationals and companies, fall outside the Court's jurisdiction and should be dismissed."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 2018}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"case_id\": \"175\", \"case_name\": \"Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity because the true subject-matter of the dispute is the application of the JCPOA, an instrument distinct from that Treaty; Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as outside the Court's jurisdiction.\", \"Objection: Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as inadmissible, by reason of an alleged abuse of process and on grounds of judicial propriety.\", \"Objection: Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as precluded by Article XX, paragraph 1 (b), of the Treaty of Amity, concerning measures relating to fissionable materials, with a decision on this point requested before any further proceedings on the merits.\", \"Objection: Iran's claims should be dismissed in their entirety as precluded by Article XX, paragraph 1 (d), of the Treaty of Amity, concerning measures necessary to protect essential security interests, with a decision on this point requested before any further proceedings on the merits.\", \"Objection: all claims brought under any provision of the Treaty of Amity that are predicated on 'third country measures', that is measures principally concerning trade and transactions between Iran and third countries or their nationals and companies, fall outside the Court's jurisdiction and should be dismissed.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 2018}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "176", "input": {"applicant": "Palestine", "case_id": "176", "case_name": "Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Palestine requests that a single Memorial be filed dealing both with the jurisdiction of the Court and with the merits, on the ground that the two aspects are closely related, with a time-limit of six months for its preparation.", "Palestine requests, in the alternative, that if a first round of written pleadings is devoted solely to the question of jurisdiction, a time-limit of six months be allowed for the preparation of that pleading.", "The United States contends that it is manifest that the Court has no jurisdiction over Palestine's Application, because it does not consider itself in a treaty relationship with the Applicant under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or its Optional Protocol, and requests that the case be removed from the List."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "United States of America", "year_introduced": 2018}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Palestine\", \"case_id\": \"176\", \"case_name\": \"Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Palestine requests that a single Memorial be filed dealing both with the jurisdiction of the Court and with the merits, on the ground that the two aspects are closely related, with a time-limit of six months for its preparation.\", \"Palestine requests, in the alternative, that if a first round of written pleadings is devoted solely to the question of jurisdiction, a time-limit of six months be allowed for the preparation of that pleading.\", \"The United States contends that it is manifest that the Court has no jurisdiction over Palestine's Application, because it does not consider itself in a treaty relationship with the Applicant under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations or its Optional Protocol, and requests that the case be removed from the List.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"United States of America\", \"year_introduced\": 2018}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "177", "input": {"applicant": "Guatemala", "case_id": "177", "case_name": "Guatemala's Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by the Parties, under Article 3, paragraph 2 (c), of the Special Agreement of 8 December 2008, that the Court fix a time-limit for the filing of a Reply by the Republic of Guatemala running six months from the date of the filing of Belize's Counter-Memorial.", "Request by the Parties, under Article 3, paragraph 2 (d), of the Special Agreement of 8 December 2008, that the Court fix a time-limit for the filing of a Rejoinder by Belize running six months from the date of the filing of Guatemala's Reply."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Belize", "year_introduced": 2008}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Guatemala\", \"case_id\": \"177\", \"case_name\": \"Guatemala's Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by the Parties, under Article 3, paragraph 2 (c), of the Special Agreement of 8 December 2008, that the Court fix a time-limit for the filing of a Reply by the Republic of Guatemala running six months from the date of the filing of Belize's Counter-Memorial.\", \"Request by the Parties, under Article 3, paragraph 2 (d), of the Special Agreement of 8 December 2008, that the Court fix a time-limit for the filing of a Rejoinder by Belize running six months from the date of the filing of Guatemala's Reply.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Belize\", \"year_introduced\": 2008}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "178", "input": {"applicant": "The Gambia", "case_id": "178", "case_name": "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar: 11 States intervening)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, or alternatively the Application is inadmissible, because the 'real applicant' in the proceedings is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, an international organization that cannot be a party to proceedings under Article 34 of the Statute (first preliminary objection).", "Objection: the Application is inadmissible because The Gambia lacks standing to bring the case, having no special interest of its own in the alleged breaches of the Genocide Convention (second preliminary objection).", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, or alternatively the Application is inadmissible, because The Gambia cannot validly seise the Court in light of Myanmar's reservation to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention (third preliminary objection).", "Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, or alternatively the Application is inadmissible, because no dispute existed between the Parties under the Genocide Convention on 11 November 2019, the date the Application was filed (fourth preliminary objection)."], "decision_stage": "preliminary_objections", "respondent": "Myanmar", "year_introduced": 2019}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"The Gambia\", \"case_id\": \"178\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar: 11 States intervening)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, or alternatively the Application is inadmissible, because the 'real applicant' in the proceedings is the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, an international organization that cannot be a party to proceedings under Article 34 of the Statute (first preliminary objection).\", \"Objection: the Application is inadmissible because The Gambia lacks standing to bring the case, having no special interest of its own in the alleged breaches of the Genocide Convention (second preliminary objection).\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, or alternatively the Application is inadmissible, because The Gambia cannot validly seise the Court in light of Myanmar's reservation to Article VIII of the Genocide Convention (third preliminary objection).\", \"Objection: the Court lacks jurisdiction, or alternatively the Application is inadmissible, because no dispute existed between the Parties under the Genocide Convention on 11 November 2019, the date the Application was filed (fourth preliminary objection).\"], \"decision_stage\": \"preliminary_objections\", \"respondent\": \"Myanmar\", \"year_introduced\": 2019}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "179", "input": {"applicant": "Gabon", "case_id": "179", "case_name": "Land and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands (Gabon/Equatorial Guinea)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Equatorial Guinea: declare that the Special Agreement allows the Court to determine whether the legal titles, treaties and international conventions invoked by the Parties have the force of law between them as regards the delimitation of their common maritime and land boundaries and sovereignty over Mbanie/Mbane, Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga.", "Equatorial Guinea: declare that the document first presented by Gabon in 2003, the alleged Bata Convention of 12 September 1974, has no force of law or legal consequences in the relations between the Parties.", "Equatorial Guinea: declare that the legal titles having the force of law for the common land boundary are the succession by Gabon and by Equatorial Guinea to all titles to territory held by France on 17 August 1960 and by Spain on 12 October 1968 under the 1900 Paris Convention, including titles based on modifications to the boundary described in its Article IV.", "Equatorial Guinea: declare that the legal title having the force of law as to sovereignty over Mbanie/Mbane, Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga is Equatorial Guinea's succession to the title held by Spain over those islands on 12 October 1968.", "Equatorial Guinea: declare that the legal titles having the force of law for the common maritime boundary are the 1900 Convention in so far as it established the terminus of the land boundary in Corisco Bay, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, and customary international law on maritime entitlement deriving from title to land territory.", "Gabon: declare that the Bata Convention of 12 September 1974 and the 1900 Paris Convention, subject to the modifications made to the boundary by the Bata Convention, are the legal titles having the force of law between the Parties as regards the delimitation of their common land boundary.", "Gabon: declare that the Bata Convention of 12 September 1974 is the legal title having the force of law between the Parties as regards sovereignty over the islands of Mbanie, Cocotiers and Conga.", "Gabon: declare that the Bata Convention of 12 September 1974 is the legal title having the force of law between the Parties as regards the delimitation of their common maritime boundary.", "Gabon: reject all claims of Equatorial Guinea to the contrary."], "decision_stage": "judgment", "respondent": "Equatorial Guinea", "year_introduced": 2021}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Gabon\", \"case_id\": \"179\", \"case_name\": \"Land and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands (Gabon/Equatorial Guinea)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Equatorial Guinea: declare that the Special Agreement allows the Court to determine whether the legal titles, treaties and international conventions invoked by the Parties have the force of law between them as regards the delimitation of their common maritime and land boundaries and sovereignty over Mbanie/Mbane, Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga.\", \"Equatorial Guinea: declare that the document first presented by Gabon in 2003, the alleged Bata Convention of 12 September 1974, has no force of law or legal consequences in the relations between the Parties.\", \"Equatorial Guinea: declare that the legal titles having the force of law for the common land boundary are the succession by Gabon and by Equatorial Guinea to all titles to territory held by France on 17 August 1960 and by Spain on 12 October 1968 under the 1900 Paris Convention, including titles based on modifications to the boundary described in its Article IV.\", \"Equatorial Guinea: declare that the legal title having the force of law as to sovereignty over Mbanie/Mbane, Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga is Equatorial Guinea's succession to the title held by Spain over those islands on 12 October 1968.\", \"Equatorial Guinea: declare that the legal titles having the force of law for the common maritime boundary are the 1900 Convention in so far as it established the terminus of the land boundary in Corisco Bay, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982, and customary international law on maritime entitlement deriving from title to land territory.\", \"Gabon: declare that the Bata Convention of 12 September 1974 and the 1900 Paris Convention, subject to the modifications made to the boundary by the Bata Convention, are the legal titles having the force of law between the Parties as regards the delimitation of their common land boundary.\", \"Gabon: declare that the Bata Convention of 12 September 1974 is the legal title having the force of law between the Parties as regards sovereignty over the islands of Mbanie, Cocotiers and Conga.\", \"Gabon: declare that the Bata Convention of 12 September 1974 is the legal title having the force of law between the Parties as regards the delimitation of their common maritime boundary.\", \"Gabon: reject all claims of Equatorial Guinea to the contrary.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"judgment\", \"respondent\": \"Equatorial Guinea\", \"year_introduced\": 2021}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "180", "input": {"applicant": "Armenia", "case_id": "180", "case_name": "Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Armenia: modify the Court's Order of 22 February 2023 by adding a provisional measure requiring Azerbaijan to withdraw any and all personnel deployed on or along the Lachin Corridor since 23 April 2023 and to refrain from deploying any such personnel on or along the Lachin Corridor."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Azerbaijan", "year_introduced": 2021}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Armenia\", \"case_id\": \"180\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Armenia: modify the Court's Order of 22 February 2023 by adding a provisional measure requiring Azerbaijan to withdraw any and all personnel deployed on or along the Lachin Corridor since 23 April 2023 and to refrain from deploying any such personnel on or along the Lachin Corridor.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Azerbaijan\", \"year_introduced\": 2021}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "181", "input": {"applicant": "Azerbaijan", "case_id": "181", "case_name": "Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That, Armenia having filed on 21 April 2023 preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of Azerbaijan's Application, the proceedings on the merits being suspended under Article 79bis, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, a time-limit be fixed within which Azerbaijan may present a written statement of its observations and submissions on those preliminary objections."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Armenia", "year_introduced": 2021}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Azerbaijan\", \"case_id\": \"181\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Azerbaijan v. Armenia)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That, Armenia having filed on 21 April 2023 preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of Azerbaijan's Application, the proceedings on the merits being suspended under Article 79bis, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, a time-limit be fixed within which Azerbaijan may present a written statement of its observations and submissions on those preliminary objections.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Armenia\", \"year_introduced\": 2021}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "182", "input": {"applicant": "Ukraine", "case_id": "182", "case_name": "Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request: thirty-three States, beginning with Latvia on 21 July 2022 and ending with Liechtenstein on 15 December 2022, ask to be admitted to intervene under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute on the construction of the Genocide Convention, in particular Article IX and, in several declarations, Articles I, II, III, IV and VIII.", "Objection: the declarations of intervention are inadmissible because they are not genuine, the real intention of the declarant States being not to state their own construction of the Genocide Convention but to side with and advocate for Ukraine as de facto co-applicants.", "Objection: admitting the declarations would infringe the equality of the Parties and the good administration of justice, since the Russian Federation would have to answer thirty-three States aligned with Ukraine as parties in the same interest within the meaning of Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute.", "Objection: the declarations constitute an abuse of process, having been filed in pursuit of a collective strategy of supporting Ukraine and with the aim of causing harm to the Russian Federation, rather than in good faith to state a construction of the Convention.", "Objection: the declarations are inadmissible at the preliminary objections stage, because the Court must first rule on the Russian Federation's preliminary objections to jurisdiction and to the admissibility of Ukraine's Application.", "Objection: the declarations are inadmissible because they presuppose the Court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of Ukraine's Application.", "Objection: intervention under Article 63 of the Statute cannot concern the construction of compromissory clauses such as Article IX of the Genocide Convention.", "Objection: the declarations go beyond the construction of the Genocide Convention and are inadmissible to that extent.", "Objection: the joint declaration of intervention filed by Canada and the Netherlands on 7 December 2022 is inadmissible.", "Objection: the declaration of intervention filed by the United States of America on 7 September 2022 is inadmissible."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Russian Federation", "year_introduced": 2022}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Ukraine\", \"case_id\": \"182\", \"case_name\": \"Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request: thirty-three States, beginning with Latvia on 21 July 2022 and ending with Liechtenstein on 15 December 2022, ask to be admitted to intervene under Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute on the construction of the Genocide Convention, in particular Article IX and, in several declarations, Articles I, II, III, IV and VIII.\", \"Objection: the declarations of intervention are inadmissible because they are not genuine, the real intention of the declarant States being not to state their own construction of the Genocide Convention but to side with and advocate for Ukraine as de facto co-applicants.\", \"Objection: admitting the declarations would infringe the equality of the Parties and the good administration of justice, since the Russian Federation would have to answer thirty-three States aligned with Ukraine as parties in the same interest within the meaning of Article 31, paragraph 5, of the Statute.\", \"Objection: the declarations constitute an abuse of process, having been filed in pursuit of a collective strategy of supporting Ukraine and with the aim of causing harm to the Russian Federation, rather than in good faith to state a construction of the Convention.\", \"Objection: the declarations are inadmissible at the preliminary objections stage, because the Court must first rule on the Russian Federation's preliminary objections to jurisdiction and to the admissibility of Ukraine's Application.\", \"Objection: the declarations are inadmissible because they presuppose the Court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of Ukraine's Application.\", \"Objection: intervention under Article 63 of the Statute cannot concern the construction of compromissory clauses such as Article IX of the Genocide Convention.\", \"Objection: the declarations go beyond the construction of the Genocide Convention and are inadmissible to that extent.\", \"Objection: the joint declaration of intervention filed by Canada and the Netherlands on 7 December 2022 is inadmissible.\", \"Objection: the declaration of intervention filed by the United States of America on 7 September 2022 is inadmissible.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Russian Federation\", \"year_introduced\": 2022}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_6\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_7\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_8\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_9\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_10\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "183", "input": {"applicant": "Germany", "case_id": "183", "case_name": "Questions of jurisdictional immunities of the State and measures of constraint against State-owned property (Germany v. Italy)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Germany requests, by letter of 22 May 2023, that the time-limit for the filing of its Memorial, fixed at 12 June 2023 by the Order of 10 June 2022, be extended until 12 January 2024, on the ground that hearings scheduled before the Italian Constitutional Court could significantly affect the present proceedings.", "Italy requests, should Germany's extension be granted, an equivalent extension of the time-limit for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, fixed at 12 June 2024 by the Order of 10 June 2022."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Italy", "year_introduced": 2022}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Germany\", \"case_id\": \"183\", \"case_name\": \"Questions of jurisdictional immunities of the State and measures of constraint against State-owned property (Germany v. Italy)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Germany requests, by letter of 22 May 2023, that the time-limit for the filing of its Memorial, fixed at 12 June 2023 by the Order of 10 June 2022, be extended until 12 January 2024, on the ground that hearings scheduled before the Italian Constitutional Court could significantly affect the present proceedings.\", \"Italy requests, should Germany's extension be granted, an equivalent extension of the time-limit for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, fixed at 12 June 2024 by the Order of 10 June 2022.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Italy\", \"year_introduced\": 2022}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "184", "input": {"applicant": "Equatorial Guinea", "case_id": "184", "case_name": "Request relating to the Return of Property Confiscated in Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the Court fix a period of five months, as requested by the Agent of Equatorial Guinea at the meeting held under Article 31 of the Rules of Court, for the preparation and filing of the Memorial of Equatorial Guinea.", "That the Court fix a period of nine months running from the filing of the Memorial, as stated by the Co-Agent of France at that meeting to be the time his Government would need, for the preparation and filing of the Counter-Memorial of France."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "France", "year_introduced": 2022}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Equatorial Guinea\", \"case_id\": \"184\", \"case_name\": \"Request relating to the Return of Property Confiscated in Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the Court fix a period of five months, as requested by the Agent of Equatorial Guinea at the meeting held under Article 31 of the Rules of Court, for the preparation and filing of the Memorial of Equatorial Guinea.\", \"That the Court fix a period of nine months running from the filing of the Memorial, as stated by the Co-Agent of France at that meeting to be the time his Government would need, for the preparation and filing of the Counter-Memorial of France.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"France\", \"year_introduced\": 2022}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "185", "input": {"applicant": "Belize", "case_id": "185", "case_name": "Sovereignty over the Sapodilla Cayes/Cayos Zapotillos (Belize v. Honduras; Guatemala intervening)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Belize requests a period of three months for the preparation and filing of its Memorial, arguing that the narrow scope of the case, limited to sovereignty over a small set of cayes with no maritime delimitation, and the Parties' familiarity with its legal, factual and historical aspects warrant a short time-limit.", "Belize proposes that Honduras be granted a period of four months for the preparation and filing of its Counter-Memorial.", "Honduras requests a period of twelve months for the preparation and filing of its Counter-Memorial, stating that it needs sufficient time to undertake its own research into the legal, factual and historical aspects of the case.", "Honduras requests that the same period of twelve months be granted to Belize for the preparation and filing of its Memorial."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Honduras", "year_introduced": 2022}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Belize\", \"case_id\": \"185\", \"case_name\": \"Sovereignty over the Sapodilla Cayes/Cayos Zapotillos (Belize v. Honduras; Guatemala intervening)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Belize requests a period of three months for the preparation and filing of its Memorial, arguing that the narrow scope of the case, limited to sovereignty over a small set of cayes with no maritime delimitation, and the Parties' familiarity with its legal, factual and historical aspects warrant a short time-limit.\", \"Belize proposes that Honduras be granted a period of four months for the preparation and filing of its Counter-Memorial.\", \"Honduras requests a period of twelve months for the preparation and filing of its Counter-Memorial, stating that it needs sufficient time to undertake its own research into the legal, factual and historical aspects of the case.\", \"Honduras requests that the same period of twelve months be granted to Belize for the preparation and filing of its Memorial.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Honduras\", \"year_introduced\": 2022}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "186", "input": {"case_id": "186", "case_name": "Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004: (a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?", "(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022, adopted under Article 96 of the Charter)", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"186\", \"case_name\": \"Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Considering the rules and principles of international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, international humanitarian law, international human rights law, relevant resolutions of the Security Council, the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council, and the advisory opinion of the Court of 9 July 2004: (a) What are the legal consequences arising from the ongoing violation by Israel of the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, from its prolonged occupation, settlement and annexation of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including measures aimed at altering the demographic composition, character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem, and from its adoption of related discriminatory legislation and measures?\", \"(b) How do the policies and practices of Israel referred to in paragraph 18 (a) above affect the legal status of the occupation, and what are the legal consequences that arise for all States and the United Nations from this status?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution 77/247 of 30 December 2022, adopted under Article 96 of the Charter)\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "187", "input": {"case_id": "187", "case_name": "Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Having particular regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment, (a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?", "(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to: (i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?", "(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to: (ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly (resolution 77/276 of 29 March 2023, adopted at the 64th plenary meeting of the seventy-seventh session)", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"187\", \"case_name\": \"Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Having particular regard to the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Paris Agreement, the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, the duty of due diligence, the rights recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the principle of prevention of significant harm to the environment and the duty to protect and preserve the marine environment, (a) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases for States and for present and future generations?\", \"(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to: (i) States, including, in particular, small island developing States, which due to their geographical circumstances and level of development, are injured or specially affected by or are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change?\", \"(b) What are the legal consequences under these obligations for States where they, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, with respect to: (ii) Peoples and individuals of the present and future generations affected by the adverse effects of climate change?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly (resolution 77/276 of 29 March 2023, adopted at the 64th plenary meeting of the seventy-seventh session)\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_2\"}, {\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_3\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "188", "input": {"applicant": "Canada and Netherlands", "case_id": "188", "case_name": "Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by letter dated 12 December 2024, for an extension of the 3 February 2025 time-limit fixed for the filing of their Memorial, on the ground that recent and unforeseen developments in Syria, including a change in government and the emergence of new evidence, make an extension necessary."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Syrian Arab Republic", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Canada and Netherlands\", \"case_id\": \"188\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by Canada and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, by letter dated 12 December 2024, for an extension of the 3 February 2025 time-limit fixed for the filing of their Memorial, on the ground that recent and unforeseen developments in Syria, including a change in government and the emergence of new evidence, make an extension necessary.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Syrian Arab Republic\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "189", "input": {"applicant": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "case_id": "189", "case_name": "Alleged Violations of State Immunities (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Iran requested a period of eight months for the preparation and filing of its Memorial, stating that the case concerned State immunity as a fundamental principle of public international law and that it expected the Court to decide promptly.", "Iran requested that the Court avoid fixing time-limits in this case that might overlap with its preparation of written and oral pleadings in the other cases pending before the Court to which Iran is a party.", "Canada requested a period of sixteen months following the filing of Iran's Memorial for the preparation of its Counter-Memorial, on the ground that the legal and factual allegations in Iran's Application are complex and novel."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Canada", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"case_id\": \"189\", \"case_name\": \"Alleged Violations of State Immunities (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Iran requested a period of eight months for the preparation and filing of its Memorial, stating that the case concerned State immunity as a fundamental principle of public international law and that it expected the Court to decide promptly.\", \"Iran requested that the Court avoid fixing time-limits in this case that might overlap with its preparation of written and oral pleadings in the other cases pending before the Court to which Iran is a party.\", \"Canada requested a period of sixteen months following the filing of Iran's Memorial for the preparation of its Counter-Memorial, on the ground that the legal and factual allegations in Iran's Application are complex and novel.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Canada\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "190", "input": {"applicant": "Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom", "case_id": "190", "case_name": "Aerial Incident of 8 January 2020 (Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom v. Islamic Republic of Iran)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Fix a time-limit of nine months for the filing of the joint Memorial of Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, the Agent of Canada having stated on behalf of the four applicant States at the meeting of 21 September 2023 that they wished to have that period at their disposal.", "Fix a time-limit of eighteen months from the filing of the Memorial for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as requested by the Agent of Iran at the same meeting.", "Set the time-limits so that they do not overlap with Iran's preparation of its written and oral pleadings in the other cases pending before the Court to which Iran is a party, as the Agent of Iran asked."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom\", \"case_id\": \"190\", \"case_name\": \"Aerial Incident of 8 January 2020 (Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom v. Islamic Republic of Iran)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Fix a time-limit of nine months for the filing of the joint Memorial of Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom, the Agent of Canada having stated on behalf of the four applicant States at the meeting of 21 September 2023 that they wished to have that period at their disposal.\", \"Fix a time-limit of eighteen months from the filing of the Memorial for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of the Islamic Republic of Iran, as requested by the Agent of Iran at the same meeting.\", \"Set the time-limits so that they do not overlap with Iran's preparation of its written and oral pleadings in the other cases pending before the Court to which Iran is a party, as the Agent of Iran asked.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "191", "input": {"case_id": "191", "case_name": "Right to Strike under ILO Convention No. 87", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["Is the right to strike of workers and their organizations protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)?"], "requesting_body": "Governing Body of the International Labour Organization", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"191\", \"case_name\": \"Right to Strike under ILO Convention No. 87\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"Is the right to strike of workers and their organizations protected under the Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention, 1948 (No. 87)?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"Governing Body of the International Labour Organization\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "192", "input": {"applicant": "South Africa", "case_id": "192", "case_name": "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["South Africa requests that the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, that is, a Reply by South Africa and a Rejoinder by Israel, after the Memorial and the Counter-Memorial already filed.", "South Africa requests that it be accorded at least 18 months to file its Reply, given the complexity of the case, the volume of the Counter-Memorial and its annexes, and the fact that the Counter-Memorial raises objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Application in addition to addressing the merits.", "Israel submits that a second round of written pleadings is not necessary and asks the Court not to direct one.", "Israel requests that, should the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, the same period of 18 months accorded to South Africa for its Reply be accorded to Israel for the preparation of its Rejoinder."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Israel", "year_introduced": 2023}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"South Africa\", \"case_id\": \"192\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"South Africa requests that the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, that is, a Reply by South Africa and a Rejoinder by Israel, after the Memorial and the Counter-Memorial already filed.\", \"South Africa requests that it be accorded at least 18 months to file its Reply, given the complexity of the case, the volume of the Counter-Memorial and its annexes, and the fact that the Counter-Memorial raises objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the Application in addition to addressing the merits.\", \"Israel submits that a second round of written pleadings is not necessary and asks the Court not to direct one.\", \"Israel requests that, should the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, the same period of 18 months accorded to South Africa for its Reply be accorded to Israel for the preparation of its Rejoinder.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Israel\", \"year_introduced\": 2023}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "193", "input": {"applicant": "Nicaragua", "case_id": "193", "case_name": "Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Fixing of a time-limit within which Nicaragua may present a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the claims in paragraph 484, subparagraphs (1) to (9), of Nicaragua's Memorial, filed by Germany on 21 October 2025 under Article 79bis of the Rules of Court."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Germany", "year_introduced": 2024}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Nicaragua\", \"case_id\": \"193\", \"case_name\": \"Alleged Breaches of Certain International Obligations in respect of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Nicaragua v. Germany)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Fixing of a time-limit within which Nicaragua may present a written statement of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the claims in paragraph 484, subparagraphs (1) to (9), of Nicaragua's Memorial, filed by Germany on 21 October 2025 under Article 79bis of the Rules of Court.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Germany\", \"year_introduced\": 2024}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "194", "input": {"applicant": "Mexico", "case_id": "194", "case_name": "Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by Mexico that the Court authorize a second round of written pleadings, comprising a Reply by Mexico and a Rejoinder by Ecuador, on the ground that a second round would be of benefit to the Court.", "Request by Mexico that the Court accord each Party a period of four months for the filing of its second-round pleading, given the non-voluminous nature of the first round and Mexico's wish for an expeditious resolution.", "Request by Ecuador, which did not object to a second round, that it be accorded a period of eight months for the filing of its Rejoinder.", "Revised indication by Ecuador that it could accept a time-limit of six months for the filing of its Rejoinder.", "Position of Mexico that any period exceeding five months for the filing of the Rejoinder would not be appropriate."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Ecuador", "year_introduced": 2024}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Mexico\", \"case_id\": \"194\", \"case_name\": \"Embassy of Mexico in Quito (Mexico v. Ecuador)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by Mexico that the Court authorize a second round of written pleadings, comprising a Reply by Mexico and a Rejoinder by Ecuador, on the ground that a second round would be of benefit to the Court.\", \"Request by Mexico that the Court accord each Party a period of four months for the filing of its second-round pleading, given the non-voluminous nature of the first round and Mexico's wish for an expeditious resolution.\", \"Request by Ecuador, which did not object to a second round, that it be accorded a period of eight months for the filing of its Rejoinder.\", \"Revised indication by Ecuador that it could accept a time-limit of six months for the filing of its Rejoinder.\", \"Position of Mexico that any period exceeding five months for the filing of the Rejoinder would not be appropriate.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Ecuador\", \"year_introduced\": 2024}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_5\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "195", "input": {"applicant": "Ecuador", "case_id": "195", "case_name": "Glas Espinel (Ecuador v. Mexico)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Ecuador requests the Court to authorize a second round of written pleadings, namely a Reply by Ecuador and a Rejoinder by Mexico, on the ground that such a round is required in these proceedings.", "Ecuador requests a period of eight months for the preparation of its Reply, in which it intends to present its position on all elements of Mexico's counter-claim, including admissibility; in a spirit of compromise Ecuador indicates it would accept a period of seven months.", "Mexico agrees that the Court should authorize the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder, but asks that each Party be given four months for its pleading, adding that it would be prepared to accept a time-limit of five months."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Mexico", "year_introduced": 2024}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Ecuador\", \"case_id\": \"195\", \"case_name\": \"Glas Espinel (Ecuador v. Mexico)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Ecuador requests the Court to authorize a second round of written pleadings, namely a Reply by Ecuador and a Rejoinder by Mexico, on the ground that such a round is required in these proceedings.\", \"Ecuador requests a period of eight months for the preparation of its Reply, in which it intends to present its position on all elements of Mexico's counter-claim, including admissibility; in a spirit of compromise Ecuador indicates it would accept a period of seven months.\", \"Mexico agrees that the Court should authorize the filing of a Reply and a Rejoinder, but asks that each Party be given four months for its pleading, adding that it would be prepared to accept a time-limit of five months.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Mexico\", \"year_introduced\": 2024}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "196", "input": {"case_id": "196", "case_name": "Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory", "case_type": "advisory", "decision_stage": "advisory_opinion", "questions": ["What are the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance, for the benefit of the Palestinian civilian population, and in support of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination?"], "requesting_body": "United Nations General Assembly", "year_introduced": 2024}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"case_id\": \"196\", \"case_name\": \"Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory\", \"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"decision_stage\": \"advisory_opinion\", \"questions\": [\"What are the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance, for the benefit of the Palestinian civilian population, and in support of the Palestinian people's right to self-determination?\"], \"requesting_body\": \"United Nations General Assembly\", \"year_introduced\": 2024}\nOutput constraints: competence must be competent or not_competent. If competent, discretion must be answered or declined; if not_competent, discretion must be null. Use question_1, question_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per question. disposition must be one of affirmative, negative, mixed, not_answered (not_answered when the Court declines that question). Each answer restates it, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"advisory\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"competence\": \"competent\", \"conclusions\": [{\"answer\": \"answer first, then the main ground\", \"disposition\": \"affirmative\", \"question_id\": \"question_1\"}], \"discretion\": \"answered\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "197", "input": {"applicant": "Sudan", "case_id": "197", "case_name": "Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in Sudan (Sudan v. United Arab Emirates)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["That the United Arab Emirates shall, under its obligations in the Genocide Convention and in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of that Convention, in particular killing, serious bodily or mental harm, conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and measures intended to prevent births.", "That the United Arab Emirates shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and in relation to the members of the Masalit group, refrain from any conduct amounting to complicity in the commission by any irregular armed units, or by any organization or persons, of the acts described in the first requested measure.", "That the United Arab Emirates shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to the Order within one month from its date, and thereafter every six months, until a final decision on the case is rendered.", "Respondent's request: that the Court reject Sudan's request for the indication of provisional measures and remove the case from the General List, the United Arab Emirates contending that its reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention leaves the Court without jurisdiction and that it does not consent to jurisdiction under Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "United Arab Emirates", "year_introduced": 2025}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Sudan\", \"case_id\": \"197\", \"case_name\": \"Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in Sudan (Sudan v. United Arab Emirates)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"That the United Arab Emirates shall, under its obligations in the Genocide Convention and in relation to the Masalit group in Sudan, take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all acts within the scope of Article II of that Convention, in particular killing, serious bodily or mental harm, conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction, and measures intended to prevent births.\", \"That the United Arab Emirates shall, in accordance with its obligations under the Genocide Convention and in relation to the members of the Masalit group, refrain from any conduct amounting to complicity in the commission by any irregular armed units, or by any organization or persons, of the acts described in the first requested measure.\", \"That the United Arab Emirates shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to the Order within one month from its date, and thereafter every six months, until a final decision on the case is rendered.\", \"Respondent's request: that the Court reject Sudan's request for the indication of provisional measures and remove the case from the General List, the United Arab Emirates contending that its reservation to Article IX of the Genocide Convention leaves the Court without jurisdiction and that it does not consent to jurisdiction under Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"United Arab Emirates\", \"year_introduced\": 2025}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "198", "input": {"applicant": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "case_id": "198", "case_name": "Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Iran requests that the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, that is, a Reply by Iran and a Rejoinder by the Respondent States, as necessary to respond to issues raised in the Counter-Memorial and to submit supporting documents.", "Iran requests that it be accorded at least eight months from the issuance of the Order to file its Reply, given that it is at the same time preparing written pleadings in other cases before the Court and that the work of its legal team is hampered by armed conflict, sanctions and other restrictive measures affecting the country.", "The Respondent States (Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom) submit that a second round of written pleadings is not necessary, the issues being limited, narrow and straightforward because the Application concerns an appeal from a decision of the ICAO Council on its own jurisdiction, Iran having already argued its case in two written rounds before the Council and in its Memorial, and a speedy resolution being essential to the resumption of the proceedings before the Council and to the families of the victims of Flight PS752.", "The Respondent States request that, should the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, the Parties be given a maximum of two months each for the preparation of the Reply and of the Rejoinder respectively."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom", "year_introduced": 2025}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"case_id\": \"198\", \"case_name\": \"Appeal relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council under Article 84 of the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Islamic Republic of Iran v. Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Iran requests that the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, that is, a Reply by Iran and a Rejoinder by the Respondent States, as necessary to respond to issues raised in the Counter-Memorial and to submit supporting documents.\", \"Iran requests that it be accorded at least eight months from the issuance of the Order to file its Reply, given that it is at the same time preparing written pleadings in other cases before the Court and that the work of its legal team is hampered by armed conflict, sanctions and other restrictive measures affecting the country.\", \"The Respondent States (Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom) submit that a second round of written pleadings is not necessary, the issues being limited, narrow and straightforward because the Application concerns an appeal from a decision of the ICAO Council on its own jurisdiction, Iran having already argued its case in two written rounds before the Council and in its Memorial, and a speedy resolution being essential to the resumption of the proceedings before the Council and to the families of the victims of Flight PS752.\", \"The Respondent States request that, should the Court direct a second round of written pleadings, the Parties be given a maximum of two months each for the preparation of the Reply and of the Rejoinder respectively.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and United Kingdom\", \"year_introduced\": 2025}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "199", "input": {"applicant": "France", "case_id": "199", "case_name": "Kohler and Paris (France v. Islamic Republic of Iran)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["France requests, by a letter of 15 September 2025 referring to Article 89 of the Rules of Court, to discontinue the proceedings it instituted against Iran by its Application of 16 May 2025 concerning alleged breaches of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Islamic Republic of Iran", "year_introduced": 2025}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"France\", \"case_id\": \"199\", \"case_name\": \"Kohler and Paris (France v. Islamic Republic of Iran)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"France requests, by a letter of 15 September 2025 referring to Article 89 of the Rules of Court, to discontinue the proceedings it instituted against Iran by its Application of 16 May 2025 concerning alleged breaches of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Islamic Republic of Iran\", \"year_introduced\": 2025}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}
{"case_id": "200", "input": {"applicant": "Lithuania", "case_id": "200", "case_name": "Alleged Smuggling of Migrants (Lithuania v. Belarus)", "case_type": "contentious", "claims": ["Request by Lithuania that the procedure provided for in Article 79 of the Rules of Court be followed, so that questions concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application are determined separately and before any proceedings on the merits.", "Request by Lithuania that, if that procedure is followed, Belarus first file a Memorial dealing exclusively with jurisdiction and admissibility within six months from the date of the order fixing the time-limits.", "Request by Lithuania that Lithuania then have six months to file a Counter-Memorial limited to those same questions of jurisdiction and admissibility.", "Request by Lithuania, in the alternative, that if the initial pleadings are to address the merits, each Party be granted 14 months for its pleading, Belarus having stated it would need 14 months for its Counter-Memorial while Lithuania first sought 12 months for its Memorial."], "decision_stage": "order", "respondent": "Belarus", "year_introduced": 2025}, "messages": [{"content": "You predict one International Court of Justice target decision using only information available before it. Never infer access to hidden or later decisions.\n\nThe Court cites earlier ICJ cases as precedent in almost every decision, so citation_case_ids is the core of the task. The Court also relies on provisions of its Statute, Rules, the UN Charter and applicable treaties, and on UN resolutions; predict those too, and only cite a provision key or resolution symbol you saw in a tool result when tools are exposed. If evidence tools are exposed to you, you MUST research before answering: find earlier cases on the same subject and the same procedural question, read what precedent those cases relied on, and check what the retrieved passages actually hold. Do this across SEVERAL tool calls, never answer after one, and never guess a case ID you did not see in a tool result. If no tools are exposed, cite the earlier ICJ cases you know the Court would rely on. Cite every earlier case you expect the decision to rely on, including ones on jurisdiction, admissibility and procedure; an empty citation list is almost always wrong.\n\nReturn one JSON object and no prose, Markdown, or code fence. Predict case citations as zero-padded ICJ General List IDs. For a contentious case return case_type, citation_case_ids, jurisdiction, and claim-level conclusions. For an advisory case return case_type, citation_case_ids, competence, discretion when applicable, and question-level conclusions.", "role": "system"}, {"content": "Predict the target decision from this model-visible input:\n{\"applicant\": \"Lithuania\", \"case_id\": \"200\", \"case_name\": \"Alleged Smuggling of Migrants (Lithuania v. Belarus)\", \"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"claims\": [\"Request by Lithuania that the procedure provided for in Article 79 of the Rules of Court be followed, so that questions concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Application are determined separately and before any proceedings on the merits.\", \"Request by Lithuania that, if that procedure is followed, Belarus first file a Memorial dealing exclusively with jurisdiction and admissibility within six months from the date of the order fixing the time-limits.\", \"Request by Lithuania that Lithuania then have six months to file a Counter-Memorial limited to those same questions of jurisdiction and admissibility.\", \"Request by Lithuania, in the alternative, that if the initial pleadings are to address the merits, each Party be granted 14 months for its pleading, Belarus having stated it would need 14 months for its Counter-Memorial while Lithuania first sought 12 months for its Memorial.\"], \"decision_stage\": \"order\", \"respondent\": \"Belarus\", \"year_introduced\": 2025}\nOutput constraints: jurisdiction must be upheld, declined, mixed, or null when this decision does not adjudicate it. Use claim_1, claim_2, and so on in input order, one conclusion per claim. disposition must be one of upheld, rejected, partly_upheld, not_reached (not_reached when the decision does not rule on that claim). Each result restates the disposition, then the main legal ground, in one to three sentences; never copy the example wording. citation_provision_keys lists the provisions (Statute, Rules, Charter, treaty articles) the decision will rely on, as Provision keys exactly as the tools return them, for example statute:article_36 or rules:article_79bis; citation_resolution_symbols lists the UN resolutions it will cite, as symbols such as A/RES/2625 or S/RES/276; leave a list empty only when none applies.\nReturn exactly this case-type-specific JSON shape:\n{\"case_type\": \"contentious\", \"citation_case_ids\": [], \"citation_provision_keys\": [], \"citation_resolution_symbols\": [], \"conclusions\": [{\"claim_id\": \"claim_1\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_2\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_3\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}, {\"claim_id\": \"claim_4\", \"disposition\": \"upheld\", \"result\": \"disposition first, then the main ground\"}], \"jurisdiction\": \"upheld\"}", "role": "user"}]}