Bruno Simma | |
---|---|
Born | March 29, 1941 |
Nationality | German |
Occupation | Jurist |
Known for | Served as a judge on the International Court of Justice (2003-2012) |
Bruno Simma (born March 29, 1941 in Quierschied, Germany), is a German jurist who served as a judge on the International Court of Justice from 2003 until 2012.
He also currently serves as an affiliated overseas faculty member of the University of Michigan Law School, teaching classes in Ann Arbor.
Before being elected to the Court, Simma had served on the United Nations International Law Commission since 1996. From 1995 to 1997, he served as dean of the University of Munich Faculty of Law. Prior to returning to his native Germany, he served as a lecturer at the Hague Academy of International Law in the Netherlands, where he also served as director of studies in 1976 and 1982, and as visiting professor at the University of Michigan Law School during 1995. From 1987 to 1996, he served as a member of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. From 1987 to 1992, he served as a Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School, and as a visiting professor in 1986. From 1984 to 1985, he served as a visiting professor at the University of Siena in Italy. He served as a lecturer for International Law for the German Federal Foreign Ministry's Training Centre for Junior Diplomats. He received doctorate honoris causa from the University of Macerata, Italy in 2006. He is member of the advisory board of the Goettingen Journal of International Law.
Simma's term on the court expired on 5 February 2012; he was not a candidate for re-election.
Simma served on the NAFTA Chapter 11 investor dispute panel in the Clayton/Bilcon case, in which a U.S. investor sought damages under NAFTA Chapter 11 after Canada and Nova Scotia rejected the investor's project to mine basalt and build a marine terminal on the Digby peninsula in Nova Scotia based on an environmental impact assessment conducted under federal and provincial law. Simms was part of the controversial majority decision that found the Government of Canada liable to the investor. The dissenting panel member warned that in key respects "the decision of the majority will be seen as a remarkable step backwards in environmental protection."