HOME
The Info List - International Court Of Justice


--- Advertisement ---



The International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
(abbreviated ICJ; commonly referred to as the World Court)[1] is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations
United Nations
(UN). It settles legal disputes between member states and gives advisory opinions to authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. It comprises a panel of 15 judges elected by the General Assembly and Security Council
Security Council
for nine-year terms. It is seated in the Peace Palace
Peace Palace
in The Hague, Netherlands.[2]

Contents

1 Activities 2 Composition

2.1 Ad hoc judges 2.2 Chambers 2.3 Current composition 2.4 Presidents

3 Jurisdiction

3.1 Contentious issues 3.2 Incidental jurisdiction 3.3 Advisory opinions 3.4 ICJ and the Security Council

3.4.1 Examples of contentious cases

4 Law applied 5 Procedure

5.1 Preliminary objections 5.2 Applications to intervene 5.3 Judgment and remedies

6 Criticisms 7 See also 8 Notes 9 Further reading 10 External links

10.1 Lectures

Activities[edit] Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the court.[3] The court's workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. After the court ruled that the United States's covert war against Nicaragua was in violation of international law ( Nicaragua
Nicaragua
v. United States), the United States
United States
withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis.[4] Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter
United Nations Charter
authorizes the UN Security Council to enforce Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the Council, which the United States
United States
used in the Nicaragua
Nicaragua
case.[5] Composition[edit] Main article: Judges of the International Court of Justice

Public hearing at the ICJ.

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council
Security Council
from a list of people nominated by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 4–19 of the ICJ statute. Elections are staggered, with five judges elected every three years to ensure continuity within the court. Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election to complete the term. No two judges may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the membership of the court is supposed to represent the "main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world". Essentially, that has meant common law, civil law and socialist law (now post-communist law). There is an informal understanding that the seats will be distributed by geographic regions so that there are five seats for Western countries, three for African states (including one judge of francophone civil law, one of Anglophone common law and one Arab), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian states and two for Latin American and Caribbean
Caribbean
states.[6] For most of the court's history, the five permanent members of the United Nations
United Nations
Security Council
Security Council
(France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge serving, thereby occupying three of the Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. Exceptions have been China
China
not having a judge on the court from 1967 to 1985, during which time it did not put forward a candidate, and British judge Sir Christopher Greenwood being withdrawn as a candidate for election for a second nine-year term on the bench in 2017, leaving no judges from the United Kingdom
United Kingdom
on the court.[7] Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security Council
Security Council
but failed to get a majority in the UN General Assembly.[7] Indian judge Dalveer Bhandari
Dalveer Bhandari
instead took the seat.[7] Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be "elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character" who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt with specifically in Articles 16–18. Judges of the ICJ are not able to hold any other post or act as counsel. In practice, members of the court have their own interpretation of these rules and allow them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by a unanimous vote of the other members of the court.[8] Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua
Nicaragua
case, the United States
United States
issued a communiqué suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the court because of the presence of judges from Eastern bloc
Eastern bloc
states.[9] Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and Advisory Opinions are by majority, and, in the event of an equal division, the President's vote becomes decisive, which occurred in the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Opinion requested by WHO), [1996] ICJ Reports 66. Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions. Ad hoc judges[edit] Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases before the court. The system allows any party to a contentious case (if it otherwise does not have one of that party's nationals sitting on the court) to select one additional person to sit as a judge on that case only. It is thus possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case. The system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases. For example, if a state knows that it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the state's perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of little practical consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not always) vote in favour of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out.[10] Chambers[edit] Generally, the court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years, it has on occasion sat as a chamber. Articles 26–29 of the statute allow the court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear particular disputes. In 1993, a special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal specifically with environmental matters (although it has never been used). Ad hoc chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used to hear the Gulf of Maine
Gulf of Maine
Case (Canada/US).[11] In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the court appointed judges to the chamber acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may either less authority than full Court judgments or diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might encourage greater recourse to the court and thus enhance international dispute resolution.[12] Current composition[edit] As of 7 February 2018[update], the composition of the court is as follows:[13]

Name Nationality Position Term began Term ends

Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf  Somalia Presidenta 2009 2027

Xue Hanqin  China Vice-Presidenta 2010 2021

Hisashi Owada  Japan Member 2003 2021

Peter Tomka  Slovakia Member 2003 2021

Mohamed Bennouna  Morocco Member 2006 2024

Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade
Antônio Augusto Cançado Trindade
    Brazil Member 2009 2027

Nawaf Salam  Lebanon Member 2018 2027

Ronny Abraham  France Member 2005 2027

Joan E. Donoghue  United States Member 2010 2024

Giorgio Gaja  Italy Member 2012 2021

Julia Sebutinde  Uganda Member 2012 2021

Dalveer Bhandari  India Member 2012 2021

James Crawford  Australia Member 2015 2024

Kirill Gevorgian  Russia Member 2015 2024

Patrick Lipton Robinson  Jamaica Member 2015 2024

Philippe Couvreur  Belgium Registrar 2014 2021

a 2018–2021.

Presidents[edit]

# President Start End Country

1 José Gustavo Guerrero 1946 1949  El Salvador

2 Jules Basdevant 1949 1952  France

3 Arnold McNair 1952 1955  United Kingdom

4 Green Hackworth 1955 1958  United States

5 Helge Klæstad 1958 1961  Norway

6 Bohdan Winiarski 1961 1964  Poland

7 Percy Spender 1964 1967  Australia

8 José Bustamante y Rivero 1967 1970  Peru

9 Muhammad Zafarullah Khan 1970 1973  Pakistan

10 Manfred Lachs 1973 1976  Poland

11 Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga 1976 1979  Uruguay

12 Humphrey Waldock 1979 1981  United Kingdom

13 Taslim Elias 1982 1985  Nigeria

14 Nagendra Singh 1985 1988  India

15 José Ruda 1988 1991  Argentina

16 Robert Jennings 1991 1994  United Kingdom

17 Mohammed Bedjaoui 1994 1997  Algeria

18 Stephen Schwebel 1997 2000  United States

19 Gilbert Guillaume 2000 2003  France

20 Shi Jiuyong 2003 2006  China

21 Rosalyn Higgins 2006 2009  United Kingdom

22 Hisashi Owada 2009 2012  Japan

23 Peter Tomka 2012 2015  Slovakia

24 Ronny Abraham 2015 2018  France

25 Abdulqawi Yusuf 2018

 Somalia

Jurisdiction[edit] Main article: Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice

  Parties upon becoming a UN member   Parties prior to joining the UN under Article 93   UN observer states that are not parties

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the court's statute.[14] Non-UN members may also become parties to the court's statute under the Article 93(2) procedure. For example, before becoming a UN member state, Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 to become a party, and Nauru became a party in 1988.[15] Once a state is a party to the court's statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the three types of ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions.[16] Contentious issues[edit]

Play media

First gathering after Second World War, Dutch newsreel from 1946

In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only states may be parties in contentious cases. Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases although the court may receive information from public international organizations. That does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if a state brings the case against another. For example, a state may, in cases of "diplomatic protection", bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations.[17] Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
is often a crucial question for the court in contentious cases. (See Procedure below.) The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the court's jurisdiction may be founded:

First, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the court (jurisdiction founded on "special agreement" or "compromis"). This method is based on explicit consent rather than true compulsory jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the court's jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court and are thus more likely to comply with the court's judgment. Second, 36(1) also gives the court jurisdiction over "matters specifically provided for... in treaties and conventions in force". Most modern treaties contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ.[18] Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
and did not comply with the judgment.[19] Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.[20] Third, Article 36(2) allows states to make optional clause declarations accepting the court's jurisdiction. The label "compulsory" sometimes placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since declarations by states are voluntary. Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such as exclusion from jurisdiction certain types of disputes ("ratione materia").[21] The principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had a declaration in force.[22] Of the permanent Security Council
Security Council
members, only the United Kingdom
United Kingdom
has a declaration. In the court's early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the court since the 1980s.[citation needed] Industrialized countries, however, have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in recent years. Examples include the United States, as mentioned previously, and Australia, which modified its declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries (most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor, which gained their independence two months later).[23] Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice's statute. Article 37 of the Statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ. In addition, the court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (forum prorogatum). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction is established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads on the merits. The notion arose in the Corfu Channel Case
Corfu Channel Case
(UK v Albania) (1949), in which the court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.

Incidental jurisdiction[edit] Until rendering a final judgment, the court has competence to order interim measures for the protection of the rights of a party to a dispute. One or both parties to a dispute may apply the ICJ for issuing interim measures. In the Frontier Dispute Case, both parties to the dispute, Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso
and Mali
Mali
submitted an application to the court to indicate interim measures.[24] Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the Article 41 of the Statute of it.[25] Such as the final judgment, the order for interim measures of the court are binding on state parties to the dispute. The ICJ has competence to indicate interim measures only if the prima facie jurisdiction is satisfied. Advisory opinions[edit]

Audience of the "Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo"

An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations
United Nations
bodies and agencies. The UN Charter grants the General Assembly or the Security Council
Security Council
a power to request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question. Other organs of the UN rather than GA and SC may not request an advisory opinion of the ICJ unless the General Assembly authorizes them. Other organs of the UN only request an advisory opinion of the court regarding the matters falling into the scope of their activities.[26] On receiving a request, the court decides which states and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the court's help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates. In principle, the court's advisory opinions are only consultative in character but they are influential and widely respected. Certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, but inherently, they are non-binding under the Statute of the Court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the court's authoritative views on important issues of international law. In arriving at them, the court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states. An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.[27] Advisory opinions have often been controversial because the questions asked are controversial or the case was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section advisory opinions in the List of International Court of Justice cases article. One such well-known advisory opinion is the Nuclear Weapons Case. ICJ and the Security Council[edit] Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council
Security Council
for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the permanent five members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. That occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua
Nicaragua
case, when Nicaragua
Nicaragua
brought the issue of the United States' noncompliance with the court's decision before the Security Council.[9] Furthermore, if the Security Council
Security Council
refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under Chapter VII of the United Nations
United Nations
Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are at stake. The Security Council
Security Council
has never done that so far. The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council, and the separation of their powers, was considered by the court in 1992 in the Pan Am case. The court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the United Kingdom
United Kingdom
and United States. The problem was that these sanctions had been authorized by the Security Council, which resulted in a potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council
Security Council
and the judicial function of the court. The court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention, could not be prima facie regarded as appropriate since the action was ordered by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Nevertheless, the court declared the application admissible in 1998.[28] A decision on the merits has not been given since the parties (United Kingdom, United States, and Libya) settled the case out of court in 2003. There was a marked reluctance on the part of a majority of the court to become involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring it potentially into conflict with the Council. The court stated in the Nicaragua
Nicaragua
case that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the Security Council
Security Council
and adjudication by the ICJ. However, when there is room for conflict, the balance appears to be in favour of the Security Council. Should either party fail "to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court", the Security Council
Security Council
may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the Security Council
Security Council
deems such actions necessary. In practice, the court's powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the court's ruling and by the Security Council's unwillingness to impose consequences. However, in theory, "so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal", and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations
United Nations
undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
in a case to which it is a party." For example, the United States
United States
had previously accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after Nicaragua
Nicaragua
v. United States, withdrew its acceptance following the court's judgment that called on the US to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was "in breach of its obligation under the Treaty
Treaty
of Friendship with Nicaragua
Nicaragua
not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States
United States
to pay war reparations.[9] Examples of contentious cases[edit] Main article: List of International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
cases

A complaint by the United States
United States
in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran
Tehran
in violation of international law.[29] A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them.[30] A complaint by Iran after the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655
Iran Air Flight 655
by the United States
United States
Navy guided missile cruiser.[31] A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the Gulf of Maine
Gulf of Maine
area.[32] A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
against the member states of the North Atlantic Treaty
Treaty
Organization regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on 15 December 2004 because of lack of jurisdiction, the FRY not being a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application.[33] A complaint by the Republic of Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that Greece is, by vetoing its accession to NATO, in violation of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995[34] between the two countries. The complaint was decided in favour of Macedonia on 5 December 2011.[35] A complaint by the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Democratic Republic of the Congo
that the DRC's sovereignty had been violated by Uganda
Uganda
and that DRC had lost billions of dollars worth of resources,[36] was decided in favour of the DRC.[37] A complaint by the Republic of India
India
that a Pakistani military court gave a death sentence to Indian Jadhav[38] for alleged espionage and subversive activities Kulbhushan Jadhav case.

Law applied[edit] Main article: Sources of international law When deciding cases, the court applies international law as summarized in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, which provides that in arriving at its decisions the court shall apply international conventions, international custom and the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations." It may also refer to academic writing ("the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations") and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law although the court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis. Article 59 makes clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ. The court's decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(1)(d), however, the court may consider its own previous decisions. If the parties agree, they may also grant the court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono ("in justice and fairness"),[39] granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. That provision has not been used in the court's history. So far, the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
has dealt with about 130 cases. Procedure[edit] The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in the Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).[12] Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant, which files a written memorial setting out the basis of the court's jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the court's jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case. Preliminary objections[edit] A respondent that does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the court may raise preliminary objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the court can address the merits of the applicant's claim. Often, a separate public hearing is held on the preliminary objections and the court will render a judgment. Respondents normally file preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility refers to a range of arguments about factors the court should take into account in deciding jurisdiction, such as the fact that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a "legal dispute". In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before the court. If the case necessarily requires the court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has not consented to the court's jurisdiction, the court does not proceed to issue a judgment on the merits. If the court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent then is required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant's claim. Once all written arguments are filed, the court holds a public hearing on the merits. Once a case has been filed, any party (usually the applicant) may seek an order from the court to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. Such orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory injunctions in United States law. Article 41 of the statute allows the court to make such orders. The court must be satisfied to have prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before it grants provisional measures. Applications to intervene[edit] In cases in which a third state's interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state "with an interest of a legal nature" may apply; however, it is within the court's discretion whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare, and the first successful application occurred only in 1991. Judgment and remedies[edit] Once deliberation has taken place, the court issues a majority opinion. Individual judges may issue concurring opinions (if they agree with the outcome reached in the judgment of the court but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority). No appeal is possible, but any party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the court's judgment.[40] Criticisms[edit]

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with criticisms of the United Nations, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include the following:[41][42][43]

"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another. Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters. Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court or appeal a national supreme court's ruling. UN agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases. This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, may not have appropriate backing by a state. Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction. The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council
Security Council
being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound.[44] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council
Security Council
by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council
Security Council
to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua
Nicaragua
v. United States.

See also[edit]

United Nations
United Nations
portal Law portal

International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea List of International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
cases List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice Supranational aspects of international organizations Universal jurisdiction

Notes[edit]

^ Koh, Steven Arrigg. "4 Things You Should Know About The Hague". Retrieved 17 March 2017.  ^ "The Court International Court of Justice". www.icj-cij.org. Retrieved 10 January 2018.  ^ Statute of the International Court of Justice. Retrieved 31 August 2007. ^ Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997. Print. ^ United Nations
United Nations
Security Council, Provisional Verbatim Record of the Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighteenth Meeting, p.51 ^ Harris, D. Cases and Materials on International Law, 7th ed. (2012, London) p. 839. ^ a b c "International Court of Justice: UK abandons bid for seat on UN bench". BBC. Retrieved 21 November 2017.  ^ ICJ Statute, Article 18(1) ^ a b c Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua
Nicaragua
( Nicaragua
Nicaragua
v USA), [1986] ICJ Reports 14, 158–60 (Merits) per Judge Lachs. ^ Posner, E. A., and De Figueiredo, M. F. P. (June 2005). "Is the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
Biased?" (PDF). Journal of Legal Studies. University of Chicago. 34. CS1 maint: Uses authors parameter (link) ^ Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
1978 Archived 26 November 2005 at the Wayback Machine. (as amended on 5 December 2000). Retrieved 17 December 2005. See also Practice Directions I-XII Archived 27 November 2005 at the Wayback Machine. (as at 30 July 2004). Retrieved 17 December 2005. ^ a b Schwebel S "Ad Hoc Chambers of the International Court of Justice" (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law 831. ^ "Current Members International Court of Justice". www.icj-cij.org. Retrieved 2018-02-07.  ^ "Chapter XIV United Nations". United Nations. Retrieved 21 November 2017.  ^ "Chapter I - Charter of the United Nations
United Nations
and Statute of the International Court of Justice: 3 . Statute of the International Court of Justice". United Nations
United Nations
Treaty
Treaty
Series. 2013-07-09. Retrieved 2013-07-09.  ^ J. G. Merrills (2011). International Dispute Settlement. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 116–134. ISBN 978-0521153393.  ^ See the Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), [1955] ICJ Reports 4. ^ See List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ. ^ Case Concerning United States
United States
Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran
Tehran
(USA v Iran), [1979] ICJ Reports 7. ^ See Charney J "Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice" (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law 855. ^ See Alexandrov S Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
of the International Court of Justice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995). ^ For a complete list of countries and their stance with the ICJ, see Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction
of the Court. Retrieved 21 February 2011. ^ Burton, Bob (17 May 2005). Australia, East Timor strike oil, gas deal. Asia Times. Retrieved 21 April 2006. ^ "Provisional measures are indicated in the case of the Frontier Dispute" (PDF).  ^ "Statute of the Court International Court of Justice". www.icj-cij.org. Retrieved 2017-11-02.  ^ "Chapter XIV". www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-11-03.  ^ Pieter H.F. Bekker (12 December 2003). "The UN General Assembly Requests a World Court Advisory Opinion
Advisory Opinion
On Israel's Separation Barrier". American Society of International Law. Retrieved 21 November 2017.  ^ "Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States
United States
of America), Preliminary Objections, International Court of Justice, 27 February 1998". Icj-cij.org. Retrieved 4 November 2011.  ^ "Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 24 May 1980.  ^ "Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab
Arab
Jamahiriya)" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 10 December 1985. Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 January 2012.  ^ "Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)". Icj-cij.org. ^ "Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/ United States
United States
of America)" (PDF). International Court of Justice. 12 October 1984.  ^ "International Court of Justice". Icj-cij.org. Retrieved 2014-02-02.  ^ "Interim Accord" (PDF). 13 September 1995. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 March 2009.  ^ "The Court finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to NATO, has breached its obligation under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995" (PDF). The International Court of Justice. 5 December 2011. Retrieved 2014-02-02.  ^ "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)". Icj-cij.org. ^ "Court orders Uganda
Uganda
to pay Congo damages". The Guardian. 20 December 2005 ^ [1] ^ Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(2) ^ Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 60 ^ Ogbodo, S. Gozie (2012). "An Overview of the Challenges Facing the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
in the 21st Century,". Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law. 18 (1): 93–113. Retrieved 6 June 2016.  ^ Suh, Il Ro (April 1969). "Voting Behavior of National Judges in International Courts". The American Journal of International Law. 63 (2): 224–236. doi:10.2307/2197412. JSTOR 2197412.  ^ William, Samore, (1956). "National Origins v. Impartial Decisions: A Study of World Court Holdings". Chicago-Kent Law Review. 34 (3): 193–222. ISSN 0009-3599. Retrieved 6 June 2016.  ^ ""World Court: Completing the Circle" Time, 28 November 1960". Time. 28 November 1960. Retrieved 4 November 2011. 

Further reading[edit]

Dunne, Michael. "Isolationism of a Kind: Two Generations of World Court Historiography in the United States," Journal of American Studies (1987) 21#3 pp 327–351. Rosenne S., "Rosenne's the world court: what it is and how it works 6th ed (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003). Kwiatkowska, Barbara, "Decisions of the World Court Relevant to the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea". Relevant to the UNCLOS, dedicated to Former ICJ President Stephen M. Schwebel
Stephen M. Schwebel
(Brill, 2010) Van Der Wolf W. & De Ruiter D., "The International Court of Justice: Facts and Documents About the History and Work of the Court" (International Courts Association, 2011) Wilde, Ralph and Charlesworth, Hilary and Schrijver, Nico and Krisch, Nico and Chimni, B. S. and Gowlland-Debbas, Vera and Klabbers, Jan and Yee, Sienho and Shearer, Ivan, United Nations
United Nations
Reform Through Practice: Report of the International Law Association Study Group on United Nations Reform (December 11, 2011). Kolb, Robert, The International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
(Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2013). Bowett, D W. The International court
International court
of justice : process, practice and procedure (British Institute of International and Comparative Law: London, 1997). Sienho Yee, Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent Cases, 7 Journal of International Dispute Settlement (2016), 472–498. Andreas Zimmermann, Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams (eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2d. ed. October 2012, Oxford University Press).

External links[edit]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to International Court of Justice.

International Court of Justice, Official site ICJ Multimedia Gallery (photos, videos, webstreaming) List of cases ruled upon by the ICJ since its creation in 1946 Peace Palace
Peace Palace
Library - ICJ Research Guide The Statute of the International Court of Justice
Statute of the International Court of Justice
on the United Nations AVL: summary of the procedural history, list of selected preparatory documents and audiovisual material related to the negotiations and adoption of the Statute. Hague Justice Portal: Academic gateway to The Hague
The Hague
organizations concerning international peace, justice and security. International Criminal Court : See also, a tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression

Lectures[edit]

The ICJ in the Service of Peace and Justice, Conference organized on the Occasion of the Centenary of the Peace Palace Lecture by Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh
Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh
entitled Reflections on the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations
United Nations
Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Mohamed Bennouna entitled La Cour internationale de Justice, juge des souverainetés? in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Philippe Couvreur entitled La Cour internationale de Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations
United Nations
Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Vera Gowlland-Debbas entitled The International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations
United Nations
in the Lecture Series of the United Nations
United Nations
Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Mariko Kawano entitled Some Salient Features of the Contemporary International Disputes in the Precedents of the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Mariko Kawano entitled International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
and Disputes Involving the Interests of Third Parties to the Proceedings or the Common Interests of the International Community as a Whole or of the Community Established by a Convention in the Lecture Series of the United Nations
United Nations
Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Edward McWhinney entitled Judicial Activism and the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Alain Pellet entitled Conseil devant la Cour internationale de Justice in the Lecture Series of the United Nations
United Nations
Audiovisual Library of International Law Lecture by Jiuyong Shi
Jiuyong Shi
entitled The Present and Future Role of the International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
in the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law

v t e

United Nations
United Nations
Charter

Text

Preamble Chapter I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII XIV XV XVI XVII XVIII XIX Amendments

History

1919 Paris Peace Conference Treaty
Treaty
of Versailles Covenant of the League of Nations 1943 Moscow Conference 1943 Tehran
Tehran
Conference 1944 Dumbarton Oaks Conference 1945 Conference on International Organization Signatories

Organs created

Security Council General Assembly Economic and Social Council Trusteeship Council International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
(statute) Secretariat Military Staff Committee

Complete text UN portal

v t e

 United Nations

António Guterres, Secretary-General Amina J. Mohammed, Deputy Secretary-General Miroslav Lajčák, General Assembly President

United Nations
United Nations
System

United Nations
United Nations
Charter

Preamble

Principal organs

General Assembly

President

Security Council

Members

Economic and Social Council Secretariat

Secretary-General Deputy Secretary-General Under-Secretary-General

International Court of Justice

statute

Trusteeship Council

Secretariat Offices and Departments

Headquarters Envoy on Youth Spokesperson for the Secretary-General Geneva Palace of Nations Nairobi Vienna Economic and Social Affairs Political Affairs Public Information

Dag Hammarskjöld Library

Safety and Security Palestinian Rights Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping
Operations Internal Oversight Legal Affairs Developing Countries Sport for Development and Peace Disarmament Affairs Outer Space Affairs Partnerships Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs UN organizations by location United Nations
United Nations
Office for Developing Countries Sexual Violence in Conflict

Programmes and specialized agencies

FAO ICAO IFAD ILO IMO ITC IPCC IAEA MINURSO UNIDO ITU UNAIDS SCSL UNCTAD UNCITRAL UNCDF UNDG UNDP UNDPI UNDPKO

peacekeeping

UNEP

OzonAction UNEP/GRID-Arendal UNEP-WCMC

UNESCO UNFIP UNFPA UN-HABITAT OHCHR UNHCR UNHRC UNICEF UNICRI UNIDIR UNITAR UN-Oceans UNODC UNOPS UNOSAT UNRISD UNRWA UNSSC UNU

UNU-OP UNU-CRIS

UNV UN Women UNWTO UPU WFP WHO WIPO WMO

Members / observers

Full members Founding members

UNSC Permanent members

Observers

European Union

History

League of Nations Four Policemen Declaration by United Nations Peacekeeping
Peacekeeping
missions

history timeline

Enlargement

Resolutions

Security Council
Security Council
vetoes General Assembly

66th 67th

Security Council

Cyprus Iran Iraq Israel Lebanon Nagorno-Karabakh North Korea Palestine Syria Western Sahara

Elections

Secretary-General (2006 2016) International Court of Justice
International Court of Justice
2011 General Assembly President (2012 2016) Security Council
Security Council
(2015 2016)

Related

Bretton Woods system Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Criticism Delivering as One Flag

Honour Flag

Four Nations Initiative Genocide Convention UN Global Compact ICC International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World International Years UN laissez-passer Military Staff Committee Official languages Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Peacekeeping Treaty
Treaty
Series UN Day Universal Declaration of Human Rights Millennium Declaration

Summit Development Goals

Security Council
Security Council
veto power UN reform

Security Council
Security Council
reform

UN Art Collection UN Memorial Cemetery Korea

Other

Outline UN television film series (1964–1966) In popular culture

Authority control

WorldCat Identities VIAF: 161061724 LCCN: n50053120 ISNI: 0000 0001 2375 3134 GND: 36344-3 SELIBR: 119499 SUDOC: 026373963 BNF: cb11863379r (data) HDS: 9632 NDL: 00566

.