The Role of the International Court of Justice in Resolving Disputes 

Author: Seleena Saju, a student at Symbiosis Law School Hyderabad

Abstract 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations for the peaceful settlement of disputes among states and the issuance of advisory opinions. It was established under the United Nations Charter. 

The research presented in this article digs into the mechanisms, jurisdictional capacity and scope, and limitations of the ICJ while highlighting the key values of the Court within the framework of maintaining international peace and security in the global arena. 

Based on the examination and study of IJC’s landmark and well-known cases, this article will deal with its challenges, together with proposals for improving its power and responding to current and pressing global issues; in sum, this article critically analyses ICJ’s efficiency and effectiveness in the constantly shifting global legal context.

Introduction to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) 

The ICJ, as mentioned above, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, which was established in 1945 by the Charter of the United Nations and is located at the Peace Palace in Hague, Netherlands. The ICJ consists of 15 judges, and the officiating languages within the Court are English and French. It acts as a custodian of international law, creating and maintaining global peace and security for the states. It is the pinnacle of the rule of law at the global level, impartially enforcing the principles of equity and justice.
However, ICJ cannot enforce its orders on its own. Thus, it needs to rely on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to ensure compliance with its orders. Even when there are no formal implementations done, the decisions of the ICJ can influence how the states engage with parties of disputes.

The fundamental role of the ICJ is to settle disputes between states while upholding the strong values of peace and stability in the international system. This is done by providing a forum for dispute resolution and discussions, where the ICJ prevents conflicts from escalating into aggression and war. Its decisions contribute to the development of international law, and they set precedents quoted in precedent cases. 

Despite all this, the effectiveness of the ICJ could be more substantial as the states are reluctant to comply and accept its jurisdiction and fall in with its rulings. Some states would prefer to submit to the ICJ’s authority. IJC’s decisions are only sometimes complied with by the states, and their choices are sometimes ignored or rejected by parties to the disputes. Despite this, the ICJ is an essential institution in the international legal system, and its role in promoting the peaceful settlement of disputes between states cannot be overlooked. 

Mechanism of Dispute Resolution by the ICJ 

The ICJ’s dispute resolution mechanism comprises two primary roles: contentious cases and advisory opinions.  

Contentious Cases 

These are disputes between states under legal claims that are presented to the ICJ for resolution. The ICJ has jurisdiction and authority over such cases and can order judgments in them. This is through the presentation of memorials, counter-memorials, oral pleadings, and deliberation that lead to a judgment which is binding. Below are some of the controversial cases that the ICJ has handled in the past: 

1. Nuclear Tests (1973–1974): Australia and New Zealand brought cases against France. 
2. Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (1973): Pakistan brought a case against India. After the Indo-Pak War of 1971. 
3. Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (1976–1978): a case between Greece and Turkey. 
4. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (1979–1981): The United States brought a case against Iran. 
5. Military and Paramilitary Activities (1984–1991): Nicaragua brought a case against the United States. 

Advisory Opinions 

Advisory opinions, though non-binding, hold significant persuasive value in shaping international law. These are non-binding judicial statements on legal questions. The ICJ can issue an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of an UN-authorized body. The requesting organization can decide whether or not to act on the opinion.  The ICJ’s advisory opinions are not final or appealable and do not create a precedent for future disputes.  However, opinions can have significant legal weight and moral authority and help clarify international law.  These advisory opinions can be used as a preventive diplomacy tool and strengthen peaceful relations between states. 

1. In 1971, the ICJ ruled that South Africa’s presence in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa should withdraw immediately. The ICJ has also issued opinions on problems related to climate change, such as adaptation, mitigation, human rights, and stakeholder participation. Examples of such ICJ advisory opinions include: 
2. Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004): The ICJ declared that the wall’s construction breached international law. 
3. Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (2010): The ICJ concluded that Kosovo’s declaration did not violate international law. 

Scope, limitations, and challenges of ICJ 

The ICJ provides advisory judgments on legal issues, such as the use of force, self-determination, sovereignty, and territorial conflicts. In the settlement of disputes and advisory opinions, the ICJ adopts a systematic approach to its judicial tasks in that it utilizes international law in interpreting treaties, customary international practices, general legal principles, and relevant court decisions in the resolution of disputes and advisory opinions.

Despite the prominence of the ICJ, the following are some of its limitations:

1. The ICJ cannot exercise jurisdiction without the states’ consent in the dispute. This often leads to cases where one state refuses to appear or does not recognize the Court’s authority.  
2. States are not automatically bound to submit disputes to the ICJ unless they have made an optional clause declaration under Article 36(2). 
3. Individuals, corporations, and non-state entities cannot bring cases to the ICJ; only states can be parties to contentious cases under the ICJ.  
4. The ICJ has no direct instrument to enforce its judgments on the states. Compliance relies on the willingness of states and, in some cases, the UN Security Council, which may face political challenges. 
5. The Court operates within a politically charged international environment, and its decisions may face criticism or non-compliance due to political considerations. While influential, advisory opinions lack binding legal force, limiting their direct impact on state behaviour.
6. ICJ proceedings are often lengthy, making them less effective in resolving urgent disputes. States usually attach reservations or limitations to accepting the ICJ’s jurisdiction, reducing the Court’s ability to hear cases. 

The ICJ faces many challenges which impact functioning in promoting international peace and justice impartially. Firstly, it needs more rest enforcement instruments or mechanisms, which leads to acquiescence, often depending on diplomatic pressure or the actions of the UNSC.  

Secondly, the Court’s impartiality can be perceived as a compromise when powerful states refuse to participate in proceedings or comply with its judgments, which undermines the Court’s authority. 

Additionally, the ICJ’s jurisdiction is restrained by its reliance on state consent, which restricts its ability to address critical disputes that involve states unwilling to submit to its authority or comply with it. Furthermore, the protracted timelines for adjudication reduce the ICJ’s ability to respond effectively to urgent international crises. 

Role of ICJ in Promoting International Peace and Security 

The ICJ is vital in maintaining global peace through legal adjudication and interpretation. It reinforces the UN Charter’s objective of resolving disputes peacefully, thereby reducing the likelihood of conflict escalation. This can be better understood by examining some previous case law of ICJ. 

Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, 1949): 

In 1946, British warships were damaged and crew members killed by mines in the Corfu Channel, which had previously been swept for mines. The UK accused Albania of laying or allowing the mines to be laid after the Allied naval authorities had cleared the area.  

The UK brought the case to the ICJ, and the Security Council of the United Nations recommended that the dispute be referred to the Court. The ICJ issued the following judgments, including one on 9 April 1949 in which:  

1. The ICJ held Albania responsible for the explosions, damage, and loss of life.  
2. The ICJ ruled that the British ships had the right of innocent passage through the Corfu Channel.  
3. The ICJ ruled that the British Navy’s minesweeping operation violated Albania’s sovereignty.  
4. The ICJ ordered Albania to compensate the UK, but Albania did not participate in the final stage of proceedings and did not pay.  

The Corfu Channel Case was one of the first and most important cases heard by the ICJ. It established precedents for international law in areas such as state responsibility, the use of circumstantial evidence, and the limits of self-help. It also highlighted the ICJ’s role in resolving disputes between states. The ICJ’s judgment emphasized state responsibility and peaceful navigation. 

Libya v. Chad (1994)

The case was referred to the ICJ in 1990 and decided on 3 February 1994. The ICJ ruled in favour of Chad against Libya and declared Libya’s occupation of the Aouzou Strip illegal. The Court recognized Chad’s territorial claim and sovereignty over the Borderlands and Aouzou Strip. The Court’s resolution of a territorial dispute promoted regional stability in Africa. 

Comparison with Other International Dispute Resolution Mechanisms 

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one of several functioning institutes within the global arena for resolving international disputes, and each of these institutes has its distinct characteristics, functions, challenges, and limitations. Comparing the ICJ with other such international institutes shows how unique the ICJ’s role is within the global system. 

ICJ vs. International Arbitration: The ICJ is a permanent judicial organ of the global arena, while arbitration is a body that appoints arbitrators for dispute resolution between parties. Arbitration agrees upon procedural rules. The ICJ’s decisions are based on the consent of the states, whereas arbitration allows parties to define the scope of the tribunals through mutual agreement and negotiations. The ICJ’s judgments and arbitral awards are binding, but arbitration provides much more flexibility in catering to procedures for specific disputes. Arbitration is often faster and more cost-effective than ICJ proceedings.  

ICJ vs. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA): The PCA is a flexible institution that administers arbitration and conciliation for states, private parties, and intergovernmental organizations. The ICJ deals with broader international law issues, whereas the PCA focuses on specific disputes like investments and maritime matters. Before the ICJ, only the states could bring cases, while the PCA allows a broader range of parties, including private individuals. 

ICJ vs. World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Mechanism (WTO-DSM): The WTO-DSM mainly deals with trade disputes, providing a skeleton process for resolving conflicts under WTO agreements. In contrast, the ICJ addresses much broader concepts of legal issues in the international arena. Unlike the ICJ, which requires explicit state consent, the WTO-DSM has a compulsory jurisdiction mechanism for WTO members. The WTO-DSM includes a dispute resolution body that monitors compliance and can authorize remedies, while ICJ enforcement relies on state cooperation or the intervention of the Security Council. 

ICJ vs. International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS): ITLOS solves maritime law disputes under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). On the other hand, the ICJ addresses a broader range of international conflicts. ITLOS has mandatory jurisdiction for some instances under UNCLOS, whereas ICJ jurisdiction is contingent on state consent. ITLOS benefits from specialized knowledge in maritime law, whereas the ICJ’s broader scope may need more specificity. 

ICJ vs. Regional Courts like the European Court of Justice and African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Regional courts focus on disputes within specific regions and often involve individuals or organizations, whereas the ICJ’s jurisdiction is global and limited to state parties. Regional courts usually emphasize human rights, trade, or regional integration, while the ICJ deals with interstate disputes and broader principles of international law. 

Future of the ICJ in a Changing Global Order 

The ICJ faces many challenges emerging with the global landscape evolving, requiring adaptation to the current scenarios to address novel and complex legal issues. 

1. Cyberattacks have been on the rise over the last decade, targeting state security and critical infrastructure. The ICJ has to evolve legal structures to understand such disputes.
2. Climate change has been a topical discussion for decades now. It has proven to be a challenge all over the country. Disputes have arisen over issues such as emissions reductions and liability for environmental damage. The ICJ must interpret treaties such as the Paris Agreement 2016 (COP21) and impose state responsibility. 

Conclusion 

The ICJ is the cornerstone of the international legal system that significantly contributes to the peaceful settlement of disputes and to the development of international law. The ICJ judgments and advisory opinions form global legal norms despite its limitations. Stronger authority and adjustment to challenges in contemporary society will keep it relevant in promoting justice and stability in an increasingly interdependent world.

This would help in developing closer ties with the UNSC to make enforcement of judgments more practical. It could also comprise monitoring and implementing mechanisms on compliance with the rulings. Global advocacy on legal mandate through cooperation with other international stakeholders to call for more significant legal obligations to ensure compliance. This would ensure that ICJ’s judgments have more value in the global legal system. 

This would motivate states to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ under Article 36(2) of its Statute, and this would strengthen the ability of the Court to resolve border disputes. With the international treaties, provisions would be incorporated automatically to refer disputes to the ICJ, setting a more significant base for its jurisdiction on the key issues. It would clear up global governance issues, and international organizations can become parties in disputes and seek advisory opinions. 

However, ICJ must amend its statute or devise other instruments to cater for the cases. It would then be possible to introduce reforms aimed at streamlining procedures to have the ICJ respond effectively to urgent disputes by avoiding delays. Technology use in case documentation and presentation of evidence as well as virtual hearings would enhance the capacity of the Court to handle complex cases more efficiently. Establishing expert panels within the ICJ for areas like cyber law and environmental disputes would improve the quality and relevance of judgments.

FAQ:

1. How are ICJ judgments enforced?

The ICJ does not have mechanisms of direct enforcement; its judgments can only be implemented by cooperation from the states or by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Complying depends mostly on the state’s willingness and diplomatic pressure.

2. What are the key limitations of the ICJ? 

• The ICJ needs state consent for exercising jurisdiction. 
• Cases cannot be brought before the Court by individuals, corporations, or other non-state actors. The Court has no direct enforcing powers. 
• The proceedings are always long and thus less efficient for urgent disputes. 
• Political consideration can easily undermine its neutrality and authority.

3. What role does the ICJ play in promoting international peace and security?

The ICJ prevents conflict escalation, reinforces state accountability and contributes to the development of global legal norms by providing a forum for peaceful dispute resolution and issuing judgments based on international law.