Justice on the Global Stage: The ICC’s Pursuit of Accountability

Abstract

This article is about the International Court of Justice which, as the principal organ of the United Nations, has been dealing with international legal questions since 1945. It highlights the ICJ’s dual functions: adjudicating some of the interstate disputes and giving out opinions on any issue of international law. The change of the court from the Permanent Court of International Justice or PCIJ and its contribution to the advancement of progressive International Law is described.

These cases include the Corfu Channel case as well as Nicaragua v. United States: The application of ICJ in explaining as well as influencing international law and diplomacy. The article also looks at matters that touch on the court for example; voluntary jurisdiction, enforcement issues, and procedures.

Last of all, the capability of the ICJ to develop and progress regarding its competency as part of a world juridical system and respond to emergent international concerns such as climate change and cyber warfare is considered. However, the ICJ remains actively involved in the development of the concept of justice on the international level as well as in maintaining the international legal order.

Keywords

International Law, Advisory Jurisdiction, Permanent Court of International Justice, Global Justice, Bilateral Negotiations.

Introduction

The International Court of Justice In the most basic terms is the primary Agency[1] of the United Nations, it has significant functions in upholding international peace and Security. Founded in 1945 by the UN Charter, the ICJ decides boundary cases, the content of which on international law, and provides legal opinions on questions submitted by UN organs. The court is an institution situated in The Hague in Netherlands, in an effort to ensure peaceful settlement of disputes with the use of legal means. By reviewing the literature on the ICJ, this article looks at its structure and jurisdiction, significant cases, problems, and changes in the principles of international justice.

Background[2]

The ICJ was established in the post-Second World War period replacing the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ)[3]. Consisting of two world wars, the failure of the League of Nations led to the formation of the United Nations (UN) with the ICJ acting as its bench. Having been created in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations the ICJ inherited most of the traits of its predecessor, thus stressing the ongoing legal traditions of international justice.

One of its main roles is to minimize the risk of armed confrontation by dealing with the legal controversies with one or several states to not allow it to shift to the use of force. The role of commitment that was proposed is best understood in relation to the ICJ as providing for a more formalized mechanism for the handling of international disputes than the political structures represented by the UN Security Council.

This move could be seen as the first to the formation of a more stable and order world legal order whereby the new body, the ICJ could be able to settle disputes amongst states without interference by political factors. It was the creation that signified this understanding of gentlemen that legal processes and not political or military ones are the key puss for establishing and sustaining peace and cooperation amongst nations. By doing so the ICJ makes sure that the states have complied with the principles of standards of the international legal system and thus contributed towards the maintenance of justice and a rule of law in the framework of international relations.

Functioning of ICC

The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. Each judge serves a nine-year term, with one-third of the judges being re-elected every three years. The composition of the court ensures diverse geographical representation, while judges must possess the highest qualifications in international law.

The court operates in two primary capacities:

• CONTENTIOUS CASES: These involve disputes between states, which may concern territorial issues, diplomatic relations, or treaty violations.
• ADVISORY OPINIONS: These non-binding opinions are requested by UN bodies or specialized agencies on legal questions of international significance.

The ICJ’s proceedings are public, and states are required to consent to its jurisdiction, often through specific treaties or declarations accepting its authority.

Jurisdiction

The ICJ has jurisdiction over two types of matters: The differences being contentious disputes and advisory opinions.

• CONTENTIOUS JURISDICTION[4]: This means the power of the court to resolve disputes that come up between different states. However, the ICJ can only rule on a case when both parties have agreed to the jurisdiction of the court. Also, when a judgment is reached, it does not involve the consent of any state and therefore it is final.
• ADVISORY JURISDICTION[5]: The ICJ also has powers to provide an opinion on legal matters that are brought before it in the shape of a request by the UN General Assembly, Security Council, or any other agency. While these opinions are not legally binding in the normal stench of the word, they are deeply moral and legal.

The Court only has compulsory jurisdiction where parties to a case have signed agreements to accept the jurisdiction of the Court; otherwise, it operates on the basis of treaties or declarations accepting the decisions of the Court.

Notable cases and Precedents

From time to time, the ICJ has heard and determined very significant cases that have defined the landscape of international law and relations.

• CORFU CHANNEL CASE (1949)[6]: One of the first cases referred to this occurred between the United Kingdom and Albania. The court gave judgment that Albania was responsible for the loss of lives and damages by naval mines in the Corfu Channel and also laid down principles for freedom of navigation and principles of state responsibility.
• NICARAGUA v. UNITED STATES (1986)[7]: In this significant choice, the ICJ stated that Nicaragua had violated the law regarding the use of force and the United States supported the Contras. The case set historical practice for non-intervention and sovereignty of the states.
• LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA (2002)[8]: This was the first time the ICJ provided the geographical scope for a solution to a long-standing border controversy, illustrating how world border disputes may be resolved without force.
• CASE CONCERNING WHALING IN THE ANTARCTIC (AUSTRALIA v. JAPAN 2014)[9]: The ICJ claimed that Japan’s whaling in the Southern Ocean had not been for scientific research as argued by that country and directed it to stop as a sign of the court’s impact on the environment.

These cases provide evidence of the ICJ’s function of putting into perspective the place of global relations, international law, and difficult conflicts.

Challenges Faced

Despite its successes, the ICJ faces several challenges:

• VOLUNTARY JURISDICTION[10]: A huge problem that ICJ faces is that it can only hear cases if the states concerned are willing to authorize a referred case. Presently, some leading states, especially the United States, have refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the court and, therefore, have limited the power of the court in important global issues.
• ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGEMENT: These are schools of thought that have been propagated by the ICJ, however, the ICGL lacks enforcement mechanisms. Despite being of an authoritative nature, the court delegates the enforcement decisions of the UN Security Council this can prove to be ideal in the instance that a veto is exercised.
• POLITICIZATION[11]: Even as regards the dispute settlement an impression of ideology may be gained, primarily in situations where political controversies are in question. This is unhelpful because it makes the institution appear to be biased in some way or the other.
• DELAYS AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES: The average time it takes to complete a case in ICJ is enormous, there is therefore little chance of handling and resolving new urgent international conflicts.

The ICC and Global Justice[12]

Here, the essential role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is to maintain the notion of justice at the international level and for the development of international law. It is used when states need to settle disputes peacefully, for instance, when mutually beneficial talks between the involved parties are impossible. The role of the ICJ in relation to the resolution of disputes is critical for the preservation of international peace since it provides that states follow the principles of the rule of law when engaging in the interaction.

Besides dispute settlement, a reference is made to creating precedents that define the formation of international legal systems. It can therefore be suggested that the court is a key player in the development of the ‘soft international law’ by providing a more coordinated and consistent legal character to the asserted global regulation. This, in turn, leads to stability and cooperation between the states.

The ICJ also protects those nations who are weaker to ensure they get justice against stronger nations under international law. In this defense capacity, the court creates an avenue for states that may be left out or whose interests may not be considered in diplomacy to present their stand and have their rights respected.

In its advisory role, the ICJ provides legal advice on matters of contentious issues of international law, and in many instances, fosters world and regional policies. Among these, its opinion on the permitted use of nuclear weapons and the legal status of the Palestinian[13] territories have stirred international controversy and influenced both the law and the politics. While being advocacy-based, these opinions are highly influential and often generate a precedent for actions in international relations and policymaking.

Future Prospects

Better opportunities are tucked in the future of ICJ.[14] This is especially true assuming that global dynamics challenges will escalate in complexity in the coming years. The court’s jurisdiction is recognized as one of the major fields that can be developed further. Some states accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ, while several other powerful nations either have not accepted the ICJ’s compulsory jurisdiction or withdraw from cases regularly. Increasing effectiveness through access to more states by joining more treaties or making declarations with reference to the ICJ could add a great deal to its working style.

In the same regard, measures in respect of enhancing the compliance of its judgments could further strengthen the jurisdiction of the ICJ. At this moment, the court has to delegate enforcement of its decisions to the UN Security Council only, and political motives interference and the veto right speculate it. It is also possible to strengthen independent enforcement bodies or change the way the UN addresses non-compliance, to improve the work of the court.

The ICJ also can essentially respond to new international questions. With emerging threats such as cyber warfare, climate change, and other emerging diseases the ICJ has the potential to define legal environments around these emerging issues. Alleged climate-change accountability recommendations, for instance, might affect internationally binding advisories or conventions.

Lastly, the advisory jurisdiction of the ICJ has the potential to become even more important due to the escalating practice of seeking legal determination of central global issues by international organizations. In the future, the ICJ will, undoubtedly become one of the main legal bodies shaping a new international order that is fairer and freer from conflicts.

Conclusion

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has established itself as a crucial institution in the preservation of global peace and the advancement of international law. Its founding was a significant step towards a more systematic and legalistic approach to settling international disputes, with judicial institutions taking precedence over political or military interventions. The International Court of Justice has established a legal framework that encourages states to uphold international law, minimizing the likelihood of armed conflict and supporting stability.

In the ICJ such cases include the Corfu Channel affair case and Nicaragua v. United States have also engendered important legal precedents in the international legal system that have shaped state practice, diplomacy, and more importantly, the formation of international law. They have also highlighted the function of elaborating the principles of state responsibility, sovereignty, and territory integrity when acting in the sphere of international relations also based on court precedent.

However, there are consistencies of challenges that are leveled against the ICJ including the fact the jurisdiction of the court is based on consent, the court lacks robust mechanisms for enforcing its decisions and the potential for politicization when used in critical international disputes. Nevertheless, the mission to protect international justice cannot be denied by the role of the court. Its decisions and advisory opinions are efficient and wide-ranging influences on the policies of states and international organizations.

Moreover, the future looks rather promising and the ICJ is still to assume even larger functions in relation to new threats of the globalized world. Since most of these international problems continue to emerge; such as climate change, cyber warfare, and threats to global health, the need for legal advice from the ICJ will become more crucial. This is the reason why through the extension of its jurisdiction and enhancement of compliance measures the ICJ will be able to consistently further its power and help build a just and efficient world order.

Reference(s):

[1] International Criminal Court (ICC), Humanitarian Law, https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/international-criminal-court-icc/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica, International Criminal Court, https://www.britannica.com/topic/International-Criminal-Court (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[3] Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), International Court of Justice, https://www.icj-cij.org/pcij (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[4] Contentious Jurisdiction, International Court of Justice, https://www.icj-cij.org/contentious-jurisdiction (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[5] Advisory Jurisdiction, International Court of Justice, https://www.icj-cij.org/advisory-jurisdiction (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[6] Corfu Channel (U.K. v. Alb.), Judgment, 1949 I.C.J. 4 (Apr. 9), https://www.icj-cij.org/case/1.

[7] Case Analysis: Republic of Nicaragua v. United States of America, iPleaders (last visited Oct. 20, 2024), https://blog.ipleaders.in/case-analysis-republic-nicaragua-united-states-america/.

[8] Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, 2002 I.C.J. 303 (Oct. 10)

[9] Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, 2014 I.C.J. 226 (Mar. 31)

[10] International Criminal Court, Jurisdiction, ICC (last visited Oct. 20, 2024), https://www.icc-cpi.int/about/how-the-court-works.

[11] Christopher W. Mullins, Twenty Years of the ICC: Politicization, Challenges, and Mechanisms, Global Observatory, https://theglobalobservatory.org/2018/08/twenty-years-icc-politicization-mechanisms/ (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[12] International Criminal Court, ISBN 92-9227-365-5

[13] Situation in the State of Palestine, International Criminal Court, https://www.icc-cpi.int/palestine (last visited Oct. 20, 2024).

[14] The Future of International Criminal Justice: Emerging Trends and Challenges, Drishti IAS, https://www.drishtiias.com/blog/the-future-of-international-criminal-justice-emerging-trends-and-challenges (last visited Oct. 20, 2024)