Introduction– International Court of Justice (ICJ)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN), established in 1945 under the UN Charter and began functioning in 1946. It is headquartered at The Hague, Netherlands, and serves as the primary institution responsible for adjudicating disputes between states and providing advisory opinions on legal questions referred by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. The ICJ plays a crucial role in maintaining international peace, promoting justice, and developing international law by interpreting treaties, assessing customary law, and enforcing obligations under international agreements.
The ICJ replaced the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which was established under the League of Nations in 1922. While the PCIJ ceased to exist after World War II, the ICJ inherited its Statute, with certain modifications, and continued its judicial functions as part of the UN system.
Composition and Structure
The ICJ is composed of 15 judges, elected for a nine-year term by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, voting independently but concurrently. To ensure a global representation, no two judges can belong to the same nationality, and the composition must reflect the main forms of civilization and legal systems of the world — common law, civil law, Islamic law, and socialist law traditions.
Judges can be re-elected, and one-third of them retire every three years to maintain continuity. The President and Vice-President are elected by the judges themselves for a three-year term. The Court also has a Registry, which acts as its administrative arm.
Jurisdiction of the ICJ
The ICJ’s jurisdiction can be divided into contentious jurisdiction and advisory jurisdiction.
1. Contentious Jurisdiction
This refers to disputes between states only. The ICJ cannot hear cases brought by individuals, corporations, NGOs, or non-state entities. States can submit disputes voluntarily or through compulsory jurisdiction clauses in treaties.
A state can accept the Court’s jurisdiction by:
- Special Agreement (Compromis): When both states agree to refer a specific dispute to the ICJ.
- Compromissory Clause: When a treaty provides that disputes under it shall be referred to the ICJ.
- Optional Clause Declaration (Article 36(2) of the Statute): When states make a unilateral declaration accepting the ICJ’s jurisdiction as compulsory in relation to other states that have accepted the same.
2. Advisory Jurisdiction
Under Article 65 of the ICJ Statute, the Court can give advisory opinions on legal questions referred by the UN General Assembly, Security Council, or other specialized agencies authorized by the General Assembly. Advisory opinions, while non-binding, carry great moral and persuasive authority and are often used to guide international decision-making.
Applicable Law
According to Article 38(1) of the ICJ Statute, the Court applies:
- International Conventions and Treaties (expressly recognized by contesting states)
- International Custom (as evidence of general practice accepted as law)
- General Principles of Law recognized by civilized nations
- Judicial Decisions and Teachings of the most qualified publicists as subsidiary means for determining rules of law
Notable Cases
1. Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom v. Albania, 1949)
This was the first case decided by the ICJ. The Court held Albania responsible for damages caused to British warships by mines in Albanian waters, establishing that states must not knowingly allow their territory to be used for acts contrary to international law.
Read Full Case – ICJ Reports 1949
2. Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion, 1949)
The ICJ recognized the legal personality of the United Nations, allowing it to bring claims against states for damages suffered by its agents. This decision expanded the concept of international legal personality beyond states.
Read Advisory Opinion – ICJ Reports 1949
3. Nicaragua v. United States (1986)
The ICJ held that the U.S. violated international law by supporting the Contras in Nicaragua and mining its harbors. It affirmed that the use of force or intervention in another state’s internal affairs violates the UN Charter and customary international law.
Read Judgment – ICJ Reports 1986
4. Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (1996)
The Court stated that while the use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to international law, it could not definitively conclude whether their use would be lawful in extreme cases of self-defense.
Read Advisory Opinion – ICJ Reports 1996
5. Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007)
The Court ruled that Serbia was not directly responsible for genocide during the Bosnian war but failed to prevent it, marking a significant interpretation of state responsibility under the Genocide Convention.
Read Judgment – ICJ Reports 2007
Also Read: Intervention in Domestic Matters under International Law
Functions and Significance of the ICJ
The ICJ plays a central role in:
- Peaceful settlement of international disputes, reducing chances of conflict.
- Clarifying and developing international law through judgments and advisory opinions.
- Promoting rule of law at the international level.
- Advising UN organs and influencing international policy.
However, the ICJ’s effectiveness is sometimes questioned because its jurisdiction depends on state consent, and it lacks an enforcement mechanism for its judgments.
Limitations of the ICJ
- Lack of compulsory jurisdiction: States must consent to the Court’s jurisdiction.
- Non-enforcement of judgments: ICJ lacks its own enforcement body; compliance depends on goodwill.
- Political influence: States may disregard ICJ decisions for political reasons.
- Restricted access: Only states, not individuals or NGOs, can be parties before the ICJ.
Conclusion
The International Court of Justice remains a cornerstone of the international legal system. Despite its limitations, it continues to uphold the ideals of justice, equality, and peaceful coexistence among nations. Its decisions and advisory opinions contribute to the evolution of international law, offering legal clarity and shaping global governance norms.
Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Tribunal’s Discretion in S.K. Jain v. Union of India