International Court of Justice

Coordinates: 52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″E

The International Court of Justice (ICJ; French: Cour

internationale de justice, CIJ), also called the World International Court of Justice
Court,[1] is the only international court that adjudicates Cour internationale de justice
general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions
on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the
United Nations (UN),[2] and is located in The Hague,
Netherlands.

The ICJ is the successor of the Permanent Court of

International Justice (PCIJ), which was established in 1920 by
the League of Nations. After the Second World War, the
League and the PCIJ were replaced by the United Nations and Emblem of the International Court of
ICJ, respectively. The Statute of the ICJ, which sets forth its Justice
purpose and structure, draws heavily from that of its
predecessor, whose decisions remain valid. All member states
of the UN are party to the ICJ Statute and may initiate
contentious legal cases; however, advisory proceedings may
be submitted only by certain UN organs and agencies.

The ICJ consists of a panel of 15 judges elected by the UN

General Assembly and Security Council for nine-year terms.
No more than one judge of each nationality may be
represented on court at the same time, and judges collectively
must reflect the principal civilizations and legal systems of the The Peace Palace, the seat of the court
world. Seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands,
the ICJ is the only principal UN organ not located in New
York City.[3] Its official working languages are English and
French.

Since the entry of its first case on 22 May 1947, the ICJ has
entertained 191 cases through 13 November 2023.[4] Pursuant
to Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,
the court’s rulings and opinions are binding on the parties with
respect to the particular case ruled on by the court.

History 52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″E

Established 1945 (PCIJ dissolved in
The first permanent institution established for the purpose of
1946)
settling international disputes was the Permanent Court of
Arbitration (PCA), which was created by the Hague Peace Jurisdiction Worldwide, 193 state
Conference of 1899. Initiated by the Russian Tsar Nicholas II, parties
the conference involved all the world's major powers, as well Location The Hague, Netherlands
as several smaller states, and resulted in the first multilateral
Coordinates 52°05′11.8″N 4°17′43.8″E
treaties concerned with the conduct of warfare.[5] Among
these was the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of Authorized UN Charter · ICJ Statute
International Disputes, which set forth the institutional and by
procedural framework for arbitral proceedings, which would
Judge term 9 years
take place in The Hague, Netherlands. Although the
proceedings would be supported by a permanent bureau— length
whose functions would be equivalent to that of a secretariat or Number of 15
court registry—the arbitrators would be appointed by the positions
disputing states from a larger pool provided by each member
Website icj-cij.org (https://www.icj-
of the convention. The PCA was established in 1900 and
cij.org/home)
began proceedings in 1902.
President
A second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, which involved
Currently Nawaf Salam
most of the world's sovereign states, revised the convention
and enhanced the rules governing arbitral proceedings before Since 6 February 2024
the PCA. During this conference, the United States, Great Vice President
Britain and Germany submitted a joint proposal for a
Currently Julia Sebutinde
permanent court whose judges would serve full-time. As the
delegates could not agree as to how the judges would be Since 6 February 2024
selected, the matter was temporarily shelved pending an
agreement to be adopted at a later convention.[6]

The Hague Peace Conferences, and the ideas that emerged therefrom, influenced the creation of the Central
American Court of Justice, which was established in 1908 as one of the earliest regional judicial bodies.
Various plans and proposals were made between 1911 and 1919 for the establishment of an international
judicial tribunal, which would not be realized in the formation of a new international system following the
First World War.

The Permanent Court of International Justice

The unprecedented bloodshed of the First World War led to the creation of the League of Nations,
established by the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 as the first worldwide intergovernmental organization
aimed at maintaining peace and collective security. Article 14 League's Covenant called for the
establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which would be responsible for
adjudicating any international dispute submitted to it by the contesting parties, as well as to provide an
advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the League of Nations.

In December 1920, following several drafts and debates, the Assembly of the league unanimously adopted
the statute of the PCIJ, which was signed and ratified the following year by a majority of members. Among
other things, the new Statute resolved the contentious issues of selecting judges by providing that the judges
be elected by both the council and the Assembly of the league concurrently but independently. The makeup
of the PCIJ would reflect the "main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world".[7]
The PCIJ would be permanently placed at the Peace Palace in The Hague, alongside Permanent Court of
Arbitration.

The PCIJ represented a major innovation in international jurisprudence in several ways:

Unlike previous international arbitral tribunals, it was a permanent body governed by its
statutory provisions and rules of procedure
It had a permanent registry that served as a liaison with governments and international
bodies;
Its proceedings were largely public, including pleadings, oral arguments, and all
 documentary evidence;
It was accessible to all states and could be declared by states to have compulsory
jurisdiction over disputes;
The PCIJ Statute was the first to list sources of law it would draw upon, which in turn became
sources of international law
Judges were more representative of the world and its legal systems than any prior
international judicial body.
As a permanent body, the PCIJ would, over time, make a series of decisions and rulings that
would develop international law

Unlike the ICJ, the PCIJ was not part of the league, nor were members of the league automatically a party
to its Statute. The United States, which played a key role in both the second Hague Peace Conference and
the Paris Peace Conference, was notably not a member of the league. However, several of its nationals
served as judges of the court.

From its first session in 1922 until 1940, the PCIJ dealt with 29 interstate disputes and issued 27 advisory
opinions. The court's widespread acceptance was reflected by the fact that several hundred international
treaties and agreements conferred jurisdiction upon it over specified categories of disputes. In addition to
helping resolve several serious international disputes, the PCIJ helped clarify several ambiguities in
international law that contributed to its development.

The United States played a major role in setting up the World Court but never joined.[8] Presidents Wilson,
Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but it was impossible to get a two-
thirds majority in the Senate for a treaty.[9]

Establishment of the International Court of Justice

Following a peak of activity in 1933, the PCIJ began to decline in its activities due to the growing
international tension and isolationism that characterized the era. The Second World War effectively put an
end to the court, which held its last public session in December 1939 and issued its last orders in February
1940. In 1942 the United States and United Kingdom jointly declared support for establishing or re-
establishing an international court after the war, and in 1943, the U.K. chaired a panel of jurists from around
the world, the "Inter-Allied Committee", to discuss the matter. Its 1944 report recommended that:

The statute of any new international court should be based on that of the PCIJ;
The new court should retain an advisory jurisdiction;
Acceptance of the new court's jurisdiction should be voluntary;
The court should deal only with judicial and not political matters

Several months later, a conference of the major Allied Powers—China, the USSR, the U.K., and the U.S.
—issued a joint declaration recognizing the necessity "of establishing at the earliest practicable date a
general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving
States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international
peace and security".[10]

The following Allied conference at Dumbarton Oaks, in the United States, published a proposal in October
1944 that called for the establishment of an intergovernmental organization that would include an
international court. A meeting was subsequently convened in Washington, D.C., in April 1945, involving
44 jurists from around the world to draft a statute for the proposed court. The draft statute was substantially
similar to that of the PCIJ, and it was questioned whether a new court should even be created. During the
San Francisco Conference, which took place from 25 April to 26 June 1945 and involved 50 countries, it
was decided that an entirely new court should be established as a principal organ of the new United
Nations. The statute of this court would form an integral part of the United Nations Charter, which, to
maintain continuity, expressly held that the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was based
upon that of the PCIJ.

Consequently, the PCIJ convened for the last time in October 1945 and resolved to transfer its archives to
its successor, which would take its place at the Peace Palace. The judges of the PCIJ all resigned on 31
January 1946, with the election of the first members of the ICJ taking place the following February at the
First Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. In April 1946, the PCIJ was
formally dissolved, and the ICJ, in its first meeting, was elected President José Gustavo Guerrero of El
Salvador, who had served as the last president of the PCIJ. The court also appointed members of its
Registry, mainly drawn from that of the PCIJ, and held an inaugural public sitting later that month.

The first case was submitted in May 1947 by the United Kingdom against Albania concerning incidents in
the Corfu Channel.

Activities
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.[11]

The court's workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. After

the court ruled that the United States's covert war against Nicaragua The Peace Palace in The Hague,
was in violation of international law (Nicaragua v. United States), Netherlands, seat of the ICJ
the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to
accept the court's jurisdiction only on a discretionary basis.[12]
Chapter XIV of the 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 used in the Nicaragua case.[13]

Composition
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN
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. Historically, deceased
judges have been replaced by judges from the same region, though not —as often wrongly asserted—
necessarily from the same nationality.[14]

Article 3 states that 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". This has been interpreted to include common law, civil law, socialist law, and Islamic
law, while the precise meaning of "main forms of civilization" is contested.[15]

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 states.[16] For most of the court's history, the five permanent members of
the United Nations Security Council (France, USSR, 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 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 on the court.[17] Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security
Council but failed to get a majority in the UN General Assembly.[17] Indian judge Dalveer Bhandari took
the seat instead.[17]

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 International Court of Justice are entitled to the style of His/Her Excellency. Judges 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 many have chosen to remain involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as
long as there is no conflict of interest.[18] Former judge Bruno Simma and current judge Georg Nolte have
acknowledged that moonlighting should be restricted.[19]

A judge can be dismissed only by a unanimous vote of the other members of the court.[20] Despite these
provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua case,
the United States issued a communiqué suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the court
because of the presence of judges from the Soviet bloc.[21]

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.

In its 77 years of history, only five women have been elected to the Court, with former UN Special
Rapporteur Philip Alston calling for states to take seriously questions of representation in the bench.[22]

In 2023, judges elected to take office from 2024 did not include a Russian member, so for the first time,
from 2024 there will be no member from the Commonwealth of Independent States. This is also the first
time that Russia would not have a judge on the ICJ, even going back to its predecessor, the Soviet
Union.[23]

Ad hoc judges

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.[24]

Chambers

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 Case (Canada/US).[25] 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 have 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.[26]

Current composition

As of 19 August 2023, the composition of the court is as follows:[27][28]

 Term Term
Name Nationality Position
began ends

Abdulqawi Yusuf Somalia Member 2009 2027

Xue Hanqin China Member 2010 2030

Peter Tomka Slovakia Member 2003 2030

Ronny Abraham France Member 2005 2027

Mohamed Bennouna Morocco Member 2006 2024

Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant (Replaced Antônio

Brazil Member 2022 2027
Augusto Cançado Trindade)

United
Joan Donoghue
States Presidenta 2010 2024

Julia Sebutinde Uganda Member 2012 2030

Dalveer Bhandari India Member 2012 2027

Patrick Lipton Robinson Jamaica Member 2015 2024

Hilary Charlesworth[29] (Replaced James Crawford[30]) Australia Member 2021 2024

Vice-
Kirill Gevorgian Russia 2015 2024
presidenta
Nawaf Salam Lebanon Member 2018 2027

Yuji Iwasawa Japan Member 2018 2030

Georg Nolte Germany Member 2021 2030

Philippe Gautier Belgium Registrar 2019 2026

a
For the 2021–2024 term

Presidents

# 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 2021 Somalia

26 Joan Donoghue 2021 2024 United States

27 Nawaf Salam 2024 present Lebanon

Jurisdiction
As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193
UN members are automatically parties to the
court's statute.[31][32] Non-UN members may also
become parties to the court's statute under the
Article 93(2) procedure, which was used by
Switzerland in 1948 and Nauru in 1988, prior to
either joining the UN.[33] 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 Parties upon becoming a UN member
jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. Parties prior to joining the UN under Article 93
The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the three
UN observer states that are not parties
types of ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental
jurisdiction, and advisory opinions.[34]

Contentious issues

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, component parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs, and self-
determination groups are excluded from direct participation, although the court may receive information
from public international organizations. However, this does not preclude non-state interests from being the
subject of proceedings; for example, a state may bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or
corporations, such as in matters concerning diplomatic protection.[35]
Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the court in contentious
cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the
basis of consent. Under Article 36, there are four foundations for
the court's jurisdiction:

1. Compromis or "special agreement", in which parties

provide explicit consent to the court's jurisdiction by
referring cases to it. While not true compulsory
jurisdiction, this is perhaps the most effective
jurisdictional basis, because the parties concerned have
a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court, and First gathering after Second World
are thus more likely to comply with the court's judgment. War, Dutch newsreel from 1946
2. Compromissory clauses in a binding treaty. Most modern
treaties contain such clauses to provide for dispute
resolution by the ICJ.[36] 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 and did not comply with the judgment.[37] 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.[38]
3. Optional clause declarations accepting the court's jurisdiction. Also known as Article 36(2)
jurisdiction, it is sometimes misleadingly labeled "compulsory", though such declarations are
voluntary. Many such declarations contain reservations that exclude from jurisdiction certain
types of disputes (ratione materia).[39] The principle of reciprocity may further limit
jurisdiction, as Article 36(2) holds that such declaration may be made "in relation to any other
State accepting the same obligation...".[40] As of January 2018, seventy-four states had a
declaration in force, up from sixty-six in February 2011;[40] of the permanent Security Council
members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration.[41] In the court's early years, most
declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the 1986 Nicaragua case,
declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence
in the court.[42] However, even those industrialized countries that have invoked optional
declarations have sometimes increased exclusions or rescinded them altogether. Notable
examples include the United States in the Nicaragua case, 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 independence two months later.[43]
4. Article 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Statute of
the Permanent Court of International Justice. Article 37 similarly transfers jurisdiction under
any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.

Additionally, 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. This arose in the 1949 Corfu Channel Case (U.K. v.
Albania), 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

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 and Mali, submitted an
application to the court to indicate interim measures.[44] Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the
Article 41 of its Statute.[45] Similar to 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

An advisory opinion is a function of the court open only to

specified United Nations bodies and agencies. The UN Charter
grants the General Assembly or the Security Council the power to
request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question.
Organs of the UN other than the General Assembly or the Security
Council require the General Assembly's authorization to request an
advisory opinion of the ICJ. These organs of the UN only request
an advisory opinion regarding the matters that fall within the scope
Audience of the "Accordance with
of their activities.[46] On receiving a request, the court decides
International Law of the Unilateral
which states and organizations might provide useful information
Declaration of Independence by the
and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Provisional Institutions of Self-
Advisory opinions were intended as a means by which UN
Government of Kosovo"
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.[47]

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.

Examples of contentious cases

1980: A complaint by the United States that Iran was detaining American diplomats in Tehran
in violation of international law.[48]
1982: A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf
between them.[49]
1989: A complaint by Iran after the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by a United States
Navy guided missile cruiser.[50]
1984: A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in
the Gulf of Maine area.[51]
1999: A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the
North Atlantic 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.[52]
2011: A complaint by the Republic of North Macedonia
(former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that Greece's
vetoing of its accession to NATO violates the Interim
Accord of 13 September 1995[53] between the two
countries. The complaint was decided in favour of North
Macedonia on 5 December 2011.[54] South Africa's case alleging Israel's
2005: A complaint by the Democratic Republic of the violation of the Genocide Convention
Congo that its sovereignty had been violated by Uganda in Gaza, the Hague, 12 January 2024
and that the DRC had lost billions of dollars worth of
resources[55] was decided in favour of the DRC.[56]
2017: A complaint by the Republic of India regarding a death penalty verdict against an
Indian citizen, Kulbhushan Jadhav, by a Pakistani military court (based on alleged
espionage and subversive activities).[57]
2022: A complaint by Ukraine against Russia for violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, to
which both Ukraine and Russia are parties, by falsely claiming genocide as a pretext for
invading Ukraine.[58] The International Association of Genocide Scholars supported Ukraine,
who asked for expedited provisional measures directing Russia to halt its offensive.[59]
Russian representatives refused to appear.[60] On 16 March, the ICJ ordered Russia to
"immediately suspend the military operations", on a 13–2 vote with the Russian and Chinese
judges in opposition.[61][62] The order is binding on Russia, but the ICJ cannot enforce it.[63]

Relationship with UN Security Council

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 for enforcement action. There are
obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the five permanent
members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement could then be vetoed by that
member. That occurred, for example, after the Nicaragua case, when Nicaragua brought the issue of the
United States' noncompliance with the court's decision before the Security Council.[21] Furthermore, if the
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 Charter, can be justified only if international peace and security are
at stake. The 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 of protection to safeguard its rights, which, it alleged, were being
infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the 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 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 1971 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.[64] 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 case
that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the 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 may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if
the 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 undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is
a party."[65]

For example, the United States had previously accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation
in 1946 but in 1984, after 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 of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against
Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay war reparations.[21]

Law applied
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.[66] 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 and frequently
cites them.[67]

If the parties agree, they may also grant the court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono ("out of equality,
and for the good"),[68] 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 has dealt with about 180 cases.

Procedure
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).[26]

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
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

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

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.[69]

Criticisms
The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As
with criticisms of the United Nations, many critics and opponents of the court refer to the general authority
assigned to the body by member states through its Charter, rather than to specific problems with the
composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include the following:[70][71][72]

"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. ICJ rulings are legally binding on states but not
enforceable without their approval or compliance.[73][74]
The International Court of Justice cannot hear the cases of organizations, private
enterprises, and individuals. Furthermore, UN agencies are unable to raise a case except in
the circumstance of a non-binding advisory opinion. The national states are the only ones
who are able to bring cases for and act as defendants for these individuals. As a result,
 victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and minority groups may not have the support
of their national 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 being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they
consented to be bound.[75][76] Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in
many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a
resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security
Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as
shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.[77]
The court has been accused of judicial parsimony, with its rulings tending to dismiss
submissions of parties on jurisdictional grounds and not resolving the underlying dispute
between them.[78]

See also
Politics portal

Law portal

International Criminal Court

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

References
1. Nations, United. "International Court of Justice" (https://www.un.org/en/model-united-nations/
international-court-justice). United Nations. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20211126
111254/https://www.un.org/en/model-united-nations/international-court-justice) from the
original on 26 November 2021. Retrieved 29 August 2020.
2. Koh, Steven Arrigg (27 August 2014). "4 Things You Should Know About The Hague" (http://
www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-arrigg-koh/4-things-you-should-know-_1_b_5725138.html).
HuffPost. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170318002002/http://www.huffingtonpost.
com/steven-arrigg-koh/4-things-you-should-know-_1_b_5725138.html) from the original on
18 March 2017. Retrieved 17 March 2017.
3. "The Court" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180110090149/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/court).
International Court of Justice. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/en/court) on 10
January 2018. Retrieved 10 January 2018.
4. "Cases" (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/cases). International Court of Justice. Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20201124065731/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/cases) from the original on 24
November 2020. Retrieved 6 December 2022.
 5. Scott, James Brown. "The Hague peace conferences of 1899 and 1907; a series of lectures
delivered before the Johns Hopkins University in the year 1908" (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/1
9th_century/hag99-01.asp). Avalon Project. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20130403
095702/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hag99-01.asp) from the original on 3 April
2013. Retrieved 2 May 2019.
6. Eyffinger, Arthur (2007). "A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague
Peace Conference". Netherlands International Law Review. 54 (2): 197.
doi:10.1017/S0165070X07001970 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2FS0165070X07001970).
S2CID 144726356 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:144726356).
7. "History" (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history). International Court of Justice. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20210102143447/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history) from the original on 2
January 2021. Retrieved 3 May 2019.
8. Accinelli, Robert D. (1978). "The Roosevelt Administration and the World Court Defeat,
1935". The Historian. 40 (3): 463–478. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.1978.tb01903.x (https://doi.o
rg/10.1111%2Fj.1540-6563.1978.tb01903.x). JSTOR 24445043 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/
24445043).
9. Accinelli, R. D. (1972). "Peace Through Law: The United States and the World Court, 1923-
1935" (https://doi.org/10.7202%2F030751ar). Historical Papers. 7: 247.
doi:10.7202/030751ar (https://doi.org/10.7202%2F030751ar). S2CID 154899009 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:154899009).
10. "The Moscow Conference, October 1943" (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/moscow.asp).
Avalon Project. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20090408190702/http://avalon.law.yal
e.edu/wwii/moscow.asp) from the original on 8 April 2009. Retrieved 3 May 2019.
11. "Statute of the Court" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110629193835/http://www.icj-cij.org/do
cuments/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0). International Court of Justice. Archived from the
original (http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0) on 29 June 2011.
Retrieved 31 August 2007.
12. Churchill, Ward. A Little Matter of Genocide. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997. Print.
13. "United Nations Official Document" (https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol
=S%2FPV.2718). United Nations. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20201112014513/ht
tps://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FPV.2718) from the original on
12 November 2020. Retrieved 28 June 2017.
14. Pérez-Aznar, Facundo (7 September 2022). "Casual Vacancies in the ICJ: Law, Practice,
and Policy" (https://www.ejiltalk.org/casual-vacancies-in-the-icj-law-practice-and-policy/).
EJIL: Talk!. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221004125239/https://www.ejiltalk.org/c
asual-vacancies-in-the-icj-law-practice-and-policy/) from the original on 4 October 2022.
Retrieved 29 December 2022.
15. Zimmermann, Andreas; Tomuschat, Christian; Oellers-Frahm, Karin, eds. (2006). The Statute
of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (https://archive.org/details/statuteofintern
a0000unse/page/274) (1 ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 274–278. ISBN 978-0-19-
926177-2.
16. Harris, D. Cases and Materials on International Law, 7th ed. (2012, London) p. 839.
17. "International Court of Justice: UK abandons bid for seat on UN bench" (https://www.bbc.co.
uk/news/uk-42061028). BBC. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143457/http
s://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42061028) from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved
21 November 2017.
18. "Is "Moonlighting" a Problem? The role of ICJ judges in ISDS" (https://www.iisd.org/articles/p
olicy-analysis/moonlighting-problem-role-icj-judges-isds). International Institute for
Sustainable Development. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221229224205/https://w
ww.iisd.org/articles/policy-analysis/moonlighting-problem-role-icj-judges-isds) from the
original on 29 December 2022. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
19. "Past and present ICJ judges welcome curb on moonlighting" (https://globalarbitrationreview.
com/past-and-present-icj-judges-welcome-curb-moonlighting). globalarbitrationreview.com.
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221229224209/https://globalarbitrationreview.com/p
ast-and-present-icj-judges-welcome-curb-moonlighting) from the original on 29 December
2022. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
20. ICJ Statute, Article 18(1)
21. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v
USA), [1986] ICJ Reports 14, 158–60 (Merits) per Judge Lachs.
22. Alston, Philip (25 October 2021). "Vacancies at the ICJ: Yes, there is a special practice, and
it has to cease" (https://www.ejiltalk.org/vacancies-at-the-icj-yes-there-is-a-special-practice-a
nd-it-has-to-cease/). EJIL: Talk!. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20221229224205/http
s://www.ejiltalk.org/vacancies-at-the-icj-yes-there-is-a-special-practice-and-it-has-to-cease/)
from the original on 29 December 2022. Retrieved 29 December 2022.
23. "No Russian judge elected to UN's top court, in first" (https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytic
s/3785004-no-russian-judge-elected-to-uns-top-court-in-first.html). 10 November 2023.
24. Posner, E. A.; De Figueiredo, M. F. P. (June 2005). "Is the International Court of Justice
Biased?" (http://www.ericposner.com/Is%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justic
e%20Biased.pdf) (PDF). Journal of Legal Studies. University of Chicago. 34. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20101223171938/http://www.ericposner.com/Is%20the%20Internati
onal%20Court%20of%20Justice%20Biased.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 23 December
2010.
25. Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicd
ocuments/ibasictext/ibasicrulesofcourt_20050929.htm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20051126131908/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicrulesofco
urt_20050929.htm) 26 November 2005 at the Wayback Machine (as amended on 5
December 2000). Retrieved 17 December 2005. See also Practice Directions I–XII (http://ww
w.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasic_practice_directions_20040730_I-XII.h
tm) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20051127143822/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/iba
sicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasic_practice_directions_20040730_I-XII.htm) 27 November 2005
at the Wayback Machine (as at 30 July 2004). Retrieved 17 December 2005.
26. Schwebel S "Ad Hoc Chambers of the International Court of Justice" (1987) 81 American
Journal of International Law 831.
27. "Current Members" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171129084039/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/c
urrent-members). International Court of Justice. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.o
rg/en/current-members) on 29 November 2017. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
28. "General Assembly, in Second Secret Ballot Round, Elects Five Judges to Serve Nine-Year-
Long Terms on International Court of Justice | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases" (http
s://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12285.doc.htm). UN. 12 November 2020. Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20210516100152/https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12285.doc.htm)
from the original on 16 May 2021. Retrieved 16 April 2021.
29. "Veteran Australian judge Hilary Charlesworth elected to the International Court of Justice"
(https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1105002). UN News. 5 November 2021. Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20211106013922/https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1105002)
from the original on 6 November 2021. Retrieved 6 November 2021.
30. "It is with great sadness that the Court announces the passing of H.E. Judge James Richard
Crawford" (https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/press-releases/0/000-20210531-PRE-01-00-E
N.pdf) (PDF). International Court of Justice. 31 May 2021. Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20210531184407/https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/press-releases/0/000-20210531-PR
E-01-00-EN.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 31 May 2021. Retrieved 3 June 2021.
31. "Chapter XIV | United Nations" (http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.ht
ml). United Nations. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180725083309/http://www.un.o
rg/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html) from the original on 25 July 2018. Retrieved
21 November 2017.
32. States entitled to appear before the Court. (https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear)
Retrieved 1 January 2024
33. "Chapter I – Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice: 3 .
Statute of the International Court of Justice" (https://web.archive.org/web/20131017035748/h
ttp://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&lang=
en). United Nations Treaty Series. 9 July 2013. Archived from the original (http://treaties.un.or
g/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&lang=en) on 17
October 2013. Retrieved 9 July 2013.
34. J. G. Merrills (2011). International Dispute Settlement (https://archive.org/details/international
dis00merr). New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 116 (https://archive.org/details/intern
ationaldis00merr/page/n143)–134. ISBN 978-0521153393.
35. See the Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), [1955] ICJ Reports 4.
36. See List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ.
37. Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (USA v Iran),
[1979] ICJ Reports 7.
38. See Charney J "Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice" (1987) 81 American Journal of International Law 855.
39. See Alexandrov S Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory
Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995).
40. "Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory" (https://www.icj-cij.org/
en/declarations). International Court of Justice. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20170
815194446/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations) from the original on 15 August 2017.
Retrieved 30 May 2021.
41. For a complete list of countries and their stance with the ICJ, see "Declarations Recognizing
as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court" (https://web.archive.org/web/20110629194034/
http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3). International Court of
Justice. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&
p3=3) on 29 June 2011. Retrieved 21 February 2011.
42. Cesare P.R. Romano, "International justice and developing countries (continued): a
qualitative analysis (http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing_Cou
ntries_Part2.pdf)", The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals 1: 539–611,
2002. Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands, pp. 575–576. "Over the decades,
developing countries have significantly changed their attitudes toward the ICJ, to the point
that while their participation accounted for 50% of the contentious cases filed in the 1960s, in
the 1990s they were the source of 86% of the cases". Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/
20170204010717/http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing_Countr
ies_Part2.pdf) 4 February 2017 at the Wayback Machine.
43. Burton, Bob (17 May 2005). "Australia, East Timor strike oil, gas deal (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20050618081721/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GE17Ae02.html)".
Asia Times. Retrieved 21 April 2006.
44. "Provisional measures are indicated in the case of the Frontier Dispute" (https://web.archive.
org/web/20171209093847/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/69/9961.pdf) (PDF).
International Court of Justice. 10 January 1986. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.o
rg/files/case-related/69/9961.pdf) (PDF) on 9 December 2017.
45. "Statute of the Court" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180307151033/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/
statute). International Court of Justice. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/en/stat
ute) on 7 March 2018. Retrieved 2 November 2017.
46. "Chapter XIV" (https://web.archive.org/web/20180725083309/http://www.un.org/en/sections/
un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html). Charter of the United Nations. United Nations. Archived
from the original (http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html) on 25 July
2018. Retrieved 3 November 2017.
47. Pieter H.F. Bekker (12 December 2003). "The UN General Assembly Requests a World
Court Advisory Opinion on Israel's Separation Barrier" (https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/
8/issue/27/un-general-assembly-requests-world-court-advisory-opinion-israels). American
Society of International Law. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143450/https://
www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/27/un-general-assembly-requests-world-court-advisory
-opinion-israels) from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2017.
48. "Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders" (https://web.archive.org/web/201712
01033844/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/64/6291.pdf) (PDF). International Court of
Justice. 24 May 1980. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/64/6
291.pdf) (PDF) on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 21 November 2017.
49. "Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case
Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20120111085227/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/71/6527.pdf) (PDF). International
Court of Justice. 10 December 1985. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/f
iles/71/6527.pdf) (PDF) on 11 January 2012.
50. "Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)" (http://w
ww.icj-cij.org/en/case/79). International Court of Justice. 17 May 1989. Archived (https://web.
archive.org/web/20170717021821/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79) from the original on 17
July 2017. Retrieved 9 February 2021.
51. "Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area
(Canada/United States of America)" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171201033144/http://ww
w.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/67/6369.pdf) (PDF). International Court of Justice. 12 October
1984. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/67/6369.pdf) (PDF)
on 1 December 2017. Retrieved 21 November 2017.
52. "International Court of Justice" (https://web.archive.org/web/20140203054204/http://www.icj-
cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=371&code=yus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=114&k=25). Icj-
cij.org. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=371&code=yus
&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=114&k=25) on 3 February 2014. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
53. "Interim Accord" (https://web.archive.org/web/20090325011434/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/12
0001_144071/6/3/00004456.pdf) (PDF). 13 September 1995. Archived from the original (htt
p://untreaty.un.org/unts/120001_144071/6/3/00004456.pdf) (PDF) on 25 March 2009.
54. "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" (https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20170716032245/ht
tp://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/142/16841.pdf) (PDF). The International Court of
Justice. 5 December 2011. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/
142/16841.pdf) (PDF) on 16 July 2017. Retrieved 2 February 2014.
55. "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v.
Uganda) (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=co&case=116&k=51)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20180227010206/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.p
hp?p1=3&p2=3&code=co&case=116&k=51) 27 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine".
Icj-cij.org.
56. "Court orders Uganda to pay Congo damages (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/de
c/20/congo.uganda) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143450/https://www.the
guardian.com/world/2005/dec/20/congo.uganda) 2 January 2021 at the Wayback Machine".
The Guardian. 20 December 2005
57. "Kulbhushan Jadhav: Kulbhushan Jadhav latest news, photos & videos" (https://timesofindi
a.indiatimes.com/topic/kulbhushan-jadhav). The Times of India. Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20210102143456/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/kulbhushan-jadhav)
from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved 14 November 2017.
58. Milanovic, Marko (27 February 2022). "Ukraine Files ICJ Claim against Russia" (https://www.
ejiltalk.org/ukraine-files-icj-claim-against-russia/). European Journal of International Law.
Archived (https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220301/https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-files-icj-
claim-against-russia/) from the original on 1 March 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
59. Wintour, Patrick (7 March 2022). "International court of justice to fast-track ruling on Russian
invasion" (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/international-court-of-justice-to-fa
st-track-ruling-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine). The Guardian. Archived (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20220307181739/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/international-cour
t-of-justice-to-fast-track-ruling-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine) from the original on 7 March
2022. Retrieved 10 March 2022.
60. Corder, Mike (7 March 2022). "Russia snubs UN court hearings in case brought by Ukraine"
(https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-netherlands-moscow-europe-0ca475d35171
d384e028f09f1f7379e4). Associated Press. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220309
200959/https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-netherlands-moscow-europe-0ca475
d35171d384e028f09f1f7379e4) from the original on 9 March 2022. Retrieved 10 March
2022.
61. "Order of 16 March 2022" (https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-
ORD-01-00-EN.pdf) (PDF). International Court of Justice. 16 March 2022. Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20220322030056/https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182
-20220316-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf) (PDF) from the original on 22 March 2022. Retrieved 12 May
2022.
62. "International Court of Justice orders Russia to suspend invasion of Ukraine" (https://www.d
w.com/en/international-court-of-justice-orders-russia-to-suspend-invasion-of-ukraine/a-6114
2092). Deutsche Welle. 16 March 2022. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20220317072
255/https://www.dw.com/en/international-court-of-justice-orders-russia-to-suspend-invasion-
of-ukraine/a-61142092) from the original on 17 March 2022. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
63. "Guerre en Ukraine, en direct" (https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2022/03/16/guerre-e
n-ukraine-la-russie-exige-un-statut-neutre-pour-l-ukraine-qui-refuse_6117694_3210.html#id-
278998). Le Monde (in French). 16 March 2022. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2022
0316164621/https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2022/03/16/guerre-en-ukraine-la-russi
e-exige-un-statut-neutre-pour-l-ukraine-qui-refuse_6117694_3210.html#id-278998) from the
original on 16 March 2022. Retrieved 16 March 2022.
64. "Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from
the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America),
Preliminary Objections, International Court of Justice, 27 February 1998" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20120512034013/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=173&code=lus&p1=3
&p2=3&p3=6&case=89&k=82). Icj-cij.org. Archived from the original (http://www.icj-cij.org/do
cket/index.php?pr=173&code=lus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=89&k=82) on 12 May 2012.
Retrieved 4 November 2011.
65. "Chapter XIV" (https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html). United
Nations. 17 June 2015. Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143451/https://www.
un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html) from the original on 2 January 2021.
Retrieved 1 June 2020.
66. Ridi, Niccolò (30 November 2021). "Rule of Precedent and Rules on Precedent".
International Procedure in Interstate Litigation and Arbitration: 354–400.
doi:10.1017/9781108961387.017 (https://doi.org/10.1017%2F9781108961387.017).
ISBN 9781108961387. S2CID 225225897 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:225225
897).
67. Ridi, Niccolò (1 June 2019). "The Shape and Structure of the 'Usable Past': An Empirical
Analysis of the Use of Precedent in International Adjudication". Journal of International
Dispute Settlement. 10 (2): 200–247. doi:10.1093/jnlids/idz007 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fjn
lids%2Fidz007).
68. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(2)
69. Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 60
70. Ogbodo, S. Gozie (2012). "An Overview of the Challenges Facing the International Court of
Justice in the 21st Century" (http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol18/iss1/7).
Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law. 18 (1): 93–113. Archived (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20210102143452/https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol18/iss1/7/)
from the original on 2 January 2021. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
71. 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 (https://doi.or
g/10.2307%2F2197412). JSTOR 2197412 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2197412).
S2CID 147317419 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:147317419).
72. William, Samore (1956). "National Origins v. Impartial Decisions: A Study of World Court
Holdings" (http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol34/iss3/1). Chicago-Kent Law
Review. 34 (3): 193–222. ISSN 0009-3599 (https://www.worldcat.org/issn/0009-3599).
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20171011002429/http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/ckl
awreview/vol34/iss3/1/) from the original on 11 October 2017. Retrieved 6 June 2016.
73. Der Matossian, Bedross (1 August 2023). "Impunity, Lack of Humanitarian Intervention, and
International Apathy: The Blockade of the Lachin Corridor in Historical Perspective" (https://d
x.doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2023-0008). Genocide Studies International. 15 (1): 7–20.
doi:10.3138/gsi-2023-0008 (https://doi.org/10.3138%2Fgsi-2023-0008). ISSN 2291-1847 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/issn/2291-1847). S2CID 261011186 (https://api.semanticscholar.org/
CorpusID:261011186). "Even though the ICJ ruling is legally binding, any judgments by the
ICJ cannot be enforced on a country without the approval of the state."
74. Lawal, Shola. "How will South Africa's ICJ case against Israel work?" (https://www.aljazeera.
com/news/2024/1/10/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-how-will-the-icj-decide). Al
Jazeera. Retrieved 24 January 2024.
75. "World Court: Completing the Circle" (https://web.archive.org/web/20101008084733/http://w
ww.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871831,00.html). Time. 28 November 1960.
Archived from the original (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871831,00.htm
l) on 8 October 2010. Retrieved 4 November 2011.
76. Lawal, Shola. "How will South Africa's ICJ case against Israel work?" (https://www.aljazeera.
com/news/2024/1/10/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-how-will-the-icj-decide). Al
Jazeera. Retrieved 24 January 2024. "ICJ judges ought to be impartial and not act as
extensions of their countries. In the past though, judges have voted in line with their
countries' politics. In 2022, when the bench voted in favour of the decision to order Russia
out of Ukraine, judges from Russia and China were the only two who voted against the
decision."
77. David Tuyishime, Critical Analysis on the Ineffectiveness of the ICJ in the Settlement of
Disputes between States: The Example of Nicaragua Case (http://e-journaloflaw.org/wp-cont
ent/uploads/2017/05/Critical-Analysis-on-the-Ineffectiveness-of-the-ICJ-in-the-Settlement-of-
Disputes-between-States-The-Example-of-Nicaragua-Case.pdf), Archived (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20180420222408/http://e-journaloflaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Critical-An
alysis-on-the-Ineffectiveness-of-the-ICJ-in-the-Settlement-of-Disputes-between-States-The-E
xample-of-Nicaragua-Case.pdf) 20 April 2018 at the Wayback Machine, E-Journal of Law,
Vol 3 (1) 2017.
78. Hernandez, G. I. (2013). "A Reluctant Guardian: The International Court of Justice and the
Concept of 'International Community' " (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fbybil%2Fbrt003). British
Yearbook of International Law. 83: 13–60. doi:10.1093/bybil/brt003 (https://doi.org/10.1093%
2Fbybil%2Fbrt003).

Further reading
Accinelli, R. D. "Peace Through Law: The United States and the World Court, 1923–1935".
Historical Papers / Communications historiques, 7#1 (1972) 247–261. doi:10.7202/030751a
(https://doi.org/10.7202%2F030751a).
Bowett, D W. The International court of justice : process, practice and procedure (British
Institute of International and Comparative Law: London, 1997).
Creamer, Cosette & Godzmirka, Zuzanna. "The Job Market for Justice: Screening and
Selecting Candidates for the International Court of Justice", Leiden Journal of International
Law (2017).
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.
Kahn, Gilbert N. "Presidential Passivity on a Nonsalient Issue: President Franklin D.
Roosevelt and the 1935 World Court Fight." Diplomatic History 4.2 (1980): 137–160.
Kolb, Robert, The International Court of Justice (http://www.hartpub.co.uk/BookDetails.aspx?
ISBN=9781849462631) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20160629091756/http://www.
hartpub.co.uk/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781849462631) 29 June 2016 at the Wayback
Machine (Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2013).
Patterson, David S. "The United States and the origins of the world court". Political Science
Quarterly 91.2 (1976): 279–295. JSTOR 2148413 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2148413).
Rosenne, S., Rosenne's the world court: what it is and how it works (6th ed.). Leiden:
Martinus Nijhoff, 2003.
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; Charlesworth, Hilary; Schrijver, Nico; Krisch, Nico; Chimni, B. S.; Gowlland-
Debbas, Vera; Klabbers, Jan; Yee, Sienho; Shearer, Ivan (11 December 2011). "United
Nations Reform Through Practice: Report of the International Law Association Study Group
on United Nations Reform". SSRN 1971008 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstra
ct_id=1971008).
Yee, Sienho. "Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent
Cases", Journal of International Dispute Settlement 7 (2016), 472–498.
 Zimmermann, Andreas; Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams
(eds.), The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary (2nd. ed. October
2012, Oxford University Press).

External links
Official site (https://www.icj-cij.org/en)
ICJ Multimedia Gallery (https://web.archive.org/web/20190104072741/https://www.icj-cij.org/
en/multimedia-index) (photos, videos, webstreaming)
List of cases (https://www.icj-cij.org/en/list-of-all-cases/introduction/desc) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20221022203024/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/list-of-all-cases/introduction/de
sc) 22 October 2022 at the Wayback Machine ruled upon by the ICJ since its creation in
1946
Peace Palace Library – ICJ Research Guide (https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/research-gui
des/settlement-of-international-disputes/international-court-of-justice/es/settlement-of-interna
tional-disputes/international-court-of-justice/) Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/2021030
3021420/https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/research-guides/settlement-of-international-disp
utes/international-court-of-justice/es/settlement-of-international-disputes/international-court-o
f-justice/) 3 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine
The Statute of the International Court of Justice (https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/sicj/sicj.html) on
the United Nations AVL (https://www.un.org/law/avl/): summary of the procedural history, list
of selected preparatory documents and audiovisual material related to the negotiations and
adoption of the Statute.
International Criminal Court : See also, a tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide,
crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression
CIJ ICJ: International Court of Justice on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC28oi
S6IwkVvWL7kLH1-QPg)

Lectures
The ICJ in the Service of Peace and Justice (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/ICJ_Conference_CT.h
tml), Conference organized on the Occasion of the Centenary of the Peace Palace
Lecture (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Al-Khasawneh_CT.html) by Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh
entitled "Reflections on the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice" in the Lecture
Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law (https://legal.un.org/avl/
lectureseries.html)
Lecture (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Bennouna_CT.html) 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 (https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
Lecture (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Couvreur_CT.html) by Philippe Couvreur entitled "La Cour
internationale de Justice" in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of
International Law (https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
Lecture by Vera Gowlland-Debbas (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Gowlland-Debbas_CT.html)
entitled "The International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United
Nations" in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law
(https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
Lecture by Mariko Kawano (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Kawano_CT.html) entitled "Some
Salient Features of the Contemporary International Disputes in the Precedents of the
International Court of Justice" in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library
of International Law (https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
 Lecture by Mariko Kawano (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Kawano_CT.html) entitled
"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
Audiovisual Library of International Law (https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
Lecture (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/McWhinney_CT.html) by Edward McWhinney entitled
"Judicial Activism and the International Court of Justice" in the Lecture Series of the United
Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law (http://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
Lecture (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Pellet_CT.html) by Alain Pellet entitled "Conseil devant la
Cour internationale de Justice" in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual
Library of International Law (https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)
Lecture (https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Shi_CT.html) by Jiuyong Shi entitled "The Present and
Future Role of the International Court of Justice in the Peaceful Settlement of International
Disputes" in the Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International
Law (https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Court_of_Justice&oldid=1208975289"