Understanding International Court of Justice

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), mandated by the UN Charter to settle state disputes, differs from the International Criminal Court, focusing on state responsibilities.

Its jurisdiction is not automatically binding for UN member states. States can refer disputes to the ICJ, and its jurisdiction covers legal elements like treaty interpretation and breaches of international obligations. The court applies existing international law and can render judgments on broader concepts than 'justice.' ICJ decisions are binding and final, with the option for appeal.

The Security Council can enforce special measures for ICJ judgments. The court determines facts, applicable law, and state responsibility, attributing internationally unlawful acts to states, their agents, or individuals under their control.

Compensation is negotiated between states, and the ICJ doesn't set amounts. The court can provide legal opinions upon request, contributing to international law development. The ICJ is among non-military means for peaceful dispute resolution recognized by the Charter (Articles 36-41). State acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction makes its decisions legally binding.

Composition

The ICJ consists of 15 judges who are elected for a term of nine years by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations (Article 3 of the Statute of the ICJ).

The selection of judges should ensure fair representation of the principal legal systems of the world (Article 22 of the Statute of the ICJ). The court is headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands.

Jurisdiction

All UN member states are, in practice, considered members of the ICJ under the UN Charter (Article 93-1).

However, acceptance of the ICJ's jurisdiction is voluntary. This means that countries must specifically agree to refer legal issues or disputed facts with other nations to the court. Once countries accept the ICJ's jurisdiction for a particular case, they are automatically bound by its decision.

Countries can accept the authority of the ICJ in various ways:

They may issue an official statement at any time confirming their recognition of the ICJ's jurisdiction as mandatory, regarding all disputes without specifying any particular conflict. In doing so, countries agree to bring all legal disputes with any other state that has made a similar declaration to the court. This grants the court jurisdiction to render judgments on all legal issues related to the interpretation of a treaty, any matter concerning international law, the existence of any proven fact constituting a breach of international obligations, and the nature or extent of compensation for such a breach.

In the event of a dispute, the concerned countries can mutually agree to submit a specific case to the jurisdiction of the ICJ (Article 36-1 of the Statute).

Referrals, legal consultations

The referral to the court is permissible by the Security Council when actively involved in the peaceful settlement of a legal dispute between states (Articles 33 and 36-3 of the Charter).

The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council can seek legal consultations on any legal issue. The UN General Assembly can also authorize other UN-affiliated bodies and institutions to request advisory opinions from the ICJ concerning matters related to their mandate and activities (Article 96 of the Charter, Article 65-1 of the ICJ Statute).

Interim measures

The ICJ can, based on the nature of a case and the prolonged legal proceedings, decide to impose binding interim measures (Article 41 of the Statute).

These measures aim to protect the rights of involved parties and prevent irreversible actions during the investigation period. Non-compliance with these measures constitutes a violation of international obligations, leading to legal liability. The court's final judgment considers adherence to or violations of the interim measures issued during the investigation.

Compensation

The ICJ has jurisdiction to rule on disputes referred by states concerning compensation for violations of international obligations. While it emphasizes a state's obligation to provide full compensation for wrongful acts, the court does not directly determine the amount.

After establishing a wrongful act, it refers the compensation issue to states for negotiations. If parties can't agree, the court requires the disagreement to have a legal, not just financial, character for resubmission.

Advisory opinions of interest to humanitarian law

The ICJ, as part of its judgments and opinions, addresses various questions related to armed conflicts, some of which are also considered by the international criminal tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

The court defines and recognizes different aspects of state responsibility in these cases, complementing the work of the international criminal tribunals, which is limited to individual criminal responsibility.

The decisions of the ICJ contribute to the understanding and interpretation of international humanitarian law, building upon discussions within the framework of international criminal law by the aforementioned criminal tribunals and the International Criminal Court.

Procedures of ICJ concerning armed conflicts

The ICJ envisions its role in various armed conflict scenarios as a judicial body for managing international disputes between states.

This is in addition to the peacekeeping efforts of the United Nations Security Council and the functions of the two international criminal tribunals. In its decisions, the Court has reiterated its jurisdiction to act concurrently with the Security Council when requested by other UN entities to provide advisory opinions on cases already submitted to the Council.

Contributions to interpretation of International Humanitarian Law

ICJ decisions (judgments and advisory opinions) have provided clarity and precision on various aspects of international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights, and state responsibility, especially in matters related to security, self-defense, aggression, and territorial occupation.

Self-defense, aggression

The ICJ, in several rulings, defined aggression and the legal conditions for resorting to armed force by states in the context of legitimate self-defense under the United Nations Charter and customary international law.

The court distinguishes aggression from other threats to international peace for a state, allowing or disallowing legitimate self-defense and the use of force.

The ICJ clarified the responsibility of states for acts committed by non-state armed groups under their effective control in three key cases. The court explained that the concept of "effective control" allows attributing the actions of these non-state groups to the state that affirms such control.

Simultaneous application of human rights, international humanitarian law

The ICJ recognizes the principle of simultaneous application and extraterritorial application of human rights and international humanitarian law.

It emphasizes that the application of human rights continues during armed conflicts, with exceptions outlined and measures designed for that purpose.

The Court also notes that human rights treaties have extraterritorial applicability, especially in cases of occupation or detention, where a state exercises control over individuals or foreign territory (legitimate threat or use of nuclear weapons).