Monitoring Policy Making at the United Nations |
| ||||||||||||
International Court of Justice - International Justice - Global Policy Forum The International Court of Justice
This page covers the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the UN system's highest judicial body. The ICJ arbitrates between states, who must agree to abide by the Court's decision before their case will be heard. Here, particular emphasis is given to the relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council. Many have suggested that the ICJ should have the power of judicial review over the Security Council's actions to ensure that they are consistent with the UN Charter and other instruments of international law.
Seal of the International Court of Justice
The official website of the International Court of Justice contains basic documents such as the statute and rules of the court, the full text and summary of opinions of cases it has decided by, press releases, publications, and other useful information about the court.
Articles Archive
The Security Council & the Rule of Law
This article considers whether the Security Council is subject to international law, including the Charter. The President of the World Court (ICJ), Mohammed Bedjaoui, comments.
Professor Thomas M. Franck tries to define the ICJ's evolving powers of judicial review and draws some interesting parallels with the American legal system.2007
Will Uganda Pay Up for Congo Occupation? (July 26, 2007)
Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) prepare to reach an agreement on how Kampala should compensate the DRC for plundering its resources and killing civilians during the occupation that lasted between 1996 and 2001. After the ICJ found Uganda guilty in December 2005, DRC demanded a sum of US$10 billion. The negotiations have not been finalized and international law experts warn that any compensation is almost impossible to implement. Godfrey Wanzira, a Ugandan lawyer, believes that Uganda can easily prolong the process by appealing, and “DRC officials may well suspect that Kampala will never pay reparations.” (Institute for War and Peace Reporting)Parts of West African Corruption Case Can Be Judged By World Court, Judges Say (May 24, 2007)
The International Court of Justice will adjudicate on parts of a corruption case between Guinea and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The dispute is over the arrest and expulsion of Guinean entrepreneur Ahmadou Sadio Diallo in 1996 in the DRC following a court decision which required Congolese oil companies to pay Diallo millions of dollars. Guinea accuses the DRC of accepting bribes from the oil companies to expel Diallo from the country. DRC maintains that it should not be held responsible for former corrupt dictator Mobutu Sese Seko’s actions. Moreover, the US$36 billion that Guinea is demanding would be a heavy burden on the DRC economy. (International Herald Tribune)Genocide Court Ruled for Serbia without Seeing Full War Archive (April 9, 2007)
The International Court of Justice allowed Serbia to withhold parts of its military records, leaving out key material that, according to some legal experts and human rights groups, could have proven Belgrade’s complicity in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre. Serbia successfully argued its case on the grounds of “national security,” with one lawyer saying “every country will do everything possible to protect the state.” This New York Times article suggests in a similar vein that the ICJ’s deal with Belgrade reflects the world court’s reluctance to challenge a country’s sovereignty.Timid Justice (February 28, 2007)
“International law [has] yet to come to grips with the notion of a criminal state,” declares this Slate piece. The article suggests that by absolving Serbia of complicity in the Bosnian genocide, the International Court of Justice shied away from making a bold and authoritative ruling, for fear of “offending” Serbian sovereignty. But the author concedes that the complex legal definition of genocide constrained the ICJ to some extent to choose “the least invasive remedy.”The International Court of Justice: Serbia, Bosnia, and Genocide (February 28, 2007)
This openDemocracy piece denounces what the author calls the International Court of Justice’s denial of “the genocidal character” of Serbia’s campaign of violence against non-Serbs in the early-1990s Balkan conflict. The author charges that based on its “narrow understanding” of genocide, the world court failed to fully determine Serbia’s role in the systematic mass killings, “despite overwhelming evidence.” The article concludes therefore that the ICJ’s binding ruling offers little justice to Bosnian survivors of the war.ICJ Bosnia Ruling Sets Important Precedents (February 28, 2007)
In the historic case between Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia, the International Court of Justice ruled for the first time that a state – and not just individuals – can be responsible for acts of genocide. Additionally, the landmark ruling drew attention to the legal challenges of proving “specific intent” to destroy an entire group and of distinguishing between genocide and other mass killings. Citing a lack of evidence backing such intent, the world court “cleared” the Serbian government of committing genocide during the 1992-1995 Bosnian war. (Radio France Europe/Radio Liberty)UN Court Gives Landmark Ruling on Bosnian Genocide (February 26, 2007)
Judges at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have ruled that while genocide did indeed occur during the 1992-1995 war in the Balkans, Serbia does not bear direct responsibility for the atrocities, as the Bosnian government has charged. However, the 16-judge panel concluded that Belgrade had violated international law by failing to prevent the Srebrenica massacre and by not earnestly committing to capturing high-profile fugitives. While the ICJ's judgment clears Serbia's government of complicity in the genocide, the UN-backed International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia continues in its quest to bring alleged perpetrators of the war crimes to justice. (Agence France Presse)2006
The Top UN Court Is Still Short of Vital Law Clerks 60 Years after Its Founding (October 27, 2006)
As the number of courts handling international disputes grows, so too does the burden of providing enough resources to maintain the high legal and operational standards in each one. While at tribunals like the International Criminal Court each judge has a law clerk, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) faces a serious shortage of assistance. Given the increasing number of “fact-intensive” cases, such a deficiency can compromise the service that the top UN court awards its clients, says ICJ president Rosalyn Higgins. (UN News)UN Court Says Uruguay Can Proceed with Mills (July 13, 2006)
In May 2006, Argentina called on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule against Uruguay’s plan to build pulp mills on the river bordering the two nations. The Argentine government disputes the environmental impact of the construction project and accuses Uruguay of violating a 1975 bilateral agreement on the river. The ICJ has denied Argentina’s request to stop construction but will evaluate the potential risks of the pulp plants once operations begin. (Associated Press)Court Still Weighing Genocide Case from Milosevic Era (June 18, 2006)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has yet to tackle its “most complex case” dealing with genocide rather than the usual disputes over sovereignty, territories and diplomatic relations. Divided over the legal definition of genocide, experts anticipate the Court’s interpretation of events that took place during the 1992-95 Bosnian war. An ICJ ruling in favor of Bosnia in the country’s case against Serbia “would implicate the entire Milosevic government.” (New York Times)Nigeria Agrees Bakassi Handover (June 13, 2006)
UN-mediated negotiations have brought the border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon to an end. The accord stipulates a transition period for the withdrawal of Nigerian administration and military forces from the oil-rich and largely-Nigerian populated Bakassi peninsula. Although previous agreements, in accordance with a 2002 International Court of Justice ruling to cede the territory to Cameroon, have fallen through, mediators believe that this deal reflects a “great achievement in conflict prevention.” (BBC)World Court Judges Deliberate in 13-Year-Old Genocide Trial of Serbia (May 9, 2006)
Judges will begin deliberations on whether the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has the power to rule in Bosnia’s landmark genocide case against Serbia. Despite acknowledging that Bosnia suffered gravely, Serbia refuses to accept responsibility for atrocities committed during the 1992-95 war. Bosnia’s advocates argue accountability will allow for a move towards “true peace,” while Serbia’s representatives point out that anything other than reconciliation might inflame tensions between the two states. (Associated Press)World Court Marks 60th Anniversary, as Its Case-Load Gets Heavier and Tougher (April 11, 2006)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) faces a more challenging and heavy case-load than any time in its history. The Israeli security barrier in the West Bank case and Bosnian genocide allegations against Serbia demonstrate that the ICJ’s has become “more confident of its jurisdiction.” ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins states that the increasing case-load signifies the growing trust developing nations have placed in the court. (Associated Press)A Nation on Trial for its Past (March 6, 2006)
The Serbia and Montenegro genocide trial at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) will have far-reaching political consequences. According to Serbian leaders, “raking over the coals of the past” will have a negative effect on future relations in the Balkans. But Bosnia wants the case to establish an unchallengeable account of the conflict. Commentators affirm that the ICJ will establish a precedent for holding the state responsible for human rights violations. (Christian Science Monitor)Serbia and Montenegro on Trial for Genocide (February 24, 2006)
The International Court of Justice will hear Bosnia’s case of genocide against Serbia Montenegro. Bosnia however faces difficulty in proving state responsibility for such a complex crime. This Institute of War and Peace Reporting extensive investigation details the Bosnia’s case against Serbia, dicusses issues of jurisdiction and looks at the broader consequences of a ruling in Bosnia’s favor. The political stigma for Belgrade will be significant, but other commentators believe a finding for Bosnia will be key to future friendly relations between the two nations.2005
Blunt Edge of UN's Sword of Justice (December 28, 2005)
In a December 2005 landmark ruling, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found Uganda liable for violating the Democratic Republic of the Congo's (DRC) territorial integrity between 1998 and 2003. The ICJ ordered Uganda to make substantial financial amends to the DRC for humanitarian wrongs that took place during the occupation. The author draws comparisons to the invasion and occupation of Iraq but does not believe a similar Iraqi claim is foreseeable given the ICJ’s limited powers of enforcement and jurisdiction. (East African)We Are No Longer Able to See the Sun Set (July 7, 2005)
In July 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) declared that Israel’s wall was illegal. A year later, this author argues that although Israeli authorities continue to deny ICJ jurisdiction, the Court’s decision provides an important framework for the international community to develop political, economic and diplomatic pressures on Israel, and also offers a legal voice to the sovereignty-lacking Palestinian nation. (Al-Ahram)Rwanda in Court over Congo Claims (July 4, 2005)
Despite Rwanda’s opposition to proceedings, the International Court of Justice begins hearing Kinshasa’s allegations of “massive human rights violations” by Rwandan soldiers on Congolese soil. The Democratic Republic of Congo has filed a similar complaint against Uganda, but neither trial seems likely to come to a verdict in the near future. (BBC)Congo Seeks Reparations From Uganda At World Court (April 11, 2005)
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has taken Uganda before the International Court of Justice to demand compensation for Kampala’s involvement in human rights abuses, looting and property destruction during the country’s civil war. Uganda has filed a counterclaim accusing the DRC of attacking Ugandan citizens and diplomatic buildings in Kinshasa. The proceedings will likely take years before completion. (Reuters)US Quits Pact Used in Capital Cases (March 10, 2005)
A 1963 US-proposed protocol to the Vienna Convention handed authority to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) over cases of jailed foreign citizens who contended they had been denied access to a diplomat. The US was the first country to employ the protocol, over the 1979 hostage crisis in Iran. But the Bush administration has backed out of the agreement, saying it granted the ICJ power over the justice system that they “had not anticipated.” Critics say the move could weaken citizens’ protections in the US and abroad, and signal that the US will no longer “bow to the ICJ.” (Washington Post)US Says It Has Withdrawn From World Judicial Body (March 10, 2005)
The US has announced its withdrawal from an optional protocol that gives the International Court of Justice (ICJ) jurisdiction to hear disputes involving foreign nationals sentenced to death in the US. Legal commentators have labeled the withdrawal as “counterproductive,” “unbecoming” and an indication of the administration’s “general hostility to international institutions.” (New York Times)2004
All Justice, Too, Is Local (December 30, 2004)
In light of the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) decision that it lacks jurisdiction on the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo, the author of this New York Times Op-Ed claims that the court has not been effective. Some cite 'politicization' as the main reason for the ICJ’s unpopularity and Washington remains unconvinced that the International Criminal Court will be any different.World Court Says Cannot Rule in NATO Bombing Case (December 15, 2004)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) says the Serbia and Montenegro case against NATO for bombing Kosovo in 1999 falls out of the UN court’s jurisdiction because Serbia and Montenegro was not recognized as a UN member state until 2000. The ICJ also threw out similar cases during the air strikes in 1999. (Reuters)Undermining the International Court (September 21, 2004)
Author Neve Gordon condemns Israeli leader Ariel Sharon for continuing to build the Israeli-Palestinian barriers after the International Court of Justice ruling on the wall’s illegality, and also points fingers at world leaders who do not vocalize support for the ICJ “even though in a post 9/11 world it is precisely these kinds of institutions that need to be strengthened.” (ZNet)World Court's Ruling on Wall Speaks with Utmost Clarity (July 27, 2004)
This MERIP article argues in favor of the International Court of Justice’s decision to uphold its jurisdiction in the matter of the Israeli separation barrier. The article further looks at the basis of the court’s ruling, found in the historic legal context of the Occupied Territories.UN Assembly Votes Overwhelmingly to Demand Israel Comply with ICJ Ruling (July 20, 2004)
In a resolution passed by an overwhelming majority, the UN General Assembly urged Israel to comply with the ruling of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which declared the illegality of the separation barrier in the occupied territories in and around the West Bank. The Assembly also called on UN members states to conform to the ruling, which includes not providing “aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by such construction.” (UN News Service)Israel up Against the Wall (July 14, 2004)
Analyzing the ruling of the International Court of Justice on the illegality of Israel’s barrier, the author argues that only states that do not “accept the applicability of international law” consider the court’s ruling non binding. He further warns that by disregarding the court's opinion, critics call into question the United Nations Charter and the whole foundation of international law. (Asia Times)World Court Rules Israel's Barrier Illegal (July 9, 2004)
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that Israel’s West Bank barrier violates international law. Acknowledging Israel’s right to protect its citizens, the Court said it must do so within the law and should compensate Palestinians for property lost or damaged by the building of the wall. The ICJ urges the UN Security Council and General Assembly to consider further action to end the illegal activity. (Reuters)US Violated Mexicans' Rights (March 31, 2004)
The International Court of Justice ruled that the US violated the rights of 51 Mexicans on death row by withholding their right to assistance from their government. The Court’s judgment is binding and final. However, the United States has already failed to obey a 2001 decision by the court in a similar case. (Associated Press)Israel's Barrier and the World Court (23 February, 2004)
This BBC article provides a comprehensive overview of the Israeli “barrier” case at the International Court of Justice. It cites the main arguments of the US, Europe, Israel and Palestine and gives a grim outlook for the efficacy of the court’s ruling.Battle over Barrier Heats Up: Canada Joins Israel in Push to Stop World Court from Ruling on Legality of Security Fence (January 31, 2004)
In December 2003, the General Assembly voted 90-8 in favor of asking the International Court of Justice to rule on the legality of Israel’s “security fence.” As the hearing approaches, western countries previously favoring the court’s involvement are voicing concern that the case is “politicizing” the court. (Ottawa Citizen)2003
ICJ Hears Death Penalty Suit against US (December 19, 2003)
The International Court of Justice hears a case in which the Mexican government alleges that the US breached the Vienna convention on consular cooperation. Mexico claims that 52 of its nationals on death row in the US were not informed of their rights. (Institute for War and Peace Reporting)Court to Rule on Israeli Barrier (December 20, 2003)
The International Court of Justice will take on the case of Israel’s construction of its controversial “security barrier”. The hearings will open on February 23, 2004. (BBC)World Court Ruling Sought on Israel Fence (December 9, 2003)
The United Nations General Assembly requests an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice on Israel’s “security fence” in the West Bank. The court’s ruling is not binding but carries moral weight and may add to diplomatic pressure on Israel. (Independent)Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (March 7, 2003)
The International Court of Justice completes public hearings of Iran’s action against the US for destroying Iranian oil platforms towards the end of the 1980s Iraq-Iran war. This ICJ press release summarizes the concluding statements by the two parties. (International Court of Justice)ICJ to Hold Public Hearings in Iran v US Oil Case (February 2003)
In 1992 Iran filed a complaint against the US in the International Court of Justice. The US destroyed three Iranian oil platforms at the end of Iran’s 1980s war with Iraq, allegedly breaking its Amity Treaty with Iran. This article documents the brief history of events leading up to the ICJ’s current public hearing of the case. (International Court of Justice)International Court of Justice Stops Executions of Mexicans in the United States (February 5, 2003)
The International Court of Justice ordered the US not to execute three Mexicans on death row until it has finished hearing their case but the US has a history of ignoring the court’s rulings. The Mexicans brought a case against the US for denying them consular access upon their arrest in contravention of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. (Pravda)Mexico Challenges US on Death Penalty (January 10, 2003)
Mexico filed a complaint against the US in the International Court of Justice, alleging a violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. 54 Mexicans on death row were assigned public defenders who speak little or no Spanish and were denied access to their Mission, an international obligation under the Convention. (Washington Post)
More Information on International Justice
More Information on the International Criminal Court
