I.

INTRODUCTION
This research paper examines the role of the International Court of Justice (World Court) 1 as the
principal judicial body of the United Nations. 2 In an attempt to evaluate the World Court's effectiveness
as a forum for settling international disputes, this research paper examines the current role of the court
in light of its past record. Given the significant changes in the global political climate, the development
of other international tribunals, the heightened use of international arbitration to settle disputes, and the
increased activity of the World Court in its advisory capacity, an understanding of the future role of the
World Court in settling international disputes is vital for those engaged in international law or politics. 
Many have criticized the World Court's effectiveness in the past. Its record dramatically improved,
however, in 1991 after the fall of Communism in the former Soviet Union and in much of Eastern
Europe. Earlier, during the Nicaraguan dispute in 1985, the United States adopted a highly negative
view towards the World Court, echoing the critical sentiments of numerous nations. The United States
believed that the World Court was politically motivated rather than impartial. In addition, critics at that
time called the World Court a weak, irrelevant, and even "moribund" forum. Reservations about the
World Court by the major world powers stemmed partly from widespread questioning of contemporary
international law. Before the fall of Communism, many viewed international law as the product of
European imperialism and the World Court as an institution that failed to take sufficient account of the
changed patterns of international relations. In 1985, the United States not only voiced its general
dissatisfaction with the World Court, it twice vetoed Nicaraguan attempts to enforce the World Court's
decision in the U.N. Security Council. The United States withdrew its declaration accepting the
compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, and it entirely withdrew from the Nicaraguan proceedings.
The United States boycotted the merits phase and did not participate in the subsequent compensation
phase. The Sandinista regime claimed billions of dollars as damages, and the Chamorro administration
withdrew this claim as part of the overall settlement. When the World Court entered its judgment
against the United States, criticism of the World Court escalated. Critics questioned the Court's role as a
fair tribunal for the adjudication of international disputes. In contrast, the World Court in the 1990s is
increasingly respected as an international adjudicator, and it is busier than ever before. The World Court
no longer represents an "irrelevant" judicial institution. It has emerged as a viable international
institution due, in part, to the steady performance of past duties. Currently, the World Court examines a
wide variety of international legal issues. The World Court issues judgments, provides advice, and
mediates settlement negotiations of cases being decided in the Court. Since 1946, the Court has
delivered dispute judgments concerning, inter alia, land frontiers and maritime boundaries, territorial
sovereignty the non-use of force, and the non-interference in the internal affairs of States. In addition,
other cases dealt with diplomatic relations, hostages, the right of asylum, nationality, guardianship,
rights of passage, and economic rights."
Part II of the Article discusses the history as well as the jurisdictional reach of the Court. Part III
focuses on the Court's judicial record, beginning with the Court's lean years from 1922 to 1984, and
then extensively examines the Court's increased activity since 1991. Part IV explains the general
purpose of the World Court, discusses the Court's strengths and weaknesses and explains why States
should select the World Court as a dispute resolution forum. Part V examines the Court's future in
settling international disputes, given the changes in political climate, the development of other
international tribunals, the increased use of international arbitration as a means of dispute settlement,
and the Court's increased activity in its advisory capacity. Finally, Part VI concludes that
1
This research paper uses the terms World Court, ICJ, or the Court to refer to the Inter- national Court of
Justice. 
2
U.N. CHARTER arts. 7,92. 
notwithstanding the impact of the Court's weaknesses, the Court is busier than ever in maintaining
world peace.

II. HISTORY OF THE WORLD COURT

A. Formation of the World Court
The United Nations Charter established the World Court as an organ of the United Nations. The Statute
of the Court, is a special part of the United Nations Charter, governs the Court. The Charter of the
United Nations provides that "All Members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the Statute of
the International Court of Justice." The International Court of Justice embraces two courts, the
Permanent Court of International Justice, set up in 1919 as a tribunal for peace settlement, and the
International Court of Justice, founded in 1945 as the principal judicial body of the United Nations.
The ICJ is the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which was established
by the League of Nations in 1920 and began its first session in 1922. After the Second World War, both
the League and the PCIJ were succeeded by the United Nations and ICJ, respectively. The Statute of the
ICJ draws heavily from that of its predecessor, and the latter's decisions remained valid. 
The World Court is located in The Hague in a building called the Peace Palace. The United Nations
General Assembly and Security Council elect fifteen judges from different countries for staggered terms
of nine years. Judges must be impartial and must decide cases according to the rules of international
law.
In addition, judges must elect a President and a Vice-President of the Court. On February 6, 1987 the
judges elected Stephen Schwebel of the United States as President, and Christopher Weeramantry of Sri
Lanka as Vice-President of the Court. Both of their terms of office will expire on February 6, 2000.
The World Court has two purposes: to settle legal disputes among States in accordance with
international law and to give U.N. agencies advisory opinions on legal questions. The Statute of the
Court defines the tribunal's powers to decide disputes. In contentious cases, only sovereign States may
apply to appear before the Court. Currently, the 193 member States of the United Nations and the non-
member States that have become parties to the Court's Statute may apply to appear before the Court.
The World Court can hear and decide disputes only when the States involved consent to its jurisdiction.
Thus, the World Court does not have automatic compulsory jurisdiction. States may consent in one of
three ways: (1) by the signing of a Special Agreement to submit the dispute to the Court; (2) by virtue of
a jurisdictional clause in a treaty to which both States are parties; or (3) through the reciprocal effect of
declarations made by the parties under the Statute. Where reciprocal declarations are made, each State
accepts the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory in the event of a dispute with another State having
made a similar declaration.
Some legal scholars believe that compulsory jurisdiction must be implemented for the World Court to
be an effective peace keeper. Compulsory jurisdiction would enable the Court to better resolve
international disputes, without having to seek jurisdiction over the States in each submitted case.
There are three categories of jurisdiction: ratione materiae, ratione personae, and ratione temporis. Each
of these categories imposes limitations on the Court's jurisdiction.
Jurisdiction ratione materiae grants the Court broad reach. This jurisdiction covers all cases that parties
refer to the Court and all matters specially provided for in the U.N. Charter, or in treaties and
conventions currently in force. The World Court under ratione materiae jurisdiction will only consider
questions of law, not political or economic interest questions. Similarly, the Court will accept advisory
jurisdiction cases only if they involve a "legal question.
In the World Court only States may be parties in cases before the Court. Thus, States that are parties to
the present Statute including all U.N. members as well as other States such as Switzerland,
Liechtenstein and San Marino, may seek judicial settlement of international disputes before the World
Court. The principles of jurisdiction ratione materiae and ratione personae are rough equivalents of
personal and subject-matter jurisdiction in domestic law.
The third category, jurisdiction ratione temporis exists, but not as an independent jurisdictional
requirement either in the Statute of the Court or in the opinions of the Permanent Court or World Court.
A state's reservations to this type of jurisdiction may restrict the period in which the Court can assert
otherwise valid jurisdiction against the declarant. There are no jurisdictional statutes of limitations
unless the State itself opts to impose a limit.
Once the Court asserts proper jurisdiction, the proceedings before the Court include a written phase and
subsequent oral phase. During the written phase, the parties file and exchange pleadings called
Memorial and Counter-Memorial. In the second round, these pleadings are called Reply and Rejoinder.
The subsequent oral phase consists of public hearings at which agents and counsel address the Court.

B. Jurisdiction of the World Court

1. Contentious Jurisdiction and the Nature of Consent
The World Court has three kinds of jurisdiction: contentious, incidental, and advisory
jurisdiction. In the exercise of its jurisdiction in contentious cases, the International Court of
Justice settles disputes of a legal nature that are submitted to it by States in accordance with
international law. An international legal dispute can be defined as a disagreement on a
question of law or fact, a conflict, or a clash of legal views or interests.
Only States may apply to and appear before the International Court of Justice. International
organizations, other authorities and private individuals are not entitled to institute
proceedings before the Court.
Article 35 of the Statute defines the conditions under which States may access the Court.
While the first paragraph of that article states that the Court is open to States parties to the
Statute, the second is intended to regulate access to the Court by States which are not parties
to the Statute. The conditions under which such States may access the Court are determined
by the Security Council, subject to the special provisions contained in treaties in force at the
date of the entry into force of the Statute, with the proviso that under no circumstances shall
such conditions place the parties in a position of inequality before the Court.
The Court can only deal with a dispute when the States concerned have recognized its
jurisdiction. No State can therefore be a party to proceedings before the Court unless it has in
some manner or other consented thereto.
Two types of treaties provide for the referral of the disputes to the World Court in advance of
the dispute: multilateral instruments having a general aim and multilateral instruments having
a more specific aim.48 Multilateral treaties having a general aim of promoting peace, like the
General Act of 1928, the 1948 Pact of Bogota, and the 1957 European Convention for the
Peaceful Settlement of Disputes, represent general agreements to jurisdiction. These treaties
bind signatories to jurisdiction. This type of multilateral instrument has generally failed,
however, to provide jurisdiction by consent either because most States do not support them or
because States that sign such treaties accept the Court's jurisdiction with substantial
reservations.
Multilateral treaties having a more specific aim may contain an article which provides that
disputes regarding the interpretation or application of that agreement can be referred to the
World Court. Treaties of this type are less common but have provided the basis of jurisdiction
in several cases
In addition, before the dispute arises, Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court provides the
states with an optional clause. If a State makes a declaration under the optional clause, it
accepts the judicial settlement of a dispute on certain terms and conditions. If both signatory
States agree to an optional clause declaration, then jurisdiction is established. However, less
than one-third of the U.N. members, however, have made declarations under Article 36(2),
and many of those declarations are weakened by reservations. The number of declarations
accepting the Court's jurisdiction under the optional clause is on a slow but steady upward
trend
Provisions for reservations are stated in Article 36, paragraph 3 of the Statute, allowing States
to include conditions regarding reciprocity and limiting the duration of a declaration under
the optional clause. Although the Statute conspicuously fails to refer to the possibility of
making reservations that exclude certain types of disputes, matters, or parties from an
acceptance of compulsory juris- diction, it is "generally recognized that States have an
inherent right to qualify their declarations under the optional clause through no statutory
reservations
The Statute recognizes four broad categories of reservations: (1) reservations regarding
termination and modification, such as conditions; (2) reservations ratione temporis, temporal
reservations; (3) reservations ratione personae, reservations as to the parties; and (4)
reservations ratione materiae, subject-matter reservations.
The United States' automatic reservation seems to include all four types of reservations. Its
reservation, commonly referred to as the Connally Amendment, excludes "disputes with
regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of
America as determined by the United States of America .... -157 The Connally Reservation
effectively grants the United States the power to avoid jurisdiction in all World Court
matters. Through the principle of reciprocity, other States can use this reservation to escape
actions brought by the United States.
For consent to jurisdiction after the dispute arises, parties may negotiate a special agreement,
similar to an arbitral compromise
Jurisdiction over a dispute may be based on consent shown by a legal act. However,
sometimes disagreements develop as to whether the States involved have given the Court the
necessary consent. The Court must resolve this dispute pursuant to Article 36(6) of the
Statute, which confers competence de la competence.
Initially, proceedings in the World Court often involve jurisdictional disputes, and these may
form a separate stage of the proceedings. For example, in the Nicaragua case, brought by
Nicaragua against the United States in 1984, the World Court accepted the respondent's
argument that a reservation covering certain multilateral treaties applied. The Court held,
however, that it still had jurisdiction to decide the case on the basis of customary international
law.
2. Incidental Jurisdiction
The second type of jurisdiction the World Court has is incidental jurisdiction. Incidental
jurisdiction grants the World Court the power to order interim measures of protection, the
power to allow a State to intervene, and the power to revise or interpret a judgment. The
Statute of the Court confers these powers and does not require the States to give further
consent.
3. Advisory Jurisdiction
The third type of jurisdiction granted to the World Court is advisory jurisdiction. Since States
alone are entitled to appear before the Court, public (governmental) international
organizations cannot be parties to a case before it. However, a special procedure, the advisory
procedure, is available to such organizations and to them alone. This procedure is available to
five United Nations organs, fifteen specialized agencies and one related organization.
Though based on contentious proceedings,advisory proceedings have distinctive features
resulting from the special nature and purpose of the advisory function.
Advisory proceedings begin with the filing of a written request for an advisory opinion
addressed to the Registrar by the United Nations Secretary-General or the director or
secretary-general of the entity requesting the opinion. In urgent cases the Court may take all
appropriate measures to speed up the proceedings. To assemble all the necessary information
about the question submitted to it, the Court is empowered to hold written and oral
proceedings.
A few days after the request has been filed, the Court draws up a list of the States and
international organizations that are likely to be able to furnish information on the question
before the Court. Usually, the States listed are the member States of the organization
requesting the opinion, while sometimes the other States to which the Court is open in
contentious proceedings are also included. As a rule, organizations and States authorized to
participate in the proceedings may submit written statements, followed, if the Court considers
it necessary, by written comments on other’s statements. These written statements are
generally made available to the public at the beginning of the oral proceedings, if the Court
considers that such proceedings should take place.
Contrary to judgments, and except in rare cases where it is expressly provided that they shall
have binding force (for example, as in the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of
the United Nations, the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the Specialized
Agencies of the United Nations, and the Headquarters Agreement between the United
Nations and the United States of America), the Court’s advisory opinions are not binding.
The requesting organ, agency or organization remains free to decide, as it sees fit, what effect
to give to these opinions.
Despite having no binding force, the Court’s advisory opinions nevertheless carry great legal
weight and moral authority. They are often an instrument of preventive diplomacy and help
to keep the peace. In their own way, advisory opinions also contribute to the clarification and
development of international law and thereby to the strengthening of peaceful relations
between States.
For example, the General Assembly may ask the Court to issue an advisory opinion regarding
legal disputes between States.Concerning, inter alia, admission to United Nations
membership, reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, territorial
status of South-West Africa (Namibia) and Western Sahara, judgments rendered by
international administrative tribunals, expenses of certain United Nations operations, and the
applicability of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement.