International Political Institution: International Court of Justice

1) Introduction
i. The International Court of Justice plays an immense role in
the growth and implementation of International law.
ii. It is also known as the ìWorld Courtî and is a creation of a
multi- lateral treaty.
iii. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is one of the six organs of
United Nations. It is based in The Hague, Netherlands.
iv. The ICJ is composed of 15 judges elected to nine year terms by
the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. It is
stated under Article 93 of the UN Charter, that all the state
parties (192) to the UN charter are automatically parties to the
Court's statute.
2) Main Functions
i. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes submitted to it
by member states and to give advisory opinions on legal
questions submitted to it by duly authorized international
organs, agencies and the UN General Assembly.
ii. An advisory opinion is a function of the Court open only to
specified United Nations bodies and agencies. In principle,
the Court's advisory opinions are only consultative in
character, though they are influential and widely respected.
iii. So far, ICJ has given over 115 decisions and resolved
issues between states along with some advisory opinions.
3) The jurisdiction of the ICJ
i. According to article 93 of the UN Charter, all member of UN
can automatically be the parties to the Court.
ii. For non-member states, article 93 also provides the right to be the
parties of the Court if they wish to and willing to be bound by the
jurisdiction of the Court. For example: Switzerland used this
method to become the party of the Court in 1948
iii. Article 34, paragraph 1 of the Statute of ICJ states that only
state may be parties in cases before the Court.
iv. The Court has the jurisdiction over the states when the states
accept the jurisdiction and willing to be bound by the jurisdiction.
v. The jurisdiction of the Court is divided into two parts: The first
jurisdiction is the power to decide on the legal dispute which
 submitted by the states. This kind of power is called contentious
jurisdiction i.e. the Court has the power to settle the dispute when
parties agree to submit to the Court.
vi. The second jurisdiction is advisory jurisdiction.The Court gives
advisory opinion to the UN organ such as Security Council or
General Assembly when they need the legal advice from the
CourtFor example, World Health Organization (WHO) request
for an advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear
weapons by a state during armed conflict
4) The ICJ and the Security Council relationship
i. After the Court issue the judgment for the disputed parties,
there is one thing must be done. Implement of judgment is the
important step in the Courtís procedure.
ii. ICJ doesnít have the power to enforce the parties of dispute to
comply the judgment. This job is transfer to the Security
Council if the parties fail to perform the obligation incumbent
upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court
iii. ICJ is not effective if there is not enforcement of Security Council.
5) ICJ on the Case of Nuclear Weapons
i. On 8 July, 1996, The ICJ handed down its Advisory Opinion on
the request made by the General Assembly of the United Nations
concerning the ìLegality of the Use by a State of Nuclear
Weapons in Armed Conflictî.
ii. The initial request for an advisory opinion by the ICJ was put
forward by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3
September 1993, but the ICJ did not render an opinion on this
request because the WHO was Ultra Vires (acting outside its
legal capacity).
iii. Later another request was presented by the United Nations
General Assembly in December 1994 which was accepted by
the Court in January 1995.
iv. The General Assembly or the Security Council has the power
to request advisory opinion from the ICJ under Article 96 of
the UN Charter.
v. The opinion provides one of the few authoritative judicial
decisions concerning the legality under international law of the
 use or the threatened use of nuclear weapons. Previously, there
was no substantive theory or concrete debate over the issue of
use, possession and legality of nuclear weapons. It was after the
request made by the UNGA, the ICJ gave a detailed opinion
regarding nuclear weapons. Apart from the 15 sitting judges,
international lawyers from different states were called upon to
put forward the arguments concerning nuclear weapons.
vi. The first issue dealt with by the ICJ concerned ìthe right to lifeî.
The use of nuclear weapons posed a threat to life as under article
6 of International Covenant on Civil, Political Rights (ICCPR).
vii. The lawyers argued that this will further the growth of use
of nuclear weapons by the states who are not member of NPT.
Thus, the debate over this still continues and no conclusive
decision is yet given on its usage.
6) Reforms of ICJ
i. Ineffectiveness of the present ICJ
i. Only 63 states have recognized the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court (with or without reservation)
through the optional clause system (out of 192; only 1/3rd)
ii. ICJ deal with less than 100 cases in more than 50 years
iii. Reform of Jurisdiction; This character of non-
compulsory jurisdiction over the state is because of the
principle of sovereignty
iv. Enforcement of judgment; The problem of enforcement
arises when the Security Council canít issue the resolution.
In order to issue the resolution, 9 votes of Security Council
member are needed.For substantive matter such as
enforcement of ICJ judgment, all permanent member need to
vote without veto of anyone.
ii. At the UN General Assembly session in 2000 the Member
States adopted a Millennium Declaration, which sets out an
ambitious plan of reform aiming to gear the Organisation for
the challenges of the 21st century. The document envisages a
reform and strengthening of the General Assembly, the
Security Council, ECOSOC and the Secretariat.
iii. Reforms
 i. Increasing the Number of Judges: An expanded
format of the Security Council with more
permanent members would logically result in
calls for the ëreservationí of seats on the ICJ
bench for the members concerned.
ii. Removal of re-election: The justices of the
International Court are elected for a term of 9
years and according to Article 13 of the
Statute may be re-elected. Every three years
one-third of the justices are elected
simultaneously by the General Assembly and
the Security Council. However, re-election
campaigns place judges wishing to obtain a
second or a third nine-year tenure in a
vulnerable position and raise challenges for
the Courtís independence
iii. there is a need for debate on reforming its
working methods, including by means of
establishing individual chambers in order to
preclude delays in the administration of justice.
iv. The second category of reform proposals,
which does not require amending or
supplementing the Charter or Statute, includes
procedural matters and working methods. It
covers issues such as the need for a more
balanced presence of women on the bench and
the potential introduction of an age limit for
nominees applying for election as justices at
the ICJ.
v. setting up an open-ended working group within
the UN General Assembly to be tasked with
discussing and drafting recommendations on
Court reform;
vi. initiating an informal group of Friends of the
Court to be tasked with rallying sufficient
support for proposals and recommendations
 that would enhance the efficiency of the
Court and global rule of law.
vii. launching, at a later stage, of
intergovernmental negotiations on ICJ
reform at UN level on the basis of the
model underlying the current
intergovernmental negotiations on the
reform of the Security Council.
7) Conclusion