INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the
main judicial tribunal of the UNITED NATIONS,
to which all member states are parties. It is often
informally referred to as the World Court. The
ICJ was established in 1946 by the United
Nations (Statute of the International Court of
Justice [ICJ Statute], June 26, 1945, 59 Stat. 1055,
3 Bevans 1179). It replaced the former Perma-
nent Court of International Justice, which had
operated within The Hague, Netherlands, since
1922. Like its predecessor, the headquarters of
the ICJ is also located in the Peace Palace at The
Hague.
The function of the ICJ is to resolve disputes
between sovereign states. Disputes may be
placed before the court by parties upon condi-
tions prescribed by the U.N. Security Council.
No state, however, may be subject to the juris-
diction of the court without the state’s consent.
Consent may be given by express agreement at
the time the dispute is presented to the court, by
prior agreement to accept the jurisdiction of the
court in particular categories of cases, or by
treaty provisions with respect to disputes arising
from matters covered by the treaty.
Article 36(2) of the court’s statute, known as
the Optional Clause, allows states to make a uni-
lateral declaration recognizing “as compulsory
ipso facto and without special agreement, in rela-
tion to any other state accepting the same obli-
gation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal
disputes.”
Many states have accepted the court’s juris-
diction under the Optional Clause. A few states
have done so with certain restrictions. The
United States, for instance, has invoked the so-
called self-judging reservation, or Connally
Reservation. This reservation allows states to
avoid the court’s jurisdiction previously accepted
under the Optional Clause if they decide not to
respond to a particular suit. It is commonly exer-
cised when a state determines that a particular
dispute is of domestic rather than international
character, and thus domestic jurisdiction applies.
If a state invokes the self-judging reservation,
another state may also invoke this reservation
against that state, and thus a suit against the sec-
ond state would be dismissed. This is called the
rule of reciprocity, and stands for the principle
that a state has to respond to a suit brought
against it before the ICJ only if the state bringing
the suit has also accepted the court’s jurisdiction.
Under the ICJ Statute, the ICJ must decide
cases in accordance with INTERNATIONAL LAW.
This means that the ICJ must apply (1) any
international conventions and treaties; (2) inter-
national custom; (3) general principles recog-
nized as law by civilized nations; and (4) judicial
decisions and the teachings of highly qualified
publicists of the various nations.
One common type of conflict presented to
the ICJ is treaty interpretation. In these cases the
ICJ is asked to resolve disagreements over the
meaning and application of terms in treaties
formed between two or more countries. Other
cases range from nuclear testing and water
boundary disputes to conflicts over the military
presence of a foreign country.
The ICJ is made up of 15 jurists from differ-
ent countries. No two judges at any given time
may be from the same country. The court’s com-
position is static but generally includes jurists
from a variety of cultures.
Despite this diversity in structure, the ICJ
has been criticized for favoring established pow-
ers. Under articles 3 and 9 of the ICJ Statute, the
judges on the ICJ should represent “the main
forms of civilization and . . . principal legal sys-
tems of the world.” This definition suggests that
the ICJ does not represent the interests of devel-
oping countries. Indeed, few Latin American
countries have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of
the ICJ. Conversely, most developed countries
accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
The judgment of the ICJ is binding and
(technically) cannot be appealed (arts. 59, 60)
once the parties have consented to its jurisdic-
tion and the court has rendered a decision.
However, a state’s failure to comply with the
judgment violates the U.N. Charter, article
94(2). Noncompliance can be appealed to the
U.N. Security Council, which may either make
recommendations or authorize other measures
by which the judgment shall be enforced.A deci-
sion by the Security Council to enforce compli-
ance with a judgment rendered by the court is
subject to the VETO power of permanent mem-
bers, and thus depends on the members’willing-
ness not only to resort to enforcement measures
but also to support the original judgment.
The ICJ also may render ADVISORY OPIN-
IONS on legal questions when requested to do so
by the General Assembly, the Security Council,
or other U.N. organs or agencies. For example,
the World Health Organization and the General
Assembly requested advisory opinions on the
legality of NUCLEAR WEAPONS under interna-
tional law. The World Court held hearings, in
which 45 nations testified. It issued an advisory
opinion in July 1996, which held that it was ille-
gal for a nation to threaten nuclear war. The
court is used infrequently, which suggests that
most states prefer to handle their disputes by
political means or by recourse to tribunals
where the outcome may be more predictable or
better controlled by the parties.
Since 2000, some of the contentious cases
before the ICJ included a property dispute
between Liechtenstein and Germany; a territo-
rial and maritime dispute between Nicaragua
and Colombia; a land, island, and frontier dis-
pute between El Salvador and the Honduras
(Nicaragua intervening); and a 2003 case by
Mexico against the United States over alleged
violations of consular communications with—
and access to—several Mexican nationals sen-
tenced to death in various U.S. states for crimes
committed within. A 1993 case filed by Bosnia
against the former Yugoslavia for violating the
Genocide Convention was still pending in 2003,
as was a matter between the Republic of Congo
and France over alleged crimes against human-
ity. Trials against individuals for alleged WAR
CRIMES against humanity or genocides involv-
ing Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Serbia, and the for-
mer Yugoslavia were being handled by the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former
Yugoslavia, a separate U.N. tribunal.
The ICJ has been maligned for the inconsis-
tency of its decisions and its lack of real
enforcement power. But its ambitious mission
to resolve disputes between sovereign nations
makes it a valuable source of support for many
countries in their political interaction with
