LNCT UNIVERSITY

School of legal studies, Bhopal

Course: Public International Law

Topic: ICJ the principal judicial organ of the United Nation

Submitted To:
Submitted By:

Mr. Saood Khan Bushra Azam

Assistant professor LN19BALL006

(LNCT University) BALLB(5 th Sem)

INDEX
I.The ICJ and the International Disputes 1

II. History 2

III. Establishment of ICJ 3

IV. Organization of the Court 4

V. The ICJ and the International Disputes 5

VI. Formation of International Court of Justice 6

VII. Case I 7

VIII. Case II 8

IX. Case III 9

X. Case IV 10

XI. Conclusion 11

Objectives
.To review the present status of the court of justice and its role in international.

.To analyze and assess the existing measures for ensuring court of justice and its role in
international dispute settlement.

.To find out weakness and problems of Justice.

.To purpose the betterment options for International Court of Justice and vital role in
International Dispute settlement and its improvement.

.To ensure high standard of justice and people confidence on justice.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my special thanks of gratitude to my teacher MR.SAOOD KHAN, who
gave me the golden opportunity to do this wonderful project of Public International Law on
“ICJ THE PRINCIPAL JUDICIAL ORGAN OF THE UNITED NATION”, who also helped me in
completing my project. I came to knew about so many new things I am really thankful to
them. Secondly I would also like to thank my parents and friends who helped me a lot in
finalizing this project within the limited time frame. I would also like to thanks to our librarian
for providing books related to my topic. I am very thankful to our LNCT University for giving
such a wonderful opportunity.

BUSHRA AZAM

B.A.L.L.B

3Rd year.
Research Methodology

The Methodology used in the Assignment is Qualitative Methodology. My research works are
based on Analytical Study. The main object of this study is to find out the working of
International Court of Justice and its impacts on International relations.

These are primary source and secondary source. The source based data has been collected
from the International Laws and history of International Courts. Other data collected from
books, journals, websites and internet.
1.Introduction

The International Court of Justice (I.C.J) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It
was established in June 1945 by the charter of United of Nations and began work in April 1946.
The seat of the court is at the peace palace in the Hague (Netherlands) of the six principal
organs of the united nations. It is the only one not located in New York.

The court role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by
status and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United
Nations organs and specialized agencies.

The court is composed of 15 judges, who are elected for terms of office of nine years by the
United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. It is assisted by a registry, its
administrative organ. Its official languages are English and French. The idea for the creation of
an International Court to arbitrate international disputes first arose during the various
conferences that produced the Hague Conventions in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The body subsequently established, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) which
was established by the League of Nations from 1921 to 1939 the PCIJ issued more than 30
decisions and delivered nearly many advisory opinions, though none were related to the issues
that threatened to English Europe.

The ICJ was established in 1945 by the San Francisco Conference which was also created by the
UN . All members of UN are Parties to the statue of the ICJ and non members may also become
parties . The court inaugural sitting was in 1946.

1
1.www.icj.or (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
2.Interational law and Human Rights, Dr. Ho Agarwal Fifth Edition(2018) p.272
2.HISTORY

The idea for the creation of an International Court to arbitrate international disputes first arose
during the various conferences that produce Hague conventions in the late 19 th and early 20th
centuries. The body subsequently established the Permanent Court of Arbitration, was the
precursor of the Permanent Court of International Justice which was established by the League
of Nations.

From 1921 to 1939 the PCIJ issued more than thirty decisions and delivered nearly as many
advisory opinions all members of the UN are parties to the statue of the ICJ and known
members become parties the outbreak of World War on September 1939 inevitably had serious
consequences for the PCIJ, which had already for some years known a period of diminished
activity. After its last public sitting on 4 th December 1939, the Permanent Court of International
Justice did not in fact deal with any judiciary business and know for the elections of judges were
held.

In 1940 the court removed to Geneva, a single judge remaining at the Hague, together with a
few registry officials of Dutch nationality. It was inevitable that even under the stress of the war
some thought should be given to the future of the court, as well as to the creation of a new
international political order. In 1942 the United States Secretary of state and the foreign
secretary of the United Kingdom declared themselves in favor of the establishment are re-
establishment of an international court after the war, and the inter-American judicial
committee recommended the extension of the PCIJ’s jurisdiction.
2

2
3.www.slideshare.net/satyavarth1994(last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
3.Establishment of ICJ

Despite the failure of the League of Nations and all its institutions in the maintenance of
international peace and security, and the outbreak of World War II, but the idea of establishing
an international tribunal to settle disputes between states has been present in the minds of the
allied powers during the SWW.

The idea of the international court of justice was one of the main ideas presented at the time of
SWW, the allied powers made some suggestions about establishing a new world organization
after the end of the war to play leading role in maintain international peace and security. These
bore fruit in the adoption of the UN charter, which was signed on 26 June 1945.

The reputation of Permanent Court of International Justice, unlike that of the League of
Nations, and not been damaged by the failure of collective security in inter war period. It had
developed a tradition and prestige by which the new court was to benefit. In consequences of
this, the San Francisco conference in 1945 witnessed disagreement among the participants
regarding the question of whether to keep PCIJ or establish a new court. However, since many
of the enemy and neutral states continued to be parties to the old Statute, it was found
technical easier to accomplish the necessary changes by the adoption of a new Statute and the
creation of a new court.

Every Article of Chapter VI of the United Nations Charter on the “Pacific Settlement of Disputes”
refers to disputes “the continuous of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of
International Peace and Security”. Under Article 36 recommend appropriate procedures or the
method of adjustment, “in making recommendations under this article the Security Council
should also take into consideration that legal disputes should as general rule be referred by the
parties to International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the
court”.
3

3
4. www.lawteacher.net (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm) .
4.Organization of the Court

According to Chapter I of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, the court consists of
15 judges elected by the General Assembly of the United Nations and its Security Council for 9
years. Elections are held for every three years for the third of the seats, and maybe re-
nomination of retired judge. Members of the Court does not represent their government but
are independent judges. The judges must be to have the qualifications required for
appointment to the highest judicial offices in their country, or be qualified lawyers arguing in
international law. Must reflect the composition of the court represent the major civilization and
the principal legal system in the world.

Jurisdiction: Court will hear disputes between states submitted to each other and does not
consider any issues raised from individual or public or private bodies, the court shall consider
any issue or dispute whatever the significance or gravity of its own, but must be presented by
the opposing sides together, in addition the court jurisdiction is optional.

The advisory opinion: Bodies that have the right to request an advisory opinion or legal advice is
the General Assembly of the United Nations, branches of the United Nations or its specialized
agencies can request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice with respect to
any matter of its competence, if permitted by the Assembly.

Consequently, the court has a double role: To settle international disputes in accordance with
international law the legal disputes submitted to it by states, and to give advisory opinion on
legal questions referred to it by duly authorized international organ and agencies. Unlike
judgments, advisory opinions are only consultative and not binding as such on the requesting
bodies.

4
5. www.lawteacher.net (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
5.The ICJ and the International Disputes
The International Court of Justice, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nation, is the
only truly universal judicial body. It is open to all states of the international community. It
enjoys a comprehensive subject matter jurisdiction embracing all aspects of public international
law, at its effective jurisdiction remains consensual and constrained. The ICJ is often thought of
as the primary means for the resolution of disputes between states, and in fact the court is well
recognized for its significant contribution to the development of international law. However,
the court has not operated at full capacity. Only four or five cases are referred to the court for
juridical settlement every year. There are a number of reasons for this. Foremost among these
is the character of the court itself. According to widespread view, the limited nature of the
court’s jurisdiction is the essential cause of its ineffectiveness.

We can note many factors influence the ability of the International Court of Justice to
undertake its role as an international instrument to settle and solve international disputes, the
most important of these factors are: alternative dispute settlement arrangement made by
state, the so called proliferation of international tribunals and the facts questions relating to
major areas of international law, such as those dealing with trade, finance and investments, are
never brought by states before the court.

Even though the ICJ was expected to become the “principal judicial organ” for the settlement of
the disputes among states, this hope never materialized. The court has been criticized for its
limited effectiveness and the many failures it has experienced. Te ICJ as not lived up to the
hopes of many of its early supporters; that hope being the ICJ, along with the United Nations,
would evolved into an international government. To begin with, only a total of 63 states have
recognized compulsory jurisdiction if the court through the “optional clause” system. Less than
hundred cases in more than 50 years is not a heavy caseload.

Moreover, many of the cases have not been of great international importance. More than
twenty contentious cases, the ICJ’s jurisdiction the admissibility of an application was
challenged, with ICJ dismissing all most half of these cases. All though states have complied
with the ICJ’s judgments in many of the cases, recalcitrant states have on occasion refused
comply. The reasons for the ICJ’s limited influence vary. These include the limits on the ICJ
jurisdiction, its relatively rigid procedure, and the enforceability of its decrees. But its
jurisdiction is the biggest systematic problem.
5

5
6.www.lawteacher.net (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
 6.Formation of International Court of Justice (ICJ)

On 30th October 1943, a joint declaration by China, U.K, U.S.S.R, and the U.S were issued
recognizing the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international
organization, based on the principal of the Sovereign equality of all peace loving states, and
open to all such state for the maintenance of international peace and security. On 9 October
1944 there was a publication of proposals for the establishment of a general international
organization, to include an International Court of Justice. The next step was the convening
meeting in Washington, in April 1945, of a committee of jurists representing 44 states. This
committee, under the chairmanship of G.H.Hackworth, was interested with the preparation of
the draft Statute for the future International Court of Justice, for submission to the San
Francisco conference.

The draft Statute prepared by the committee was based on thus Statue of the PCIJ and was thus
not completely fresh text. The committee nevertheless felt constraint to leave a number of
questions open which it felt should be decided by the conference.

The San Francisco conference nevertheless showed some concern that all continuity with the
past should not be broken, particularly as the Statute of the PCIJ had itself been drawn upon
the basis of past experience and it was felt better not to change something that had to seen
work well. The judges of the PCIJ resigned on 31 st January 1946, and the election of the first
members of the International Court of Justice took place on 6 February 1946, at the first session
of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council. In April 1946, the PCIJ was
formally dissolved, and the International Court of Justice meeting for the first time, elected as
its president judge Jose Gustavo Guerrero.

The first case was submitted in May 1947. It concern incidents in the Corfu Channel and was
brought by the United Kingdom against Albania.6

6
7.www.slideshare.nit (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
7. CASE I

U.K VS ALBANIA, JUDGEMENT, 1949 I.C.J 4 (Apr.9)

FACTS:

The I case entered in the general list of the ICJ was (Corfu channel (United Kingdom vs Albania)
which was submitted on 22 may 1947. The Corfu channel incident refers to three separate
events involving royal navy ships in the channel of Corfu which took place in 1946. During the I
incident, Royal Navy ships came under fire from Albania fortification. The second incident
involved Royal Navy ships striking mines and the third incident occurred when the royal navy
conducted mine clearing operations in the Corfu channel but in Albania territorial waters, and
Albania complained about them to the United Nations.

This series of incidents led to the Corfu channel case, where the United Kingdom brought a case
against the peoples Socialist Republic of Albania to the International Court of Justice. The court
rendered €844, 000 to Great Britain, the equivalent of €20 million in 2006. Because of the
incident, Britain in 1946, broke off talks with Albania aimed at establishing diplomatic relations
between the two countries. Diplomatic relations were only restored in 1991.

JUDGEMENT:

The court gives judgment that the people republic of Albania is responsible under international
law for the explosions which occurred on October 22, 1946 in Albania waters, and for the
damage and laws of human life that resulted there from ; and reserves for the consideration
the assessment of the amount of compensation and regulates the procedure on this subject.

On the second question put by the special agreement on the violation of states sovereignty, the
court gives judgment that the United Kingdom did not violate the Sovereignty of the people’s
republic of Albania by reason of the acts of the British navy in Albania waters on October 22 nd ,
1946; and unanimously, gave judgment that by reasons of the acts of the British navy in Albania
waters in the course of the operation of November 12 th and 13th 1946, the United Kingdom
violated the Sovereignty of the people’s republic of Albania, and that this declaration by the
court constitutes in itself appropriate satisfaction. 7
7
8.Corfu channel case (uk vs Albania), judgement, 1949 I.C.J 4 (Apr 9)
9.www.slideshare.net (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
CASE II: Cameroon vs Nigeria

Land and Maritime Boundary between (Cameroon vs Nigeria), 1999 I.C.J 1029
(order of Oct 21)

In order to assess Nigeria’s claim based on the theory of historical consolidation of title and on
the acquiescence of Cameroon one must refer to the initial determination of the court. During
the oral pleadings Cameroon’s assertion that Nigerian effectives were contra legume were
dismissed by Nigeria. But the court said that now that it has made its findings that the frontier
in Lake Chad was delimited long before the work of the LCBC began, it necessarily follows that
any Nigerian effectives are indeed to be evaluated for their legal consequences as acts contra
legume.

Facts: The United States challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ when it was held responsible for
illegal military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua in the suite the plaintiff
brought against the defendant in 1984. Though a declaration accepting the mandatory
jurisdiction of the court was deposited by the United States in a 1946, it tired to justify the
declaration in a 1984 notification by referring to the 1946 declaration and stating in part that
the declaration “shall not apply to disputes with any central American state”. Apart from
maintaining the ground that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction, the states also argued that Nicaragua
failed to deposit a similar declaration to the court. On the other hand, Nicaragua based its
arguments on its reliance on the 1946 declaration made by The United States due to the fact
that it was an “state accepting the same obligation” as the United Sates when it filed charges in
the ICJ against the United States. Also the plaintiff intent to submit to the compulsory
jurisdiction of the ICJ was pointed out by the valid declaration it made in 1929 with the ICJ’s
predecessor, which was the Permanent Court of International Justice, even though Nicaragua
had failed to deposit it with that court. The admissibility of the Nicaragua’s application to the
ICJ was also challenged by the United States.8

8
10. www.casebrief.com (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
Judgment: The jurisdiction of the court to entertain a dispute between two sates if each of the
states accepted the court’s jurisdiction is within the jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice. Even though Nicaragua declaration of 1929 was not deposited with the permanent
court, because of the potential effect it had that it would last for many years, it was valid. Thus
it maintained its effect when Nicaragua became a party to the Statute of the ICJ because the
declaration was made unconditionally and was valid for an unlimited period. The intension of
the current drafters of the current Statute was to maintain the greatest possible continuity
between it and the permanent court. Thus, when Nicaragua accepted the Statute, this would
have been deemed that the plaintiff had given its consent to the transfer its declaration to the
ICJ.

When no grounds exist to exclude the application of a state, the application of such a state to
the International Court of Justice is admissible. The five grounds upon which the United States
challenged the admissibility of Nicaragua’s application were that the plaintiff failed because
there is no “indispensible parties” rule when it could not bring forth necessary parties,
Nicaragua’s request of the court to consider the possibility of a threat to peace which is the
exclusive provision of the security council, failed due to the fact that the ICJ can exercise
jurisdiction which is concurrent with that security council, that the ICJ is unable to deal with
situation involving ongoing armed conflict and that there is nothing compelling the ICJ to
decline to consider one aspect of a dispute just because of dispute as other aspects due to the
fact that the cases is incompatible with the contadora process to which Nicaragua is a party.
9

9
11. Nicaragua vs United States, judgement on jurisdiction and admissibility, ICJ GL N070, (1984) ICJ Rep 392, ICGJ
III (ICJ 1984) 26 November 1984.
12.www.casebrief.com (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
 CASE III: Germany vs Italy

In 1940, Italy entered the Second World War as an ally of the German Reich. In 1943, Italy
surrendered to the allies and declared war against Germany. At the time German forces
occupied significant Italian territory. It committed many crimes against civilians and solder’s,
including massacres, deportation and force labor. After the end of the war, Germany enacted
several laws to facilitate the payment of compensation to these victims. However, thousands of
formal Italian Military internees did not fall within these laws and they could not get
compensation in Germany. These internees brought civil cases against Germany in Italian courts
to claim compensation. Germany objected to the proceedings on the basis jurisdictional
immunity before foreign courts.

Greek courts also set aside the immunity of Germany, in similar situation, and ordered Germany
to pay damages. Germany refused to pay on the basis that these “Greek judicial decision could
not be recognized within the German legal order because they have given in breach of Germans
entitlement of state immunity”. The judgment could not be given effect to in Greece due to a
decision of the executive. The Greek claimants then asked Italian courts to enforce the Greek
judgment. Italian courts ordered a legal charge over a property of Germany in Italy as a
measure of enforcement.

Court’s decision: Italy violated its obligation to respect Germany’s immunity under International
law by allowing civil claim to be brought against Germany based on violation of International
Humanitarian Law committed by the German Reich between 1943 and 1945, by declaring
enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts and by taking measures of constraint against
German property in Italy.

The court requested Italy to enact legislation, or resort to other methods of its choosing, to
ensure that the decision of its court and those of other judicial authorities infringing the
immunity which Germany enjoys under international law cease to have effect.
10

10
13.Germany vs Italy, jurisdictional immunities of the state (Germany vs Italy), 2016 I.C.J (order of July 6)
14. www.casebrief.com (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
 CASE IV: Spain vs Canada

On 9 March 1995, the Estai, a fishing vessel flying the Spanish flag and managed by Spanish
crew, was intercepted and boarded some 245 miles from the Canadian coast, in division 3L, of
the north west Atlantic fisheries organization (NAFO) regulatory area, by Canadian government
vessels. The vessel was ceased and its master was arrested on charges of violations of the costal
fisheries protection act, in particular illegal fishing for Greenland Halibut; part of the ships was
confiscated. Spain complain about a violation of the international law in forced, since these acts
took place outside the 200 mile zone. The Canadian government stated that it had taken the
said measures on basis of the amended sections 2 of the coastal fisheries protection act.

It also stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the application filed by Spain, by
reason of paragraph2 (d) of a declaration made by Spain on 10 May 1994 where by Canada
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court but excluded it under certain circumstances.
The court analyzed the question whether the parties conferred upon it jurisdiction in respect of
the disputes. In order to decide this question the court had to interpret sub paragraph (d) of
paragraph2 of Canada’s declaration.

The court concluded that the dispute submitted to it by Spain constituted a dispute “arising out
of “ and “concerning “ “conservation and management measures taken by Canada with respect
to vessels fishing in the NAFO regulatory area” and “the enforcement of such measures”. It
followed that this dispute came within the terms of the reservation contained in paragraph2 (d)
of the Canadian declaration of 10 May 1994. The court consequently had no jurisdiction
adjudicate upon the present dispute.
11

11
15. Spain vs Canada (1995) Fisheries jurisdiction, Spain vs Canada, judgement, jurisdiction, (1998) ICJ Rep 432,
ICGJ60 (ICJ 1998), 4th December 1998.
16.www.casemine.com (last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
 CONCULSION

Since the end of the cold war in the beginning of the 19 th , and collapse of Eastern Bloc, the
number of cases referred to the court has risen significantly. Many cases on the court list every
year, what indicate that the court start to gain more and more sates confidence across the
world. Some optimistic writers see that the International Court of Justice may have more
significant role in the new century in comparison with its historical record.

What consolidate this fact, the large number of treaties provide for the reference of the
disputes to the court and the number of states which accepted the compulsory jurisdiction
according to article 36 (2) raising progressively.

But that doesn’t mean by anyway that the International Court of Justice may achieve the goal
which was established to achieve in during the next few years. There are still many problems
that court must overcome in order to become an effective tool for the settlement of
international disputes within the frame work of the United Nations. Some of this problem and
ways to solve it briefed by Bingbin Lu , who see that ICJ has been criticized for its limited
effectiveness and the many failures it has experienced. These circumstances have many reasons
such as the time consuming nature of ICJ proceedings, but the most important reason is the
extent of the ICJ’s jurisdiction. If we want to see a more efficient ICJ, some reform steps must
be taken to solve the jurisdictional problem. The goal should be achieved step by step.

“International Court of Justice is indeed a sine qua non for the establishment of rule of law in
interstate relations”. By: Justice Nagendra Singh.

In my opinion the ICJ construe its jurisdiction broadly when there are differences as to what the
scope of its jurisdiction is. Of course the relevant provision are optional clause declaration must
be interpreted in a natural and reasonable way. To extent the construction of the ICJ’s
jurisdiction does not mean there should be a license to misuse it. The court can do a much
better job of exercising its competence under the current ICJ Statute and in an environment
proliferating international courts and tribunals, if it chooses its jurisdiction broadly. 12

12
17. Justice Nagendra Singh was Indian lawyer and administration who served as president of the International
Court of Justice from 1985 to 1988.
(last visited 10/11/21 at 12:30 pm)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS:

. International law and human rights, Dr. H.O. Agarwal, Fifth Edition 2018, By Central Law
Publications.

WEBSITES:

. www.casebrief.com

. www.casemine.com

. www.slideshare.net

. www.lawteacher.net