The role of the international court of justice in maintaining peace

Violence and tribal notions of warfare have been a part of humanity as a whole for the

longest of times, the tribe more prone to violence in a lawless world would be better not only

at dominating others but in avoiding domination themselves. For most of human history we

have been cornered off both culturally and physically from our brethren in countries foreign to

us. The tribalistic notions of human beings, the us and the them are still just as much present in

us now. The third Reich was comprised of individuals who were no more genetically diverse

from say any human being living today. The impulses that guided the atrocities of either of the

world wars are not alien to human beings at large no matter how much we try to distance

ourselves from vile murderous dictators. Notions of malicious violence are not something that

spontaneously descend upon otherwise benevolent individuals. No, humans’ beings in general

have an innate capacity for brutal violence and the many eons of war between men identical to

each other has been a testament to that effect. However, since the advent of globalization the

world has endeavored to come closer and see each other as the belonging to the same human

tribe, which could just be a temporary reflex to the second world war rather than a conclusive

change in the societal ethos of humans at large 1. However, leaving causal relations aside it is

clear the world has moved to an international stage wherein notions of peace and collective

1
https://ourworldindata.org/war-and-peace#:~:text=The%20absolute%20number%20of%20war%20deaths
%20has%20been%20declining%20since,least%20one%20state%20was%2087%2C432.
prosperity are encouraged through international treaties in relation to peace, trade and basic

human rights.

The most prominent of these treaties promoting corporation and combined prosperity is

the charter of the united nations. Though this is not the first time an international organization

has tried to ensure corporation amongst nations. The united nations premier court is the

international court of justice and it is regarded as the worlds foremost court in relation to the

settlement of grievances between sovereign states. the birth of the international court of

justice took place in 1945, articles 7, 36 and 92-96 of the united nations charter deal with the

functioning of the court along with the international court of justice statue which is annexed

with the united nations charter.2 The united nations was formulated with the goal of regulating

interactions between member states and sovereign states occasionally have disputes. These

disputes can be resolved in two overarching manners, one through diplomatic means of

discussion between the two states which is what usually takes place and through judicial means

of dispute resolution. In scenarios where sovereign nations have legal disputes in relation to say

existing treaties then they can approach the international court of justice to resolve the said

dispute in an unbiased and fair manner. this process of an impartial third-party resolving

disputes is known as adjudication. The courts role in essence Is to settle legal disputes

presented before it by states in line with international law along with providing advisory

opinions brought to its notice via authorized international organizations.

The icj Is exclusively a court for the dispute settlement of issues between states, article

34 of the ICJ statue only permits states to approach the court, organization or individuals are

2
Home | International Court of Justice, 2020
not permitted to approach the court. Article 93 of the statue lays down the criteria of which

states are permitted to approach the ICJ. All untied nations members are permitted to

participate in proceeding with in members participating in the recommendation of the general

assembly. The ICJs jurisdiction is predicated upon the consent of sovereign nations to abide by

the judgments and analysis of the court. Sovereign nations can consent to the jurisdiction of the

ICJ or can be subject to its jurisdiction based upon preexisting treaty obligations. The ICJ

conducts two types of proceedings, one is known as advisory opinions wherein the ICJ

elaborates upon a point of legal contention with in international law brought to usually by

organizzations. The meat of the ICJs dispute resolution takes place through the means of

contentious cases. The ICJ defines a dispute as

“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.” 3

The consent of sovereign states is essential in acknowledging the jurisdiction of the ICJ,

consent of sovereign sates can be granted through a number of manners. One of these ways is

the direct expression of consent to jurisdiction by both parties. Other methods include treaties

to which both parties are signatories. Unilateral declarations are made under article 36 of the

statue which states as follows

“parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso

facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same

obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: the interpretation of a

3
Icj-cij.org. 2020. Contentious Jurisdiction | International Court Of Justice. [online] Available at: <https://www.icj-
cij.org/en/contentious-jurisdiction>
treaty; any question of international law; the existence of any fact which, if established, would

constitute a breach of an international obligation; the nature or extent of the reparation to be

made for the breach of an international obligation.” 4

There are some 76 or so declarations to this effect however states often include

reservations which in some ways encourages participation as states can be more tactical and

tragic in regards to the grounds it accedes jurisdiction to the courts, on the flip side it weakens

the states position as all international law is presided on reciprocity and reservations will apply

both ways. Another way for jurisdiction of the ICJ is through treaties, there are around about

300 or so treaties between sovereign states that confer jurisdiction upon the international

court of justice

In relation to the promotion of peace, article 33 of the UN charter specifically obligates nations

to peacefully settle disputes and states

“The parties to any dispute, the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of

international peace and security, shall, first of all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry,

mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or

arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice.” 5.

All members of the united nations must strive to maintain peace on an international

scale and while nations are free to choose whichever method apart from all-out war is suitable

to them it provides the most direct link between judicial dispute settlement and the united

nations charter. The ICJ has in a number of judgments elaborated upon the obligations of
4
Icj-cij.org. 2020. Statute Of The Court | International Court Of Justice. [online] Available at: <https://www.icj-
cij.org/en/statute>
5
https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-vi/index.html
states to not resort to violence during the course of interaction. In the Corfu Channel case 6

British war vessels suffered damage through mines in a previously seeped area. The court did

not find evidence of Albania directly laying mines, however it stated Albanian could not have

been in the dark about the mines and therefore was liable. Albania was ordered to pay

reparations by the court, herein there is a direct relationship between the actions of the court

and the resolution of the dispute. The involvement of the court in this scenario prevented a

heated situation from escalating, the matter was brought before the court and before the end

both parties had settled their differences and marched forward. In the consular staff case 7 the

court emphasized the importance of international laws governing consular and diplomatic

relations along with asking Iran to release the hostages and provide reparations for the united

states. Iran did not heed the orders of the international court of justice. This case however does

to bring to light the impotence of the ICJ in certain scenarios, as a nation truly hell bent on war

will plough through nonetheless and ignore the courts judgments. However, I would argue the

ICJ along with other international courts provides an open and relatively transparent stage

open to the international communities’ eyes and ears. This helps put considerable pressure

upon the transgressing party. However, the court has contributed to dispute settlement more

often than naught, in the case of El Salvador vs Honduras 8 which was a territorial and maritime

dispute. The parties both via special resolution asked the court to determine the legal dispute

concerning the gulf of fonesca and the islands within it along with determining the frontier line

of the six frontiers not determined by a peace treaty signed in 1980. Territorial disputes are

6
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v. Albania) (Judgment) [1948] ICJ
7
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran) (Judgment) [1980] ICJ
8
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening) (El Salvador v.
Honduras)
often the most provocative between nations and often result in violent clashes. In this scenario

both countries immediately agreed to adhere to the ICJs judgment, though during

implementation there have been a number of issues and minor conflicts have broken out

however both parties have accepted the courts judgment and no major armed conflict has

taken place. The ICJ herein contributed to the peaceful settlement of the dispute through the

means of judicial dispute settlement. Another case was the case between Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya vs Chad9 this too was a territorial dispute between the two nations and during the

1980s vast numbers perished for the control of the aouzou strip between Libya and chad. The

peace agreement signed by the two parties stipulated that the dispute ought to be settled

within a year or be submit to the ICJ. In 1994 the court stated that the entire strip belonged to

chad. Initially the Libyan government did not comply with the judgment however a month of

negotiations convinced the government to withdraw troops from the area. However,

relationships were still rocky however both countries did not want an open conflict condemned

by the international community at large. In essence the international court of justice being the

principle organ of the united nations was successful in having Libyan troops withdraw after the

verdict ending open war acceptably effectively. 10

In the case of Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal11 there was a maritime territorial dispute that

was heightened with the presence of oil in the area, an arbitral award was given however

guinea Bissau rejected the arbitral award. The ICJ thereafter upheld the arbitral award and both

parties accepted the judgement of the court, herein again the ICJ was successful in solving

9
Territorial Dispute (Libya v. Chad), 1994 ICJ 7 (Feb. 3)
10
https://www.britannica.com/place/Aozou-Strip
11
Maritime Delimitation between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal (Guinea-Bissau v. Senegal)
territorial disputes between nations that are more or less adhered to. Another territorial

dispute that the ICJ solved was the case of Qatar v. Bahrain 12 herein again there existed

another territorial dispute between two nations. For 60 or so odd years the two nations

quarreled over certain territories. Finally, both nations submitted their dispute to the

international court of justice and the long running dispute was finally settled by the court. The

cases listed above make the case that the international court of justice can be a formidable

force in relation to the peaceful settlement of disputes between nations. The ICJ date its

limitations is a major participant in the international stage in relation to maintain and ensuring

peace between the numerous countries in the world, however the court’s jurisdiction is

predicated on corporation and parties on some level must desire a resolution to the dispute at

hand. the ICJ does not have any true enforcement mechanic and states must themselves in

good faith adhere to the judgments of the ICJ, however even in situations wherein parties

would not necessarily want to comply they just might do so under international pressure. An

example would be the Jadav case between India and Pakistan wherein two nations who have

historically been perpetually at each other’s throats, reached an acceptable resolution to a

situation that could have escalated to the point of further souring of international relations. The

ICJ provides nations that would otherwise stay planted in their respective geo political positions

some encouragement to budge. Without the interference of the ICJ the Indian national would

most certainly been executed within the year.

12
Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain)
 However, the ICJ is of course not without its faults the optional declaration has only

been deposited by a total of 74 states 13 out of a total of 193 countries. Further the majority of

the major geo political players in the world have not deposited this declaration like Russia,

China and the united states. all three of these states are some of the most influential players

on the international stage yet they have not deposited their optional declarations

acknowledging the court’s jurisdiction. Further the ICJ deals mainly with legal issues and most

disputes between nations have deep history’s and bloody conflicts in the past and legal

clarifications do not undo the underlying political tensions between hostile nations. In the Iran

hostage case, the contention that since it was a political dispute the ICJ had no jurisdiction,

herein the court stated

““Legal disputes between sovereign States by their very nature are likely to occur in political

contexts, and often form only one element in a wider and longstanding political dispute

between the States concerned. Yet never has the view been put forward before that, because a

legal dispute submitted to the Court is only one part of a political dispute, the Court should

decline to resolve for the parties the legal questions at issue between them” 14

However, the judgment was not adhered to and the political tensions were not dispelled

by the judgement in the slightest. Another case that bring to light the short comings of the ICJ

is the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America 15. In this case Nicaragua initiate proceeding

against American influence within its borders. The case was instituted based upon the optional

13
Icj-cij.org. 2020. Declarations Recognizing The Jurisdiction Of The Court As Compulsory | International Court Of
Justice. [online] Available at: <https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations>
14
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran (United States of America v. Iran)
15
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)
declaration that the USA tired at first to alter, then simply withdrew. The court ruled in favor of

Nicaragua, however the united states refused to comply and the case was dropped. This case

showcases the shortcoming in relation to weaker states utilizing the ICJ to attain justice, military

hard power will all ways be a prominent factor in the outcome of disputes.

The international court of justice though lacking any overarching objective jurisdiction is

still an important international player that has indeed resulted in the peaceful settlement of

disputes between sovereign nations. However, the court clearly lacks the potency required to

police the world which realistically is an impossibility and I believe expecting it to even come

close to fulfilling that role is a futile endeavor. Such a feat in a world where the majority of

influence is held by an oligopoly of a select few nations that will not heed any other law than

their own is impossible. That said I believe the court has indeed played a role in reducing the

tensions between nations that could have otherwise escalated to full scale armed conflict and

has indeed helped in fostering peace and prosperity on a world stage.