Introduction

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations

(UN), established in 1945 by the UN Charter. It serves as a forum for the resolution of legal

disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by

authorized international organs and agencies 1. ICJ is formed by different members who are

respected jurists from different legal backgrounds countries, contributing to the diverse and

international nature of the court2. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the

World Court, is composed of 15 judges who serve nine-year terms. These judges are elected by

the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council. Judges are eligible for re-

election and cannot hold any other occupation during their term. The composition of the ICJ is

meant to reflect the principal legal systems of the world and provide representation from the

world's main geographic regions3.

The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on legal questions

referred to it by the United Nations and its specialized agencies. It aims to ensure that

international disputes are resolved based on legal principles rather than force or coercion 4. The

Court's jurisdiction is based on the consent of the states involved, either through specific treaties,

declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction, or ad hoc agreement5.

IMPORTANCE OF INTERNATIONAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) plays a crucial role in resolving disputes between states

including.

1
Greenwood C; “The International Court of Justice and the Use of Force.” (1993) 4 BYIL 366.
2
Bekker PHF, “The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice.” (2003) 97 AJIL 337.
3
Ibid.
4
A Pellet. “The Role of the International Court of Justice in International Law” (1998) 9 EJIL 436.
5
Ibid.
Legal Resolution:

The ICJ provides a structured, legal framework for resolving disputes, offering states an

alternative to potentially volatile political or military confrontations. By adhering to international

law, the ICJ ensures that decisions are made based on legal principles rather than power

dynamics.

Peaceful Settlement.

The ICJ is a cornerstone in the international system for the peaceful settlement of disputes. It

helps prevent conflicts from escalating by offering a neutral and respected forum for

adjudication.

Impartiality

As a judicial body, the ICJ maintains impartiality in its decisions. This helps to ensure fairness

and build trust among states that their cases will be judged without bias.

Authoritative Judgments:

ICJ rulings carry significant weight in international law. While its decisions are binding only on

the parties involved in a particular case, they often influence international legal norms and state

behavior more broadly.

Precedent Setting:

ICJ decisions contribute to the development of international law by setting precedents. These

rulings can clarify and interpret legal principles, which can guide states and other international

courts in future cases.

Support for International Organizations

The ICJ provides advisory opinions to international organizations, including the United Nations,

helping to ensure that these bodies operate within the framework of international law.
Promotion of Rule of Law

By resolving disputes based on legal principles, the ICJ promotes the rule of law at the

international level. This fosters a more predictable and stable international order.

Accessibility for All States

All UN member states are automatically parties to the ICJ Statute, making the court accessible

for a wide range of states. This universality enhances its legitimacy and the acceptability of its

decisions.

In summary, the ICJ is essential for maintaining international peace and security, fostering the

rule of law, and ensuring that states have a reliable mechanism for the peaceful resolution of

their disputes. Its role underpins the stability and predictability necessary for international

relations.

The effectiveness of the ICJ in resolving disputes between states is a topic of significant

scholarly and practical interest, as it pertains to the maintenance of international peace and

security6. The ICJ's effectiveness in resolving disputes between states is mixed, influenced by

factors such as state compliance, enforcement mechanisms, and political considerations 7.

In maintaining the world peace, the ICJ normally serve two main purpose which includes settling

legal disputes between states and provide advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by

authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies 8. This role involves two primary

functions:

a. Contentious Cases

6
Arsanjani MH, “The International Court of Justice and the Questions of Jurisdiction and Admissibility” (2004)
96 AJIL 320.
7
AL Parrish. “Storm in a Teacup: The International Court of Justice’s Flawed Provisional Measures Order in
Georgia v. Russia” (2009) 43 Vand J Transnat’l L 159.
8
Ibid.
 The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states that have consented to its jurisdiction. These

cases can involve a variety of issues, including territorial disputes, maritime boundaries,

diplomatic relations, and violations of international treaties. The court's decisions in

contentious cases are binding on the parties involved9.

b. Advisory Opinions

The ICJ provides advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by the United

Nations General Assembly, the Security Council, or other UN organs and specialized

agencies. These opinions are not binding but carry significant legal weight and moral

authority, often influencing international law and the actions of states and international

organizations10.

Through these functions, the ICJ aims to promote the peaceful resolution of disputes, uphold

international law, and contribute to global justice and stability.

MECHANISM AND TOOLS

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has several mechanisms and tools for resolving disputes

between states. These are primarily judicial in nature and include the following:

Contentious Cases

Judicial Proceedings, The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states that voluntarily submit to its

jurisdiction. The process involves written pleadings (memorials and counter-memorials), oral

hearings, and deliberations. The Court then delivers binding judgments; which states are obliged

to comply with under Article 94 of the UN Charter11.

Advisory Opinions:

9
Ibid.
10
Rosenne S, “The Law and Practice of the International Court”, 1920-2005 (2006) 5 JIDS 23.
11
M Evans; “International Law” (5th Ed, OUP 2018).
Advisory Jurisdiction, the ICJ provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by UN

organs and specialized agencies. Although these opinions are not legally binding, they carry

significant legal and moral authority and can influence international law development and state

behavior12.

Provisional Measures

Interim Protection, the ICJ can indicate provisional measures to preserve the rights of the parties

involved in a dispute pending the final decision 13. These measures are intended to prevent

irreparable harm and are binding on the parties.

Compulsory Jurisdiction

Article 36 Declarations, States can declare in advance their acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction

in specific types of disputes14. This creates a legal obligation to submit to the ICJ’s authority

when such disputes arise.

Special Agreements

Compromise, States can enter into a special agreement, known as a compromise, to submit a

particular dispute to the ICJ. This agreement specifies the precise issue to be adjudicated and the

terms under which the case will be heard.

Treaty Clauses,

Jurisdictional Clauses in Treaties, many international treaties include clauses that grant the ICJ

jurisdiction over disputes concerning the interpretation or application of the treaty 15. This allows

states to bring related cases directly to the Court16.

Appointment of Experts

12
Dinstein Y; “War, Aggression and Self-Defence.” (5th Ed, CUP 2011).
13
Dolzer R and C Schreuer; “Principles of International Investment Law.” (OUP 2008).
14
Higgins R. “Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It”. (OUP 1994).
15
Wolfrum R; “The International Court of Justice: Between Law and Politics” (Springer 2012).
16
Ibid.
Technical Assistance: The ICJ can appoint experts to provide specialized knowledge on complex

issues involved in a case. This assists the judges in making well-informed decisions.

Interim Orders and Procedural Management

Procedural Orders: The Court issues interim orders to manage procedural aspects of the case,

ensuring that the judicial process progresses efficiently 17. These orders can address timelines,

document submissions, and other logistical matters.

Mediation and Conciliation (Encouraged but Not Primary)

While the ICJ itself primarily functions as a judicial body, it can encourage states to engage in

mediation or conciliation to resolve their disputes amicably before resorting to judicial

settlement18.

These mechanisms and tools enable the ICJ to fulfill its role in the peaceful resolution of

international disputes, contributing to the maintenance of international law and order. The

effectiveness of the ICJ depends on the willingness of states to comply with its decisions and the

broader international community's support.

The ICJ’s role and its effectiveness in determining the disputes between the states can be

evaluated through various means including cases resolved by ICJ Successfully, the ICJ's ruling

and follow-up actions. This work examines the ICJ effectiveness and make the analysis of the

ICJ’s impacts in resolving states disputes. The ICJs effectiveness begins with evaluating the

successful disputes settled by the ICJ including the following; -

Nicaragua v. United States (1984)19

17
Buergenthal T; “International Human Rights in a Nutshell”; (4th Ed, West Group 2009).
18
Ibid.
19
ICJ Rep. 14, ICGJ 112, (1984).
This case involved Nicaragua accusing the United States of using unlawful force and intervening

in its internal affairs by supporting the Contras, an insurgent group 20. The ICJ ruled in favor of

Nicaragua, stating that the U.S. had violated international law. 21 The case illustrates the ICJ’s

role in international legal system as an impartial adjudicator of disputes between states 22. While

the ruling against the United state of showcased the Courts ability to make decisions based on

Law rather than power dynamics, its also underscored the challenges in enforcing such decisions

when powerful states choose not to comply. This case remains a pivotal example of the

effectiveness of the ICJ in resolving disputes between the states and maintaining international

law and order23.

Libya v. Chad (1994)24

The Aouzou, strip, a piece of land in northern Chad, became a contentious area between Libya

and Chad due to its potential strategic and economic value, particularly for its alleged mineral

resources25. The conflict over the territory dated back to colonial times, with both countries

laying claims to it. The two states agreed to submit their dispute to the ICJ. Both countries

consented to abide by the court’s decision, demonstrating a commitment to a peaceful and legal

resolution. The ICJ’s ruling was a pivotal in defusing tensions between Libya and Chad 26. Both

countries were bound by the judgement and Libya withdrew its troops from the Aouzou which

generated peace among the two states. The resolution of the Libya – Chad dispute over the

20
G Hernandez. The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (OUP 2014).
21
H Thirlway, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence”
(OUP 2013).
22
J Collier and V Lowe, “The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures” (OUP
1999).
23
International Court of Justice; Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (ICJ 2003).
24
1994.
25
G Hernandez. The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (OUP 2014).
26
Ibid.
Aouzou strip highlights the ICJ’s effectiveness to resolve complex territorial conflicts and

maintain peace through legal means27.

Burkina Faso v. Mali (198628),

In this dispute the International Court of Justice (ICJ) demonstrated its effectiveness in

peacefully resolving a border dispute between two African nations29.

This was the border Dispute, the dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali centered around their

shared border in the region of the Upper Volta River. The border had been drawn during the

colonial era and was a source of contention between the two countries, leading to tensions and

occasional skirmishes30. Both Burkina Faso and Mali agreed to submit the dispute to the ICJ for

resolution, demonstrating their commitment to peaceful dispute resolution through international

legal mechanisms31.

The ICJ rendered a judgment that delineated the border between Burkina Faso and Mali,

providing a clear and legally binding resolution to the dispute32.

By resolving the border dispute through legal means, the ICJ helped prevent further escalation of

tensions between Burkina Faso and Mali, contributing to regional stability and security. The

ICJ's judgment provided both countries with a clear and definitive understanding of their

territorial boundaries, reducing the likelihood of future disputes over the same issue33.

27
H Thirlway, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence”
(OUP 2013).
28
ICJ Rep 554, ICGJ 116 (ICJ1986).
29
J Collier and V Lowe, “The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures” (OUP
1999).
30
International Court of Justice; Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (ICJ 2003).
31
Ibid.
32
T Buergenthal; “International Human Rights in a Nutshell”; (4th Ed, West Group 2009).
33
Dinstein Y; “War, Aggression and Self-Defence.” (5th Ed, CUP 2011).
Burkina Faso v. Mali case exemplifies the ICJ's effectiveness in managing territorial conflicts

and promoting peace through legal means. By providing a neutral forum for dispute resolution

and rendering a fair and equitable judgment based on legal principles, the ICJ helped Burkina

Faso and Mali peacefully resolve their border dispute 34. This case underscores the importance of

international law and institutions in maintaining peace and stability in the international

community35.

Territorial Dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria36

The ICJ resolves a long-standing territorial dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria over the

Bakasi Penisula and the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Guinea. The court delineated the

boundary between the two countries, providing a clear and legal binding resolution to the

conflict37.

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v.

Uganda)38

The ICJ adjudicated a case brought by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) against

Uganda, alleging violations of international law 39. The Court ruled that Uganda had violated the

sovereignty of the DRC by engaging in military activities and exploiting its natural resources.

Uganda was ordered to pay reparations to the DRC for the harm caused by its actions40.

Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine)

34
Ibid.
35
Ibid.
36
ICJ Rep 275, ICGJ 64 (ICJ 1998).
37
Dinstein Y; “War, Aggression and Self-Defence.” (5th Ed, CUP 2011).
38
ICJ GL No 116, [2005] ICJ Rep 168.
39
G Hernandez. The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (OUP 2014).
40
Collier J and Lowe V, “The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures” (OUP
1999).
The ICJ resolved a dispute between Romania and Ukraine over the delimitation of their maritime

boundaries in the Black Sea. The Court delimited the maritime boundary between the two

countries, clarifying their respective rights and obligations in the region41.

Dispute regarding Navigational and Related Rights (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) (2018)42

The ICJ settled a dispute between Costa Rica and Nicaragua over navigational rights and

environmental protection in the San Juan River. The Court ruled in favor of Costa Rica,

affirming its right to navigate the river and ordering Nicaragua to compensate Costa Rica for

environmental damage caused by its activities43.

These cases demonstrate the ICJ's effectiveness in resolving disputes between states through

legal means. By providing a neutral forum for adjudication and delivering impartial judgments

based on international law, the ICJ has played a crucial role in maintaining peace and stability in

the international community44.

EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ICJ'S RULING AND FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS.

The effectiveness of international Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling and the follow-up actions involve

several considerations including; -

Nature of the ICJ Rulings; ICJ rulings are binding on the states involved in the specific case.

However, the ICJ lacks direct enforcement power, relying on the parties' compliance and

political pressure from the international community. This tend to impact the effectiveness of ICJ

in ensuring the disputes between the states are well and clear resolved between the states 45.

41
ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986)
42
ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1916)
43
Ibid.
44
Ibid.
45
Evans M; “International Law” (5th Ed, OUP 2018).
State Compliance: The effectiveness often depends on the willingness of states to comply.

Historically, compliance has been mixed, with many states adhering to ICJ decisions to maintain

their international standing, while others may ignore rulings due to political, economic, or

strategic reasons46.

Political Pressure and Diplomacy: Diplomatic and political pressure from other states and

international organizations can influence compliance. This includes sanctions, diplomatic

isolation, or incentives for adherence47.

Role of the United Nations: The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) can be called upon

to enforce ICJ rulings under Article 94 of the UN Charter. However, enforcement depends on the

political will of the UNSC members, particularly the permanent members with veto power 48.

Public Opinion and Media: Global public opinion and media attention can create additional

pressure on states to comply with ICJ rulings. Increased visibility can mobilize civil society and

international organizations to advocate for enforcement49.

Precedent and Legal Norms: ICJ rulings contribute to the development of international legal

norms and principles, influencing future cases and the behavior of states by setting precedents50.

CHALLENGE AND LIMITATIONS OF ICJ

In the case of Georgia v. Russia (2008)51,

46
Wolfrum R; “The International Court of Justice: Between Law and Politics” (Springer 2012).
47
Higgins r. “Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It”. (OUP 1994).
48
Dolzer R and Schreuer C; “Principles of International Investment Law.” (OUP 2008).
49
JG Merrills, “The Mosaic of International Dispute Settlement Procedures: Complementary or Contradictory?”
(2007) 54 ICLQ 905.
50
J Crawford; “Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law:” (9th edn, OUP 2019).
51
Ibid.
The case arose from the armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in August 2008 over the

breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia 52. Georgia accused Russia of violating its

territorial integrity and committing human rights abuses during the conflict. Georgia filed a case

against Russia at the ICJ, alleging violations of the International Convention on the Elimination

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD)53.

The ICJ issued provisional measures to both parties, urging them to refrain from actions that

could aggravate the situation and to protect the rights of ethnic Georgians and other minorities in

the disputed regions. Russia challenged the ICJ's jurisdiction in the case, arguing that it fell

outside the scope of the CERD. The Court, however, ruled that it had jurisdiction to hear the

case. Despite the ICJ's rulings and provisional measures, both Georgia and Russia faced

challenges in fully complying with the Court's decisions.

The limited enforcement of the ICJ's decisions in the Georgia v. Russia case underscored the

broader challenges facing international law and institutions in effectively addressing conflicts

involving powerful states.

The Georgia v. Russia case illustrates the challenges faced by the ICJ in effectively handling

disputes between states, particularly in terms of enforcing its decisions. While the Court plays a

crucial role in adjudicating legal disputes and upholding the rule of law, its effectiveness is often

limited by political realities and the absence of robust enforcement mechanisms.

Kulbhushan Jadhav Case54

This is the case between India and Pakistan, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled in

favor of India, finding that Pakistan had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention on
52
Y Dinstein; “War, Aggression and Self-Defence.” (5th Ed, CUP 2011).
53
T Buergenthal; “International Human Rights in a Nutshell”; (4th Ed, West Group 2009).
54
Bowett B; “The Law of International Institutions,” 2001.
Consular Relations by denying consular access to Jadhav, an Indian national accused of

espionage and terrorism by Pakistan. Despite the ICJ's ruling, the case illustrates how political

complexities can limit the impact of international legal decisions on the ground 55.

The ICJ confirmed on the violation of Vienna Convention; The ICJ ruled that Pakistan had

breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention by not informing India of Jadhav's arrest

and denying consular access to him. The Court ordered Pakistan to provide consular access to

Jadhav, review and reconsider his conviction and sentence, and ensure that no execution takes

place pending the final decision of the Court56.

The ruling did not automatically lead to changes in Pakistan's domestic legal proceedings 57. The

ICJ lacks direct enforcement mechanisms, relying instead on the voluntary compliance of states.

In cases where political considerations outweigh international legal obligations, states may

choose not to comply with ICJ rulings. The limited compliance with the ICJ's ruling in the

Jadhav case raises questions about the effectiveness of international legal mechanisms in

resolving disputes between politically sensitive states58.

The Kulbhushan Jadhav case highlights the complexities and limitations of international law in

addressing disputes between states with deep-seated political tensions. While the ICJ's ruling

provided a legal basis for addressing violations of international obligations, its impact on the

ground was constrained by political realities and national sovereignty concerns. Moving forward,

efforts to address such disputes require a combination of legal, diplomatic, and humanitarian

approaches to ensure respect for international law and human rights.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

55
Gray C; “International Law and the Use of Force” (4th Ed, OUP 2018).
56
Tams C; “Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law. “CUP 2005.
57
DH Joyner, ‘The Security Council as a Legal Hegemon’ (2005) 8 Chinese JIL 503.
58
A Aust; Handbook of International Law” 2010.
The effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in resolving disputes between states

can be analyzed through several comparative lenses: compliance, impact, scope of jurisdiction,

and the broader international legal and political context59.

COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT

Binding Judgments; ICJ judgments are binding on the parties involved. States generally comply

with ICJ decisions, motivated by a commitment to international law and the desire to maintain

their international reputation60. The ICJ can issue provisional measures that are binding and aim

to prevent irreparable harm while the case is pending.

Impact and Influence

Norm Development: The ICJ contributes significantly to the development and clarification of

international law through its judgments and advisory opinions61.

Moral Authority

Advisory opinions, while non-binding, carry substantial moral and legal weight and can

influence international legal norms and state behavior62.

Scope of Jurisdiction

The ICJ can hear a broad range of disputes, from boundary and territorial issues to human rights

and environmental matters, given that states consent to its jurisdiction63.

Optional Clause

States can accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction via declarations under Article 36(2) of the

ICJ Statute, which can broaden the scope of cases the ICJ can adjudicate64.

59
D Shelton. “Remedies in International Human Rights Law.” (OUP 2005
60
International Court of Justice, Annual Report 2012-2013’ (ICJ 2013).
61
International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion) [2010]
ICJ Rep 403.
62
Vienna Convention on the Law of 1980
63
AL Paulus. “Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: A Qualified Majority?” (2004)
64
Ibid.
In cases like the Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in

the Occupied Palestinian Territory (2004), the ICJ provided authoritative legal opinions that

influence international discourse65.

CHALLENGES

Apart from the strength of ICJ above still the ICJ has several challenges in the following manner;

Enforcement Limitations: The ICJ lacks direct enforcement mechanisms. Compliance relies on

the willingness of states and the support of international institutions like the UN Security

Council, which may be influenced by political considerations.

Selective Compliance: Some states may choose to ignore or only partially comply with ICJ

rulings, especially if they perceive the ruling as unfavorable or if there is significant political or

strategic interest at stake66.

Variable Impact: The impact of ICJ decisions can vary significantly. While some rulings lead

to immediate and clear compliance, others have less tangible effects, especially in complex or

highly politicized disputes67.

Consent Requirement: The ICJ can only hear cases when states consent to its jurisdiction. This

limits its ability to act in some disputes, as not all states have accepted its jurisdiction or may

refuse to submit specific disputes.

Reservations and Declarations: States often attach reservations or declarations to their

acceptance of ICJ jurisdiction, which can limit the Court's reach and effectiveness.

65
Ibid.
66
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), [1996] ICJ Rep 226.
67
Hernandez G. The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (OUP 2014).
Political and Legal Context: Political considerations often influence states’ willingness to

comply with or submit to ICJ rulings. Powerful states or those with strong political alliances

might be less inclined to adhere to decisions that counter their interests68.

Complex Global Issues: The ICJ faces challenges in addressing disputes arising from complex

global issues like climate change, cybersecurity, and transnational terrorism, where traditional

legal frameworks may be insufficient69.

Conclusion

The ICJ plays a critical role in the peaceful resolution of international disputes, contributing

significantly to the development of international law. Its effectiveness, however, is moderated by

the need for state consent, limitations in enforcement, and the influence of political factors 70.

While the ICJ is generally respected and its decisions often lead to compliance, its impact can

vary depending on the specific circumstances of each case and the broader geopolitical

environment.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has several mechanisms and tools for resolving disputes

between states71.

68
Collier J and V Lowe, “The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions and Procedures” (OUP
1999).
69
Thirlway H, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence”
(OUP 2013).
70
Wolfrum R; “The International Court of Justice: Between Law and Politics” (Springer 2012).
71
Higgins R. “Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It”. (OUP 1994).
 REFERENCES

ADVISORY OPINIONS
 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion), [1996] ICJ Rep

226.

 Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in

Respect of Kosovo (Advisory Opinion) [2010] ICJ Rep 403.

BOOKS
 A Aust, “Handbook of International Law” (2nd Ed, CUP 2010).

 AL Paulus. “Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: A Qualified

Majority?” (2004) 11 LJIL 761.

 B Bowett; “The Law of International Institutions,” (5th Ed, Sweet & Maxwell 2001).

 C Gray. “International Law and the Use of Force” (4th Ed, OUP 2018).

 C Tams; “Enforcing Obligations Erga Omnes in International Law.” (CUP 2005).

 DH Joyner, ‘The Security Council as a Legal Hegemon’ (2005) 8 Chinese JIL 503.

 D Shelton. “Remedies in International Human Rights Law.” (OUP 2005).

 G Hernandez. The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function (OUP

2014).

 H Thirlway, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty

Years of Jurisprudence” (OUP 2013).

 International Court of Justice; Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders

(ICJ 2003).

 J Collier and V Lowe, “The Settlement of Disputes in International Law: Institutions

and Procedures” (OUP 1999).

 JG Merrills, “The Mosaic of International Dispute Settlement Procedures:

Complementary or Contradictory?” (2007) 54 ICLQ 905.

  J Crawford; “Brownlie’s Principles of Public International Law:” (9th edn, OUP 2019).

 M Evans; “International Law” (5th Ed, OUP 2018).

 R Dolzer and C Schreuer; “Principles of International Investment Law.” (OUP 2008).

 R Higgins. “Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It”. (OUP

1994).

 R Wolfrum; “The International Court of Justice: Between Law and Politics” (Springer

2012).

 T Buergenthal; “International Human Rights in a Nutshell”; (4th Ed, West Group

2009).

 Y Dinstein; “War, Aggression and Self-Defence.” (5th Ed, CUP 2011).

CASES
 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States

of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.

 Nicaragua v. United States ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1986)

 Libya v. Chad, ICJ Rep 6, ICGJ 88 (ICJ 1994)

 Burkina Faso v. Mali (ICJ Rep 554, ICGJ 116 (ICJ 1987),

 Cameroon and Nigeria ICJ Rep 275, ICGJ 64 (ICJ 1998)

 Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda ICJ GL [2005] ICJ Rep 168, (ICJ 2005)

 Romania v. Ukraine ICJ Rep 61, ICGJ 6 (ICJ 2009)

 Costa Rica v. Nicaragua ICJ Rep 14, ICGJ 112 (ICJ 1916)

TREATIES, CONVENTIONS OTHER LEGAL INSTRUMENTS

 C Greenwood; “The International Court of Justice and the Use of Force.” (1993) 4

BYIL 366.
  PHF Bekker, “The 2002 Judicial Activity of the International Court of Justice.” (2003)

97 AJIL 337.

 S Rosenne, “The Law and Practice of the International Court”, 1920-2005 (2006) 5

JIDS 23.

 MH Arsanjani, “The International Court of Justice and the Questions of Jurisdiction

and Admissibility” (2004) 96 AJIL 320.

 AL Parrish. “Storm in a Teacup: The International Court of Justice’s Flawed

Provisional Measures Order in Georgia v. Russia” (2009) 43 Vand J Transnat’l L 159.

 A Pellet. “The Role of the International Court of Justice in International Law” (1998)

9 EJIL 436.

 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (adopted 23 May 1969, entered into force 27

January 1980) 1155 UNTS 331.

 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (adopted 9

December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951) 78 UNTS 277.

 Charter of the United Nations (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October

1945) 1 UNTS XVI.

 Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24

October 1945) 1 UNTS XVI.

UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTIONS

 UNGA Res 2625 (XXV) (24 October 1970) UN Doc A/RES/2625(XXV).

 UNGA Res 3314 (XXIX) (14 December 1974) UN Doc A/RES/3314(XXIX).

REPORTS

 International Court of Justice, Annual Report 2012-2013’ (ICJ 2013).