Established in 1921, the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) was sponsored by the League of Nations and housed in the Peace Palace in The Hague, the Netherlands. The PCIJ was the first court available to all states on a constant basis for interstate dispute resolution. Although connected to the League of Nations, the PCIJ was not officially part of the organization, and both league members and nonmembers, once ratifying its statute, could use the court. Like the League of Nations, the PCIJ did not survive the conflict of World War II (1939–1945) and officially dissolved in 1940. During its tenure it heard twenty-nine cases and rendered twenty-seven advisory opinions requested by the league.
Following the war, the victorious global leaders sought to build a new international organization and world court for the development of stable and judicial resolutions to interstate conflict. Somewhat more skeptical about the utopian promise of international organizations and international law, the Allies sought to remedy some of the weakness of the league and the PCIJ. To gain distance from the criticism of the PCIJ, the second world court would be an entirely new body, directly integrated into the United Nations (UN) as its official judicial arm. Accordingly, the statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was annexed to that of the UN, and all members of the UN are automatically party to the ICJ, although a UN member state can refuse ICJ jurisdiction. The ICJ, however, took residency at the Peace Palace in The Hague, as had its predecessor, and is now the only one of the six principal UN organs that is not located in New York City.
Statute And Jurisdiction
Similar to the PCIJ, the ICJ has dual jurisdiction to decide legal cases brought by states (contentious cases) as well as to give opinions on questions of international law requested by organs of the UN (advisory opinions). Only states, no subnational entities, other collectivities, or persons, are entitled to initiate proceedings with the court. Furthermore, the court has jurisdiction only over states that have consented to its jurisdiction. The United States withdrew from the court’s jurisdiction in 1986.
ICJ judges act independently and do not represent their governments. They are elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council to nine-year terms and can be reelected. Judges can be dismissed only by a vote of the court itself. There are fifteen judges to the court, with elections for five every three years. It is customary (and a result of the election process, which requires Security Council approval), although not mandated, that each state holding a veto on the Security Council be represented on the court.
According to article 28 the court relies on five sources of international law: (1) treaties, (2) customary state practice, (3) general principles of law applied by civilized nations, (4) national or other international court decisions, and (5) scholarly writings of experts in international law.
The first contentious case was submitted to the ICJ in 1948 (Cornfu Channel, United Kingdom v. Albania). The United Kingdom sued Albania when war ships hit mines in Albanian waters. The court decided in favor of the United Kingdom, and the conflict dissipated. From this first case to March 2010, 146 cases (contentious and advisory) were submitted to the court. In a recent contentious case, the first brought before the court in 2009 (Belgium v. Senegal), there was a dispute between Belgium and Senegal regarding Senegal’s responsibility, as a signatory to the Convention against Torture, to prosecute or extradite for prosecution the former president of Chad, Hissene Habre.
The ICJ statute officially bars any individual decision from directly affecting subsequent cases. A particular court decision is legally binding for only those parties to that immediate case. Nevertheless, ICJ cases do lend to the development of international law and may be considered in future cases regarding similar disputes.
Enforcement
If parties do not comply with decisions made by the court, enforcement may be taken up by the Security Council. However, when a party to the case, or an ally to such a party, holds veto power on the Security Council, this is not a practical enforcement mechanism. When the Security Council is unwilling to enforce an ICJ decision, there is no formal recourse for the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the court has been broadly successful, and in most cases the court’s decisions have been implemented. This has been particularly true of border disputes, such as the two-centuries-long conflict between El Salvador and Honduras that was resolved by ICJ adjudication in 1992.
Bibliography:
- International Court of Justice, www.icj-cioj.org/ (accessed March 2, 2010).
- United Nations Department of Public Information. The International Court of Justice: Questions and Answers about the Principle Judicial Organ of the United Nations. New York: United Nations, 2000.
- Weiss, Thomas, and Sam Daws. The Oxford Handbook on the United Nations. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
This example International Court Of Justice (ICJ) Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.
See also:
- How to Write a Political Science Essay
- Political Science Essay Topics
- Political Science Essay Examples