We visited The Hague, known all over the world as city of Peace. Unfortunately we could not enter the main building where the Courts were in session as it required pass which was to be obtained online. On checking we could get passes online after three weeks which did not suit us. We visited the Visitor’s center where I could take pictures of the photographs displayed there and information from the receptionist who was very nice to furnish required details.
International Court of Justice: Composition, Important Cases, and India’s Role
The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often referred to as the “World Court,” is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, its primary purpose is to settle legal disputes between sovereign states in accordance with international law and give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. The ICJ operates under the Statute of the Court, an integral part of the UN Charter, and is headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.
Composition of the International Court of Justice
The ICJ is composed of 15 judges, each serving a nine-year term. Judges are elected by the United Nations General Assembly and the Security Council, voting independently of each other. In order to ensure fairness and the broad representation of the world’s principal legal systems, no two judges may be nationals of the same country. Judges are eligible for re-election and may serve more than one term.
The selection of judges follows a careful and balanced process. Candidates are nominated by national groups within the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA), a different institution from the ICJ, and elections are held by both the UN General Assembly and Security Council. In practice, judges are elected based on their high moral character, recognized competence in international law, and impartiality.
The judges are expected to be independent and impartial, meaning they do not represent their countries of origin. However, to avoid any conflict of interest, a country involved in a case before the ICJ can appoint an ad hoc judge if no sitting judge holds that nationality. This ad hoc judge enjoys equal rights with the other judges regarding the case.
Among the 15 judges, the ICJ elects a President and Vice-President for three-year terms. The President manages the Court’s administration, while the Vice-President assists the President in their duties.
As of 2024, the President of the ICJ is Judge Joan E. Donoghue from the United States, and the Vice-President is Judge Kirill Gevorgian from Russia.
Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice
The jurisdiction of the ICJ encompasses two types of cases:
- Contentious cases, where the Court settles legal disputes between states that have consented to its jurisdiction.
- Advisory opinions, where the Court provides non-binding legal advice to the United Nations or other authorized international institutions upon request.
Contentious cases require both parties’ consent, meaning that the ICJ can only exercise jurisdiction over disputes between states if both countries agree to submit the case. If a country withdraws its consent, the ICJ cannot hear the case.
Advisory opinions, though non-binding, carry significant weight in the development of international law and influence the international community’s stance on pressing legal issues.
Prominent Cases at the International Court of Justice
The ICJ has dealt with numerous landmark cases that have had profound impacts on international law. Here are a few prominent examples:
- Nicaragua v. United States (1986)
This case is among the most famous in ICJ history. Nicaragua filed a lawsuit against the United States, alleging that the US had illegally supported paramilitary forces (the Contras) against Nicaragua’s government and mined Nicaraguan harbors. The ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua, concluding that the US violated international law by supporting the Contras and mining Nicaragua’s harbors. However, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings and did not comply with the Court’s ruling, raising concerns about the enforceability of ICJ judgments. - Corfu Channel Case (1949)
This was the first contentious case adjudicated by the ICJ. It involved the United Kingdom and Albania. The Court found Albania responsible for damage caused by mines in the Corfu Channel, which resulted in the sinking of British ships and loss of life. This case established significant principles regarding state sovereignty and territorial waters. - Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (2007)
This case dealt with accusations of genocide during the Bosnian War. Bosnia alleged that Serbia was responsible for the genocide of Bosnian Muslims. The ICJ’s ruling was complex, recognizing that while genocide occurred, it could not conclusively prove Serbia’s direct responsibility for it. However, Serbia was held accountable for failing to prevent and punish the genocide at Srebrenica. This case is particularly significant in international humanitarian law. - The Gambia v. Myanmar (2020)
In this ongoing case, The Gambia, on behalf of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), accused Myanmar of committing genocide against the Rohingya Muslim minority. The ICJ’s provisional ruling ordered Myanmar to take measures to protect the Rohingya population from acts of genocide. This case underscores the growing role of international legal institutions in addressing humanitarian crises and human rights violations. - Australia v. Japan (2014)
This case concerned Japan’s whaling activities in the Southern Ocean. Australia alleged that Japan’s whaling program, disguised as scientific research, violated international obligations under the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling. The ICJ ruled in favor of Australia, ordering Japan to halt its whaling activities. This case highlights the ICJ’s role in interpreting international treaties and conventions. - Qatar v. UAE (2023)
Qatar filed a case against the UAE for discrimination against Qatari nationals in violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The case arose from the Gulf diplomatic crisis, where several Gulf states, including the UAE, imposed a blockade on Qatar. This case emphasizes the ICJ’s role in addressing regional disputes and violations of human rights law.
Current Important Cases Under Discussion
Several cases before the ICJ are currently attracting global attention:
- Ukraine v. Russia (2022)
Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Ukraine approached the ICJ, accusing Russia of manipulating the concept of genocide to justify its military actions. Ukraine seeks to challenge Russia’s claims that Ukraine committed genocide against Russian-speaking populations in the Donbas region. The ICJ’s preliminary ruling ordered Russia to cease military operations in Ukraine, but the case is ongoing and remains crucial in the context of international conflict resolution. - Iran v. United States (2018)
Iran filed a case against the United States after the US re-imposed sanctions following its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. Iran argues that these sanctions violate the 1955 Treaty of Amity between the two countries. The ICJ’s ruling on this case is eagerly awaited, as it will have significant implications for US-Iran relations and international sanctions law.
India’s Role in the International Court of Justice
India has been an active participant in ICJ proceedings and has had a long history of involvement in significant cases. Notably, India has provided several judges to the ICJ.
The current judge from India is Justice Dalveer Bhandari, who was re-elected to the ICJ in 2017. His re-election was a significant moment for India, as it marked India’s growing influence on the global legal stage. Justice Bhandari’s judicial career has been marked by his deep understanding of international law, and he has contributed to several high-profile cases during his tenure.
One of the most notable ICJ cases involving India was the Kulbhushan Jadhav case (2017), where India brought Pakistan to the ICJ, accusing it of violating the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. India claimed that Pakistan had denied consular access to Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian national sentenced to death in Pakistan on espionage charges. In its ruling, the ICJ ordered Pakistan to stay Jadhav’s execution and granted India consular access, marking a diplomatic and legal victory for India.
Conclusion
The International Court of Justice plays a pivotal role in maintaining international peace and order by adjudicating disputes between states and offering legal advice to international organizations. With its broad jurisdiction and impartiality, the ICJ serves as a beacon of international justice. India’s active participation and contributions to the Court, exemplified by Justice Dalveer Bhandari’s role, underscore the country’s growing engagement with international law. Cases currently under the ICJ’s consideration, such as those involving Ukraine, Russia, and Myanmar, highlight the Court’s significance in addressing contemporary global challenges.
Here are some pictures which you can see enlarge view by clicking any one
