Role of the ICJ in Resolving Global Conflicts

Abstract:

This article explores the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in resolving international conflicts, focusing on its jurisdiction, effectiveness, and limitations. Special emphasis is placed on recent and ongoing geopolitical crises. The paper critically evaluates the ICJ's influence, authority, and practical relevance in promoting peace, upholding international law, and mitigating conflict.

Introduction:

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It settles legal disputes between states (not individuals or private entities) and gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN bodies and specialized agencies. It is often referred to as the World Court. 

The ICJ traces its roots to the Permanent Court of International Justice, established in 1922 under the League of Nations. It was the first international court with the power to settle disputes between nations based on international law. After the Second World War and the dissolution of the League of Nations, the United Nations was established in 1945 under the Charter of the United Nations. The ICJ was created as its successor judicial body, under Article 92 of the UN Charter. The ICJ began its operations in April 1946 and is seated in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The ICJ is constituted under: Chapter XIV of the UN Charter (Articles 92–96) and The Statute of the International Court of Justice, which is an integral part of the UN Charter.

Composition of the Court: 15 Judges, elected for 9-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council. Judges must represent the world’s main forms of civilization and legal systems. No two judges can be from the same country. The Court elects a President and Vice-President among its members for 3-year terms.

The two official languages of the Court are English and French. 

Binding Nature of Judgments: ICJ judgments are binding only on the parties involved in a specific case. The Court has no enforcement mechanism; enforcement is expected through the UN Security Council, although this is subject to political considerations.

 ICJ’s Role in Conflict Resolution:

1. Provide Peaceful, Legal Mechanism for Dispute Settlement Between the Nations: As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ adjudicates contentious cases brought before it by states, addressing issues such as territorial disputes, treaty violations, and diplomatic tensions.

2. Issues Advisory Opinions on legal questions referred by UN bodies:  though non-binding, influence international law and global policy. By offering a neutral forum grounded in international legal principles.

3. Prevent the escalation of conflicts into armed confrontations: By offering a neutral forum grounded in international legal principles, the ICJ helps prevent the escalation of conflicts into armed confrontations. While its authority is limited by state consent and lacks enforcement power, the Court fosters respect for the rule of law in international relations, encourages compliance with international norms, and contributes to the peaceful resolution of disputes, particularly when diplomatic or political avenues have failed.

Case Studies:

1. India v. Pakistan (Kulbhushan Jadhav Case, 2019): 

• Issue: Pakistan sentenced Indian national Kulbhushan Jadhav to death for alleged espionage without granting consular access.

• ICJ's Role: The ICJ ruled in favor of India, ordering Pakistan to review the conviction and grant consular access under the Vienna Convention.

• Outcome: Pakistan complied partially, granting consular access but not reversing the conviction.

• Impact: Asserted the importance of due process and Vienna Convention rights.

  
  
  
  

2. Nicaragua v. United States (1986):

• Issue: Nicaragua accused the U.S. of supporting Contra rebels and mining Nicaraguan harbors.

• ICJ's Role: Found the U.S. in violation of international law and ordered reparations.

• Outcome: The U.S. refused to comply and withdrew from ICJ jurisdiction.

• Impact: Highlighted limitations in enforcement, but reinforced legal norms.

3. Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro (Genocide Case, 2007): 

• Issue: Bosnia accused Serbia of committing genocide during the Yugoslav wars.

• ICJ's Role: Ruled that genocide occurred in Srebrenica, and Serbia failed to prevent it but was not directly responsible.

• Outcome: Serbia accepted the judgment.

• Impact: Set a precedent in defining state responsibility in genocide.

4. Ukraine v. Russia (2022 - ongoing):

• Issue: Ukraine alleges that Russia falsely used the Genocide Convention to justify its invasion.

• ICJ's Role: Ordered Russia to suspend military operations (provisional measure).

• Outcome: Russia ignored the order, but it served as a legal condemnation.

• Impact: Reinforced Ukraine’s legal position in diplomatic forums.

5. Cambodia v. Thailand (Temple of Preah Vihear, 1962 and 2013 advisory enforcement):

• Issue: Territorial dispute over a temple site.

• ICJ's Role: Ruled in favor of Cambodia.

• Outcome: Thailand eventually accepted the ruling.

• Impact: Helped avoid prolonged armed conflict.

Efficiency of the ICJ: 

Strengths:

• Provides a peaceful and impartial forum for legal resolution.

• Shapes international legal standards and norms.

• Offers symbolic and diplomatic weight to aggrieved parties.

Limitations:

• Jurisdiction is not automatic; states must consent.

• No enforcement mechanism; relies on voluntary compliance or UN Security Council, which may be politically deadlocked.

• Influence is limited in high-power geopolitics (e.g., U.S., Russia, China often ignore or avoid its rulings).

Conclusion:

The ICJ plays a crucial role in peacefully resolving international conflicts by upholding legal norms and providing impartial judgments. Though limited by state consent and enforcement challenges, it reinforces the rule of law, promotes diplomacy, and contributes to global stability through legal clarity and authoritative dispute resolution.

DISCLAIMER- This article has been submitted by Divya, trainee under the LLL Legal Training Program. The views and opinions expressed in this piece are solely those of the author.