FREE ESSAY ON INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

International Court Of Justice (ICJ) is the principal of the United Nations
Judicial organ of the United Nations, which succeeded the Permanent court of
International Justice after World War Two. It gains its legitimacy from Article 92 of the
UN Charter, which allows it to function  in accordance with the annexed Statute, which is
based upon The Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and forms an
integral part of the present Charter.
By Article 93 all members of the UN are ipso-facto members of The Statute and that states
not members may become parties, on conditions to be determined in each case by the UN
General Assembly on Recommendation of the Security Council. Therefore allowing countries
such as Switzerland and San Marino, though not members of the UN, to be parties to the
Statute of the Court.
The court consist of 15 judges, no two of whom may be Nationals of the same state,
elected by the General assembly and the Security Council. They are elected for 9 years
and are eligible for Re-elections.
The seat of the court is in Hague, Holland, but it may hold sessions elsewhere whenever
it considers desirable. It is a continuing body. The Statute provides that it is
permanently in session except during judicial vacations. It is also an autonomous body.
It elects its president and vice- president, appoints its registrar, and provides for the
appointment of other officers and clerical staff.
Its function is to pass judgement on disputes between states, As such only states may
bring their cases before the court. It is open to all states that are party to the
statute and those who agree to the conditions laid down by the SC. The proceedings of the
court are carried out in French and English; either may be used by the parties. Written
pleading and oral presentations presented in one language are translated into the other.
The judgements and opinions are both in 
French and English.
Cases are brought before the court either by the notification to it of a special
agreement concluded by the parties or by the unilateral action of one of them through a
written appeal to the registrar. Its proceedings are in two parts, written and oral.
The Court may also hear witnesses and appoint commissions of experts to make
investigations and reports when necessary. These procedures were used in the Corfu
Channel, Temple of Preah Vihear and in South West Africa (1966). The deliberation of the
court are held in private, but the judgements, which are by majority vote, are read in
open court. In the case of a tie, the President may cast a deciding vote; this was done
in the South West Africa Case where a 7-7 vote was cast. Any judge may file a separate
opinion if he does not agree in whole or part with the judgement. The decision of the
court is final and without appeal.
Although the ICJ has no enforcement powers, Article 94 of the Charter incorporates an
undertaking on the part of each member of the UN to comply with the decision of the ...
court...in any case to which it is a party and a further provision that: If any party to
a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgement rendered by
the court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it
deem necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect
to the judgement.
The court is authorized by Article 65 of the Statute to give advisory opinions on any
legal questions at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance
with the UN Charter to make such a request. Article 96 of the Charter provides that such
opinions may be requested by the General Assembly or the SC and by other organs of the UN
and specialized agencies, when authorized by the GA. Such requests must be made by means
of a written request containing an exact statement of the questions, accompanied by all
documents likely to shed light upon them. From this point on, the procedure before the
court is somewhat analogous to contentious cases.
In its role as and advisory body, the court has given some important opinions with regard
to the costs of peacekeeping, which could be reckoned as normal expenses. It also gave
opinions concerning admissions into the UN. Because of the ICJ's limited powers, its
strict need to adhere to its charter and its impotency of action unless approached we
must consider its ability to resolve cases brought before it successfully, its failures
to do so when approached and its shortcomings, in accessing its effectiveness, keeping in
mind its role in maintaining World peace.
Since its founding in 1946, the ICJ has dealt with 41 contentious cases between states
and has also delivered 21 advisory opinions. It has a mixed record of successes and
failures, with a surprisingly high degree of compliance with the verdict of the ICJ.
(Only two cases involving the Corfu Channel Case and the US-Nicaragua case did the
countries refuse to comply with the ICJ judgement.) One reason for this compliance is the
use of the ICJ on a voluntary basis. Hence States would not seek the ICJ's verdict
without having first accepted the court's verdict in advance, be it in their favor of
not, as a matter of obligation.
An example of a successful case where the ICJ is effective is 
in territorial waters and fishing rights in the Fisheries case (1951). In it, the ICJ
verdict in favor of Norway settled a long-standing Dispute between the United States and
Norway involving British fishing vessels operating inside Norwegian claimed waters.
Another success of the ICJ was the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (1969) involving
Denmark, the Netherlands, and West Germany. 
This successful settlement was crucial to the drilling of oil and gas in the North Sea
later. A further example is the Fisheries Jurisdiction case between the UK and Iceland
(1974). In this case, the ICJ contributed to the development of the Law of the Sea in
that it advocated the Conservation of the 'living resources of the sea.
It was also effective in the territorial cases, which included the small group of
uninhabited islands in the channel islands (Minquier and Ecrehou islands), disputed by UK
and France. One longstanding dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras since 1906,
concerning villages on their border and a dispute over the sovereignty Preah Vihear
temple by Cambodia and Thailand which was found to be in Cambodian territory. More
recently, the ICJ resolved a border clash between Burkina Faso and Mali in the 1986
Frontier Dispute Case. It also ruled on two pieces of land disputed by Belgium and
Holland, which was found to be Belgium's.
However the ICJ is noted for its failures to successfully resolve inter-state disputes.
To date there are more than 30 unresolved frontier cases concerning land of greater
value, which has never been submitted to the ICJ, because one party's claim is not on
legal grounds. In some cases, like the above, one or more of the involved parties refuse
to accept the jurisdiction of the court, thus resulting in the court being ineffective.
For example the aircraft incidents between the US and USSR in respect of aircraft shot
down off Japan and one forced down in Hungry, here both parties refused ICJ jurisdiction.
In 1955 Israel, USA and the UK brought a case against Bulgaria for the shooting down of
an Israeli civilian aircraft over its territory. Bulgaria rejected ICJ jurisdiction. The
Courts hands 
were tied.
Another example of the ICJ's ineffectiveness was in 1960 when Ethiopia and Liberia
brought a case to the ICJ claiming that South Africa had violated the human rights of the
natives of Namibia, which had been a mandate under the league of Nations and which it
ruled. After a long and tedious process, the ICJ proclaimed that the case of Ethiopia and
Liberia was illegal, and thus, the case was dismissed on a procedural point.
Other instances of the ICJ's limitations in its effectiveness was its 1979 verdict that
ordered the release of US diplomats held Hostage in Teheran, and payment of reparations.
In this case Iran contested and duly ignored the ICJ's jurisdiction. In 1984 Nicaragua
complained that the US had helped the Nicaraguan Contra rebels against the Sandinista
government. Two years later, the ICJ ruled in favor of Nicaragua's claims, but in 1985, a
year before, the US had already withdrawn its acceptance of the ICJ's jurisdiction. All
these examples 
reflect the limitations of the ICJ in helping to settle interstate disputes.
Also, some cases may take several years to be heard. The Court may require certain
provisional measures before a final judgement. Hence it is very time consuming to go
through the ICJ.
However, the blame for the limited effectiveness of the ICJ cannot be laid on the court
itself. The ICJ's neutrality has been maintained as far as possible, no two ICJ judges
may be of the same nationality, but prejudices are impossible to eliminate totally due to
human bias. In addition, major issues of peace and security between the more powerful
states are rarely submitted, as most governments tend to consider the recognition of the
jurisdiction of the court as 
infringing on their sovereignty. Indeed the average yearly number of decisions has not
been more than two. Furthermore, there is no real means of enforcing the ICJ's verdict.
The ICJ has also been criticized as time consuming with little usefulness. However, it
cannot be wholly blamed as parties involved in claims often request for more time to
prepare their cases. Since its use is totally voluntary, it cannot be expected to resolve
cases not brought to court and thus cannot be responsible for legal skirmishes not
brought to its doorstep.
Despite of its shortcomings and the many failures it has experienced, the ICJ has had a
positive effect on the development of International Law and the propagation of the
principals of sovereignty, non-conquest, human rights and the rights of existence and
self-defense of a state. In addition the ICJ has helped resolve disputes between states
with some degree of success, and given the 
numerous difficulties it faces, its achievements are respectable and its usefulness is
undeniable. Most importantly, the ICJ, at the very least, provides an additional option
for states to settle their disputes peacefully through third party intervention, and this
has reduced the threat of open war.