icj

Question 1

(non-binding) How many UN member states have accepted ICJ jurisdiction?

Answer 1

By 1992, only 53/175 UN member staters have accepted ICJ jurisdiction.

Question 2

(non-binding)

US Connally amendement

Answer 2

states can accept with ‘reservation’, this can be seen in the US Connally amendment where US does not have to submit cases it considers to be within its domestic jurisdiction, and can decide whether such cases are within its jurisdiction or not; about 100/160 countries have made similar reservations.

Question 3

(non-bionding, states can take issue into their own hands)

Falklands issue

Answer 3

over the Falklands issue, the UK offered to take Argentina’s dispute to the ICJ three times in 1947, 1948 and 1955. On each occasion, Argentina declined. Instead, Argentina invaded the islands in 1982, sparking the Falklands War.

Question 4

(non-enforceable)

Article 94

Answer 4

• Despite Article 94 which states that ‘ If any party 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 deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgement.’, in reality the Security Council has never done so, resulting in states simply defying the court without any punishment.

Question 5

(non-enforceable, article 94) Corfu Channel

Answer 5

Corfu Channel incident (1946) where Albania refused to accept the judgement of the ICJ and pay damages to Britain, no steps have been taken to enforce it despite article 94. Evan Luard says’ If Albania can defy the Court with impunity, who cannot?’ Hence, demonstrating the ICJ’s helplessness in getting states to adhere to judgements, emphasising its insignificance in promoting peace and security.

Question 6

(non-enforceable) Iran hostage crisis

Answer 6

• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979) : Iran ignored ICJ twice, ironically the hostage crisis only ended in 1981 when Iran needed help from the UN for the Iran-Iraq War.

Question 7

(superpower override ICJ)

US vs Nicaragua

Answer 7

• US vs Nicaragua (1968): ICJ finds US guilty of breaching Nicaraguan sovereignty, but the US withdraws from compulsory jurisdiction and rejects the ICJ’s legitimacy, effectively encapsulating the limited power of the ICJ. The US then vetoed a UNSC resolution calling for a compliance with ICJ judgement; the resolution brought before the UNGA passed, but US did not care because UNGA had no binding power. It is the US’s unique position as the P5 member that immunised it to ICJ judgement as its veto power in the UNSC enables it to cripple all enforcement of ICJ rulings. Hence, the ICJ is unable to solve conflicts involving superpowers which interests conflicted with the ICJ, as they used their power to override the ICJ, making it insignificant to promoting international peace and security.

Question 8

(influence intl opinion)

Iran hostage crisis

Answer 8

• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979): ICJ ineffective in and of itself, but effective in shaping international opinion and putting some pressure by condemning Iran’s actions, demonstrating international support for the basic principle of international law. When Iranian Prime Minister visited the UN in October 1980, numerous world leaders made it clear to him that Iran could not expect support in the Iraq conflict as long as it held US hostages because of the ICJ ruling against Iran.

Question 9

(influence intl opinion)

South Africa apartheid

Answer 9

• In 1970, in an advisory opinion requested by the Security Council, the ICJ ruled that South Africa’s apartheid occupation of Southwest Africa was illegal, which gave momentum to SC, GA and USA’s pressures on South Africa to cease its occupation of Southwest Africa. By the end of the 1980s, South Africa caved in to this international condemnation and began the process of granting Namibia independence.

Question 10

(effective when states compliant) how many states accepted compulsory jurisdiction?

Answer 10

• 65 states have made declarations accepting compulsory jurisdictions

Question 11

(effective when states compliant)

compliance rate in legal territorial disputes

Answer 11

• 90% compliance rate in legal territorial disputes

Question 12

(effective when states complaint)

Cambodia vs Thailand

Answer 12

• Cambodia vs Thailand (1962): Dispute over Temple of Preah Vihear with settlement in favour of Cambodia, Cambodia formally took possession of the site in 1963 and made a gesture of conciliation, announcing that all Thais would be able to visit the temple without visas and Thailand was free to keep any antiquities it may have taken. (2008 outbreak of tensions again-> shows that ICJ rulings- or disputing parties’ commitment to the ICJ rulings- are never permanent.)

Question 13

(effective when states compliant)

Burkina Faso vs Mali

Answer 13

• Burkina Faso vs Mali (1983): ICJ distributed the disputed territory almost equally, both parties adhered and were satisfied.