The role of the international court of justice in actualising global peace

Abstract

The failure of the League of Nations to prevent the Second World War necessitated the creation of the United Nations, in an attempt to prevent a reoccurrence of the kind of carnage that manifested during the war. The International Court of Justice and other institutions were, thus, created under the United Nations Charter to guarantee world peace. The International Court of Justice was created as the judicial arm of the United Nations to replace the Permanent Court of International Justice operating under the defunct League of Nations. Members of the United Nations are, by the United Nations Charter, automatic signatories to the International Court of Justice Statute. The Court serves as avenue for States to ventilate their grievances in the event of any dispute arising between them. However, the Court is limited in its exercise of adjudicatory powers over matters between States, unless they submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Court. Also, the political power tussle between permanent members of the Security Council has, on several instances, undermined the efforts of the International Court of Justice to ensure peaceful resolution of conflicts between States. This paper contends that unless these issues are effectively resolved, the role of the International Court of Justice in ensuring global peace may become elusive. Also, the politicisation of international law by States would suggest that other pacific measures of settling international dispute, such as: mediation, conciliation and arbitration, should be given more consideration, as a sole resort to litigation could overwhelm the International Court of Justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    This includes the General Assembly to some extent. See, Articles 11, 13 and 14 UN Charter.

  2. 2.

    See, Articles 24, 26, 33 (2), 34, 35, 36, 37, 39 and 48 UN Charter; AP Mutharika, The Role of the United Nations Security Council in African Peace Management: Some Proposals. 17. Michigan Journal of International Law (1996) 537; WG Sharp Sr., Protecting the Avatars of International Peace and Security. 7. Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (1996) 93; MR Berdal, The Security Council, Peacekeeping and Internal Conflict After the Cold War, 7 Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law (1996) 71.

  3. 3.

    See the ICJ decision in the Case Concerning Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) [1962] ICJ Rep 151 at 163; Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua [1984] ICJ Rep 392 at 434.

  4. 4.

    D Akande, The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Maintenance of International Peace. African Journal of International and Comparative Law (1996) 59.

  5. 5.

    See for example: Case Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [2004] ICJ Rep 136;

  6. 6.

    See, The Headquarters Agreement Case between the UN and the USA ICJ Rep., 1988; Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt ICJ Rep., 1980; The Application of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the UN ICJ Rep., 1989.

  7. 7.

    For instance, under Section 21 (a) of the Agreement between the UN and the USA regarding the Headquarters of the UN, the ICJ President is authorised to appoint a third member of the arbitral panel to determine dispute arising from the agreement.

  8. 8.

    See, Art. 29 Revised International Labour Organisation (ILO) Constitution 1946.

  9. 9.

    See, M Erpelding, Introduction: Versailles and the Broadening of ‘Peace Through Law’, in M Erpelding, B Hess and HR Fabri (eds.) Peace Through Law: The Versailles Peace Treaty and Dispute Settlement After World War I Max Planck Institute (2019) 11.

  10. 10.

    H Kelsen, Peace through Law (University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, 1944) 73.

  11. 11.

    Judge Cancado Trindade submits that: “the right of access to justice belongs today to the domain of jus cogens”. AAC Trindade, The Access of Individuals to International Justice. (Oxford Scholarship Online, 2011) DOI:http://10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199580958.001.0001

  12. 12.

    MN Shaw, International Law 6th edn (Cambridge University Press, 2008) 1058-1059.

  13. 13.

    MO Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice and World Peace. The Annals of the American Academy (1924) 122

  14. 14.

    IH Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court. (Praeger, 1958) 5.

  15. 15.

    O Spiermann, International Legal Argument in the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Rise of the International Judiciary (Cambridge University Press, 2005) 132.

  16. 16.

    CJ Tams, The Contentious Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court, in CJ Tams and M Fitzmaurice (eds.), Legacies of the Permanent Court of International Justice (Brill, 2013) 11, 16–21.

  17. 17.

    CJ Tam, Peace through International Adjudication: The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Post-War Order, in M Erpelding, B Hess, and HR Fabri (eds.) Peace Through Law: The Versailles Peace Treaty and Dispute Settlement After World War I (Max Planck Institute, 2019) 217, 221.

  18. 18.

    Brazilian Loans, PCIJ Rep ser A no 21.

  19. 19.

    ibid.

  20. 20.

    The Role of the International Criminal Court in Ending Impunity and Establishing the Rule of Law. <http://unchronicle.un.org/article/role-international-criminal-court-ending-impunity-and-establishing-rule-law/>

  21. 21.

    Article 1 UN Charter sets out the purposes for the establishment of United Nations as follows:

    1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; 2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace; 3. To achieve international cooperation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and 4. To be a center for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

  22. 22.

    Article 92 UN Charter.

  23. 23.

    Article 93 UN Charter. This was applicable to Switzerland in 1948, Liechtenstein in 1950 and San Marino in 1954. The two states which are currently non-members of the UN but are parties to the ICJ Statute are Switzerland and Nauru. See, P Malanczuk, Akehurst’s Modern Introduction to International Law 7th rev. edn. (Routledge, New York, 1997) 282.

  24. 24.

    Article 22 ICJ Statute.

  25. 25.

    United Nations Report of the International Court of Justice 1 August 2017–31 July 2018. General Assembly Official Records Seventy-third Session Supplement No. 4 (2018) <http://www.icj-cij.org›files›annual-reports>

  26. 26.

    Article 3 (1) of the Statute of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights 1979; Article 58 Organisation of American States, Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

  27. 27.

    Article 53 Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

  28. 28.

    L Shaver, The Inter-American Human Rights System: An Effective Institution for Regional Rights Protection?, 9. Washington University Global Studies Law Review (2010) 658; AAC Trindade, Current State and Perspectives of the Inter-American System of Human Rights Protection at the Dawn of a New Century, 8. Tulane Journal of International & Comparative Law (2000) 5.

  29. 29.

    D Rodríguez-Pinzón and C Martin, The Prohibition of Torture and Ill-Treatment in the Inter-American Human Rights System: A Handbook for Victims and their Advocates 2nd ed. (OMCT Handbook Series 2, 2014) 34.

  30. 30.

    BN Patel, Recommendations on the Enhancement of the Role and Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice and State Practice: The Gap Between Recommendation and Practice (1971–2006). Singapore Year Book of International Law (2007) 114.

  31. 31.

    D Rodríguez-Pinzón and C Martin, supra. note 29, 36.

  32. 32.

    Articles 2 and 3 ICJ Statute.

  33. 33.

    Articles 4 and 8 ICJ Statute.

  34. 34.

    HG Schermers, and NM Blokker, International Institutional Law 5th rev. edn. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2011) 299.

  35. 35.

    UO Umozurike, Introduction to International Law (Spectrum Books Limited, Ibadan, 2010) 191.

  36. 36.

    Article 60 ICJ Statute.

  37. 37.

    Dispute Settlement <http://unctad.org/en/…/edmmisc232add19_en.pdf>

  38. 38.

    Question of the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf between Nicaragua and Colombia beyond 200 Nautical Miles from the Nicaraguan Coast (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2016, 100.

  39. 39.

    See Articles 59 and 60 of its Statute

  40. 40.

    Case Concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ICJ Reports 2012 (II), p. 624.

  41. 41.

    See, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2007 (I), pp. 90–91, para. 116.

  42. 42.

    Case Concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) ICJ Reports 2012 (II), p. 624, para. 88.

  43. 43.

    Ibid. para. 59.

  44. 44.

    The preamble of the Rules provides: The Court, Having regard to Chapter XIV of the Charter of the United Nations; Having regard to the Statute of the Court annexed thereto; Acting in pursuance of Article 30 of the Statute; Adopts the following revised Rules of Court, approved on 14 April 1978, which shall come into force on 1 July 1978, and shall as from that date replace the Rules adopted by the Court on 6 May 1946 and amended on 10 May 1972, save in respect of any case submitted to the Court before 1 July 1978, or any phase of such a case, which shall continue to be governed by the Rules in force before that date.

  45. 45.

    See, M Akehurst, Custom as a Source of International Law, 47. British Year Book on International Law (1974–75) 1.

  46. 46.

    See, Article 38 (1) ICJ Statute.

  47. 47.

    Based on the justice and equity of the case without undue interference of technical legal rules.

  48. 48.

    IH Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community (Oxford University Press, 1933) 313-328.

  49. 49.

    SK Chattopadhyay, Equity in International Law: Its Growth and Development, 5. Georgia Journal of International & Comparative Law 1975. 386.

  50. 50.

    LC Green, International Law: A Canadian Perspective, 2nd ed. (The Carswell Company, 1988) 74.

  51. 51.

    SK Chattopadhyay, supra note 49, 385.

  52. 52.

    S Dothan, Ex Aequo Et Bono: The Uses of the Road Never Taken, in A Skordas, (ed.) Research Handbook on International Court of Justice (Elgar Publishing, 2019).

  53. 53.

    Cited in B Sharma, A Critical Study on Power of the ICJ to Decide a Case Ex Aequo Et Bono Under Article 38 (2). 5.2: International Journal of Multidisciplinary and Academic Research (2016) 3.

  54. 54.

    See, Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area, (Canada v. United States of America) Memorial of the United States of America II 62. <http://www.icj-cij.org›files›case-related-9597>

  55. 55.

    L Trakman, Ex Aequo et Bono: Demystifying an Ancient Concept. 8.2: Chicago Journal of International Law (2008) 626.

  56. 56.

    A Zimmermann, K Oellers-Frahm, C Tomuschat, CJ Tams, M Kashgar and D Diehl, (eds.) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2012).793, 796.

  57. 57.

    However, the author failed to substantiate his claim. See, S Dothan, supra note 52.

  58. 58.

    JD Howley, Alive and Kicking: The Kashmir Dispute Forty Years Later, 9. Dickinson Journal of International Law (1991) 118-119.

  59. 59.

    M Franck, Fairness in International Law and Institutions (Oxford University Press, 1995) 54.

  60. 60.

    An example could be borrowed from Article 26 of the European Convention on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes 1957 which provides to the effect that: where there are no available rule of international law on a matter, ex aequo et bono could be called in aid.

  61. 61.

    See, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226.

  62. 62.

    See, Parker v. Parker (1954) All E.R 5, 22.

  63. 63.

    Permanent Court of Arbitration. Contribution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to the Report of the United Nations Secretary on Oceans and the Law of the Sea, as at 14th June 2019. 2. <http://pca-cpa.org-2019/06/

  64. 64.

    S Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2005. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, 2006) 1022. Principles of procedural law were referred to by the court, in the case of South West Africa (Ethiopia v South Africa) (Second Phase) [1966] ICJ Rep 6, 39.

  65. 65.

    Statute of the International Court of Justice, art 46.

  66. 66.

    Ibid.

  67. 67.

    S Rosenne, supra note 64, 1301.

  68. 68.

    G Zyberi, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Courts and Tribunals’, in Erika de Wet and Jann Kleffner (eds.), Convergence and Conflicts of Human Right (2014) 395, 396.

  69. 69.

    Reform of the International Court of Justice– A Jurisdictional Perspective. <http://www.brandeis.edu/…/pdfs/…/bingbin.pdf>

  70. 70.

    (1952) ICJ Rep 102-3.

  71. 71.

    Article 36 provides thus: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. 2. The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: a. the interpretation of a treaty; b. any question of international law; c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. 3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain states, or for a certain time. 4. Such declarations shall be deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, who shall transmit copies thereof to the parties to the Statute and to the Registrar of the Court. 5. Declarations made under Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and which are still in force shall be deemed, as between the parties to the present Statute, to be acceptances of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice for the period which they still have to run and in accordance with their terms. 6. In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court.

  72. 72.

    See, MSA Mohamed, The Role of the International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations. (PhD Thesis. London School of Economics and Political Science, University of London, 1997) xvi + 399, 171.

  73. 73.

    Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, ICJ Rep 2017, 3.

  74. 74.

    It is also referred to as optional clause.

  75. 75.

    Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean, Supra, note 73.

  76. 76.

    Article 12 Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Seizure of Aircraft, 1993.

  77. 77.

    However, the establishment of ITO didn’t eventually materialise.

  78. 78.

    See the cases of: Case Concerning the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) (ICJ Reports 2012 (II), p. 624); Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 665; Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2015, p. 592; Maritime Delimitation in the Caribbean Sea

    and the Pacific Ocean (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Land Boundary in the Northern Part of Isla Portillos (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2018, p. 139, 146 at para. 2.

  79. 79.

    Article 287 United Nations Convention on the Laws of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.

  80. 80.

    Article 86 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation 1944.

  81. 81.

    See, International Court of Justice, Yearbook (1991-1992) 153-154.

  82. 82.

    ICJ Reports 1972, 46.

  83. 83.

    M Shaw, International Law, in Encyclopaedia Britannica Student and Home Edition (Encyclopaedia Britannica Chicago, 2010).

  84. 84.

    Case Concerning Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Advisory Opinion) (1962) ICJ Rep 151.

  85. 85.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion) [1996] ICJ Rep 226.

  86. 86.

    Y Shany, No Longer a Weak Department of Power? Reflections on the Emergence of a New International Judiciary, 20 European Journal of International Law (2009) 73, 80.

  87. 87.

    G Hernández, The International Court of Justice and the Judicial Function: Introduction. EJIL: Talk! (2014) <http://www.ejiltalk.org/the-international-court-of-justice-and-the-judicial-function-introduction/>

  88. 88.

    R Higgins, ‘Aspects of the Case Concerning the Barcelona Traction, Light, and Power Company, Ltd.’, 11 Virginia Journal of International Law. (1970-71) 341.

  89. 89.

    CJ Tams and J Sloan, The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice. (Oxford University Press, 2013) 2.

  90. 90.

    See, Case Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory [2004] ICJ Rep 136; Case Concerning Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion of 22 July, 2010.

  91. 91.

    C Greenwood, The Role of the International Court of Justice in the Global Community. <https://jilp.law.ucdavies.edu/issues/volume-17-2/Greenwood.pdf>

  92. 92.

    Handbook on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes Between States. <http://legal.un.org/cod/…/HandbookOnPSD.pdf>

  93. 93.

    Advisory Opinion 21 June, 1971. ICJ Reports (1971) 16.

  94. 94.

    See, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South-West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) Advisory Opinion of 21 June 1971. <https://www.icj-cij.org›files›case-related>

  95. 95.

    DC Jordan-Walker, Settlement of the Namibian Dispute: The United States Role in Lieu of U.N. Sanctions. 14.3 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law (1982) 558.

  96. 96.

    South Africa and the United Nations, 1946-1990. <https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/south-africa-and-united-nations-1946-1990>

  97. 97.

    G Zyberi, The International Court of Justice and the Rights of Peoples and Minorities. C Tams and J Sloan (eds.), The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice (Oxford University Press, 2013) 327, 352.

  98. 98.

    It is also known as provisional measures and herein used interchangeably.

  99. 99.

    See, Article 94 (2) UN Charter which provides to the effect that: If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment 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 judgment.

  100. 100.

    NJ Udombana, Interim Measures: A Comparative Study of Selected International Judicial Institutions. 43.3 Indian Journal of International Law (2003) 479, 494.

  101. 101.

    In another case, The Frontier Dispute between Burkina Faso and Mali in 1985, the court made an order for provisional measures for both parties to strictly comply with cease fire directives, which was later complied with by both parties.

  102. 102.

    The ICJ also made order for interim measures in the Frontier Dispute, Provisional Measures, Order of January 10, 1986 (Burkina Faso v Mali Case) [1986] ICJ Rep 3.

  103. 103.

    Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of October 2018, ICJ Reports 2019, 92.

  104. 104.

    The agreement is known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action 2015, based on the Iranian nuclear programme signed on 14 July, 2015 between Iran, UK, USA, France, China, Russia, Germany and European Union.

  105. 105.

    International Court of Justice, Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). Press Release No. 2018/50 3 October 2018. <https://www.icj-cij.org›files›case-related›175-20181003-PRE-01-00-EN.pdf>

  106. 106.

    Ibid.

  107. 107.

    See, Operative Clause 3 of the Provisional decision. ibid.

  108. 108.

    See, Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan) (Judgment of 17 July 2019) ICJ Report 1, 6 paras. 3-9.

  109. 109.

    G Zyberi, ‘The Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Courts and Tribunals’, in E de Wet and J Kleffner, (eds.), Convergence and Conflicts of Human Right (2014) 395, 413.

  110. 110.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua) and Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River (Nicaragua v. Costa Rica), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2015 (II), p. 694, para. 63; p. 703, paras. 92–93.

  111. 111.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Provisional Measures, Order of 8 March 2011, ICJ Reports 2011 (I), pp. 27–28, para. 86.

  112. 112.

    Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua), Compensation, Judgment, ICJ Reports 2018, pp. 15, 47, para. 156.

  113. 113.

    LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 506, para. 109.

  114. 114.

    Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar) Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures Order of 23 January, 2020, ICJ Rep 2020 25 para. 86.

  115. 115.

    Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v Uganda) [2005] ICJ Rep 168, 251, para 244.

  116. 116.

    Article 59 ICJ Statute.

  117. 117.

    For detailed examination of this point, see, A Tzanakopoulos and CJ Tams, Introduction: Domestic Courts as Agents of Development of International Law. 26.3: Leiden Journal of International Law (2013) 531, 537.

  118. 118.

    A Coleman, The International Court of Justice and Highly Political Matters. <http://www.unimelb.edu.au/_…/pdf…/coleman.pdf>

  119. 119.

    International Court of Justice: Questions and Answers about the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations. <http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/en/ifaq.pdf>

  120. 120.

    Ibid.

  121. 121.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria) 1999 ICJ Report 1029.

  122. 122.

    See, Nuclear Tests, Provisional Measures, (Australia v France), (Order of June 22) [1973] ICJ Rep 99; Nuclear Tests, Provisional Measures, (New Zealand v France), (Order of June 22) [1973] ICJ Rep 135; Nuclear Tests, Preliminary Objections, (Australia v France), (December 20) [1974] ICJ Rep 253; Nuclear Tests, Preliminary Objections, (N.Z. v Fr.), (December 20) [1974] ICJ Rep 457.

  123. 123.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (General List No. 95) [1996] ICJ Rep para. 105.

  124. 124.

    Ibid. (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry) [1996] ICJ Rep 226.

  125. 125.

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, 2016. Q&A: The Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases at the ICJ. <http://waginpeace.org/qa-the-marshall-islands-nuclear-disarmament->

  126. 126.

    See, Obligation concerning Negotiation relating to the Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshal Islands v. India), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgement ICJ Reports 2016, 255. Obligations Concerning Negotiations Relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections) [2016] ICJ Rep 833.

  127. 127.

    M Ramkumar and A Singh, The Nuclear Disarmament Cases: Is Formalistic Rigour in Establishing Jurisdiction Impeding Access to Justice?, 33.85: Utrecht Journal of International and European Law (2017) 128, 129; D Awmee, Nuclear Weapons Before the International Court of Justice: A Critique of the Marshall Islands v United Kingdom Decision. 49 Victoria University of Wellington Law Review (2018) 53.

  128. 128.

    MS Schmitz, Decision of the International court of Justice in the Nuclear Arms Race Case. <https://harvardilj.org/2016/11/decision-of-the-international-court-of-justice-in-the-nuclear-arms-race-case/)>

  129. 129.

    R Nayan, Focusing the Debate on the Humanitarian Consequences of Nuclear Weapons: An Indian Perspective. 97.899: International Review of the Red Cross (2015) 81.

  130. 130.

    L Maresca and E Mitchell, The Human Costs and Legal Consequences of Nuclear Weapons under International Humanitarian Law. 97.899: International Review of the Red Cross (2015), 624.

  131. 131.

    MJ Mazarr, G Gentile, D Madden, SL Pettyjohn, and YK Crane, The Korean Peninsula: Three Dangerous Scenarios. (Rand Corporation, 2018) 4.

  132. 132.

    E Chanlett-Avery and S Squassoni, North Korea’s Nuclear Test: Motivations, Implications, and U.S. Options. Congressional Research Service 2006. 3. <https://fas.org›crs›nuke>

  133. 133.

    See, Case Concerning Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (Request for advisory opinion). <http://www.unrod.org/…/ICJ-Advisory2004.pdf>

  134. 134.

    A Coleman, supra note 118.

  135. 135.

    H Lauterpacht, Supra, note 48 389; cited in Nicaragua (Merits) (Separate Opinion of Judge Lachs) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 169.

  136. 136.

    P Tomka, The Rule of Law of the International Court of Justice in World Affairs. Inaugural Hilding Eek Memorial Lecture 2013 6. <http://www.icj-cij.org-files-17848>

  137. 137.

    A Coleman, supra note 118.

  138. 138.

    See, Article 41 and 42 UN Charter.

  139. 139.

    ICJ Reports (1949) 4.

  140. 140.

    K Mingst, International Court of Justice, Encyclopaedia Britannica Student and Home Edition, (Encyclopaedia Britannica Chicago, 2010).

  141. 141.

    They have always argued that such ICJ decisions falls within their domestic jurisdiction and sovereignty which the UN had covenanted not to interfere with in accordance with Article 2 (7) UN Charter.

  142. 142.

    D Naranjo, An Introduction to the International Court of Justice, 78.1 Social Education (2014) 29, 31.

  143. 143.

    C Antonio, Ex Iniuria Ius Oritur; Are We Moving towards International Legitimation of Forcible Humanitarian Countermeasures in the World Community? 10. European Journal of International Law (1999) 23, 25.

  144. 144.

    AP Llamzon, Jurisdiction and Compliance in Recent Decisions of the International Court of Justice. 18.5: The European Journal of International Law (2008) 815, 838.

  145. 145.

    Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v Nigeria) 1999 ICJ Report 1029.

  146. 146.

    See, A Yusuf, A Critique of the Mechanism for the Enforcement of International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judgement: A Case Study of Cameroon vs Nigeria. (LL.M Thesis, Ahmadu Bello University, 2014) xiv + 138, 23.

  147. 147.

    See, H Kelsen, Law and Peace in International Relations (Harvard University Press, 1942).

  148. 148.

    G Zyberi, The Role and Contribution of International Courts in Furthering Peace as an Essential Community Interest. CM Bailliet and KM Larsen (eds.), Promoting Peace Through International Law (Oxford University Press 2015) 344, 348.

  149. 149.

    Some authors have suggested that the consent precondition should not apply in cases where the rules which the respondent is alleged to have violated have the status of jus cogens (peremptory rules possessing a higher legal status than the ordinary rules of law) or create obligations erga omnes (i.e., obligation owed to the whole global community and not just on a State to- State basis). The Court has acknowledged that some rules have one or both of these characteristics, but has maintained that the character of the rule which is alleged to have been violated is not relevant to the entirely separate question of whether the Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon those allegations. See, C Greenwood, supra note 91.

  150. 150.

    CJ Tams, World Courts as Guardians of Peace?, Global Cooperation, Research Papers 15 (Centre for Global Cooperation Research, 2016) 26.

  151. 151.

    CJ Tams and A Tzanakopoulos, Barcelona Traction at 40: The ICJ as an Agent of Legal Development. 23.4: Leiden Journal of International Law (2010) 781, 784.

  152. 152.

    G Zyberi, The International Court of Justice, in G Zyberi, (ed.) An institutional Approach to the Responsibility to Protect (Cambridge University Press, 2013) 363, 369.

  153. 153.

    See, B Martenczuk, The Security Council, the International Court and Judicial Review: What Lessons from Lokerbie. 10.3: European Journal of International Law (1999) 521; K Roberts, Second Guessing the Security Council: The International Court of Justice and its Powers of Judicial Review. 7.2: Pace International Law Review (1995) 320; E Graefrath, Leave to the Court what Belongs to the Court: The Libyan Case. 4. European Journal of International Law (1993) 184; D Akande, The International Court of Justice and the Security Council: Is there Room for Judicial Control of Decision of the Political Organs of the United Nations? 46.2: International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1997) 309; D Whittle, The Limits of Legality and the United Nations Security Council: Applying the Extra-Legal Measures Model to Chapter VII Action. The European Journal of International Law 26.3: (2015) 691; GH Oosthuizen, Playing the Devil’s Advocate: The United Nations Security Council Is Unbound by Law, 12.3: Leiden Journal of International Law (1999) 549.

  154. 154.

    K Suther, International Court of Justice. <http://www.global-directions.com/…/InternationalCourtofJustice.pdf>

  155. 155.

    CJ Tams, The World Court’s Role in the International Law-making Process, in J Delbruck, U Heinz, K Odendahl, N Matz-luck and A von Arnauld (eds.) Aus Kiel in die Welt: Kiel’s Contribution to International Law. Essays in Honour of the 100th Anniversary of the Walter Schucking Initiate for International Law 139, 166.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eti Best Herbert.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

L.B (Uyo); B.L.; LL.M (Ibadan) Private Legal Practitioner and Legal Research Consultant

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Herbert, E.B. The role of the international court of justice in actualising global peace. Indian Journal of International Law (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40901-020-00121-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • International court of justice
  • United nations
  • Security council
  • Global peace