Does the International Court of Justice Work?

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) at The Hauge in the Netherlands. Credit: Laratee VanNieuwenhuyze, '24

In light of recent global events, it seems as though certain international organizations and institutions are nearing the end of their usefulness. Even more so, it feels like the end for international judicial bodies. 

Almost 80 years after its creation, the International Court of Justice, the chief judicial body of the United Nations, whose jurisdiction includes deciding disputes between states (i.e., countries/nations) and providing advisory opinions when requested, has seen numerous cases and conducted trials on international crimes and conflicts.

Having closed, finished and entered 192 cases into the General List of the Court since 1947, with another 21 cases pending, the ICJ has its hands full of international disputes. Of those cases, judgments, advisory opinions and orders from the court have been given to the party states of each case, namely, to the one being prosecuted that loses.

These advisory opinions are exactly what they sound like — advisory opinions. 

Advisory opinions given by the ICJ do not explicitly mandate compliance in the sense that the party paying reparations must execute them swiftly. Nor does this mean that states can outright refuse to comply with the sentence tacked onto them, as they are technically legally binding. 

But the issue remains: how can the ICJ explicitly enforce the terms set in their decisions and ensure that instances concerning war crimes and human rights violations, like the current case brought by South Africa against Israel, never happen again? 

South Africa filed an application with the ICJ on Dec. 29, 2023, with the application stating, “Instituting proceedings against Israel before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, concerning alleged violations by Israel of its obligations under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide… in relation to Palestinians in the Gaza Strip,” as per a press release from the ICJ.

The terms set out in the original application submitted by South Africa, as relayed in the first hearing on Jan. 11, are as concise as any provisions being laid out for international politics can be. These provisions are simply and explicitly calling for an end to the actions being committed in the Gaza Strip by the state of Israel, which multiple states committed to the Geneva Conventions condemn as serious acts of genocide, per South Africa’s application.

The ICJ ruled in favor of South Africa, having voted 15-2, one of those two dissenting votes being Israeli Judge ad hoc Aharon Barak. The decision passed to the state of Israel at the end of the hearings on Jan. 26 explicitly stated that they must put an end to the violent actions being committed against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip within the month after the decision was made final and report to the ICJ the efforts made to follow the preliminary measures.

This is a legally binding decision of the ICJ that has been placed on Israel. Has that prevented them from ignoring that order, killing hundreds more? No.

Why? Because even if they are likely to be sanctioned by the U.N., if the Security Council ends up taking a vote on the issue, Israel’s number one ally, the U.S., will most likely veto any sanctions meant for them, whether they be economic, trade, travel bans or arms embargoes, as the U.S. has already vetoed resolutions against Israel in the past.

Then what can the ICJ do? How can they even conceive of upholding the statutes and norms of international law and politics without having a more concrete means of enforcement than just sanctions and progress reports?
Unless the Court undergoes serious institutional reform and creates real concrete means of enforcement instead of remaining an advisory and facilitatory body, the weight held in their rulings is not enough on their own to get countries party to the U.N. to yield. Perhaps it is time for the international judiciary stage to retire or step up to truly protect international peace.