International Court of Justice - Report Example

International Court of Justice Samson Varghese International Court of Justice International Court of Justice or World Court was established in 1945. It is the primary judicial entity of United Nations located at Hague, Netherlands. “The Court has had its seat in the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands) since 1946. Its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, occupied from 1922 the same premises, made available to it by the Carnegie Foundation, which owns and administers the Peace Palace.”(International Court of Justice) Though it is established in 1945 by UN charter it started its functioning in 1946 only as a successor to The Permanent Court of International Justice. Its main duty is to settle the legal disputes submitted by its members. It also provides legal opinions about disputed matters to international agencies and the UN general assembly. As stated in Article 93 of the UN charter, all the 192 UN members are automatically come under the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice. Though the United States withdrew from its compulsory authority, the developing countries are still relying it heavily, to settle the disputes. The International Court of Justice is made of 15 judges elected by UN general assembly for a 9 years term. They can be reelected to further two more terms if required. Elections will be conducted in every 3 years with one third of the judges retiring. If a judge dies in the office, a judge of the same nationality will be appointed in his place. The judges should be elected International Court of Justice 2 irrespective of their country of origin giving more importance to their morality as per the provisions provided in the articles 2 of the court. The judges are not allowed to hold any other posts. The members of the court supposed to follow the principal legal system of the world. A judge can be dismissed only by the unanimous voting of its members. “The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies” (International court of justice) The Court may entertain two types of cases: legal disputes between States submitted to it by them and requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by United Nations. The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Even though the judges can function independently, their independence has been questioned in many cases. The Nicaragua case is an example. This case was involved by the US and the Nicaragua heard in 1986 by the International court of justice which ruled in favor of Nicaragua against United States. The court found that the United States violated the international law by supporting the guerillas group agitations against the Nicaraguan government. The United States argued that the court lacked the authority to hear the case and they refused to participate in the trial. The court found that the Unites States have no authority to involve in the internal matters of another sovereign state. The US argued that they did it to keep the sovereignty of its ally El Salvador. They also found that the US encouraged human right violations in Nicaragua. Expecting the verdict from the court against them the United States in 1984 notified the Secretary General of the United Nations that they are temporarily modifying the 1946 declaration by President Harry S Truman by which the US agreed the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The 1984 notification International Court of Justice 3 states that the 1946 declaration shall not apply to disputes with any Central American State. Thus the United States has violated the international laws and regulations and they withdrew from the authority of International Court of Justice. In 1999, Croatia, lodged a complaint against Serbia, with the ICJ, claiming a form of genocide being displaced in its territory, by Serbia which resulted in the killing of large number of Croatian people and also the destruction of large amount of property. But Serbia argued before the court in May that it had no authority to hear the case over alleged crimes committed during the 1991-95 Croatian war that claimed some 20,000 lives. Though the challenge is being displaced by the ICJ, it would have been better if both Croatia and Serbia both together formed the former Yugoslavia, agreed to settle the issue mutually. As per the Article 94, the UN members should obey the decisions of the court related to the matters involving them. If the members are not willing to obey the verdict then the issue will be taken up by the Security Council for enforced action. If the verdict is against one of the permanents five members or its allies, such enforced actions may be vetoed as occurred in the case of Nicaragua. This is the main disadvantage facing by the international court of justice. They are just like the toys in the hands of the permanent five members. It is meaningless to give a verdict against the interests of these permanent members as it will be vetoed. So the authority of the ICJ has limited to other countries only now. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) faces a more challenging and heavy case-load than any time in its history at present. The Israeli security barrier in the West Bank case and Bosnian genocide allegations against Serbia proved that the ICJ has more confidence in its jurisdiction. International Court of Justice 4 The ICJ does not have any representatives from the states. The communication between the ICJ and the states will be normally through their foreign affairs minister or through their ambassador in Netherlands. They are represented by an agent in the court. An agent plays the same role, as that of a solicitor with respect to a national court. The agent receives communications from the Registrar concerning the case. In public hearings the agent opens the argument on behalf of the government he/she represents and lodges the submissions. In general, whenever a formal act is to be done by the government represented, it is done by the agent. “Since there is no special International Court of Justice Bar, there are no conditions that have to be fulfilled for counsel or advocates to enjoy the right of arguing before it except only that they must have been appointed by a government to do so” (The international court of justice.) Though there are doubts over the efficiency of the ICJ, definitely there are certain benefits also 1. ICJ is the only reliable entity where an international disputes involved by sovereign states can be settled. It is the only entity where the massacres of the powerful states can be questioned by the weak states. 2. Since it is comprised of judges from different countries, the judgment will be mostly impartial. The UN supervision of ICJ creates trust in it by sovereign states. 3. ICJ has successfully settled so many international disputes though there are certain exceptions like the one which involved by Nicaragua and the United States. The ICJ has been criticised for its biased ruling, its procedures and its authority. International Court of Justice 5 The main criticisms labelled against the International Court of Justice can be summarised as follows. 1. The verdict of the ICJ is limited to cases where both parties agreed to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ. The state which is feared of a verdict against them can avoid it by not giving consent to the interference of ICJ 2. International organizations, private entities and individuals cannot make use of the services of ICJ. The authority of the ICJ is limited to sovereign states only and hence they cannot involve in disputes between international organisations or individuals 3. Other international courts are not under the control of ICJ and hence they can do nothing about the verdicts given by such courts. The uniformity of the verdict will be affected since other international courts isolated from the control of ICJ 4. The ICJ does not enjoy a full power as the permanent members can veto any of its verdicts. This is the major drawback as far as the functioning of the ICJ is concerned. The five permanent members and its allies can be escaped from the verdict of ICJ by exercising the veto power which is actually against the principles of justice. The veto power should be removed from the armoury of the permanent members for the impartial functioning of the ICJ 5. “Many have suggested that the ICJ should have the power of judicial review over the Security Councils actions to ensure that they are consistent with the UN Charter and other instruments of international law”( Global Policy Forum-The International Court of Justice) Sources 1. International Court of Justice – Retrieved on 19/11/08- http://www.icj-cij.org/information/index.php?p1=7&PHPSESSID=a68103d4af501d431e363ca24782d90b 2. International court of justice - Retrieved on 19/11/08 http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1 3. The international court of justice - Retrieved on 19/11/08 .http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=6 4. Global Policy Forum-The International Court of Justice) Retrieved on 19/11/08 http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/icj/wdctindx.htm Read More