View source for International Court of Justice

{{Short description|Primary judicial organ of the United Nations}}
{{Distinguish|text=the [[International Criminal Court]] that is also located in The Hague, which can prosecute individuals under [[international criminal law]]}}
{{Redirect|World Court}}
{{Redirect|ICJ|the human rights organization|International Commission of Jurists}}
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{Use Oxford spelling|date=November 2017}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=October 2025}}
{{Infobox high court
| court_name = International Court of Justice
| native_name = {{lang|fr|Cour internationale de justice}}
| image = International Court of Justice Seal.svg
| imagesize = 151px
| image2 = Friedenspalast Den Haag (100MP).jpg
| imagesize2 = 
| caption2 = The [[Peace Palace]], the seat of the court
| caption = Emblem of the International Court of Justice
| acronyms = 
| established = {{start date and age|1945|06|26}}
| jurisdiction = [[International court|Worldwide]], [[Statute of the International Court of Justice#Parties to the Statute|{{UNnum}} state parties]]
| location = [[The Hague]], Netherlands
| coordinates = {{nowrap|{{coord|52|05|12|N|4|17|44|E|region:NL-ZH_type:landmark|display=inline,title}}}}
| type = <!-- partisan election/non-partisan election/legislative selection/executive selection/cooption/etc -->
| authority = {{hlist |[[United Nations Charter|UN Charter]] |[[Statute of the International Court of Justice|ICJ Statute]]}}
| terms = 9 years
| positions = 15
| website = {{official URL}}
| chiefjudgetitle = President
| chiefjudgename = [[Yuji Iwasawa]]<ref name="Presidency" />
| termstart = 3 March 2025
| termend = 
| termend2 = <!-- year term of current chief ends if applicable -->
| chiefjudgetitle2 = Vice President
| chiefjudgename2 = [[Julia Sebutinde]]
| termstart2 = 6 February 2024
| termend3 = 
| termend4 = <!-- year term of current deputy chief ends if applicable -->
}}

The '''International Court of Justice''' ('''ICJ'''; {{langx|fr|Cour internationale de justice|links=no}}, '''CIJ'''), or colloquially the '''World Court''', is the principal judicial organ of the [[United Nations]] (UN). It settles legal disputes submitted to it by states and provides [[advisory opinion]]s on legal questions referred to it by other UN organs and [[List of specialized agencies of the United Nations|specialized agencies]]. The ICJ is the only [[international court]] that adjudicates general disputes between countries, with its rulings and opinions serving as primary sources of [[international law]]. It is one of the [[United Nations System#Six principal organs|six principal organs]] of the United Nations.

Established in June 1945 by the [[Charter of the United Nations]], the Court began work in April 1946. It is the successor to the [[Permanent Court of International Justice]] (PCIJ), which was established by the [[League of Nations]] in 1920. [[Statute of the International Court of Justice|Its founding statute]] is an integral part of the [[Charter of the United Nations|UN Charter]] and draws heavily from that of its predecessor. All [[Member states of the United Nations|UN member states]] are automatically parties to the ICJ Statute. However, the Court's jurisdiction in contentious cases is founded upon the consent of the states party to a dispute, which may be given through special agreements or declarations accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.

The Court is composed of a panel of 15 judges elected by the [[United Nations General Assembly|UN General Assembly]] and [[United Nations Security Council|Security Council]] for nine-year terms. The composition of the bench is required to represent the "main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world," and no two judges may be nationals of the same country. The ICJ is seated in the [[Peace Palace]] in [[The Hague]], Netherlands, making it the only principal UN organ not located in New York City. Its official working languages are English and French.

Since its first case was submitted in 1947, the Court has entertained [[List of International Court of Justice cases|201 cases]] as of September 2025. While its judgments are binding on the parties and final, the ICJ possesses no formal enforcement mechanism. Enforcement of its rulings is ultimately a political matter for the UN Security Council, where it is subject to the veto power of the five [[Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council|permanent members]].

== History ==
The first permanent institution established for the purpose of settling international disputes was the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]] (PCA), which was created by the [[Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907|Hague Peace Conference]] of 1899. Initiated by the Russian Tsar [[Nicholas II of Russia|Nicholas II]], the conference involved all the world's major powers, as well as several smaller states, and resulted in the first [[multilateral treaties]] concerned with the conduct of warfare.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hag99-01.asp |title=The Hague peace conferences of 1899 and 1907; a series of lectures delivered before the Johns Hopkins University in the year 1908 |last=Scott |first=James Brown |website=Avalon Project |access-date=2 May 2019 |archive-date=3 April 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130403095702/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hag99-01.asp |url-status=live }}</ref> Among these was the ''Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes'', which set forth the institutional and procedural framework for arbitral proceedings, which would take place in [[The Hague|The Hague, Netherlands]]. Although the proceedings would be supported by a permanent bureau—whose functions would be equivalent to that of a secretariat or court registry—the arbitrators would be appointed by the disputing states from a larger pool provided by each member of the convention. The PCA was established in 1900 and began proceedings in 1902.

A [[Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907|second Hague Peace Conference]] in 1907, which involved most of the world's [[sovereign states]], revised the convention and enhanced the rules governing arbitral proceedings before the PCA. During this conference, the United States, Great Britain and Germany submitted a joint proposal for a permanent court whose judges would serve full-time. As the delegates could not agree how the judges would be selected, the matter was shelved pending an agreement to be adopted at a later convention.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.1017/S0165070X07001970 |title=A Highly Critical Moment: Role and Record of the 1907 Hague Peace Conference |year=2007 |last1=Eyffinger |first1=Arthur |journal=Netherlands International Law Review |volume=54 |issue=2 |page=197 |s2cid=144726356 }}</ref>

The Hague Peace Conferences, and the ideas that emerged therefrom, influenced the creation of the [[Central American Court of Justice]], which was established in 1908 as one of the earliest regional judicial bodies. Various plans and proposals were made between 1911 and 1919 for the establishment of an international judicial tribunal, which would not be realized in the formation of a new international system following the [[First World War]].

=== The Permanent Court of International Justice ===
{{main|Permanent Court of International Justice}}
The unprecedented bloodshed of the First World War led to the creation of the [[League of Nations]], established by the [[Paris Peace Conference, 1919|Paris Peace Conference]] of 1919 as the first worldwide [[intergovernmental organization]] aimed at maintaining peace and collective security. Article 14 League's [[Covenant of the League of Nations|Covenant]] called for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which would be responsible for adjudicating any international dispute submitted to it by the contesting parties, as well as to provide an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the League of Nations.

In December 1920, following several drafts and debates, the Assembly of the league unanimously adopted the statute of the PCIJ, which was signed and ratified the following year by a majority of members. Among other things, the new Statute resolved the contentious issues of selecting judges by providing that the judges be elected by both the council and the Assembly of the league concurrently but independently. The makeup of the PCIJ would reflect the "main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world".<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history |title=History |website=International Court of Justice |access-date=3 May 2019 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143447/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/history |url-status=live }}</ref> The PCIJ would be permanently placed at the [[Peace Palace]] in The Hague, alongside Permanent Court of Arbitration.

The PCIJ represented a major innovation in international jurisprudence in several ways:

* Unlike previous international arbitral tribunals, it was a permanent body governed by its statutory provisions and rules of procedure
* It had a permanent registry that served as a liaison with governments and international bodies
* Its proceedings were largely public, including pleadings, oral arguments, and all documentary evidence
* It was accessible to all states and could be declared by states to have compulsory jurisdiction over disputes
* The PCIJ Statute was the first to list sources of law it would draw upon, which in turn became sources of international law
* Judges were more representative of the world and its legal systems than any prior international judicial body

Unlike the ICJ, the PCIJ was not part of the league, nor were members of the league automatically a party to its Statute. The United States, which played a key role in both the second Hague Peace Conference and the Paris Peace Conference, was notably not a member of the league. However, several of its nationals served as judges of the court.

From its first session in 1922 until 1940, the PCIJ dealt with 29 interstate disputes and issued 27 advisory opinions. The court's widespread acceptance was reflected by the fact that several hundred international treaties and agreements conferred jurisdiction upon it over specified categories of disputes. In addition to helping resolve several serious international disputes, the PCIJ helped clarify several ambiguities in international law that contributed to its development.

The United States played a major role in setting up the PCIJ but never joined.<ref>{{Cite journal |jstor=24445043 |title=The Roosevelt Administration and the World Court Defeat, 1935 |last1=Accinelli |first1=Robert D. |journal=The Historian |year=1978 |volume=40 |issue=3 |pages=463–478 |doi=10.1111/j.1540-6563.1978.tb01903.x }}</ref> Presidents Wilson, Harding, Coolidge, Hoover, and Roosevelt all supported membership, but did not get the two-thirds majority in the Senate required for a treaty.<ref>{{Cite journal |doi=10.7202/030751ar |title=Peace Through Law: The United States and the World Court, 1923-1935 |year=1972 |last1=Accinelli |first1=R. D. |journal=Historical Papers |volume=7 |page=247 |s2cid=154899009 |s2cid-access=free |doi-access=free }}</ref>

=== Establishment of the International Court of Justice ===
Following a peak of activity in 1933, the PCIJ began to decline in its activities due to the growing international tension and isolationism that characterized the era. The [[Second World War]] effectively put an end to the court, which held its last public session in December 1939 and issued its last orders in February 1940. In 1942 the United States and United Kingdom jointly declared support for establishing or re-establishing an international court after the war, and in 1943, the U.K. chaired a panel of jurists from around the world, the "Inter-Allied Committee", to discuss the matter. Its 1944 report recommended that:

* The statute of any new international court should be based on that of the PCIJ;
* The new court should retain an advisory jurisdiction;
* Acceptance of the new court's jurisdiction should be voluntary;
* The court should deal only with judicial and not political matters

Several months later at the [[Moscow Conference (1943)|Moscow conference in 1943]], the major Allied Powers—[[China]], the [[Soviet Union|USSR]], the [[United Kingdom|U.K.]], and the [[United States|U.S.]]—issued a joint declaration recognizing the necessity "of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security".<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/moscow.asp |title=The Moscow Conference, October 1943 |website=Avalon Project |access-date=3 May 2019 |archive-date=8 April 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090408190702/http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/moscow.asp |url-status=live }}</ref>

The following Allied conference at [[Dumbarton Oaks Conference|Dumbarton Oaks]], in the United States, published a proposal in October 1944 that called for the establishment of an intergovernmental organization that would include an international court. A meeting was subsequently convened in Washington, D.C., in April 1945, involving 44 jurists from around the world to draft a statute for the proposed court. The draft statute was substantially similar to that of the PCIJ, and it was questioned whether a new court should even be created. During the [[San Francisco Conference]], which took place from 25 April to 26 June 1945 and involved 50 countries, it was decided that an entirely new court should be established as a principal organ of the new United Nations. The statute of this court would form an integral part of the [[United Nations Charter]], which, to maintain continuity, expressly held that the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was based upon that of the PCIJ.

Consequently, the PCIJ convened for the last time in October 1945 and resolved to transfer its archives to its successor, which would take its place at the Peace Palace. The judges of the PCIJ all resigned on 31 January 1946, with the election of the first members of the ICJ taking place the following February at the [[First session of the United Nations General Assembly|First Session of the United Nations General Assembly and Security Council]]. In April 1946, the [[Permanent Court of International Justice|PCIJ]] was formally dissolved, and the ICJ, in its first meeting, was elected President [[José Gustavo Guerrero]] of El Salvador, who had served as the last president of the PCIJ. The court also appointed members of its Registry, mainly drawn from that of the PCIJ, and held an inaugural public sitting later that month.

The first case was submitted in May 1947 by the United Kingdom against Albania concerning [[Corfu Channel case|incidents in the Corfu Channel]].

==Activities==
[[File:Zorgvliet, 2517 The Hague, Netherlands - panoramio (13).jpg|thumb|The [[Peace Palace]] in The Hague, Netherlands, seat of the ICJ]]
Established in 1945 by the [[Charter of the United Nations|UN Charter]], the court began work in 1946 as the successor to the [[Permanent Court of International Justice]]. The [[Statute of the International Court of Justice]], similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the court.<ref>{{cite web |url-status=dead |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0 |title=Statute of the Court |website=International Court of Justice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629193835/http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0 |archive-date=29 June 2011 |access-date=31 August 2007 }}</ref>

The court's workload covers a wide range of judicial activity. After the court ruled that the [[United States]]'s covert war against [[Nicaragua]] was in violation of international law (''[[Nicaragua v. United States]]''), the United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986 to accept the court's jurisdiction only on a discretionary basis.<ref>Churchill, Ward. ''A Little Matter of Genocide''. San Francisco: City Lights Books, 1997. Print.</ref> [[Chapter XIV of the United Nations Charter]] authorizes the [[United Nations Security Council|UN Security Council]] to enforce Court rulings. However, such enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five permanent members of the council, which the United States used in the ''Nicaragua'' case.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FPV.2718 |title=United Nations Official Document |website=United Nations |access-date=28 June 2017 |archive-date=12 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112014513/https://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S%2FPV.2718 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Composition==
{{Main|Judges of the International Court of Justice}}
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the [[United Nations General Assembly|UN General Assembly]] and the [[United Nations Security Council|UN Security Council]] from a list of people nominated by the national groups in the [[Permanent Court of Arbitration]]. The election process is set out in Articles 4–19 of the ICJ Statute. Elections are staggered, with five judges elected every three years to ensure continuity within the court. Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election to complete the term. Historically, deceased judges have been replaced by judges from the same region, though not —as often wrongly asserted— necessarily from the same nationality.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Pérez-Aznar |first=Facundo |date=7 September 2022 |title=Casual Vacancies in the ICJ: Law, Practice, and Policy |url=https://www.ejiltalk.org/casual-vacancies-in-the-icj-law-practice-and-policy/ |access-date=29 December 2022 |website=[[EJIL: Talk!]] |language=English |archive-date=4 October 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221004125239/https://www.ejiltalk.org/casual-vacancies-in-the-icj-law-practice-and-policy/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

Article 3 states that no two judges may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the membership of the court is supposed to represent the "main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world". This has been interpreted to include [[common law]], [[civil law (legal system)|civil law]], [[socialist law]], and [[Islamic law]], while the precise meaning of "main forms of civilization" is contested.<ref>{{cite book |editor-last1=Zimmermann |editor-first1=Andreas |editor-last2=Tomuschat |editor-first2=Christian |editor-last3=Oellers-Frahm |editor-first3=Karin |title=The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary |edition=1 |date=2006 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-926177-2 |pages=274–278 |url=https://archive.org/details/statuteofinterna0000unse/page/274 }}</ref>

There is an informal understanding that the seats will be distributed [[United Nations Regional Groups|by geographic regions]] so that there are five seats for Western countries, three for [[Africa|African states]] (including one judge of [[Francophone]] civil law, one of Anglophone common law and one Arab), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian states and two for Latin American and Caribbean states.<ref>Harris, D. ''Cases and Materials on International Law, 7th ed.'' (2012, London) p. 839.</ref> For most of the court's history, the five permanent members of the [[United Nations Security Council]] (France, USSR, China, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge serving, thereby occupying three of the Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. Exceptions have been China not having a judge on the court from 1967 to 1985, during which time it did not put forward a candidate, and British judge Sir [[Christopher Greenwood]] being withdrawn as a candidate for election for a second nine-year term on the bench in 2017, leaving no judges from the United Kingdom on the court.<ref name="bbcgreenwood">{{cite news |title=International Court of Justice: UK abandons bid for seat on UN bench |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42061028 |access-date=21 November 2017 |agency=BBC |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143457/https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-42061028 |url-status=live }}</ref> Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security Council but failed to get a majority in the UN General Assembly.<ref name="bbcgreenwood" /> Indian judge [[Dalveer Bhandari]] took the seat instead.<ref name="bbcgreenwood" />

Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be "elected regardless of their nationality among persons of high moral character" who are either qualified for the highest judicial office in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law. Judicial independence is dealt with specifically in Articles 16–18.

To insure impartiality, Article 16 of the Charter requires independence from their national governments or other interested parties, stating, "No member of the Court may exercise any political or administrative function, or engage in any other occupation of a professional nature." In addition, Article 17 requires that judges do not show any prior biases on cases before them, specifically, "No member may participate in the decision of any case in which he has previously taken part as agent, counsel, or advocate for one of the parties, or as a member of a national or international court, or of a commission of enquiry, or in any other capacity."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Statute of the Court Of Justice {{!}} INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/statute |access-date=24 May 2024 |website=www.icj-cij.org |archive-date=27 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240527215603/https://www.icj-cij.org/statute |url-status=live }}</ref>

Judges of the International Court of Justice are entitled to the style of His/Her Excellency. Judges are not able to hold any other post or act as counsel. In practice, members of the court have their own interpretation of these rules and many have chosen to remain involved in outside arbitration and hold professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Is "Moonlighting" a Problem? The role of ICJ judges in ISDS |url=https://www.iisd.org/articles/policy-analysis/moonlighting-problem-role-icj-judges-isds |access-date=29 December 2022 |website=International Institute for Sustainable Development |language=en |archive-date=29 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229224205/https://www.iisd.org/articles/policy-analysis/moonlighting-problem-role-icj-judges-isds |url-status=live }}</ref> Former judge [[Bruno Simma]] and current judge [[Georg Nolte]] have acknowledged that moonlighting should be restricted.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Past and present ICJ judges welcome curb on moonlighting |url=https://globalarbitrationreview.com/past-and-present-icj-judges-welcome-curb-moonlighting |access-date=29 December 2022 |website=globalarbitrationreview.com |language=en |archive-date=29 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229224209/https://globalarbitrationreview.com/past-and-present-icj-judges-welcome-curb-moonlighting |url-status=live }}</ref>

A judge can be dismissed only by a unanimous vote of the other members of the court.<ref>ICJ Statute, Article 18(1)</ref> Despite these provisions, the independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the [[Nicaragua v. United States|''Nicaragua'' case]], the United States issued a communiqué suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the court because of the presence of judges from the Soviet bloc.<ref name="ReferenceA">''Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua'' (Nicaragua v USA), [1986] ICJ Reports 14, 158–60 (Merits) per Judge Lachs.</ref>

Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and [[advisory opinion]]s are by majority, and, in the event of an equal division, the president's vote becomes decisive, which occurred in the ''Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict'' (Opinion requested by WHO), [1996] ICJ Reports 66. Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions.

In its 77 years of history, only five women have been elected to the Court, with former UN Special Rapporteur [[Philip Alston]] calling for states to take seriously questions of representation in the bench.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Alston |first=Philip |date=25 October 2021 |title=Vacancies at the ICJ: Yes, there is a special practice, and it has to cease |url=https://www.ejiltalk.org/vacancies-at-the-icj-yes-there-is-a-special-practice-and-it-has-to-cease/ |access-date=29 December 2022 |website=EJIL: Talk! |language=English |archive-date=29 December 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221229224205/https://www.ejiltalk.org/vacancies-at-the-icj-yes-there-is-a-special-practice-and-it-has-to-cease/ |url-status=live }}</ref>

In 2023, judges elected to take office from 2024 did not include a Russian member, so for the first time, from 2024 there will be no member from the [[Commonwealth of Independent States]]. This is also the first time that Russia would not have a judge on the ICJ, even going back to its predecessor, the Soviet Union.<ref>{{cite web |title=No Russian judge elected to UN's top court, in first |url=https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3785004-no-russian-judge-elected-to-uns-top-court-in-first.html |date=10 November 2023 |access-date=7 June 2024 |archive-date=14 November 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231114015828/https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-polytics/3785004-no-russian-judge-elected-to-uns-top-court-in-first.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

===''Ad hoc'' judges===
Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ''[[ad hoc]]'' judges sit on contentious cases before the court. The system allows any party to a contentious case (if it otherwise does not have one of that party's nationals sitting on the court) to select one additional person to sit as a judge on that case only. It is thus possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case.

The system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose is to encourage states to submit cases. For example, if a state knows that it will have a judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and an understanding of the state's perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body, it is usually of little practical consequence. ''Ad hoc'' judges usually (but not always) vote in favour of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Posner, E. A. |author2=De Figueiredo, M. F. P. |title=Is the International Court of Justice Biased? |journal=Journal of Legal Studies |volume=34 |date=June 2005 |publisher=University of Chicago |url=http://www.ericposner.com/Is%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice%20Biased.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101223171938/http://www.ericposner.com/Is%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice%20Biased.pdf |archive-date=23 December 2010 |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Chambers===
Generally, the court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years, it has on occasion sat as a chamber. Articles 26–29 of the statute allow the court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5 judges, to hear cases. Two types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ''ad hoc'' chambers to hear particular disputes. In 1993, a special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to deal specifically with environmental matters (although it has never been used).

''Ad hoc'' chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used to hear the ''Gulf of Maine Case'' (Canada/US).<ref>[http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicrulesofcourt_20050929.htm Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051126131908/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasicrulesofcourt_20050929.htm |date=26 November 2005 }} (as amended on 5 December 2000). Retrieved 17 December 2005. See also [http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasic_practice_directions_20040730_I-XII.htm Practice Directions I–XII] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051127143822/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ibasicdocuments/ibasictext/ibasic_practice_directions_20040730_I-XII.htm |date=27 November 2005 }} (as at 30 July 2004). Retrieved 17 December 2005.</ref> In that case, the parties made clear they would withdraw the case unless the court appointed judges to the chamber acceptable to the parties. Judgments of chambers may have either less authority than full Court judgments or diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might encourage greater recourse to the court and thus enhance international [[dispute resolution]].<ref name="ReferenceB">Schwebel S "Ad Hoc Chambers of the International Court of Justice" (1987) 81 ''American Journal of International Law'' 831.</ref>

===Current composition===
{{See also|Judges of the International Court of Justice}}
{{As of|2025|November|12}}, the composition of the court is as follows:<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/en/current-members |title=Current Members |website=International Court of Justice |language=en |access-date=12 November 2025 |archive-date=29 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171129084039/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/current-members |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="GA/12285">{{cite news |title=General Assembly, in Second Secret Ballot Round, Elects Five Judges to Serve Nine-Year-Long Terms on International Court of Justice {{!}} Meetings Coverage and Press Releases |url=https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12285.doc.htm |access-date=16 April 2021 |publisher=UN |date=12 November 2020 |language=en |archive-date=16 May 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210516100152/https://www.un.org/press/en/2020/ga12285.doc.htm |url-status=live }}</ref>
{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Name !! Nationality !! Position !! Term began !! Term ends
|-
| [[Yuji Iwasawa]] || {{flag|Japan}} || President{{sup|a}}{{sup|b}} || 2018 || 2030
|-
| [[Julia Sebutinde]] || {{flag|Uganda}} || Vice-president{{sup|a}} || 2012 || 2030
|-
| [[Peter Tomka]] || {{flag|Slovakia}} || Member || 2003 || 2030
|-
| [[Ronny Abraham]] || {{flag|France}} || Member || 2005 || 2027
|-
| [[Xue Hanqin]] || {{flag|China}} || Member || 2010 || 2030
|-
| [[Dalveer Bhandari]] || {{flag|India}} || Member || 2012 || 2027
|-
| [[Georg Nolte]] || {{flag|Germany}} || Member || 2021 || 2030
|-
| [[Hilary Charlesworth]] || {{Flag|Australia}}|| Member || 2021 || 2033
|-
| [[Leonardo Nemer Caldeira Brant]]|| {{flag|Brazil}} || Member || 2022 || 2027
|-
| [[Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo Verduzco]] || {{flag|Mexico}} || Member || 2024 || 2033
|-
| [[Sarah Cleveland]] || {{flag|United States}} || Member || 2024 || 2033
|-
| [[Bogdan Aurescu]] || {{flag|Romania}} || Member || 2024 || 2033
|-
| [[Dire Tladi]] || {{flag|South Africa}} || Member || 2024 || 2033
|-
| [[Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud]]|| {{flag|Jordan}} || Member || 2025 || 2027
|-
| [[Phoebe Okowa]]|| {{flag|Kenya}} || Member || 2025 || 2027
|-
| [[Philippe Gautier (judge)|Philippe Gautier]] || {{Flag|Belgium}} || Registrar || 2019|| 2026
|-
|colspan="5"| {{sup|a}} For the 2024–2027 term
{{sup|b}} ICJ President [[Nawaf Salam]] resigned to assume the office of [[Prime Minister of Lebanon]]. [[Yuji Iwasawa]] was elected to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.<ref name="Presidency">{{Cite web |title=Presidency |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/presidency |publisher=International Court of Justice |language=en |location=The Hague, Netherlands |date=14 January 2025 |access-date=14 January 2025 |archive-date=14 January 2025 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20250114144827/https://icj-cij.org/presidency |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Resign">{{Cite web |first1=Monique |last1=Legerman |first2=Joanne |last2=Moore |first3=Anna |last3=Bonini |title=Judge Nawaf Salam, President of the Court, resigns as Member of the Court with effect from 14 January 2025 |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/press-releases/0/000-20250114-pre-01-00-en.pdf |publisher=International Court of Justice |language=en |location=The Hague, Netherlands |date=14 January 2025 |access-date=14 January 2025 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |first1=Monique |last1=Legerman |first2=Joanne |last2=Moore |first3=Anna |last3=Bonini |title=Judge Iwasawa Yuji elected President of the International Court of Justice |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/press-releases/0/000-20250114-pre-01-00-en.pdf |publisher=International Court of Justice |language=en |location=The Hague, Netherlands |date=3 March 2025 |access-date=4 March 2025 }}</ref>
|}

===Presidents===
{| class=wikitable
|-
! # !! President !! Start !! End !! Country
|-
| 1 || [[José Gustavo Guerrero]] || 1946 || 1949 || {{flag|El Salvador}}
|-
| 2 || [[Jules Basdevant]] || 1949 || 1952 || {{flag|France|1830}}
|-
| 3 || [[Arnold McNair]] || 1952 || 1955 || {{flag|United Kingdom}}
|-
| 4 || [[Green Hackworth]] || 1955 || 1958 || {{flag|United States|1912}}
|-
| 5 || [[Helge Klæstad]] || 1958 || 1961 || {{flag|Norway}}
|-
| 6 || [[Bohdan Winiarski]] || 1961 || 1964 || {{flag|Poland|1928}}
|-
| 7 || [[Percy Spender]] || 1964 || 1967 || {{flag|Australia}}
|-
| 8 || [[José Bustamante y Rivero]] || 1967 || 1970 || {{flag|Peru}}
|-
| 9 || [[Muhammad Zafarullah Khan]] || 1970 || 1973 || {{flag|Pakistan}}
|-
| 10 || [[Manfred Lachs]] || 1973 || 1976|| {{flag|Poland|1928}}
|-
| 11 || [[Eduardo Jiménez de Aréchaga]] || 1976 || 1979 || {{flag|Uruguay}}
|-
| 12 || [[Humphrey Waldock]] || 1979 || 1981 || {{flag|United Kingdom}}
|-
| 13 || [[Taslim Elias]] || 1982 || 1985 || {{flag|Nigeria}}
|-
| 14 || [[Nagendra Singh]] || 1985 || 1988 || {{flag|India}}
|-
| 15 || [[José Ruda]] || 1988 || 1991 || {{flag|Argentina}}
|-
| 16 || [[Robert Yewdall Jennings|Robert Jennings]] || 1991 || 1994 || {{flag|United Kingdom}}
|-
| 17 || [[Mohammed Bedjaoui]] || 1994 || 1997 || {{flag|Algeria}}
|-
| 18 || [[Stephen Schwebel]] || 1997 || 2000 || {{flag|United States}}
|-
| 19 || [[Gilbert Guillaume]] || 2000 || 2003 || {{flag|France|1974}}
|-
| 20 || [[Shi Jiuyong]] || 2003 || 2006 || {{flag|China}}
|-
| 21 || [[Rosalyn Higgins]] || 2006 || 2009 || {{flag|United Kingdom}}
|-
| 22 || [[Hisashi Owada]] || 2009 || 2012 || {{flag|Japan}}
|-
| 23 || [[Peter Tomka]] || 2012 || 2015 || {{flag|Slovakia}}
|-
| 24 || [[Ronny Abraham]] || 2015 || 2018 || {{flag|France|1974}}
|-
|25 || [[Abdulqawi Yusuf]] ||2018 ||2021 || {{flag|Somalia}}
|-
|26 || [[Joan Donoghue]] ||2021 || 2024 || {{flag|United States}}
|-
|27 || [[Nawaf Salam]] ||2024 ||2025 || {{flag|Lebanon}}
|-
|28 || [[Yuji Iwasawa]] ||2025 ||2027 ||{{flag|Japan}}
|}

==Jurisdiction==
{{Main|Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice}}

[[File:International Court of Justice parties.svg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|{{legend-table|lang=en|title= |#00aa00|Parties upon becoming a UN member|MediumBlue|Parties prior to joining the UN under Article 93|#ff1111|UN observer states that are not parties}}]]

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all {{UNnum}} UN members are automatically [[Party (law)|parties]] to the court's statute.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |title=Chapter XIV {{!}} United Nations |work=United Nations |access-date=21 November 2017 |archive-date=25 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725083309/http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear States entitled to appear before the Court.] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240424045551/https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear |date=24 April 2024 }} Retrieved 1 January 2024</ref> Non-UN members may also become parties to the court's statute under the Article 93(2) procedure, which was used by Switzerland in 1948 and Nauru in 1988, prior to either joining the UN.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&lang=en |title=Chapter I – Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice: 3 . Statute of the International Court of Justice |date=9 July 2013 |access-date=9 July 2013 |publisher=[[United Nations Treaty Series]] |archive-date=17 October 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017035748/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&lang=en |url-status=dead }}</ref> Once a state is a party to the court's statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of [[jurisdiction]] is considered in the three types of ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions.<ref>{{Cite book |title=International Dispute Settlement |url=https://archive.org/details/internationaldis00merr |url-access=limited |author=J. G. Merrills |publisher=Cambridge University Press |year=2011 |isbn=978-0521153393 |location=New York |pages=[https://archive.org/details/internationaldis00merr/page/n143 116]–134 }}</ref>

===Contentious issues===
[[File:Eerste na-oorlogse zitting van het Internationaal Hof van Justititie Weeknummer 48-09 - Open Beelden - 30541.ogv|thumb|First gathering after Second World War, Dutch newsreel from 1946]]
In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only [[Sovereign state|states]] may be parties in contentious cases; individuals, corporations, component parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs, and [[self-determination]] groups are excluded from direct participation, although the court may receive information from public [[international organization]]s. However, this does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings; for example, a state may bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations, such as in matters concerning diplomatic protection.<ref>See the ''Nottebohm Case'' (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), [1955] ICJ Reports 4.</ref>

Jurisdiction is often a [[ICJ#Procedure|crucial question for the court]] in contentious cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Under Article 36, there are four foundations for the court's jurisdiction:
# ''Compromis'' or "special agreement", in which parties provide explicit consent to the court's jurisdiction by referring cases to it. While not true compulsory jurisdiction, this is perhaps the most effective jurisdictional basis, because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court, and are thus more likely to comply with the court's judgment.
# Compromissory clauses in a binding treaty. Most modern [[treaty|treaties]] contain such clauses to provide for dispute resolution by the ICJ.<ref>See [[List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ]].</ref> Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement, since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the [[Iran hostage crisis]], Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the [[Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]] and did not comply with the judgment.<ref>''Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran'' (USA v Iran), [1979] ICJ Reports 7.</ref> Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined; many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of [[arbitration]].<ref>See Charney J "Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice" (1987) 81 ''American Journal of International Law'' 855.</ref>
# Optional clause declarations accepting the court's jurisdiction. Also known as Article 36(2) jurisdiction, it is sometimes misleadingly labeled "compulsory", though such declarations are voluntary. Many such declarations contain reservations that exclude from jurisdiction certain types of disputes (''ratione materia'').<ref>See Alexandrov S ''Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice'' (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995).</ref> The principle of [[reciprocity (international relations)|reciprocity]] may further limit jurisdiction, as Article 36(2) holds that such declaration may be made "in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation...".<ref name="icj-cij.org">{{Cite web |title=Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations |access-date=30 May 2021 |website=International Court of Justice |archive-date=15 August 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170815194446/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations |url-status=live }}</ref> As of January 2018, seventy-four states had a declaration in force, up from sixty-six in February 2011;<ref name="icj-cij.org"/> of the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration.<ref>For a complete list of countries and their stance with the ICJ, see {{cite web |url-status=dead |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3 |title=Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629194034/http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3 |archive-date=29 June 2011 |access-date=21 February 2011 |website=International Court of Justice }}</ref> In the court's early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the 1986 ''[[Nicaragua v. United States|Nicaragua]]'' case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the court.<ref>Cesare P.R. Romano, "[http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing_Countries_Part2.pdf International justice and developing countries (continued): a qualitative analysis]", ''The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals'' '''1''': 539–611, 2002. Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands, pp. 575–576. "Over the decades, developing countries have significantly changed their attitudes toward the ICJ, to the point that while their participation accounted for 50% of the contentious cases filed in the 1960s, in the 1990s they were the source of 86% of the cases". {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204010717/http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing_Countries_Part2.pdf |date=4 February 2017 }}.</ref> However, even those industrialized countries that have invoked optional declarations have sometimes increased exclusions or rescinded them altogether. Notable examples include the [[Nicaragua v. United States#U.S. defense and response|United States in the ''Nicaragua'' case]], and Australia, which modified its declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on [[maritime boundary|maritime boundaries]], most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor, which gained independence two months later.<ref>Burton, Bob (17 May 2005). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20050618081721/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GE17Ae02.html Australia, East Timor strike oil, gas deal]". ''[[Asia Times]]''. Retrieved 21 April 2006.</ref>
# Article 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Statute of the [[Permanent Court of International Justice]]. Article 37 similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
Additionally, the court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (''[[forum prorogatum]]''). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction is established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads [[on the merits]]. This arose in the 1949 [[Corfu Channel Case]] (U.K. v. Albania), in which the court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.{{Citation needed |date=March 2024}}

=== Incidental jurisdiction ===
Until rendering a final judgment, the court has competence to order interim measures for the protection of the rights of a party to a dispute. One or both parties to a dispute may apply the ICJ for issuing interim measures. In the ''Frontier Dispute'' Case, both parties to the dispute, [[Burkina Faso]] and [[Mali]], submitted an application to the court to indicate interim measures.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/69/9961.pdf |title=Provisional measures are indicated in the case of the Frontier Dispute |date=10 January 1986 |publisher=International Court of Justice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171209093847/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/69/9961.pdf |archive-date=9 December 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the Article 41 of its Statute.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute |title=Statute of the Court |website=International Court of Justice |language=en |access-date=2 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307151033/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute |archive-date=7 March 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Similar to the final judgment, the order for interim measures of the court are binding on state parties to the dispute. The ICJ has competence to indicate interim measures only if the ''[[prima facie]]'' jurisdiction is satisfied.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}

===Advisory opinions===
[[File:Grand Hall de Justice de Palais de La Paix à La Haye Pays-Bas.jpg|thumb|Audience of the "Accordance with International Law of the [[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence|Unilateral Declaration of Independence]] by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo"]] An [[advisory opinion]] is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. The UN Charter grants the General Assembly or the Security Council the power to request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question. Organs of the UN other than the General Assembly or the Security Council require the General Assembly's authorization to request an advisory opinion of the ICJ. These organs of the UN only request an advisory opinion regarding the matters that fall within the scope of their activities.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |title=Chapter XIV |publisher=United Nations |work=Charter of the United Nations |language=en |access-date=3 November 2017 |archive-date=25 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725083309/http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |url-status=dead }}</ref> On receiving a request, the court decides which states and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the court's help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates.

In principle, the court's advisory opinions are only consultative in character but they are influential and widely respected. Certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, but inherently they are non-binding under the Statute of the court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the court's authoritative views on important issues of international law. In arriving at them, the court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states.

An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/27/un-general-assembly-requests-world-court-advisory-opinion-israels |title=The UN General Assembly Requests a World Court Advisory Opinion on Israel's Separation Barrier |author=Pieter H.F. Bekker |date=12 December 2003 |publisher=American Society of International Law |access-date=21 November 2017 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143450/https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/27/un-general-assembly-requests-world-court-advisory-opinion-israels |url-status=live }}</ref>

Advisory opinions have often been controversial because the questions asked are controversial or the case was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section [[List of International Court of Justice cases#Advisory opinions|advisory opinions]] in the [[List of International Court of Justice cases]] article. One such well-known advisory opinion is the ''[[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons|Nuclear Weapons Case]]''.

On 23 July 2025, the court issued an advisory opinion regarding the State obligations in respect of [[climate change]],<ref>{{cite web |date=23 July 2025 |title=Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf |website=ICJ-CIJ.org }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=23 July 2025 |title=Summary: Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-sum-01-00-en.pdf |website=ICJ-CIJ.org }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=23 July 2025 |title=Press Release: Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf |website=ICJ-CIJ.org }}</ref>
upon request by the [[General Assembly of the UN|General Assembly]] to address two questions: the obligations of States under international law to protect the climate system from anthropogenic emissions for States and for present and future generations, and the legal consequences arising where states, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 April 2023 |title=Request for Advisory Opinion Transmitted to the Court Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 77/276 of 29 March 2023: Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20230412-app-01-00-en.pdf |website=ICJ-CIJ.org }}</ref>
This was the biggest case in the history of the court, with 99 countries and more than 12 intergovernmental organizations heard over two weeks in December 2024.<ref>{{cite news |last1=QUELL |first1=MOLLY |date=3 December 2024 |title=A landmark climate change case opens at the top UN court as island nations fear rising seas |url=https://apnews.com/article/eu-world-court-icj-climate-global-warming-e954301f0258509f67e66ae2762da6f6 |access-date=3 December 2024 |agency=The Associated Press }}</ref>

==Examples of contentious cases==
{{Main|List of International Court of Justice cases}}
* 1980: A complaint by the United States that Iran was detaining American diplomats in [[Tehran]] in violation of international law.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/64/6291.pdf |title=Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders |date=24 May 1980 |publisher=International Court of Justice |access-date=21 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201033844/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/64/6291.pdf |archive-date=1 December 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* 1982: A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between them.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/71/6527.pdf |title=Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case Concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) |date=10 December 1985 |publisher=International Court of Justice |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120111085227/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/71/6527.pdf |archive-date=11 January 2012 }}</ref>
* 1984: A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in the [[Gulf of Maine]] area.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/67/6369.pdf |title=Case Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America) |date=12 October 1984 |publisher=International Court of Justice |access-date=21 November 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201033144/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/67/6369.pdf |archive-date=1 December 2017 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* 1989: A complaint by Iran after the shooting down of [[Iran Air Flight 655]] by a [[United States Navy]] guided missile cruiser.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79 |title=Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) |date=17 May 1989 |publisher=International Court of Justice |access-date=9 February 2021 |archive-date=17 July 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170717021821/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/79 |url-status=live }}</ref>
* 1999: A complaint by the [[Federal Republic of Yugoslavia]] against the member states of the [[NATO|North Atlantic Treaty Organization]] regarding their actions in the [[Kosovo War]]. This was denied on 15 December 2004 because of lack of jurisdiction, the FRY not being a party to the ICJ statute at the time it made the application.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=371&code=yus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=114&k=25 |title=International Court of Justice |publisher=Icj-cij.org |access-date=2 February 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203054204/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=371&code=yus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=114&k=25 |archive-date=3 February 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
* 2005: A complaint by the [[Democratic Republic of the Congo]] that its sovereignty had been violated by [[Uganda]] and that the DRC had lost billions of dollars' worth of resources<ref>"[http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=co&case=116&k=51 Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180227010206/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3&code=co&case=116&k=51 |date=27 February 2018 }}". Icj-cij.org.</ref> was decided in favour of the DRC.<ref>"[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/20/congo.uganda Court orders Uganda to pay Congo damages] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143450/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/dec/20/congo.uganda |date=2 January 2021 }}". ''[[The Guardian]]''. 20 December 2005</ref>
* 2011: A complaint by the Republic of North Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that Greece's vetoing of its accession to [[NATO]] violates the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995<ref>{{cite web |url=http://untreaty.un.org/unts/120001_144071/6/3/00004456.pdf |title=Interim Accord |date=13 September 1995 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325011434/http://untreaty.un.org/unts/120001_144071/6/3/00004456.pdf |archive-date=25 March 2009 }}</ref> between the two countries. The complaint was decided in favour of [[North Macedonia]] on 5 December 2011.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/142/16841.pdf |archive-url=https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20170716032245/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/142/16841.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=16 July 2017 |title=The Court finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia to NATO, has breached its obligation under Article 11, paragraph 1, of the Interim Accord of 13 September 1995 |date=5 December 2011 |publisher=The International Court of Justice |access-date=2 February 2014 }}</ref>
* 2017: A complaint by the [[Republic of India]] regarding a death penalty verdict against an Indian citizen, [[Kulbhushan Jadhav]], by a Pakistani military court (based on alleged espionage and subversive activities).<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/kulbhushan-jadhav |title=Kulbhushan Jadhav: Kulbhushan Jadhav latest news, photos & videos |website=[[The Times of India]] |access-date=14 November 2017 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143456/https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/topic/kulbhushan-jadhav |url-status=live }}</ref>
* 2022: A complaint by Ukraine against Russia for violating the 1948 [[Genocide Convention]], to which both Ukraine and Russia are parties, by falsely claiming genocide as a pretext for invading Ukraine.<ref>{{cite news |last=Milanovic |first=Marko |date=27 February 2022 |url=https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-files-icj-claim-against-russia/ |url-status=live |title=Ukraine Files ICJ Claim against Russia |work=[[European Journal of International Law]] |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20220301/https://www.ejiltalk.org/ukraine-files-icj-claim-against-russia/ |archive-date=1 March 2022 |access-date=2 March 2022 }}</ref> The [[International Association of Genocide Scholars]] supported Ukraine, who asked for expedited [[Provisional measure of protection|provisional measures]] directing Russia to halt its offensive.<ref>{{cite news |last=Wintour |first=Patrick |date=7 March 2022 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/international-court-of-justice-to-fast-track-ruling-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine |title=International court of justice to fast-track ruling on Russian invasion |newspaper=[[The Guardian]] |access-date=10 March 2022 |archive-date=7 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220307181739/https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/07/international-court-of-justice-to-fast-track-ruling-on-russian-invasion-of-ukraine |url-status=live }}</ref> Russian representatives abstained from the court hearings.<ref>{{cite news |last=Corder |first=Mike |date=7 March 2022 |url=https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-netherlands-moscow-europe-0ca475d35171d384e028f09f1f7379e4 |title=Russia snubs UN court hearings in case brought by Ukraine |work=[[Associated Press]] |access-date=10 March 2022 |archive-date=9 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220309200959/https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-kyiv-netherlands-moscow-europe-0ca475d35171d384e028f09f1f7379e4 |url-status=live }}</ref> On 16 March, the ICJ ordered Russia to "immediately suspend the military operations", on a 13–2 vote with the Russian and Chinese judges in opposition.<ref>{{cite web |date=16 March 2022 |title=Order of 16 March 2022 |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf |website=International Court of Justice |access-date=12 May 2022 |archive-date=22 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220322030056/https://www.icj-cij.org/public/files/case-related/182/182-20220316-ORD-01-00-EN.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |date=16 March 2022 |title=International Court of Justice orders Russia to suspend invasion of Ukraine |url=https://www.dw.com/en/international-court-of-justice-orders-russia-to-suspend-invasion-of-ukraine/a-61142092 |access-date=16 March 2022 |publisher=[[Deutsche Welle]] |archive-date=17 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220317072255/https://www.dw.com/en/international-court-of-justice-orders-russia-to-suspend-invasion-of-ukraine/a-61142092 |url-status=live }}</ref> The order is binding on Russia, but the ICJ cannot enforce it.<ref>{{Cite news |date=16 March 2022 |title=Guerre en Ukraine, en direct |language=fr-FR |work=[[Le Monde]] |url=https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2022/03/16/guerre-en-ukraine-la-russie-exige-un-statut-neutre-pour-l-ukraine-qui-refuse_6117694_3210.html#id-278998 |access-date=16 March 2022 |archive-date=16 March 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220316164621/https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2022/03/16/guerre-en-ukraine-la-russie-exige-un-statut-neutre-pour-l-ukraine-qui-refuse_6117694_3210.html#id-278998 |url-status=live }}</ref>

==Relationship with UN Security Council==
Article 94 establishes the duty of all UN members to comply with decisions of the court involving them. If parties do not comply, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. There are obvious problems with such a method of enforcement. If the judgment is against one of the five permanent members of the Security Council or its allies, any resolution on enforcement could then be vetoed by that member. That occurred, for example, after the [[Nicaragua v. United States|''Nicaragua'' case]], when Nicaragua brought the issue of the United States' noncompliance with the court's decision before the Security Council.<ref name="ReferenceA"/> Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. Furthermore, the most effective form to take action for the Security Council, coercive action under [[Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter]], can be justified only if [[International Peace and Security|international peace and security]] are at stake. The Security Council has never done that so far.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}

The relationship between the ICJ and the [[Security Council]], and the separation of their powers, was considered by the court in 1992 in the [[Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial|''Pan Am'' case]]. The court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of [[provisional measures of protection]] to safeguard its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the United Kingdom and United States. The problem was that these sanctions had been authorized by the Security Council, which resulted in a potential conflict between the Chapter VII functions of the Security Council and the judicial function of the court. The court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the [[Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation|1971 Montreal Convention]], could not be ''[[prima facie]]'' regarded as appropriate since the action was ordered by the Security Council. In accordance with Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations under the Charter took precedence over other treaty obligations. Nevertheless, the court declared the application admissible in 1998.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=173&code=lus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=89&k=82 |title=''Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United States of America), Preliminary Objections, International Court of Justice, 27 February 1998'' |publisher=Icj-cij.org |access-date=4 November 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120512034013/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?pr=173&code=lus&p1=3&p2=3&p3=6&case=89&k=82 |archive-date=12 May 2012 |url-status=dead }}</ref> A decision on the merits has not been given since the parties (United Kingdom, United States, and Libya) settled the case out of court in 2003.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}

There was a marked reluctance on the part of a majority of the court to become involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring it potentially into conflict with the council. The court stated in the ''Nicaragua'' case that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the Security Council and adjudication by the ICJ. However, when there is room for conflict, the balance appears to be in favour of the Security Council.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}

Should either party fail "to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court", the Security Council may be called upon to "make recommendations or decide upon measures" if the Security Council deems such actions necessary. In practice, the court's powers have been limited by the unwillingness of the losing party to abide by the court's ruling and by the Security Council's unwillingness to impose consequences. However, in theory, "so far as the parties to the case are concerned, a judgment of the Court is binding, final and without appeal", and "by signing the Charter, a State Member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with any decision of the International Court of Justice in a case to which it is a party."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Chapter XIV |url=https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |date=17 June 2015 |website=United Nations |language=en |access-date=1 June 2020 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143451/https://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

For example, the United States had previously accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction upon its creation in 1946 but in 1984, after ''[[Nicaragua v. United States]]'', withdrew its acceptance following the court's judgment that called on the US to "cease and to refrain" from the "unlawful use of force" against the government of Nicaragua. The court ruled (with only the American judge dissenting) that the United States was "in breach of its obligation under the Treaty of Friendship with Nicaragua not to use force against Nicaragua" and ordered the United States to pay [[war reparation]]s.<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

==Law applied==
{{Main|Sources of international law}}

When deciding cases, the court applies international law as summarized in [[s:Statute of the International Court of Justice#Article 38|Article 38]] of the [[Statute of the International Court of Justice|ICJ Statute]], which provides that in arriving at its decisions the court shall apply international conventions, international custom and the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations." It may also refer to academic writing ("the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations") and previous judicial decisions to help [[judicial interpretation|interpret the law]] although the court is not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of ''[[stare decisis]]''. [[s:Statute of the International Court of Justice#Article 59|Article 59]] makes clear that the [[common law]] notion of [[precedent]] or ''[[stare decisis]]'' does not apply to the decisions of the ICJ.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ridi |first1=Niccolò |title=Rule of Precedent and Rules on Precedent |journal=International Procedure in Interstate Litigation and Arbitration |date=30 November 2021 |pages=354–400 |doi=10.1017/9781108961387.017 |isbn=9781108961387 |s2cid=225225897 }}</ref> The court's decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy. Under 38(1)(d), however, the court may consider its own previous decisions and frequently cites them.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ridi |first1=Niccolò |title=The Shape and Structure of the 'Usable Past': An Empirical Analysis of the Use of Precedent in International Adjudication |journal=Journal of International Dispute Settlement |date=1 June 2019 |volume=10 |issue=2 |pages=200–247 |doi=10.1093/jnlids/idz007 }}</ref>

If the parties agree, they may also grant the court the liberty to decide ''[[ex aequo et bono]]'' ("out of equality, and for the good"),<ref>Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 38(2)</ref> granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on what is fair under the circumstances. {{As of|2025|January}}, that provision has not been used in the court's history.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Malat |first=Jen |date=2025-01-21 |title=Ex Aequo et Bono: The Justice Route in the International Court of Justice « Law# « Cambridge Core Blog |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/blog/2025/01/21/ex-aequo-et-bono-the-justice-route-in-the-international-court-of-justice/ |access-date=2025-10-01 |language=en-GB}}</ref> {{As of|2025|September}}, the International Court of Justice has dealt with 201 cases.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Cases {{!}} INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/cases |access-date=2025-10-01 |website=www.icj-cij.org}}</ref>

==Procedure==
The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in the ''Rules of Court of the International Court of Justice 1978'' (as amended on 29 September 2005).<ref name="ReferenceB"/>

Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant, which files a written memorial setting out the basis of the court's jurisdiction and the merits of its claim. The respondent may accept the court's jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of the case.

===Preliminary objections===
A respondent that does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the court may raise preliminary objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the court can address the merits of the applicant's claim. Often, a separate public hearing is held on the preliminary objections and the court will render a judgment. Respondents normally file preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility refers to a range of arguments about factors the court should take into account in deciding jurisdiction, such as the fact that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a "legal dispute".

In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before the court. If the case necessarily requires the court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has not consented to the court's jurisdiction, the court does not proceed to issue a judgment on the merits.

If the court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent then is required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant's claim. Once all written arguments are filed, the court holds a public hearing on the merits.

Once a case has been filed, any party (usually the applicant) may seek an order from the court to protect the ''status quo'' pending the hearing of the case. Such orders are known as Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory [[injunction]]s in [[United States law]]. Article 41 of the statute allows the court to make such orders. The court must be satisfied to have ''[[prima facie]]'' jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before it grants provisional measures.

===Applications to intervene===
In cases in which a third state's interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in the case and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state "with an interest of a legal nature" may apply; however, it is within the court's discretion whether or not to allow the intervention. Intervention applications are rare, and the first successful application occurred only in 1991.

===Judgment and remedies===
Once deliberation has taken place, the court issues a majority opinion. Individual judges may issue concurring opinions (if they agree with the outcome reached in the judgment of the court but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority). No appeal is possible, but any party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the meaning or scope of the court's judgment.<ref>Statute of the International Court of Justice, Article 60</ref>

==Criticisms==
The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with [[criticisms of the United Nations]], many critics and opponents of the court refer to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its Charter, rather than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include the following:<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Ogbodo |first1=S. Gozie |title=An Overview of the Challenges Facing the International Court of Justice in the 21st Century |journal=Annual Survey of International & Comparative Law |date=2012 |volume=18 |issue=1 |pages=93–113 |url=http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol18/iss1/7 |access-date=6 June 2016 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143452/https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/annlsurvey/vol18/iss1/7/ |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Suh |first1=Il Ro |title=Voting Behavior of National Judges in International Courts |journal=The American Journal of International Law |date=April 1969 |volume=63 |issue=2 |pages=224–236 |doi=10.2307/2197412 |jstor=2197412 |s2cid=147317419 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=William |first1=Samore |title=National Origins v. Impartial Decisions: A Study of World Court Holdings |journal=Chicago-Kent Law Review |date=1956 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=193–222 |url=http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol34/iss3/1 |access-date=6 June 2016 |issn=0009-3599 |archive-date=11 October 2017 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171011002429/http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cklawreview/vol34/iss3/1/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
* "Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the [[United Nations Security Council|Security Council]]. ICJ rulings are legally binding on states but not enforceable without their approval or compliance.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Der Matossian |first=Bedross |date=1 August 2023 |title=Impunity, Lack of Humanitarian Intervention, and International Apathy: The Blockade of the Lachin Corridor in Historical Perspective |url=http://dx.doi.org/10.3138/gsi-2023-0008 |journal=Genocide Studies International |volume=15 |issue=1 |pages=7–20 |doi=10.3138/gsi-2023-0008 |s2cid=261011186 |issn=2291-1847 |quote=Even though the ICJ ruling is legally binding, any judgments by the ICJ cannot be enforced on a country without the approval of the state. |url-access=subscription }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawal |first=Shola |title=How will South Africa's ICJ case against Israel work? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/10/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-how-will-the-icj-decide |access-date=24 January 2024 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en |archive-date=13 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240513184833/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/10/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-how-will-the-icj-decide |url-status=live }}</ref>
* The International Court does not enjoy a full [[separation of powers]], with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871831,00.html |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20101008084733/http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,871831,00.html |url-status=dead |archive-date=8 October 2010 |title=World Court: Completing the Circle |magazine=Time |date=28 November 1960 |access-date=4 November 2011 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Lawal |first=Shola |title=How will South Africa's ICJ case against Israel work? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/10/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-how-will-the-icj-decide |access-date=24 January 2024 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en |quote=ICJ judges ought to be impartial and not act as extensions of their countries. In the past though, judges have voted in line with their countries' politics. In 2022, when the bench voted in favour of the decision to order Russia out of Ukraine, judges from Russia and China were the only two who voted against the decision. |archive-date=13 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240513184833/https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/1/10/south-africas-genocide-case-against-israel-how-will-the-icj-decide |url-status=live }}</ref> Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of ''[[Nicaragua v. United States]]''.<ref>David Tuyishime, [http://e-journaloflaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Critical-Analysis-on-the-Ineffectiveness-of-the-ICJ-in-the-Settlement-of-Disputes-between-States-The-Example-of-Nicaragua-Case.pdf Critical Analysis on the Ineffectiveness of the ICJ in the Settlement of Disputes between States: The Example of Nicaragua Case], {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180420222408/http://e-journaloflaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Critical-Analysis-on-the-Ineffectiveness-of-the-ICJ-in-the-Settlement-of-Disputes-between-States-The-Example-of-Nicaragua-Case.pdf |date=20 April 2018 }}, E-Journal of Law, Vol 3 (1) 2017.</ref>
* The court has been accused of [[Judicial restraint|judicial parsimony]], with its rulings tending to dismiss submissions of parties on jurisdictional grounds and not resolving the underlying dispute between them.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1093/bybil/brt003 |doi-access=free |title=A Reluctant Guardian: The International Court of Justice and the Concept of 'International Community' |year=2013 |last1=Hernandez |first1=G. I. |journal=British Yearbook of International Law |volume=83 |pages=13–60 }}</ref>
* The court has been accused of exhibiting a political bias, with past research finding "strong evidence" that judges at the ICJ "favour the state that appoints them", "favour states whose wealth level is close to that of the judges' own state", and "favour states whose political system is similar to that of the judges' own state."<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Posner |first1=Eric A. |last2=de Figueiredo |first2=Miguel |date=30 August 2004 |title=Is the International Court of Justice Politically Biased? |url=https://escholarship.org/uc/item/35j504rg |publisher=International Legal Studies Program, [[University of California]], eScholarship ([[California Digital Library]]) |location=[[Berkeley, California]] |language=en |access-date=7 June 2024 |archive-date=24 May 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240524140807/https://escholarship.org/uc/item/35j504rg |url-status=live }}</ref>

==See also==
{{Portal|Politics|Law|Netherlands}}
* [[International Criminal Court]]
* [[International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda]]
* [[International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]]
* [[International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea]]
* [[List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice]]
* [[Provisional measure of protection]]
* [[Supranational aspects of international organizations]]
* [[Universal jurisdiction]]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

==Further reading==
* Accinelli, R. D. "Peace Through Law: The United States and the World Court, 1923–1935". ''Historical Papers / Communications historiques'', 7#1 (1972) 247–261. {{doi|10.7202/030751a}}.
* Bowett, D W. The International court of justice : process, practice and procedure (British Institute of International and Comparative Law: London, 1997).
* Creamer, Cosette & Godzmirka, Zuzanna. "The Job Market for Justice: Screening and Selecting Candidates for the International Court of Justice", ''Leiden Journal of International Law'' (2017).
* Dunne, Michael. "Isolationism of a Kind: Two Generations of World Court Historiography in the United States", ''Journal of American Studies'' (1987) 21#3 pp 327–351.
* Kahn, Gilbert N. "Presidential Passivity on a Nonsalient Issue: President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1935 World Court Fight." ''Diplomatic History'' 4.2 (1980): 137–160.
* Kolb, Robert, [http://www.hartpub.co.uk/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781849462631 The International Court of Justice] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160629091756/http://www.hartpub.co.uk/BookDetails.aspx?ISBN=9781849462631 |date=29 June 2016 }} (Hart Publishing: Oxford, 2013).
* Patterson, David S. "The United States and the origins of the world court". ''Political Science Quarterly'' 91.2 (1976): 279–295. {{JSTOR|2148413}}.
* Rosenne, S., ''Rosenne's the world court: what it is and how it works'' (6th ed.). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2003.
* Van Der Wolf W. & De Ruiter D., "The International Court of Justice: Facts and Documents About the History and Work of the Court" (''International Courts Association, 2011'')
* {{cite SSRN |ssrn=1971008 |title=United Nations Reform Through Practice: Report of the International Law Association Study Group on United Nations Reform |date=11 December 2011 |last1=Wilde |first1=Ralph |last2=Charlesworth |first2=Hilary |last3=Schrijver |first3=Nico |last4=Krisch |first4=Nico |last5=Chimni |first5=B. S. |last6=Gowlland-Debbas |first6=Vera |last7=Klabbers |first7=Jan |last8=Yee |first8=Sienho |last9=Shearer |first9=Ivan}}
* Yee, Sienho. "Article 38 of the ICJ Statute and Applicable Law: Selected Issues in Recent Cases", ''Journal of International Dispute Settlement'' 7 (2016), 472–498.
* Zimmermann, Andreas; Christian Tomuschat, Karin Oellers-Frahm & Christian J. Tams (eds.), ''The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary'' (2nd. ed. October 2012, Oxford University Press).

==External links==
{{Commons category}}
{{Wikiquote}}
* [https://www.icj-cij.org/en Official site]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20190104072741/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/multimedia-index ICJ Multimedia Gallery] (photos, videos, webstreaming)
* [https://www.icj-cij.org/en/list-of-all-cases/introduction/desc List of cases] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221022203024/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/list-of-all-cases/introduction/desc |date=22 October 2022 }} ruled upon by the ICJ since its creation in 1946
* [https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/research-guides/settlement-of-international-disputes/international-court-of-justice/es/settlement-of-international-disputes/international-court-of-justice/ Peace Palace Library – ICJ Research Guide] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303021420/https://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/research-guides/settlement-of-international-disputes/international-court-of-justice/es/settlement-of-international-disputes/international-court-of-justice/ |date=3 March 2021 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/sicj/sicj.html The Statute of the International Court of Justice] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200502134453/https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/sicj/sicj.html |date=2 May 2020 }} on the [https://www.un.org/law/avl/ United Nations AVL] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130911050751/http://untreaty.un.org/cod/avl/ha/ga_95-I/ga_95-I.html |date=11 September 2013 }}: summary of the procedural history, list of selected preparatory documents and audiovisual material related to the negotiations and adoption of the Statute.
* [[International Criminal Court]] : See also, a tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression
* [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC28oiS6IwkVvWL7kLH1-QPg CIJ ICJ: International Court of Justice on Youtube] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200704090143/https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC28oiS6IwkVvWL7kLH1-QPg |date=4 July 2020 }}

===Lectures===
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/ICJ_Conference_CT.html The ICJ in the Service of Peace and Justice] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191024224904/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/ICJ_Conference_CT.html |date=24 October 2019 }}, Conference organized on the Occasion of the Centenary of the [[Peace Palace]]
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Al-Khasawneh_CT.html Lecture] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191107161100/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Al-Khasawneh_CT.html |date=7 November 2019 }} by [[Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh]] entitled "Reflections on the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Bennouna_CT.html Lecture] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191107143052/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Bennouna_CT.html |date=7 November 2019 }} by [[Mohamed Bennouna]] entitled "La Cour internationale de Justice, juge des souverainetés?" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Couvreur_CT.html Lecture] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191107183816/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Couvreur_CT.html |date=7 November 2019 }} by [[Philippe Couvreur]] entitled "La Cour internationale de Justice" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Gowlland-Debbas_CT.html Lecture by Vera Gowlland-Debbas] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191028024744/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Gowlland-Debbas_CT.html |date=28 October 2019 }} entitled "The International Court of Justice as the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Kawano_CT.html Lecture by Mariko Kawano] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029212222/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Kawano_CT.html |date=29 October 2019 }} entitled "Some Salient Features of the Contemporary International Disputes in the Precedents of the International Court of Justice" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Kawano_CT.html Lecture by Mariko Kawano] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191029212222/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Kawano_CT.html |date=29 October 2019 }} entitled "International Court of Justice and Disputes Involving the Interests of Third Parties to the Proceedings or the Common Interests of the International Community as a Whole or of the Community Established by a Convention" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/McWhinney_CT.html Lecture] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181028225711/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/McWhinney_CT.html |date=28 October 2018 }} by [[Edward McWhinney]] entitled "Judicial Activism and the International Court of Justice" in the [http://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20061112205146/http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/ipresscom/ipress2005/ipresscom2005-23_20051107.htm |date=12 November 2006 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Pellet_CT.html Lecture] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191004042532/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Pellet_CT.html |date=4 October 2019 }} by [[Alain Pellet]] entitled "Conseil devant la Cour internationale de Justice" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}
* [https://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Shi_CT.html Lecture] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191107160638/http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Shi_CT.html |date=7 November 2019 }} by [[Jiuyong Shi]] entitled "The Present and Future Role of the International Court of Justice in the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes" in the [https://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html Lecture Series of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law] {{Webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191025111123/http://legal.un.org/AVL/lectureseries.html |date=25 October 2019 }}

{{International Court of Justice}}
{{UN Charter}}
{{United Nations}}
{{Authority control}}

[[Category:International Court of Justice| ]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Courts and tribunals established in 1945]]
[[Category:Netherlands and the United Nations]]
[[Category:Organisations based in The Hague]]
[[Category:Peace organizations]]
[[Category:United Nations courts and tribunals]]
[[Category:United Nations organs]]