2

The Charter of the United Nations states in Article 49 Par 2:

If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.

My question is essentially whether this provision is exhaustive or whether a ruling by the court can be construed to establish additional rights, for example the right to an armed intervention by a third party where international law would not provide such a right without the ruling.

2
  • 2
    It is neither a sufficient nor a necessary condition. The authorization to use force comes through a Chapter VII Security Council decision, which may or may not refer to an ICJ judgment. Jan 8 at 18:47
  • @StandwithGaza Well, we are sure that a Security Council resolution may sanction an armed resolution. But is that the only legal basis for one? For example, in civil law countries there is an obligation specified in the criminal code to help somebody in danger (as long as you wouldn't excessively endanger yourself, etc.). Could a ruling by the ICJ be taken as a "good enough" reason to intervene on similar grounds? Jan 8 at 20:04

1 Answer 1

4

As a practical matter, the ICJ is almost exclusively resorted to in circumstance where all parties agree in advance to honor the decision if it is entered. The ICJ has no meaningful means of enforcing its judgments.

An ICJ ruling can be used as part of the justification for a country's actions, but that is only as relevant as other international actors deem it. International law isn't mostly an arena of binding enforceable decisions the way that domestic law is. Instead, it is mostly part of the rhetoric of international relations. The whole notion of calling international law "law" is somewhat misleading.

2
  • "only as relevant as other international actors deem it": Especially the stronger ones ;-). Jan 9 at 3:36
  • More seriously: The Wikipedia page as well says that "[...] states have standing [...] only with the consent of the responding state." While Israel has decided to appear before the court, I do not think one can say "Israel consents"; it does not find the case legitimate and is unlikely to consent to (and abide by) a possible ruling. As of 2023-01-09, the case is "pending", but it is not outright rejected. Jan 9 at 3:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .