Q.2. Critically examine the jurisdiction of International Court of Justice.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often referred to as the “World Court,” plays a crucial role in international law. The ICJ’s jurisdiction is rooted in its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice. The ICJ’s dual role—deciding contentious cases and providing advisory opinions—reflects its commitment to maintaining peace and promoting international law. Let’s critically examine its jurisdiction:

1. Contentious Cases:
   • The ICJ has jurisdiction in contentious cases between states. These cases involve legal disputes (including territorial disputes, treaty interpretation, and human rights violations) submitted by states to the court.
   • When two or more countries agree to accept the court’s authority, the ICJ produces binding rulings on the issues raised.
2. Advisory Opinions:
   • The ICJ also provides advisory opinions on legal questions.
   • The court issues advisory opinions at the request of United Nations organs, specialized agencies, or related organizations.
   • These opinions help clarify complex legal issues and guide decision-making within the international community.
   • But these opinions are non-binding, meaning they don’t create legally enforceable obligations.

In short, the ICJ has –

1. Limited Jurisdiction:
   • The ICJ’s jurisdiction is consensual, meaning it can only hear cases when both parties agree to submit to its authority.
   • Only states can be parties to contentious cases, excluding disputes involving individuals, corporations, NGOs, and self-determination groups.
   • If a state has not consented to the ICJ’s jurisdiction, the court cannot hear the case.
2. No Criminal Jurisdiction:
   • The ICJ is not a criminal court and cannot try individuals accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity.
   • It lacks a prosecutor to initiate proceedings against individuals.
   • As a result, it cannot address criminal accountability for international crimes.
3. Lack of Enforcement Mechanism:
   • While the ICJ’s rulings are binding on the parties involved, there is no robust system to enforce compliance with its decisions.
   • Unlike domestic courts, the ICJ cannot directly enforce its judgments.
   • States must voluntarily comply with the court’s rulings, which can be challenging in practice.
4. Not an Apex Court:
   • The ICJ is not an apex court to which national courts can turn for final resolution.
   • Parties often seek alternative forums, such as regional or specialty courts, for specific issues.
5. Suo Moto Limitations:
   • The ICJ lacks Suo moto provisions, meaning it cannot initiate cases independently.
   • It relies on requests from states or authorized international bodies to take up cases.

Hence, while the ICJ serves as an essential forum for resolving disputes between states, its limitations underscore the need for complementary mechanisms and continued efforts to strengthen international law.