Role of the International Court of Justice - Essay Example

Role of the International Court of Justice Task: Role of the International Court of Justice The international court of justice serves as the principal judicial organ. It has fifteen judges who are usually elected by the general assembly together with the Security Council who do the voting independently and concurrently. The court is charged with the responsibility of deciding differences between countries who volunteer to participate regarding state concerns. Once a state has committed to participate, it is compelled to adhere to the decisions come by the court. The court also provides advisory services to the United Nations including its agencies. Taking an example of Georgia and Russia, the court dismissed Georgia’s case based on jurisdiction after Georgia accused Russia of ethnic cleansing during the double breakaway within the two provinces in Georgia namely south Ossetia and Abkhazia as the conflict went ahead between the 7th and the 12th august in 2008. Georgia went ahead to report the issue at the international court of justice in 2008 with claims that; Russian separatist militia and authority kept killing Georgia nationals continuously for more than twenty years. As such, Georgia claimed that over three hundred thousand people had been displaced. There was a long running campaign against discrimination that resulted to the event in 2008. Russia defended the case by giving two objections to the case. Russia on the defensive end claimed that the case between them was as a result of a dispute between the two countries as defined; by the convention on the elimination of racial discrimination under which Georgia made its claims on the case as they reported to the court. In order to show clearly about a dispute under article 22 of the convention on the elimination of racial discrimination, a nation must show disagreement among it and any other conflicting state respective to the application of this chapter. In this case, the court made its conclusion that there were no findings on the dispute between the two conflicting states based on discrimination as the starting of the armed conflict in between them in the august 2008. There was evidence found by the court about this allegation as made by Georgia hence the court dismissed the argument made by Russia in this case. Russia became successful in the second objective as Georgia made a claim that the article never covered the obligation to carry out negotiations before proceeding to court. As the court was making the ruling, it made emphasis on the point of the claim that was made about settling by negotiations. Article 22 was used in defining a dispute, and it was realised that negotiation was weighty and referred to having negotiations before proceeding to court. Wider consultations were made on the same issue where it was found out that according to the French translation negotiations had already taken place in an attempt to settle the matter before taking steps to involve the court. The definition was found to be an attempt of one of the disputing side to make negotiations with the other party genuinely. The discussion was to be for the idea of trying to settle the dispute1. Georgia was found not to have made such attempts of trying to resolve the problem with Russia before proceeding to court. As a result, there was withholding of Russia second objection and the court did not go ahead to examine the third and fourth preceding objection. The case never proceeded to the merit stage as there was no basis for qualifying it to the next stage reasoning from the point of jurisdiction. Regardless of the tremendous efforts made by the international court in the settlement of differences between countries, the current state of this entire process of peace making between states and resolving disputes are not in existence as reported by the high level panel. The court has developed in the recent years to some significant level resulting to the amicable settling of cases between states experiencing differences. There has been a record of the increasing number of cases reported to the court but it still under utilised by the stakeholders; for the purpose of settling disputes more so the advisory jurisdiction which needs more utilisation. The ICJ is the principal organ of UN as stated in the chatter of the United Nations and as stipulated in the statute of the ICJ. The scope of coverage falls in between all disputes brought forward to the court by the member states for the purpose of settlement as per the international law. The court may also give its own advisory opinion on the legal questions forwarded; to it by the general assembly or by the council concerned with security. This including cases duly authorised by the united nation body or other specialised agencies concerning legal procedures; coming up within the stretch of the activities that they get involved in. The aspects, which should be considered include a stronger and more active function as performed by the ICJ2. This should be considered and enlightened under the view that the UN establishes reforms directed towards promoting and strengthening the main principles upheld by the court. This refers to the point than all the subscribers should ensure that they solve their problems; peacefully so that the international peace and well being is not put at a limbo. The global community refers to more than the national communities that we are well versed with. It involves other bodies such as the United Nations and the other unions that exist at international levels3. Multinational companies are also part of it since they contribute much to the global economy, but most notable of all are the way in which humans relate at international levels. In so doing it I upon the humans to shape the international outlook of peaceful co existence among themselves as enabled by the international court of justice. States give responsibility to its individual members to ensure no breach of the peace. They are also the primary participants in the international formation and implementation. New customary laws are made by the international community and form the majority of the treaties. The votes of the states who are members of the global community take control of every activity that the organisations take part in4. As such, the laws govern the international community members conduct including those of cooperation’s, individuals and NGOs. This backbone role carried out by the states is extremely crucial to the global community despite its diverse nature. Equality of states is always considered a principle applied in international law, but their diverse nature is highly appreciated in the daily life. The total members of the United Nations make a large number with a big population, military power and economic power5. The territories of these member states range from large to small with varied gross domestic products. The other feature of the global community is the relationship between the power held by the core organisation, and that of more influential members far much varies from what exists at the global community. This coming together never transformed the institutions and communities which never intended to embrace change. This is more evident from the United Kingdom where Lord Halifax made it clear that the formation; of the United Nations chanter was not a guarantee for peace, but it calls for more sacrifice. The court was started way back in the 1945 but started functioning in the 1946 where events such as the League of Nations became integral sections of the United Nations. The rules and structures of the permanent pre war court were adopted. The united nation chatter decided that this court was to be the supreme judicial system for; the United Nations every member of the UN was a party to the statute and had to comply fully. This became the only outstanding global community judicial system at the point of its start. However, today it has been supported by various courts and tribunals that deal with other issues that call for justice in the international community. The international court of justice is distinguished by given features that other courts and tribunals lack. All the members who subscribe to the court have the right to take part in the voting in the general assembly; in selecting the judges and should be free to file a case at any point. As such the last election that was held had participants from all member states. This brings about the universal nature of the court which is not the same case as for other courts or tribunals. There is a wider scope of jurisdiction not limited to specific areas of the international law; like in the case with other courts and tribunals which do not cover the whole range of international law. There are various cases being handled by the court concerning the land and sea boundaries, environmental concerns, cases involving former heads of states and issues that include the international community as a whole6. There are two different types of cases where the court has jurisdictions, among which decisions meant to bind two states under dispute which is normally confined to the cases between the involved states. Individual cooperation’s, on the other hand has no right to sew or to be sewed in court. The other type of case that falls within the jurisdiction of the court includes; the request for advice and opinion on legal issues with international implications. The requests may be made by other stake holders such as the Security Council and the general assembly or any other united nation distinctive body. The court has binding laws under article 66 (2) which dictates which states can purify tune the information on a question for elaboration. However, in case the subject is of a wider scope of importance, all members may be required to take part. The court may also involve other parties who are not stake holders where the information being sought for is not of significant importance. All these are done as per the constitution which s a legally binding document. The main idea here is that the court jurisdiction is dependent; on the consent obtained from the parties to a specific case. In case there was consent before the two parties the court may not be in a position to merit the case involving the two. The court may approach the issue in a number of ways one of which is concluding the case after the two sides; have come to an agreement that the case should be taken to court after a dispute occurs between them. This is usually referred to as the compromise. In case of an advance dispute, consent may be acquired based on given treaties signed before. Such disputes occur on the treaties before any of the side’s forwards the issue of contention to the court. Multilateral treaties may be a constant source of information on how to handle the matter. For example, the international aviation treaties and those of terrorism define the boundaries on the code of conducts and manner of carrying out activities in a way that is safe for all. In case of breach of this, any of the member states is free to report it in court. The court has the capacity to hear a case in which the respondent is highly opposed to the hearing, yet there was a prior treaty that gave consent to the case. The need for consent is not looked into once it was put into consideration in the prior treaties7. The limiting factor on consent is the terms as prescribed in the relevant treaties under scrutiny. The interpretation and application of the treaty agreement; becomes the main challenge on the subject matter since, in other cases, it may just be quoted. The court is only limited to the treaty in question and no other regardless of either sides wanting to have other matters resolved also at the same time. Other compromising clauses are the procedures that need to be cleared before making steps to beginning the court. This depends on the word components of given provisions; however, the court take such as preconditions such that failure to make satisfactions before application may hinder the court from proceeding with the case. The scheme under which consent can be contained is looked into under section 36(2) of the statute. The international law is put into consideration in this case. However, this is known as the optional clause where states may choose to abide by it or choose not to8. Russia and china have never made declarations to allow them bring proceeding against any of the member states who also subscribe to the same declaration. The impacts of these limits on the court is that there are several differences that Consent falls at a precondition for jurisdiction, and the court has faithfully adhered to this. There are various suggestions made in the recent past claiming that; this should not appeal for cases which are considered to be jus congenus (rule coming before a higher legal steak than other rules at ordinary level). The court has also appreciated rules of this nature but has remained strict; to the rule that appear to have been constantly violated which, does not apply to the view that the court reserves jurisdictions for adjudicating on these allegations9. The case proceedings in the court may take relatively long time in order to complete. This basically because either side has the right to request pleadings, which are given a period of about a year or even more. Some contentious cases record some level of agency as provided for by article 41 where protection is called for in cases where irreparable harm can be sustained. The court has the powers to consider or not to consider grants and does all examinations to ascertain whether it has consent or not. The Security Council may decide to impose sanctions, authorise military actions, so as to enforce the judgements made in the court. However, this has never been done practically. The court rely on the willingness of the states that received the directives to abide by them and the external pressure originating from the international community loaded upon a recalcitrant member. The judgements made in the common courts are such that the judges write their own judgement. The judgement is done based on the majority as in the European court of justice. However, the international court follows a course between the two systems10. The judgement is given in a civil law design, but the vote based on the operative paragraph reading; on the judgement in a way that it is possible to mark each judge with his or her judgement. The international court of justice has made efforts in ensuring justice but not to the level that most countries have put in their system; for instance, the United States and Russia. Most of the vital conflicts still go on with oppressions taking centre stage. Russia and Georgia for that matter have exhibited this with Russia being on the side oppressing their opponent as claimed. The possibilities of some of this dispute taking course in the course are close to zero. One of the major contributors of this factor is the issue of limited jurisdiction, which is not given a wider scope for it to be effective11. The global community exhibit relative peace as per maritime boundaries is concern. This has been achieved by adherence to the rule of law by the global community. Most states have learnt to listen and respect the court’s ruling on most contagious issues. The only left challenge for the court is ensuring that there is fair; with the case load hat it currently has so as to realise its full contribution to the international justice. The other part is left for the stakeholders, compliance with the laws and abiding by the set conducts. Considering Georgia’s case against Russia, the technical basis under which the court dismissed the case was in accordance with its powers. Before making any ruling, references were made in order to find out what was best for the two sides as per the law. This was not resolved at international level but lead to continuous negotiations in Geneva under deadlock. However, the court made it more apparent on the issues hindering the success of the negotiation. The future outcome of the situation becomes the fear since Georgia may probably re-file its case regardless of the court being reluctant to handle the case. The international court of justice ensures peaceful coexistence among states and provides advice where necessary to the member states when sought for. Work Cited Sing, Nagandra. The role and record of the international court of justice. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1989. Burgis, Michelle. Boundaries of discourse in the international court of justice: mapping argument in Arab territorial dispute. Netherlands: BRILL, 2009. International court of justice, bibliography of the international court of justice. New Delhi: UN publication, 2007. UN publication. Report of the International Court of Justice, 1 August 1995-31 July 1996.new delhi: UN publication 1996. UN. Yearbook of the International Court of Justice 2003-2004, Issue 58; Issues 2003-2004. UN 2007. Malanczuk, Peter. Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law. London: Routledge, 1997. Schwebel, Stephen. Justice in International Law: Further Selected Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011. Fitzmaurice, Malgosia and Lowe, Vaughan. Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice: Essays in Honour of Sir Robert Jennings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. International criminal court. The International Court of Justice: Questions and Answers About the Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations. Netherlands: United Nations Publications, 2000. Thorpe, the parsons guide to CDS entrance examination. Canada: Parsons education 2011. Read More