The ICJ In Comparison: Understanding the ICJ’s Limited Influence

iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 195

Forthcoming in Melbourne Journal of International Law

30 Pages Posted: 16 Jul 2020 Last revised: 12 Dec 2020

See all articles by Karen J. Alter

Karen J. Alter

Northwestern University - Department of Political Science; University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law - iCourts Center of Excellence

Date Written: June 23, 2020

Abstract

The International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) is the oldest international court in operation, with the authority to adjudicate cases raised by any UN member. It has the broadest jurisdiction of any international court since states can designate or seize the ICJ to resolve disputes involving a broad range of inter-state or international matters. The ICJ also has an advisory function, which can be used to clarify questions of international law. The potential for the ICJ to hear cases involving so many countries, treaties and issues means that the relatively paucity of cases adjudicated across the ICJ’s nearly 75 years in operation is noteworthy. The traditional explanation for this paucity is that the ICJ lacks compulsory jurisdiction and that only states can initiate litigation. This article argues instead that the greatest limitation of the ICJ is its inter-state nature. Part II provides an empirical overview that compares the ICJ’s docket to other international courts, and it explains why the dearth of ICJ litigation is consequential. Part III considers the ICJ through the lens of influencing state behaviour. Drawing on a framework developed in The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights, this part describes three causal pathways through which the ICJ might influence state behavior. It then analyzes the challenges the ICJ faces in using the multilateral and transnational pathways, concluding that the ICJ is best able to influence states by serving as an inter-state arbiter that expresses international law. Since influencing state behavior is not the only way that the ICJ influences international law or international politics, Part IV moves beyond a state-centric focus to consider how ICs build authority vis-à-vis different audiences, including potential future litigants, the larger legal field, and the public. Drawing on a framework developed in the book International Court Authority, this part suggests that the ICJ is able to connect to the legal field of international lawyers, but there are many ways that recalcitrant states can avoid following the ICJ if they so choose. These realities limit ‘national encounters,’ and again underscore how compared to other international courts, the ICJ’s inter-state nature limits its influence. Part V suggests that the ICJ’s limited influence is actually its greatest asset, since its very limits make the ICJ politically palatable. Because of its limits, the ICJ is a rare international court used by democracies and authoritarian countries, and it is the only international legal body used by Islamic law states. I therefore conclude that despite or perhaps because of its limitations, the ICJ is an indispensable international adjudicatory body, meaning if it did not exist today, we would probably want to recreate its limited form anew.

Keywords: International Court of Justice, International Courts, International Politics, International Law, Dispute Settlement

Suggested Citation

Alter, Karen J., The ICJ In Comparison: Understanding the ICJ’s Limited Influence (June 23, 2020). iCourts Working Paper Series, No. 195, Forthcoming in Melbourne Journal of International Law, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3633735 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3633735

Karen J. Alter (Contact Author)

Northwestern University - Department of Political Science ( email )

601 University Place
Evanston, IL 60208
United States

University of Copenhagen, Faculty of Law - iCourts Center of Excellence ( email )

Karen Blixens Plads 16
Copenhagen, DK-2300
Denmark

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Downloads
518
Abstract Views
2,282
Rank
99,604
PlumX Metrics