is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN).
Formation: It was established in June 1945 by the Charter of UN, to replace the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) Started working in April 1946, upon the dissolution of the PCIJ Seat of ICJ: Hague, Netherlands Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) -5 Chapters , 70 Articles Membership: o all UN members are automatically ipso-facto members of the Statute. o non-member states can also join, upon recommendation by the UN Security Council and upon fulfillment of criteria e.g. Switzerland Composition: it consists of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council for a 9-year term Proceedings : in two languages: French and English written pleadings or oral presentations hearings of witnesses commissions for investigations proceedings take place in closed doors decisions are read in open doors Majority voting The ICJ verdict is seeked by States on a voluntary basis Decisions are final and binding for states no appeals Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: 1. Only States May be Parties to Cases before the Court
2. Contentious Jurisdiction & Advisory Jurisdiction Dual role: 1. Contentious cases: settling legal disputes between States submitted to it by them Only States may be parties to contentious cases. The Court is competent to entertain a dispute only if the States concerned have accepted its jurisdiction. 2. Advisory proceedings: Requests for advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by the 5 organs of the United Nations organs and 16 specialized agencies The United Nations General Assembly and Security Council may request advisory opinions on any legal question. Other United Nations organs and specialized agencies can only ask for advice on their special area. Evaluation of the work performed by the ICJ Positive contribution of the ICJ: The ICJ is often thought of as the primary means for the resolution of disputes between States, and in fact the Court is well-recognized for its significant contribution to the development of international law. significant contribution in the prevalence of international law and the maintenance of the international order A high percentage of compliance with international law upon decisions of the ICJ has been noted Pessimistic view: the ICJ has not been so successful in solving inter-state disputes, as states refuse to recognize its jurisdiction The International Court of Justice has been severely criticized for its limited effectiveness the many failures it has experienced limitations on jurisdiction and enforcement powers examples of cases of refusal to comply with the decision of the ICJ: the Corfu Channel Case and the US-Nicaragua Case. Problems - Areas of criticism The Court has not operated at full capacity. Only 4-5 cases are referred to the Court for judicial settlement every year minimalist approach to decision-making; several notable cases have been dismissed on procedural grounds. the possible human bias the time consuming nature of ICJ proceedings, the strengthening of the rule of law by international tribunals limiting its power but the most important reason is the extent of the ICJs jurisdiction and its limited ability to enforce its verdicts. The limited nature of the Courts jurisdiction is seen as the essential cause of its ineffectiveness states do not collectively view the Court as a legitimate and effective conict manager it is much more common for states to recognize the ICJs jurisdiction through clauses in bilateral or multilateral treaties Need for effective reform of the ICJ in order to extend its jurisdiction globally, even if staying under the current Statute the most ambitious reform would be to rebuild a new ICJ Structure and Statute Aim of a successful reform: to limit the shortcomings of the ICJ, in order to prevail as the most significant and important court, to reach its full potential
G.R. No. 120880. June 5, 1997. Ferdinand R. Marcos Ii, Petitioner, vs. Court of Appeals, The Commissioner of The Bureau of Internal Revenue and Herminia D. de Guzman, Respondents