How effective are the interim measures of protection issued by the International Court of Justice in cases relating to the use of force between states and within states

Abstract

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) serves as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. It is also the only court with general subject matter jurisdiction over the disputes occurring between states. The ICJ was established in 1945 and is made up of 15 judges whom are elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. Elections are staggered with five judges being elected every three years and there cannot be more than one judge from a given country. Inherently, the ICJ has three key functions; to provide advisory opinions to some international organizations; to conduct judicial settlements and to appoint arbitrators to other international tribunals in almost all of the world’s states. The ICJ is of considerable importance with the majority of its judgements being on key international disputes between states. Though some states such as the USA in the Nicaragua case and the USA in the LaGrand and have over the years failed to comply with its judgement or even to acknowledge its jurisdiction despite being obliged to do so as parties to the ICJ statute under Article 36(2), the ICJ is a symbol of an international justice system. Among those defending the ICJ, their claims are that the Court plays a leading role in legitimizing the international legal system by working to resolve its disputes in a principled manner. Contrary, the critics of the ICJ argue that the Court’s ruling are politically motivated claiming that the judges always vote in favor of the states that appoint them. The ICJ can hear adversarial proceedings or contentious cases and seek to resolve active disputes where it can render certain non-binding advisory opinions. However, only states can be party to the contentious cases. Additionally, even when it comes to the states, ICJ only has jurisdiction based on consent and not compulsory jurisdiction. Therefore, where there is dispute between two states and one state has not consented to the World Court jurisdiction by treaty by specific agreement once the dispute has arisen, or by some declaration, the ICJ cannot hear the case. The ICJ lacks the power to take binding decisions figured in Article 59 of the ICJ Statute . Article 36(2) also says that at any time a state can declare its resignation from the ICJ which has caused several problems in the Courts’ working where state. Therefore, as Article 36 paragraph 2 is concerned with the compulsory acceptance of the ICJ’s jurisdiction, withdrawal from the ICJ means that the Court lacks jurisdiction over it limiting its issuance of provisional measures. In Article 41 of the ICJ Statute, the ICJ is allocated the authority to indicate provisional measures providing states with interim protection to the rights of either parties. However, the provisional measures rarely receive compliance leading an apparent undermining of the Court’s authority. The ICJ can hear a variety of inter-state legal disputes that the ICJ, but there are some cases that have become common over the years. More than half of its cases involve disputes over land frontiers and maritime boundaries. There have also been cases where the ICJ has contributed to human rights laws. However, the most important role of the ICJ comes when it comes to the use of force and violence in state-to-state dispute amounting to violence and human rights violations. Human rights violations are the root causes of insecurity and conflict which in turn further violate human rights. Violations of human rights can be direct or indirect. The violations can be internationally performed by the state or by the states’ failure to prevent the situation. Violations can be physically violent in nature and can entail rape, assault, murder negligence, kidnapping, extortion, torture, harassment, and endangerment. In line with these violent crimes, the United Nation’s Charter’s one