CRITICAL EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

0
321

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1  Background of the Study

The need to institutionalize a World Court that would respond to the needs of the international community was conceived pursuant to the atmosphere created by the Hague Conferences of 1897 and 1907. Thus, prior to the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, no real step was actually taken in that direction until after the First World War.

It is noteworthy to mention that a lot of challenges are facing the global community arising from the settlement of international disputes.One of the serious challenges is the non-compliance with and non-enforcement of the decisions of the International Court of Justice which is often referred to as the “World Court”. This problem without doubt can threaten and has repeatedly threatened the existence of international dispute settling mechanisms, world peace and indeed the security of all nations of the world.The International Court of Justice (ICJ) was established in 1945 by the United Nations Charter and as the new court, it took over from the Permanent Court of International Justice (P.C.I.J.). The organization and structure of the ICJ and its statutes remain virtually the same with the P.C.I.J.[1]Thus, the essence of establishing the ICJ is for the purpose of judicial settlement of disputes arising from inter-states relationships. Deriving from this principal function of the Court, the study seeks to conduct an assessment of the effectiveness of the Court by virtue of evaluation of post-judgment conditions of the Court’s pronouncements. The essence of this study therefore, is to uncover the reasons behind any perceived weaknesses of the Court and to make recommendations for its improvement and strengthening.

The Covenant of League of Nations made moves for the formation of a World Court and in 1920 the P.C.I.J. was formed. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) replaced P.C.I.J. after the Second World War and Article 92 of the United Nations Charter described it as the “Principal Judicial Organ of the United Nations”.[2]Upon failure to comply with the judgement of the ICJ, the United Nations Charter authorize the United Nations Security Council to enforce the judgments of the World Court but findings have shown that, the power of enforcement is subject to the veto power of the five (5) permanent and paramount members in the Security Council.[3]

1.2  Statement of the Problem

Recent events show that the issue of International Court of Justice as it concerns the effect of its judgments and effectiveness of its pronouncements is giving most writers and scholars, serious concerns.Notwithstanding the concerns, none of the states or individuals hasmade efforts to see that the judgments of the said court are effective by amending the United Nations Charter to reflect separation of power which will give real “judicial independence” to the International Court of Justice because, as it stands, the Security Council with the veto power of the five permanent members can decide whether the judgment of the International Court of Justice should be executed or not. They can also decide to overrule the judgment of the International Court of Justice, without any consequence.


[1]Certain similarities and dissimilarities exist between the PCIJ and the ICJ. It should be noted that the  Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was an international treaty concluded in Geneva on 13th, December 1920 by representatives of 46 states, most of which came from the Allied Powers of the First World War. It was registered in League of Nations Treaty Series on October 8, 1921 and brought the PCIJ into existence at The Hague, Netherland, pursuant to Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations on the 28th April, 1919.

However, the operation of this court was affected when Germany and Japan indicated their interest to withdraw from the League of Nations. This resulted in Germany’s withdrawal from two pending cases before the Court and subsequently invaded the Netherlands during the Second World War. This disrupted the Court’s operation as all diplomatic ties were severed from the Netherlands and Consular officers were recalled. Further, upon the abolition of the League of Nations and subsequent replacement with the United Nations, the PCIJ was also replaced with the International Court of Justice, which commenced operation with most of the Judges of the PCIJ. It should be noted that while the PCIJ Statute was made of 64 Articles with limited jurisdictions, the coming into force of the ICJ required expanded jurisdiction to take care of the fallouts of states relationships of the Second World War as reflected in Article 36 of the ICJ Statute.

[2]Its critical roles in the fulfillment of the purpose and objectives of the UN that is, to bring about development by peaceful means and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, and further, Article 1 of the UN Charter states that “adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace”. Thus, the Court was designed to settle legal disputes submitted to it by States (these are brought by appropriate means of contentious procedure). The Court also gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized United Nations organs and specialized agencies (this is called the advisory procedure). The sum total of the foregoing is that the Court function in accordance with its Statute which forms an integral part of the Charter (Art. 92, UN Charter)

[3]The Five Permanent Members of the United Nations includes: China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. However, there are ten non-permanent members elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly: the details of the current non-permanent members and their end of term dates are as follows: Angola (2016), Egypt (2017), Japan (2017), Malaysia (2016), New Zealand (2016), Senegal (2017), Spain (2016), Ukraine (2017), Uruguay (2017), Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of) (2016). More details of the functioning of these members could be found at . Visited on 18/03/2016