Is the International Court of Justice Effective?

Student’s name
Professor’s name
Course
Date
Is the International Court of Justice Effective?
Since the Hague agreement of 1899, settling of international disputes had become a fundamental norm of international relations, which was brought forward by the League of Nations with the primary objective of settling disputes in the international community (Sahai, 2015). The Hague convention was highly attentive to the international judiciary and highly encouraged nations to solve their disputes through the international court before getting into war, efforts which led to the creation of the Permanent Court of International Judiciary (PCIJ) in agreement with article 14 in the League of Nations treaty. Despite the League of Nations establishing the court, it had its means of administering justice. It was independent in its manner of justice implementation. Due to the many countries under the United Nations (UN), there existed conflicts among member states, a crisis which required the UN to settle. This led to the formation of the international court of justice court to administer justice among member states across the globe (Salahuddin, 2013). However, due to the many countries in its jurisdiction the existence of the international court of justice as the United Nation’s overall justice executing body, it faces various setbacks which have led to its ineffectiveness. Thus, this essay paper discusses the international court of justice at length, closely focusing on its ineffectiveness in administering justice to the international community and its signatories.
The international court of justice is internationally regarded as the supreme instrument of justice, however ineffective. It is thought to be the primary means of conflict resolution between states, and it is further recognized worldwide for its significant contribution to international law. Most countries take their inter-states disputes to be handled by the courtCITATION Mos01 \p 182 \l 1033 (Phooko 182). However, the court has failed to execute its effective jurisdiction. It has failed to operate fully to its capacity rendering it ineffective. The court handles only five cases in its jurisdiction in a year. Several reasons are attributed to this and most notably the nature of the court itself. The limited nature in its jurisdictions is one of the main causes of its ineffectiveness. The court is in charge of settling disputes in many countries. Therefore, the number of disputes in these countries, which require the court’s attention, is higher than the court’s capacity to handle. Thus, some of the international disputes are postponed to later dates. The delayed judgment affects the states which had disputes and if it may affect the country’s progress when critical disputes, which should have been settled early in good time end up being delayed (Salahuddin, 2013). This has led to its ineffectiveness. To make it effective, the court should in its docket increase the number of cases to be heard each year or introduce various courts under its jurisdiction to handle more cases.
Moreover, the court handles most of the cases, which are of less international importance. For instance, most of the cases taken to court are dismissed on the basis that they do not range within its jurisdiction. This makes forces the court to handle some cases, which should have been handled by other courts. Also, the court is comprised of fifteen judges appointed by the United Nations to handle grievances among the warring states. It is the interest of the states to decide whether they will take their case to the international court or handle with it locally. This is because some African states feel that the court lacks representatives from their own country and may be unjust in its execution of justice (Salahuddin, 2013). They, therefore, prefer taking the case to other courts where they feel they are well represented. In this way, the court is limited to control such cases. Additionally, most international cases are related to the international criminal court unlike the international court of justiceCITATION Bar11 \p 1599 \l 1033 (Barnes 1599). Therefore, in some cases, the court has few cases to handle within its area of jurisdiction making it ineffective.
The non-compulsory jurisdiction has lowered the effectiveness of the international court of justiceCITATION Bar11 \p 1600 \l 1033 (Barnes 1600). This problem has led to a conflict with some countries advocating for the compulsory jurisdiction while others want it to be optional. Countries which do not want to adopt compulsory jurisdiction argue that it is utopian. The jurisdiction of the court was limited to prevent it from controlling the entire world including the superpowers (former the Soviet Union and the USA). The countries argued that it was too risky to have one Supreme Court making judgments in the international spheres. Thus, the freedom gave the state’s freedom to choose the court to hear their cases. This makes countries to be reluctant in a way because they are already aware that lower courts will settle any international case, and which at times are subject to manipulation.
The international court of justice is fundamentally ineffective because there are no valid reasons why states will prioritize compliance of international law. This, therefore, implicates that deemed necessary, if they are not interested, other countries are likely to fail to comply with the international law. Even when international institutions impose measures for the subordinate countries to comply, they will always fail to inspect and control. This will allow the states to violate the laws without being noticed until when the situation becomes serious. Power in the international community is usually dispersed and fragmented; therefore, the power of the international court of justice is limited, hence rendering it ineffectiveCITATION Wol14 \p 126 \l 1033 (Wolfe 126). For it to be effective, it should be based in one central authority like in one state. However, naturally, most countries obey the international court of justice because of the respect and fear of the superpower countries.
The international court of justice is criticized for showing inconsistency in the accountability to deal with violations of international criminal law. It is therefore accused of ethical and moral issues by serving the self-interest of particular states. It is unrealistic that the international community to entrust the international court of justice to handle all international crimes. The court only handles such cases when the deal is politically and financially advantageous to the concerned state. Scholars argue that there are no precedents to show that states will prioritize the obedience of international law over their state laws, an idea which is considered as selective justice which is applied in most international decisionsCITATION Bar11 \p 1585 \l 1033 (Barnes 1585). Therefore, one should consider the impracticality of handling all crimes in a similar manner.
The international court of justice is criticized for being time-consuming. Most of the cases brought under its jurisdiction tale much time before prosecution. These cases could have been taken to other state courts where the ruling can be made faster. Therefore, the delayed execution of justice makes it ineffective, and most states resolve to settle their disputes at the lower levels to save time. Also, the court is very expensive, and countries which are financially unstable may find it difficult to have their cases heard by the court (Salahuddin, 2013).
Additionally, the court has 15 judges who are appointed from most countries in the United States. This makes some African countries fail to have their cases heard by the court because they feel the court would rule in favor of countries which appointed the judges. In this way, some states tend to disregard the court’s supremacy and decide to have their cases heard by other courts, therefore, making the court ineffective because it does not execute all its functions as expected.
Most countries criticize the competence of the ICJ because of its failure to control state behavior. This is by the Nicaragua case where the ICJ failed to administer justice to Nicaragua because of its competence as provided for in Article 59 of the ICJ’s statutes. By analyzing the final ruling on the case of Nicaragua, one can easily notice the quality of the court’s judgment and its ability to handle future-related cases may prove to be ineffectiveCITATION Mos01 \p 187 \l 1033 (Phooko 187). The ICJ fails to have plenary power regarding its ruling on international disputes, and it makes its decisions basing on the states which are parties to the dispute. Lack of plenary power to handle international dispute renders it as ineffective because it lacks an overall ruling to make judgments on international cases, something which should be its top concern.
Additionally, the court’s ability to rule on disputes involving individuals and its ability to make clarifications regarding international law is depended on whether states are willing ...