International Court of Justice, abbreviated as ICJ by Abbreviationfinder.org, French Cour Internationale de Justice [ku ː r ε tεrnasj ɔ nal də ʒ ys tis], abbreviation C. I. J. [was ʒ i], English International Court of Justice [ ɪ ntə næ ʃ nl k ɔ ː t ɔ f d ʒ ʌ st ɪ s], abbreviation I. C. J. [aɪ si ː d ʒ s ɪ ],the place of the United Nations by the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice 1946 as the “main judicial body” of the UN (Article 92 UN Charter) established court in The Hague (statute of June 26, 1945, procedural rules of May 6, 1946, meanwhile fundamentally revised) at 15 by the UN General Assembly and the UN -Security Council for judges elected for nine years each. The court decides in litigation pending litigation between sovereign states and in expert opinion proceedings at the request of the organs of the United Nations or its specialized agencies. With UN membership, a state also accepts the statute of the ICJ; this gives him access to the court; submission to its jurisdiction also requires a special agreement or unilateral declaration of submission.
Permanent International Court of Justice
Permanent Court of International Justice, Permanent International Court of Justice, French Cour Permanente de Justice International [ku ː r pεrma Nat də ʒ ys tis ε tεrnasj ɔ nal], English Permanent Court of International Justice [ pə ː mənənt k ɔ ː t əv ɪ ntə næ ʃ nl d ʒ ʌ st ɪ s],the international court of justice established within the framework of the statute of the League of Nations with its seat in The Hague (statute of 13/16 December 1920). It existed 1920–46; the International Court of Justice took its place. The Permanent International Court of Justice consisted of 15 judges, who were elected by the League of Nations and the Federal Assembly for nine years, as well as, if necessary, in individual disputes from further judges “ad hoc” due to the appointment of a judge by both parties or if a national of one part of the dispute belonged to the court, a judge by the opposing party. The Permanent International Court of Justice was responsible for all international disputes subject to international law, which were submitted to it and for which the parties had submitted to its jurisdiction, for the matters specifically designated in international agreements and for expert statements on disputes submitted to it by the League of Nations Council or the Federal Assembly or other matters. It dealt with a total of 30 disputes, 22 of which were decided by a total of 32 judgments, and issued 26 expert opinions. In addition to the decided individual cases, his rulings have contributed significantly to the clarification and further development of international law.
More about International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice in The Hague rules primarily in disputes between states, but it can also issue advisory opinions to various bodies within the UN system. Individuals cannot go to court. The court consists of 15 independent judges appointed by the Security Council and the General Assembly for nine years at a time.
The court can only decide cases where all the states involved recognize the jurisdiction of the court, that is, its right to adjudicate. In 2012, 67 states had done so by acceding to a special agreement, but many had made exceptions for special types of disputes. States may also, when concluding bilateral agreements, undertake to refer disputes to the International Court of Justice.
On average, between 1947 and 1990, the court decided only two cases per year. It was perceived as slow and tended to avoid raising controversial targets for treatment. The Court was also criticized by developing countries for representing a Western legal tradition.
Despite the fact that the court’s ruling must be binding on the states, it happens that they are not recognized. Albania, for example, refused to accept a ruling as early as 1949, in which it was ordered to pay damages to Britain after a British ship was damaged by mines in Albanian territorial waters. In another case in the 1980’s, Nicaragua accused the United States of using military force and interfering in its internal affairs. The United States challenged the court’s right to adjudicate on the case and also refused to recognize the verdict that provided for US damages. The US government also withdrew from the agreement to recognize the court’s jurisdiction.
The Nicaragua case is considered to be the background to the fact that more developing countries in the late 1980’s showed greater confidence in the Court. During the 1990’s, its workload increased. Many cases involve the court ruling on land and sea borders in disputes between countries claiming the same areas.