Editing International Court of Justice (section)

==Jurisdiction==
{{Main|Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice}}

[[File:International Court of Justice parties.svg|thumb|right|upright=1.5|{{legend-table|lang=en|title=  |#00aa00|Parties upon becoming a UN member|MediumBlue|Parties prior to joining the UN under Article 93|#ff1111|UN observer states that are not parties}}]]

As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all {{UNnum}} UN members are automatically [[Party (law)|parties]] to the court's statute.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |title=Chapter XIV {{!}} United Nations |work=United Nations |access-date=21 November 2017 |archive-date=25 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725083309/http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>[https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear States entitled to appear before the Court.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240424045551/https://www.icj-cij.org/states-entitled-to-appear |date=24 April 2024 }} Retrieved 1 January 2024</ref> Non-UN members may also become parties to the court's statute under the Article 93(2) procedure, which was used by Switzerland in 1948 and Nauru in 1988, prior to either joining the UN.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&lang=en|title=Chapter I – Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice: 3 . Statute of the International Court of Justice|date=9 July 2013|access-date=9 July 2013|publisher=[[United Nations Treaty Series]]|archive-date=17 October 2013|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131017035748/http://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=I-3&chapter=1&lang=en|url-status=dead}}</ref> Once a state is a party to the court's statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the court. However, being a party to the statute does not automatically give the court jurisdiction over disputes involving those parties. The issue of [[jurisdiction]] is considered in the three types of ICJ cases: contentious issues, incidental jurisdiction, and advisory opinions.<ref>{{Cite book|title=International Dispute Settlement|url=https://archive.org/details/internationaldis00merr|url-access=limited|last=J. G. Merrills|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2011|isbn=978-0521153393|location=New York|pages=[https://archive.org/details/internationaldis00merr/page/n143 116]–134}}</ref>

===Contentious issues===
[[File:Eerste na-oorlogse zitting van het Internationaal Hof van Justititie Weeknummer 48-09 - Open Beelden - 30541.ogv|thumb|First gathering after Second World War, Dutch newsreel from 1946]]
In contentious cases (adversarial proceedings seeking to settle a dispute), the ICJ produces a binding ruling between states that agree to submit to the ruling of the court. Only [[Sovereign state|states]] may be parties in contentious cases; individuals, corporations, component parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs, and [[self-determination]] groups are excluded from direct participation, although the court may receive information from public [[international organization]]s. However, this does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings; for example, a state may bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations, such as in matters concerning diplomatic protection.<ref>See the ''Nottebohm Case'' (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), [1955] ICJ Reports 4.</ref>

Jurisdiction is often a [[ICJ#Procedure|crucial question for the court]] in contentious cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Under Article 36, there are four foundations for the court's jurisdiction:
# ''Compromis'' or "special agreement", in which parties provide explicit consent to the court's jurisdiction by referring cases to it. While not true compulsory jurisdiction, this is perhaps the most effective jurisdictional basis, because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the court, and are thus more likely to comply with the court's judgment.
# Compromissory clauses in a binding treaty. Most modern [[treaty|treaties]] contain such clauses to provide for dispute resolution by the ICJ.<ref>See [[List of treaties that confer jurisdiction on the ICJ]].</ref> Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement, since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the [[Iran hostage crisis]], Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in the [[Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations]] and did not comply with the judgment.<ref>''Case Concerning United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran'' (USA v Iran), [1979] ICJ Reports 7.</ref> Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined; many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of [[arbitration]].<ref>See Charney J "Compromissory Clauses and the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice" (1987) 81 ''American Journal of International Law'' 855.</ref>
# Optional clause declarations accepting the court's jurisdiction. Also known as Article 36(2) jurisdiction, it is sometimes misleadingly labeled "compulsory", though such declarations are voluntary. Many such declarations contain reservations that exclude from jurisdiction certain types of disputes (''ratione materia'').<ref>See Alexandrov S ''Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice'' (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 1995).</ref> The principle of [[reciprocity (international relations)|reciprocity]] may further limit jurisdiction, as Article 36(2) holds that such declaration may be made "in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation...".<ref name="icj-cij.org">{{Cite web|title=Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations|access-date=30 May 2021|website=International Court of Justice|archive-date=15 August 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170815194446/https://www.icj-cij.org/en/declarations|url-status=live}}</ref> As of January 2018, seventy-four states had a declaration in force, up from sixty-six in February 2011;<ref name="icj-cij.org"/> of the permanent Security Council members, only the United Kingdom has a declaration.<ref>For a complete list of countries and their stance with the ICJ, see {{cite web |url-status=dead |url=http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3 |title=Declarations Recognizing as Compulsory the Jurisdiction of the Court |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110629194034/http://www.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/index.php?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3|archive-date=29 June 2011 |access-date=21 February 2011 |website=International Court of Justice }}</ref> In the court's early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the 1986 ''[[Nicaragua v. United States|Nicaragua]]'' case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the court.<ref>Cesare P.R. Romano, "[http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing_Countries_Part2.pdf International justice and developing countries (continued): a qualitative analysis]", ''The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals'' '''1''': 539–611, 2002. Kluwer Law International. Printed in the Netherlands, pp. 575–576. "Over the decades, developing countries have significantly changed their attitudes toward the ICJ, to the point that while their participation accounted for 50% of the contentious cases filed in the 1960s, in the 1990s they were the source of 86% of the cases". {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204010717/http://cesareromano.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Developing_Countries_Part2.pdf |date=4 February 2017 }}.</ref> However, even those industrialized countries that have invoked optional declarations have sometimes increased exclusions or rescinded them altogether. Notable examples include the [[Nicaragua v. United States#U.S. defense and response|United States in the ''Nicaragua'' case]], and Australia, which modified its declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on [[maritime boundary|maritime boundaries]], most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor, which gained independence two months later.<ref>Burton, Bob (17 May 2005). "[https://web.archive.org/web/20050618081721/http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/GE17Ae02.html Australia, East Timor strike oil, gas deal]". ''[[Asia Times]]''. Retrieved 21 April 2006.</ref>
# Article 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Statute of the [[Permanent Court of International Justice]]. Article 37 similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
Additionally, the court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (''[[forum prorogatum]]''). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction is established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads [[on the merits]]. This arose in the 1949 [[Corfu Channel Case]] (U.K. v. Albania), in which the court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.{{Citation needed |date=March 2024}}

=== Incidental jurisdiction ===
Until rendering a final judgment, the court has competence to order interim measures for the protection of the rights of a party to a dispute. One or both parties to a dispute may apply the ICJ for issuing interim measures. In the ''Frontier Dispute'' Case, both parties to the dispute, [[Burkina Faso]] and [[Mali]], submitted an application to the court to indicate interim measures.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/69/9961.pdf|title=Provisional measures are indicated in the case of the Frontier Dispute |date=10 January 1986 |publisher=International Court of Justice |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171209093847/http://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/69/9961.pdf|archive-date=9 December 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> Incidental jurisdiction of the court derives from the Article 41 of its Statute.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute|title=Statute of the Court |website=International Court of Justice|language=en|access-date=2 November 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180307151033/http://www.icj-cij.org/en/statute|archive-date=7 March 2018|url-status=dead}}</ref> Similar to the final judgment, the order for interim measures of the court are binding on state parties to the dispute. The ICJ has competence to indicate interim measures only if the ''[[prima facie]]'' jurisdiction is satisfied.{{citation needed|date=March 2020}}

===Advisory opinions===
[[File:Grand Hall de Justice de Palais de La Paix à La Haye Pays-Bas.jpg|thumb|Audience of the "Accordance with International Law of the [[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on Kosovo's declaration of independence|Unilateral Declaration of Independence]] by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo"]] An [[advisory opinion]] is a function of the court open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies. The UN Charter grants the General Assembly or the Security Council the power to request the court to issue an advisory opinion on any legal question. Organs of the UN other than the General Assembly or the Security Council require the General Assembly's authorization to request an advisory opinion of the ICJ. These organs of the UN only request an advisory opinion regarding the matters that fall within the scope of their activities.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html|title=Chapter XIV|publisher=United Nations |work=Charter of the United Nations |language=en|access-date=3 November 2017|archive-date=25 July 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180725083309/http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/chapter-xiv/index.html|url-status=dead }}</ref> On receiving a request, the court decides which states and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements. Advisory opinions were intended as a means by which UN agencies could seek the court's help in deciding complex legal issues that might fall under their respective mandates.

In principle, the court's advisory opinions are only consultative in character but they are influential and widely respected. Certain instruments or regulations can provide in advance that the advisory opinion shall be specifically binding on particular agencies or states, but inherently they are non-binding under the Statute of the court. This non-binding character does not mean that advisory opinions are without legal effect, because the legal reasoning embodied in them reflects the court's authoritative views on important issues of international law. In arriving at them, the court follows essentially the same rules and procedures that govern its binding judgments delivered in contentious cases submitted to it by sovereign states.

An advisory opinion derives its status and authority from the fact that it is the official pronouncement of the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/27/un-general-assembly-requests-world-court-advisory-opinion-israels |title=The UN General Assembly Requests a World Court Advisory Opinion on Israel's Separation Barrier |author=Pieter H.F. Bekker |date=12 December 2003 |publisher=American Society of International Law |access-date=21 November 2017 |archive-date=2 January 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210102143450/https://www.asil.org/insights/volume/8/issue/27/un-general-assembly-requests-world-court-advisory-opinion-israels |url-status=live }}</ref>

Advisory opinions have often been controversial because the questions asked are controversial or the case was pursued as an indirect way of bringing what is really a contentious case before the court. Examples of advisory opinions can be found in the section [[List of International Court of Justice cases#Advisory opinions|advisory opinions]] in the [[List of International Court of Justice cases]] article. One such well-known advisory opinion is the ''[[International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons|Nuclear Weapons Case]]''.

In December 2024, in the first time, the court begun hearings about [[climate change]]. This is the biggest case in the history of the court: 99 countries and more than 12 intergovernmental organizations will be heard over two weeks.<ref>{{cite news |last1=QUELL |first1=MOLLY |date=3 December 2024 |title=A landmark climate change case opens at the top UN court as island nations fear rising seas |url=https://apnews.com/article/eu-world-court-icj-climate-global-warming-e954301f0258509f67e66ae2762da6f6 |access-date=3 December 2024 |agency=The Associated Press}}</ref> The [[General Assembly of the UN|General Assembly]] requested an advisory opinion addressing two questions: the obligations of States under international law to protect the climate system from anthropogenic emissions for States and for present and future generations, and the legal consequences arising where states, by their acts and omissions, have caused significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment.<ref>{{Cite web |date=12 April 2023 |title=Request for Advisory Opinion Transmitted to the Court Pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 77/276 of 29 March 2023: Obligations of States in Respect of Climate Change |url=https://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20230412-app-01-00-en.pdf |website=ICJ-CIJ.org}}</ref>