Editing International Court of Justice (section)

===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}}