As global tensions escalate and legal norms are tested on the international stage, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) plays an increasingly vital role in the pursuit of accountability and the preservation of the global legal order. Federica Violi, Associate Professor of International Law at Erasmus School of Law, reflects on the role of the ICJ and what it means for the future of international justice.
The ICJ: Guardian of the global legal system
Established in 1945 as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ settles legal disputes between states and issues advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by international organizations. “The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the foremost permanent international tribunal for the settlement of disputes between states,” Violi explains. “It performs two functions: a contentious (adjudicatory) function and an advisory function.”
For its adjudicatory function, States must consent to the Court’s jurisdiction before it can hear a case, a principle rooted in state sovereignty. This consent can be given in advance, for example through treaty clauses, or after a dispute arises, via mutual agreement between the parties.
From legal abstraction to real-world impact
In recent years, the ICJ’s docket has become more crowded when it comes to ‘community interest’ cases. “We are indeed witnessing a marked increase in recourse to the ICJ,” Violi observes. A particularly significant development is the ICJ’s growing recognition of states’ ability to bring claims based on obligations erga omnes— duties owed to the international community as a whole.
“This development has enabled the Court to hear cases where a state has allegedly breached obligations that safeguard community interests,” says Violi. She cites the ongoing case South Africa v. Israel brought under the Genocide Convention as a “particularly emblematic” example: “South Africa is acting in defense of common and shared values that constitute the backbone of the international legal order.”
Other notable cases, Violi adds, include The Gambia v. Myanmar and Canada and Netherlands v. Syria, where states that were not directly affected stepped forward to uphold fundamental international norms. “These developments signal a shift beyond the traditional bilateral paradigm of international law,” she notes.
Urgency and authority: Provisional measures vs. final judgments
In high-stakes disputes, timing can be critical. The ICJ’s ability to issue provisional measures offers a form of immediate protection while a case is pending. “These measures are, by definition, temporary and precautionary in nature,” Violi explains. “They serve a protective function in a context of utmost urgency.”
But provisional measures, while immediately binding, do not guarantee a final ruling in the same direction. “A finding of prima facie jurisdiction at the provisional stage, for example, does not bind the Court’s ultimate determination,” she emphasizes. Final judgments require a “stricter and higher standard of review” and deliver a definitive resolution of the dispute.
Binding or merely persuasive?
There is often confusion surrounding the legal significance of ICJ decisions — particularly advisory opinions. The Court’s judgements in contentious cases are binding upon the parties. Advisory opinions are not formally binding as such. Yet, Violi stresses, “they carry considerable authoritative weight,” . “Advisory opinions”, she explains, “identify and ascertain existing and binding international legal rights and obligations.”
A case in point is the Court’s advisory opinion on the Israeli occupation over Palestine issued in July 2024. “The ICJ clearly set out the obligations incumbent upon both the state of Israel and third states, including the Netherlands,” Violi remarks.
Parallel tracks: The ICJ and the ICC
As international legal mechanisms multiply, coordination becomes more complex. The ICJ and the International Criminal Court (ICC) may operate simultaneously on similar facts — one addressing state responsibility, the other individual criminal liability.
“The two courts have distinct jurisdictions and mandates, and they operate entirely independently of one another,” Violi clarifies. Yet, cross-referencing is not uncommon. “There can be a degree of informal cross-fertilization between courts… lending persuasive authority to judicial reasoning across institutions.”
Upholding justice amid crisis
Despite the increased visibility of international legal institutions, Violi sounds a note of caution. “The international legal order is under severe strain,” she warns. “The very principles of solidarity and cooperation are being tested, and risk being permanently eroded.”
Still, she finds reason for hope in the continued relevance of the ICJ. “This period of extreme instability is also marked by a continued reliance on international legal institutions, which are still perceived as legitimate and valuable venues for addressing pressing global challenges.”
Court for a changing world
From climate disputes to allegations of genocide, the ICJ is increasingly called upon to deliver legal clarity amid global turmoil. As we appeal to law rather than force, the Court’s authority is more important than ever.
“Reliance on the ICJ”, Violi concludes, “is a reflection of our collective commitment to legal order in an increasingly fragmented world.”
- Associate professor
