The rigour, quality and, above all, consistency of its judgments have made the Court of Justice a fairly predictable court in terms of respect for precedents. And this is one of its most important virtues. The ICJ draws on its jurisprudence and that of its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, to provide consistent interpretations of international law in successive judgments and to set an important precedent. There are certainly many examples of this, one of which is consistency regarding the right to consular assistance through the cases of Breard (1988), LaGrand (2001), Avena (2004) and Jadhav (2019). The ICJ has also contributed to the development of international law by making sound and reasoned decisions that build on each other. Although judgments are binding only on the parties in a given case, the Court has established itself as a kind of international “supreme court” that contributes to the uniformity and harmony of international law. The Court of Justice shall exercise its functions as a full court but may, at the request of the parties, set up ad hoc chambers to examine specific cases. A summary trial chamber is elected annually by the Court in accordance with its Statute. A: This should not happen. It is recommended not to reveal your name or profession, only your initials. For example, Lord Woolf, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, will be known as LWLCJEW. If jurors suspect the true identity of another juror, they should not disclose their suspicions, but continue to pretend that the entire jury is made up of ordinary people.
It may be necessary to change accents to reinforce this perception. Established after World War II as the judicial arm of the United Nations, the ICJ suffered from four major shortcomings that made it the least effective organ of the United Nations. Over the past two decades, States have submitted complaints to the Court in areas of international law not previously on the list, such as human rights and environmental protection. As noted by the President of the Court, Judge Joan E. Donoghue, the Court has been able to deal with these disputes, including those involving complex technical and scientific issues. In the future, it can be assumed that diversification will continue. For example, ongoing processes could lead to the adoption of legally binding international agreements on marine plastic pollution, conservation and sustainable use of the high seas, cybercrime and pandemic prevention, areas of law that could possibly be considered by the Court in future cases. This proliferation of legal mechanisms at the beginning of the 21st century has led to a discussion in academic circles about a possible fragmentation of international law. There was concern that these judicial bodies might have different, even contradictory, interpretations, because international law does not have the vertical control mechanisms to ensure uniformity, as exists in national law, European law or even in the inter-American system.
Judgements of the ICJ and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with different thresholds for international crimes have further fuelled this debate, and in 2006 the International Law Commission began preparing a study on the subject. As former ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted, “these concerns have not proven to be significant.” In fact, such fragmentation has not occurred, largely because of the largely unchallenged authority of the ICJ. Although not conceived as a “world constitutional court”, the Court`s judgments and orders are widely respected and cited by other international courts and tribunals. Admittedly, its coherence is a key element of this outcome. The sources of law to be applied by the Court are: existing international treaties and conventions; international custom; general principles of law; judicial decisions; and the teachings of the most qualified publicists. Moreover, if the parties so agree, the Court may rule ex aequo et bono on a case, i.e. without limiting itself to the existing rules of international law. However, it is rare for the ICJ to allow international organizations other than the one requesting the opinion to participate in advisory procedures.
The only international non-governmental organizations ever authorized by the ICJ to provide information ultimately failed to do so (South West African International Statute). The Court rejected all such claims from private parties. The task of the Court is to settle disputes submitted to it by States in accordance with international law and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized organs and specialized agencies of the United Nations. As with any international institution, challenges will remain. As the issues raised in this text show, much remains to be done in areas such as acceptance of the judiciary, respect for rules, enforcement of decisions and even the fight against diversity and multilingualism. Despite these difficulties, in its first 76 years of existence, the Court has rendered a great service to the international community and made unique contributions to world peace.