UN, US: Ignored by Russia and Israel, the International Court of Justice is hamstrung by a dysfunctional international system in which countries follow (or don't follow) its rulings based on their own double standards, experts say.
In 2022, the UN Supreme Court ordered Russia to halt its invasion of Ukraine, which is still ongoing two years later.
In May, he ordered Israel to immediately halt its ongoing military attacks on the southern Gaza city of Rafah.
Do these refusals to comply with legally binding decisions demonstrate the International Court of Justice's lack of credibility and legitimacy? Not according to analysts interviewed by AFP. Rather, they point to the responsibility of states in the international system.
The ICJ, which has no international police or military, “relies on the will and cooperation of states to implement its decisions,” said Raphaël Nollez Goldbach, a researcher at the French National Center for Scientific Research.
“Of course, there are certain limitations to this,” she continues.
In a statement sent to AFP by the court's press office, the tribunal said “almost all” of its rulings “are complied with by states, but a small number of exceptional cases of non-compliance have significant consequences in international relations.”
Experts argue that this is not the court's fault.
“The credibility problem is basically a government with double standards,” Louis Charbonneau of Human Rights Watch told AFP.
He explained that some Western countries “welcome” the decision regarding Ukraine but have “serious concerns” regarding Israel.
In contrast, countries such as South Africa, which has filed charges of “genocide” against Israel, “have not been as outspoken about Russian atrocities in Ukraine,” he said.
“To have credibility, we need to enforce them across the board – not just with friends and allies but with rivals and competitors. Otherwise we give other governments the excuse and opportunity to do the same thing,” Charbonneau said.
The ICJ's primary role is to arbitrate disputes between states, and most of its rulings concern routine issues such as border demarcation and treaty interpretation.
Jisou Nia of the Atlantic Council think tank said it was important to distinguish between these cases and a small number of flashpoint cases focusing on “core international crimes”.
She specifically points to lawsuits brought by third parties, such as South Africa's lawsuit against Israel over its war with Hamas, and Gambia, which has accused Myanmar of “genocide” against its Muslim Rohingya minority.
An increase in such conflicts “may lead countries to want to abandon existing treaties” that give these countries the power to intervene in conflicts in which they are not directly involved.
Moreover, many countries, including the United States, Russia, China and Israel, are not parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, another court in The Hague that prosecutes individuals who commit crimes.
The issuance of an arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin, as well as requests by the International Criminal Court prosecutor for arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and leaders of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, have sparked strong protests from stakeholders.
Sometimes this was accompanied by pressure and threats of retaliation.
“This reflects how seriously the court takes cases, including those who refuse to be sentenced,” Near said.
For Romuald Sciorra, a researcher at the French Institute for Strategic and International Relations, the credibility issue is not just raised for the ICC and the ICJ.
“All of the institutions of today's multilateral system have lost a great deal of credibility in recent years,” he said, citing in particular the deep divisions in the U.N. Security Council.
This in turn affects the credibility of the ICJ: according to the UN Charter, if one party does not comply with an ICJ ruling, the other party may seek redress from the Security Council.
As Israeli attacks on Rafah continue, South Africa this week called on the Security Council to enforce the International Court of Justice order.
“But in practice, paralysis of the Security Council has prevented the implementation of its own resolutions, let alone the ICJ's rulings,” said Said Benarbia of the International Commission of Jurists.
