The International Court of Justice Today: Current Challenges and Prospects

Abstract

Introduction. The study strives to analyze the current situation in the International Court of Justice, a number of the challenges facing it, as well as their possible solutions. Of the 18 disputes currently in the Court’s docket 14 were submitted on the basis of jurisdictional clauses of treaties, including in the field of the protection and promotion of human rights. Using the example of a number of cases, including those involving the Russian Federation, the author analyzes some of the problems resulting from this trend.Materials and methods. The methodological basis of the study includes the following general scientific and special methods of cognition: formal-logical, formal-legal, historical-legal, comparative-legal, analysis and synthesis.Results of the study. Firstly, the artificial limitation of the subject matter of the dispute in some instances is noted, which leads to questions of applicable law and causes risks of broad (or “evolutionary”) interpretation of treaties. Secondly, the problem of politicization of the Court’s activities by some of the Parties to the process is identified, forcing the Court to choose between justice and the political context in some of the “high-profile” cases. Thirdly, the Court’s inability to consider numerous “fact-intensive” cases brought by way of jurisdictional clauses of treaties (especially in the field of protection and promotion of human rights) is noted.Discussion and conclusions. The author sees possible solutions in ensuring the Court’s balanced approach to issues of establishing jurisdiction with due regard to the principle of States’ consent, as well as in adjusting its fact-finding methods. While in its practice the Court has not directly supported the proposals voiced by some of its members favoring evolutionary interpretation of the provisions of human rights treaties in order to lower the “threshold” for establishing the existence of a State’s consent to its jurisdiction, the author notes some recent changes in the Court’s approaches that cause concern. The author predicts a number of negative political and legal consequences of excessive judicial activism, including the risk of broad interpretation of the provisions of the relevant conventions and their abuse, as well as a decrease in the confidence of States in the dispute resolution system within the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Maintaining the Court’s cautious approach to issues of establishing States’ consent to its jurisdiction will be of great importance to upholding its authority.