The Statute of the International Court of Justice: An In-Depth Exploration
Updated: Aug 18
Introduction
The Statute of the International Court of Justice runs to seventy articles and carries an unusually heavy load. It constitutes the bench, fixes the terms on which States may litigate against one another, identifies the law the Court applies, and governs the effect of what the Court decides. Because it is annexed to the Charter of the United Nations and forms an integral part of it, no State can join the Organization while standing outside the Court's constitutive text (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 92).
Two features account for most of what follows. The first is consent: nothing in the instrument lets the Court seize a dispute the States concerned have not agreed to submit, so the practical business of ICJ jurisdiction is the business of locating that agreement. The second is continuity, since the drafters at San Francisco worked from the 1920 Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice and reproduced much of it.
Eighty years have produced no amendment. What the text does not supply has come from the Rules of Court, from the Court's interpretation of its own powers, and from the treaty clauses through which most modern cases arrive.
1.The Statute in the United Nations legal order
1.1 An annex that binds every Member State
Article 92 of the Charter makes the International Court of Justice the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and annexes the Statute as an integral part of the Charter. Article 93(1) then makes every Member ipso facto a party to the Statute, so membership and participation are a single act: the 193 Members are the 193 parties. Article 93(2) leaves a second door open for non-Member States on conditions set by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council, a route Switzerland used until 2002 and now dormant rather than repealed.
What near-universal participation does not mean is often missed. Being a party to the Statute makes a State eligible to appear; it does not submit that State to the Court. Access and jurisdiction are separate questions governed by separate articles, and the distinction does real work in litigation.
1.2 Inheritance from the Permanent Court of International Justice
The Permanent Court of International Justice, established under Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, sat from 1922 and was wound up in 1946. Its successor was constituted as a new institution rather than a continuation, largely to sever the association with the League, and two provisions salvaged the older court's jurisdictional inheritance: Article 36(5), treating surviving declarations under the Permanent Court's Statute as acceptances of the new Court's compulsory jurisdiction, and Article 37, redirecting to the new Court any treaty clause that referred a matter to its predecessor.
Both have been read narrowly. Bulgaria's 1921 declaration was held to have lapsed with the old court rather than passing under Article 36(5) (ICJ, 1959), while jurisdiction was upheld against Spain under Article 37 on the analogous question (ICJ, 1964), a divergence that has never been convincingly explained (Zimmermann et al., 2019).
2.Composition of the Court and the guarantees of judicial independence
2.1 Election, tenure and the requirement in Article 9
The Court consists of fifteen members, no two of them nationals of the same State (Statute of the International Court of Justice, 1945, arts. 2–3). Candidates must hold the qualifications required at home for the highest judicial offices or be jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law. ICJ judges sit for nine years and may be re-elected, five seats falling vacant every three years so that the bench renews in staggered thirds (art. 13).
Election is a double process. Nominations come from the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration; the General Assembly and the Security Council then vote independently, and a candidate needs an absolute majority in both (arts. 4, 8, 10). One detail of Article 10(2) matters more than its placement suggests: in judicial elections the Security Council votes without distinction between permanent and non-permanent members.
There is no veto over the composition of the Court, and no permanent member holds a seat by right. The 2017 election made the point: the United Kingdom's candidate withdrew, and the seat passed to another State.
Article 9 directs electors to secure, in the body as a whole, the representation of the main forms of civilization and of the principal legal systems of the world; the requirement addresses the bench collectively and has been met through informal regional distribution. Independence rests on a cluster of short provisions: members may hold no other profession or public function, may not act as counsel, can be removed only on the unanimous opinion of their colleagues, and receive salaries the General Assembly may not reduce during a term (arts. 16–18, 32(5)).
2.2 Judges ad hoc, chambers and quorum
Article 31 allows a party with no national on the bench to choose a person to sit as judge in that case, on terms of complete equality with the elected members: a concession to an older arbitral tradition, criticized because appointees tend to vote for the appointing State (Thirlway, 2016). The full Court normally sits, and nine judges suffice to constitute it, though Articles 26 and 29 permit chambers, including one formed for a particular case with the parties' approval, whose judgment counts as a judgment of the Court. After the Gulf of Maine delimitation (ICJ, 1984a), chambers fell out of favour; parties wanting a hand-picked bench now prefer arbitration.
3.Access to the Court and the exclusion of non-State litigants
Article 34(1) states the rule in ten words: only States may be parties in cases before the Court. Individuals, corporations, non-governmental organizations and international organizations can neither sue nor be sued. Organizations may supply information and must be notified where the construction of their constituent instrument is in issue, but that is participation rather than standing (art. 34(2)–(3)).
Injuries to private parties therefore reach the Court only when a State takes them up as its own, and diplomatic protection has its own limits: Nottebohm denied Liechtenstein the right to protect a naturalized national for want of a genuine connection with the protecting State (ICJ, 1955).
Article 35 governs who may appear at all: the Court is open to States parties to the Statute, and to other States on conditions laid down by the Security Council, subject to special provisions in treaties in force. The scope of that saving clause decided eight cases at once.
In Legality of Use of Force the Court held that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had not been a Member of the United Nations when it filed in 1999, and read "treaties in force" as treaties in force when the Statute entered into force, excluding the Genocide Convention as a basis of access (ICJ, 2004b). Three years later it declined to reopen its 1996 finding of jurisdiction in the Bosnian genocide case on that reasoning: the earlier decision was res judicata (ICJ, 2007).
4.Contentious jurisdiction under Article 36
4.1 Special agreement and compromissory clauses
Article 36(1) gives the Court jurisdiction over all cases the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in the Charter or in treaties and conventions in force. The first limb covers the special agreement, or compromis, by which two States jointly submit a defined dispute; territorial and boundary cases still arrive this way, and because consent is given for the dispute at hand, jurisdictional objections rarely follow. The reference to the Charter promises more than it delivers, since no Charter provision confers jurisdiction and the Security Council's power to recommend referral under Article 36(3) of the Charter is not a title of jurisdiction.
Most contested cases now rest on the second limb, a compromissory clause by which parties agree in advance to refer disputes about a treaty to the Court. Article IX of the Genocide Convention and Article 22 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have carried much of the recent docket. Applicants underestimate the structural limit: jurisdiction extends only to disputes about the treaty invoked, so claims framed around the use of force or general international law fall outside it. Procedural preconditions also bite. Article 22 requires that a dispute be one not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in the Convention, and in Georgia v. Russian Federation neither condition was met, so the case fell at the jurisdictional stage (ICJ, 2011).
4.2 The optional clause and the reservations that qualify it
The best-known route is Article 36(2), the optional clause, under which a State may accept jurisdiction in advance:
The states parties to the present Statute may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other state accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.
The label misleads. Article 36(2) creates not compulsory jurisdiction as a domestic lawyer would understand it, but a standing offer that binds where two declarations overlap. Seventy-five States currently maintain declarations (ICJ, 2026). Of the permanent members of the Security Council, only the United Kingdom does: France withdrew in 1974 after the Nuclear Tests proceedings and the United States in 1985 after the Court upheld jurisdiction in Nicaragua; the Soviet Union and its successor never made a declaration, and the People's Republic of China repudiated in 1972 the declaration deposited in 1946 by the Republic of China.
Article 36(3) permits declarations on condition of reciprocity or for a fixed period, and States have used that latitude heavily. Exclusions commonly cover territory and maritime zones, military activities, matters of domestic jurisdiction, disputes with fellow members of a regional or Commonwealth grouping, and claims under multilateral treaties unless all affected parties appear. The last of these shaped the Nicaragua merits: the United States multilateral treaty reservation, operating through reciprocity, barred Nicaragua's Charter-based claims and left the Court to decide on customary international law (ICJ, 1986).
Reciprocity cuts both ways. In Certain Norwegian Loans, Norway invoked France's own reservation of matters France understood to fall within national jurisdiction, and the case failed on French terms (ICJ, 1957a). Reservations are read in a natural and reasonable way, giving effect to the declaring State's intention, with no presumption in favour of jurisdiction (ICJ, 1998). Timing raises a problem the Statute never solved, since a declaration takes effect on deposit and a State may accept the clause and file immediately against a long-standing declarant (ICJ, 1957b), while withdrawal is constrained: the United States attempt in 1984 to modify its declaration with immediate effect was held ineffective against a six-month notice requirement (ICJ, 1984b).
4.3 Who decides jurisdiction, and what jurisdiction does not settle
Article 36(6) provides that a dispute about jurisdiction is settled by the decision of the Court, a competence to determine its own competence inherent in judicial function and affirmed early (ICJ, 1953).
Jurisdiction is not the end of the inquiry, because admissibility raises separate objections and several arise from the Statute's own limits. Since Article 59 confines a judgment to the parties, the Court will not adjudicate a claim whose subject-matter is the responsibility of an absent third State: the Monetary Gold principle (ICJ, 1954), applied to defeat Portugal's claim against Australia over East Timor because Indonesia's position would have had to be determined first (ICJ, 1995).
Judicial propriety supplies a further ground, whether because no judgment could have practical effect (ICJ, 1963) or because the object of the claim had disappeared (ICJ, 1974). More recently, the Court held that no dispute existed between the Marshall Islands and the United Kingdom at the date of the application, the respondent not having been aware of opposition to its position; the finding divided the Court equally and was carried by the President's casting vote under Article 55(2) (ICJ, 2016).
5.Article 38 and the sources of international law
5.1 Conventions, custom and general principles
Article 38 of the ICJ Statute is read far beyond the courtroom it was written for. Drafted as an instruction to one tribunal, it has become the conventional starting point for any account of the sources of international law:
The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: (a) international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; (b) international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; (c) the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; (d) subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.
The opening words were added in 1945 and settled an argument left open in 1920 about whether the provision merely regulated procedure. The Court decides according to international law, and Article 38 says where that law is found.
Subparagraph (b) is drafted backwards. Custom is not evidenced by practice; it consists of a general practice accepted as law, which is to say of practice together with the conviction that the practice is legally required. The Court has applied that two-element test consistently, and the International Law Commission restated it in 2018 (International Law Commission, 2018).
Treaty and custom can also coexist on one subject without merging, which allowed the Court to reach the merits in Nicaragua once the multilateral treaty reservation had removed the Charter claims (ICJ, 1986).
Subparagraph (c) preserves the 1920 phrase "recognized by civilized nations", an artefact of a period that ranked States by civilization, and the Court has quietly stopped using it. Its substance is still being worked out: the Commission's draft conclusions separate general principles transposed from national legal systems from those formed within the international legal system (International Law Commission, 2023), and were provisionally adopted on second reading by the Drafting Committee in 2025 with formal adoption deferred (International Law Commission, 2025). The subparagraphs are lettered but not ranked, though the order reflects how the Court proceeds: an applicable treaty first, custom where no treaty binds, general principles where neither answers.
5.2 Subsidiary means and the authority of the Court’s own decisions
Judicial decisions and scholarly writing appear in Article 38(1)(d) as subsidiary means for determining rules of law, not as sources of obligation. A judgment identifies law that already exists rather than creating it, and the cross-reference to Article 59 confirms that no decision binds anyone but the parties to it.
Practice sits some distance from that formal position. The Court cites its own jurisprudence constantly, treats settled lines of authority as fixed, and explains itself at length when it departs from them, while States and other tribunals argue from that case law as a matter of course. The result is a body of authority with no formal binding force, a combination the Statute permits but does not describe (Crawford, 2019). The reference to "the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists" is by now largely honorific.
5.3 Ex aequo et bono and equity within the law
Article 38(2) allows the Court to decide ex aequo et bono, on what it considers fair rather than on legal entitlement, if the parties agree. None ever has, because the provision asks States to surrender the predictability that brought them to a court in the first place. Equitable reasoning inside the law is a different matter and is common in delimitation: in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases the Court applied equitable principles to identify the boundary while making clear that it was not deciding ex aequo et bono (ICJ, 1969).
6.ICJ procedure and incidental proceedings
6.1 The conduct of a case, and what happens when a party stays away
Proceedings begin either by notification of a special agreement or by a written application to the Registrar identifying the parties and the subject of the dispute (art. 40). Article 43 divides the case into a written phase of memorials, counter-memorials and replies and an oral phase of hearings, public unless the Court or the parties decide otherwise; the official languages are English and French. Detail beyond that framework comes from the Rules of Court, which the Court frames itself under Article 30 (ICJ, 1978; Rosenne, 2016). Articles 49 and 50 add investigative powers used sparingly, among them the naval experts appointed in the Corfu Channel (ICJ, 1949).
Article 53 addresses non-appearance. A respondent that stays away neither wins nor loses by doing so: the other party may ask for a decision in its favour, but the Court must first satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction and that the claim is well founded in fact and law. Iceland, Iran and the United States have each declined to appear at some stage, and in each the Court examined the absent party's case on the material available. Deliberations are secret, decisions are taken by a majority of the judges present with the President holding a casting vote in the event of equality, and any judge may append a separate opinion (arts. 54–57).
6.2 Provisional measures under Article 41
Article 41 empowers the Court to indicate any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party, with notice to the parties and to the Security Council. The permissive vocabulary, measures being "indicated" and "suggested", kept the binding character of such orders open for half a century.
LaGrand resolved it. Reading Article 41 in light of its object and purpose, and against the French text, the Court held that orders indicating provisional measures create binding legal obligations, and found the United States in breach of the order of 3 March 1999 by allowing the execution of Walter LaGrand to proceed (ICJ, 2001). A provision widely treated as hortatory became an enforceable incident of the Court's jurisdiction.
Four requirements have since crystallized: prima facie jurisdiction, plausibility of the rights asserted, a link between the measures requested and those rights, and a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice. Recent applications include the orders in the proceedings brought by Ukraine against the Russian Federation (ICJ, 2022a) and by South Africa against Israel under the Genocide Convention (ICJ, 2024). Compliance has been uneven, and the Statute offers no remedy beyond notification of the Security Council.
6.3 Intervention under Articles 62 and 63
Under Article 62, a State claiming an interest of a legal nature which may be affected by the decision may request permission to intervene, and the Court decides. Permission is rarely granted, and the successful requests have generally been for non-party intervention.
Article 63 is stronger. Where the construction of a convention to which States other than the parties are parties is in question, every such State has a right to intervene, and the construction given by the judgment is then equally binding on it. That right has been exercised on an unprecedented scale in the recent Genocide Convention litigation, with more than thirty States filing declarations in the case brought by Ukraine and a group of States filing jointly in The Gambia v. Myanmar.
The trend connects to a wider development. In The Gambia v. Myanmar, the Court confirmed that any State party to the Genocide Convention may invoke another party's responsibility for breach of obligations owed to all parties, without showing individual injury (ICJ, 2022b). Standing of that kind, with the Article 63 right, moves some proceedings closer to collective enforcement than to bilateral dispute settlement.
7.Judgments: finality, revision and compliance
7.1 Finality under Articles 59 and 60
A decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case (art. 59). The article does two things at once: it rules out any doctrine of binding precedent, and it shields States that were not before the Court, the protective function underlying the Monetary Gold line of authority.
Article 60 makes the judgment final and without appeal while allowing any party to request construction of its meaning or scope. That procedure has had real effect, most visibly where the Court clarified the obligations of the United States under the Avena judgment and read its 1962 judgment on the temple at Preah Vihear as determining the boundary in the disputed area (ICJ, 2009; ICJ, 2013).
7.2 Revision under Article 61
Revision requires a fact of such a nature as to be a decisive factor, unknown when the judgment was given both to the Court and to the party seeking revision, and not unknown through negligence. Application must follow within six months of the discovery, and none may be made more than ten years after the judgment. The conditions are cumulative and severe, and no application has succeeded: Yugoslavia's attempt to reopen the 1996 jurisdictional judgment in the Bosnian genocide case failed because the matters relied on were not newly discovered facts within the meaning of the article (ICJ, 2003).
7.3 Compliance and Article 94 of the Charter
The Statute contains no enforcement machinery. Enforcement sits in the Charter: each Member undertakes to comply with the decision of the Court in any case to which it is a party, and a party that fails to perform may be the subject of recourse by the other to the Security Council, which may recommend or decide upon measures to give effect to the judgment (Charter of the United Nations, 1945, art. 94).
That route has never produced results. Nicaragua took the 1986 judgment to the Security Council, and the draft resolution was vetoed by the respondent State, a permanent member. Where the losing party is a permanent member, or has one as an ally, Article 94(2) offers nothing. Compliance is nevertheless the norm, and weakest where a judgment cuts against a vital security or constitutional interest, as the aftermath of Avena in United States courts showed.
8.Advisory jurisdiction under Articles 65 to 68
8.1 Competence, discretion and legal effect
Article 65(1) provides that the Court may give an advisory opinion on any legal question at the request of whatever body is authorized by or in accordance with the Charter to make such a request. Article 96 of the Charter identifies those bodies: the General Assembly and the Security Council on any legal question, and other organs and specialized agencies, when authorized, on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.
Two enquiries follow. The Court asks whether it has jurisdiction, meaning whether the requesting body is competent and the question genuinely legal, and then whether it should answer, since Article 65 says "may". Only compelling reasons justify refusal, and the Court has found none, rejecting objections that a request concerned a bilateral dispute, was political in character, or would disturb a negotiating process (ICJ, 2004a; ICJ, 2010; ICJ, 2019). Its one declining was jurisdictional: the World Health Organization's request on nuclear weapons fell outside the scope of its activities (ICJ, 1996b), while the parallel General Assembly request produced the well-known opinion of the same day (ICJ, 1996a).
ICJ advisory opinions bind neither the requesting organ nor States, and Article 59 has no application to them. Their weight is that of an authoritative determination of the law by the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. Binding effect can be conferred by agreement: under the 1946 Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations an opinion requested to resolve a dispute over the Convention is to be accepted as decisive, and the Court has given such opinions (ICJ, 1999).
8.2 The advisory function in recent practice
Because it needs no consent from the States whose conduct is under examination, the advisory jurisdiction has become the Court's principal avenue for questions no bilateral case could reach. The opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, requested by the General Assembly in resolution 77/276 and delivered on 23 July 2025, drew participation without precedent in the history of either Court: written submissions from more than ninety States and international organizations, and oral statements from ninety-six States and eleven organizations. The Court held unanimously that States owe obligations under the climate treaties and under customary international law, including a duty of due diligence to prevent significant harm to the climate system, and that breach engages the ordinary law of State responsibility (ICJ, 2025a).
Three months later it delivered its opinion on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, requested by resolution 79/232, finding Israel bound by international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including duties to facilitate rather than impede relief operations and to respect United Nations privileges and immunities (ICJ, 2025b). Both requests make the structural point: where consent to contentious jurisdiction is unavailable, the General Assembly can still place a legal question before the Court.
9.Amendment and the durability of the text
Article 69 provides that amendments to the Statute are effected by the same procedure as amendments to the Charter, which under Article 108 of the Charter requires adoption by two-thirds of the General Assembly and ratification by two-thirds of the Members, including all five permanent members of the Security Council. Article 70 lets the Court propose amendments itself. Nothing has come of either provision, and the amendment rule is the reason: any of five States can block a change, and none has an incentive to expand a jurisdiction it may one day face.
Adaptation has run through other channels. The Court has revised its Rules, most substantially in 1978, and issued Practice Directions that shorten pleadings and discipline expert evidence. Interpretation has done the heavier work: the binding force of provisional measures, standing to invoke obligations owed to all parties to a convention, and the scale of Article 63 intervention are developments in practice rather than in text. Proposals for an appellate chamber, for access by international organizations to contentious proceedings, and for correcting the language of Article 38(1)(c) remain proposals, and none of them is law.
Also read
Conclusion
The gap between two numbers explains most of the criticism directed at the Court. One hundred and ninety-three States are parties to the Statute; seventy-five accept the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice under the optional clause, most subject to reservations that remove whole categories of dispute. Universal participation in the instrument coexists with narrow acceptance of the obligation it offers, which is a deliberate feature of a text built on consent rather than a defect in its drafting.
Where the Statute has grown, it has grown around its edges. Compromissory clauses have displaced the optional clause as the ordinary route into contentious litigation, bringing with them the confinement to a single treaty that shapes the pleadings in most contested cases. Provisional measures have acquired binding force through interpretation. Article 63 intervention and erga omnes partes standing have given some proceedings a collective character the 1945 drafters did not envisage, and the advisory function has absorbed the questions consent-based jurisdiction cannot reach.
What the text was never designed to address remains unresolved. Article 59 denies precedential force to a jurisprudence that plainly exercises it; Article 94(2) of the Charter provides an enforcement route that cannot work against a permanent member; Article 38(1)(c) still refers to civilized nations. Because Articles 69 and 70 make textual reform practically unavailable, each will go on being managed through interpretation, in the shadow of an instrument that has not changed a word in eighty years.
References
Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277.
Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations (1946) adopted 13 February 1946, 1 UNTS 15.
Crawford, J. (2019) Brownlie's Principles of Public International Law. 9th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
International Court of Justice (1949) Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment, 9 April 1949.
International Court of Justice (1953) Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, 18 November 1953.
International Court of Justice (1954) Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v. France, United Kingdom and United States of America), Preliminary Question, Judgment, 15 June 1954.
International Court of Justice (1955) Nottebohm (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase, Judgment, 6 April 1955.
International Court of Justice (1957a) Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), Judgment, 6 July 1957.
International Court of Justice (1957b) Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 26 November 1957.
International Court of Justice (1959) Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 26 May 1959.
International Court of Justice (1963) Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 2 December 1963.
International Court of Justice (1964) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v. Spain), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 24 July 1964.
International Court of Justice (1969) North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, 20 February 1969.
International Court of Justice (1974) Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment, 20 December 1974.
International Court of Justice (1978) Rules of Court, adopted 14 April 1978, as amended.
International Court of Justice (1984a) Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment of the Chamber, 12 October 1984.
International Court of Justice (1984b) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, 26 November 1984.
International Court of Justice (1986) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment, 27 June 1986.
International Court of Justice (1995) East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, 30 June 1995.
International Court of Justice (1996a) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996.
International Court of Justice (1996b) Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996.
International Court of Justice (1998) Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, 4 December 1998.
International Court of Justice (1999) Difference Relating to Immunity from Legal Process of a Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights, Advisory Opinion, 29 April 1999.
International Court of Justice (2001) LaGrand (Germany v. United States of America), Judgment, 27 June 2001.
International Court of Justice (2003) Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 (Yugoslavia v. Bosnia and Herzegovina), Judgment, 3 February 2003.
International Court of Justice (2004a) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004.
International Court of Justice (2004b) Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v. Belgium), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 15 December 2004.
International Court of Justice (2007) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, 26 February 2007.
International Court of Justice (2009) Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, 19 January 2009.
International Court of Justice (2010) Accordance with International Law of the Unilateral Declaration of Independence in Respect of Kosovo, Advisory Opinion, 22 July 2010.
International Court of Justice (2011) Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1 April 2011.
International Court of Justice (2013) Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 15 June 1962 in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Judgment, 11 November 2013.
International Court of Justice (2016) Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 5 October 2016.
International Court of Justice (2019) Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019.
International Court of Justice (2022a) Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, Order, 16 March 2022.
International Court of Justice (2022b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 22 July 2022.
International Court of Justice (2024) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel), Provisional Measures, Order, 26 January 2024.
International Court of Justice (2025a) Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, Advisory Opinion, 23 July 2025.
International Court of Justice (2025b) Obligations of Israel in relation to the Presence and Activities of the United Nations, Other International Organizations and Third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 22 October 2025.
International Court of Justice (2026) Declarations recognizing the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory [online]. Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/declarations (Accessed: 18 August 2026).
International Law Commission (2018) Draft conclusions on identification of customary international law, with commentaries, Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-third Session, Supplement No. 10, A/73/10, chap. V.
International Law Commission (2023) Draft conclusions on general principles of law adopted on first reading, with commentaries, Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-eighth Session, Supplement No. 10, A/78/10, chap. IV.
International Law Commission (2025) Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its seventy-sixth session, Official Records of the General Assembly, Eightieth Session, Supplement No. 10, A/80/10.
Rosenne, S. (2016) Rosenne's Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920–2015. 5th edn. Edited by M.N. Shaw. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff.
Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) annexed to the Charter of the United Nations, signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945 (cited in text as ICJ Statute).
Thirlway, H. (2016) The International Court of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
United Nations General Assembly (2023) Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, A/RES/77/276, 29 March 2023.
United Nations General Assembly (2024) Request for an advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the obligations of Israel in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, other international organizations and third States in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, A/RES/79/232, 19 December 2024.
Zimmermann, A., Tams, C.J., Oellers-Frahm, K. and Tomuschat, C. (eds.) [cited as Zimmermann et al.] (2019) The Statute of the International Court of Justice: A Commentary. 3rd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
