The International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, is the UN's top international judicial body, making rulings involving disputes between countries that affect perceptions and legal definitions worldwide.
The International Court of Justice ( ICJ ), also known as the World Court, is the UN's top international judicial body, making rulings involving disputes between countries that affect perceptions and legal definitions worldwide.
The new President of the ICJ, Yuji Iwasawa, spoke to UN News about how the court operates to de-escalate international conflicts, its responsibilities and what he hopes to achieve during his time in office, which began in March this year.
He also spoke about the significance of major advisory opinions issued this year on Israel and the climate crisis. Advisory opinions are non-legally binding decisions that can have a normative global impact and provide clarity about international law.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
UN News: The World Court is not so well understood by the public. What are the key things that citizens need to know and how would you describe the court's value to international diplomacy, law and governance?
Yuji Iwasawa: The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The task of the court is to settle disputes between states peacefully.
In The Hague, where ICJ is located, there is also the International Criminal Court and people often confuse these two courts. The ICJ would deal with interstate disputes, not individuals. It's important that the ICJ settle disputes among states peacefully on the basis of international law. That's our task.
UN News: Many of the cases before the World Court have important political dimensions and the decisions the court makes can lead to strong polarizing reactions. How does the Court deal with these issues and the skeptical view of some that the court is unfair?
Yuji Iwasawa: It's important to note that the court can act only when the states give consent to its jurisdiction. States often bring a part of a bigger dispute to the ICJ, maybe only one aspect of the dispute, and in the form of a legal question.
There are these limitations to the work of the court, but of course, this doesn't mean that the court is blind to the political context or often human suffering which is behind many of the cases.
But because it's a court, the task is to apply international law to the legal questions put to the court by the states and within the scope of the jurisdictional limitations.
UN News: Last week, as President of the Court, you read out an advisory opinion on Israel related to its obligations to Palestinians living under occupation. Israel rejected it outright. Could you explain to listeners how the court operates in cases like this one? What are the limits of the court's power and what force does an advisory opinion have?
Yuji Iwasawa: The court has two kinds of cases. One, contentious cases between States - State A brings a case against State B and the court makes findings on whether State B has violated international law or not and issues judgment which is legally binding on the parties.
Another type of case is 'advisory opinion' - international organs make a request to the court to give advisory opinions and the court interprets international law in good faith and explains in clear terms what states are required to do under international law.
Advisory opinions are not strictly speaking, legally binding, but are often regarded as authoritative statements of international law.
In the advisory opinion that you referred to, the UN General Assembly asked a question to the court to clarify the obligations of Israel in relation to Occupied Palestinian Territory.
The court's task was to reply to this question, and the court interpreted international law in good faith and clarified the obligation of Israel. This is what the court was asked to do and what the court did. Now, it's for the General Assembly, which requested the opinion, to decide on the future course of action based on this advisory opinion.
UN News: In July, in a highly anticipated advisory opinion , the Court affirmed that States have "an obligation to prevent significant damage to the environment." What is the significance of this decision?
Yuji Iwasawa: In December last year we had a hearing for two weeks. There was very strong interest from states and international organizations in these proceedings - 90 states and 11 international organizations participated.
Six of these States pleaded before the court for the first time. The court analysed these submissions by states and international organizations and then issued an advisory opinion in July. In this opinion, the court said that the obligation to prevent significant harm to the environment is a norm of customary international law.
This is a very important point that the court made. Also, the court said that the standard to assess the compliance of states with this obligation to prevent significant harm is stringent, which is very important.
In the past few years, there has been a lot of so-called climate change litigation before domestic courts, regional courts and international courts. This advisory opinion that the court issued in July may be referred to in these climate change litigation which are already ongoing or may be brought in the future.
UN News: As the newly appointed President of the World Court, what would you like to achieve during your tenure? What difference do you hope to make?
Yuji Iwasawa: First, trust in the court. We have many cases before the court in its docket - it is a sign of trust States have in the court, and I would like to maintain this trust by delivering judgments and opinions of the highest quality and making sure that states will continue to have trust and faith in the ICJ.
Secondly, I would like to improve the working methods and make the procedure of the court efficient to deal with the increasing caseload.
Thirdly, I'd like to make the court more accessible to the public; to make sure that people know about our work. We are celebrating the 80th anniversary of the inaugural session of the court next year in April, and one of the plans we have is to produce short videos so that people will know the work of the court better.
