The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). Located in the Hague (Netherlands), the ICJ provides legal opinions to the UN and its members and settles disputes between governments. Members of the UN are automatically members of the ICJ. The ICJ’s decisions are legally binding but the member States themselves are given the responsibility to enforce the Court’s decisions.
The 193 UN Member States are all part of the ICJ. The Non-Member Observer States of Palestine and the Holy See (Vatican City), as well as Non-Self-Governing Territories, may also accept the Court’s jurisdiction. Between May 1947 and September 2025, 201 cases were brought to the Court. Few of these cases concerned human rights. This differentiates the ICJ from courts that focus on human rights violations in particular, such as mass atrocity crimes. Examples of cases prosecuted by the Court include treaty breaches or state aggression, which is the unlawful use of armed force from one state to another.
Court Jurisdiction
The ICJ only settles disputes between governments, as opposed to individuals and private entities. Only cases brought by states against states are under the Court’s jurisdiction. Cases concern violations of treaties, international law and other international obligations of states. Legal matters that come before the ICJ range from territorial disputes to violations of trade agreements and human rights treaties. Many international treaties explicitly say within them that the ICJ should handle disputes. As an example, if one state alleges that another is violating the 1948 Genocide Convention, the Court may settle the case.
Before a case proceeds, the States involved must consent to the Court’s jurisdiction. This ensures State sovereignty over foreign affairs. States consent to ICJ jurisdiction by ratifying treaties that grant the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes, through written agreements or by accepting Article 36(2) of the Statute of the ICJ—an optional clause that once accepted deems the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory. If a State does not give consent, the ICJ cannot move forward. In 1954, for instance, the Court dismissed a case when Albania refused to give consent. States can make objections aimed to halt proceedings. In October 2022, Russia argued that the ICJ has no jurisdiction over Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2022), claiming that no relevant dispute existed between the two States. The Court rejected this argument, allowing the case to proceed.
Court Process
During hearings, States issue oral and written arguments through legal teams to members of the Court. The Court is made up of 15 independent judges from different countries. Five judges are elected by the UN General Assembly (GA) every three years, and they serve nine-year terms. Judges elect the President and Vice-President of the Court every three years. These individuals preside over hearings and meetings, and the President casts the deciding vote when votes are tied.
The ICJ requires three judges from African States, three from Asia-Pacific States, two from Eastern European States, two from Latin American and Caribbean States, and five from Western European and other States (such as the US). Although geographically diverse, most members of the Court have been male. The first female member was Rosalyn Higgins in 1995, who was later elected as the Court’s first female President in 2006.
According to the Statute, “If a State party has no judge of its nationality on the Bench, it may choose a person to sit as judge ad hoc.” This ensures equal and non-discriminatory representation for all parties in the Court, avoiding bias. These ad hoc judges take the same oath as other judges on the bench. In 2019, there were no judges from the Gambia or Myanmar. As a result, when the Gambia alleged that Myanmar violated the Genocide Convention, both States appointed ad hoc judges. Even though States nominate judges, judges must act impartially. That is, they must show no bias towards any particular State and consider all arguments equally.
Cases often take years, and judges spend months deliberating arguments. But in the face of mass atrocity crimes, the ICJ must act urgently to prevent loss of life. At any time during proceedings, States can request that emergency measures are taken to protect human life. Such cases take precedence over all others, and the Court decides on measures within weeks. In February 2022, Ukraine requested provisional measures against Russia to protect people within Ukraine. The Court responded weeks later, ordering Russia to suspend all military operations in the country.
Final rulings are binding, meaning that States must comply with the Court’s decisions. They may be expected to pay reparations, respect borders, or stop illegal acts. States cannot appeal rulings. However, if facts are discovered which may be decisive to the case, they can request the Court to reconsider the ruling. If a State fails to comply with the Court’s decisions, other States may bring the conflict to the UN Security Council. Members of the UN Security Council vote to enforce decisions or not.
Advisory Opinions
The ICJ has the power to interpret treaties, the status of territories, and other international developments. Bodies of the UN can ask the Court for these opinions. The Court’s recommendations are not legally binding and are meant to aid bodies in their decision-making. Some advisory opinions concern human rights. In 1951, for instance, the Court advised that the Genocide Convention applies to all States, regardless of whether they have ratified the document or not. In 2004, the Court stated that the Israeli construction of a wall in occupied Palestine violates international law and restricts Palestinian self-determination.
States can sue others for violating human rights treaties before the Court. If the Court finds States guilty of violations, judges can hold states legally accountable for their abuses. The following case studies involve state violations of human rights responsibilities.
Case Studies
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar: 11 States intervening)
In November 2019, the Gambia began proceedings against Myanmar for violations of the Genocide Convention. The Gambia accused Myanmar’s government of mass murder, rape and displacement of the Muslim Rohingya minority Myanmar made multiple preliminary objections, all of which the ICJ rejected. Prior to the 2019 proceedings, Myanmar denied all accusations and delayed all hearings, during which the genocide reportedly continued. In January 2020, the ICJ ordered provisional measures urging Myanmar to prevent any violence against the Rohingya.
The Gambia was not directly affected by the alleged genocide. The case marks the first time that a non-injured State brought violations of the Genocide Convention before the ICJ. As of 2026, 11 States have filed declarations in support of the Gambia. They are Belgium, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Maldives, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.
Many human rights treaties, including the Genocide Convention, require non-injured States to protect human rights internationally. But it took 71 years after the Convention’s founding for a State to fulfill this duty. The Gambia reminds us that every State has the responsibility to determine if genocide is happening, prevent genocidal acts, and hold offenders accountable.
Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip (South Africa v. Israel)
In December 2023, South Africa began proceedings against Israel for violations of the Genocide Convention. In October 2023, Hamas attacked Israel, killing over 1,2000 people and taking another 251 hostage. In response, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) attacked the Gaza Strip in Palestine. Over 75,000 had died in Gaza as of February 2026.
South Africa claimed that Israel committed genocidal acts to destroy Gazans, including the directed murder of civilians, destruction of hospitals, and starvation as a method of warfare. South Africa also stated that Israel failed to prevent or punish the incitement of genocide by officials. The ICJ issued provisional measures throughout 2024, ordering Israel to prevent any genocidal acts, provide basic services and humanitarian assistance in Gaza, and cease military operations in Rafah. Israel ignored these orders, and violence continued across the Strip. In short, the ICJ found that ‘at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa and for which it is seeking protection (including the right of Palestinians in Gaza to be protected from genocide and related prohibited acts) are plausible.’
Former Israeli Minister of Defense Yoav Gallant, who is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, accused South Africa of antisemitism. Israel argued that it aims to destroy Hamas, as opposed to the Palestinian people in Gaza. Its lawyers argued that Hamas used Palestinians as human shields, resulting in civilian deaths. In addition, they stated that the IDF acted morally responsible, warning civilians of attacks beforehand.
Since April 2024, several States have submitted interpretations of the Genocide Convention and the South Africa v Israel case. This process is known as an intervention. Some, including Colombia, Ireland and Turkey, intervened in support of South Africa. Fiji, Hungary and the United States, by contrast, intervened in support of Israel.
South Africa was not directly affected by the alleged genocide. The case marks the second time that a non-injured State brought violations of the Genocide Convention before the ICJ. The Convention calls for State Parties to take action “for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide”. Like the Gambia, South Africa shows that every State has a responsibility to determine if genocide is happening, prevent genocidal acts, and hold offenders accountable.
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal)
In July 2012, the ICJ ruled that Senegal had violated the Convention against Torture by failing to prosecute or extradite Hissène Habré. As the president of Chad from 1982 to 1990, Habré ordered roughly 40,000 murders, rapes and torture at the hands of security forces. He was overthrown in 1990 and fled to Senegal. A Senegalese judge indicted him for human rights violations in 2000, however, Senegalese courts dismissed the case. Then-president Abdoulaye Wade ruled that Senegal had no jurisdiction over mass atrocity crimes committed outside of Senegal. He also stated that Senegalese courts were incompetent and faced financial obstacles.
In 2005, Belgium indicted Habré for numerous human rights violations, demanding that Senegal turn him over to Belgium for prosecution. Senegal refused, and Belgium brought the case to the ICJ in February 2009, arguing that Senegal had violated the Torture Convention. According to the Convention, a State Party must investigate and prosecute or extradite alleged offenders within its territory. The Court found that Senegal failed to do so and ordered the State to refer the case to authorities.
In response, the African Union and Senegal, then under the leadership of president Macky Stall, established the Extraordinary African Chambers (EAC) in 2013. Located in Senegal, the EAC sentenced Habré to life in prison for crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture in May 2016. Although the ICJ has no jurisdiction over individual perpetrators of mass atrocity crimes, it can hold States accountable for failing to hold those perpetrators accountable. This highlights how the ICJ complements human rights courts that prosecute individuals.
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America)
In June 1986, the ICJ ruled that the United States had violated international law in Nicaragua. During the Carter and Reagan administrations, the US provided financial and material aid to armed insurgents in Nicaragua. In addition, the US laid mines in Nicaraguan harbors to disrupt supply lines. The ICJ found that the US had violated laws not to use force against or intervene in another State, as well as to disrupt maritime commerce. The Court ordered that the US stop its illegal acts and pay reparations to Nicaragua.
In August 1984, the US objected that the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the case. The Court rejected this claim, and the US withdrew from proceedings. In addition, the US has not complied with the Court’s binding orders. In October 1986, Nicaragua called for full and immediate compliance with orders before the Security Council. The five permanent members of the Council, including the US, are able to veto resolutions, and the US did so. Although ICJ rulings are binding, the UN lacks mechanisms to enforce them. Influential countries in particular take advantage of this system and ignore orders.