International Court of Justice: Jurisdiction and Decision-Making

The assignment explores the International Court of Justice's (ICJ) jurisdiction and decision-making processes, examining contentious cases, advisory opinions, and unilateral declarations. It also delves into specific case studies, such as Denmark v. Norway and Australia v. France, to illustrate the ICJ's approach to resolving disputes between states. The analysis highlights the importance of self-determination in international law, using examples from Taiwan and Palestine to demonstrate the complexities involved.

Questions

Question 1.
Decisions of International Court are generally taken on two types of cases as –
contentious case and advisory opinions. Here, contentious case produces the bindings rulings
between two states that either agree or previously agreed by other parties. While advisory
opinions provide reasons according to request of UN General Assembly. So, decisions of
International Court of Justice have not achieved any precedential value because the court only
hear about case of both disputed parties when requested for the same.
Question 2.
If disputed parties or states do not like the jurisdictions, then they may consent to other Courts
for considering the dispute. States can manifest their consent by following ways: -
 Through a special agreement: States having a dispute on a certain issue, can agree to
submit the same jointly to the court, in order to conclude an agreement for same purpose.
 By a Unilateral declaration: State parties can take decision to make a unilateral
declaration, which recognising the jurisdictions of courts as binding with respect to other
states who are also agree to binding.
 By a clause in a treaty: It includes more than 300 treaties that contain clauses, under
which states can accept the jurisdictions of International Courts.
Question 3.
International tribunals are established for specific aim of prosecuting war criminals.
Therefore, if international tribunals make law then for this purpose, they consider the
requirement of each state first, which reduce the chance of conflicts between countries.
Question 4.
By Denmark v. Norway case which is based on East Greenland in 1930s, it has been
evaluated that both the countries were agreed to give consent to Permanent Court of International
Justice. Here, court awarded the disputed territory of East Greenland to Denmark, which was
accepted by both countries. While, second case which is of Nuclear Test Case between Australia
v. France, decisions have made by considering the unilateral acts. Thus, observing both case
studies, it has been analysed that decisions which was taken in second one (Australia v. France)
was much relevant and legally binding.
1

Question 5.
As per the case study of Frontier Dispute Case, it has been analysed that there was due to
less evidence, jurisdictions were not sure about dependency of both parties, which had created
difficulties in taking decisions.
Question 6.
As per Chapter 5 of reasoning, Palestine was not considered as a state due to Israel
conflictions.
Question 7.
Palestine is recognized as a state according to 137 UN members, which includes Arab
League, International Olympic Committee and other international bodies.
As per UN, Palestine is not considered as a state due to ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict
during 1993, by many countries like Switzerland, Canada, South Korea, United Sates and more.
Question 8.
As per unilateral declaration by President, Venezuela can bind itself to a course of action.
Question 9.
Article 1 of UN Charter mainly emphasises on developing the friendly relations among
countries on the basis of principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, in order to
take appropriate measures for strengthening the universal peace. Therefore, in the light of
Rhodesia incident, it was not considered as a state, because it was run by minority regime which
violates the self-determination principle. In this regard, Venezuela had also not considered as a
state due to major conflicts between Israeli-Palestinian.
Question 10.
The right to self-determination follows a civil war, because this principle had failed to
obtain the status of legal principle in United Nations. This right was much far from being
directed also to create a binding legal norm. But as per the Article 55, it was cited as a principle,
on which peaceful as well as friendly relations could be conceived among nation. As per case of
Taiwan, the declaration on granting its independence, was considered as the right all of its
citizens for self-determination. In this regard, by virtue of this fact, it can be said that people of
2

Taiwan has right to determine about political status of them and pursue freely for social, cultural
and economic development also.
3