International Law And International Responsibility

Running head: INTERNATIONAL LAW
INTERNATIONAL LAW
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1INTERNATIONAL LAW
Discussion
Jurisdiction, in the past years, has been considered to be a primary topic for disagreement
since the formation of ICJ in the year of 1945. A quantum of forty seven nations have agreed to
and approved the compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ in relation to every legal disagreements
regarding the interpretation of treaties, any particular question relating to the international law,
and violation of any international responsibility. However, it may be said that a certain quantum
of nations, which may include the Soviet Union as well as the United States, have not yet agreed
to or approved the absolute compulsory jurisdiction in connection to the ‘International Court of
Justice’. The nation of the United States rejects and declines to subject itself in connection to the
ICJ’s jurisdiction, when it is deemed by the United States that the disagreement is basically
domestic or when it is deemed by the United States that the disagreement ascends under a
particular multilateral treaty (Prott, 2019).
The Connally Amendment of the year 1946 preserves and upholds certain reservations
regarding the jurisdiction of ICJ. However, it shall not mean that the ICJ will be unable to assert
jurisdiction in any case where the nation of United States might be involved. The ICJ may decide
and settle questions in the relevance of its own authority and jurisdiction. It shall be able to hear,
decide and settle a particular case if anyone involved party does not agree. Although, it cannot be
ensured by the ICJ that decrees would be enforced. The ICJ shall be forced to shift to the
political ground, that is, the Security Council, in order to induce obedience and compliance in
relation to the decisions forwarded by the ICJ (Young, Nyhan & Charlesworth, 2019).
In relation to the aforementioned discussion, the case of The Republic of Nicaragua v
The United States [1986] I.C.J 14 shall be considered to be a relevant case. In this case, it had

2INTERNATIONAL LAW
been contended by the Nicaraguan administration that sinking of a fishing trawler by operatives
of the CIA was in relation to a program that had been sponsored by Reagan administration in
order to cause harassment to the Nicaraguan shipping. It was requested to ICJ by the government
of the nation of Nicaragua to declare that such activities of the nation of the United States was in
violation of the International Law. The Nicaraguan government made a request for the valuation
of the damages and an injunction order in favor of Nicaragua disallowing the government of the
nation of United States from providing its support in favor of such activities. It was held by the
ICJ that United States caused a violation of the obligations as per the customary international
law, pertaining to the non-utilization of force against any other nation and the non-intervention in
the affairs of any other nation. The ICJ stated that the nation of United States shall be
accountable to make payment of compensation in favor of Nicaragua. However, it was refused
by the nation of United States to take part in connection to the proceedings, when the arguments
of the United States were rejected by the ICJ. The United States also gridlocked the
implementation of the judgment of ICJ with the help of the UN Security Council and thus
prevented the nation of Nicaragua from the procurement of any compensation.
In relation to the Chagos Advisory Opinion, two questions had been addressed by the ICJ,
which were forwarded as a request by the General Assembly of United Nations. First, had
decolonization of Mauritius been concluded when the independence was gained in the year of
1968, after the Chagos Archipelago was expurgated? Second, what would be the consequences
in the legal sense in connection to the continued administration of the United Kingdom regarding
the Archipelago? Initially, it was assumed that the Court might be nervous and cautious to
deliver an opinion in connection to this case as, debatably, it was in relation to a dispute of
bilateral sovereignty, which the nation of the United Kingdom did not agree to be resolved and

3INTERNATIONAL LAW
decided with the help of judicial decision. However, surprisingly, robust responses were
delivered by the Court in relation to the questions that were forwarded. It was deemed by the ICJ
that the separation and parting of Chagos Islands from Mauritius in the year of 1965 by the
nation of United Kingdom, when both of the aforementioned regions were colonial terrains, shall
be regarded as improper and illegal. It was concluded by the court that as a consequence of the
unlawful detachment of Chagos Archipelago and its integration in relation to a new colony,
which is called the ‘British Indian Ocean Territory’ also known as BIOT, the procedure relating
to decolonization regarding Mauritius was not concluded in a lawful manner when Mauritius
assented to its independence in the year of 1968. It was held by the ICJ that the nation of United
Kingdom shall have the obligation to terminate its governance in relation to the Chagos Islands
as swiftly and quickly as possible (Zimmermann et. al., 2019).
The case of Gambia v. Myanmar, Jan. 23, 2020 shall be considered to be a relevant case
in relation to the aforementioned discussion. In this case, a particular concern has been
forwarded by the jurists and the critics. The jurists and the critics raised the question that whether
there is any possible way that would ensure the compliance of Myanmar in relation to the order
forwarded by the court. The unfortunate answer to their question is ‘no’. It may be said that the
compliance in relation to the international law predominantly depends upon the cooperation and
collaboration of the involved states. Such factor is a concern of the governments of several
nations and also of the non-governmental institutions. The upcoming future regarding the
conflict in the nation of Myanmar, and also the protection in relation to the populace of
Rohingya, may be considered to be uncertain. An order of the ICJ is considered to be an
important decision as per the international law and it must play a crucial function in the
protection of a group that is subject to a grave threat. However, it may be said that it may be

4INTERNATIONAL LAW
considered to be significant only as per the needs of the political will in relation to the
international community. It is a regarded as a longtime challenge and contest in connection to the
human rights as per the international law. The effect and influence concerning the order
forwarded in this case will be settled in the forthcoming years and months.

5INTERNATIONAL LAW
References
Gambia v. Myanmar, Jan. 23, 2020.
Prott, L. V. (2019). The future of the International Court of Justice. In The Year Book Of World
Affairs, 1979 (pp. 284-303). Routledge.
Republic of Nicaragua v The United States [1986] I.C.J 14.
Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 (2019).
Young, M. A., Nyhan, E., & Charlesworth, H. (2019). Studying Country-Specific Engagements
with the International Court of Justice.
Zimmermann, A., Tams, C. J., Oellers-Frahm, K., & Tomuschat, C. (Eds.). (2019). The Statute
of the International Court of justice: A commentary. Oxford University Press.