International Court of Justice

An International Court of Justice is a principal judicial organ that is a United Nations body that resolves disputes between states and provides advisory opinions on international legal questions.

• AKA: ICJ, World Court, Cour Internationale de Justice, Peace Palace Court.
• Context:
  • It can typically adjudicate International Court of Justice Contentious Cases involving international court of justice state responsibility and international court of justice treaty interpretation.
  • It can typically issue International Court of Justice Provisional Measures to prevent international court of justice irreparable harm during international court of justice pending proceedings.
  • It can typically provide International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions on international court of justice legal questions from international court of justice UN organs.
  • It can typically interpret International Court of Justice Treaty Obligations through international court of justice jurisprudence and international court of justice legal reasoning.
  • It can typically establish International Court of Justice Legal Precedents via international court of justice judgments and international court of justice decisions.
  • ...
  • It can often determine International Court of Justice Maritime Boundaries through international court of justice delimitation principles and international court of justice equitable solutions.
  • It can often resolve International Court of Justice Territorial Disputes using international court of justice sovereignty analysis and international court of justice historical title.
  • It can often address International Court of Justice Human Rights Violations via international court of justice state obligations and international court of justice remedial orders.
  • It can often clarify International Court of Justice Customary Law through international court of justice state practice and international court of justice opinio juris.
  • ...
  • It can range from being an Advisory International Court of Justice to being a Contentious International Court of Justice, depending on its international court of justice jurisdiction type.
  • It can range from being a Consensual International Court of Justice to being a Compulsory International Court of Justice, depending on its international court of justice jurisdictional basis.
  • It can range from being a Bilateral International Court of Justice to being a Multilateral International Court of Justice, depending on its international court of justice party configuration.
  • It can range from being a Interim International Court of Justice to being a Final International Court of Justice, depending on its international court of justice decision stage.
  • It can range from being a Narrow International Court of Justice to being a Broad International Court of Justice, depending on its international court of justice interpretive scope.
  • ...
  • It can integrate with UN Security Council for international court of justice enforcement mechanisms.
  • It can connect to International Criminal Court through international court of justice complementary jurisdiction.
  • It can interface with Regional Courts via international court of justice jurisdictional boundaries.
  • It can communicate with Permanent Court of Arbitration for international court of justice alternative dispute resolution.
  • It can coordinate with UN General Assembly for international court of justice judge elections.
  • ...
• Example(s):
  • International Court of Justice Genocide Cases, such as:
    • South Africa v. Israel ICJ Case (2024) addressing international court of justice Gaza genocide allegations and international court of justice provisional measures.
    • Bosnia v. Serbia ICJ Case (2007) determining international court of justice Srebrenica genocide and international court of justice state responsibility.
    • Gambia v. Myanmar ICJ Case (2019) examining international court of justice Rohingya genocide and international court of justice prevention obligations.
  • International Court of Justice Advisory Opinions, such as:
    • Palestinian Wall Advisory Opinion (2004) declaring international court of justice occupation law violations and international court of justice self-determination rights.
    • Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996) analyzing international court of justice humanitarian law and international court of justice deterrence doctrine.
    • Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion (2019) affirming international court of justice decolonization obligations and international court of justice territorial integrity.
  • International Court of Justice Maritime Cases, such as:
    • Nicaragua v. Colombia ICJ Case (2012) delimiting international court of justice Caribbean maritime boundaries and international court of justice island sovereignty.
    • Peru v. Chile ICJ Case (2014) determining international court of justice Pacific maritime boundaries and international court of justice fishing rights.
  • ...
• Counter-Example(s):
  • International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals rather than adjudicating international court of justice state disputes.
  • Domestic Court, which lacks international court of justice international jurisdiction.
  • Arbitration Tribunal, which operates through party agreement rather than international court of justice institutional mandate.
  • Regional Human Rights Court, which focuses on individual complaints rather than international court of justice interstate cases.
  • Military Tribunal, which addresses war crimes rather than international court of justice state responsibility.
• See: United Nations, International Law, State Sovereignty, Treaty Law, Genocide Convention, International Humanitarian Law, Provisional Measures, State Responsibility, International Dispute Resolution, Peace Palace.

---