29.1.2 Performance of the international courts

International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Jurisdictional Limitations

• State-Centric Jurisdiction: The ICJ primarily deals with disputes between states and does not have the jurisdiction to hear cases brought by individuals or non-state actors. This limitation is particularly problematic in the realm of human rights, where violations often affect individuals rather than states as a whole.

• Voluntary Jurisdiction: States must consent to the ICJ's jurisdiction, either through treaties or special agreements. This voluntary basis for jurisdiction means that many states can opt out of ICJ rulings, especially in politically sensitive cases, weakening the court's ability to enforce international law.

Political Influence and Non-Compliance

• Political Pressure: The ICJ operates in a highly political environment, where the influence of powerful states can affect its decisions and the willingness of other states to comply with its rulings. The need to maintain neutrality and avoid antagonizing major powers often results in cautious or diluted judgments.

• Enforcement Challenges: The ICJ lacks direct enforcement mechanisms and relies on the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) to enforce its rulings. However, the UNSC's involvement is subject to the veto power of its permanent members (P5), which can obstruct enforcement in cases involving powerful states or their allies.

Lengthy and Complex Legal Processes

• Protracted Proceedings: Cases before the ICJ often take years to resolve due to the complexity of international law and the procedural requirements of the court. This delay can undermine the court's ability to provide timely remedies, particularly in urgent human rights and environmental cases.

---

International Criminal Court (ICC)

Jurisdictional Constraints

• Temporal Jurisdiction: The ICC's jurisdiction is limited to crimes committed after July 1, 2002, when the Rome Statute came into force. This temporal limitation means that the ICC cannot address many significant human rights violations that occurred before this date.

• Geographical Jurisdiction: The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed on the territory of a state party to the Rome Statute or by nationals of such states. This limitation excludes non-signatory states, including major powers like the United States, China, and Russia, from the ICC's jurisdiction, weakening its global reach.

Selective Justice and Perceptions of Bias

• Focus on Africa: The ICC has been criticized for disproportionately targeting African states, leading to accusations of bias and selective justice. This perception has undermined the court's legitimacy, particularly in Africa, where some governments view the ICC as a tool of Western imperialism.

Enforcement and Cooperation Challenges

• Reliance on State Cooperation: The ICC lacks its own enforcement mechanisms and relies on state cooperation to arrest and surrender suspects. However, many states, particularly those where the accused hold power or influence, refuse to cooperate, making it difficult for the ICC to carry out its mandate.

• Political and Diplomatic Pressures: The ICC's independence is often compromised by political and diplomatic pressures from powerful states, which can influence the court's investigations and prosecutions. The court's reliance on state funding and cooperation further exposes it to political manipulation.

Lengthy Trials and Delayed Justice

• Complex and Lengthy Trials: The ICC's legal processes are often lengthy, involving complex investigations, extensive evidence collection, and procedural safeguards for defendants. While these processes are necessary for ensuring fair trials, they can also lead to significant delays in delivering justice.

---

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR)

Overwhelming Caseload

• High Volume of Cases: The ECHR faces an overwhelming number of cases, leading to significant delays in processing and adjudicating human rights claims. The court's broad jurisdiction over 46 member states of the Council of Europe means that it must deal with a wide variety of cases, ranging from minor infractions to severe human rights violations.

Compliance and Enforcement Issues

• Voluntary Compliance: While ECHR rulings are legally binding, enforcement relies on the willingness of states to comply. Some states, particularly those with poor human rights records, delay or refuse to implement ECHR judgments, particularly when they conflict with national laws or political interests.

Political Pressures and Sovereignty Concerns

• Accusations of Overreach: The ECHR has been accused by some governments of overstepping its mandate and interfering with national sovereignty, particularly in cases that challenge domestic legal and political decisions. These accusations can lead to resistance from states and calls for reform or withdrawal from the court's jurisdiction.

Balancing Rights and National Security

• Complex Judgments: The ECHR often faces the challenge of balancing the protection of individual human rights with the security concerns of states. Cases involving terrorism, mass migration, or national emergencies require the court to navigate complex legal and ethical questions, often leading to controversial rulings.