Differences Between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court Both the International Court

Differences Between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court

Both the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) play a significant role in the international law but have a different purpose in international governance. This essay is a description of two of the major differences between ICC and the ICJ, citing particular cases which demonstrate their activities, and using pertinent readings and lectures to place them in context with the role they serve in the United Nations (UN) system.

Difference 1: Subject and Subjectpurpose.

The ICJ formed as the main judicial organ of the UN and is involved in the adjudication of disputes among states as well as in issuing advisory opinions on the questions of international law. It is a civil court and it deals with state to state disputes in which it does not have the power to bring an individual to book unless they have committed a criminal offense (Willetts, 2000, p. 191). On the other hand, the ICC, established under the Rome Statute, is a criminal court where individuals are held responsible of various international crimes like genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is aimed at guaranteeing personal criminal responsibility, but not to solve interstate disputes (Carayannis and Weiss, 2021, pp. 41-62).

ICJ Case Example: Nicaragua v. United States (1986)

In Nicaragua v. United States, the ICJ considered the complaint of Nicaragua that the U.S. had breached international law through backing the rebel groups of Contras, and by drilling harbors within the country. In Nicaragua, the Court gave Nicaragua the verdict in favor and granted it reparations, but the U.S. declined the decision (ICJ Reports 1986, para. 292). The case is one example of how the ICJ can resolve a dispute between states, according to the international law.

ICC Case Example: Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (2012)

Prosecutor v. was the first conviction by the ICC. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, a court sentenced the Congolese warlord, Lubanga to 14 years imprisonment on the charges of recruitment and enlistment of child soldiers in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ICC-01/04-01/06, para. 1358). What is brought out in this case is that the ICC is interested in individual responsibility towards war crimes unlike the state-centered approach of the ICJ.

Difference 2 Objections to the Jurisdiction.

The controversial jurisdiction of the ICJ needs to be expressly consented by states generally either in treaties, optional clauses in Article 36(2) of its Statute, or special agreements. The ICJ is unable to hear a case without this consent, thus limited in cases when states do not consent (Willetts, 2000, p. 191). Conversely, the ICC is also capable of having jurisdiction over the citizens of the state not a party to the Rome Statute, when the case is referred by United Nations Security Council, or when it is initiated by the Prosecutor, despite the state under consideration not being a party so long as the crime was committed on the territory of a state party (Carayannis and Weiss, 2021, p. 41). Such an expanded jurisdictional scope enables the ICC to respond to individual crimes to cases where there may not be state consent.

Contextual Significance

The role of NGOs in the formation of such institutions as the ICC can be underlined by the changing role of NGOs as the topic of the Willetts (2000) discussion. The Rome Statute was a resultant lobby by NGOs, and it marked the relocation of interstate to pluralist global government, with civil society at its centre stage (Willetts, 2000, p. 196). On the same note, Carayannis and Weiss (2021) discuss the so-called Third UN with a particular focus on the role of NGOs and civil society in setting norms, including the global responsibility of war crimes, which led directly to the formation of the ICC (Carayannis and Weiss, 2021, pp. 41-62). Both the readings, as well as the lecture discussions about the topic of global governance, demonstrate how these two courts are functioning as a part of a larger ecosystem in which non-state actors are becoming more and more important in international law.

Conclusion

ICJ and ICC are essentially different in terms of jurisdiction and the purpose, the work of the ICJ is to resolve the dispute between states and the work of the ICC is to prosecute a person to commit atrocities. Also their jurisdictional foundations differ, as the ICJ needs a state consent and the ICC functions by more general mechanisms. Cases like Nicaragua v. Decision of the Court of Appeals, first instance, 1967. Such differences are seen in lubanga. NGOs as mentioned in the readings demonstrate the impact of the civil society dynamism in promoting global justice systems.

References

Carayannis, T., & Weiss, T. G. (2021). The “Third” United Nations: How a Knowledge Ecology Helps the UN Think. Ethics & International Affairs.

Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986.

Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment, 14 March 2012.

Willetts, P. (2000). From “Consultative Arrangements” to “Partnership”: The Changing Status of NGOs in Diplomacy at the UN. Global Governance, 6(2), 191–212.