The International Court of Justice[i] is the main judicial body of the United Nations and the principal judicial organ for the settlement of disputes among states and giving advisory opinions on legal questions of paramount importance to the international community.

Since its establishment in 1945, the ICJ has been very instrumental in the development of international law and in ensuring that disputes are peacefully resolved. The Court was faced with the critical task of attaining relevance and efficiency in the role it would play in the 21st century. Though the rulings made by the ICJ are binding, their execution as well as continued vulnerabilities to politics have led to limitations in dealing with strong states in cases.

As it operates in a world where legal conflicts only seem to grow with greater complexity, the ICJ does reach a crossroads. Will it remain one of the cornerstones of international justice or become increasingly irrelevant to the very countries it is supposed to be holding to account?

The ICJ's Lack of Enforcement Power

The most manifest of those weaknesses is the lack of enforcement power. Although the decisions of the ICJ are binding as a matter of law, there is an absence of any mechanism for enforcement within the Court itself. The Court must rely on the UNSC[ii] for enforcement, rendering it eminently vulnerable in those cases that implicate the interests of major powers and their allies.

This is because the UNSC has veto powers[iii] comprising permanent members from the U.S., U.K., Russia, China, and France, and hence can always reject any moves of enforcement action by the ICJ against their own actions or that of their allies. Due to this vetting, judgment execution depends upon the political will of the very same powers whose action is called into review, and hence often places the court in the position of a paper tiger in cases of patent non-compliance by powerful states.

One full case in point was the Chagos Archipelago[iv], in which the ICJ had ruled in 2019 against the United Kingdom to maintain occupation of the islands illegally and stated that it should restore the territory to Mauritius. Based on reasons of national security, the UK simply ignored that ruling. But the fact that it was the home base of Diego Garcia, a key U.S. military base, adds a geopolitical layer to the case.

By this, the clear legal determination by the ICJ, the U.K. continued its occupation to demonstrate that powerful nations can flout the authority of the court when their interests are at stake.

Non-Compulsory Jurisdiction and State Sovereignty

Apart from that, another major weakness of the ICJ is that it has non-compulsory jurisdiction. The Court shall decide on cases only with the consent of the parties to them. Such reliance on states' consent in disputes before the Court would mean that countries would easily decline disputes from being referred to the ICJ whenever they feel that the tribunal would not consider their national interests in its ruling.

A case in point is that judgment wherein the ICJ, finding for Nicaragua against U.S.[v] violation of its sovereignty by aiding rebel forces in 1986, was able to ignore the judgment with the most minimal response by the U.S., which refused to pay it any heed and abjured the jurisdiction of this court entirely. This testifies to the truth that the court needed more state cooperation if not being unable to hold big powers liable once it became unwelcome.

When, in 2004, for instance, the ICJ ruled that Israel's building of a separation wall in Palestinian[vi] territory was illegal, the ruling was summarily discarded. "The real meaning of the ruling," Israel said, "was that the need for security outweighed the judgment of the court." As no means of enforcing the ruling existed, the ICJ's decision proved more of a symbolic act, underscoring several flaws in the makeup of international law regarding state sovereignty and national interest.

Diplomatic Moves and Legal Loopholes The few states that accept its jurisdiction often engage in hectic diplomacy, in an attempt to avoid the full implementation or trying to find loopholes within the legal framework. A notable example is how France reacted to the verdict of the ICJ in the 1970s, ordering France to stop its atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific.[vii]

Instead of actually stopping nuclear testing, France only moved it underground, thus satisfying the technical criteria of the decision while continuing this highly criticized program. Such moves show how even states seeming to adhere to ICJ decisions might actually only slightly alter their actual behavior in manner and form or spirit, which equally weakens the credibility of the Court.

The Role of the ICJ in the 21st Century: Time for Reform?

These are only challenges that flag the reality that the ICJ must change if it is to be relevant as an institution within the international legal system. Though its weaknesses are rather self-evident, the following are a few potential reforms which may strengthen this court's role in the 21st century:

1. Strengthening Enforcement Mechanisms:
   One of the most significant reforms would be to devise mechanisms for better enforcement. As things stand, the dependence of the ICJ on the UNSC renders enforcement vulnerable to political considerations. A suggested step would be to give ways of enforcement complementary to going through the Security Council, either by going through the General Assembly or through regional bodies exerting pressure diplomatically or economically on states that do not comply.
    
2. Expansion of Jurisdiction:
   ICJ could be given a broader jurisdiction to encompass a greater number of world issues that may become significantly pressing, particularly in the areas of environmental law, human rights, and international trade. An extension of the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction for selected areas of dispute, especially those raising a matter of pressing global concern, such as climate change or grave breaches of international humanitarian law.
    
3. More Public Accountability:
   Another manner in which the ICJ could establish its legitimacy is to make it more publicly visible and to engage with the international public at large more. Greater publicity of its proceedings and judgments, in addition to periodic reporting on states that do not comply, would create public pressure for governments to apply the decisions. Most of the decisions pronounced by the court relate to matters of international interest and better publicity might be a force through pressures of diplomatic and public opinion.
    
4. Collaboration with Other International Institutions:
   Closer coordination by the ICJ with other international legal bodies, in particular the ICC and the regional courts as may be, towards an integrated mechanism of international law. The partnerships will help in reducing the gap between international verdicts and compliance by states through building a network of legal mechanisms which reinforce each other's decisions.

Conclusion
Hitherto, as one of the cornerstones in the international legal framework, the International Court of Justice has been increasingly put to the test through modern geopolitics. Especially without separate machinery for enforcement and jurisdiction grounded on state consent, the ICJ's authority becomes excessively weakened, particularly in strong nations. Current cases, from the Chagos Archipelago to Israel's Separation Wall, thread in an illustrative way, wherein political preponderance often trumps legal decisions, to indicate how vulnerable international law could be.

Reformed ICJ enforcement mechanisms, expanded jurisdiction, and improved openness to the public can all work to restore the relevancy of this entity to the 21st century. As the world itself becomes more integrated and its problems assume ever larger dimensions, the ICJ will need to change if it is to continue playing a leading role in the advancement of international law.

But here the ICJ arrives at a crossroads itself, for the road it decides to take is likely to determine the way down which international justice goes for many years hence.

End Notes:

1. https://www.icj-cij.org/court
2. https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/
3. https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1159&context=annlsurvey
4. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/169
5. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/70
6. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/131
7. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/84
8. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/jurisdiction
9. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/transparency