Amid Global Trust Deficit, International Court of Justice Crucial to Safeguarding Rule of Law, Speakers Say as General Assembly Considers Its Annual Report
Delegates Stress Judicial Body’s Efficacy Depends on Compliance with Judgments, Sufficient Funds, as President Points to Full Caseload
Amid waning trust in multilateral institutions, the International Court of Justice remains a vital force for guarding and enhancing the rule of law at the international level, the General Assembly heard today, as speakers called on all States to accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction and ensure it is adequately funded.
Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of the Court, citing from the report of its work spanning 1 August 2018 to 31 July 2019 (document A/74/4), said the institution has maintained a full caseload on a wide range of legal issues submitted by countries on all continents, including questions of consular protection, the formation of customary rules of international law in the area of decolonization and maritime and territorial disputes. The Court has 16 contentious cases currently pending. During the reporting period, it held hearings in five cases and one advisory procedure, and delivered three judgements, one advisory opinion and two orders on provisional measures.
In September, Latvia became the seventy‑fourth State to accept the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory. join the judicial body. “The pace might be slow, but the trend towards a wider acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in the international community is quite clear,” he said.
When the floor was opened for discussion, delegates called on all States to recognize the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction and abide by its judgments. Several pointed out that Governments are entrusting the Court with increasingly complex and politically sensitive cases — an indication of their confidence in the institution as a vital instrument for preserving peace and resolving disputes between and among countries. “This diversity testifies to the universal character of the Court’s jurisdiction, to the Court’s growing specialization in complex spaces of international law,” said Norway’s representative, speaking on behalf of the Nordic countries (Finland, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and his own).
The representative of New Zealand, also speaking for Canada and Australia, echoed that sentiment. “The higher the number of States that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the greater the opportunity for timely and peaceful resolution of disputes relating to questions of international law, an outcome that is in the interests of us all,” he said, also commending the Court for delivering judgements and advisory opinions within six months of the closure of oral proceedings.
Libya’s representative warned that withholding support for the Court weakens its overall impact. For its part, Libya has complied with all the Court’s judgements, even when the rulings were detrimental to the country.
The representative of the Netherlands, which hosts the Court, encouraged all Member States to accept its compulsory jurisdiction with as few reservations as possible, voicing concern about the tendency in recent years to make more rather than fewer reservations.
Some speakers warned that failure to give the Court adequate funding could prevent it from fully attending to its growing caseload. Djibouti’s representative emphasized that in the current era of mistrust in multilateral institutions, the Court is more important than ever and must have the proper resources to carry out its duties.
Several delegations involved in recent Court decisions affirmed their commitment to complying with its rulings and expressed dismay over other States that had not.
Sandra Erica Jovel Polanco, Guatemala’s Minister for Foreign Affairs, said that earlier in the year, her country and Belize jointly brought a long‑standing boundary dispute before the Court, which marks a “historic milestone”. Relations between the two countries are at a high point and Guatemala is confident that the dispute’s resolution will bring economic, social and political benefits to the region, she said.
Ukraine’s representative said that the Russian Federation has not complied with the Court’s 19 April 2017 decision calling on it to “refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to preserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis”. In not suspending its discriminatory ban, the Russian Federation continues to violate a binding decision, revealing an unfortunate attitude toward the Court, the United Nations Charter and international law.
The speaker for Mauritius said he was upset that the United Kingdom had not terminated its unlawful colonial administration of part of Mauritius’ sovereign territory, despite the Court’s 25 February 2019 advisory opinion and the General Assembly’s subsequent endorsement of it. Sadly, the colonial power has chosen to defy both United Nations bodies, stating that it is free to ignore the ruling on the ground that an advisory opinion is nonbinding, he said, stressing that responsible Member States are not free to ignore the Court’s opinions.
Qatar’s representative said the Court delivered two orders, one in 2018 and the other in 2019, concerning the United Arab Emirates’ discriminatory and unjust measures against her country, which violate human rights law and freedom of movement and expression. His counterpart from the United Arab Emirates, however, said that measures by her Government are in line with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and are in response to Qatar’s support for terrorism and extremism, and its interference in States’ internal affairs. She regretted that Qatar has tried to cloud the Court’s interpretation of law.
Iran’s speaker said that the United States is penalizing and sanctioning nations across the world and that Iran filed an application to protect its rights under the bilateral Treaty of Amity. On 3 October, the Court unanimously indicated provisional measures obliging the United States to remove any impediments arising from moves announced following its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In response, the United States imposed numerous rounds of new sanctions. “Such irresponsible behaviour is in clear defiance of the Court’s order,” he stressed.
Also speaking today were representatives of Singapore, Azerbaijan (on behalf of the Non‑Aligned Movement), Cabo Verde (on behalf of the Community of Portuguese‑speaking countries), Czech Republic (on behalf of the Visegrad Group), Brazil, Sudan, Mexico, Spain, Japan, Honduras, Togo, China, India, Cuba, Nicaragua, Philippines, Romania, Senegal, Ecuador, Chile, Jamaica, Germany, Argentina, El Salvador, France, Cyprus, Bolivia, Italy, Greece, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, Viet Nam and Egypt. An observer for the State of Palestine also spoke.
Representatives of the Russian Federation, Chile, United Kingdom, Qatar, Mauritius and United Arab Emirates spoke in exercise of the right of reply.
The General Assembly will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Thursday, 31 October to consider the 2019 report of the Economic and Social Council and the report of the Secretary of the Committee for the United Nations Population Award on the 2019 award.
Opening Remarks by President of International Court of Justice
ABDULQAWI AHMED YUSUF, President of the International Court of Justice, said that the Court’s docket “has remained full” during the reporting period. There are 16 contentious cases currently pending on its list, and other cases were disposed of during the past year. “The cases before the Court involve States from all regions of the world and touch on a wide range of issues, including questions of consular protection, the formation of customary rules of international law in the area of decolonization, and maritime and territorial disputes,” he said. In that period, the Court held hearings on five cases and one advisory procedure; and delivered three judgements, one advisory opinion and two orders on provisional measures.
Among those, the Court held hearings and issued an order on request for the indication of provisional measures in the pending case Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The Court rejected three of the United States’ objections, upheld one and found that one did not possess an exclusively preliminary character, meaning that the Court would consider it when dealing with the merits of the case. The case now heads to the merits stage. The Court also held hearings on a different pending case submitted by Iran: Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rates (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America).
He said that, on 22 February 2019, the Court gave its Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965. It concluded that Mauritius’s decolonization has not been completed. The Court concluded that the United Kingdom must end its administration of the Chagos Archipelago “as rapidly as possible”. Following the Court’s advisory opinion, the United Nations General Assembly outlined the details for the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from Mauritius.
In addition, on 17 July 2019, the Court rendered its judgement on the merits in the case concerning Jadhav (India v. Pakistan), he continued. The Court found that Pakistan violated its obligations under article 36 of the Vienna Convention and needed to review and reconsider its conviction and sentencing of Mr. Jahav, who was previously sentenced to death in a Pakistani military court, without consular access, for “acts of espionage”. He noted that following the Court’s ruling, Pakistan confirmed its commitment to implementing the judgement.
The Court handed down another order, on the case concerning Applications of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates), he said. The Court considered that the measure requested by the United Arab Emirates, in which it asked the Court to order Qatar to immediately unblock access to a website through which Qatari citizens could apply for a permit to return to the United Arab Emirates, “did not concern plausible rights” under the Convention. He said that on 7 June 2019, Guatemala and Belize brought a dispute before the Court concerning the former’s territorial, insular and maritime claim. The Court welcomes the possibility to provide assistance to two neighbouring countries in a border dispute.
In addition, the Court has now fully associated itself with the United Nations internal justice system, he said. In particular, staff members will now be able to receive support in their informal dispute resolution efforts from the United Nations Ombudsman and Mediation Services and seek advice from the Office of Staff Legal Assistance. If informal means are unsuccessful, they will be able to resolve disputes formally through the management evaluation process, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal and the United Nations Appeals Tribunal.
Turning to organizational finances, he said that the Court must be given the means to carry out its work. Statutory obligations mean that the Court has no control over the volume of its work. There is a “real sense of disquiet” that the United Nations budgetary restrictions may undermine the Court’s abilities to meet the challenges of its substantial workload. He added that the Court would like the General Assembly to approve the creation of a trust fund for the Court’s Judicial Fellowship Programme, which offers training to recent law graduates from around the world.
On the asbestos‑related situation at the Peace Palace in the Netherlands, he said that on 14 October 2019 the Dutch Government conveyed that it is in discussions with the Carnegie Foundation, which owns the Palace. Until an agreement is reached, preparations for renovating the Palace will be put on hold. This intervening period may be used for discussions between the Court and the Dutch Government to ensure a smooth relocation of the Registry and other Court services.
He concluded by saying that since the creation of the Court’s predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, any doubts about establishing a permanent court have been dispelled and fears about the dangers of a “gouvernement des juges” have failed to materialize. On the contrary, States regard the Court as a guardian of the rule of law at the international level, with Latvia recently accepting the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory, in addition to the 73 existing States who do so. Much remains to be done before the Court is empowered to settle all disputes between all States, and to anchor even further the rule of law at the international level. “The pace might be slow; but the trend towards a wider acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in the international community is quite clear,” he stressed.
Statements
BURHAN GAFOOR (Singapore) said the Court contributes significantly to multilateralism by upholding and promoting the rule of law at the international level. A universal rules‑based system is crucial to a small State like his, which cannot afford to have international relations work on a might‑makes‑right basis. While commending the Court for the volume and diversity of its work — a testament to the confidence Member States have in its ability to resolve international disputes peacefully — he noted the Court’s approved budget has not grown apace. In light of United Nations cash flow problems and their impact on the Court, he called on Member States to pay their contributions promptly. Turning to the presence of asbestos in the Court building itself, he expressed appreciation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands for providing resources to decontaminate the basement, as staff are entitled to a safe working environment. He welcomed the free public mobile device application launched in May as a helpful feature making the work of the Court more accessible to Member States and the public alike.
TOFIG MUSAYEV (Azerbaijan), speaking on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, said that the Court has a significant role in promoting and encouraging the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. Noting the fact that the Security Council has not sought an advisory opinion from the Court since 1970, the Movement urges the Security Council to make greater use of the Court and its advisory opinions. During the Ministerial Meeting of the Coordinating Bureau of the Movement of Non‑Aligned Countries, held in July 2019 in Caracas, the Movement decided to encourage those in a position to better utilize the Court and to consider conducting consultations among the Movement’s member States.
The General Assembly and other United Nations organs should request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions, he said, reaffirming the importance of opinions issued, including the 8 July 1996 opinion on the “Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons”. States are obliged to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict international protocol. He further called on Israel, the occupying Power, to fully respect the 9 July 2004 Court advisory opinion titled “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”.
VICTORIA HALLUM (New Zealand), also speaking on behalf of Canada and Australia, said that they have all accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court and recognize its role as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. “The higher the number of States that accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the greater the opportunity for timely and peaceful resolution of disputes relating to questions of international law, an outcome that is in the interests of us all,” she emphasized. States should be reassured by the diverse geographical spread of cases and wide variety of subject matters that the Court has demonstrated it can deal with. It is commendable that judgements and advisory opinions are delivered within six months of the closure of oral proceedings. “We encourage the Court to continue its efforts in balancing urgent and less time‑critical issues to provide timely and appropriate decisions and guidance,” she added. The Court’s role in deciding on those disputes submitted to it is vital to the international rules‑based order.
HELGE SELAND (Norway), also speaking on behalf of the Nordic Countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), noted the Court’s high level of activity during the reporting period, during which it delivered judgements in three contentious cases, gave one advisory opinion, handed down 16 orders, held public hearings in six cases, and was working on two new contentious cases. He also noted the wide geographical spread and variety of subject matter of the cases before the Court. “This diversity testifies to the universal character of the Court’s jurisdiction, to the Court’s growing specialization in complex spaces of international law,” he said.
The submission of a dispute to the Court is “not an unfriendly act” and should not be regarded as such, he said. The more than 300 bilateral or multilateral treaties, which provide the Court with jurisdiction ratione materiae in the resolution of disputes between State parties, are listed on its website. Moreover, while judgements are binding only upon the parties concerned, the Court’s jurisprudence has far‑reaching impacts, he pointed out, stressing the need to ensure that the Court has adequate resources to fulfil its mandate. In that regard, the Nordic countries have made voluntary payments to the Secretary‑General’s trust fund to assist states in the settlement of disputes through the International Court of Justice and they welcome its redesigned website.
JOSÉ LUIS FIALHO ROCHA (Cabo Verde), speaking on behalf of the Community of Portuguese‑speaking Countries, noted all Member States are party to the Statute of the Court and 74 have recognized its jurisdiction as compulsory. He cited the Court’s outstanding contribution to the development and clarification of international law, including on the use of force, territorial and maritime disputes and the immunity of States and their agents, among others. The Court also provides legal certainty and helps prevent divergences between States from erupting into violence. The high rate of compliance with Court judgments is very encouraging, illustrating that States trust in its independence, credibility and impartiality. The Court’s heavy workload and wide range of subjects ruled on only confirm its success and universality, but Member States must acknowledge its need for resources to cope with that level of activity. He welcomed the widening scope and cooperation for international law as the Court’s judgments inspire other international decision‑making bodies.
PETR VÁLEK (Czech Republic), speaking on behalf of the Visegrad Group (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovakia), said that one of the Court’s greatest strengths is its universal character. All Member States can bring their disputes before the Court with confidence in its impartiality and wisdom in rendering international justice. Pending contentious cases demonstrate a wide diversity of parties, with States from almost every continent appearing before the Court. Citing the Court’s advisory opinion on the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, the Visegrad Group believes such requests for an advisory opinion should not be used to introduce matters implicating disputes for which contentious Court proceedings would be more appropriate. He added that the peaceful settlement of disputes requires States to not only accept the applicable procedure but also implement the outcome in good faith. Turning to jurisdiction, he underlined the importance of including clauses on peaceful dispute settlement in multilateral treaties, as is the case in many such treaties. The disputes can thereby be submitted to the Court should the parties be unable to resolve their differences otherwise.
SANDRA ERICA JOVEL POLANCO, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, said that the Court’s lengthy docket reveals the trust States have in its ability to resolve disputes in an impartial manner. Its rulings and advisory opinions help improve international practices. For many years, differences between States have been resolved through force, tragically, but the work of the Court offers a better way. The Court is the result of leadership in conflict resolution in international law, and the tasks of its judges are of paramount importance. She said that earlier in the year, Guatemala and Belize brought before the Court the Guatemala’s Territorial, Insular and Maritime Claim (Guatemala/Belize) case, which marks a “historic milestone”. The claim, submitted through a “Special Agreement”, reveals the commitment of the two countries to search for a peaceful resolution to their long‑standing border dispute.
She welcomed that the Court fixed 8 June 2020 and 8 June 2021 as the respective time limits for the filing of a Memorial by Guatemala and a Counter‑Memorial by Belize. Relations between Guatemala and Belize are at a high point currently and her country is committed to strengthening them. She said that the Court should be the final judge of the dispute, and Guatemala is confident that its resolution will bring economic, social and political benefits to both countries and to the populations living in adjacent areas. However, the Court’s financial situation, due to liquidity problems in 2018 and 2019, is concerning, he said, encouraging Member States to meet their financial obligations to ensure the Court’s continued functioning.
GEORGE RODRIGO BANDEIRA GALINDO (Brazil), aligning himself with the Community of Portuguese‑speaking Countries, said that the Court is more than just another avenue for peaceful settlement of disputes; it is the main judicial body of the United Nations and the only international court of a universal character with general jurisdiction. For over 70 years, the Court has helped to crystallize international law in areas as diverse as the law of the sea, human rights, treaty interpretation and the use of force. The Court’s latest report is yet another chapter in its auspicious history. Highlighting the three judgements, one advisory opinion, 16 orders and two new contentious cases, he added that the pending cases involve States from two continents and address a great variety of issues. The high level of activity, the diverse geographical spread of cases and the diversity of subjects demonstrate the renewed vitality of the Court. Also welcoming the Court’s outreach efforts which bring it closer to a variety of audiences, he cited its internship programmes as well as participation in university events as good examples of that.
ELSADIG ALI SAYED AHMED (Sudan) said that the Court contributes to the cause of peace, reflecting the origins of the United Nations in the post‑Second World War environment. Court rulings have an impact beyond their specific cases, as they send a strong message across the world about the importance of international law. The goals of the Charter of the United Nations cannot be realized without the rule of law, which is the basis for peace, security and sustainable development. He said that the Court’s report shows in high detail that Member States continue to utilize it to resolve disputes. Sudan encourages States that haven’t accepted its jurisdiction to do so, and the Security Council should consult the Court for advisory opinions. He said that it is critical that the Court receives adequate funding to continue its vital work.
Mr. CELDRID (Mexico) said that the Court's findings concerning the Chagos Archipelago will be used for the General Assembly’s follow‑up of this question. He supported the decision in the Jadhav (India v. Pakistan) case confirming the obligation of consular notification regarding the detention of foreign nationals. This has broadened and deepened the Court’s jurisprudence on consular law and has also enhanced the importance of respecting it without exception. The norms constituting consular law are not optional rules that States have the freedom to respect or not, but norms of international law which protect relations between States in their most basic dimension. He also noted the General Assembly resolution that called for the immediate application of the decision in the Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America) case.
CARLOS JIMENEZ PIERNAS (Spain) said the diversity of States placing disputes before the Court as well as the issues they involve prove the institution plays a leading role as a guarantor of the proper interpretation and application of public international law. He noted that more and more disputes concerning human rights protection are being presented before the Court due to the higher profile this legal area has been acquiring in recent years within the contemporary international legal system, stressing that neither the Court nor the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea are international human rights courts with universal jurisdiction. Adding that protection of human rights in international practice manifests itself by other means, both in a universal and regional context, he said the duty to promote formulas enabling this protection falls to States.
Mr. HAMAMOTO (Japan) said that the Court has played an important role over the years as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations in the peaceful settlement of international disputes and promotion of rule of law. The rule of law and pacific settlement of international disputes provide the essential foundation of stable, rules‑based international relations and are essential principles underpinning Japan’s foreign policy. The increase in the number of cases brought before the Court indicates that more and more States respect and support its legal wisdom and the role it plays in the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
Mr. MOHAMED KHALIFA (Libya) said that the international community envisioned a permanent international judiciary system to peacefully resolve disputes between States. Beginning in the 1940s, the Court fulfilled that role. The existence of the Court, even if it is incomplete, saves the international community on many occasions from war. All Member States should accede to its jurisdiction, because some countries withholding their support weaken the Court’s overall impact. He said that Libya has been before the Court on many occasions and has complied with all judgements, even on those occasions when the rulings were detrimental to the country.
OKSANA ZOLOTAROVA (Ukraine) said that it is unfortunate that not all States respect the Court’s orders. Following its unlawful occupation of Crimea, the Russian Federation launched a wide‑ranging “campaign of cultural erasure” directed against the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian communities. People continue to disappear and be unlawfully detained. Education in the Crimean Tatar and Ukrainian languages is restricted and media are intimidated. “This constitutes a massive violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination,” she said. She recalled the Court’s 19 April 2017 decision concerning the Application of the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism and of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), which required the latter to “refrain from maintaining or imposing limitations on the ability of the Crimean Tatar community to preserve its representative institutions, including the Mejlis”. More than two years later it remains apparent that “Russia does not consider that it must suspend its discriminatory ban on the Mejlis,” she said. By ignoring the Court’s order, Moscow continues to violate a binding decision, revealing an unfortunate attitude to the Court, the United Nations Charter and international law. “We call upon the international community to insist that Russia abide by international law, including the binding rulings of the International Court of Justice,” she said. On 8 November, the Court will deliver its order on the Russia Federation’s preliminary objections in the case. Ukraine looks forward to hearing the decision and remains committed to the rule of law.
YOLANNIE CERRATO (Honduras) said that her country has adhered to the Court’s rulings and more broadly to international law. Compliance with international rulings handed down by the Court is what guarantees peace, harmony and security between peoples and Governments. She welcomed the Court’s efforts to remain effective in resolving disputes “in spite of difficult times”. Commending the efforts of all United Nations institutions as they adapt to the Organization’s budget constraints, she said Honduras remains prepared to make its contributions to ensure the most efficient possible functioning of the Court.
ALYA AHMED SAIF AL-THANI (Qatar) said that according to international consensus international relations must be governed by the rule of law. Hence, the role played by the Court is more relevant than ever. It is the only universal international court that plays a decisive role in interpreting rule of law. International compliance with its judgments shows trust in its rulings, she said, pointing out the need to provide the Court with the requisite resources. Qatar is committed to the United Nations Charter and international law and will continue to support the role of the Court in the peaceful settlement of disputes. The illegal blockade against Qatar has subjected it to various violations. For this reason, Qatar resorted to the Court to help it deal with measures that violate the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. That resulted in a 2018 Court order which rejected the measures of the United Arab Emirates against Qatar, she noted.
KOKOU KPAYEDO (TOGO), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, said that his country appreciates the Court’s extensive workload and efficiency in dealing with its numerous cases. Member States which have not yet done so should accept the Court’s jurisdiction, as Togo has done for decades. The country recognizes as compulsory the Court’s rulings on all disputes concerning matters within its jurisdiction. The Court plays a crucial role in establishing rule of law across the world, contributing to peaceful resolutions of inter‑State conflicts. Togo has always followed the court with great interest. It welcomes the launch of Court’s new website in summer of 2019, and in May 2019 of the free mobile application, which allows users to remain updated in real time on the Court’s activities in French and English. He reaffirmed Togo’s commitment to multilateralism, adding that the credibility of the Court is in the hands of Member States.
JIA GUIDE (China) said that the Court is the most authoritative and influential international judicial body in the world, with more than 130 judgements and 30 advisory opinions delivered in its 70 years of existence. Affirming China’s commitment to a negotiation and consultation‑based approach to the resolution of international disputes, he rejected to unilateralism, as it escalates tensions and broadens disputes. Unilateral acts and bullying by a certain State have created unprecedented challenges and attacks on multilateralism and international law, he said. The Court will have an even more prominent role to play in defending international law and resolving disputes through peaceful means.
UMA SEKHAR (India) noted the complex factual and legal issues brought before the Court in cases involving territorial and maritime delimitation, human rights, and the immunity of States. States impose a great amount of confidence on the Court, evident from the number, nature and variety of cases it deals with. The same is evident from the fact that pending contentious cases have been submitted by States from four continents, which speaks to the universal character of the Court. In its judicial functions, the Court has remained sensitive to the political realities and sentiments of States, while acting in accordance with the provisions of the United Nations Charter, its own Statute and international law, she said.
ANET PINO RIVERO (Cuba), associating her with the Non‑Aligned Movement, expressed regret about Court judgements that were not being enforced, in clear violation of the Charter. She also voiced concern that the effectiveness and enforceability of the Court’s judgments may be subjected to criticism, not without reason, because some countries are still unaware of verdicts that are unfavourable to them. “Unfortunately, the refusal on the part of those nations to comply with the judgements pronounced and the obstacles they have placed in the way of the United Nations mechanisms to enforce judgments, using the privilege of the right to veto in the Security Council, show the imperfection of the Court’s mechanisms to enforce its decisions,” She continued. Such a situation reveals the need to reform the United Nations system in order to provide greater guarantees to developing countries regarding enforcement of the Court’s rulings by powerful nations. She commended the Court for the publications made available to Government parties and for the various online resources it offers. This remains critical for developing countries, some of which are often deprived of information related to advancing international law.
RENÉ LEFEBER (Netherlands) said the Court’s performance continues to evoke admiration, given the increase in the number of disputes and the variety of legal questions brought before it. Noting that his country hosts the Court, he encouraged all Member States to accept its compulsory jurisdiction by making a declaration under Article 36 (2) of the Statute, and to do so with as few reservations as possible. In his Government’s declaration to that effect, the only reservation is one ratione temporis: the Netherlands will accept all disputes arising out of situations or facts that took place no earlier than 100 years before the dispute is brought to the Court. He voiced concern that in recent years, the tendency is to make more rather than fewer reservations to the acceptance of the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Also noting the Court’s concern about the safety of its premises, he said his Government has made available funding for the renovations and will solve outstanding issues as soon as possible.
JAIME HERMIDA CASTILLO (Nicaragua), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, noted that while the Court’s caseload has increased its budget has decreased. As of July, there were 16 outstanding cases before the Court from four continents. He expressed concern that only 64 per cent of the funds of the Court’s approved budget for 2019 has been made available. “The peaceful settlement of dispute is the very basis of peace and the rule of law,” he said, cautioning that “without the rule of the Court the international justice system would collapse.” The Court’s work has proven to be fundamental for the successful functioning of other United Nations organs such as the General Assembly. The Court’s rule strengthens any action the General Assembly plans to take, particularly regarding decolonialization, he said, adding that the Court’s difficult financial situation must be resolved.
MARIA ANGELA ABRERA PONCE (Philippines) noted the Court’s increasing workload, the broad subject matter of cases brought before it and the geographical diversity of States bringing cases. This represents a show of trust and confidence by States in the Court’s critical role in peacefully settling disputes and promoting the rule of law. Adding that the relationship between the Court and Security Council is fundamental in maintaining peace and security, she called on the Council to make greater use of the Court for advisory opinions and interpretations of relevant international law norms.
ALINA OROSAN (Romania) noted both the increase in the number of cases on the Court’s docket and the type of disputes. The Court’s judicial pronouncements are essential for the maintenance of world peace and stability. This role is even more significant today, as the rules‑based international order confronts emerging challenges, some of which stem from conduct that ignores or undermines the norms of international law. By clarifying international law and contributing to its development through judgements and advisory opinions, the Court has a very important role in ensuring that the international rules‑based order remains resilient. The Court has the potential to address how the international community must adapt to technological and environmental changes. States must comply with its rulings.
Mr. DIAKITE (Senegal), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, noted that the increased number of decisions handed down and the growing diversity of cases represent the universal nature of the Court’s jurisdiction. The disputes the Court now handles include not only traditional disputes, but also those related to human rights and environmental protection. Universal recognition of the Court’s jurisdiction is essential for the peaceful resolution of inter‑State disputes. He urged the Court to make impartial decisions with integrity and swiftness and called for implementation of the Court’s decisions. The Court’s credibility and effectiveness are highly dependent on its ability to consider all legal systems and operate in a multilingual way.
LUIS GALLEGOS CHIRIBOGA (Ecuador) said that the rule of law is the basis of the international order. As Article 33 of the Charter states, the parties to disputes should first seek a solution by negotiation, mediation and other peaceful means. Expressing full support for the Court and its decisions, he said its activities, including outstanding cases, represent its universal nature. The volume of its work also demonstrates the trust States placed in the judicial body. Therefore, it must have sufficient financial resources at its disposal to complete its tasks.
MARIANA DURNEY (Chile) said that the Court’s work is the source of valuable jurisprudence that contributes to the clarification and determination of applicable international law. She highlighted the essential role of international treaties in relations between States, as they are an expression of consent regulated by international law, constituting an objective basis for action. Noting that Court’s work has steadily increased over the past 20 years, she said this trend is ample proof of its prestige and credibility as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. The international community should understand what the Court needs to preserve its capacity in carrying out its mandate at the current level, she added, stressing the importance of providing it with the necessary means to ensure it can adapt to new requirements.
KATHY-ANN BROWN (Jamaica) said that the decision of the Court to assume jurisdiction in the Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia) case concerning the delimitation of the outer continental shelf is a reminder of the Court’s earlier judgement in 2012 which drew the maritime boundary between the two countries as well as the Court’s decision in Nicaragua v. Honduras case concerning the Caribbean Sea. In both cases, the Court declined to delimit the maritime boundary extending more than 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. The International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea adopted a contrary position in the Dispute concerning delimitation of the maritime boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal (Bangladesh/Myanmar) case, declining to draw a distinction between the inner‑continental shelf and the outer‑continental shelf. The overlapping nature of the jurisdiction of the Court and the Tribunal in disputes involving the law of the sea suggests that the development of the law would likely benefit from close collaboration between the two judicial bodies, she said, adding that it would be beneficial to both to exchange perspectives from time to time.
CHRISTOPHE EICK (Germany) said that his Government has always been a staunch supporter of the Court and its work, noting that the consent of States remains the essential basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. In 2008, Germany declared that it recognized the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 36 (2) of the Statute as legally binding. He invited other States to adopt a similar measure. He stressed that the Court should not “give into attempts to transform what is essentially a dispute between two States into an abstract legal question.” He underscored the need to comply with and implement the Court’s decisions, as the Court is the most critical tool in resolving disputes between Member States.
MARIO OYARZÁBAL (Argentina) welcomed the Court’s role in promoting the rule of law worldwide and the talks held earlier in the year between the Court and the United Nations which led to the adoption of a decision to promote their relationship, particularly concerning dissemination of public information. The Court constantly ensures respect for international law, sometimes even urging both parties to avoid any act that would worsen the dispute. More specifically, he noted that in the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 case, the Court decided that the separation of the Archipelago was not valid. The Court has pointed out the General Assembly’s central role in decolonization, he said, noting that Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) remains fundamentally relevant to Argentina regarding the Malvinas question. His Government will continue to support the work of the Court, he said, urging all Member States to respect and defend international law.
EGRISELDA ARACELY GONZÁLEZ LÓPEZ (El Salvador), commended the Court for its many administrative and judicial activities over the last year, and the fact that it had issued many decisions. The Court’s work demonstrates its fundamental role as Member States bring to it their disputes in many areas, including human rights, environmental damage, international reparations and State immunity. The Court contributes to the maintenance and strengthening of the rule of law and shows that access to a peaceful means of settling disputes exists for all countries. In recent years the costs involved in bringing claims and defending interests have increased. There are States with low tax receipts or high levels of debt which cannot access international justice through any means and this issue needs to be addressed. With its increase workload, the Court should be given the resources it needs.
FRANÇOIS ALABRUNE (France) said his Government committed to the Court, which provides a crucial role in keeping international peace. Its work helps ease tensions between States and helps them find a peaceful means of dispute. The Court plays an important role also in its advisory opinions, which move the international community to a better understanding of international law. With the current challenges to multilateralism, the Court is a crucial instrument. France recognizes all its staff and their work.
Mr. MAVROYIANNIS (Cyprus) expressed support to efforts to expand the scope of the competence of the Court, both ratione personae and ratione materiae. “It is our duty to create the conditions for this to happen,” he said, adding: “Undoubtedly, the credibility of the Court is the major and decisive factor in this regard but it is also crucial to increase the number of States that accept the optional clause of compulsory jurisdiction.” The number of treaties, both those concerning the settlement of disputes as well as those containing clauses for the settlement of disputes that confer jurisdiction to the Court, need to be increased and consolidated. Noting the Court’s advisory function , he reaffirmed the importance of international law concepts such as self‑determination, decolonization and territorial integrity. He further expressed concern about the Court’s financial situation.
SACHA SERGIO LLORENTTY SOLÍZ (Bolivia) said that the Court’s contribution to the development of international law has been significant and States continue to renew their interest in using it to resolve disputes. “We are living in times of utmost tension in the area of international law and justice,” he added, pointing to the effectiveness and efficiency with which the Court conducts its work. Bolivia stands ready to support the budgetary decisions that will support the Court’s work. Unfortunately, the Court does not have many judges that understand the Latin American judicial system. The Court should embrace multilingualism and make use of the languages spoken in Latin America. Turning to the Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) case, he said Bolivia accepts the ruling in all its parts. For Latin America, a continent of peace, only dialogue and communication can resolve the disputes between States.
ABBAS BAGHERPOUR ARDEKANI (Iran), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, said that for the first time in the history of the United Nations a permanent member of the Security Council — the United States — is engaging in total disregard of the United Nations. The United States is penalizing and sanctioning nations across the world. To legally counter this arrogant policy of infringing rules of international law, Iran filed an application to protect its rights under the bilateral Treaty of Amity. On 3 October, the Court unanimously indicated provisional measures, obliging the United States to remove any impediments arising from the measures announced following its withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. In response, the United States imposed numerous rounds of new sanctions. “Such irresponsible behaviour is in clear defiance of the Court’s order,” he stressed. On 19 February, Iran requested the Court to exercise its authority and call on the United States to explain the specific steps it has taken to implement the Court’s order. In another move, the United States has illegally confiscated billions of dollars of assets of Iran. Iran had instituted proceedings against the United States and in February the Court concluded that it has jurisdiction over the case and that the application is admissible. This case is now in the merits stage.
ANDREA TIRITICCO (Italy) noted the importance of the Court’s contribution to the rule of law in international relations. The fact that the Court docket is growing shows that it remains the principle judicial organ of the United Nations. As the international community expands and legal work becomes more complex, the international community must recognize the Court for the primacy of its principles, which are based on pillars of peace and stability in the international order. The inalienable right to human dignity is very important. Italy’s vision is that State sovereignty and prerogatives should be reconciled with the need for human dignity and human rights. Italy is confident that this will be reflected in the decisions of the Court.
MARIA TELALIAN (Greece) noted her Government has always been a staunch proponent of the peaceful resolution of inter‑State disputes and the prohibition of threat or use of force, the latter being a jus cogens cornerstone for global stability. The Court is critical for conflict prevention, delivering advisory opinions on legal questions referred by duly authorized United Nations organs and agencies, thereby strengthening legal stability. She cited the Court’s increasing workload as clear proof that States from different regions attach considerable importance to the authority of its jurisprudence. However, she expressed regret that only 74 States have recognized its compulsory jurisdiction, calling on others to reconsider their positions and show active commitment to the principles of justice and the rule of law.
JAGDISH DHARAMCHAND KOONJUL (Mauritius) said that regrettably, a few countries do not feel obliged to respect the Court and its opinions. In its advisory opinion on 25 February 2019, the Court declared that the decolonization of Mauritius had not been lawfully completed, and that the ongoing administration by the United Kingdom of part of Mauritius’ sovereign territory was an internationally wrongful act of continuing nature. The General Assembly, by an overwhelming majority of 116 votes in favour to 6 against, endorsed the Court’s ruling and demanded that the United Kingdom terminate its unlawful colonial administration of Mauritian territory within six months. Those six months will expire on 22 November. Sadly, the colonial power has chosen to defy the Court and the General Assembly, stating that it is free to ignore the ruling on the ground that advisory opinion is nonbinding. The organs of the United Nations and responsible Member States are not free to ignore the Court’s opinions.
ROBERT KAYINAMURA (Rwanda), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, noted that since 2014, the Court has been seized with contentious cases, reflecting an ever‑increasing confidence among developing countries in its capability, credibility and impartiality in settling disputes. However, he also expressed concern that the increased number of cases also reflects the inability of Member States to settle disputes through diplomacy. He called on the Security Council to seriously consider Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations in making greater use of the Court, particularly on the most current controversial issues affecting international peace security.
NARCISO SIPACO RIBALA (Equatorial Guinea), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement and the Community of Portuguese‑speaking Countries, accepted the Court’s mandatory jurisdiction and said it would not hesitate in submitting cases to the Court as it is another dispute resolution tool for Member States. The data speaks for itself and the Court’s universality cannot be questioned. The trust that States place in the Court shows how the use of force can be avoided. His delegation welcomes close cooperation between the Court and the Secretariat in the area of public information, such as the launching of a mobile phone app in May 2019. Equatorial Guinea welcomes the independent and impartial approach to all proceedings before the Court. It is putting its trust in the Court and believes all cases will find just solutions. He called on Member States to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court and asked the Security Council to work more closely with it.
MOUSSA MOHAMED MOUSSA (DJIBOUTI), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, said that to a great degree, the goals of the United Nations to bring peaceful resolution to the turbulent rule of the first half of the twentieth century have been realized. The large number of submissions to the Court illustrates the high degree of confidence States have in the institution. In the current era, defined by a crisis of trust in multilateral institutions, the Court is more important than ever, he said. Since 2005, Djibouti has recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the court. Small States such as his particularly appreciate knowing that international law applies to all States. Entrenching the principle of equality among States goes hand in hand with asserting the primacy of law. Pursuit of this goal will lead to an increase in the Court’s activities in coming years. He called on Member States to ensure that the Court has adequate resources at its disposal to carry out its duties.
DANG DINH QUY (Viet Nam) noted that 16 contentious cases are pending on the Court’s docket, five of which involve a maritime dispute or delimitation. That development is commendable, as it means States are increasingly referring complex and politically sensitive cases to the Court. To date, 74 States have made declarations recognizing as compulsory the Court’s jurisdiction under Article 36 of the Court’s Statute. Added to that is a list of more than 300 bilateral or multilateral treaties or conventions providing for the Court’s jurisdiction. Observing also that the second prong of the Court’s jurisdiction is to render advisory opinions to United Nations entities, he called on the General Assembly, Security Council and other authorized organs to make greater use of the Court for advisory opinions or legal clarifications.
AHMED ABDELAZIZ AHMED ELGHARIB (Egypt), associating himself with the Non‑Aligned Movement, noted the critical role of the Court and how it helps strengthen the rule of law. Even with contentious cases, the Court helps interpret and strengthen international law and its advisory opinions help Member States. Egypt has joined many multilateral conventions that help fortify international law. Assuring the Court of Egypt’s support to discharge its important mandate, he urged other Member States to do the same, support a rules‑based system, ensure the administration of justice and help maintain peace and security.
MAHA YAQOOT JUMA YAQOOT HARQOOS (United Arab Emirates) said that her country is a staunch supporter of international law. The number and diversity of cases before the Court testifies to its importance. The United Arab Emirates has two cases pending before the Court, and the country is committed to fully and in good faith implementing the measures of the Court. The United Arab Emirates will present its defence to the Court and demonstrate its commitment to international law. Measures taken by the United Arab Emirates, together with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Egypt, are in response to support lent by Qatar to terrorism and extremism and its interference in the internal affairs of States. The measures her Government has taken are in line with international law, including the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. She regretted that Qatar has tried to cloud the Court’s interpretation of law.
MAJED S. F. BAMYA, observer for the State of Palestine, said there is a debate on whether the Assembly or the Council is the cornerstone of the Organization. Yet the true cornerstone is the Court. He called on all United Nations bodies, including the Council, to turn to the Court for guidance in their decisions. As a country that has seen one of the worst injustices, Palestine remains deprived of its land and in search of peace. The Court’s decision should have been made compulsory for all, not just United Nations Member States. He commended the 74 States that have made the Court’s jurisdictions compulsory. If the 2004 advisory opinion of the Court regarding the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory had been respected, peace could have been a reality for the people of Palestine and all people in the region. The State of Palestine welcomes the increasing role played by the Court.
Right of Reply
The representative of the Russian Federation said she felt compelled to respond to the statement by the representative of Ukraine, which has decided to continue to confuse the Court’s agenda. The Court’s agenda today was to present its annual report on its activities over the past year.
The representative of Chile regretted being compelled to respond to accusations by the representative of Bolivia, which makes statements not reflected in the Court’s rulings and which are contrary to the Court’s judgments. The Court’s rulings are integral and do not leave outstanding the issues that Bolivia wishes to discuss. One year after the Court’s judgement in the Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean (Bolivia v. Chile) case, Chile calls upon Bolivia not to ignore the ruling by solely focusing on the future relationship between the two countries.
The representative of the United Kingdom said her Government has maintained sovereignty over the Chago Archipelago for over a century and does not recognize Mauritius’ claim to it. Her Government is disappointed in Mauritius’ statements to the Court, which is not supposed to hear bilateral claims to which one party does not agree. The United Kingdom has considered the content of the Court’s opinion on the matter but does not share the Court’s approach. Notably, the Court did not express the opinion that the United Kingdom had committed an internationally unlawful act.
The representative of Qatar said his country has shared facts with the Court, in respect for its judgements and jurisdiction. The accusations made by the United Arab Emirates are attempts to cover up that country’s failures to comply with the rulings of the Court, which rejected in 2019 the United Arab Emirates’ request for provisional measures. The goals of the campaign against Qatar are waged under the pretext of unjust accusations against it. The Court delivered two orders, one in 2018 and another in 2019, regarding the United Arab Emirates’ discriminatory measures against Qatar, which were unjust and violate human rights law and freedom of movement and expression.
The representative of Mauritius expressed disappointment that, as the Assembly discusses the activities of the Court and justices are present, one delegation still contests the advisory opinion of the Court. Mauritius understands that the matter had been sent to the Court and that the Assembly had voted overwhelmingly to hand the matter over to it. The Court and the Assembly do not share the United Kingdom’s view. Its position is untenable.
The representative of the United Arab Emirates said her counterpart from Qatar had made false accusations. Qatar is ignoring its commitments; it says it will respect international rulings, but many times it has not respected Court orders. Qatar has signed the Riyadh Agreement yet it violates the accord and supports terrorist groups. It is time to act and not just speak.
The representative of Qatar then refuted the accusations made by the United Arab Emirates, which is trying to politicize the Assembly’s work. Qatar has taken steps to implement directives of the Court which were rejected by the United Arab Emirates. Qatar will continue to protect the rights of its citizens.