International Court of Justice Docket Reflects Legal Questions Concerning All Humanity in Every Region, President Says, as General Assembly Takes Up Report
As the world faces an onslaught of conflicts and challenges to international law, the growing docket of the International Court of Justice continues to reflect a wide variety of legal disputes involving countries from every region of the world and tackling questions that concern all of humanity, its President told the General Assembly today.
Joan E. Donoghue, President of the “World Court”, presenting the Court’s annual report (document A/78/4), detailed nearly two dozen critical legal disputes, adding that of the 20 cases on the docket, 7 cases had been brought during the reporting year, including two requests for an advisory opinion and five contentious cases. Spotlighting the requests for advisory opinions, she noted one was on “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” and the other on the “Obligations of States in respect of climate change”.
She also detailed several cases, including one involving the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, in which Canada and the Netherlands filed a joint application against Syria, and one instituted by Ukraine regarding the Russian Federation on allegations of genocide and violations of the related Convention on Genocide. As well, the Court recently issued a judgment regarding the case Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), in which the Court considered that Iran was entitled to compensation for the injury caused by the violations by the United States that had been ascertained by the Court.
Ms. Donoghue also highlighted the Court’s ongoing review of its procedures and working methods and noted the promulgation of several amendments to make gender-inclusive the Rules of Court, the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court and the Practice Direction. “As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, it is incumbent on the Court to uphold the ideals of the United Nations in promoting gender equality and overcoming gender bias through the language it uses in its own official documents,” she added.
Turning to the Court’s budget, she also informed the General Assembly the Court is experiencing one of the most dynamic periods of its history. “Members of the Court are honoured by the confidence that the international community continues to place in the Court,” she said. However, resources allocated to it do not match the significant docket increase, she reported, expressing hope appropriate adjustments will ensure adequate resources to continue to meet the growing needs of the international community.
As the floor opened for debate, speakers commended the Court’s contribution to the development of international law and the crucial role it plays in ensuring disputes between States and within States do not tip into conflict, with many highlighting Member States’ trust in its judicial proceedings.
Underscoring that point, Mario Adolfo Búcaro Flores, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, said the increase in the Court’s work illustrates that trust, particularly in its ability to resolve disputes impartially, effectively and in accordance with international law. “This bears out its important role in the international order,” he added, urging Member States to consider expanding the Court’s budget to ensure that it can comply with its mandate. “This is now more essential than ever,” he underscored.
Emphasizing that international law provides the guard rails for a just world, Germany’s delegate said the Court’s role is more indispensable than ever in these times of conflict. Its decision to weigh in on climate change by providing an advisory opinion is consequential as its work will help clarify the legal obligations of States on this subject, she said.
Echoing that, the representative of the European Union, in accordance with resolution 65/276, in its capacity as observer, said the request for an advisory opinion on climate change represents a landmark opportunity for the judicial organ to clarify the legal obligations of States in relation to that phenomenon, particularly those most adversely affected.
China’s delegate said the requests for the Court to issue advisory opinions relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and climate change reflect the importance that UN entities and Member States place on the Court’s advisory function. Expressing hope that the Court will “play an even greater role in international relations” going forward, he said China has always actively supported its work.
The representative of the United States commended the Court’s investment in future practitioners of public international law through its Judicial Fellowship Programme and related Trust Fund, which support participants from developing countries. Spotlighting his country’s contribution to that Fund provided this year, he encouraged others to follow suit.
Supporting that view, Australia’s delegate, also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, said the Trust Fund helps develop young jurists. Also commending efforts toward gender-inclusive language, he pointed out that the Court’s agenda will remain full in coming years and must be properly resourced as its caseload grows.
Dennis Francis (Trinidad and Tobago), President of the General Assembly, in his opening remarks, also highlighted the immense contribution the Court provides to international peace by providing a forum for nations and preventing disputes from spiralling into conflicts with global ramifications. He called on all Member States to “robustly support” the Court — including by providing adequate, predictable funding so it can effectively discharge its expanding portfolio of cases.
To that point, the representative of Mexico also urged Member States to support the Court and support its decisions, emphasizing: “There is no dispute between nations that cannot be resolved through international law.”
International Court of Justice
DENNIS FRANCIS (Trinidad and Tobago), President of the General Assembly, observed that, by providing a forum for nations to settle disputes through peaceful means, the International Court of Justice contributes immensely to preventing disputes from spiralling into conflicts with global ramifications. It also ensures that nations adhere to a holistic, common set of rules and standards. Further, because the Court is immune from the influence of the political and administrative organs of the United Nations, it can maintain impartiality and fairness in its decision-making while also buttressing the foundations of the multilateral system. Through its rigour, it has contributed to the uniformity and harmony of international law, he added.
He also said that he was encouraged by the General Assembly’s decision to seek an advisory opinion from the Court on States’ obligations to address climate change. “This landmark referral promises to place the needs of those bearing the brunt of climate change — including small island developing States — front and centre during ongoing negotiations,” he noted. Calling on all Member States to “robustly support” the Court — including by providing adequate, predictable funding — he said this is necessary to facilitate the effective discharge of its expanding portfolio of cases at a time when maintaining international peace and security is “directly linked to the ability to ensure full respect for, and observance of, international law”.
JOAN E. DONOGHUE, President of the International Court of Justice, said that since the 1 August 2022 starting date of the period covered by the Court’s annual report (document A/78/4), the Court’s docket has remained full and continues to reflect a wide variety of legal disputes, involving States from all regions of the world, that lay out questions of international law concerning all of humanity. There are currently 18 contentious cases on the list and two advisory proceedings related to questions put to the Court by the General Assembly. The 20 cases on the docket include seven cases brought during the reporting year — two requests for an advisory opinion and five contentious cases.
She went on to detail several cases, including the case in June, in which Canada and the Netherlands filed a joint application against Syria concerning alleged violations of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Also in June, Iran instituted proceedings against Canada concerning alleged violations of State immunities. As the Assembly is well aware, the Court received two requests for an advisory opinion, the first in January 2023 on “Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem” and the second in April 2023 on the “obligations of States in respect of climate change”.
Regarding the advisory proceedings relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, she reported that written statements were filed by 53 Member States, by the observer State of Palestine and by three intergovernmental organizations. The hearings on this request for an advisory opinion are scheduled to open on 19 February 2024. In addition, the Court extended the time limits originally fixed to the advisory proceedings relating to climate change in response to requests from a number of States and from an international organization. The time limits for filing of written statements and of written comments thereon are 22 January 2024 and 22 April 2024, respectively.
The Court has also held hearings in nine cases and has rendered four judgments, she continued. Among the many orders delivered are two relating to the indication of provisional measures, two on requests for the modification of previously imposed provisional measures and one on the admissibility of declarations of intervention under article 63 of the Court’s Statute. This included a 30 March 2023 judgment on the merits in the case Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), in which the Court considered that Iran was entitled to compensation for the injury caused by the violations by the United States that had been ascertained by the Court. If the Parties were unable to agree on the amount of compensation due to Iran within 24 months, the matter would, at the request of either Party, be settled by the Court. The case therefore remains on the Court’s General List.
Turning to some of the more substantive orders issued by the Court during the period under review, she laid out several detailed procedural developments in the case concerning Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation), instituted by Ukraine on 26 February 2022. The preliminary objections raised by the Russian Federation are only some of the matters presently under deliberation. The Court is also currently deliberating on the merits of the case concerning 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), following public hearings that were held in June, as well as on requests for the indication of provisional measures filed in the case concerning Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Canada and the Netherlands v. Syrian Arab Republic) and in the case concerning Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Armenia v. Azerbaijan).
Turning to the Court’s ongoing review of its procedures and working methods, she said that earlier this year the Court promulgated certain amendments to render gender-inclusive the Rules of Court, the resolution concerning the Internal Judicial Practice of the Court and the Practice Directions. A key motivating factor is the Court’s recognition of language’s importance in shaping viewpoints and beliefs on gender equality and inclusion. “As the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, it is incumbent on the Court to uphold the ideals of the United Nations in promoting gender equality and overcoming gender bias through the language it uses in its own official documents,” she added.
Turning to the Court’s budget, she said the Court is experiencing one of the most dynamic periods of its history — a trend that shows no sign of slowing. “Members of the Court are honoured by the confidence that the international community continues to place in the Court,” she said. However, the resources allocated to the Court and the size of its very lean and dedicated Registry do not come close to matching the significant increase in the Court’s docket in recent years. The Court’s future workload will likely call for appropriate adjustments of the Court’s budgetary resources to ensure that it can continue to fulfil its mandate under the United Nations Charter, she noted.
MARIO ADOLFO BÚCARO FLORES, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Guatemala, noted that the increase in the Court’s work illustrates the trust that Member States have in its ability to resolve disputes impartially, effectively and in accordance with international law. “This bears out its important role in the international order,” he added. While, unfortunately, differences have sometimes been resolved through force, the Court’s work is the result of many years of development in the methods of conflict resolution. He encouraged compliance with the commitments accepted by States that have voluntarily submitted to the Court’s jurisdiction. For their part, Guatemala and Belize have submitted the territorial, insular and maritime claim of Guatemala to the Court. In April 2018 and May 2019, Guatemala and Belize, respectively, in accordance with the Special Agreement signed between the two countries, held public consultations peacefully, yielding positive results with the primary aim to definitively resolve this dispute before the Court.
Such practice could be encouraged as a mechanism that grants legitimacy to ensure that a decision handed down by Court has the support of the populations of the litigating States, he continued. He reported that written proceedings in this case have been completed, stressing that the Court's decision will bring economic, social and political benefits to both countries, as well as development for the inhabitants of the adjacent area. “This sends a message to the world that we are countries of a democratic vocation and that disputes can be settled peacefully and fairly,” he said. Turning to the challenges faced by the Court in light of the current workload and its procedural particularities, he urged Member States to meet their financial obligations and to consider expanding the Court’s budget to ensure that it can comply with its mandate. “This is now more essential than ever,” he underscored.
EMIL RUFFER (Czech Republic), also speaking for Hungary, Poland and Slovakia, reiterated the fundamental importance of the pacific settlement of disputes between States, along with the Court’s indispensable role in delivering justice in such disputes. He also welcomed the Court’s contributions to the development of international law. Noting that the international order is currently “going through a difficult period”, he observed that, at the same time, States and the international community as a whole are relying more than ever on the rule of law and the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The Court has never been as busy as it is now, and this demonstrates States’ confidence in its adjudication.
He went on to say that the Court’s fundamental mission is to settle disputes peacefully in accordance with international law, contributing to conflict prevention and the rule of law. Noting that States can unilaterally accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction — so far, 74 have done so — he encouraged them to continue including jurisdictional clauses in treaties or, alternatively, to “refrain from formulating reservations to such clauses”. He pointed out, however, that — regardless of States’ willingness to subject disputes to the Court’s jurisdiction — the Court cannot effectively deliver justice unless States implement its decision in good faith.
DIEGO COLAS (France), reaffirming its deep attachment to the Court’s contribution to the peaceful settlement of international disputes, said its decisions contribute to the appeasement of relations between States and help them reach solutions when other means of peaceful settlement of disputes do not allow it. He recalled that States are required to comply with judgments and orders indicating provisional measures that the Court must issue in the context of its litigation activity. “What is at stake is respect for a legal order based on the rule of law,” he stressed. In addition, the Court plays an important role in exercising its advisory function. Though not binding, advisory opinions make it possible to ensure a better understanding of international law and strengthen its authority. He also underlined the importance of using different legal languages and cultures within the Court, since that diversity contributes to the quality of its work and the authority of its case law.
CLAUDIO TRONCOSO (Chile) noted that his country has witnessed the seriousness and credibility of the Court when appearing before it. During the period of the report, one judgement handed down by the Court pertains to the dispute, The Status and Use of the Waters of the Silala (Chile v. Bolivia), which is of great importance for Chile. His country honours and adheres to full compliance in good faith with the international obligations that emanate from the Court’s decisions, he said, adding that Chile will also continue to actively intervene in the two ongoing advisory proceedings. He also emphasized that translating rulings into Spanish would contribute to their increased dissemination and use in various areas in Ibero-American countries. Drawing attention to the Court’s work with young people, he noted that his country has supported its Judicial Fellowship Programme. The Court should continue this important activity, he stressed.
TOMOHIRO MIKANAGI (Japan) said that, as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, the Court can play a significant role in interpreting and applying the basic principles of the Charter of the United Nations. Such principles include the prohibition against the use of force in Article 2(4), he said, recalling the Court’s previous finding that the illegality of the acquisition of territory by force is a corollary of such prohibition. He said that, in view of recent developments in international relations, the Court’s role in the maintenance of international peace and security is particularly important in interpreting and applying rules relating to the acquisition of territory by force. “As we all remember, before the Second World War, powerful States competed to acquire territory by force,” he pointed out, stressing that the prohibition against such acquisition provides an important safeguard against “a return to rule by force”.
TANIA VON USLAR-GLEICHEN (Germany), underscoring that international law provides the guard rails for a just world, said the Court’s role is even more indispensable than ever in these times of conflict. As the Organization’s principal legal body, its work is very important. Along with other international courts, the Court is a legal guardian of the international legal order and the growth of cases before it shows its enormous prestige and responsibility. She also noted, among others, the case regarding Ukraine and the Russian Federation, and underlined the importance of the Genocide Convention to her country, which is why it has intervened in this case. As well, for first time, the Court is giving an advisory opinion on climate change. This requires international cooperation, and it is consequential that the Court can weigh in and clarify the legal obligations of States on this subject. Her delegation will submit an intervention, she noted. More so, States that have accepted the Court’s jurisdiction must comply with its rulings, she said, also calling on the Russian Federation to cease its aggression against Ukraine.
SALLY LANGRISH (United Kingdom) emphasized that the Court plays a key in upholding the rule of law, thereby contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security. Pointing out that States from all regions of the world continue to bring important questions on a wide range of legal issues before the Court, she said that the nature and number of cases in recent years underline the high regard in which States hold the judicial organ. As a number of its contentious cases and advisory opinions involve multi-Party proceedings, the Court’s management of those complex processes is commendable. She stressed that her country is one of the Court’s strongest supporters, reiterating the call made by the General Assembly for more States to consider accepting the judicial organ’s compulsory jurisdiction.
FRANZ PERREZ (Switzerland) said that the General Assembly’s ability to request an advisory opinion from the Court is a fundamental aspect of the promotion of the rule of law at the international level. For many decades, however, a recurring objection submitted to the Court has been the lack of consent in the context of advisory opinions. Noting that the Court has consistently held that this does not constitute an obstacle to the exercise of its jurisdiction, he expressed support for this practice. However, the Court’s contentious jurisdiction remains based on State consent, and he encouraged all States to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. The Court is part of the Organization and an indispensable instrument for achieving its objectives. “Accepting the Court’s jurisdiction is a concrete and symbolic step,” he said, “but also one that is extremely simple”. On that, he recalled that several States — including Switzerland — published a handbook on accepting the Court’s jurisdiction in 2014.
GABRIEL HERRERA (Argentina) said the Court is the only international court that can help resolve inter-State disputes. Over the past 20 years, the Court’s workload has grown, which shows the trust in its use as a reliable institution. The geographic spread of the cases on its dockets reflects the importance that States place in its judgements. Occupying an important part of international law, he observed that most judgements are recognized by States and complied with. This success is evident as more cases in complex areas — including environmental protection and human rights — come before it. However, while acknowledging the constant challenges the Court faces, he observed that it could use improvements, such as in the area of multilingualism. Also spotlighting its contribution to international peace, he commended the Trust Fund for the Fellowship Programme, a mechanism that helps students from developing countries learn about international law. He expressed hope that the Fifth Committee (Administrative and Budgetary) will recognize its needs for additional funds.
ANTON KORYNEVYCH (Ukraine) recalled that, in February 2022, his country turned to the Court due to the dire need for protection. While, on 16 March 2022, the Court ordered the Russian Federation to immediately suspend its so-called military operations, that country “continues violating the binding decision, clearly showing its attitude to the Court, to the UN Charter and to international law as a whole”. In 2017, Ukraine brought claims under two other treaties, seeking protection from violence and terror that the Russian Federation had unleashed since 2014. He reported that, as a response to the downing of a Ukrainian civil airplane by Iran, his country, together with Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom, filed an application with the Court against Iran under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation. “The lack of accountability for Russia and other violators of international law must finally end,” he underscored.
MA XINMIN (China) said that the Court plays an important role in safeguarding national sovereignty, peacefully settling disputes and promoting friendly relations among States. Expressing hope that the Court will “play an even greater role in international relations” going forward, he noted that his country has always actively supported its work. In recent years, the number of contentious and advisory opinions issued by the Court has increased, covering issues including land and maritime delimitation, State immunity, diplomatic relations and human rights treaties. Its handling of these cases directly affects the interests of the countries involved — but it also affects the international order and the long-term development of international law. Recalling that the Court has been requested to issue advisory opinions relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory and climate change, he said that this reflects the importance that UN entities and Member States attach to the Court’s advisory function.
ALEJANDRO CELORIO ALCÁNTARA (Mexico), underlining that the Court is an indispensable legal organ and its judgement shows the rigour of its work, said that the fact that the 18 contentious proceedings and two advisory opinions come from all over the world indicate the trust that States place in the institution. These proceedings contribute to the development of international law, helping to interpret treaties, consider human rights issues and laws of impunity. The current advisory proceedings have already attracted enormous interest from States that are submitting interventions. This will contribute to finding solutions to complex problems and show how reason can prevail in settling international disputes. Since 1946, Mexico has recognized its obligations to the Court. Noting that a number of States have acknowledged the binding nature if its decisions, too few are members of the Security Council. He called on Member States to support the Court and support its decisions, stressing: “There is no dispute between nations that cannot be resolved through international law,” he said.
FRANK HOFFMEISTER, representative of the European Union, in accordance with resolution 65/276, in its capacity as observer, said that “the Court stands tall as a beacon of justice through the rule of law at the international level.” However, the Court’s role in the maintenance of international peace and security through the peaceful settlement of disputes is only as effective as the parties to disputes understand to abide by its rulings. In this context, he urged all States that submitted their disputes to the Court to comply with its judgments and orders. He also said he deplored the fact that the legally binding order issued by the Court on 16 March 2022 requesting the Russian Federation to immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine remains unimplemented. The case seeks to establish, inter alia, that the Russian Federation has no lawful basis to take unilateral military action against Ukraine on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations of genocide, he underscored.
Turning to climate change, he noted that the request for an advisory opinion submitted by a consensus resolution co-sponsored by all the European Union countries to the Court this year represents a landmark opportunity for the judicial organ to clarify the legal obligations of States in relation to that phenomenon, specifically regarding those particularly affected by its adverse effects. The advisory opinion will provide legal motivation for all States, including emerging and high-emitting developing countries, to build greater ambition into their Paris Agreement nationally determined contributions and take meaningful action to curb emissions and protect human rights. Outlining examples of cases in which European courts refer to the jurisprudence of the Court to interpret and apply international law within the European Union’s legal order, he suggested that the Court explore the possibility of regular exchanges with the Court of Justice of the European Union on issues of common interest.
VIBEKE PASTERNAK JØRGENSEN (Denmark), also speaking for Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, said that the Court has earned a solid reputation as an impartial, independent institution with the highest legal standards and consistent jurisprudence — “truly, a world court”. The submission of a dispute to the Court is an act to fulfil the obligation of all States to settle their disputes peacefully, she noted, spotlighting the 20 cases pending before the Court. This shows that the Court’s continued contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes is in demand, as well as serving as a testament to the trust States are placing in the Court. Therefore, the Court must adhere to the effective, impartial and good administration of justice when exercising its mandate. For their part, States must ensure compliance and fulfilment of the Court’s provisional measures and judgments. She also called on States yet to do so to consider accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction.
She also recalled that, in March 2022, the Court informed States parties to the Genocide Convention that Ukraine had filed an application instituting proceedings against the Russian Federation under that instrument. Further, the Court informed such parties that they had a right to intervene in the proceedings under article 63 of the Court’s Statute. Noting that several States parties have decided to use their right to intervene, she said that these interventions offer an ample reflection of the Court’s importance as an institution for the promotion and protection of an international system based on the rule of law. She added that the upcoming election in the Court — to be held on 9 November — provides “an opportunity to reflect on our shared efforts to achieve equal representation of women and men in the Court”, encouraging all States to work actively towards this goal.
ADAM MCCARTHY (Australia), also speaking for Canada and New Zealand, voiced support for the Court’s decision to update its rules and include gender-inclusive language. Noting its considerable caseload of complex issues as it renders prompt decisions, he said its decision in March to issue an advisory opinion on climate change is significant. The Court’s agenda will remain full in coming years and, thus, it must be properly resourced as its caseload grows. Calling for countries to consider accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, he also urged all Member States to comply with its judgments. Also voicing support for the Trust Fund, which helps develop young jurists, and noting that only five women have been appointed as permanent judges, he said that the group of countries for which he speaks will work to ensure the Court’s accountability as it upholds the rule of law.
RENÉ LEFEBER (Netherlands), recalling that his country hosts the Court, encouraged all States that have not yet done so to accept its compulsory jurisdiction with as few reservations as possible. His country’s only reservation is temporal, he said, detailing that it will accept all disputes arising out of situations or facts that took place no earlier than 100 years before the dispute is brought before the Court. Commending the judicial organ’s effectiveness in dealing with the current procedural challenges, he noted that such good administration of justice might even be enhanced if the Court slightly modernized its administrative practices. It could re-evaluate the requirement regarding wet signatures and conduct virtual meetings for information sessions on administrative or practical issues. He added that a more transparent and lenient approach to the admission of late submissions in advisory proceedings would enable the Court to exercise its advisory function even more outstandingly.
MARKO RAKOVEC (Slovenia) underlined the importance of the Court’s dedication to upholding international law and promoting a peaceful, rules-based global order. “In light of the recent case concerning Ukraine against Russia, Slovenia firmly supports the principles of justice and the peaceful resolution of disputes through legal avenues,” he said. In its intervention in that case, Slovenia highlighted the need for a broad interpretation of article IX of the Genocide Convention, along with the importance of the correct interpretation and application of that instrument to preserve its integrity. While emphasizing that the Court’s contribution to the evolution of international law is undeniable, he pointed out that its effectiveness in settling disputes judicially relies on the immediate, comprehensive implementation of its rulings by involved parties. He therefore urged all States that have submitted disputes to international adjudication to honour the Court’s judgments — as well as any provisional measures it may order.
ALINA OROSAN (Romania), noting that the Court’s yearly report is a highlight of International Law Week, observed that it is a challenging time with more instances of serious violations of international law. “Romania firmly believes that the Court holds a special role in the current, extremely volatile, international climate,” she said, adding her strong support for the Court’s role as a guarantor of the paramountcy of law. For this reason, Romania intervened in one of the cases on the docket, the dispute relating to the Genocide Convention, she reported. Turning to the case on climate change, she expressed great interest in its legal aspects and its effects, including the perspective of the implications for international law of sea-level rise. Her country intends to actively participate in these advisory proceedings, she added.
RICHARD C. VISEK (United States) commended the Court’s investment in future practitioners of public international law through its Judicial Fellowship Programme and related Trust Fund to support participants from developing countries. Spotlighting his country’s contribution to that Fund provided this year, he encouraged others to follow suit. Looking to the Court’s future, he noted that its caseload will only continue to grow, posing further challenges to administration and management of its docket. Drawing attention to Ukraine’s continuing case against the Russian Federation under the Genocide Convention, he called on the Russian Federation to comply with the Court’s order and suspend its military operations against Ukraine. Another important case was brought before the Court by Canada and Netherlands against Syria under the Convention against Torture. On the ongoing advisory proceedings, he said that his country will share its views to assist the Court in considering the questions.
STEFANO ZANINI (Italy) pointed out that the ever-growing number of cases on the Court’s docket — covering a diverse range of legal issues and involving States from all regions of the world — demonstrates the importance of its jurisdiction in both contentious and advisory proceedings. Noting that his country has intervened in the case instituted by Ukraine against the Russian Federation, he said Italy is doing so with a view to assisting the Court in the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Genocide Convention “in the pursuit of a common interest of each and all its parties”. He also emphasized that the Court’s orders on provisional measures are legally binding on the parties to a dispute, adding: “The order issued by the Court on 16 March 2022 is no exception.” Italy has recognized the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction since 2014, he reported, encouraging other States to do the same.
SEYED ALI MOUSAVI (Iran), stressing that his country is a supporter of the peaceful settlement of disputes, announced that Iran is now a Party to four pending cases before the Court, as an applicant in three cases and as a respondent in one. In June, Iran deposited with the Secretary-General the declaration, recognizing as compulsory, the jurisdiction of the Court, making Iran the seventy-fourth State to accept the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, with certain reservations concerning some category of disputes. Spotlighting "Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)", he said it concerns many legislative, executive and judicial acts of the United States in flagrant violation of international laws. The United States has also violated its obligations under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights. Iran has also filed another application against that country concerning its unlawful sanctions against Iran. In the case referred to as “Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America)”, Iran has seized the Court of the internationally wrongful acts of the United States resulting from the re-imposition of sanctions and unilateral coercive measures targeting, directly or indirectly, Iran, Iranian companies and nationals following the United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. The United States’ measures constitute breaches of multiple provisions of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights of 1955, he stressed.