Emphasizing Contribution of International Court of Justice to International Peace, General Assembly Underscores Heavy Caseload, Need for Increased Funding
The General Assembly today, amidst several demands, called for increased funding for the operations of the International Court of Justice, as it debated pressing legal issues worldwide.
Reminding Member States that the principles of justice and international law not only sustain the foundation of international cooperation but “guide us through these times of great human suffering and conflict”, Philemon Yang, President of the General Assembly, called for enforced collective commitment to these ideals. He urged Member States yet to accept the Court’s jurisdiction to consider doing so and to comply with its advisory opinion on legal consequences of Israel’s policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem.
“The cycle of violence in the Middle East will stop only if the concerned parties and the international community take meaningful actions toward a just, comprehensive, and lasting peace,” he said, reaffirming that “only a two-State solution can provide both Israelis and Palestinians the peace, security, and human dignity they deserve”.
Further, he said the Court’s work goes beyond peace and security concerns to include the question of States’ obligations on the climate crisis, warning that any delay in solving this problem will magnify its consequences, particularly for most vulnerable nations and communities. “I look forward to the opinion of the Court to help our collective endeavour towards decisive action against climate change,” he said.
Because a stable and peaceful multilateral order cannot be built on the outdated notion that “might makes right”, he reminded States that successful implementation of the recently adopted Pact for the Future depends on preserving and reinforcing a rules-based international order. This “may be challenging and uncertain, but it is key to achieving durable peace and stability among nations,” he said.
Presenting the Court’s annual report for the period 1 August 2023 to 31 July 2024 (document A/79/4), Nawaf Salam, President of the International Court of Justice, noted that it has 23 active cases on the General List, consisting of 21 contentious proceedings and two advisory proceedings. South Africa’s 29 December 2023 institution of proceedings against Israel concerning the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip, and Mexico’s suit against Ecuador on 11 April 2024 concerning “legal questions concerning the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means and diplomatic relations, and the inviolability of a diplomatic mission” are among five new cases before the Court, he said.
On Ukraine’s case against the Russian Federation under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Court, having indicated that it was called upon to determine whether a “pattern of conduct” could be established, judged on 31 January 2024 that, with regard to incidents of physical violence against Crimean Tatars and ethnic Ukrainians in Crimea, it had not been established that the Russian Federation had violated its obligations under the Convention. Moscow violated these obligations in the way it implemented its educational system in Crimea after 2014 regarding school education in the Ukrainian language, he said.
On “Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, the written proceedings of which involved 54 States, he noted that the Court on 19 July 2024 issued its advisory opinion that the fact that an occupation is prolonged does not in itself change its legal status under international humanitarian law. Further, the differentiation of treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territory could not be justified with reference to reasonable and objective criteria nor to a legitimate public aim. “The breach of the Palestinian people’s fundamental right to self-determination has a direct impact on the legality of Israel’s presence, as an occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,” he said.
He went on to highlight court orders on substantiative issues, including the case instituted by Canada and the Netherlands against the Syrian Arab Republic on Application of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which commenced on 8 June 2023; the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan on Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, instituted by the former on 29 September 2023 following the latter’s alleged military offensive 10 days earlier; and the Guyana versus Venezuela case concerning the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899.
Observing that, in recent years, “States are showing a growing interest in the possibility of intervening in contentious cases,” he underscored the importance of ensuring procedural rules are clear to such States to enable the Court to organize the conduct of these cases in a rational and efficient manner. He called for continued funding of the Judicial Fellowship Programme as well as an additional $1.1 million for the Court’s operations, corresponding to a 3.4 per cent rise from 2024.
In the ensuing debate, delegations raised diverse concerns, including disregard for the Court’s rulings.
The Vice Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile, concerned about the growing number of unfulfilled provisional measures ordered by the Court, underscored their binding nature. Non-compliance threatens the foundations of the international legal system and lives of those the orders aim to protect, she emphasized. Similarly, Romania’s State Secretary for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs warned that noncompliance with the Court’s rulings undermines the authority of that body and increases the risks of lawlessness in international relations. The representative of the European Union added: “Now more than ever, we need to stand by the rules of international law and prioritize the peaceful settlement of disputes and justice.”
Several speakers emphasized the need for additional resources to the Court’s coffers in enabling it to properly carry out its mandate.
Canada’s representative, speaking also for Australia and New Zealand, stressed that “the Court’s budget and resourcing is no longer fit for purpose”. He urged all States to continue to turn to the Court to resolve their differences where diplomatic efforts have failed. In the same vein, Poland’s delegate, speaking for the Visegrad Group, said the Court — no matter how popular with its Member States — cannot function properly and in a timely fashion unless it is adequately financed.
The representative of the Russian Federation took it further, contrasting the Court’s modest $30 million budget with the “inflated” budget of the “so-called” International Criminal Court. He voiced concerns about the “monopoly” of Western jurists in the Court, warning that “all of this creates tangible impediments in terms of access to the International Court and to justice”. He further condemned attempts by certain States, particularly Ukraine, to politicize the Court, asserting that the organ rejected Ukraine’s claims that the Russian Federation was a “terrorist State” or that it “occupied” Crimea and pursued policies of cultural erasure against Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars.
Ukraine’s delegate countered: “When Russia used its false allegations of genocide as a pretext for the full-scale military invasion of Ukraine, we had no choice but to come to this Court immediately.” While Ukraine is facing the “brutalest and the most large-scale invasion since the Second World War, we believe in the power of justice and accountability,” she added. Further, she stressed the need to hold Iran accountable for shooting down a civilian aircraft in 2020 that killed 176 people. The Russian Federation, Iran and other violators of international law must finally be brought to justice, she said.
Member States were also particularly interested in the climate dimension of the Court’s non-judicial intervention, with Grenada’s speaker, representing the Caribbean Community, stating that, considering its devastating impacts in his region, the Court’s advisory opinion on the obligations of States with respect of climate change is highly anticipated. While the representative of the United States said the many written submissions the Court has received regarding this issue highlight the world's shared recognition of the gravity of the climate crisis, China’sdelegate hoped the Court will uphold the foundational and priority status of international climate change law centered around the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement.
On the conflict in Gaza, the representative of Uganda, speaking for the Non-Aligned Movement, urged the Court to address unilateral coercive measures. He called on Israel to implement the relevant provisional measures, a subject to which Qatar’sdelegate, speaking on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Countries, stressed that “Israel is legally required to implement the provisional measures” to prevent genocide and facilitate humanitarian access in Gaza. Similarly, Mauritania’s speaker, representing the Arab Group, condemned Israel's refusal to comply with interim measures ordered by the International Court of Justice, “which are legally binding in nature”. Israel is bound to bring an end to its occupation, dismantle its settlements, and evacuate settlers from Palestinian territory, he said.
The representative of Vanuatu, speaking for a group of States, said many nations, particularly developing ones, face capacity constraints and circumstances that may limit their ability to navigate the Court’s procedures and participate in its proceedings. To this, Sweden’sdelegate, speaking for the Nordic countries, suggested that justice administration might be enhanced if the Court’s administrative practices are continuously modernized, including exploring digital signatures and virtual meetings to improve case management efficiency.
Exercising the right of reply, Israel’s representative underscored: “There is no genocide in Gaza.” Stressing that the Court has not yet begun to examine the merits of that “outrageous” claim, he warned that the trend of abusing the Court’s mechanism is harmful to the States “unjustly impugned” and “cheapens” fundamental principles of international law.
In other business, the Assembly adopted by consensus the resolution “Zone of peace, trust and cooperation of Central Asia” (document A/79/L.1). Presenting the draft resolution, the representative of Turkmenistan underscored the concept of regional zones of peace as an effective tool to enhance the security of States and contribute to global stability, adding that the document reflects “the firm commitment of Central Asian countries to lasting peace and mutual trust cultivated over the centuries”.
By the text, the 193-member organ called upon the countries of the Central Asian region to make effective use of regular consultative meetings of Heads of State and other forums to promote cooperation within the region and beyond in ensuring peace, trust and cooperation.
It also encouraged all States of the region and all other regions to respect the national unity, sovereignty, political independence and territorial integrity of all States of the Central Asian region.
In explanation of vote, the representative of the United States, expressing support to Central Asian countries for their contribution to international peace and security, underscored that the Declaration and Programme of Action on a Culture of Peace is a non-binding document that does not create rights, obligations or a universal mandate under international law.
NEW – Follow real-time meetings coverage on our LIVE blog.