International Journal of Law

www.lawjournals.org
ISSN: 2455-2194
Received: 06-08-2021, Accepted: 23-08-2021, Published: 08-09-2021
Volume 7, Issue 5, 2021, Page No. 19-24

Study the jurisdiction of the international court of justice (ICJ)

Ali Reza Annabi1*, Mahmoud Jalali2
1
PhD, Student of Public International Law, Islamic Azad University, Khorasgan Branch, Isfahan, Iran
2
Associate Professor of International Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
The International Court of Justice was established following the end of the World War II as a United Nations pillar and aimed
at resolving the differences among the countries. Under the Statute of the Tribunal, only governments can refer to the Court,
and in this regard, the contentious jurisdiction of the Court is based on the consent of the parties to the dispute, and the
Tribunal must obtain jurisdiction before a substantive proceedings, and countries may refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the
Tribunal, or It is conditional upon specific claims or certain time. But in terms of advisory jurisdiction, in addition to
governments, the main and subsidiary organs and specialized organizations affiliated to the United Nations also have the right
to request an advisory opinion, although advisory opinions are not primarily required for countries. Not only is the Court at the
stage of jurisdiction, but also in the course of proceedings, it is subject to limitations such as the declaration of the prior
consent of the parties to the dispute and the legal nature of the dispute. And Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, and Article
7, Clause 2 of the Charter, explicitly outlines the jurisdiction of the Court in this regard. The International Court of Justice has
jurisdiction to interpret the Charter and review the rulings of other international bodies. In the end, it must be said that the
undisputed domination of the principle of national sovereignty and the non-admission of international non-governmental
organizations to litigation has disrupted the work of the Court in the provision of global justice, which needs to be reviewed
and reformed.

Keywords: compulsory jurisdiction, international court of justice, governance, United Nations, charter, statute

Introduction performance of its duties. Therefore, the International Court

The International Court of Justice, after the Second World of Justice is not "a nineteenth-century arbitration court", but
War, was created by the dissolution of the Permanent Court "the judicial body of the legal and international system, and
of International Justice, with the aim of establishing a not the paternity of the parties to the dispute before the
permanent institution to resolve international disputes Court". In this regard, the Tribunal is a device provided by
among states. The establishment of this international the international legal system to the parties to the dispute,
judicial body was, in fact, a continuation of the international and in the issuance of the ruling, it also incorporates the
course that began with the first and second peace requirements and prerequisites of the international legal and
conferences in The Hague in 1899 and 1907 and the security system, and in terms of the functional requirements
establishment of a permanent tribunal of arbitration and legal policies, it is not dependent on the parties and their
(Slomanson 2007: 399-400) [4]. Although, before the lawsuits (Abi-saab, 1996: 3-4) [6]. By accepting the previous
establishment of the Tribunal, there were other judicial and view, the Court in the "Corfu Channel case" affirms that it is
arbitrary auxiliaries operating in the regional and necessary to ensure respect for international law and the
international contexts, the emergence of the Supreme Court Court as its main pillar. Judge Lecher also stated in the
as the "core judiciary pillar of United Nations" and the "Interpretation and Implementation of the Montreal
adoption of the Statute of the Court as "an integral part of Convention, 1971" that "there is no doubt that the duty of
the United Nations Charter" illustrates the fact that the the Court is to guarantee respect for international law and, in
special status of the Tribunal has been officially recognized this respect, to be the main protector". He continues:
in the international legal structure after the establishment of "Designers of the charter, by creating different main pillars,
the United Nations system (Amr, 2003: 189). While the two did not seek to completely separate tasks. Though for each
previous Divisions, the Permanent Court of Arbitration and of the pillars of the charter, one or more different chapters is
the Permanent Court of the International Justice, had considered, the International Court of Justice has taken
recruited independently and outside the community system different steps outside of its chapter, which confirms the
of nations, the Permanent Court of the International Justice role of the Court as the general protector of the legitimacy
issued Advisory Opinions at times. The ICJ has a special of the system. In fact, the Court safeguards the legitimacy of
position because it is the judicial authority of the the international community in general, both inside and
International Court of Justice, which is responsible for the outside the United Nations. "(Sadat, 2005: 82-107) [3]. This
peaceful settlement of disputes among governments and, on fact illustrates that, if the Court finds the full range of
the other hand, is one of the pillars of the international international law in danger, it will take advantage of the
system of the United Nations. This fact has led the Court to opportunities available in adversarial and advisory
consider judicial and organizational considerations in the proceedings and take steps to reinforce it. In this regard, it is

19
International Journal of Law www.lawjournals.org

possible to mention the case of "oil platforms". While Iran also the issue of government-related claims is also subject to
did not request the Tribunal in its final statements as a significant constraints. The jurisdiction of the court is due to
plaintiff state to resort to force against the legitimacy of US the authority given by the parties to the dispute to the
action in attacking the oil platforms under international law, tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is directly related
the Court didn't dismissed the matter and considered the to the satisfaction of governments. Governments are in a
issue. As a legal basis, the importance of this issue can be position to accept the contentious jurisdiction of the Court,
highlighted for the international community (Sadat Meidani, and the Tribunal faces constraints on governance in
2006: 139-123) [1]. It is noteworthy that, when the Supreme resolving international disputes. In international law, no
Court voted, due to the United States invasion of Iraq, there government is required to submit a dispute to another
were ambiguities regarding the international law governing government in an international tribunal without consent.
the use of force, which the Tribunal, using this case, The realm of ICJ's contentious jurisdiction is much more
announced its views and points, and as the guardian of the restricted than the jurisdiction of the national courts, and
entirety of international law, practiced the principle of non- this is because there is no dominant power in position to rule
use of force in international relations. With reference to the nations above their own governance power. At the domestic
above, we are now planning and analyzing the jurisdiction tribunals, the rights holders, whether real or legal, are
of the International Court of Justice. subject to the sovereignty of their respective government,
and therefore the jurisdiction of the tribunal is imposed on
Part 1 them in whatever form governed by the sovereignty, but in
1. Jurisdiction of the ICJ in settling interstate legal the international community of nations they have become
disputes members of the United Nations by maintaining their
The most important task of the International Court of sovereignty. The United Nations and the Tribunal are the
Justice, like any other judicial authority, is to resolve creatures of the will of the member states and do not have
disputes between the members of the legal system in which any jurisdiction over them, so the jurisdiction of the
they are located. However, as in the case of domestic private tribunal, that is, the international judicial authority, is
litigation, interstate disputes before the International Court subject to the restrictions of the members. Although neither
of Justice may be referred to the court for reasons beyond the Articles of Association nor the rules of procedure in the
the scope of the settlement of the dispute. These goals may relevant case do not require a particular form of consent, it
include the willingness to publicize an issue, the use of is in any case the consent of the parties to the dispute which
judicial proceeding or the threat to use it as a negotiating gives the court jurisdiction power (Lyons, 1994: 23-21). The
lever, and the need to persuade public opinion to follow principle of the consent-based jurisdiction of the Tribunal,
through effective measures by the responsible government which is the direct effect of the sovereignty of states, has
to resolve existing disputes (Jacob, 1996: 214) [7]. Under repeatedly been endorsed by the decisions of the Permanent
Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, "the parties to a Court of International Justice and the current Supreme Court
dispute whose continuity may endanger international peace (ICJ) (Jacob, 1996: 173) [7]. Of course, the subject of
and security must at first come to an agreement in solving advisory opinions is slightly different from that of an
their problems through negotiation, investigation, adversarial one. In the case of advisory opinions, no real
mediation, arbitration, peaceful settlement, appealing to people i.e. individual human beings are entitled to refer to
regional institutions and organizations, or any other peaceful the Court. According to Article 96 of the Charter and Article
acts. In this regard, the International Court of Justice has a 65 of the Statute of the Court, only the main organs of the
special position, since Article 36 (3) of the Charter requires United Nations and its specialized agencies are entitled to
the Security Council, at the time of its recommendation, to request a vote of opinion (Keith, 1971, 37-38) [9]. However,
consider the point that the legal disputes of the parties must although advisory opinions are not essentially mandatory for
be referred to the International Court of Justice. However in countries, they are of significant importance given the fact
practice, the Council has not paid much attention to this task that they have been issued from one of the most important
in recent years, and in some cases, like the "Case Study of international judicial institutions.
the Interpretation and Implementation of the 1971 In any case, the Court is subject to the following limitations
Convention", has even prevented the Court from not only during the qualification phase, but also during the
considering the case. (Stein, 2006: 135-136) [8]. substantive proceedings:
First, in international law, there is an irrefutable principle
Part 2 that no state is required to communicate its dispute with
2. The limitations on the jurisdiction of the ICJ another government to an international authority without its
According to the Statute of the International Court of prior consent. In other words, "this consent of the parties is
Justice, which is part of the United Nations Charter, only a matter which gives the court jurisdiction". This is a direct
governments, not human beings, can refer to the Court. effect of the principle of the sovereignty and equality of
Undoubtedly, this regulation is influenced by the prevailing states (Koroma, 2005: 1910). This principle is referred to in
thinking at the time of the adoption of the Charter, which Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, and is also considered
states that only states are subject to the international law and has been approved in various ways and repeatedly in the
(Schwebel, 1991: 213) [8]. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is opinions of the Permanent and the present Court. As an
based on the consent of the parties to the dispute. The instance, the Court ruled in the case of the Iran-British Oil
Tribunal must have jurisdiction prior to any substantive Company that "the general rules contained in Article 36 of
proceedings. Countries may refuse to accept the jurisdiction the Statute are based on this principle that the jurisdiction of
of the Tribunal, or make it conditional upon specific actions the Court to examine and decide on a case in the nature of
or at a specified time. Individuals or real people, not only the lawsuit is subject to the will of the parties. The Tribunal
personally do not have the right to refer to the Court, but will not have such jurisdiction power unless the parties of

20
International Journal of Law www.lawjournals.org

the dispute grant the jurisdiction right to it according to the drafting the Statute of the Court, should be noted here. In
Article 36. "Therefore, in order for the Court to be that plan, it was supposed that by filing a lawsuit by the
competent, the parties to the dispute, while admitting to the plaintiff state, the court was required to process the lawsuit,
Statute, must also accept the exercise of jurisdiction by the but this proposal was faced with the opposition of major and
Court in an appropriate manner. (Ibid: 189). mighty governments. Following their insistence on the
Secondly, as stated, it is only the states that can be present voluntary nature of the referral to the Tribunal, the final
as plaintiffs or defendants, so the Tribunal cannot resolve acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction was approved by the
disputes among governments and international organizations Assembly of Nations in accordance with paragraph 2 of
or between international organizations themselves. There is Article 36 (Shabtai, 1963: 365) [12]. However, the number of
no direct possibility of litigation by individuals in the ICJ, states that have issued declarations of compulsory
regarding the disputes between governments and real or jurisdiction pursuant to article 36, paragraph 2, is not
legal persons. However, the government of a person who significant. In one period, some governments, including
has suffered damage as a result of a violation of an China, France and the United States, withdrew declarations
international obligation can raise the issue in the court by of compulsory jurisdiction, while the governments that had
accepting his own national lawsuit. The measure is called issued such declarations, have restricted the jurisdiction of
diplomatic support. (Mir Abbasei, 2005: 391-353) [3]. the Tribunal to the extent that it contains clauses in it. Some
Thirdly, the Tribunal will only deal with legal disputes, and of these states have made the declarations of compulsory
the handling of disputes of a political nature will be linked jurisdiction conditional through which, those domestic and
to other United Nations pillars, such as the General local disputes are claimed out of the governance of the ICJ,
Assembly and the Security Council. In other words, the and decisions on such issues are hold in the power of the
Tribunal is competent to resolve disputes concerning the state, not in the ICJ. In accordance with clause 6 of Article
interpretation of a treaty, any matter that is the subject of 36 of the Statute, which provides the Court with the
international law, the truth of any matter which, if proven, authority to determine its jurisdiction, some legal scholars
constitutes a breach of an international obligation, and the have expressed doubts about the validity of such a
type and amount of compensation that must be paid for a condition, and have argued that the Tribunal cannot, under
breach of an international obligation. However, the ICJ's any circumstances, deprive it of its competence. And it is
approach has been in a way that does not accept the inconsistent with the parties to the dispute, as it is contrary
distinction between legal and political differences, and the to Section 6 of Article 36 of the Statute, which imposes the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has always emphasized right and duty to determine the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
this point in his speeches to the General Assembly. unconditionally and to the discretion of the Court. Article
(Coleman, 2003: 29-31) [11]. 36, paragraph 2, refers to the identification of compulsory
jurisdiction by the parties to the statute. This article does not
Part 3 speak of compulsory jurisdiction after a dispute has been
3. Legal documentation on the jurisdiction of the raised before the Court, also it doesn’t bring the case that
Tribunal the plaintiff has a right to decide on the jurisdiction of the
A. Article 36 of the Statute of the Court Tribunal (Ibid: 47). If the Court is bound to determine its
The voluntary nature of the mandatory admission of the jurisdiction by one of the parties to the dispute and the result
jurisdiction of the Tribunal from the very beginning of the is a lack of jurisdiction, then the Court may not exercise the
establishment of the International Court of Justice was not duty conferred by paragraph 6 of Article 36 of the Statute.
welcomed. Some countries, because of their distrust of the The court cannot act as guardian of its constitution.
Court and their strong adherence to their sovereignty, Although the states are completely free to accept the
believed that the decisions of the Supreme Court were closer jurisdiction of the Tribunal, or accept it with limitations and
to the views and opinions of Western lawyers and thinkers conditions, they cannot divert from the explicit provisions of
than to the actual judiciary. Therefore, they were not willing the Statute and impose force on a specific regulation, which
to accept the jurisdiction of the Court. Some countries is guardian of the ICJ's compulsory jurisdiction, using their
limited the scope of the jurisdiction by including clauses in free will. The Court has no discretion in relinquishing its
the declarations of compulsory jurisdiction. And, by virtue duties under an explicit regulation, which is the basic
of these clauses, considered issues within the scope of guarantee of its compulsory jurisdiction. The principle
internal jurisdiction and tried to free themselves from the contained in article 36, paragraph 6, of the Constitution, is
requirement to accept compulsory jurisdiction. States, while one of the most important principles of international judicial
accepting the Statute, should also adhere to the procedures. The principle states that no international courts
implementations of such jurisdiction by the ICJ in a of any kind has the right to decide whether the dispute
sufficient way (Amerasinghe, 2003: 549). Accepting the among parties is under its jurisdiction power or not
jurisdiction of the Court is possible in two ways. (Coleman, 2003: 207) [11]. In any case, the right of nations to
Acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court after the make reservations and limitations on the jurisdiction of the
occurrence of a dispute through the conclusion of a specific ICJ is not limitless.
agreement (the admission of voluntary jurisdiction) and the
acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court before the B. Clause 2(7) of the Charter
occurrence of a dispute (the adoption of compulsory In the era of the emergence of the League of Nations, the
jurisdiction). Clause 1 of Article 36 of the Statute observes sovereignty of the states was absolute, and the covenant was
the voluntary jurisdiction, and clause 2 of Article 36, also influenced by the same description of this sovereignty.
observes the compulsory jurisdiction. Concerning the way On this basis, the decisions of the Assembly and the Council
in which clause 2 of this article was drafted, a draft drawn of the Community were realized by consensus. And thus,
up in 1920 by a committee of lawyers responsible for the opposition of each member with the provisions of the

21
International Journal of Law www.lawjournals.org

decisions was enough to prevent its adoption. The effect of interpretation. The issue of the discretion of the Court in the
absolute sovereignty, namely the possibility of resorting to interpretation of the Charter was raised during the San
war, was not forbidden in the Covenant of the League of Francisco Conference and was referred to the Fourth
Nations but was limited. The fact that a state can constrain Committee of the Conference, which concluded that the
itself with its own will, does not constitute the government's Court was one of the pillars of the organization and, as with
declarations on relinquishment of its sovereignty, since the other parties, had the right to interpret the Charter
establishment of such restrictions is the concept of the (Graefrath, 1994: 184) [12]. In other words, it was stipulated
exercise of sovereignty. The conclusion of the statute of that each entity should have the authority to interpret the
international organizations is one of the exercising example section related to its duties, and, in addition, the member
of the sovereignty, although the constitution also imposes states should be free to interpret the sectors in which they
limitations on the members, which does not mean abstaining are beneficiaries. (Schachter, 2005: 12-14) As a result, no
from absolute sovereignty, since it has accepted these reference was made to the competent authority to interpret
limitations on its own will; on the other hand, whenever it the Charter. In 1947, at the time of the adoption of a
wishes, it can get out of it. The United Nations is one of resolution relating to the ICJ's position in the United
these organizations, based on the principle of equality of Nations Tribunal, the General Assembly also examined the
rights and autonomy of nations and the achievement of issue of the discretion of the Court in interpreting the
international cooperation in the cultural, social and Charter. At the meeting, some delegations, referring to
economic spheres, as well as the encouragement of States to Article 96 of the Charter, stated that the Court had the
respect human rights and fundamental freedoms. Since discretion of interpreting the charter, and others opposed
members of the United Nations are independent states with this view. The General Assembly ultimately upheld the first
independent sovereignty with no hierarchy among them, view, stating that the interpretation of the charter was in the
Article 7, Clause 2 of the Charter obliges the organization, jurisdiction of the Court and requested other United Nations
in accordance with the horizontal structure of the bodies and specialized agencies to refer any legal questions
international community, not to engage in activities in related to the interpretation of the Charter to the Tribunal.
matters which It is essentially not within the jurisdiction of The General Assembly reaffirmed this view in its resolution
the ICJ. This clause has also not obligated the member states of 3232 in 1974, asking the United Nations and specialized
to comply with the provisions of the Charter. In this article, agencies to use the Tribunal on any legal issue arising
the authority has jurisdiction over national competencies during their activities. (Amir Abbas, 1384: 157).
and has established a charter to prevent conflicts between In addition to the resolutions of the General Assembly, the
national competencies and the jurisdiction of the judicial procedure of the Court also confirms the discretion
organization, so that the organization does not interfere in of the Court to interpret the Charter. Since 1984, the Court
the internal affairs of the states. UN obligations under has repeatedly been asked to interpret the charter. The
Articles 1(1), 14, 33 to 38, 52 (3) provide for the settlement Court's procedure in this regard also shows that the Court
of international disputes or situations that jeopardize did not hesitate to expressly and implicitly confirm its
international peace and security. Clauses 1(3), (1) and 13 authority in this matter. The Court ruled expressly its
(2), 55, and 62 of the International Organization for the discretion in interpreting the charter in "The conditions for
resolution of international issues that have an economic, the admission of a state to membership in the United
social, cultural and human nature are also the responsibility Nations (Article 4 of the Charter)".
of the organization. (Leons, 1373: 29). In this way, the Adoption of the jurisdiction of the Court in relation to the
organization should strive to achieve international interpretation of the charter in the course of the
cooperation in the realm of above mentioned clauses in consideration of a number of other cases was also
order to maintain international peace and security. Also, confirmed. For example, in the second stage of the
under Article 1(3), 13, 55 and 62, the Organization is "competence of the general assembly in relation to the
acceptance of a state or government in the body of United
required to strive to encourage States to respect human
Nations ", the Court considers that, in accordance with
rights and fundamental freedoms. Considering this task was
Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute, "it
also due to the fact that counter-measures by governments
can comment on any legal issue, and there are no provisions
threaten international peace and security. In any case, by to prohibit the court to interpret.”
referring to clause 7, article 2 of the charter, none of the In addition, the ICJ implicitly referred to its jurisdiction
organs of the organization, including the International Court over the interpretation of the Charter in several cases. For
of Justice, has the right to interfere in matters that are example, in the case of "Compensation for damage to
essentially within the jurisdiction of the countries. For United Nations personnel", it interpreted the United Nations
example, in the case of Iran and the British Oil Company in Charter and stated that the United Nations has a legal
1952, Iran in disqualification of Tribunal also states that the personality. The Court also, after interpreting the charter,
Tribunal should declare that, in the application of clause 7, approved the status of the General Assembly in
article 2 of the charter, matters relating to the nationalization Southwestern Africa in the context of the "territories under
law of March 20 and May 1, 1951 are essentially within the the control of the United Nations. The Tribunal accepted the
jurisdiction of the States and cannot be the subject of the right of the assembly to form a judicial quarrel in the case
intervention of any of the United Nations organs (Ch., 1979: “The Effects of the Compensation issued by the United
354). Nations Administrative Court" (Graefrath, 1994: 317) [12].
It can therefore be concluded that the Court has jurisdiction
Part 4 over the interpretation of the charter, especially when there
4. Jurisdiction of the ICJ in interpreting the Charter of is a controversy over some of its provisions, and the
the United Nations intention of the charterers was to grant such a position to the
The UN Charter has not made any provision for its ICJ.

22
International Journal of Law www.lawjournals.org

Part 5 Conclusion
5. Appeals jurisdiction in the rulings of other The International Court of Justice, following the end of the
international bodies Second World War, was established with the dissolution of
Another role of the International Court of Justice is its the Permanent International Court of Justice as the United
jurisdiction as a reviewing authority in relation to the rulings Nations Judiciary pillar to resolve international interstate
of other international bodies. During a conference in San disputes. The Court takes into account both judicial
Francisco in 1945, it was suggested that the Tribunal should considerations and the organization in the performance of its
have jurisdiction over appeals from administrative courts. duties, and, in issuing a judgment, in addition to complying
But the proposal did not vote in the relevant committee. with the requirements of justice in the subject matter, it
(Ostrihansky, 1988, 102). Therefore, neither the Charter nor should also consider international legal and security
the Statute refers to the appeals jurisdiction of the ICJ. requirements. The fact is that if the Court finds that the full
However, in some international documents, this jurisdiction range of international law is in danger, it will take advantage
has been ruled out. Article 12 of the Statute of The of opportunities in adversarial and advisory proceedings to
Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor strengthen it.
Organization states: In any case, the most important task of this institution, like
In any case where the Board of Governors of the any other judicial authority, is to resolve the disputes
International Labor Office or the Administrative Council of referred to it among the members of the international legal
the Pension Fund has objected to a decision in that court in system, that is, governments. According to the Statute of the
addition to the jurisdiction or, in their opinion, the decision Court, only governments and not human beings can refer to
of the court contains a fundamental mistake connected with the Court, and the jurisdiction of the Court is based on the
the proceedings, the issue of the validity of the decision consent of the parties to the dispute, and the Tribunal must
made by The court should be referred to the International acquire jurisdiction prior to any substantive review, and
Court of Justice by a Board of Governors through an States may refuse to accept the jurisdiction of the Court or
accept it under specific conditions like specific claims or at
advisory opinion. "The executive board of other
a certain time. The principle of satisfaction with the
international organizations that have adopted the Statute of
jurisdiction of the Tribunal, which is the direct effect of the
the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labor
principle of the sovereignty of states, has been repeatedly
Organization may also apply to the Court for review of the emphasized in the judgments of the International Court of
provisions of this court. In addition, according to the Statute Justice. However, the subject of advisory opinions is
of the United Nations Administrative Court, which was slightly different from that of an adversarial one. In the case
approved by the General Assembly in accordance with the of advisory opinions, the real people i.e., individual human
resolution of November 22, 1949, there was a possibility for beings, have no right to refer to the court. According to
the International Court of Justice to review the rulings of Article 96 of the Charter and Article 65 of the Statute of the
this court. According to the court's statute, the competent Court, only the main organs of the United Nations and its
authority was to review laws relating to non-performance of specialized agencies are entitled to request a vote of
United Nations Secretary-General's recruitment contracts. In opinion, although advisory opinions are not primarily
accordance with the resolution of November 8, 1955, the binding on countries.
General Assembly, with the amendment to Article 11 of the The Court not only in the stage of jurisdiction, but also in
Statute of the United Nations Administrative Court, the course of the substantive proceedings, is subject to
provided the Court with an opportunity to review the rulings limitations such as the prior declaration of the state's
of this court. However, in January 1996, the General consent to the dispute or judiciary but not the political
nature of dispute raised. Article 36 of the Statute of the
Assembly resolved to delete this article.
Court and Article 2 (7) of the Charter clearly outline the
In addition to the statutes of the two above-mentioned
scope of the jurisdiction of the Court. Article 36, paragraph
courts, Article 84 of the 1944 Chicago Convention also
1 of the Statute of the Court observes the voluntary
allows its member states to use the ICJ to appeal to the
jurisdiction, and paragraph 2 of the same article refers to the
decisions of the ICAO Executive Council. In this regard, for compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. However, the number
example, in the jurisdiction cases of the ICAO Council and of States which have issued an affidavit of jurisdiction
the Air Traffic Controller, it could be noted that the Member pursuant to paragraph 2 of Article 36 is not significant. On
States had reviewed the decision of the Executive Council the other hand, clause 7, Article 2 of the Charter obliges the
of ICAO before the International Court of Justice on the organization, in view of the horizontal structure of the
basis of this article. Therefore, it can be argued that, international community and the sovereignty of the states, to
although the charter and the statutes did not explicitly confer refrain from interfering in matters that are essentially within
jurisdiction on appeals against the rulings of the United the jurisdiction of the countries in the performance of their
Nations Administrative Tribunals, the above-mentioned duties. That is, national qualifications of governments will
constitutions provided this possibility to the Tribunal; prevail if national jurisdiction of the state conflicts with the
though, this view has been criticized by some of the authors. competence of the organization. Accordingly, the Court also
According to these jurists, the International Labor has no right to interfere in matters that are essentially within
Organization and the General Assembly cannot grant such a the jurisdiction of the countries. The International Court of
discretion to the Court, unless the statute or charter is Justice has jurisdiction to interpret the Charter of the United
amended (Choi, 1984: 355). However, the ICJ did not Nations.
actually accept such theories. Referring to Article 65 of the The International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to
Statute and Article 96 (2) of the Charter, the Court has interpret the Charter of the United Nations. This authority
reviewed these rulings (Kaikobad, 2000: 281). was approved by the General Assembly for the first time in

23
International Journal of Law www.lawjournals.org

1947 when the resolution on the seat of the United Nations International court of Justice, London, European legal
was approved, and endorsed this view by resolution 3232 in perspectives, 2005.
1974. The judicial procedure of the Court also confirms the 11. Coleman Andrew. The International court of the justice
discretion of the Court in interpreting the Charter, and since and Highly Political Matters, Melbounrne, Journal of
1948 it has been repeatedly requested by the Court to International law, 2003, 4.
interpret the Charter. In addition, the court implicitly 12. Shabtai Rosenne. The law and practice of International
referred to its jurisdiction over the interpretation of the court of Justice, Netherlands AW, Graefrath Bernhard.
Charter in several cases. It can therefore be concluded that (1994) leave to the court what Belongs to the court,
the Court has jurisdiction over the interpretation of the Libyan case, EJH, 1965, 4(2).
charter, especially when there is a dispute as to some of its
provisions, and the intention of the charterers was to give
the Tribunal such a place.
The Court also has the authority to review the rulings of
other international bodies. However, not in the charter and
in the Statute of the Tribunal, there has been no reference to
the jurisdiction of the Court. However, in some international
documentations, including Article 12 of the Statute of the
International Labor Court, Article 11 of the United Nations
Administrative Court and Article 84 of the Chicago
Convention on Appeals in decisions of the Executive
Council of ICAO, such jurisdiction have given to the Court.
Finally, in order to improve the performance of the court, it
is suggested that:
Firstly, the absolute dominance of states must be
reconsidered and restricted in favor of the jurisdiction of the
Court.
Secondly, real people, in particular non-governmental
organizations, can sue the Court. In this way, the growing
and systematic amount of human rights violations in
autocratic regimes will be reduced.

References
1. Sadat Meidani, Seyyed Hossein. Compensation for
damage to the Islamic Republic Of Iran due to US
illegal attacks on oil platforms, Tehran, Journal of
Legal Research, 2006, 9.
2. Leonids Jenny M. International Intervention,
Governance and the Future of the International Society,
Translation of Khojasteh Arefnia, Tehran, Political and
Economic Information Monthly, Eighth, 1994, 11, 12.
3. Mir Abbasi, Seyyed Bagher and Sadat Meidani, Seyed
Hossein. International Tribunals: The International
Court of Justice in Theory and Practice, Tehran, Forest
Publishing, 2005.
4. Slomanson William R. Fundomental perspective on
International law London, Hugh Third way, Fitth
Edition, 2007.
5. Amir Mohamed sameh. The Role of the International
court of Justice as the principle judicial organ of the
United Nations, London, luzac, 2003.
6. Abi-saab Georges. The International Court as a world
court, London, 1996.
7. Sadat M. The world court judicial policy in the oil
platforms case, oxford, Oxford University. Jacob s,
(1996), fact-Finding in Inter-State Adjudication,
London, the Modern Law Review, 2005, 59.
8. Stein Torsten. The statute of the International court of
Justice, oxford, oxford university press. Schwebel s.
(1991). Relations between the International court of
Justice and the United Nations, Denver, Journal of
International law and policy, 2006.
9. Keith kJ. The Extent of the Advisory Jurisdiction of the
IcJ, Leyden, 1971.
10. Korma Abdul. Assertion of Jurisdiction by the

24