The Paradox of International Law: Between Crisis and Recourse
At a recent conference hosted by the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, Professor Alain Pellet offered his expertise and analysis of the current state of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). During my stay in Cambridge, I had the opportunity to attend his lecture to gain a better understanding of an interesting paradox that he pointed out: never before has the integrity of international law been so threatened, and yet never before has there been such extensive recourse to it.
With the increase in global tensions, the ICJ is busier than ever, handling disputes from sovereignty conflicts to human rights violations.
However, Pellet raised an important question: is the large number of cases at the ICJ a sign of success, or does it show the increasing failures of diplomacy?
His insights highlight the weaknesses of the international legal system, the political limits of the ICJ, and the future of global governance through law.
What exactly is the ICJ?
The ICJ is the International Court of Justice, which has its seat in the Netherlands, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
The ICJ is the only international court that settles disputes between the 193 member states. This means that it makes a significant contribution to global peace and security by allowing countries to resolve issues without resorting to conflict.
The ICJ handles two types of cases: « contentious cases, » which are legal disputes between countries, and « advisory proceedings, » where it gives legal opinions requested by UN bodies and special agencies.
For example, the case of South Africa vs. Israel in December 2023 is the first time a contentious case has been brought against Israel at the ICJ. South Africa says Israel’s actions are genocidal because they aim to destroy Palestinians in Gaza as part of the wider Palestinian group.
South Africa wants the Court to use the 1948 UN Genocide Convention, which both countries signed, to handle the case. Israel, of course, denies the accusations.
The ICJ’s expanding role: between power and limits
Pellet pointed out that even though international law is officially observed, it is often ignored in practice. This contradiction shapes how the world is governed today.
Even though more countries are taking cases to the ICJ, they don’t always follow its decisions. Many governments still choose to negotiate diplomatically rather than rely on legal rulings, often preferring third-party mediation over permanent court decisions.
One of the main challenges the ICJ faces is its limited authority. The court can make decisions, but it doesn’t have the power to ensure they are followed. This weakens its influence, especially when strong countries only follow the court’s rulings when it suits them.
Another key issue is the influence of powerful countries on international legal outcomes. Pellet pointed out that some governments use the ICJ to their advantage instead of truly following legal principles.
Cases such as South Africa vs. Israel, where multiple interventions have taken place, demonstrate that geopolitical interests often shape legal proceedings.
This raises the question: is the ICJ a neutral judicial body, or is it influenced by the same political calculations that dominate international relations?
The main issues on the ICJ’s agenda: sovereignty and territorial conflicts
According to Pellet, the ICJ’s increasing cases reflects global instability. Recent legal dispute demonstrate the complexity of modern international conflicts and the growing dependance on legal mechanisms to resolve disputes.
The most common disputes are about sovereignty and territorial conflicts. A relevant example of this kind of dispute is the relocation of the U.S Embassy to Jerusalem.
This decision is highly controversial and involves legal challenges because it recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. This is the main issue, because it is not recognized by many Arab countries and numerous international actors.
The U.N. Security Council and General Assembly have been divided over the city’s status, with some members advocating for Jerusalem to be an international city, while others support Israel’s claims. The relocation of the embassy to Jerusalem by the U.S. raises questions about the recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the city, an issue that has legal and political implications in international law.
Growing role of legal interventions in global conflicts
Pellet noted a striking trend: as conflicts proliferate, legal intervention has become more frequent. However, there is an inherent imbalance in which cases receive the most attention.
Pellet highlighted the tendency in the modern world of using legal interventions during global conflicts. However, there is an global inbalance between the cases that receive attention, as some are judged more important than others.
For instance, he observed that Ukraine’s legal battle against Russia has dominated international legal discourse, often overshadowing other urgent cases, such as those involving Palestinian claims against Israel.
This tendency can lead to unequal treatment, perhaps because Ukraine is culturally closer to the EU than Palestine. This rather shocking conclusion reflects the fact that international law is not applied equally to all states.
The ICJ’s influence: a question of power
Despite it’s limitations, the ICJ remains a crucial institution in global governance. Pellet emphasized that rules, while sometimes ignored, still have a symbolic and strategic impact.
Even when powerful states resist compliance, legal decisions can influence diplomatic negotiations, public opinion, and future policymaking.
One controversial example he cited was Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. Despite knowing he was likely to lose in court, Gaddafi chose to engage with the ICJ as a way to gain diplomatic legitimacy and international recognition.
This illustrates how states sometimes use international courts as political tools, rather than purely legal institutions.
With this example Pellet recognized the downsides of using the court in diplomacy. Sometimes, governments take legal action not because they truly believe in legal solutions, but rather for political advantage, as the process is quite lengthy and can sometimes legitimize practices such as those under Gaddafi.
This creates a risk that the ICJ might be used more for political arguments than for actually resolving conflicts.
The ICJ’s role: judiciary or legislator?
A critical theme in Pellet’s lecture was the fundamental nature of the ICJ. Should the court remain a strict judicial body, or should it play a more active role in shaping international law?
Pellet and Wood firmly maintained that the ICJ is a court, not a legislature.
The role of ICJ should be to interpret and apply existing laws, not to create new legal norms.
Nowadays, as the demands of the ICJ’s advice in many cases is strongly valued for many countries, the guidance might sometimes be political in a way.
Many other institutions face this problem, such as the European Court of Human Rights, which condemned Switzerland in 2024 for failing to take sufficient action against climate change.
The case was brought by Les Aînées pour le Climat, a group of elderly women arguing that the government inaction is a violation of their fundamental right to having good health. This illustrates how courts can hold states responsible for environmental policies through legal mechanisms.
The question remains: should the ICJ adapt to modern challenges by expanding its role, or should it maintain a strict interpretative function?
Pellet warned that if it goes beyond its role, it could lose trust, making states less likely to follow its authority.
Will the future of international law see it strengthened, or will it become merely a symbolic tool?
The increasing caseload is a sign of the system’s strength, but it also highlights the failures of diplomacy.
On one hand, the court has handled over 60 cases in recent years, for condemnations of genocide, human rights, and territorial disputes.
On the other hand, Pellet warned against exaggerating the ICJ’s influence and interpretation. The ICJ’s effectiveness depends on state cooperation, which remains inconsistent and politically motivated.
A big challenge is that powerful countries, like China and Russia, question international legal rules. They see human rights as political tools used by the West and focus more on state power than individual freedoms. This raises an important question: Can the ICJ stay neutral when countries don’t agree on the basic legal principles?
If international law is seen as political, does this weaken the ICJ’s role? Or does the growing number of cases prove that states still rely on it, even when it’s inconvenient? The future of international law depends on whether it remains respected or becomes just a symbol without real power.
Sources:
Conference:”The ICJ, it’s role and limits in the settlement of dispute” at the Lauterpacht Center for Interational Law, University of Cambridge 10th February 2025 presented by Alain Pellet and Michel Wood
Relocation of the United States Embassy to Jerusalem (Palestine v. United States of America) 2018
Similar articles:
Le droit dans la guerre : concernant la légitime défense, elle n’est pas applicable quand l’Etat qui veut l’invoquer est déjà coupable d’agression armée
Retour sur la conférence « Jurisprudence de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme : quelques considérations méthodologiques »
