GROUP 12
MEMBERS
1. Peter Kivunzi. L11/04220/23
2. Promise Mukami. L11/04227/23
3. Gedion Kimathi. L11/04230/23
4. Guyatu Dandu. L11/04210/23
5. Michelle Khatundi. LP11/06535/23
6. Eugene Odanga. L11/04291/23
7. Iddah Wainaina. L11/042215/23
8. Victor Chesaro. L11/04253/23.
INTRODUCTION TO ICJ
What is the INTERNATIONAL COURT JUSTICE
• The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the
United Nations. It settles legal disputes between states and providing
advisory opinion on legal questions.
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
1899 & 1907: Hague conventions lay the ground work for international
arbitration.
1920: The Permanent Court of International Justice is established
under the League of Nations.
1945: The ICJ is created at the San Francisco Conference.
• 1946: ICJ begins its work Located in Peace Palace, The Hague,
Netherlands.
ORGANISATION OF THE ICJ
• Composed of 15 judges elected for a 9 year term by the UN general Assembly and
Security Council elections held after every 3 years and 5 judges elected at a time.
• Judges are independent cannot hold political and administrative positions.
• President and Vice President are elected by the judges.
MANDATE OF THE ICJ
Settles legal disputes between states.
Provides advisory opinions on legal questions referred by UN organs and agencies.
Handles 2 types of cases: Contentious cases:
Disputes between states. Advisory proceedings: Legal opinions requested by UN
bodies.
• The mandate of the ICJ is maintaining peace and resolving disputes peacefully.
The ROLE AND PURPOSE OF ICJ IN
PROMOTING HUMAN RIGHTS
• Settling Human Rights- Related Disputes Between States
Resolves disputes where states accuse each other of human rights violations issues
legally binding rulings.
The Gambia v. Myanmar (2020) – Myanmar accused of genocide; ICJ ordered
preventive measures.
Ukraine v. Russia (2020) – Ongoing case on Russia’s alleged misuse of the Genocide
Convention.
• Providing Advisory Opinions On Human Rights Issues
Offers legal opinions on human rights matters for UN bodies
Notable cases:-
Israel Separation Wall (2004) – Ruled a violation of human rights and the fourth
Geneva Convention.
Nuclear Weapons Case (1996) – Concluded nuclear weapon use generally violates
international law.
• Strengthening Human Rights through ICJ’s Legal Framework
Interpreting and Strengthening International Human Rights Law.
Clarifies treaties like: Genocide Convention, ICCPR( Civil & Political
Rights) & CERD( Anti- Racial Discrimination)
Reinforces human rights norms, making them binding even for non-
signatories.
• Enforcing Human Rights Norms
ICJ rulings have legal and political weight but lack direct enforcement
power.
States expected to comply under article 94 of the UN Charter Non-
compliance may lead to UN Security Council actions e.g Myanmar was
pressured to report on Rohingya crisis after ICJ intervened.
• Strengthening the UN Human Rights System
Support UN bodies like: Human Rights Council (HRC) – influences resolutions and
investigations.
UN Security Council- Can lead to sanctions or peacekeeping missions.
REPORTS ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Sexual Orientation & Gender Identity (2021) – Report examined abuses in Colombia,
South Africa and Malaysia, recommending protection for LGBT rights.
Palestinian Territories & Australia (2024) –ICJ ruled Israel’s occupation illegal; UN
expert recommended Australia limit trade with Israel.
Judicial Independence In Indonesia (1999) – highlighted judicial rights violations and
recommended reforms.
• Indonesia & Human Rights (2013) –ICJ submitted a report on Indonesia’s ICCPR
compliance, calling for rights protections.
THE CASE OF GAMBIA VS MYANMAR
Case was filed in November 11, 2019 at the ICJ
Myanmar accused of genocide against Rohingya Muslims.
Gambia represented the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)
Allegations against Myanmar
Violations of the 1948 Genocide Convention, Mass Killings, Forced
displacement, Sexual violence & rape, Village destruction and
Restrictions on rights.
Based on UN reports confirming Myanmar’s genocidal intent.
Myanmar’s Defense
Led by Aung San Suu Kyi, Myanmar denied allegations. Claimed
military operations were counter-insurgency, not genocide.
Court Proceedings
ICJ issued provisional measures: To prevent genocide,
preserve evidence and ensure compliance.
In 2022, Myanmar argued Gambia lacked standing, ICJ
rejected objection allowing the case to proceed.
The case is still ongoing with both sides presenting
evidence awaiting ICJ ruling.
THE CASE OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVONIA
V. SERBIA AND MONTENEGRO
Key legal issues
Genocide allegations: Whether Serbia and Montenegro committed
genocide against the Bosnia Muslim population.
State responsibility: Serbia’s role in supporting the Bosnia Serb Army.
• Failure to Prevent Genocide: whether Serbia violated the Genocide
Convention by not preventing or punishing perpetrators.
Court’s decision
• Found Serbia responsible for failing to prevent and punish genocide
but not directly guilty of committing genocide.
• Ruling relied on Genocide Convention (1948) and ICTY precedents.
OTHER CASES HANDLED AT THE ICJ
• Croatia-Serbia Case (2007) – ICJ ruled that neither side met the intent requirement for genocide.
• Nicaragua v U.S (1980) – ICJ ruled U.S violated international law by supporting Contra rebels and
mining Nicaraguan harbors.
• Guyana v Venezuela (2025) – Guyana challenged Venezuela’s elections in a disputed region; ICJ
ruling is still pending.
IMPACT & CRITIQUE
Impact
Set a precedent for state accountability in human rights violations.
Influenced transitional justice policies and victim reparations.
• Strengthened international legal standards on genocide preventions.
Critique
Evidence issues: Some testimonies lacked sufficient corroborations
Limited accountability: Did not fully establish Serbia’s involvement in systematic abuses.
• Fair representation concerns: Some parties felt unheard in the legal process.
LIMITATIONS OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
• Jurisdictions & Access
ICJ only hears cases between states, individuals have no
direct access. Many states do not accept compulsory
jurisdiction, limiting case selection.
Human rights cases are a small portion of ICJ’s docket,
often appearing in dissenting opinions.
• Human rights & political influence
ICJ does not focus on human rights protection only. Minimal
advisory opinions on human rights matters.
Political bias in judge selection influences decisions.