The Role of International Courts in Ensuring Global Justice

Abstract This analysis of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on climate change focuses on the application of customary international law. The ICJ identifies a customary duty to prevent significant harm to the climate system and some more specific obligations. It notes that these rules apply to every State, irrespective of their participation in climate treaties. What remains less clear, however, is the content of the duty of prevention and, more pragmatically, how courts could assess compliance with this duty. This analysis interprets the Advisory Opinion as suggesting that courts could rely on a set of indicia to determine whether, as a whole, a State is making efforts consistent with customary international law.

Purpose This paper aims to examine how multinational enterprises minimise tax liabilities in emerging economies through lawful but engineered cross border structures. Using Rawlsian distributive justice, it assesses whether international tax rules and court responses protect the least advantaged by preventing tax base erosion that reduces funding for essential public services. It also examines how professional intermediaries enable complexity and shape the legitimacy of the international tax order. Design/methodology/approach Doctrinal analysis of judgments from India, Nigeria, Ghana and South Africa is combined with socio legal critique. The cases are mapped to four Rawls grounded assumptions on fairness, fragmentation, transparency and accountability. Findings The cases show repeatable avoidance mechanisms. In India, offshore restructuring treated a value shifting transfer as exempt. In Nigeria, layered group structures and joint venture operations complicated tax enforcement while harm litigation moved abroad. In Ghana, offshore routed payments reduced local scrutiny around public contracts. In South Africa, structured finance re-characterised interest as exempt dividends until challenged under anti avoidance rules. Across contexts, advisers and intermediaries supported opacity and individual accountability was limited. This increases pressure on low-income states with limited institutional capacity. Judicial reasoning shaped outcomes because purposive interpretation protected the tax base, whereas formalism accepted legal form and allowed base erosion that fails a Rawlsian fairness test. Research limitations/implications The focus on four jurisdictions limits generalisation but provides deep insight into ethical and legal asymmetries in global taxation. Practical implications Policymakers should adopt substance based anti-avoidance rules and enforce adviser duties, with promoter disclosure, sanctions and mutual assistance. Originality/value The study links Rawlsian justice to comparative case law and proposes UN reforms that target professional enablers of tax avoidance.

Self-determination is no longer seriously challenged as a right under international law. This has been confirmed by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and in South African case law. Since the 1960s, the international-law debate relating to self-determination has, to a large extent, been dominated by claims of indigenous peoples to self-determination. This debate culminated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which has been overwhelmingly endorsed by members of the UN General Assembly. In practice, self-determination nowadays means internal self-determination, which must be distinguished from external self-determination, such as secession, which is extremely rare. Internal self-determination comprises the right of an indigenous people living in a sovereign state to determine freely their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. The terms “indigenous people” and “indigenous community” have become synonymous with “ethnocultural people” or “ethnocultural community”, and the distinctions between the two are no longer watertight. It is submitted that the main purpose of the Traditional and Khoi-San Leadership Act 3 of 2019 (Khoisan Act) is aimed at the Khoisan as an ethnocultural community, although this is not evident in the Preamble of the Act. In discussing the Khoisan Act, attention is paid to its serious deficiencies. A brief reference is made to the Hungarian Roma, where an institutionalised exercise similar to that of the Khoisan Act has been embarked upon. It is a moot point whether the Khoisan Act achieves its objectives. It is proposed that the perceived objectives of the Khoisan Act can be better achieved by following the example of the Noongar Settlement in Western Australia, which has become a valuable case study on the recognition of minority rights.

The article provides a thorough analysis of the origins, historical development, and genesis of the principles of international justice as a key element in the formation of the modern international legal order. The author reveals the historical origins of the institution of international justice, emphasizing its emergence as a civilized alternative to the forceful methods of resolving interstate disputes that dominated in previous eras. Particular attention is paid to the gradual transition from military and coercive forms of conflict resolution to legal and procedurally regulated mechanisms based on the principles of equality, justice, and mutual respect between states. In the context of the historical development of international justice, the emergence of arbitration forms of dispute resolution in Ancient Greece, where the institutional foundations for the creation of independent arbitration bodies first appeared, is traced. In particular, the role of the arbitration commissions of the ancient amphictyony is emphasized, whose activities contributed to the establishment of the first supranational norms and practices of peaceful conflict resolution between political communities. A separate section of the study is devoted to the process of doctrinal understanding of the idea of international justice in the works of thinkers of the 17th–18th centuries. The focus is on the concepts of Jeremy Bentham, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and other representatives of Enlightenment legal thought, who viewed international justice as a practical manifestation of the principles of humanism, rationalism, and justice in inter-state relations. In particular, I. Kant, in his “Perpetual Peace,” put forward the idea of creating an international court as an instrument for preventing wars, which was later reflected in the development of the global legal system. In conclusion, it is noted that the formation of general principles of international justice is the result of a long evolution of legal thought, political practice, and international experience, which has gradually strengthened the position of law as a universal means of maintaining peace and security. These principles became the foundation for the creation of modern international judicial institutions, such as the Permanent Court of International Justice, the UN International Court of Justice, and other specialized tribunals, whose activities ensure the rule of law on a global scale. Keywords: international judiciary, international adjudication, principles of law, international arbitration, arbitral tribunals, peaceful settlement of disputes, international judicial institutions, doctrine of international law.

ABSTRACT The recognition of states remains one of the most contested issues in international law, particularly where secession, sovereignty, and territorial integrity intersect. This article examines Israel’s recognition of Somaliland, a self-declared entity that has exercised effective governance since 1991 but lacks broad international recognition. Using a doctrinal-analytical methodology, the study evaluates the legality of recognition under the United Nations Charter, the Montevideo Convention, customary international law, and relevant International Court of Justice jurisprudence. It further situates Israel’s decision within comparative precedents such as Kosovo and Taiwan, highlighting the political dimensions of recognition. The central research question asks whether Israel’s recognition violates Somalia’s territorial integrity under international law. The article argues that it does not. Recognition, as a unilateral diplomatic act unaccompanied by force or coercive intervention, does not breach the prohibition on the use of force or the principle of non-intervention. However, while legally permissible, the recognition carries significant political and normative consequences, potentially influencing regional stability and the evolving balance between territorial integrity and self-determination in contemporary international law.

ABSTRACT Certain institutions, mechanisms and processes preserve the coherence of international water law, despite its proliferation and the diversity of its sources, within a unitary system of international law. These include the universalist instincts of international courts, routine legal codification, the integrative role of general principles, and the universal character of increasingly relevant human rights norms. ‘Convergence’ unifies and enriches modern international water law some 60 years after first being codified, assisting it in addressing challenges posed by the looming global water crisis through the gradual interpenetration and cross-fertilization of previously somewhat compartmentalized areas of international law.

The jurisdictional limits of the international criminal court in prosecuting non-member states

ABSTRACT While some have welcomed climate litigation as a potential instrument for climate justice, others have dissmissed courts as a futile weapon against the carbon economies in which they are embedded. This paper investigates a paradigmatic case filed by Russian civil society against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights. It asks: Why pursue climate litigation against an authoritarian regime that is unlikely to implement an international court decision, at the risk of personal persecution? The paper theorises the Russian case as co-production of prefigurative legality. It explores how the political significance of strategic climate litigation is co-produced by involved actors, and what futures, normative principles, subjectivities, political messages, and knowledges the case generates and is shaped by. The paper contributes to an understanding of climate litigation as a practice of democratic resistance in authoritarian contexts and a technique of just future-making.

This study examines Israel’s violations against Palestinian journalists during the Gaza War 2023–2025 within the framework of international humanitarian law (IHL). Adopting a Critical Legal Studies perspective, the study recognizes that IHL operates within unequal power structures and does not assume neutrality. The Gaza War, precipitated by the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, occurs against the broader context of the Israeli siege since 2006 and the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestine. The study analyses the legal protections afforded to journalists in armed conflicts, documents Israeli violations, and proposes measures to strengthen accountability and safeguard media workers. Employing a descriptive-analytical approach, it reviews IHL frameworks—including Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions—and evaluates media and human rights reports. Findings reveal violations by Israeli forces, including targeted killings, movement restrictions, communication blackout, and attacks on media infrastructure, all of which contravene IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. The study highlights the persistent enforcement gap in protecting the Palestinian journalists as civilians and advocates for enhanced HL protections, independent investigations and the use of international courts to ensure journalist safety and uphold press freedom.

Q: Why does nationality matter? Why does it matter from the perspective of the state and why does it matter from the perspective of the parties to the dispute? Former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada Bertha Wilson wrote an article in 1990 entitled “Will Women Judges Really Make a Difference?” 1 in which she examined the perspective one’s gender gives to framing and deciding legal issues. I think one’s nationality plays a similar role. There is a collective experience with, and perspective on, international law (fostered by conferences like the CCIL’s annual conference and the mere existence of the CYIL ) that is distinctly ours. To the state, the legitimacy of a decision in a dispute to which the state is a party is probably enhanced by having a national on the court (with the International Court of Justice [ICJ], this perception can be accomplished with the appointment of ad hoc judges where the disputing state does not have a judge of its nationality on the bench). However, this would not account for the contribution that Canadians can make to international courts and tribunals involving other states on international law issues generally. For as you all know, international law is not just made by treaty making but also through judicial interpretations of those treaties and state practice.

This article examines how transitional justice frameworks can inform climate reparations debates. Drawing on lessons from international criminal and human rights courts, as well as non-judicial reparation programs, it highlights the importance of victim participation, multifaceted redress, and credible guarantees of non-repetition in designing effective reparative mechanisms for climate harms. The analysis looks beyond State-to-State obligations to consider reparations owed to individuals, communities and ecosystems, including through ecocentric approaches and the potential criminalisation of ecocide. It argues that, while transitional justice cannot resolve the climate crisis, it offers guidance for designing reparative mechanisms that are participatory, multi-layered and credible.

Abstract His Excellency Ambassador Mahmoud Hmoud is Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and a candidate for the International Court of Justice ( ICJ ). As a Jordanian diplomat and international lawyer, Ambassador Hmoud’s career has been dedicated to international law. He has represented Jordan in international negotiations for numerous bilateral and multilateral treaties and has acted as counsel before international courts and tribunals. He also served as a member of the International Law Commission ( ILC ) for 16 years, including as its chair in 2021. Ambassador Hmoud talks about his experience as the then youngest ever member of the ILC and his view of the evolving nature of international law and the institutions and individuals that support it. He offers his perspective on the role of the ICJ , its relationships within the international system, as well as his approach to becoming a new member of the Court.

Abstract The invocation of international law in Arab diplomacy began after states emerged in the Mashreq after World War I . In Palestine, opposition to European control was expressed in carefully drafted memoranda dispatched to the European powers and to the League of Nations that referenced the law on territorial rights and self-determination. These memoranda sought to hold Britain to the norms that lay at the base of the Europe-led order as it was developed in the wake of the war. This article recounts and analyzes the invocation of international law in Arab diplomacy over Palestine in the years of British control. It traces international law in efforts to counter Britain’s initiation of rule based on the mandate system outlined in the Covenant of the League of Nations and examines Britain’s effort to gain a legal undergirding and legitimacy for its governance of Palestine. The article then examines the efforts of Arab-state diplomats to challenge British Palestine policy at the United Nations, at the International Court of Justice, and through a declaration of statehood–all efforts that put international law center stage.

There is no consensus among philosophers, including philosophers of law, whether the present generation has duties to future generations or whether future generations have rights for which the present generation is accountable. Where the moral or legal argument is advanced that we do have duties to future generations in view of their rights, that argument reasonably includes concern for the abolition of nuclear weapons. There is ample moral warrant (e.g., from the moral philosophy of John Rawls) and legal warrant (e.g., from the legal assessment of the International Court of Justice) in the present (1) to account for such duties and (2) for those of our generation to take requisite action that protects the rights of future generations against nuclear catastrophe. Hence, there is a reasonably defensible moral and legal argument in favor of nuclear disarmament.

Abstract The Climate Change Advisory Opinion (AO) by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) demonstrates the growing prominence of general principles of law in international law. The Climate Change AO was handed down at the end of the International Law Commission's project on general principles of law with the adoption of its Draft Conclusions. In the Climate Change AO, the ICJ accords general principles of law particular importance in environmental protection. This article documents how States identified general principles of law as the bedrock of the international climate change regime, and how the ICJ employed a systematic approach to ‘thicken’ climate change law, both in terms of normative content, obligations and consequences of breach. It then examines the general principles of law affirmed by the ICJ, in particular, the principles of common but differentiated responsibilities and intergenerational equity, both extracted from the broader general principle of equity. These principles guide the interpretation of ‘how far’ or ‘how much’, operating as balancing tools in relation to other obligations. The broader significance of this development lies in the ICJ's growing recognition of general principles of law as a means of supporting and structuring its legal reasoning. The article further argues that the normative development of these principles has been reinforced by reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and that Article 38(1)(c) of the ICJ Statute provides a broader gateway for taking account of normative contributions by actors such as the IPCC. The identification of customary law and peremptory norms ( jus cogens ) is more narrowly defined than general principles of law. The article concludes by examining the IPCC's role in underpinning the normative character of certain general principles of law, building on the interaction of law and science, and suggests that strengthening these principles may facilitate their more robust incorporation into future treaty‐design mechanisms.

ABSTRACT While citizenship by investment (CBI) schemes are a relatively recent phenomenon, debates regarding the instrumentalisation of nationality have existed ever since this institution became broadly established in the nineteenth century. This is due to the fact that nationality does not only impact the relations between individuals and states, but also between states. As the European Commission noted with respect to CBI schemes, the attribution of nationality by a state carries consequences with respect to other states. Notably, nationality entitles a state to invoke the responsibility of another state through diplomatic protection, and enables individuals to bring direct claims against states under international investment agreements. This article shows how the conferral of nationality upon individuals can have major implications not only for the procedural rights of these individuals, notably as investors, but also for the territorial sovereignty and integrity of states. Placing the restrictive 1955 definition of nationality given by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Nottebohm within its historical and contemporary context, it explains how the limits occasionally placed by international courts and tribunals on the international effects caused by the attribution of nationality were reactions to the use of the latter as an interventionist tool.

Abstract This article critically examines the efficacy of ratifying International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) within the complex relationship between a State’s sovereignty and its pre-existing, non-derogable obligations under international law. Many States may use reservations, understandings, and declarations (RUDs) to ratify treaties like ICERD while managing substantive obligations. This article analyze ICERD’s the challenges of domestic enforcement, scrutinizing how ratification by States, could be diluted by extensive RUDs, thereby analysing whether formal ratification translates to meaningful compliance. This analysis further interprets enforcement lacunae, including the jurisdictional barriers facing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in adjudicating human rights violations. By contrast, this article uses Malaysia as a critical case study to examine the legal implications of the persistent non-ratification of ICERD, a dimension of the international human rights scholarship that remains insufficiently examined. This article critically examine and analyse the domestic legal context to demonstrate that the State remains legally bound by the international principle of equality and non-discrimination through multiple legal nexus, the UN Charter membership, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) as Customary International Law, and the ASEAN Human Rights Framework, which cumulatively reinforce the jus cogens character of racial equality. This analysis advances a novel legal argument by applying the framework of jus cogens norms and constitutional equality principles under Malaysian law, suggesting that non-ratification of ICERD may have implications beyond a neutral exercise of sovereignty. The non-ratification of ICERD constrains the efficacy of the international human rights machinery, avoiding the full scope of external monitoring and legal accountability, and raising questions regarding the alignment of its domestic constitutional integrity. It is submitted that the States that ratify ICERD even with RUDs, demonstrate a foundational commitment to human rights norms despite enforcement complexities. Non-ratification perpetuates structural inequality and directly challenges international mechanisms designed to uphold universal human rights.

The genocide case filed by South Africa against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) stems from concerns over the escalation of violence in Gaza following the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, which allegedly involved serious violations of the Genocide Convention as a jus cogens norm. This study aims to analyze the legal and political significance of the lawsuit, including its implications for Israel's international responsibility and the global response to its military operations. The methods used include a descriptive legal approach to describe the application of international legal norms in practice, as well as a normative approach to assess the legal obligations that should be complied with under the Genocide Convention. The two approaches are combined through case study analysis and comparison with the practices of other countries. The results of the study show that Israel's actions potentially fulfill the elements of genocide and that the ICJ's Provisional Measures have had a major political impact, as evidenced by Israel's increasing international isolation and the suspension of military aid by a number of countries. In conclusion, this case is not only important in upholding international law, but also plays a strategic role in encouraging Israel's compliance with humanitarian law and strengthening global accountability mechanisms.

The Bosnian Genocide remains one of the most challenging cases within the history of modern conflict and calamity. As the first occurrence in which the International Court of Justice applied the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide to a state, the International Court of Justice's legal proceedings on the Bosnian Genocide set a new standard for the obligations of the international community to act in the occurrence of genocide. This research aims to clarify the nature of the 1992-1995 conflict between the nations of Serbia-Montenegro and Bosnia-Herzegovina using primary source documentation, modern commentary, and the codification of genocide prevention under the United Nations arbitration between Bosnia and Serbia. It also serves to identify how the understanding of the Bosnian Genocide has changed over time within both the legal discipline and the historicization of violence as a whole.