The International Court of Justice(ICJ), known as the World Court, is the principal vehicle for furthering the UN mandate to facilitate the peaceful resolution of international disputes, acting as a permanent, neutral, third-party dispute settlement mechanism rendering binding judgments in "contentious" cases initiated by one state against another. Parties to dispute before the Court must consent to the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. Another function of the Court is the "advisory opinion" which is open only to specified United Nations bodies and agencies seeking the Court's help in deciding complex legal issues that fall under their respective mandates. The Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character though influential and widely respected.
Criticisms of the ICJ range from its rulings, its procedures to its authority. Many of these criticisms refer more to the authority assigned to the ICJ by member states rather than to problems with the specific composition of judges or their rulings, although it can be argued that the automatic representation of all five of the permanent members of the Security Council speaks against the total independence and impartiality of the Court. The main criticisms, however, are as follows:
- "Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instance of aggression tend to be adjudicated by the Security Council. " Organizations, private enterprises and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the ICJ such as to appeal a national supreme court's ruling
- Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the ICJ
- The ICJ does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of even cases to which they consented in advance to be bound.
These criticisms need to be addressed so as to empower the ICJ in order to safeguard the future of the children of the world and those yet unborn.
The ICJ was established by States in 1945 and the latter are therefore the only ones with powers to propose and ratify amendments to its statutes. Any amendment must be approved by two thirds of the Members of the General Assembly and ratified by two thirds of the UN Member States. Moreover, ratification must include the five permanent members of the Security Council. It follows that unless there is broad consensus on the amendments to be brought about to the Statutes, in particular unless there is unanimity among members of the Security Council, one cannot envisage any major change either in the composition or working of the ICJ. Besides, the Statute of ICJ forms an integral part of the Charter of the United Nations. To amend the statutes one has to amend the Charter itself. It is therefore not surprising that during the six decades that it has been in operation, the ICJ has been amended on only 4 occasions.
Since States are no longer the only protagonists in international relations, suggestions have been made to broaden access to the Court for contentious proceedings to include besides the States themselves, international intergovernmental organizations as well as non-governmental organizations and corporations.
As regards the request of advisory opinions from the ICJ the UN Secretary General has in the past proposed authorizing his office to make such request. It has also been suggested that regional bodies such as the African Union (AU) or inter-governmental organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) be given the right to request such opinions.
The children of the world have every reason to be anxious and to have apprehension for their future and the future of the universe they are going to inherit from the present generation. Apprehension not only for themselves but also for children yet unborn.
The world is constantly under the double threat of a nuclear war and global warming, both having the potential to completely destroy human and animal life in the universe. The end of the cold war carried the hope of the emergence of a world free of weapons in particular of nuclear weapons. But this was not to be. On the contrary, we have witnessed arms race and the proliferation of nuclear arms, with States blissfully ignoring the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Arms Treaty, a growing number of conflicts and wars around the world, the indiscriminate killings of civilians among whom women and children as a result of terrorist activities as well as state terrorism.
Similarly, global warming and climate change are threatening the very existence of humankind and animal life on earth and in the sea. The use and abuse of fossil fuel are leading to the excessive emission in the atmosphere of green house gases. Unless countries like the United States that are heavy consumers of petroleum products - oil and gas - sign and ratify the Kyoto Treaty to ensure a drastic reduction in the emission of those gases, the world is heading towards an inevitable catastrophe. This is the reason for which there should exist a body like the International Court of Justice to which those children could address to seek redress from pollution and nuclear arms proliferation.
As constituted the ICJ cannot unfortunately be looked up to by children for protection from the impending dangers of nuclear war and environment degradation. In the absence of enforceable international law , the ICJ needs to be amended so that not only States but organizations I mentioned earlier on could be allowed to address their just and justified grievances to the ICJ. This Court suffers not so much from problems regarding the composition of judges or their rulings but rather to the very restricted authority assigned to it by member states.
Assembled at the City Montessory School, Lucknow, India under the aegis of the World Unity and Peace Education Department, we make a solemn plea for the United Nations Organization to initiate the necessary action so that States may bring about the amendments urged by the Children of this School on behalf of all the children of the World. |