The United Nations (UN) was established “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Its judicial organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), sometimes called the “World Court,” is integral to achieving this purpose, providing a forum for peacefully adjudicating disputes between States. As conflicts continue in places such as Gaza and Ukraine, States are increasingly turning to the Court to affirm their legal rights. The Court has responded, issuing decisions in these high-profile cases. Yet this success has generated a new problem for the Court: compliance with its judgments is under growing pressure. The UN Charter designates the Security Council as the body empowered to enforce ICJ judgments when States fail to comply, but it has never taken such action and most likely never will. While compliance with the Court’s judgments remains strong, there are signs of a growing enforcement challenge. This places the legitimacy of the Court—and, with it, the legitimacy of international law—at risk.

This Article proposes a solution to this problem. It argues that ICJ judgments involve obligations erga omnes (owed to all) and erga omnes partes (owed to all parties). First, we argue that the ICJ may authorita-tively recognize erga omnes and erga omnes partes obligations. Second, going a step further, we argue that the obligation to comply with deci-sions of the ICJ is itself an erga omnes obligation. This more ambitious claim rests on the observation that the modern legal order prohibits States from using force. That prohibition implies the necessity of a peaceful mechanism for resolving disputes—a role the ICJ is uniquely suited to play in the current international legal system. Even though only the parties to a case are bound to comply with the Court’s decisions under the ICJ Statute, the obligation to comply is owed not only to one another but also to the broader international community. After all, the obligation is, at least in part, to uphold the functioning and efficacy of a principal alternative to the use of force. Both arguments conclude that where an ICJ judgment entails an erga omnes or erga omnes partes obligation, all States (or, in the case of an erga omnes partes obligation, all States parties) may act to enforce it, including through the use of countermeasures. This argument promises to address the World Court’s enforcement dilemma by expanding the actors empowered to enforce its decisions.

Continue reading The World Court’s Enforcement Dilemma — And How to Solve It.