GLOSSARY
The International Court of Justice: what it is, how it works, and why it isn’t the ICC
Updated July 22, 2026
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is often confused with the International Criminal Court (ICC) — same city, similar names, both loosely called “the Hague court.” They are two different bodies with different powers: understanding the difference helps clarify what a case before the ICJ can actually achieve.
Not sure what the ICC is or how it works? A guide explains its jurisdiction, membership, and structural limits.
Read the explainerWhat it is
The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, established by the UN Charter in 1945 and operational since 1946, based in The Hague. It does not try individuals: it settles legal disputes between states and issues advisory opinions, which are non-binding, at the request of UN organs such as the General Assembly. All 193 UN member states are automatically parties to its Statute, which is annexed to the Charter itself.
How it works
Being a party to the Statute is not enough for the Court to hear a specific dispute: it requires the consent of both states involved, through a clause in a treaty, an ad hoc agreement for the individual case, or a general declaration of acceptance — the so-called optional clause (Article 36(2) of the Statute).
Who accepts compulsory jurisdiction, and who doesn’t
Only 75 of the UN’s 193 member states currently maintain an active declaration under Article 36(2) — a clear minority. Among the major powers, the United States, Russia, China, and France have none in force: the US withdrew its declaration in 1985, shortly after losing the Nicaragua case; France did the same in 1974, after the Pacific nuclear tests case. The United Kingdom maintains one, but with reservations that exclude, among other things, disputes with Commonwealth countries. The reason is always the same: a declaration under Article 36(2) allows any other state that has made the same commitment to bring you before the Court without needing a case-by-case agreement — powers with greater global military or political exposure prefer to keep control over when, and whether, they appear before the Court.
The structural limit
ICJ rulings are binding on the parties (Article 94 of the UN Charter), but if a state does not comply, the only remedy provided is recourse to the Security Council. In the Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), the Court found against the US over its support for the contras and the mining of Nicaraguan harbors; the US refused to comply with the ruling, and as a permanent member vetoed the Security Council resolution that would have enforced it — the same mechanism that also limits the International Criminal Court: enforcement depends on states’ political will, not the merits of the case.
Cases already cited on this site
The DRC brought a case against Rwanda before the ICJ on June 26, 2026, after two earlier failed attempts (one case discontinued in 2001, another dismissed in 2006 for lack of jurisdiction) — the proceedings are now at the preliminary stage where the Court must determine whether it has jurisdiction. The Gambia has been suing Myanmar since 2019 over the Rohingya genocide: the Court ordered provisional measures, but the merits case remains open.
Sources: ICJ Statute · ICJ-CIJ · Al Jazeera · CFR