The International Court of Justice, or ICJ, is currently dealing with an unprecedented number of cases, particularly as the Middle East continues to be mired in conflict, according to the Court's Registrar Philippe Gautier.
During a visit to UN Headquarters in New York, where he is due to brief the Security Council Tuesday, Mr. Gautier told UN News's Julia Foxen that this global divide requires the UN's principal judicial organ - commonly known as the world court - to maintain its autonomous and independent role "without taking sides in the political arena".
He underscored that the ICJ is a judicial body not a political one, and therefore has the tools needed to settle disputes between States but not to end conflict itself.
While the growing number of cases reflects the rise in conflict around the world, Mr. Gautier also highlighted that every time a State brings a dispute to the Court, it represents multilateralism in action and a system that continues to yield results.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity
UN News: Can you give us an update on the cases currently being considered by the Court concerning the Middle East?
Phillipe Gautier: The 23 cases being dealt with by the court are an unprecedented number. If you refer to the Middle East, broadly speaking, we may say there are eight cases. You have two cases involving Gaza where the Genocide Convention is really at the centre. There is the case instituted by South Africa against Israel and the case instituted by Nicaragua against Germany. Nicaragua contends that Germany, mainly through provision of weapons to Israel, is breaching certain conventions on genocide and other instruments protecting humanitarian law.
You also have a case between Palestine and the US for the move of the US Embassy to Jerusalem which is more diplomatic law.
So, the plate is full. If you look at those cases, even though it relates to a single region, there are many more countries involved. This is important to underline because for instruments like the Genocide Convention, every state party to the Convention may consider it a right to ensure that the Convention is complied with.
UN News: Can you explain the advisory opinion from July regarding the legal consequences arising from the policies and practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory?
Phillipe Gautier: What is important is the fact that Israel's prolonged occupation and the policies and practices that deprived Palestinian people of the right to self-determination has a consequence on the legal status of the occupation. The conclusion was that on the basis of those circumstances, the presence is unlawful.
The part of the advisory opinion addressing the responsibilities of the different actors is for Israel to put an end to the occupation as soon as possible, to immediately stop new settlements and to provide full reparation for the damage it caused.
It's important to underline that the purpose of an advisory opinion is to provide clarification on the law and to serve as a guide for those who have requested it, ensuring that the issue is thoroughly examined and considered by UN organs.
UN News: What is the main difference between an advisory opinion like this and a contentious case like the one brought to the court by South Africa against Israel?
Phillipe Gautier: There is a major difference. When it comes to an advisory opinion, it's not up to one country. It's through a vote in the General Assembly that there is a decision to request an advisory opinion.
This is to the Court to give a response on the legal question at hand. And, while it has an authoritative value and cannot be neglected, it is not binding.
Meanwhile, in contentious proceedings, there is a dispute between two States. And one State or the two States in common decide to bring the matter to the Court to settle the dispute through a binding decision which is obligatory.
This is the golden rule in contentious cases that to bring the dispute to the Court, you need the consent of both parties, and that's difficult.
UN News: What can you say about the spotlight there has been this year on the Court and its powers in relation to the ongoing war in Gaza?
Phillipe Gautier: I would say it requires the court to act in an autonomous and independent manner. That's very important in order to be above the issues which divide the whole community.
It's important for the Court to provide action and legal responses without taking sides in the political arena. The court is a judicial organ. It may settle disputes to binding decisions, which normally are complied with by the States parties to the dispute. It's not a political organ. It's not there to monitor conflict. That has to be understood. Otherwise, the expectations may be too high.
The court is there to settle the dispute, not to put an end to a conflict. As such, it has no tool for that.
UN News: You said last year in an interview with UN News that the growing number of cases you mentioned is a sign of successful multilateralism. Do you still think this is the case?
Phillipe Gautier: Of course, otherwise I would not be here. Every time States decide to bring a dispute to the Court, it's a victory. It means there is hope in the international multilateral system, and I have to note that since October last year, there were five new cases instituted. And it's still growing. There are judgments, decisions rendered and new cases flowing in.
I would also say that there are very reassuring cases because they are brought jointly by two States because they want to put an end to their dispute. For instance, you have two agreements concluded between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea on sovereignty issues.
Another example seen in the press beginning this month is good news concerning the agreement between Mauritius and the UK on the Chagos Islands. There was an advisory opinion delivered by the court in 2019 and you see five years thereafter, there's a success for the sovereignty of the islands.
It shows that the system is functioning. The court is not acting in splendid isolation. Rather, it is acting as part of the system. The role of other UN organs and the Secretary General in this case is crucial in order to convince Member States to bring disputes to the Court.
UN News: Are you concerned at all about disinformation and misinformation regarding the role of the ICJ?
Phillipe Gautier: Of course. It would be difficult to avoid this topic. When you see what can be done through artificial intelligence technologies, we need to be aware and to take action in this respect. We have an IT department dealing with those matters, but it also shows the importance of communicating with the public. That's the mission of the court and we're trying to improve that.
I would also say it's important to understand that international justice is a complex situation. A judgement cannot be summarised in a tweet. It's more complex than that and it's important to explain that to the public.
There are tools but there is no global solution to this problem. People need to read to be able to digest complex information and to nuance their opinion to not just see things in black and white.
