The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled on some of the most serious conflicts of our time - from Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Yet, none of those rulings have changed what happens on the ground. Why? Because the ICJ doesn’t have police, troops, or sanctions power. It can say what the law is. It can’t make anyone follow it.
What the ICJ Actually Does
The ICJ is the UN’s top court for disputes between countries. It doesn’t prosecute individuals like the International Criminal Court. It settles legal disagreements between states. When a country sues another - say, South Africa accusing Israel of violating the Genocide Convention - the ICJ listens, reviews evidence, and issues a binding judgment.
That sounds powerful. But binding doesn’t mean enforceable. The court’s decisions are final and legally obligatory under the UN Charter. But there’s no global sheriff to show up at the border and make a country comply. The ICJ can’t arrest leaders, freeze assets, or block ships. It can only speak.
Its authority comes from consent. Countries only accept its jurisdiction if they agree to it - either by signing a treaty, making a special declaration, or agreeing to it case by case. Russia didn’t accept the ICJ’s jurisdiction over its actions in Ukraine. So when the court ordered Moscow to stop military operations in 2022, Russia ignored it. No one made them stop.
Why Enforcement Is Broken
The problem isn’t the court. It’s the system. The UN Security Council has the power to enforce ICJ rulings - but only if all five permanent members agree. That’s the problem. China, Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and France can veto any enforcement action. If one of them is involved in the dispute - or supports the country being sued - enforcement dies before it starts.
Look at the 1986 case where the ICJ ruled against the U.S. for mining Nicaraguan harbors. The court ordered Washington to pay reparations. The U.S. refused to participate in the case after the ruling was announced. Then it blocked any Security Council resolution trying to enforce the judgment. The ICJ had no power to respond. The U.S. walked away with no consequences.
That’s not an exception. It’s the rule. Since 1946, the ICJ has issued over 150 judgments. Less than 20% have been fully implemented. Many cases, especially those involving major powers, are ignored outright.
When the ICJ Actually Works
It’s not all useless. The court has real influence - but only when countries want it to.
When two small countries have a border dispute - like Nicaragua and Costa Rica over the San Juan River - they often accept the ICJ’s ruling because they don’t have the military power to defy it. They rely on international legitimacy to pressure each other into compliance. The ICJ gives them a neutral, legal way out of a dangerous standoff.
Even big powers sometimes follow ICJ rulings when it suits them. In 2012, Colombia and Nicaragua fought over maritime boundaries in the Caribbean. The ICJ ruled in Nicaragua’s favor. Colombia initially protested. But instead of ignoring the ruling, it negotiated a modified agreement that respected the court’s legal reasoning. Why? Because Colombia wanted to keep its reputation as a rule-abiding state. It cared about how other nations saw it.
That’s the real power of the ICJ: reputation. Countries that violate its rulings risk being seen as lawless. That can hurt trade, diplomacy, and foreign investment. In the long run, even superpowers care about how they’re perceived - especially by allies and financial partners.
How States Get Around the Court
Big powers have learned how to play the system. They don’t always refuse to appear in court. Sometimes, they show up just to delay or confuse.
China didn’t participate in the 2016 South China Sea case brought by the Philippines. But it didn’t say the court had no authority. Instead, it claimed the dispute was about sovereignty - something the ICJ can’t rule on. That’s a legal technicality. But it worked. The court ruled anyway, saying China’s claims violated the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. China still ignored it. No one enforced it. And now, China controls most of the disputed islands.
Israel, too, has used delay tactics. When South Africa brought its genocide case to the ICJ in 2023, Israel argued the court lacked jurisdiction and that the case was politically motivated. It didn’t deny the allegations outright. It questioned the process. That bought time. Even after the court ordered Israel to prevent acts of genocide, Israeli military operations continued - with U.S. backing.
These aren’t mistakes. They’re strategies. The goal isn’t to win in court. It’s to outlast it.
The Real Leverage: Diplomacy, Not Judgments
If the ICJ can’t force compliance, what does? Diplomacy. Economic pressure. Public opinion. Military deterrence.
When the ICJ orders a country to stop bombing civilians, the real pressure comes from allies cutting off arms sales, banks freezing transactions, or global protests. The court’s ruling gives those actions legal weight. It turns political outrage into legal justification.
That’s why the ICJ matters - not because it enforces law, but because it gives legitimacy to those who do. Ukraine didn’t win its case at the ICJ to stop Russian tanks. It won to rally global support. The ruling helped the U.S. and EU justify sanctions. It gave media outlets a legal basis to call Russia’s actions illegal. It gave NGOs and human rights groups a tool to hold governments accountable.
The ICJ doesn’t end wars. But it helps the world say: “This is wrong under international law.” And in a world without a global police force, that’s often the most powerful thing left.
What Could Change?
Reforming the ICJ’s enforcement power is nearly impossible. The UN Charter would need to be rewritten. That requires approval from all five permanent Security Council members - the very countries that benefit from the current system.
Some suggest giving the ICJ more direct access to the International Criminal Court or creating a special UN enforcement unit. But those ideas have been floated for decades. Nothing has happened.
There’s one path forward: make non-compliance more costly. If countries that ignore ICJ rulings face automatic sanctions - like suspension from global financial systems, trade restrictions, or loss of voting rights in international bodies - then the court’s rulings start to mean something.
That’s not a legal fix. It’s a political one. And it requires countries that care about the rule of law to act together. The problem isn’t the court’s weakness. It’s the world’s unwillingness to back it up.
What Happens Next?
The ICJ will keep issuing rulings. Russia will keep ignoring them. Israel will keep fighting while claiming it’s following the law. The U.S. will keep shielding allies from accountability.
But the court still matters. Because when a small nation sues a giant - and wins - it gives hope to others. When a judge in The Hague says, “This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions,” it echoes in courtrooms from Bogotá to Jakarta. It becomes part of the global conversation.
International law isn’t about control. It’s about consensus. The ICJ doesn’t enforce the law. It reminds the world what the law is. And sometimes, that’s enough to change minds - even if it can’t change borders.
Can the ICJ punish countries that ignore its rulings?
No. The ICJ has no power to impose fines, sanctions, or military action. It can only issue binding legal judgments. Enforcement depends entirely on the UN Security Council - and any of the five permanent members can block action. So if a major power ignores a ruling, there’s no legal mechanism to force compliance.
Why do countries still go to the ICJ if they know they’ll be ignored?
Because winning a legal ruling gives a country moral and diplomatic leverage. Even if a powerful nation ignores the decision, the ruling can rally global opinion, justify sanctions, and isolate the violator. For smaller states, it’s often the only way to get their case heard on the world stage without using force.
Has any country ever been forced to comply with an ICJ ruling?
Yes - but usually when the country is small or the stakes are low. In 2012, Colombia accepted the ICJ’s ruling on maritime borders with Nicaragua, even though it lost. In 2001, the U.S. paid $18 million to Iran after the ICJ ruled it had illegally seized Iranian assets. In both cases, compliance came because the cost of defiance - diplomatic isolation or economic fallout - outweighed the benefits of ignoring the court.
Can the ICJ handle cases involving war crimes?
No. The ICJ only hears disputes between states. It can’t prosecute individuals for war crimes. That’s the job of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICJ can rule that a state violated international law - like the Genocide Convention - but it can’t arrest generals or send them to prison.
Is the ICJ biased against powerful countries?
Not intentionally. But the system is stacked in their favor. Powerful states can refuse to appear in court, block enforcement, and avoid accountability. Smaller states rarely have that option. So while the court applies the law equally on paper, the consequences are not. That’s not bias in the rulings - it’s bias in the enforcement system.
