Why Is the International Court of Justice Important
States do not have permanent representatives accredited to the Court. They usually communicate with the Chancellor through their Minister of Foreign Affairs or Ambassador accredited to the Netherlands. Where they are parties to proceedings pending before the Court of Justice, they shall be represented by an agent. An agent plays the same role and has the same rights and obligations as a solicitor or solicitor before a national court. However, since international relations are at stake, the agent is also the head of a special diplomatic mission with the power to bind a sovereign state. He receives from the Registrar communications relating to the case and forwards to him the duly signed or certified pleadings. At public hearings, the officer opens oral argument on behalf of the government he represents and presents observations. In general, whenever a formal act is to be taken by the represented government, it is done by the agent. Staff members are sometimes assisted by co-agents, assistants or auxiliary representatives and always have lawyers or lawyers whose work they coordinate and assist them in the preparation of oral arguments and oral proceedings. Since there is no special bar association of the International Court of Justice, there are no conditions that must be met by lawyers for the right to plead before it, with the sole exception that they must have been appointed by a Government to do so. Pending a final judgment, the tribunal has the power to order interim measures to protect the rights of a disputing party. One or both parties to the dispute may apply to the ICJ for interim measures. In the border dispute, both parties to the dispute, Burkina Faso and Mali, submitted a request for interim measures to the Court. The Court`s ancillary jurisdiction derives from Article 41 of its Statute.  Like the final judgment, the interim measures taken by the Tribunal are binding on the parties to the dispute. The ICJ has the power to grant interim measures only if prima facie jurisdiction is met. [ref. needed] There is an informal agreement that seats will be distributed by geographical region, so there are five seats for Western countries, three for African states (including one judge for French-speaking civil law, one for English-speaking customary law and one for Arab states), two for Eastern European states, three for Asian States and two for Latin American and Caribbean States.  For most of the Court`s history, the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (France, USSR, China, United Kingdom and United States) have always had a sitting judge, leaving three of the Western seats, one of the Asian seats and one of the Eastern European seats. The exceptions were China, which had no judge on the court from 1967 to 1985, did not field a candidate during that period, and British judge Sir Christopher Greenwood, who retired in 2017 as a candidate for a second nine-year term on the bench, leaving no British judge on the court.  Greenwood had been supported by the UN Security Council, but could not secure a majority in the UN General Assembly.  Indian Justice Dalveer Bhandari took the seat instead.  This proliferation of legal mechanisms at the beginning of the 21st century.
In the nineteenth century, there was a debate in academic circles about a possible fragmentation of international law. There was concern that these judicial bodies might have different, even contradictory, interpretations, because international law does not have the vertical control mechanisms to ensure uniformity, as exists in national law, European law or even in the inter-American system. Judgements of the ICJ and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) with different thresholds for international crimes have further fuelled this debate, and in 2006 the International Law Commission began preparing a study on the subject. As former ICJ President Rosalyn Higgins noted, «these concerns have not proven to be significant.» In fact, such fragmentation has not occurred, largely because of the largely unchallenged authority of the ICJ. Although not conceived as a «world constitutional court», the Court`s judgments and orders are widely respected and cited by other international courts and tribunals. Admittedly, its coherence is a key element of this outcome. The system may seem strange compared to national court proceedings, but its purpose is to encourage states to prosecute. For example, if a state knows that it will have a bailiff who can participate in the deliberations and offer other judges local knowledge and understanding of the state`s perspective, it may be more willing to submit to the jurisdiction of the court. Although this system does not fit well with the judicial character of the body, it is generally of little practical importance.
Judges ad hoc usually (but not always) vote for the state that appointed them, thereby cancelling each other.  The Court was established by the Charter of the United Nations in 1945 and began its work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, like its predecessor, is the main constitutional document that constitutes and regulates the Court.  The unprecedented bloodshed of World War I led to the creation of the League of Nations, which was founded at the 1919 Paris Peace Conference as the world`s first intergovernmental organization for the maintenance of peace and collective security. Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations provided for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which would have jurisdiction over any international dispute submitted to it by the parties to the dispute, as well as to give an advisory opinion on any dispute or matter referred to it by the League of Nations. Cases before the ICJ follow a standard pattern. The action is brought by the applicant, who submits a written statement setting out the jurisdiction of the court and the merits of his claim. The defendant may accept the jurisdiction of the court and file his own claim on the merits. Since its establishment in 1946, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has played a fundamental role in the prevention and peaceful settlement of disputes between States because of its great authority within the international community. Seventy-six years later, its heavy workload and ever-growing list show that the ICJ is stronger, more reliable and needed than ever. The ICJ, like any court, is of course limited – its lack of application is significant – but its coherence and success are perhaps even more remarkable given the unique limitations of its activity as an international body.
Because of its predictable and consistent jurisprudence and its remarkable independence from political conflicts, the Court has undoubtedly become the most effective principal organ of the United Nations. According to Article 93 of the Charter of the United Nations, the 193 members of the United Nations are automatically parties to the Statute of the Court.  Non-UN Member States may also become parties to the Statute of the Court of Justice under the procedure laid down in Article 93(2). Switzerland used this procedure in 1948 before becoming a UN member state, and Nauru became a contracting party in 1988.  Once a State is a party to the Statute of the Court, it has the right to participate in proceedings before the Court. However, being a party to the law does not automatically confer jurisdiction on the court to hear disputes involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is dealt with in all three types of ICJ cases: disputes, ancillary jurisdiction and advisory opinions.  Jurisdiction is often a critical issue for the tribunal in contentious cases. (See procedure below.) The central principle is that the ICJ is competent only on the basis of consent.
Article 36 sets out four grounds on which the Court`s jurisdiction may be based: A few days after the lodging of the application, the Court draws up a list of States and international organisations which may provide information on the question referred to the Court.