The power of international law lies in its potential to offer alternatives to force and violence. The ideal is that states submit their grievances to a court rather than duke them out on a battlefield, or carry them out against civilians.
As concerns armed violence, there are two international courts that countries can engage. The first is the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It is the world’s oldest international court, with jurisprudential roots that reach back into the 19th century. The ICJ applies international law, the law of treaties, to states. It operates based on state consent – when and in ways that states agree to. This has tended to make it sleepy and technocratic, although its recent role in adjudicating genocide may be changing that.
The second is the International Criminal Court (ICC), a newcomer that exploded onto the international law scene just over 20 years ago. The ICC applies international criminal law, the law that recognises atrocity crimes, to individuals. It has an independent prosecutor who can scour the world for violations, but who can also take state or UN Security Council referrals. Although it was originally celebrated as a tool to end impunity and build “a more just world”, the ICC’s missteps and inefficiency have muted enthusiasm towards it.
