The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and the only court of general jurisdiction that hears disputes between sovereign states. Established by the UN Charter in 1945 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) of the League of Nations era, the International Court of Justice sits at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council voting independently and concurrently. Its Statute is annexed to the UN Charter and forms an integral part of it. The Court has two heads of jurisdiction — contentious cases between states and advisory opinions requested by UN organs and specialised agencies.
For UPSC International Relations the International Court of Justice is the institutional embodiment of the rule of law at the international level. The Court complements the political organs of the United Nations Organisation, interacts with reform debates around the UNSC and India’s permanent seat, and provides the legal architecture against which India’s bilateral disputes — including those touching its SAARC and India neighbourhood — are framed.
Origins and Foundation
The Court’s lineage runs back through the Permanent Court of International Justice to the late nineteenth-century arbitration movement.
The PCIJ Heritage
The Permanent Court of International Justice was created by the Covenant of the League of Nations and began work in 1922 at the Peace Palace, the building donated by American philanthropist Andrew Carnegie in 1913. The PCIJ heard 29 contentious cases and gave 27 advisory opinions between 1922 and 1940 before being suspended by the Second World War. India was party to the PCIJ Statute from 1940.
Charter Provisions
Chapter XIV of the UN Charter (Articles 92–96) establishes the International Court of Justice. Article 92 declares the Court the “principal judicial organ of the United Nations” and Article 93 makes all UN members ipso facto parties to its Statute. Article 94 obliges members to comply with ICJ decisions in cases to which they are parties, with enforcement potentially through the Security Council.
San Francisco and 1946
The Court was constituted at San Francisco in 1945 and held its inaugural sitting on 18 April 1946, the same day the League of Nations was formally dissolved. The PCIJ’s archives, library and bench were transferred to the new Court at the Peace Palace.
Composition of the Bench
The International Court of Justice is composed of 15 judges elected for renewable nine-year terms.
Election Mechanics
Judges are elected by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council voting independently and concurrently. A candidate must secure an absolute majority in both bodies on the same ballot. There is no veto in this election. Elections happen every three years for five seats at a time, ensuring continuity of jurisprudence.
No Two from the Same State
Article 3(1) of the Statute provides that no two judges may be nationals of the same state. In practice the bench reflects the principal legal systems and civilisations of the world. The five permanent members of the Security Council have historically always had a judge on the bench, though this is convention rather than rule.
Judges Ad Hoc
If a party to a case does not have a judge of its nationality on the bench, it is entitled under Article 31 of the Statute to nominate a judge ad hoc for that case. Both India and Pakistan have nominated judges ad hoc in past cases.
President and Vice-President
The President and Vice-President of the Court are elected by the judges themselves for three-year terms. The current President is Judge Nawaf Salam of Lebanon, who took office in February 2024.
Indian Judges on the ICJ Bench
India has had four judges on the International Court of Justice bench since 1946.
Sir Benegal Rau (1952–1953)
Sir Benegal Narsing Rau served briefly on the bench from 1952 until his death in November 1953. A drafter of the Indian Constitution and India’s first permanent representative to the UN, Rau died in office.
Nagendra Singh (1973–1988)
Justice Nagendra Singh, a former Chief Justice of India and Secretary to the President, served on the ICJ from 1973 to 1988. He was elected Vice-President in 1976 and elevated to President of the Court from 1985 to 1988 — the first Indian to hold the position. He died in office in December 1988.
Raghunandan Swarup Pathak (1989–1991)
Justice R. S. Pathak, a former Chief Justice of India, served on the bench from 1989 to 1991 in the unexpired term of Nagendra Singh.
Dalveer Bhandari (2012–Present)
Justice Dalveer Bhandari, a former Judge of the Supreme Court of India, was first elected to the ICJ in April 2012 to fill the vacancy left by Awn Shawkat Al-Khasawneh. In November 2017 he was re-elected for a full nine-year term in a closely watched contest against UK candidate Christopher Greenwood, who eventually withdrew from the race in the General Assembly after eleven rounds of voting in which Bhandari led in UNGA while Greenwood led in the Security Council. Bhandari’s re-election to a third term in November 2026 will be a significant diplomatic test.
Jurisdiction of the Court
The International Court of Justice exercises two distinct heads of jurisdiction.
Contentious Jurisdiction
Contentious jurisdiction covers disputes between states that are parties to the Statute. Jurisdiction is based on state consent and can be established in four ways — by special agreement (compromis) between the parties for a specific case, by a jurisdictional clause in a treaty, by declarations under the Optional Clause of Article 36(2) accepting compulsory jurisdiction, and by forum prorogatum (consent through conduct).
Optional Clause Declarations
Under Article 36(2) of the Statute a state may declare in advance that it recognises the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory in any dispute with another state accepting the same obligation. India has made an Optional Clause declaration with eleven reservations, most notably excluding disputes with Commonwealth states and disputes regarding territory and matters within domestic jurisdiction.
Advisory Jurisdiction
Advisory jurisdiction allows the General Assembly, the Security Council and other organs and specialised agencies authorised by the General Assembly to request advisory opinions on legal questions. Notable advisory opinions include the 1996 Nuclear Weapons opinion, the 2004 Wall in Palestinian Territory opinion, the 2019 Chagos Islands opinion (in which India was vocal in supporting Mauritius), and the 2024 advisory opinions on Israel’s policies in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and on the obligations of states in respect of climate change.
Indian Cases at the ICJ
India has been a party to several contentious cases.
Right of Passage (Portugal v. India, 1960)
This was India’s first major contentious case at the ICJ. Portugal claimed a right of passage from the coastal enclave of Daman to the inland enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Haveli across Indian territory. In its 1960 judgment the Court held that Portugal had a right of passage for civilians, civil officials and goods, but not for armed forces, armed police and arms and ammunition. The judgment was overtaken by India’s liberation of Goa, Daman, Diu, Dadra and Nagar-Haveli in December 1961.
ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan, 1972)
India challenged the jurisdiction of the ICAO Council to hear Pakistan’s complaint over India’s 1971 suspension of overflight rights. The Court held in 1972 that the ICAO Council did have jurisdiction. India later withdrew its objections after the 1972 Simla Agreement settled the underlying issues.
Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India, 1973)
Pakistan instituted proceedings against India in 1973 over the trial of 195 Pakistani prisoners of war captured in the 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War. The case was discontinued in December 1973 after India and Pakistan reached a political settlement.
Aerial Incident of 1999 (Pakistan v. India)
Pakistan instituted proceedings against India over the Indian shooting down of a Pakistani Atlantique naval reconnaissance aircraft on 10 August 1999. India invoked its Commonwealth and multilateral treaty reservations under its Optional Clause declaration. In its judgment of 21 June 2000 the Court upheld India’s preliminary objections and dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
Kulbhushan Jadhav Case (India v. Pakistan, 2017–2019)
Kulbhushan Sudhir Jadhav, a retired Indian Navy officer and businessman, was arrested by Pakistan in March 2016 and sentenced to death by a Pakistani military court in April 2017 on charges of espionage. India instituted proceedings at the ICJ in May 2017 alleging breaches of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963, particularly Pakistan’s failure to provide consular access. In its judgment of 17 July 2019 the Court found by 15 votes to one that Pakistan had violated Article 36(1) of the Vienna Convention, that Pakistan must effectively review and reconsider the conviction and sentence, and that India must be given consular access to Jadhav. Justice Dalveer Bhandari, sitting on the bench in his individual capacity, voted with the majority. The case remains India’s most consequential ICJ victory.
Enforcement and Compliance
ICJ judgments are binding under Article 94 of the UN Charter. A party that believes the other has failed to comply may refer the matter to the Security Council, which “may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment”. The veto in the Security Council, however, means that enforcement against a P5 member or its protégé is difficult in practice.
Conclusion
The International Court of Justice is the legal arm of the United Nations system, and India’s engagement with it spans seven decades — from Sir B. N. Rau’s brief tenure through Justice Nagendra Singh’s presidency to Justice Dalveer Bhandari’s current bench seat. India has been a party in five contentious cases and an active intervener in several advisory proceedings. The Kulbhushan Jadhav judgment of 2019 was a significant validation of India’s consular protection claims. As the Court navigates politically charged matters — from climate change obligations to occupied territories — India will remain one of its most engaged users.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where is the International Court of Justice located?
The International Court of Justice is located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The Peace Palace was built in 1913 from funds donated by American industrialist Andrew Carnegie. The ICJ is the only principal organ of the UN not located in New York.
How many judges sit on the ICJ?
The International Court of Justice has 15 judges elected for renewable nine-year terms. Five seats come up for election every three years to ensure continuity. Judges are elected by simultaneous absolute majorities in the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.
Who are the Indian judges on the ICJ?
Four Indians have served on the ICJ: Sir Benegal Rau (1952–1953), Justice Nagendra Singh (1973–1988, President 1985–1988), Justice R. S. Pathak (1989–1991) and Justice Dalveer Bhandari (2012–present, re-elected 2017).
What is the difference between contentious and advisory jurisdiction?
Contentious jurisdiction covers binding judgments in disputes between consenting states. Advisory jurisdiction allows UN organs and authorised specialised agencies to request non-binding legal opinions from the Court on questions of international law.
What was the Kulbhushan Jadhav case?
The Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan, 2019) was India’s most significant ICJ victory. The Court found by 15 votes to one that Pakistan had violated the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by denying India consular access to Jadhav. The Court ordered Pakistan to effectively review and reconsider his conviction and death sentence and grant India consular access.
Did India lose the 1999 Aerial Incident case?
The Aerial Incident of 1999 case was dismissed by the ICJ on 21 June 2000 on jurisdictional grounds. The Court upheld India’s preliminary objections based on the Commonwealth and multilateral treaty reservations in India’s Optional Clause declaration. The case was decided in India’s favour without reaching the merits.
Are ICJ judgments binding?
Yes. Under Article 94 of the UN Charter, members undertake to comply with ICJ decisions in cases to which they are parties. If a party fails to comply, the other may refer the matter to the Security Council. Advisory opinions, by contrast, are formally non-binding but carry strong legal and political weight.
What was the Right of Passage case?
The Right of Passage case (Portugal v. India, 1960) concerned Portugal’s claim to a right of passage from Daman to its inland enclaves of Dadra and Nagar-Haveli across Indian territory. The Court recognised a right of passage for civilians and goods but not for armed forces. The dispute was overtaken by India’s liberation of the Portuguese enclaves in December 1961.
Tell Google you want more of this.
Add Anantam IAS as a preferred sourceOne tap, and this site shows up more often in your own Top Stories, AI Overviews and AI Mode. Remove it any time.
