Overview
As an action which spurred me to post my last topic, I wanted to expand on my thoughts regarding the recently-created (Nov. 2023) International Court of Justice. While on one hand, I appreciate that players have decided to resurrect this prior initaitive, and to expand international law development in PT, on the other hand, I feel that this specific resolution is flawed for reasons which I will discuss below.
Following this discussion, I will put forward some suggestions and ideas for how I believe we should move forward on this topic. I recognize these are just my opinions, but I put them forward here so that we may begin the conversation and, possibly, agree on a path for reform. While this may be futile, particularly as the ICJ remains undeveloped two months on, indicating perhaps a lack of interest in this sort of RP, I figured that, if for no other reason than to work through some of my thoughts on the matter, perhaps my suggestions could inform changes at a later date.
Issues with the ICJ/SC R133
The ICJ's founding document, SC R133 is based on the much older, and defeated, SC R14. Aside from the IC reasons for opposing the original resolution, players at the time noted issues with the proposal. For instance, in voting against the resolution, MarkWill asked: "was there a discussion on ICJ jurisdiction of crimes against humanity, such as genocide?" This belies an issue which remains unaddressed in the current iteration: what is the role of the ICJ, and what is its jurisdiction?
Issue 1: Jurisdiction
As it relates to jurisdiction, SC R133 states that the ICJ will only hear cases between countries which have ratified the "Recognition and Participation in the International Court of Justice" treaty (but to date, no such treaty exists). Countries which have not ratified the treaty may provide evidence to the Court, but may not bring actions or be subject to actions of the Court.
Further, SC R133 offers the following mandate for the Court: "to rule on international disputes with regards to borders, deportation or human rights issues etc. between nations." The Resolution also states that "it will be a civil judicial body and will not interfere with criminal law." This latter point provides some clarity, at least insofar as it places international criminal law in a separate sphere (as in real life, with the ICJ and the ICC). However, the vague nature of issues the Court is mandated to address lends some confusion: could a "human rights issue" not also be considered a crime, in a certain circumstance?
Critically, in my opinion, the Resolution does not provide any basis upon which judges are meant to make their rulings. While Article 38 of the RL ICJ Statute provides the sources of law judges may apply in making decisions on cases before the Court, SC R133 simply puts forward that "the judges deliberate and vote to 'support' the dispute or 'oppose' the dispute." Beyond how odd this language is—disagreeing with a motion ≠ "supporting" it or the "dispute" it is related to—it points to how, ultimately, the ICJ is functionally arbitrary and serves to mimic the role of the Security Council, which at present chooses to vote for or against actions directed toward countries and disputes. This leads into the next issue...
Issue 2: Organization
I appreciate that creating long-term, sustainable institutions in this game is inherently challenging, and I think the way the ICJ is structured tries to account for this. However, wedding the ICJ so directly to the Security Council and the Security Council elections, in my view, makes the organization rather redundant. If jurists from the ICJ are simply appointed from the countries who have won seats in the SC, and if the ICJ's role and function is to vote on whether they "support" or "oppose" disputes brought before it, before determining whether or not to "propose potential economic or military sanctions on the opposer," I'd argue that this is exactly the present role of the SC, just with some additional layers of work (i.e. having the parties bring their case forward, rather than having a member of the SC do so).
I hope the flaws there are apparent to all, but in the interest of brevity I will sum by noting that: the ICJ, as set up, is just the SC but with a slightly different process for decision-making. Allowing the court to apply remedies which include sanctions (ostensibly enforced by the SC?) also raises jurisdictional questions (who must follow the sanction? what happens if I violate the sanctions, and am not party to the treaty? etc. etc.) and underscores its connection to the political interests of the SC (perhaps a country on the SC may have an incentive for enforcing sanctions on a competitor which has a case before the court?). Moreover, what if a nation elected to the Security Council is not a party to the ICJ's treaty, and does not recognize the Court? It should also be noted that allowing the court to apply punitive corrective measures (sanctions) blurs the distinction between civil and criminal international law...
Issue 3: Where is it?
To reiterate a point I made in my previous international law post: "Players who are representing countries elected to the World Congress Security Council should make sure that they are prepared to fully carry out any resolution they put forward... Similarly, any organizations created or actions undertaken by the World Congress Security Council should include a clear OOC distribution of how it will be run, funded, and by whom." Perhaps many of my objections to the Court as outlined would not be relevant had the Court been functioning since its creation, and in its functioning, working through these issues—and the fact that it does not exist yet may underscore, as I've said, a certain lack of interest.
Nevertheless, there has yet to be any development of the ICJ, or a topic devoted to it anywhere. Crucially, as I note above, the treaty from which the Court ostensibly derives its authority (the "Recognition and Participation in the International Court of Justice" treaty) does not exist. I hope this isn't taken too harshly, nor as me chiding players into throwing the ICJ together—I see the lack of activity to this end as an opportunity to fix some of these foundational issues. In any case, this is an obvious issue which will need to be resolved in time.
Recommendations
Based on my issues with the ICJ and its enabling resolution, what follows are some recommendations I wish to put forward which may be adopted by players and game coordinators (Mods/RP Committee) alike, should they agree with all or any of them:
Recommendation One: ICJ needs a treaty.
As in the actual Resolution, the ICJ should have a longer form treaty which expands on the Court's jurisdiction, on the competencies of the Court, and on the sources of international law it applies in making rulings. I believe having it treaty based is particularly important to resolving the issue of jurisdiction, as it depends upon the consent of states to the Court, as with the RL ICJ; rulings are only binding if both parties agree to be bound by the Court's decision; the Court cannot mandate wide-reaching or international remedies to a dispute between two states (i.e. the ICJ cannot impose economic or military sanctions; these are penal/punitive corrections more related to criminal law than civil dispute).
Most specifically, I feel that this treaty should include a clearer outline of the ICJ's jurisdiction, such as what follows from Article 36 of the RL ICJ's Statute, which outlines the ICJ as having specific jurisdiction over: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. More simply put, for the context of PT, I would offer something along the lines of:
The Court has jurisdiction over all matters concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty or treaties; (b) whether or not an action constitutes a violation of international law; (c) reparations to be made in connection to a violation of international law; (d) any unsettled question of international law.
Alternatively, if there is no treaty and the ICJ is to be a closely-connected body of the Security Council, it should be renamed the "World Congress International Court" and have jurisdiction over all states which are members of the World Congress. This is a legitimate option in my view, but one I do not like, and thus do not spend time on.
Recommendation Two: ICJ should exist independently of the Security Council and reorganized
As noted above, I respect that the way the ICJ was organized seems to recognize the issues with long-term institution-building in PT. Certainly, those who are elected to the SC are generally highly dedicated players who, at least in one specific form, have indicated their interest in the game's international politics and institutions. Thus, these players would seem to be a natural body of players to draw upon. However, I think this approach is limited and flawed for a number of reasons such as those I've discussed above. I would argue that the ICJ should either: (a) be elected in a similar fashion as Seat E is elected to the Security Council, with players putting themselves forward in an open election or (b) led by a specific player or group of players who "control" the organization.
I see pros and cons to both proposals but I will just briefly overview the reasoning of each. With the first option, I believe it maintains the active and on-going "elected" body of jurists which is part of both the RL and PT ICJ organization; it allows for player turnover and the removal of inactive or poor-performing players from the ICJ; it allows players to nominate from amongst themselves those who are actively interested in participating in this org., rather than relying on those elected to the SC to also wish to act in the ICJ; it allows multiple players to be appointed, lending a "diversity of opinion" to the Court. The second option is the most "stable," and I would see it as a bit more practical: in essence, the ICJ would be controlled either by a player or group of players who have been appointed by the RP Committee (see: my proposal regarding WC organizations on my last post), or controlled directly by the RP Committee (sub-committee?).
To me, under either option, the ideal number of players leading the ICJ would be three; this can include the WC Coordinator and/or members of the RP Committee in an "on-call" basis, if there are insufficient numbers of players wishing to participate as jurists in the ICJ. For the ICJ specifically, I feel it would be better to pursue the first option, though I think the ICJ could also be considered under by proposal re: allowing players to control WC subsidiaries and other important international orgs as one which could be controlled. In any case, it should not be reliant on the Security Council.
Recommendation Three: ICJ on the forum
This is my least important recommendation, and the most fluid considering the on-going reorganization of the forum, but I just wish to make the following broad suggestions: the ICJ should (a) have a section with a post outlining what it is, a post of archived decisions, a post of archived "Courts" (i.e. election results, if relevant) and a subsection for cases. Players would bring forward their cases in that subsection, and title them "[Country A] v. [Country B] (YEAR)." I think it should be organized somewhere under the World Congress area, or under International Organizations.
Concluding
In sum, I am excited to see the development of the ICJ, though I feel there are some issues which need to be ironed out. I hope the recommendations I have toward resolving these issues may be informative, and hopefully will lead to more holistic reform to how international politics is conducted, and how (importantly) the WC is organized.
For players interested in working toward the specific reforms I outline here, I encourage (particularly those on the Security Council) to: (a) organize an IC "legal convention" to draft the ICJ treaty; (b) repeal SC R133 and replace it with a resolution which redresses the issues outlined above. Please message me on Discord if you are interested in collaborating on this issue.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
