International Court of Justice different from International Criminal Court
Criticisms
The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority. As with criticisms of the United Nations, many critics and opponents of the court refer to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its Charter, rather than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings. Major criticisms include the following:
"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another. Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters.
The International Court of Justice cannot hear the cases of organizations, private enterprises, and individuals. Furthermore, UN agencies are unable to raise a case except in the circumstance of a non-binding advisory opinion. The national states are the only ones who are able to bring cases for and act as defendants for these individuals. As a result, victims of war crimes, crimes against humanity and minority groups may not have the support of their national state.
Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court. Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations. Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction.
The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound. Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc. There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the legal responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States.
The court has been accused of judicial parsimony, with its rulings tending to dismiss submissions of parties on jurisdictional grounds and not resolving the underlying dispute between them.