EVALUATING INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE’S MECHANISM : NICARAGUA V. UNITED STATES AND UKRAINE V. RUSSIA

Abstract

The International Court of Justice had imprecisely analyzed the aspect of the court’s jurisdiction and collective self-defense in two cases that correlate with each, namely Nicaragua v. the United States and Ukraine v. Russia. By deviating from the several fundamental principles of International Law, the imprecisions in the court’s analysis render an ineffective judgment where states repudiate to comply. Moreover, a part of the imprecise ratio decidendi is implemented as a precedent for future cases, causing the non-compliance issue to be repeated repeatedly. The core ground that causes the implementation of ratio decidendi that departs from International Law is the obsolete textual interpretation method used by the International Court of Justice. The strict use of the judicial restraint doctrine prohibits the judges from establishing any new interpretation even when it contradicts International Law. Therefore, this research will examine the International Court of Justice’s inaccuracy in analyzing the Nicaragua v. United States and Ukraine v. Russia cases in the matter of the court’s jurisdiction and interpretation of collective self-defense articles, including the precedent that is likely to be implemented in the ongoing Ukraine v. Russia case. By using the combination of legal and linguistic interpretation scien­­­­ce, the core cause of the inaccurate interpretation can be found and at the conclusion of this research will suggest an interpretation method and substantive judicial approach that suits the court the most.