Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2009
  • Online publication date: June 2012

4 - The United States and the International Court of Justice: Coping with Antinomies

Summary

Since 1946, the United States has had an uneasy relationship with the International Court of Justice (ICJ, the World Court, or the Court). On one hand, the United States embraces the rule of law within its own society and, in principle, within the international system of states. The United States has been and remains an active participant in cases before the Court, appearing before it several times, more than any other state, even in recent years. On the other hand, the United States has never been willing to submit itself to the plenary authority of the Court and has typically reacted negatively to decisions by the Court that are adverse to U.S. interests. As is well known, in response to decisions that were reached by the Court, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings on the merits of the case brought by Nicaragua in 1984, withdrew from the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and recently terminated its acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction over disputes arising under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

This chapter addresses certain salient aspects of the U.S. relationship with the ICJ. Following this introduction, Part A briefly sets forth three antinomies (i.e., equally rational but conflicting principles) in U.S. foreign relations that have had important ramifications for the U.S. relationship with the Court from the outset. First, the United States operates on the basis of conflicting principles with respect to the relevance of international law and institutions for U.S. foreign policy.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Locke, John, Second Treatise of Government (Peardon, Thomas P. ed., Prentice-Hall, 1952) [1698]
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, On the Social Contract: Discourse on the Origin of Inequality; Discourse on Political Economy (Cress, Donald A. trans. & ed., Hackett, 1987)
Morgenthau, Hans J., Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (2d ed., A.A. Knopf, 1955)
Schelling, Thomas C., The Strategy of Conflict (Harvard, 1960)
Waltz, Kenneth, Theory of International Politics (McGraw Hill, 1979)
Keohane, Robert O., After Hegemony: Cooperation and Discord in the World Political Economy (Princeton, 1984)
Kant, Immanuel, Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Essay (Smith, M. Campbell, trans., Caponigri, A. Robert ed., Liberal Arts Press, 1948)
Franck, Thomas, “Messianism and Chauvinism in America's Commitment to Peace through Law,” in The International Court of Justice at a Crossroads, 3, 6 (Damrosch, Lori F. ed., Transnational, 1987)
Janis, Mark Weston, The American Tradition of International Law: Great Expectations, 1789–1914 (Oxford, 2004)
Simpson, Gerry, Great Powers and Outlaw States (Cambridge, 2004)
Moravcsik, Andrew, “The Paradox of U.S. Human Rights Policy,” in American Exceptionalism and Human Rights 147 (Ignatieff, Michael, ed., Princeton, 2005)
Ferguson, Niall, The Widening Atlantic, The Atlantic (Jan./Feb. 2005), at 40
Paulus, Andreas L., From Neglect to Defiance? The United States and International Adjudication, 15 Eur. J. Int'l L.783 (2004)
Reisman, W. Michael, Systems of Control in International Adjudication and Arbitration (Duke, 1992)
Helfer, Laurence R. and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication, 107 Yale L.J.273 (1997)
Adieh, Robert, Between Dialogue and Decree: International Review of National Courts, 79 N.Y.U. L. Rev.2029 (2004)
Helfer, Laurence R. and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, Why States Create International Tribunals: A Response to Professors Posner and Yoo, 93 Cal. L. Rev.899 (2005)
Bingham, Tom, The Alabama Claims Arbitration, 54 Int'l & Comp. L.Q.1 (2005)
Boyle, Francis Anthony, Foundations of World Order (Duke, 1999): 37
Dunne, Michael, The United States and the World Court, 1920–1935 (Pinter, 1988) at 17–46
Rosenne, Shabtai, The World Court and How It Works at 16 (5th ed., Martinus Nijhoff, 1995)
Hogan, Willard N., The United Nations: Background, Organization, Functions, Activities (McGraw-Hill, 1952): 190
Bekker, Pieter, Case Report: Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), 98 Am. J. Int'l L.550 (2004)
Gross, Leo, Bulgaria Invokes the Connally Amendment, 56 Am. J. Int'l L.357 (1962)
Franck, Thomas M., Judging the World Court 37 (Priority Press, 1986)
Crook, John R., The International Court of Justice and Human Rights, 1 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.219 (2004)
Shelton, Dinah, Legal Norms to Promote the Independence and Accountability of International Tribunals, 2 Law & Prac. Int'l Cts. & Tribunals27, 32 (2003)
Schwebel, Stephen M., Ad Hoc Chambers of the International Court of Justice, 81 Am. J. Int'l L.831 (1987)
Robinson, Davis, Colson, David, and Rashkow, Bruce, Some Perspectives on Adjudicating before the World Court: The Gulf of Maine Case, 79 Am. J. Int'l L.578 (1985)
Keohane, Robert O. et al., Legalized Dispute Resolution: Interstate and Transnational, 54 Int'l Org.457, 458 (2000)
Schulte, Constanze, Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice199–205 (Oxford, 2004)
Paulson, Colter, Compliance with Final Judgments of the International Court of Justice since 1987, 98 Amer. J. Int'l L.434 (2004)
Steinberg, Richard H., Judicial Lawmaking at the WTO: Discursive, Constitutional, and Political Constraints, 98 Am. J. Int'l L.247 (2004)
Taft, William H., Self-Defense and the Oil Platforms Decision, 29 Yale J. Int'l L.295 (2004)
Small, David H., The Oil Platforms Case: Jurisdiction through the – Closed – Eye of the Needle, 3 L. & Prac. Int'l Courts & Tribunals113 (2004)
Shelton, Dinah L., Case Report, 98 Am. J. Int'l L.559 (2004)
Mon, Christopher J., Post-Avena Application of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations by United States Courts, 18 Leiden J. Int'l L.215 (2005)
Cassel, Douglass, Is There a New World Court?, 1 Nw. U. J. Int'l Hum. Rts.1 ¶ 18 (2004)
Falk, Richard, Reviving the World Court (Univ. of Virginia, 1986)