Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-kpmwg Total loading time: 0.302 Render date: 2021-11-29T15:59:19.936Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Cesare P. R. Romano
Loyola Marymount University, California
Get access


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.

The Sword and the Scales
The United States and International Courts and Tribunals
, pp. 46 - 111
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


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

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats