Individuals appearing before the ICJ on behalf of states are not subject under international law to any compulsory code of conduct to guide them in navigating issues of professional ethics. Article 42(2) of the ICJ Statute merely provides that parties “may have the assistance of counsel or advocates before the Court” and does not impose qualification requirements on those a state elects to appear on its behalf. In practice, legal teams appearing before the Court are comprised of individuals from different legal backgrounds who are either qualified legal practitioners or academics (referred to below as “counsel”). Qualified practitioners will likely be subject to professional codes of conduct applicable to them in their home jurisdiction, and those codes of conduct may bind them in relation to proceedings before the ICJ. But the professional obligations applying to practitioners from different jurisdictions can vary considerably. Some may consider that their domestic code of conduct does not (and/or should not) bind counsel before an international court. Those who are academics or are not admitted in any jurisdiction may not be subject to any conduct rules when acting as counsel. The absence of a common set of professional obligations means that the obligations bearing upon the conduct of particular counsel are unclear and certainly not uniform. This may have an impact on the presentation of a case before the Court, and in turn on the Court's understanding of the dispute. Ultimately, it could materially impact the outcome of a case.

Individuals appearing before the International Court of Justice (ICJ or Court) are not subject under international law to any compulsory code of conduct which would guide them in navigating issues of professional ethics. Neither the ICJ Statute nor its Rules impose any qualification requirements on counsel. In practice, legal teams appearing before the Court are comprised of individuals from different legal backgrounds, who tend to be either qualified legal practitioners or academics. Qualified practitioners may be subject to professional codes of conduct from their home jurisdiction, but these can vary considerably across different jurisdictions. Counsel who are academics or are not admitted in any jurisdiction may not be subject to any conduct rules.

It is not uncommon for decisions of international tribunals to be reported in the pages of the Washington Post or feature on the BBC News website. It is rather less common for awards to feature on the giant screens of New York’s Times Square. But less than two weeks after the Arbitral Tribuna lunder Annex VII to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea issued its Awardin Philippines v.China, a three-minute video featuring China’s position was broadcast repeatedly on the screen better known forbroadcasting New Year’s Eve festivities than argumentation on the competence of international tribunals. The video asserted that China’s “indisputable sovereignty over [the South China Sea islands] has sufficient historic and legal basis” and that “the Arbitral Tribunalvainly attempted to deny China’s territorial sovereignty and maritime rights and interests in the South China Sea.” It further stated that “China did not participate in the illegal South China Sea arbitration, nor accepts the Awardso as to defend the solemnity of international law.” This latter statement goes to the very heart of the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (the Convention) and its competence to decide the case despite China’s nonparticipation in the proceedings.

At the outset, it is helpful to draw a distinction between interstate disputes—those at the ICJ and that are administered by some other institutions—and other forms of international arbitration. The reality is that there are relatively few interstate cases. At the moment, there are perhaps a dozen active cases on the docket of the ICJ. That is a relatively full docket for the ICJ, although it has been at that level for a few years now. The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) in its 2015 Annual Report stated that it was administering eight interstate cases. So a good guess of the maximum number of interstate cases that are currently active is perhaps twenty-five.