In the concluding chapter, the editor engages in a comparative and theory-building exercise across the jurisdictions covered in the book. There are important differences between international non-human-rights courts as to the legal basis for their application of human rights norms. While due process rights of the parties appearing before it, and systemic integration, are available for all courts, there are marked differences in issues such as standing by individuals, the status of human rights norms as applicable substantive law or basis for jurisdiction, and the patterns concerning which categories of human rights have made their way into other international courts. There are also clear examples of ‘other’ courts widening the scope of justiciable human rights, for instance through applying economic, social and cultural rights, or the right to property, or collective rights of peoples beyond the practice of actual human rights courts. In their application of human rights norms, 'other' international courts have at least so far tended to do so reflecting more the trend of humanisation, rather than constitutionalisation, of international law.

This chapter analyses how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) engages with human rights in international law. It first introduces a novel three-dimensional typology: the ICJ as an integrator, developer and globaliser of human rights. The ICJ as an ‘integrator’ of human rights focuses on the extent to which the ICJ has contributed to the integration of human rights into the corpus of international law as humanising or constitutional principles. The ICJ as a ‘developer’ reviews the contributions of the Court to the development of international human rights law as a branch of international law. The ICJ as a ‘globaliser’ examines how the ICJ assumes and globalizes the interpretation of international human rights law by specialised, often regional, human rights bodies. The Chapter argues that human rights at the ICJ do not have a coherent or progressive trajectory over time. Instead, developments are piecemeal, case sensitive and reflect deep disagreements on the role of human rights in general international law. The ICJ fares better as a globaliser of existing human rights law. Yet, it is s reluctant to offer an unambiguous constitutional place to human rights in its case law.