The ICJ's Impact on the Development of the Law of Self-Defense

Abstract

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has played a considerable contribution in the advancement of the law of self-defense. In various instances, Court has explained the circumstances under which states may use force in their self-defense, and its rulings have been essential in defining state practice. The ICJ's foremost judgement on self-defense was heard in the 1986 case of Nicaragua v. United States. The Court concluded that the United States had not been rational in employing force against Nicaragua in reply to putative backing for Nicaraguan militants. The Court concluded that the US had not established that it was the target of an armed assault, hence the use of their force was not justifiable and not in self-defense. In the 2004 case of military activity in the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the ICJ once again defined the instances when a state may employ self-defense. In the court ruling it was declared that a state may only use the force in self-defense when it is under to danger of armed assault. Likewise, the court concluded that the force which a state employs in self-defense will be in proportion to the assault they confront and it should be an absolute need at that moment. The ICJ's rulings on self-defense have been essential in establishing state practice. Particularly, the Court's condition that a state have been the object of an armed assault has been broadly recognized by states. This criterion has helped to compel the use of force by governments and to support international peace and security. The ICJ's jurisprudence on self-defense is still emerging, and it is anticipated to continue to be contested by governments and scholars in the future. Nevertheless, the Court has played a considerable role in explaining the law of self-defense and in advocating its peaceful settlement of conflicts.