Philippe Gautier, Registrar of the International Court of Justice, said that the increasing number of cases is a sign of the increase in conflicts around the world, that whenever a country brings its dispute before the World Court, it needs multilateralism and a relevance. A system proven to be effective in finding solutions.
In an exclusive interview with UN News, ICJ Registrar Philippe Gauthier said the World Court must maintain its autonomy and independence amid divisions and differences of opinion around the world, including the UN’s chief justice, and should not lean towards any party in the political scenario.
Registrar Philippe Gautier told the Security Council on Tuesday that the ICJ is not a political but a judicial body and therefore has the tools to resolve disputes that arise between countries, but not to end wars.
The interview has been edited for clarity.
UN News: Can you give us the latest update on the Middle East case currently before the court?
Philippe Gautier: Currently 23 cases are pending, which is an unprecedented number. If you talk about the Middle East, we can roughly say there are at least 8 cases. Two cases relate to Gaza, with the Genocide Convention at its center. Then there is the case filed by South Africa against Israel, and the case filed by Nicaragua against Germany. Nicaragua says Germany has violated certain treaties related to genocide and protective aspects of humanitarian law, primarily by supplying weapons to Israel.
In addition, there is also a case between Palestine and America, which is related to the relocation of the US Embassy in Jerusalem and mostly related to diplomatic law.
This means there is no shortage of cases. Looking at these cases, it can be seen that these cases are related to one region but many other countries are involved. This is also important to emphasize because every country party to an instrument such as the Genocide Convention will want to ensure that the Convention is followed.
UN News: Can you give a summary of the opinion you gave in July about the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territories?
Philippe Gautier: What is important is that Israel’s long-term occupation of Palestinian territories and its policies and actions have deprived Palestinians of their right to self-determination, calling into question the legal status of the occupation. Based on this situation, it is concluded that Israel’s presence in the Palestinian territories is illegal.
Part of the opinion focusing on the responsibilities of the various parties was that Israel should end the occupation as soon as possible, stop building Jewish settlements in Palestinian territories and fully compensate for the damage.
It is also important to emphasize that the purpose of this advisory opinion is to provide legal clarification and guidance to those who request it. Also, it is necessary to ensure that the UN organs fully investigate the matter.
UN News: What is the main difference between this kind of advice and the controversial case brought to the South African court against Israel?
Philippe Gautier: There is no big difference. Consultative voting does not depend on any one country. Decisions on advisory vote requests are made by voting in the General Assembly. It is for the court to answer the legal question at hand. While this is important at the government level and cannot be ignored, it is not mandatory.
At the same time, contentious activities took place in relation to disputes arising between the two countries. And usually one or two countries, under a binding decision, decide to bring the case to court to settle the dispute. This decision is binding.
The golden rule in contentious matters is that to bring a dispute to court, you need the consent of both parties and that is difficult to achieve.
UN News: What can you tell us about the discussions this year about the court and its powers regarding the ongoing war in Gaza?
Philippe Gautier: I would say, for this, the court should act autonomously and independently. This is why it is so important to rise above the issues that divide the community.
It is important for the courts to act impartially in the political arena and be legally accountable. Court is a judicial organ. It can issue binding decisions to resolve disputes, which are usually followed by the parties to the dispute.
It is not a political body. Its function is not to monitor war or conflict. It is important to understand this, otherwise there may be too much expectation from it.
Courts exist to settle disputes, not to end wars. He has no tools to end the war.
UN News: You said in an interview with UN News last year that the growing number of cases is a sign of successful multilateralism. Do you still think so?
Philippe Gautier: Of course, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. Whenever a country decides to bring a dispute to court, it is a win-win situation. This means trust in the international multilateral system. Five new cases have come to the court since October last year and the number is still rising. Decisions are being made, they are being considered and new cases are coming.
I would also say that these cases are very credible, because they are brought jointly by two countries, because they want to end the conflict between them. For example, between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, there are two agreements on the issue of sovereignty.
Another example seen in the media earlier this month was the positive news regarding the agreement between Mauritius and Britain on the Chagos Islands issue. In 2019, the court issued an advisory opinion and five years later, the islands succeeded in regaining sovereignty.
This shows that the system is working. Courts are not functioning in isolation, rather they are functioning as an integral part of the system. In this context, the role of other UN organs and the Secretary-General is very important in persuading member states to bring disputes to the Court.
UN News: Are you concerned about misinformation and misinformation about the role of the International Court of Justice?
Philippe Gautier: absolutely This fact will be hard to ignore. When you see what is possible with artificial intelligence technology, it is important that we are aware and take action. We have an IT department to deal with things like this, but it also shows the importance of communicating with people. This is also the aim of the court and we are trying our best to improve it.
At the same time, I want to say that it is important to understand that the situation of international justice is quite complex. No decisions can be made in short tweets. It’s more complicated than that and it’s important to explain it to the public.
Tools exist, but there is no universal solution to this problem. Being able to digest complex information and read things in detail rather than simply putting them in black or white is essential to understanding nuances of opinion.