Evaluating the Role of the ICJ in interpreting the UN Charter’s Prohibition on the Use of Force and Providing Clarity on States’ Inherent Right of Self-Defence

Abstract

This paper discusses how the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has contributed to the interpretation of the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force through its decisions in many landmark cases. There are two questions this paper proposed to address. First, how does the ICJ interpret the UN charter’s prohibition on the use of force. Second, to what extent does the ICJ’s judgements and advisory opinions have provided clarity on states’ inherent right of self-defence. To answer the questions, literature-based research, including legal sources such as case-law, legislation and legal doctrines are used. According to this research, in deciding the cases concerning the use of force, the ICJ mainly based its judgement on the customary international law on prohibition of the use of force instead of referring to the UN Charter’s prohibition on the use of force, until in the Nicaragua case when it provides details on what actions are equivalent to the use of force. Furthermore, by providing a definition of armed attack and using the customary international law on the principles of Necessity, Proportionality and Immediacy, the ICJ has clarified states’ right of self-defence through its judgments and advisory opinions in several cases.