Supreme Court Of India Much More Open To Evoke International Law Than Apex Courts Of Other Countries : ICJ Judge Hilary Charlesworth

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) Judge Hilary Charlesworth today (February 10), in her lecture on “The International Court of Justice: A legal forum in a political environment” at the Supreme Court of India, shared her experience and observations on the aspects of judicial impartiality, scholarly criticism and the political dilemma that the ICJ faced over the decades.Justice Charlesworth lauded the idea of introspection as reminded to her by CJI DY Chandrachud in one of his previous speeches. According to her, the Apex Court practises the art of introspection which enables it to make independent and objective decisions, which are crucial for maintaining judicial independence. “What is also impressive to me is the Supreme Court's courageous capacity of introspection, which, to quote the CJI's recent talk on the ceremonial sitting and I quote - introspection is the art of bringing the seemingly unattainable within the line of vision”Drawing stark similarities on the roles and values that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Supreme Court of India have, Justice Charlesworth opined that, “We both (ICJ and Supreme Court) face the task of navigating highly charged political environments as a legal institution. The international judiciary can draw inspiration from the Supreme Court of India's distinguished history of independence and innovation.” She further recognised how the Indian Constitution is one of the fewest to incorporate the zeal of fulfilling International commitments. “ Over the years, the Supreme Court of India has manifested interest in the work of the International Court of Justice. Unlike many other constitutions, the Indian Constitution acknowledges the role of International Law in Article 51 part with the Directives of State of Policy” Appreciating the endeavour of the Supreme Court of India in recognising the country's commitment towards the ratified International Treaties, Justice Charlesworth expressed, “ The Supreme Court of India has regularly referred to the International Law and on occasions the dissidents of the International Courts of Justice. Indeed I have been struck that it appears much more open to be evoking the International Laws, much more than the other Apex Courts such as my Own the High Court of Australia or the U.S. Supreme Court.” On the Origins & Structure of the ICJ Genesis of the making of the International Court of Justice lay in the establishment of the Permanent Court of Arbitration through the Hague Peace Conferences of 1897 and 1909. The idea of having an International Judicial Structure came in the early 20th century, with the League of Nations in 1919 envisioning the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Permanent Court was housed in the same building as the Court of Arbitration, which was the 'Peace Palace', Hague. Established in 1922, the Permanent Court of International Justice, in its first year of working dealt with 3 requests for advisory opinion from the Council of the Nations. From 1923 to 1940, the Permanent Court of Justice delivered 29 judgements and 27 advisory opinions. Its last sitting was in October 1945, just before the outbreak of the Second World War. Justice Charlesworth explained that the present International Court Justice, which is the successor of the erstwhile Permanent Court was established under the Charter of the United Nations (UN) on similar lines of the rules of procedure and the statute followed by the Permanent Court. However, a key difference between the predecessor of the ICJ and the present Court is that the ICJ was given a principal status akin to the UN Security Council (UNSC) and the UN General Assembly (UNGA)As per the present procedure for appointment, the ICJ comprises a total of 15 judges from different nationalities who are elected simultaneously by the UNGA and UNSC. Traditionally, the 5 permanent members of the UNSC always have a judicial representation in the ICJ. However, this tradition has been broken in the past 6 years when the United Kingdom lost its permanent seat in the ICJ, followed by Russia most recently. ICJ Has A Poor Record In Relation To Gender Balance - Justice Charlesworth Referring to the importance of having an increasing gender representation at a global level for the judiciary, Justice Charlesworth highlighted how the Statute of the ICJ doesnt mandate a gender ratio in terms of judicial representation as compared to the Rome Statute on International Criminal Court. She expressed, “ I think overall the ICJ has a poor record of maintaining that balance. In over 8 decades, just 6 women have been elected to the Court, while 109 men have been elected at the same time….today we are still 4 women and 11 men”. Article 36 (8) of the Rome Statute provides : (a) The States Parties shall, in the selection of judges, take into account the need, within the membership of the Court, for: (i) The representation of the principal legal systems of the world; (ii) Equitable geographical...

Supreme Court Of India Much More Open To Evoke International Law Than Apex Courts Of Other Countries : ICJ Judge Hilary Charlesworth

Anmol Kaur Bawa

Tags