The Status of the Judicial and Advisory Practice of the International Court of Justice in Determining the Legitimacy of Sanctions

Abstract

International sanctions, as one of the most widely used instruments in contemporary international relations, have consistently been the subject of controversy with regard to their legal legitimacy and compatibility with the fundamental rules of international law. In this context, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, plays a significant role in the clarification and development of international legal rules. Although the Court’s judgments are formally binding only upon the parties to the dispute, its judicial practice in effect exerts an influence that extends beyond specific cases and serves as an authoritative interpretative reference in the identification and elucidation of customary international law and general principles of law. This article focuses on the status of the judicial and advisory practice of the International Court of Justice in examining its role in determining the legitimacy of sanctions. The main research question is to what extent, and through which mechanisms, the Court has influenced the legal assessment of sanctions, particularly unilateral sanctions. The findings of the research indicate that although the Court has rarely addressed the legitimacy of sanctions directly, it has, through its emphasis on principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, respect for human rights, and obligations arising from international humanitarian law, provided important frameworks for the legal evaluation of sanctions (International Court of Justice, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), 1986). Moreover, the Court’s advisory opinions on issues such as state responsibility and the legal consequences of acts contrary to international law have indirectly influenced the discourse on the legitimacy of sanctions. In conclusion, the article argues that the judicial and advisory practice of the International Court of Justice, although lacking a direct law-making function, occupies a decisive and increasingly significant position in shaping the legal criteria for assessing sanctions and in constraining unilateral measures adopted by states.