By Walthari Nikolaj

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often referred to as the World Court, is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). Established in 1945, it serves as a cornerstone of the international legal system, offering a forum for the peaceful settlement of disputes between states and providing advisory opinions on legal questions referred by UN organs and specialised agencies. The International Court of Justice's roots can be traced back to the League of Nations, the precursor to the United Nations, which aimed to prevent future conflicts through collective security and diplomacy. However, it was not until the establishment of the United Nations in 1945, following the devastation of World War II, that the idea of an international court with binding jurisdiction gained significant traction. The ICJ's creation was enshrined in the UN Charter, reflecting the collective desire to foster international cooperation and maintain peace and security in the aftermath of the war. The Court held its inaugural session in April 1946 in The Hague, Netherlands, where it has been headquartered ever since. With its statute based on the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), the ICJ operates as a judicial body independent of the UN General Assembly and Security Council. It consists of 15 judges elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council, representing a diverse range of legal systems and cultures from around the world. Throughout its history, the ICJ has played a crucial role in adjudicating disputes between states on matters ranging from territorial disputes and maritime boundaries to human rights and environmental issues. The ICJ’s decisions and advisory opinions carry significant weight in international law, shaping the development of legal principles and norms governing state behaviour on the global stage.

In the wake of momentous events such as Brexit, the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the recent Gaza war, the role of "Global Britain" on the international stage is facing unprecedented challenges. The United Kingdom, once a dominant player in global affairs, finds itself at a crossroads as it navigates a shifting political and diplomatic landscape. 

The absence of a British judge on the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which happened for the first time in 71 years in 2017, is a significant setback for Global Britain's influence in international affairs. This absence raises questions about the country's commitment to upholding the rule of law and its ability to advocate for justice on the global stage. Britain's long-standing presence on the ICJ has been instrumental in promoting peace, resolving disputes, and upholding human rights.

The British Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, has said that international laws can and will be ignored, if necessary, in the rolling out of a Bill that would allow the government to send illegal immigrants who arrive on small boats, often the victims of immoral people traffickers who profit from their adversity - to Rwanda. The reason hinted at is to deter other “aliens” from entering “Global” Britain for asylum. 

The absence of a British judge diminishes the nation's voice and weakens its ability to shape global legal norms. Or does it? What if the UK create new legal norms by ignoring international law and going ahead with planned transportation? This absence undermines Britain's reputation as a champion of the rule of law and weakens its position within the UN system. Threats by the UK government that it is prepared to ignore international human rights law for the ‘New Transportation’ of criminals by origin to the arguably unsafe country of Rwanda creates something unprecedented. If the UK were to repeal human rights legislation, then “Global Britain” would be the first democracy or even state to repeal a human rights law that protects the liberties of its subjects and those entering the UK from places of persecution and war. I call the desired removals of illegal immigrants the ‘New Transportations” because previously in history, the UK has already transported thousands of criminals abroad on prison ships to wipe their hands off them, most notably to Australia. 

Brexit, the UK's withdrawal from the European Union, further complicated Britain's position on the ICJ. The European Union traditionally supported British candidates for the ICJ, bolstering the country's influence within the court. With its departure from the EU, Britain loses the support and backing of a significant bloc of nations, which could further diminish its influence within the ICJ. 

The recent Gaza war has further tested the position of Global Britain in international affairs. While the United States staunchly supported Israel's military actions, Britain chose to abstain from supporting ceasefire resolutions in the UN Security Council and General Assembly. This alignment with the US isolates Britain from other European nations and raises questions about its commitment to international law and human rights. As the death toll in Gaza rises and the humanitarian crisis deepens, there has been a noticeable shift in the political discourse surrounding the conflict. The EU's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, has likened the destruction in Gaza to the devastation of World War II, highlighting the urgent need for action. This mounting pressure has put Britain under scrutiny, with legal and civil society organisations questioning its involvement in the war and the potential complicity in war crimes through weapons sales to Israel. 

The UK, muted, uncompassionate, and seemingly absent of courage, abstained from supporting both motions for a ceasefire, revealing its solid alignment with Washington. This somewhat isolates Britain from other European nations, including Ireland, France, Spain, and Belgium and British allies Canada and Australia, who all backed the recent UNGA ceasefire motion. South Africa made the first formal accusation in the ICJ that Israel is committing genocide. The West, including some states in the UN, are ignoring the fact the slaughter of entire families is happening. It is visible, globally accessible, and reported twenty-four hours a day via news and social media. 

Britain's non-representation on the ICJ may impact its international standing and influence, particularly in efforts to uphold the rule of law, promote diplomatic solutions to conflicts, and advance global cooperation. Participation in international judicial institutions like the ICJ is often viewed as a reflection of a country's commitment to the principles of justice, diplomacy, and multilateralism. While Britain's absence from the ICJ does not directly affect the ongoing Gaza-Hamas conflict, it underscores the importance of active engagement in international judicial institutions to address global challenges and promote peace, stability, and the rule of law on the world stage.

Image credit: Walthari Nikolaj