New York: Europe and the Arabs
The Registrar of the International Court of Justice, Philippe Gauthier, said that the court is currently dealing with an unprecedented number of cases, especially with the ongoing conflict in the Middle East.
In an exclusive interview with UN News, Gauthier stressed that the global division requires the court to maintain its independent role "without taking sides in the political arena." He stressed that the ICJ is a judicial body, not a political one, and therefore has the tools to settle disputes between states, but not to end the conflict itself.
While the increasing number of cases reflects the escalation of conflict around the world, Gauthier also highlighted that every time a state resorts to the court, this reflects a success for multilateralism.
The UN Daily News bulletin included the text of the interview with the Registrar of the International Court of Justice, Philippe Gauthier, who came to New York to brief the Security Council.
UN News: Can you give us an update on the cases currently being heard by the court in relation to the Middle East?
Philippe Gauthier: The 23 cases being heard by the court is an unprecedented number. If you refer to the Middle East, in general, we can say that there are eight cases. There are two cases related to Gaza where the Genocide Convention is at the center of attention. There is the case brought by South Africa against Israel and the case brought by Nicaragua against Germany.
Nicaragua claims that Germany - by supplying arms to Israel - is violating certain conventions on genocide and other instruments that protect humanitarian law.
There is also the case between Palestine and the United States regarding the transfer of the American embassy to Jerusalem which is closer to diplomatic law.
So, the plate is full. If you look at these cases, even though they are related to one region, there are many other countries involved. And it is important to emphasize that because for instruments like the Genocide Convention, each State party to the Convention may consider that it is entitled to ensure compliance with the Convention.
UN News: Could you explain the advisory opinion issued in July on the legal consequences of Israel’s policies and practices in the occupied Palestinian territory?
Philippe Gauthier: What is important is the fact that the prolonged Israeli occupation and the policies and practices that have denied the Palestinian people the right to self-determination have consequences for the legal status of the occupation. The conclusion was that, on the basis of these circumstances, the existence is illegal.

The part of the advisory opinion that addresses the responsibilities of the various actors is that Israel should end the occupation as soon as possible, immediately cease the construction of new settlements and make full reparations for the damage it has caused.

It is important to stress that the purpose of the advisory opinion is to provide clarification of the law and to serve as a guide for those who have requested it, ensuring that the case is examined and carefully considered by the organs of the United Nations.

UN News: What is the main difference between an advisory opinion like this and a controversial case like the one brought by South Africa against Israel before the Court?

Philippe Gauthier: There is a big difference. When it comes to an advisory opinion, it is not up to one State. It is through a vote in the General Assembly that a decision is made to request an advisory opinion. It is up to the Court to provide a response to the legal question raised. Although this opinion has authoritative value and cannot be ignored, it is not binding.
Meanwhile, in contentious proceedings, there is a dispute between two states. One state or two states decide jointly to refer the matter to the court to settle the dispute through a binding decision. This is the golden rule in contentious cases, where you need the consent of both parties to refer the dispute to the court, and this is difficult.
UN News: What do you say about the spotlight this year on the court and its powers in relation to the ongoing war in Gaza?
Philippe Gauthier: I would say that this requires the court to act in an independent manner. This is very important in order to be above the issues that divide the entire society. It is important that the court provides legal procedures and responses without taking sides in the political arena.
The court is a judicial body. It may settle disputes through binding decisions, which are usually binding on the states that are parties to the dispute. It is not a political body. It is not there to monitor the conflict. We have to understand that, otherwise expectations may be too high. The court is there to settle the dispute, not to end the conflict. As such, it does not have a tool to do that.
And about the increasing number of cases is a sign of the success of multilateralism. Philippe Gauthier: Of course, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. Every time States decide to bring a dispute to the Court, it’s a victory. It means that there is hope for the multilateral international system. I must point out that since October last year, five new cases have been filed. And the number is still increasing. There are judgments, decisions, new cases coming in.

I would also like to say that there are cases that are very reassuring because they are filed jointly by two States because they want to put an end to their dispute. For example, there are two agreements concluded between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea on sovereignty issues.

Another example that we saw in the press earlier this month was the good news about the agreement between Mauritius and the United Kingdom on the Chagos Islands. The Court issued an advisory opinion in 2019, and five years later, there was a success regarding the sovereignty of the islands.

This shows that the system works. The Court does not work in isolation. It works As part of the system. The role of other UN bodies and the Secretary-General in this case is crucial to convince member states to refer disputes to the Court.
UN News: Are you concerned about misinformation and disinformation regarding the role of the ICJ?
Philippe Gauthier: Of course. It would be difficult to avoid this topic. When you see what can be done with AI technologies, we need to be aware and take action. We have an IT department that deals with these things, but this also shows the importance of communicating with the public. This is the Court’s mission and we are trying to improve that.
I would also like to say that it is important to understand that international justice is a complex matter. You cannot summarise a judgment in a tweet. It is much more complex than that and it is important to explain this to the public.
There are tools, but there is no universal solution to this problem. People need to read so that they can absorb complex information and form their own opinions and not just see things in black and white.