Do International Courts Matter in Conflicts?

Historically, international courts have had limited influence over major geopolitical disputes. However, states have begun turning to judicial mechanisms more often to address international conflicts. Two key factors drive this shift: the material expansion of international law, which has created obligations across various legal fields and introduced jurisdictional clauses for court access, and a growing willingness among states to use courts as part of their conflict strategies.

International courts are not without limitations, and their role must be approached with realism. Yet states increasingly view them as tools to secure both legal victories and judicial recognition of their actions. Such recognition enhances a state’s legitimacy, pressures opposing parties through international public opinion, and shapes the narratives surrounding conflicts. A judicial ruling, even preliminary, complicates the justification of certain actions internationally and for domestic audiences.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) exemplify this evolving role, as seen in recent conflicts in Gaza and Ukraine. These cases highlight how international courts can be used to pressure states and decision makers.

Where is Compliance?

On the situation in Gaza, South Africa initiated proceedings against Israel at the ICJ in December 2023 under the 1948 Genocide Convention. As hostilities escalated, the ICJ issued binding provisional measures, ordering Israel to refrain from actions that might violate the Convention and to halt its offensive due to the risk of violation of the treaty. These measures attracted global attention, enabling states to take sides and intervene in legal proceedings, further polarizing international opinion.

In July 2024, the ICJ issued an advisory opinion requested by the U.N. General Assembly, ruling that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unlawful. The Court ordered Israel to cease its occupation immediately and recognized its obligation to provide reparations for damages. Meanwhile, in November 2024, the ICC Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, alleging crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Gaza.

Also mobilizing the Genocide Convention, Ukraine initiated proceedings against Russia before the ICJ in 2022 after the Russian aggression in the Donbass region. The ICJ issued provisional measures in March 2022, ordering Russia to suspend military operations. Since then, Russia has consistently violated this order. At the criminal level, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova on the accusation of war crimes related to the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children.

Despite these actions, neither the ICJ’s provisional measures nor the ICC’s arrest warrants have halted the activities of Russia or Israel. This raises a pressing question: what purpose do these courts and their decisions serve when compliance is lacking?

The Courts’ Real Importance

Two key factors highlight the significance of these judicial efforts, even in the absence of immediate enforcement.

The first is the ability of international courts to influence legal and moral narratives. Even without definitive rulings, court orders frame violations as defiance of international law. This damages the offending state’s reputation and strengthens the global perception of its actions as unlawful. For example, ICC arrest warrants impose constraints on travel and diplomatic activities. Putin’s absence from the G20 summit and potential absence from the 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil illustrate how such legal actions create practical and symbolic repercussions.

The second factor concerns the long timelines of international justice. Like domestic systems, international courts operate within extended political and legal processes. Over time, continued defiance of court rulings undermines a state’s legitimacy, creating lasting reputational consequences. Eventually, states are compelled to negotiate reparations for victims and address unresolved legal disputes. For instance, Israel will ultimately have to face the genocide allegations raised by South Africa, while Russia will need to explain its disregard for ICJ orders. Though delayed, this gradual process lays the groundwork for eventual accountability.

While international courts may lack immediate enforcement mechanisms, their influence extends beyond compliance. They serve as platforms for shaping global norms, pressuring states, and building the foundation for long-term stability. Like domestic legal systems, international courts often operate within complex political and legal processes. Their pronouncements on the legality of certain actions not only can influence the process, but also can change the perception of the rightness and legitimacy of certain actors involved in international conflicts.

The General Assembly holds an election of five members of International Court of Justice (ICJ). The following five judges are elected (by secret ballot) to the ICJ for a term of office of nine years, beginning on Feb. 6, 2024: Bogdan-Lucian Aurescu (Romania) Hilary Charlesworth (Australia) Sarah Hull Cleveland (US) Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo Verduzco (Mexico) Dire Tladi (South Africa). UN Photo/Loey Felipe