ICJ’s mechanism to improve the regularity and accountability of its jurisdiction practices: a reflection on the case of Nicaragua vs United States in 1986

Abstract

 In face of deviant actions or situation in the international society, the international intervention can take place in various ways, among which legal proceedings of international legal institutions are one resolution that is easily ignored or even treated with contempt as nothing but either the tool leveraged by the great powers or the emotional rhetoric. This essay therefore investigates the mechanism of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to improve the regularity and accountability of its jurisdiction system. These two aspects combine together to form a panorama of the mechanisms of ICJ: while the regularity of ICJ demonstrates objectively the degree to which the jurisdiction of ICJ can be further regulated, the accountability refers to the subjective observation from states in terms of its influence and authority. This essay argues that the Nicaragua case is a ground-breaking effort of ICJ to improve its jurisdiction system by enforcing a series of its fundamental principles and international laws. To argue this, this essay will first shed light on the background of the disputes, and then analyse how ICJ intervened in the issue, before carefully examining how this effort has exhibited ICJ’s mechanism to improve its regularity by clarifying and enforcing pertinent rules.