Political question doctrine in the jurisprudence of the ICJ

Abstract

This study examines the political question doctrine within the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The political question doctrine, traditionally a mechanism to avoid adjudicating matters deemed inherently political and thus inappropriate for judicial resolution, poses significant challenges in the international legal context. Through a comprehensive analysis of key ICJ cases, this study explores how the ICJ has navigated the tension in the legal adjudication of politically sensitive disputes. The study highlights the ICJ’s cautious approach in addressing disputes that implicate state sovereignty, diplomatic relations, and touch critical issues of international peace and security. It argues that while the ICJ does not explicitly adopt the political question doctrine as recognized in some municipal courts, it employs avoidance reasoning to defer or limit its jurisdiction. The study also investigates the implications of the Political Question Doctrine for the legitimacy and effectiveness of international adjudication, emphasizing the balancing act between judicial impartiality and political realities. By critically assessing landmark decisions, the study contributes to a nuanced understanding of how the political question doctrine influences the ICJ’s role in maintaining international legal order and resolving contentious state disputes.

Keywords: Political question doctrine, International Court of Justice, Peaceful settlement of disputes, International dispute settlement, International law.