Introduction



Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are two distinct institutions with fundamental differences, they can influence each other's performance. Article 119 of the Rome Statute, as the founding instrument of the ICC, provides a mechanism for the settlement of disputes. Under this article, any dispute between States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of the Statute may, following the prescribed procedures, be referred to the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) and, ultimately, to the ICJ. The fundamental question is whether the contentious judgments of the ICJ concerning disputes over the Rome Statute are merely binding on the states parties to the case, or if they extend further, impacting the entire legal system of the ICC. Focusing on Article 119 of the Rome Statute, this article seeks to clarify the various dimensions of this relationship and evaluate the degree of influence that ICJ judgments exert on the ICC.



Research Problem



The primary problem of this research is to examine the question: in the event that disputes regarding the interpretation and application of the Rome Statute are referred to the ICJ, what status will the judgments issued by the Court hold within the legal system of the ICC, and to what extent can they influence the operations and jurisprudence of this institution? To clarify: first, the jurisdiction of the ICJ to hear disputes arising from Article 119 of the Rome Statute and the conditions required to trigger this jurisdiction. Second, the legal and practical effects of contentious ICJ judgments on the ICC. Within this framework, the paper endeavors to elucidate whether the interpretations provided by the ICJ regarding the Rome Statute can acquire authoritative or binding character for the ICC (noting Article 59 of the ICJ Statute), and whether the ICC is capable of disregarding such interpretations.



Methodology

This research has been conducted using both theoretical and empirical methods. firstly, the text of Article 119 of the Rome Statute and its travaux préparatoires) are examined, followed by an analysis of the dispute settlement mechanism provided in this article using international legal doctrine and commentary.

Subsequently, the jurisprudence of the ICJ is studied to explain how the Court establishes jurisdiction and the legal effects of its judgments. Furthermore, to assess the impact of ICJ judgments on the ICC, the study utilizes an analysis of the decisions issued by the ICC, particularly in the Omar al-Bashir case and cases related to the crime of genocide. In addition, the research draws upon theoretical discussions related to judicial authority, judicial law-making, the role of jurisprudence in the development of international law, and theories concerning the validity of judicial interpretations. Thus, the paper attempts to present a comprehensive overview of the referral of Rome Statute disputes to the ICJ by synthesizing normative analysis, case law review, and doctrinal viewpoints.





Key Findings



• First Finding: The referral of disputes arising from the interpretation and application of the Rome Statute to the ICJ is, in practice, difficult. This is because it requires the consent of the disputing states and compliance with the preliminary steps envisaged in Article 119. Therefore, this article does not, per se, establish compulsory jurisdiction for the ICJ.



• Second Finding: Although the judgments of the ICJ are legally binding only upon the parties to the case pursuant to Article 59 of its Statute, their interpretative and normative effects are not restricted solely to those parties. The interpretations of the ICJ concerning multilateral treaties possess considerable weight and authority for other states and international institutions in practice.



• Third Finding: the authority of the ICJ over the ICC in treaty interpretation. The research demonstrates that the ICJ is not merely a dispute settlement body; rather, through interpreting the rules of international law and providing authoritative legal reasoning, it plays an active role in the development and evolution of international law. Hence, its judgments can lead to the formation of new legal norms and practices. Moreover, A review of ICC jurisprudence shows that it has cited ICJ judgments and relied on them as the basis for its reasoning when interpreting and applying international treaties, including the Genocide Convention. This indicates a practical recognition of the ICJ's interpretative authority within the international legal system.



Contribution to the Field

Broadly speaking, examining the impact of ICJ jurisprudence on the ICC contributes to understanding the relationships between these two international judicial bodies, which in turn leads to a better understanding of international law as a whole. This research is particularly significant because paragraph 2 of Article 119 of the Rome Statute has generally been under-researched, whereas various scholarly works exist regarding paragraph 1 of Article 119.

Implications and Applications

The findings of this study carry significant implications for States Parties to the Rome Statute and the ICC:



First, States Parties must be aware that disputes regarding the interpretation of the Rome Statute, even if not directly brought before the ICJ, may ultimately be influenced by the interpretations and jurisprudence of the Court.



Second, the research findings indicate that the ICC cannot remain indifferent to ICJ judgments. The legal validity, institutional standing, and interpretative influence of the ICJ ensure that its judgments are utilized as one of the most vital sources of legal reasoning by the ICC.



Third, the study highlights the importance of judicial harmony among international judicial bodies. The more the ICC conforms to ICJ jurisprudence in interpreting international treaties and rules, the greater the coherence and predictability of the international legal system will be.



Fourth, the results of the study carry practical relevance for ongoing debates surrounding the immunity of high-ranking state officials, the relationship between Articles 27 and 98 of the Rome Statute, and the interpretation of customary international law. Any interpretative intervention by the ICJ in these areas can have profound effects on the operations of the ICC.



Conclusion

The article concludes that although the probability of referring disputes arising from Article 119 of the Rome Statute to the ICJ is low, should such an event occur, the effects of the Court's judgments will extend far beyond resolving the dispute between the immediate state parties. Due to its preeminent position in the international legal system, the ICJ holds a unique authority in interpreting international treaties, and its interpretations of the Rome Statute cannot be deemed inconsequential by the ICC.

This research shows that the ICC has repeatedly cited ICJ judgments in its own jurisprudence, practically accepting its interpretative authority. Consequently, even if the ICJ's judgments are formally binding only on the parties to the case, they can influence the entire legal system of the ICC from a practical and normative perspective.

Ultimately, the relationship between the two courts should not be analyzed strictly within the confines of jurisdictional rules; rather, it must be viewed as part of a broader process of developing and interpreting international law. In this process, the ICJ continues to play a pivotal role in shaping the authoritative understanding of international treaties, and the ICC will inevitably have to take heed of this interpretative authority.