Kevin A. Zhang

The United Nations (UN) was established “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war.” Its judicial organ, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), sometimes called the “World Court,” is integral to achieving this purpose, providing a forum for peacefully adjudicating disputes between States. As conflicts continue in places such as Gaza and Ukraine, States are increasingly turning to the Court to affirm their legal rights. The Court has responded, issuing decisions in these high-profile cases. Yet this success has generated a new problem for the Court: compliance with its judgments is under growing pressure. The UN Charter designates the Security Council as the body empowered to enforce ICJ judgments when States fail to comply, but it has not once taken action to do so. While compliance with the Court’s judgments remains strong, there are signs of a growing enforcement challenge. This places the legitimacy of the Court—and, with it, the legitimacy of international law—at risk. This Article proposes a solution to this problem. It argues that ICJ decisions involve obligations “erga omnes”—that is, obligations “towards all.” Not only can the ICJ identify erga omnes obligations, but, we argue, the obligation to comply with decisions of the ICJ is itself an erga omnes obligation. This claim rests on the observation that the modern legal order prohibits States from using force. That prohibition implies the necessity of a peaceful mechanism for resolving disputes—a role the ICJ is uniquely suited to play in the current international system. Even though only the parties to a case are bound to comply with the Court’s decisions, the obligation to comply is owed not just to the other parties to the case but also to the broader international community. After all, the obligation is, at least in part, an obligation to uphold the functioning and efficacy of a principal alternative to the use of force. Because the obligation to comply with the Court’s decisions is itself an erga omnes obligation, all States may act to enforce ICJ judgments, including through the use of countermeasures. This argument promises to address the World Court’s enforcement dilemma by expanding the actors empowered to enforce its decisions.