Difference between ICJ and ICC: Jurisdiction, Power, and Limits

The difference between ICJ and ICC defines the boundaries of international justice in practice, yet it is routinely misunderstood in public debate, policy commentary, and even academic discussion outside specialist circles. The two courts are frequently grouped together under the shorthand of “The Hague,” as if they were components of a single judicial system with shared powers and objectives. This assumption is incorrect. The International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court operate on distinct legal logics, address different subjects of law, and produce fundamentally different legal consequences. Confusing them leads to misplaced expectations about accountability, enforcement, and the actual capacity of international law to respond to contemporary crises.

The relevance of this distinction has intensified in recent years as armed conflicts, allegations of genocide, and large-scale violations of international law have returned to the center of global politics. In such contexts, questions are often framed in simplistic terms: why has a court not “stopped” a war, why have arrest warrants not resulted in custody, or why a judgment has not changed state behavior. These questions often assume that international courts function like domestic supreme courts or criminal tribunals with centralized enforcement power. In reality, the international legal order is decentralized by design, and the Difference between ICJ and ICC reflects that structural reality rather than an accidental institutional weakness.

At its core, the ICJ is concerned with the legal responsibility of states. It adjudicates disputes over treaties, customary international law, jurisdiction, sovereignty, and reparations. Its role is declaratory and normative: to clarify what international law requires and to determine when a state has breached its obligations. The ICC, by contrast, is concerned with individual criminal responsibility. It does not pronounce on the legality of state conduct as such, nor does it issue rulings on inter-state disputes. Instead, it applies international criminal law to natural persons, assessing guilt, intent, and punishment. These are not overlapping mandates; they are parallel but legally autonomous tracks.

Understanding this separation is essential to avoid analytical errors. A finding by the ICJ that a state has violated an international obligation does not establish criminal guilt, nor does it automatically trigger prosecutions before the ICC. Conversely, an ICC investigation or arrest warrant does not amount to a legal judgment on the responsibility of a state under general international law. Each court operates within its own jurisdictional framework, evidentiary standards, and remedial logic. Treating one as a substitute for the other obscures how accountability is fragmented across the international system.

The Difference between ICJ and ICC also matters for evaluating legitimacy and effectiveness. Both courts face criticism for selective outcomes and enforcement gaps, but those critiques arise from different institutional constraints. The ICJ depends on state consent and political mechanisms for compliance, while the ICC depends on cooperation for arrests and surrender of suspects. These limitations are not failures of design alone; they reflect enduring features of an international legal order built on sovereign equality and consent. Any serious assessment of international justice must therefore begin by recognizing what each court is legally empowered to do, and what it is structurally incapable of doing.

This article proceeds from that premise. Rather than treating the ICJ and ICC as interchangeable symbols of global justice, it analyzes them as distinct institutions with specific mandates, strengths, and limits. Only by taking the Difference between ICJ and ICC seriously can international law be evaluated on its own terms, rather than against expectations it was never designed to fulfill.

Institutional Origins and Legal Foundations

The institutional divergence between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court begins at their points of creation. Each court emerged from a distinct historical moment, was grounded in a different legal instrument, and was designed to respond to different perceived failures of the international legal order. These origins continue to shape their authority, jurisdictional reach, and political exposure.

The International Court of Justice was established in 1945 as part of the post–Second World War reconstruction of international institutions. It is a direct successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice and was incorporated into the constitutional framework of the United Nations. Its legal foundation lies in the UN Charter, which designates the ICJ as the principal judicial organ of the Organization. This embeddedness is not merely symbolic. It situates the ICJ within a broader system of collective security, diplomacy, and political decision-making, linking its authority to the consent-based architecture of the United Nations as a whole. As a Charter-based court, the ICJ derives its legitimacy from the near-universal membership of the UN and from the formal equality of states within that system.

The International Criminal Court, by contrast, is not a UN organ and was never intended to be one. It was created through the Rome Statute of 1998 as an independent, treaty-based institution. Its origins reflect widespread frustration with the limitations of political responses to mass atrocities during the 1990s, particularly the delayed and selective establishment of ad hoc criminal tribunals. The ICC was conceived as a permanent judicial body capable of exercising criminal jurisdiction without requiring a new political decision for each situation. Its authority flows not from universal membership but from treaty consent, and its legal existence depends on ratification by individual states rather than automatic inclusion through UN membership.

This difference in legal foundations has significant consequences. The ICJ operates within a system in which jurisdiction is closely tied to state consent, either through specific agreements, treaty clauses, or optional declarations. Its role is consistent with the classical structure of international law as a law between sovereigns. The ICC, in contrast, was designed to partially bypass the exclusivity of state control over accountability by asserting jurisdiction over individuals, subject to clearly defined legal triggers. This move represents a deliberate shift away from a purely state-centric model, even though it remains constrained by the same sovereignty-based framework that governs treaty law.

The institutional placement of each court also affects its relationship with political organs. The ICJ’s proximity to the United Nations enhances its normative authority but exposes it to the political dynamics of the organization, particularly in matters of compliance. The ICC’s formal independence shields it from direct institutional subordination, yet leaves it vulnerable to political resistance by powerful non-party states and to uneven cooperation by its own members. Independence, in this context, does not translate into insulation from power, but into a different configuration of legal and political pressure.

In short, the ICJ and the ICC were not designed as complementary halves of a single judicial system. They were created to address different categories of legal problems through different institutional logics. The ICJ reflects the consolidation of inter-state adjudication within the UN framework, while the ICC embodies an attempt to internationalize criminal accountability beyond the limits of diplomatic enforcement. Any analysis that overlooks these foundational distinctions risks misinterpreting both the authority and the limits of international adjudication.

Jurisdictional Architecture: States versus Individuals

The most decisive structural difference between the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court lies in their jurisdictional architecture. Each court is built around a distinct legal subject: the ICJ addresses states as bearers of international rights and obligations, while the ICC exercises jurisdiction over individuals as criminally responsible actors under international law. This divergence is not technical; it determines who may appear before each court, how jurisdiction is established, and what kinds of legal questions can be adjudicated.

The jurisdiction of the ICJ is limited exclusively to states. Individuals, corporations, and non-state actors have no standing before the Court, regardless of the gravity of the harm alleged. This design reflects the classical structure of public international law, in which states remain the primary legal persons. Jurisdiction before the ICJ is consent-based and must be established in one of several recognized forms: a special agreement between disputing states, a compromissory clause contained in a treaty, or a unilateral declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction. Without such consent, the Court lacks authority to adjudicate a dispute, even if the alleged conduct involves serious violations of international law. Advisory opinions provide a separate avenue for legal clarification, but they do not substitute for contentious jurisdiction and do not bind states in the same manner as judgments.

The ICC’s jurisdictional architecture is fundamentally different. The Court was designed to exercise criminal jurisdiction over natural persons, regardless of official capacity, including heads of state and senior government officials. Its jurisdiction is triggered through a combination of territorial links, nationality, and institutional referrals. Crimes committed on the territory of a State Party or by a national of a State Party fall within the Court’s ordinary jurisdiction. In addition, situations may be referred to the ICC by the United Nations Security Council, allowing the Court to exercise jurisdiction even over nationals of states that have not accepted the Rome Statute. This framework reflects a move away from exclusive reliance on state consent, while stopping short of universal criminal jurisdiction.

A central feature of the ICC’s jurisdictional design is the principle of complementarity. The Court does not function as a court of first instance for international crimes. Instead, it acts as a mechanism of last resort, intervening only when national authorities are unwilling or genuinely unable to investigate and prosecute. This structure preserves a degree of state primacy while asserting an international legal interest in preventing impunity for the most serious crimes. The ICJ has no equivalent principle, because it does not review domestic proceedings and does not assess criminal accountability.

The contrast between state jurisdiction and individual jurisdiction also affects the nature of legal responsibility. Proceedings before the ICJ concern attribution, breach, and reparation under the law of state responsibility. Proceedings before the ICC concern culpability, intent, and punishment under international criminal law. These legal frameworks operate independently, even when they arise from the same factual context. A state may be found to have breached an international obligation without any individual being criminally convicted, and individuals may be prosecuted even when questions of state responsibility remain unresolved.

This jurisdictional separation explains why the two courts cannot substitute for one another. The ICJ cannot issue arrest warrants, and the ICC cannot determine the legality of a state’s conduct as such. Each court addresses different legal questions about distinct legal subjects through separate procedural and normative systems. Understanding this architecture is essential for grasping the functional limits of international adjudication and for avoiding the conflation of political accountability with criminal liability.

Subject Matter Competence: Responsibility vs. Criminal Liability

The difference between the ICJ and the ICC becomes even more pronounced when examining their respective subject matter competence. Although both institutions operate within the field of international law and may address overlapping factual situations, they apply distinct bodies of law and pursue fundamentally different legal objectives. The ICJ is concerned with international responsibility, while the ICC is concerned with international criminal liability. These concepts are related but not interchangeable.

The ICJ applies the law of state responsibility. Its task is to determine whether a state has breached an international obligation arising from treaties, customary international law, or general principles of law, and to specify the legal consequences of that breach. These consequences are not punitive in nature. They typically include declaratory relief, orders of cessation, assurances of non-repetition, and reparations in the form of restitution, compensation, or satisfaction. The Court does not impose sanctions or penalties, nor does it attribute moral blame in a criminal sense. Its judgments are juridical determinations of legality, not instruments of punishment.

By contrast, the ICC applies international criminal law, a legal regime that is substantively and conceptually distinct from the law of state responsibility. The Court assesses individual conduct against the definitions of crimes contained in the Rome Statute and determines criminal culpability based on elements such as intent, knowledge, participation, and command responsibility. The legal consequences imposed by the ICC are penal and personal, including imprisonment, fines, forfeiture, and orders of reparations to victims. These sanctions are designed not merely to declare wrongdoing but to punish and deter.

This distinction is critical because responsibility and criminal liability serve different functions within the international legal system. State responsibility is primarily remedial and systemic. It aims to restore legal equilibrium and reaffirm the validity of international norms. Criminal liability is retributive and preventive. It focuses on individual accountability and seeks to stigmatize conduct that threatens fundamental values of the international community. Confusing these functions leads to erroneous assumptions, such as expecting the ICJ to “punish” states or assuming that ICC prosecutions resolve questions of state legality.

The difference in subject matter competence also affects evidentiary standards and legal reasoning. The ICJ evaluates evidence to establish facts attributable to a state under international law, often relying on patterns of conduct, official acts, and institutional responsibility. The ICC, by contrast, applies criminal standards of proof and must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt for each accused individual. The same factual background may therefore yield different legal outcomes depending on the forum, without contradiction.

Importantly, proceedings before one court do not legally predetermine outcomes before the other. An ICJ judgment finding a breach of an international obligation does not automatically generate criminal liability for specific individuals, nor does an ICC conviction constitute a formal legal determination of state responsibility. Each court operates within its own normative universe, even when addressing conduct arising from the same conflict.

Understanding the difference between responsibility and criminal liability is essential to appreciating the limits of international adjudication. The ICJ and the ICC are not parallel enforcement mechanisms for the same legal norms, but specialized institutions designed to address different dimensions of international wrongdoing. This functional separation is a defining feature of the contemporary international legal order.

Enforcement and Compliance: Law without Police Power

Enforcement is the point at which the limits of international adjudication become most visible. Both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court operate within a legal order that lacks a centralized coercive authority. Yet the nature of their enforcement deficits differs in important ways, reflecting their institutional design, legal mandates, and relationship with political actors. Understanding these differences is essential to evaluating claims about effectiveness, compliance, and alleged failure of international justice.

The ICJ issues legally binding judgments in contentious cases between states, but it has no independent means to compel compliance. Its authority rests on the assumption that states will act in good faith and respect their international obligations. When a state fails to comply with a judgment, the formal enforcement pathway lies outside the Court itself. The matter may be brought before the political organs of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, which may recommend or decide upon measures to give effect to the judgment. This mechanism reflects the ICJ’s integration into the UN system, but it also exposes enforcement to geopolitical realities. States with significant political influence can delay, dilute, or block enforcement efforts, transforming legal compliance into a matter of political calculation rather than legal obligation.

The ICC faces a different enforcement challenge. Its decisions are judicial and criminal in nature, yet the Court has no police force, detention facilities, or means of executing arrest warrants on its own. It depends entirely on the cooperation of states for arrests, surrender of suspects, access to evidence, and protection of witnesses. Even states that are parties to the Rome Statute may refuse to cooperate when political costs outweigh perceived legal duties. Non-party states, meanwhile, have no treaty obligation to assist, unless cooperation is mandated through a Security Council referral. As a result, ICC enforcement is structurally uneven, particularly when suspects remain within the territory of powerful or strategically protected states.

The contrast between the two courts lies not in the presence or absence of enforcement, but in the type of compliance expected. ICJ compliance is systemic and state-centered. It involves changes in policy, legal positions, or reparative measures. ICC compliance is operational and individualized. It requires concrete actions such as arrests, extradition, and enforcement of sentences. Failure in the ICJ context often takes the form of delayed or partial implementation. Failure in the ICC context is more visible and binary: suspects remain at large, proceedings stall, or cases collapse due to non-cooperation.

These enforcement gaps should not be misinterpreted as legal anomalies. They are a direct consequence of a decentralized international legal system built on sovereign equality and consent. Neither court was designed to override political authority through coercion. Instead, both rely on a combination of legal obligation, reputational pressure, and diplomatic consequences to secure compliance. This design choice prioritizes legitimacy and consent over force, but it also limits the capacity of international courts to produce immediate behavioral change.

Evaluating enforcement in isolation, therefore, produces a distorted picture. The ICJ reinforces legal norms by clarifying obligations and shaping state behavior over time, even when compliance is imperfect. The ICC contributes to accountability by stigmatizing conduct, individualizing blame, and constraining future impunity, even when arrests are delayed. Their effectiveness lies not in coercive power, but in their ability to structure expectations, influence legal discourse, and condition political behavior within the limits imposed by international law itself.

In this sense, enforcement is not the absence of law, but the expression of law operating without a centralized sovereign. The ICJ and the ICC illustrate different models of authority in a system where legal obligation exists independently of immediate coercion. Recognizing this reality is essential to any serious assessment of international justice and its practical limits.

The Difference between ICJ and ICC in Practice: Case-Based Analysis

The practical operation of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court demonstrates most clearly why the difference between ICJ and ICC is not merely theoretical. When examined through concrete cases, the distinction between state responsibility and individual criminal liability, as well as between declaratory authority and penal jurisdiction, becomes legally decisive. Similar factual situations may give rise to proceedings before both courts, yet the legal questions addressed, the procedural posture, and the consequences remain fundamentally different.

In cases before the ICJ, disputes are framed in terms of international obligations owed by one state to another or to the international community as a whole. The Nicaragua v. United States case illustrates this logic. The Court did not assess the criminal responsibility of U.S. officials or military personnel. Instead, it examined whether the conduct of the United States constituted breaches of international law, including the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of non-intervention. The judgment clarified legal norms and affirmed state responsibility, but it did not and could not impose criminal sanctions. The practical impact of the ruling lay in its normative authority and long-term influence on legal doctrine, not in coercive enforcement.

More recent ICJ proceedings concerning alleged violations of the Genocide Convention further illustrate this function. In cases such as The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel, the Court focused on treaty obligations, provisional measures, and the risk of irreparable harm. Its role was preventive and declaratory: to interpret legal duties, assess plausibility thresholds, and indicate measures aimed at preserving rights pending a final judgment. These proceedings were not criminal trials. No findings of individual guilt were made, and no punishments were imposed. The Court’s intervention operated at the level of state conduct and international legal compliance.

The ICC’s case practice reflects a fundamentally different approach. Its investigations and prosecutions center on specific individuals, requiring proof of personal participation, intent, and responsibility under international criminal law. The arrest warrants issued in relation to the situation in Ukraine exemplify this model. The Court assessed evidence concerning the alleged conduct of named individuals and evaluated that conduct against the elements of war crimes defined in the Rome Statute. The legal question was not whether a state violated international law, but whether particular persons bore criminal responsibility. The issuance of arrest warrants carried penal consequences, even though enforcement depended on state cooperation.

The situation concerning Palestine further underscores the divergence between the two courts. Legal debates before the ICJ have addressed obligations under international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention at the level of state responsibility. Parallel developments at the ICC have focused on jurisdiction, admissibility, and the potential criminal liability of individuals on all sides of the conflict. These tracks operate independently. An ICJ order indicating provisional measures does not determine the outcome of ICC proceedings, and ICC prosecutorial decisions do not resolve questions of inter-state legality. Each institution processes the same reality through a different legal lens.

This case-based comparison also reveals why criticisms of inconsistency or double standards often miss their target. Apparent disparities frequently arise not from arbitrary decision-making, but from differences in jurisdictional reach, evidentiary thresholds, and legal mandate. The ICJ cannot initiate cases on its own and cannot compel states to appear without consent. The ICC cannot prosecute absent jurisdictional triggers and cooperation mechanisms. Outcomes that appear uneven are often the product of these structural constraints rather than discretionary choice.

In practice, the difference between ICJ and ICC shapes not only legal outcomes but also political expectations. ICJ judgments influence diplomatic relations, treaty interpretation, and normative development. ICC proceedings individualize blame, stigmatize conduct, and aim to deter future crimes. Both contribute to international accountability, but they do so through distinct pathways that cannot be collapsed into a single model of global justice.

Understanding how these courts operate in real cases is essential to assessing their effectiveness. The ICJ and the ICC do not fail when they produce different results; they perform different legal functions. Their case law demonstrates that international law addresses wrongdoing through multiple, parallel mechanisms, each constrained by its institutional design and each essential to the overall structure of international justice.

Selectivity, Double Standards, and Legitimacy

Debates surrounding the legitimacy of international courts frequently center on allegations of selectivity and double standards. Both the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court are subject to these critiques, yet the sources and implications of selectivity differ markedly between the two institutions. Understanding this distinction is essential to avoid conflating political dissatisfaction with legal dysfunction.

Selectivity in the ICJ is primarily jurisdictional and procedural. The Court can adjudicate only those disputes for which states have consented to its jurisdiction. This consent-based architecture means that powerful states may avoid litigation by withholding acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction or by declining to include compromissory clauses in treaties. As a result, some disputes never reach the Court, while others do so only under carefully negotiated conditions. This form of selectivity is embedded in the structure of international law itself and reflects the enduring centrality of state sovereignty. It is not the product of prosecutorial discretion or judicial preference, but of jurisdictional design.

The ICC faces a different and more politically visible form of selectivity. Its jurisdiction depends on treaty ratification, territorial links, or institutional referrals. Major military and political powers that have not accepted the Rome Statute remain largely insulated from the Court’s ordinary jurisdiction. At the same time, the ICC relies on state cooperation to investigate, arrest, and prosecute suspects. This dependence creates asymmetries in enforcement, particularly when political alliances influence cooperation decisions. The result is a pattern in which some situations advance to prosecution while others stagnate, not because of legal insufficiency alone, but because of external political resistance.

Accusations of double standards often arise when similar factual situations produce different legal outcomes across cases or courts. Yet such comparisons frequently overlook the legal filters that govern admissibility and jurisdiction. The ICJ cannot compel unwilling states to litigate, and the ICC cannot prosecute without satisfying specific jurisdictional thresholds and cooperation requirements. What appears as unequal treatment may instead reflect unequal legal access. This distinction matters, because legitimacy critiques grounded in institutional design differ fundamentally from critiques alleging bias or bad faith.

Legitimacy is also shaped by expectations. The ICJ derives much of its authority from its role as an interpreter of international law rather than an enforcer. Its judgments contribute to normative stability and legal clarification, even when compliance is imperfect. The ICC, by contrast, carries an explicit promise of accountability for grave crimes. When prosecutions fail to materialize or suspects remain at large, the perceived legitimacy cost is higher, because the Court’s mission is closely tied to tangible outcomes. These differing expectations magnify perceptions of selectivity in the ICC context.

Importantly, neither court operates in a vacuum. Both are embedded in an international system marked by unequal power distribution. Political influence, strategic interests, and diplomatic leverage shape the environment in which legal institutions function. Selectivity, in this sense, is not solely a judicial phenomenon but a systemic feature of the international order. Blaming courts alone for these outcomes risks obscuring the deeper structural constraints under which they operate.

Assessing legitimacy, therefore, requires analytical precision. The ICJ and the ICC should be evaluated according to their mandates, jurisdictional limits, and institutional capacities, not against idealized models of global justice. Selectivity does not automatically imply illegitimacy, but it does expose the tension between legal aspiration and political reality. Recognizing that tension is a prerequisite for any serious discussion about reform, accountability, and the future of international adjudication.

Also Read

• Deepfakes in International Law: Legal Status and Gaps

• International Law and Municipal Law

• The Struggle for an International Constitutional Order

Complementarity or Fragmentation? Systemic Interaction between ICJ and ICC

The coexistence of the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court raises a broader systemic question: do these institutions operate in a complementary manner, reinforcing international accountability, or do they contribute to fragmentation within the international legal order? The answer lies not in formal hierarchy, but in the way their mandates intersect, overlap factually, and diverge normatively.

From a doctrinal perspective, the ICJ and the ICC occupy distinct but adjacent spaces. The ICJ addresses breaches of international obligations attributable to states, while the ICC assesses criminal responsibility attributable to individuals. This separation allows international law to respond to complex situations on multiple levels. State conduct may be scrutinized without dissolving into individual blame, and individuals may be prosecuted without requiring a prior determination of state illegality. In this sense, the two courts can function as complementary mechanisms, each addressing a different dimension of wrongdoing arising from the same factual matrix.

Complementarity, however, is not formally structured between the courts themselves. The principle of complementarity is internal to the ICC and governs the relationship between international criminal jurisdiction and domestic legal systems. No equivalent doctrine governs interaction between the ICJ and the ICC. Neither court is legally bound by the findings of the other, and neither serves as an appellate or preliminary forum for the other. This institutional autonomy preserves judicial independence, but it also creates the possibility of parallel proceedings without coordination.

Parallelism becomes particularly visible in situations involving allegations of mass atrocities. Proceedings before the ICJ may focus on treaty obligations, provisional measures, and the risk of irreparable harm, while ICC proceedings concentrate on jurisdiction, admissibility, and individual culpability. These tracks may unfold simultaneously, sequentially, or independently. The absence of formal coordination mechanisms means that consistency is achieved indirectly, through shared reliance on international legal norms, rather than through procedural integration.

Critics argue that this separation risks fragmentation, especially when outcomes appear misaligned. A finding of state responsibility without subsequent criminal accountability may be perceived as incomplete justice. Conversely, criminal prosecutions in the absence of clear determinations of state illegality may be viewed as politically selective. Yet such perceptions often conflate legal coherence with institutional uniformity. Fragmentation arises when norms conflict or contradict; differentiation arises when norms address different legal questions. The relationship between the ICJ and the ICC falls largely into the latter category.

In practice, the two courts contribute to a layered system of accountability rather than a unified one. The ICJ reinforces the normative framework of international law by clarifying obligations and legal consequences. The ICC reinforces individual accountability by translating those norms into criminal prohibitions enforceable against persons. Their interaction is indirect, mediated through shared legal sources rather than formal institutional linkage.

This arrangement reflects a deliberate choice within international law to avoid concentrating excessive authority in a single judicial body. Decentralization limits coercive power but enhances legitimacy by respecting sovereign equality and procedural autonomy. The resulting system is neither fully integrated nor wholly fragmented. It is pluralistic, operating through parallel institutions that address different aspects of the same legal reality.

Understanding this dynamic is essential to assessing the role of international courts. The ICJ and the ICC do not compete for authority, nor do they complete each other in a mechanical sense. They form part of a broader legal ecosystem in which accountability is dispersed across forums, norms, and actors. The effectiveness of that system depends less on formal coordination than on realistic expectations about what each institution can and cannot achieve within the constraints of international law.

Conclusion: Reassessing the Difference between ICJ and ICC

The Difference between ICJ and ICC is not a matter of institutional branding or procedural nuance; it reflects a foundational division within the structure of international law itself. Each court embodies a distinct response to international wrongdoing, grounded in different legal subjects, normative frameworks, and enforcement logics. Treating them as interchangeable instruments of global justice obscures both their purpose and their limits.

The International Court of Justice operates within the classical paradigm of public international law. It speaks to states, clarifies obligations, and articulates the legal consequences of internationally wrongful acts. Its authority is declaratory and systemic, aimed at preserving the coherence and stability of the legal order rather than punishing misconduct. The International Criminal Court, by contrast, represents a partial departure from state-centrism. It individualizes responsibility, applies criminal sanctions, and seeks to deter the most serious crimes through personal accountability. These mandates are complementary in function, but separate in law.

Reassessing the Difference between ICJ and ICC also requires confronting the persistent tension between law and power. Both courts operate in an environment shaped by sovereign consent, political influence, and uneven compliance. Their perceived shortcomings often reflect structural constraints rather than institutional failure. Criticism that ignores jurisdictional limits and enforcement realities risks misdiagnosing the problem and undermining the credibility of international adjudication as a whole.

The coexistence of the ICJ and the ICC illustrates how modern international law manages complexity through differentiation rather than consolidation. Responsibility and criminal liability are addressed through parallel mechanisms, each calibrated to a specific legal purpose. This dispersion of authority limits coercive capacity, but it also protects legitimacy by preventing the concentration of unchecked judicial power. International justice, in this sense, is not centralized, but plural.

A realistic assessment of international courts must therefore begin with institutional clarity. The ICJ cannot deliver criminal justice, and the ICC cannot resolve inter-state disputes. Expecting either to perform the role of the other invites disappointment and distorts public understanding of international law. When evaluated according to their proper mandates, both courts remain essential components of the international legal system, even as they operate under profound political and structural constraints.

Ultimately, the Difference between ICJ and ICC underscores a broader truth about international law: accountability is fragmented, imperfect, and mediated by power, yet it is not absent. The ICJ and the ICC do not offer a comprehensive solution to global injustice, but together they define the legal contours within which states and individuals are judged. Recognizing their differences is not a concession to cynicism; it is a prerequisite for serious legal analysis and informed debate about the future of international justice.

References

1. Charter of the United Nations, 26 June 1945.

2. International Court of Justice, Statute of the International Court of Justice, annexed to the UN Charter.

3. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998.

4. International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, 2001.

5. Viau, Sarah. The Jurisdictional Basis of the International Criminal Court. Federal Governance, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2004.

6. Belhaj, Ferid. The ICJ, the ICC, the Challenge and Risk of Double Standards. Policy Paper No. 13/25, Policy Center for the New South, 2025.

7. Schabas, William A. An Introduction to the International Criminal Court. Cambridge University Press, latest edition.

8. Cassese, Antonio. International Law. Oxford University Press.

9. Crawford, James. State Responsibility: The General Part. Cambridge University Press.

10. Akande, Dapo. “The Jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.” Journal of International Criminal Justice.

11. Koskenniemi, Martti. From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument. Cambridge University Press.

12. Higgins, Rosalyn. Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford University Press.

13. Rosenblatt, Franklin. “The International Criminal Court and International Court of Justice: Similarities and Differences.” Mississippi College Law Review, 2024.

14. International Court of Justice, Nicaragua v. United States of America (Merits), Judgment.

15. International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar).

16. International Court of Justice, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (South Africa v. Israel).

17. International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Situation in Ukraine.

18. International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, Situation in the State of Palestine.