Newsletter

The ICJ is the main judicial authority defined in the Charter of the UN

The ICJ(International Court of Justice) is the principal judicial organ of the UN, as stated in Chapter 14 (92) of the Charter of the UN. Established in 1945 to resolve legal disputes between countries under international law, the ICJ is one of the six major institutions of the UN and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.

The ICJ makes judicial decisions about disputes between countries, and there is binding in the ruling. Statute of the ICJ is attached to the UN Charter, and all member states of the UN are naturally parties to the present Statute. Even if it is not a member of the UN, the General Assembly may, on the recommendation of the Security Council, be determined as a party to the present Statute.

The ICJ consists of 15 judges. They shall be elected for nine years and may be re-elected; provided, however, that of the judges elected at the first election, the terms of five judges shall expire at the end of three years and the terms of five more judges shall expire at the end of six years. Thus the Court is replaced by five people every three years.

The judges are regionally distributed, with four Asian, three African, four European, two Latin American, two North American and two Australian as of 2020. Currently, there are no Korean judges among those 15, while Japan has one(Iwasawa Yūji). If a national titular judge with the nationality of the disputed party is on either side, a national ad hoc judge can be appointed only for a particular case.

Consent of optional clause and the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ

The most important thing in the ICJ lawsuit is the jurisdiction of the judge, presupposing the state's consent. It does not mean that being a party to Statute of the ICJ accepts the jurisdiction of the ICJ. Countries avoid legal disputes being referred to the ICJ as much as possible. The country that accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ is only 74 countries as of 2020.

The jurisdiction of the judge is established by concluding a special agreement to refer a dispute to the court between each country, an agreement on the obligation of the trial including a compromissory clause in the treaty, and a party to Statute of the ICJ's unilateral acceptance of the optional claim.

The term ‘optional clause’ in Article 36 (2) means the following: The interpretation of the treaty, the problems in international law, the existence of international obligation violations at the time of proof, and the declaration of intent to accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ in all legal disputes related to the nature and scope of compensation when violating international obligations, and if the Secretary-General of the UN is entrusted, the jurisdiction of the ICJ applies to countries that have declared acceptance of the same jurisdiction, even if there is no special agreement.
It is recognized that the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ is exercised among countries that have accepted the optional clause. However, the optional clause is arbitrarily chosen by the country that has joined the ICJ Statute, and the majority of the countries add the deadline and reservation to the acceptance declaration.

A view of the ICJ in Hague, Netherlands
- Source: Website of ICJ

Japan's complaint to the ICJ is an attempt to invade Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo

Since the Korean government declared a peace line on January 18, 1952, Japan has begun to make claims to invade Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo. This is essentially based on Japanese colonialism, and the ultimate intention of this constant claim of Dokdo is an advanced strategy for winning at the ICJ trial with arbitrary jurisdiction as a principle.

Japan had a flaw in international law in the Terra Nullius Theory of 1905, replacing their claim with the 17th century Inherent Territory Theory. However, due to the limitations of the conflict between the two theories, they again converted their argument to The Treaty of San Francisco Approval in 1951. It is necessary to note that the claim of Dokdo is concluded by establishing an international legal argument that justifies fundamental, historical, and treaty.

Moreover, Japan has established the following three-step strategic policy frame for a long time to overcome the obvious errors and limitations of the intertemporal law under international law that they have claimed.

- Step 1: The Korean·Japanese Fisheries Agreement(1965) to replace the peace line
- Step 2: The unilateral destruction of the Japanese government, which is in the process of currency crisis in Korea,
- Step 3: The Korean·Japanese Fisheries Agreement(1998)

And we should not overlook that they are strengthening international legal titles. International legal title means all forms of evidence to establish the existence of rights in relation to territorial sovereignty, and both the realistic grounds of rights. The right to lack a legitimate, legal title is untenable. Therefore, Japan's claim to Dokdo, which lacks a legitimate title, is an illegal invasion and provocation of Korea's sovereignty over Dokdo.

In 1954, when Japan filed a lawsuit against the ICJ, the Korean government has already declared its willingness to defend the sovereignty of Dokdo. Now, it is important to establish long-term, comprehensive and systematic countermeasures to improve this.

First, Japan's offer of referral to the ICJ is just another false attempt to disguise judicial proceedings. Korea has the sovereignty over Dokdo, so there is no reason why Korea should prove this right in the ICJ.
Second, the sovereignty of Korea was phased out by Japanese imperialism until 1910. In 1904, Japan acquired substantial control over Korea with the 'Korea-Japan Treatment of 1904' and 'First Korea-Japan Convention' signed by coercion.
Third, Dokdo is the first victim of Japanese invasion of Korea. Japan's irrational and persistent claim to Dokdo makes Koreans doubt that Japan is attempting to invade Korea again.
Fourth, Dokdo is not just a small island in the East Sea, but a symbol of Korean sovereignty.

Dokdo, a symbol of territorial sovereignty of the Republic of Korea. Japan's illegal claims about this have no legal grounds and reasons to accept it as an international law. In the future, we will have to preemptively identify the international legal errors and violations of the Japanese claim that put international law ahead.