In the courtroom, Yuji Iwasawa, the Japanese president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), peers alertly over his glasses. Next to him is Jean-Pelé Fomété, the deputy registrar from Cameroon, whose career at the United Nations (UN) began in 1995 in The Hague. Also present is Monique Legerman, the Dutch Head of Information. In 2026, the Court celebrates its 80th anniversary. Shortly after the Second World War, the first sitting took place in this room, marking the beginning of 80 years of international law in the heart of The Hague. Yet, Legerman says she still regularly hears people on the tram to the Peace Palace wondering out loud: “What actually happens there?”

President Iwasawa, how would you answer that question?

“The ICJ settles disputes between States that relate to a wide range of topics of international law,” he says calmly. “This is different from the ICC, the International Criminal Court, which is also based in The Hague and focuses on trying individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. The ICJ is the highest judicial organ of the United Nations and can also provide advice on international law at the request of UN bodies. For example, the UN General Assembly has referred questions to the ICJ about the obligations of States with regard to climate change. The Court concluded in July 2025 that climate change is not only a political challenge but also creates legal obligations for States. So, the function of the ICJ is also to clarify the law in a moving world, enabling States to understand their scope of action.”

Suppose the Netherlands wants to challenge Belgium – how does that proceed?

Deputy Registrar Fomété smiles. “As a representative of the Dutch State, you first go to the registrar of the Court. We assess whether your case has a legal basis to be presented at all. If so, that does not mean that the Netherlands would be successful, but only that proceedings can start. This begins the written phase. Because States are equal before the Court, both parties are given the same amount of time for the submission of the pleadings. This is followed by the oral phase, in which the parties further clarify their positions by arguing in the courtroom. When that phase is completed, the Court’s 15 judges will deliberate. Eventually, the Court will issue a ruling about six months after the written phase and the hearings that follow.”

How do States deal with such a ruling?

Legerman replies, “In almost all cases, they follow the Court’s ruling. In a few, they don’t. Those are really high-profile exceptions, too. Court rulings are binding, but the advisory opinions are not. The latter are widely recognised legal opinions, but it’s up to the requesting UN body or organisation to decide what to do with them. However, you often see States take an opinion from the Court into account because it has important legal and moral value.”

What is the role of the ICJ in the current international environment?

“Our work contributes to resolving disputes between two or more States, and clarifying what the law requires them to do,” says Iwasawa. “In a time of international tension, that is more important than ever.”

Fomété adds: “The ICJ is the most powerful judicial instrument of the UN – there is no higher international judicial organ. We stand for international law, which ensures equality between States. The UN was founded in response to the Second World War with a simple goal: room to prevent future wars. The ICJ serves as a forum for States to reach peaceful solutions to conflicts through international law.”

What are milestones in the Court’s 80-year history?

“In principle, every case is important,” Iwasawa says. “It is precisely the cumulative effort that ensures that the law prevails, that we are not at the mercy of the laws of the jungle. But – considering I have been president since March 2025 – I would like to refer again to the climate ruling. It is a milestone in at least two respects: first, there was historic and unprecedented participation: 96 States and 11 international organisations came here, to The Hague, to present their views at the oral hearing. In those weeks, you could breathe international law here.

UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek.

Second, the advisory opinion extensively describes the obligations of States to ensure the protection of the climate system and the legal consequences that result from violating them. States have obligations under various treaties and customary law. The Court has provided a harmonious interpretation of those obligations. It serves as a clear guide for all States to understand what they have to do, making it clear, for example, that they must act with a strict standard of due diligence to avoid significant damage to the climate system. This procedure is an example of how urgent global issues of our time can be effectively addressed, with international law acting as a framework for the political efforts of States.”

“It is powerful,” says Fomété, “that the idea requesting this opinion originally came from the Vanuatu archipelago and other island states that are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as sea level rise and extreme weather events. Another important case for me, as a young Cameroonian, was a border dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria, and for many it was a source of satisfaction that a Court ruling finally ended that dispute.”

What is the Court’s connection with the city of The Hague?

“There is a lot of collaboration with the municipality and Foreign Affairs,” says Fomété. “The mayor is a great representative of the city – also internationally. I believe there should be greater communication about The Hague’s role as the world capital of peace and justice. Hague Project Peace and Justice, an initiative of the municipality and Foreign Affairs, can play an important role in this. The project includes a network of 180 organisations and initiatives based in the city, all dedicated to promoting peace and justice. These institutions include the Court, NGOs, knowledge institutions, citizens’ initiatives and journalists. Such collaboration advances common goals and can raise awareness. Residents of The Hague should be proud of the positive global influence of their city.”

What is your hope for the future?

“When you look at the portraits of the presidents here where the judges meet before entering the courtroom,” Legerman says, “it’s striking that there are only two women among them. There could be more.” She smiles. “At the same time, I hope that young students remain both realistic and hopeful as they pursue a career in international law. It’s a competitive world, but in a city like The Hague, there are already many more opportunities than elsewhere. Every year, we run a programme where 15 students from all over the world are selected to work alongside the 15 judges at the Court for a year. The learning possibilities are endless.”

From left to right: Monique Legerman, Head of Information, Yuji Iwasawa, President of the International Court of Justice, and Jean-Pelé Fomété, Deputy Registrar.

“There is a paradox,” Iwasawa says. “On the one hand, it is a good sign that the workload at the Court is increasing, because that means that the law is gaining influence. On the other, the reality is that we only have 125 employees who are working from sunrise to sunset – and often later – and more budget is desirable. It will also be beneficial for peace and justice if more countries recognised the Court’s jurisdiction.”

“Communication is crucial,” says Fomété. “We are a global organ. If you want to make the Court’s rulings accessible to the whole world – despite the communication challenges – you need millions of pages of translations, and more people to know what the ICJ stands for and what is happening. Greater recognition of the ICJ means moving closer to the initial goal from 80 years ago: resolving disputes through the law and not through war.”

www.icj-cij.org/home