Could you please read my essay and give me some feedback?
The prompt is:
Tension exists in global politics between the possibility of independent and powerful global organizations and the primacy of state sovereignty. Such tension is common for many international organizations that are established to promote international justice and uphold international law.
How does this tension affect the functioning of the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court?
Thank you in advance
The city of The Hague in the Netherlands is at the heart of controversies concerning the international legal system because the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have their headquarters in this little European country. The relatively new international legal system has aimed at adjudicating the international law within the framework of global politics. However, due to the fact that the international legal system is still in the early stages of its developmental process, it is on the way to maturity through the enlargement and improvement of institutions and attitudes that are necessary for adjudication. Although International Governmental Organizations such as the ICJ and ICC have played an increasing role on the world stage, those independent and powerful international organizations have to face up to the influential power of the primacy of state sovereignty in global politics that give rise to impediments to the effectiveness of international courts.
First, the ICJ and the ICC are faced with their jurisdictional limits. For instance, in theory, the ICJ has the authority to settle all international legal disputes as soon as states submit legal matters between them or when one of the many organizations belonging to the United Nations seeks for an advisory opinion as regards legal disagreements. The jurisdiction of the ICC is more specialized in the field of international criminality. That domain encompasses the adjudication of disagreements concerning wars of aggression, genocides. The ICC is also in charge of the adjudication of disputes concerning commit "widespread and systematic" crimes that may have been perpetrated by "state, organization, or group policy" during periods of international and internal wars. Although the original goal is laudable, many states now avoid submitting decisions to the ICJ, litigate cases before it, or even abide by its decisions. Indeed, states can choose not to assert their compliance to the ICJ thanks to their adherence to the "optional clause", which notifies a state's agreement to be subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. States can also challenge the authority of the ICC by refusing the possibility that its troops can be investigated, charged, or prosecuted in cases of complaints. Consequently, the jurisdiction of international courts is faced with the potent barriers imposed by the state sovereignty. Indeed, the international legal system is now in a position where it can only adjudicate cases on condition that states accept to be willing to engage in a legal process.
Second, the ICJ and the ICC are also faced with the unwillingness of some states to submit to their decisions. The prime concern of the international courts lies in the fact that they depend on the voluntarily compliance of states to their jurisdiction. For example, some countries are clearly reluctant to accept and follow decisions that are issued by the international courts. Moreover, and unfortunately for them, international courts does not benefit from a powerful executive branch that could have the power to enforce decrees emanating from the courts. For example, as the ICJ executive branch, the UN Secretariat does not have the physical power to enforce ICJ judgments. Indeed, owing to the relative novelty of the international legal system, despite the desire of most to promote justice, not all countries and political leaders have decided to provide the executive branches with both authority and power yet. Furthermore, the UN does not have the means to compel states, even those who signed treaties claiming their willingness to conform to the international law, to give the executive branches coercive means to enforce the decisions of the international judiciary.
Finally, the city of The Hague will witness confrontations about issues related to the authority of international courts and the power of executive branches. The settlement of the dispute about the lack of enforcement of international legal decisions will certainly last for many years. Indeed, the desire of the USA to play a hegemonic role on the international stage will be a severe impediment to a resolution of this issue. However, the increase in cases that are tried by international courts since their creation has evidenced the fact that states are more and more willing to utilize them, such the ICJ and ICC, to accept their decisions. Although the international system court is still primitive and experiences difficulties in the enforcement of its judgments, the international legal system has begun to find its niche within global politics. As a matter of fact, despite the international court system may be criticized on its form or functions, it seemingly assumes a consensus between states to settle disputes concerning international relations.