Islamic Law States and the Authority of the International Court of Justice: TerritorialSovereignty and Diplomatic Immunity

The principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN)—the International Court of Justice (ICJ)—adjudicates interstate disputes and issues advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies. The Court has contributed to the peaceful resolution of disputes by delivering justice in a variety of issue areas including territorial sovereignty, maritime delimitation, and diplomatic relations. Throughout its history, the ICJ has strived to transform its formal authority, as established in its Statute, into authority in fact. Hypothetically, such transformation would occur if countries not only recognized the Court’s jurisdiction, but also acknowledged that the ICJ’s rulings impose an obligation to comply. However, distinct features of the ICJ’s jurisdiction make it almost impossible for the Court to establish authority over the entire zone of its jurisdiction. Additionally, perhaps more so than other international courts (ICs) addressed in this issue, the ICJ operates in an environment with attractive litigation alternatives that siphon cases away from it. Finally, the ICJ is not always accepted as an authoritative adjudicator by its potential audience, especially if one considers the broad range of substantive areas of law that might be seen as falling under the ICJ’s formal jurisdiction. This article considers Islamic law states (ILS) as a least likely case for ICJ authority. The Court—already constrained by its specific jurisdictional design