← Back to home← Indo-Aryan Languages

2023 International Court Of Justice Judges Election

The 2023 election for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was a procedural ballet, a rather predictable affair held on the ninth of November, precisely where all the bureaucratic theatrics tend to unfold: at the United Nations Headquarters in New York City. It was one of those triennial rituals, a synchronized dance between the General Assembly and the Security Council, where five new arbiters of global law were chosen to serve nine-year terms. This isn't about finding the best, you understand. It's about ticking boxes and maintaining a semblance of order.

Background

The International Court of Justice, perched rather stoically in The Hague, is, for all intents and purposes, the judicial crown jewel of the United Nations. It’s composed of fifteen judges, a rotating panel where a fifth are replaced every three years. Should one of them, for whatever reason – a sudden existential crisis, or perhaps just the indignity of continued service – depart before their term is up, a replacement is swiftly appointed to finish out the remainder. These aren't just legal minds; they are expected to be paragons of independence and impartiality. No dabbling in politics, no administrative meddling, and certainly no waving the flag for their home nations. The rules of this particular game are laid out in articles two through fifteen of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, a document I’m sure is riveting.

As of February 2024, the terms of five judges were set to expire. This included Joan Donoghue from the United States, who, rather inconveniently, was also the President of the Court. Then there was Kirill Gevorgian from Russia, holding the position of Vice-President. Rounding out the departing cohort were Mohamed Bennouna of Morocco, Patrick Robinson of Jamaica, and Hilary Charlesworth of Australia. All were, of course, eligible for re-election. Because why change a winning formula, especially when the formula is about as exciting as watching paint dry?

Composition of the Court

Before this particular electoral exercise, the Court’s roster looked something like this. A collection of individuals, each with their own carefully curated tenure:

Candidates

Qualifications

Article 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice lays out the rather lofty requirements for these judicial positions. Candidates must possess "high moral character," a prerequisite that, in my experience, is often interpreted with a generous dose of political expediency. They also need the qualifications for the highest judicial offices in their respective countries, or be "jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law." Essentially, they need to be either top judges or legal scholars of significant repute. Whether "recognized competence" translates to actual competence is, as always, a matter for debate.

Nomination Procedure

The process for getting one's name on the ballot is a convoluted affair. Any State Party to the ICJ Statute can propose candidates. However, the actual nominations are channeled through groups associated with the Permanent Court of Arbitration. These groups, acting as "national groups," can nominate up to four candidates, with the caveat that no more than two can be of their own nationality. To ensure a veneer of thoroughness, these national groups are advised to consult their highest courts, their legal faculties, and their esteemed academies. It's a system designed to sound rigorous, but it's ultimately a pipeline for pre-selected individuals.

2023 Nominees

The candidates put forward for this election were, predictably, distributed among the UN's informal regional groupings. It’s less about merit, more about geopolitical ballet.

  • Africa

  • Eastern Europe

  • GRULAC (Latin American and Caribbean Group)

  • WEOG (Western European and Others Group)

    • Vacancy: Joan Donoghue and Hilary Charlesworth
    • Candidates: Sarah Cleveland (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Czechia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Guatemala, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Somalia, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States), Hilary Charlesworth (Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Latvia, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Romania, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States).

Procedure

The election itself is a two-tiered affair, conducted simultaneously and independently by the General Assembly and the Security Council. To secure a seat, a candidate requires an absolute majority in both bodies. Currently, that translates to 97 votes in the Assembly and 8 in the Council. They don't even bother distinguishing between permanent and non-permanent members in the Council; everyone gets a vote, theoretically.

If the initial ballot doesn't produce five clear winners in either body, they keep voting. And voting. And voting. If, by some miracle, more than five candidates surpass the majority threshold in the first round, they hold more rounds until only five remain with the requisite votes. Once one body has its list of five, the president notifies the president of the other. The second body, however, is supposed to keep its own counsel until it, too, has identified its five. Only then are the lists compared. Anyone who appears on both is in.

If, after this elaborate dance, there are still vacancies, they move to a second, and if necessary, a third round of balloting, again independently. The results are then compared again. It's a meticulously crafted process designed to appear democratic, while ensuring a degree of consensus, or perhaps, more accurately, a shared reluctance to rock the boat too aggressively.

Should the impasse persist after three rounds, a joint conference is formed, composed of six members – three appointed by each organ. This conference, by an absolute majority, can propose names for the remaining seats. If they're unanimous, they can even put forward candidates not originally nominated, provided they meet the eligibility criteria. This joint conference, thankfully, has never been convened. It seems the Assembly and Council prefer to keep their tedious balloting going until, through sheer exhaustion or strategic withdrawals, they manage to agree.

In the highly improbable scenario where even this fails, the judges already elected get to pick from the remaining candidates who received votes in either the Assembly or the Council. The oldest judge breaks any ties. This, too, has remained a theoretical possibility, never actualized. The system, for all its complexity, usually manages to cobble together a result, however uninspired.

Results

The voting, conducted by secret ballot, was as follows. The General Assembly managed to get its five in one go, a testament to their collective decisiveness, or perhaps their ability to follow the script. The Security Council, however, required five rounds, proving, as ever, that consensus is a hard-won, and often tedious, commodity.

The elected judges were:

Those who narrowly missed the mark, or perhaps were never really in the running, included:

The data speaks for itself, if you care to look:

Candidate General Assembly majority = 97 Security Council majority = 8 Round 1 9 Nov 2023 Round 1 9 Nov 2023 Round 2 9 Nov 2023 Round 3 9 Nov 2023 Round 4 9 Nov 2023 Round 5 9 Nov 2023
Juan Manuel Gómez Robledo Verduzco 143 14 13 14 14 13
Sarah Cleveland 135 14 14 13 13 12
Bogdan Aurescu 117 9 10 9 9 9
Hilary Charlesworth 117 11 11 11 10 9
Dire Tladi 113 8 8 10 12 10
Ahmed Amin Fathallah 81 8 8 9 8 7
Chaloka Beyani 81 4 2 2 1 1
Kirill Gevorgian 77 6 5 6 6 5
Antoine Kesia-Mbe Mindua 65 1 1 1 2 2

Sources: [6], [7]

And so, the cycle continues. New faces, same old procedures, same predictable outcomes. It’s a performance of justice, really, more than justice itself.

International Court of Justice (ICJ)