The Rule of Law in Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice

The concept of the rule of law is important both for the domestic law of States and in international law. In practice, some difficulties arise due to the lack of an accurate definition of its content. There is an opinion that it is easier to refer to this concept than to define its content. The problem is indicated in the documents of the United Nations (UN). The UN General Assembly resolution of 16 September 2005, in the section devoted to the rule of law principle, emphasizes the need for its universal observance and application both in national legal systems and in international law. The documents adopted under the auspices of the UN also highlight an important role played by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the implementation of this concept. Uniform and impartial application of law by the court is a reflection of the idea of the rule of law. All the activities of the ICJ as one of the main UN bodies serve to strengthen and promote this concept. By adopting decisions and advisory opinions, the Court contributes to clarifying and strengthening the influence of international law on relations between States. The development of the idea of the rule of law also affects activities of UN bodies, increasing predictability of their activities. In its practice, the ICJ gives it exceptional legitimacy and a broad scope of action, due to which the rule of law contributes to the implementation of the goals and principles of the UN. The Court’s contribution to the promotion of the concept is particularly noticeable in the framework of ongoing activities for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, clarification and dissemination of international law and its application on an equal basis to all subjects.

1. Avtonomov AS. Mezhdunarodnye standarty verkhovenstva prava i ikh otrazhenie v konstitutsionnom printsipe razdeleniya vlasti [International standards of the rule of law and their reflection in the constitutional principle of separation of powers]. Public Law Today. 2022;4(14):29-64. (In Russ.).

2. Klyuchnikov AYu. O verifikatsii gosudarstvami resheniy mezhdunarodnykh sudov [On verification by States of decisions of international courts]. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research. 2018;49(4):169-176. (In Russ.).

3. Klyuchnikov AYu. O pravotvorcheskoy roli mezhdunarodnykh sudov [On the law-making role of international courts]. Russian Justice. 2018;6(146):47-53 (In Russ.).

4. Klyuchnikov AYu. Osnovnye podkhody k opredeleniyu kompetentsii mezhdunarodnymi sudami [The main approaches to the definition of competence by international courts]. Tyumen State University Herald. Social, Economic, and Law Research. 2019;5(3):128-143. (In Russ.).

5. Lukyanova E A. O verkhovenstve prava i o rossiyskoy vneshney politike [On the rule of law and on Russian foreign policy]. Trudy po rossievedeniiu. 2014;5:303-326. (In Russ.).

6. Malinovsky A, Tricoz E. Mezhdunarodnoe dogovornoe normotvorchestvo kak politicheskiy protsess [International treaty rulemaking as a political process]. International Trends [Mezhdunarodnye protsessy]. 2020;18-2(61):6-30. (In Russ.).

7. Fomin AA. Sudebnoe poznanie i istina v svete realizatsii konstitutsionnykh printsipov sostyazatelnosti i prezumptsii nevinovnosti [Judicial cognition and truth in the light of the implementation of the constitutional principles of competition and the presumption of innocence]. Modern Society and Law. 2016;4(25):39-44. (In Russ.).

8. Chirkin VE. Pravovoe gosudarstvo i verkhovenstvo prava: yazyk i soderzhanie [The rechtsstaat and the rule of law: the language and content]. The rule of law and the rule of law: language and content]. State and Law. 2016;9:5-10. (In Russ.).

9. Dicey AV. Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution, Indianapolis, reprint, originally published: 8th ed. London; 1915.

10. Dworkin R. A Matter of Principle. Oxford; 1985.

11. Fuller LL. The morality of law. Warsaw; 1978.

12. Raz J. The authority of law. Warsaw; 2000.

13. Talamon S. Jus Cogens after Germany v. Italy: Substantive and Procedural Rules Distinguished. Leiden Journal of International Law. 2012;25(4):979-1002.