The ICJ: Permanent Court Of International Justice

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 ABOUT ICJ
The ICJ is not the first world court; it is the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice. The PCIJ began operations in 1922, and at its peak in the late 1920s and early 1930s issued about two judgments on contentious cases per year. However, it gradually lost relevance for governments beset by the problems created by the worldwide depression and the rise of fascism. By the late 1930s the PCIJ, like the League of Nations, had become irrelevant and it was not used at all during World War II. The founders of the United Nations resurrected the PCIJ, albeit with a new name, in the hope that a world court would operate more successfully if backed by the United Nations, which was designed to be a stronger

The Political and ideological divisions of world society cause a crisis of confidence in the court.
2. Only a handful states have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the court.
3. States are reluctant to submit their disputes to the jurisdiction of the ICJ. States prefer the non-judicial means to resolve the dispute rather than by the court applying positive international law. For e.g. negotiation, mediation, conciliations.
4. Independent states are jealous of their sovereignty and skeptical about leaving control over their affairs to third parties.
5. The International Court of Justice reflects western tradition of dispute resolution while at the same time nations had grown into different sorts of culture
6. It is argued that the International Court of Justice suffers from structural deficiencies. Many newly independent states argue that the traditional international law is biased towards European and American states
7. The ICJ is also criticized on the basis of customary law. Customary is law is nothing more than a law which had taken the form of custom but initially imposed by some handful powerful states.
8. Having ICJ seems to be a good idea but nations provide little support to resolve matters through

The French Government was of the opinion that for safety reasons it would be desirable for the two governments involved trying and reaching an agreement to resolve the problem. As a result the Paris Conference of 1910 was convened; the tendency of the conference did not adopt the idea of ‘freedom of the air’ but was in favor of the sovereignty of states in the space above their territories, which was reflected on the draft convention at the plenary session of the