Is there a Role for Intervening States in Inducing Compliance with Decisions of the International Court of Justice?

Compliance with decisions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is traditionally viewed as a matter of private interest affecting exclusively the parties in dispute; it is for the main parties to assess compliance and, if the need arises, decide on measures of self-help or seek the involvement of the Security Council, of other political organs or of the Court itself. However, in a growing number of cases where contentious proceedings touch upon general interests of the international community, arguably, compliance also becomes an issue of common concern. This article firstly discusses the traditional approach to compliance with the Court’s decisions, which is restricted to the main parties. Secondly, it looks specifically at recent developments concerning intervention under Art. 63 ICJ Statute, which confirm the readiness of third States, other than the parties to the proceedings, to accept the binding force of judgments in order to uphold respect for erga omnes obligations, assessing the possible role of intervener States – under both Art. 63 and Art. 62 ICJ Statute – in facilitating compliance.