International Law

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) bases its decisions on the provisions of its Statute. Articles 59, 38, and 38(1) play key roles in guiding how the ICJ resolves disputes such as between Novara and Elderia.
Article 59:
This article states that decisions of the ICJ are binding only between the parties involved in the case and only with respect to that particular dispute. It also clarifies that the Court's decisions do not have binding precedent effect on other cases.
Implication: While Novara wants the court to follow past rulings, Article 59 means that those previous decisions are not strictly binding precedent but may be considered as persuasive authority.
Article 38:
This is the primary article listing the sources of international law that the ICJ must apply when deciding cases. It includes treaties, international customs, general principles of law, judicial decisions, and teachings of the most qualified publicists.
Implication: The Court will apply established sources of international law, rather than being bound strictly by previous decisions.
Article 38(1):
It specifically enumerates the sources that the ICJ uses to decide cases:
(a) International conventions or treaties
(b) International custom as evidence of a general practice accepted as law
(c) General principles of law recognized by civilized nations
(d) Judicial decisions and teachings as subsidiary means for determination of rules of law
Implication: Judicial decisions (past ICJ rulings) are treated as subsidiary or supplementary means and are not binding law. The Court can interpret the law afresh by relying on treaties, customs, and principles, supported by prior judicial decisions.
Conclusion:
In the dispute, the ICJ will primarily apply relevant treaties, customs, and legal principles according to Article 38(1). Past rulings cited by Novara may guide the Court but are not binding due to Article 59. Elderia’s insistence on fresh interpretation is consistent with the ICJ’s role to apply law independently based on the case’s facts and applicable law.

Erga omnes obligations are obligations owed by states towards the international community as a whole. These obligations include the protection of fundamental human rights and the prevention of serious crimes like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
In the case of human rights violations and genocide within a nation's borders, under erga omnes obligations:
The international community has a collective legal responsibility to act, regardless of whether there is a direct threat to neighboring states.
This may include condemning the violations, imposing sanctions, or intervening through diplomatic, economic, or military means to stop the atrocities.
The principle ensures that states cannot remain passive or silent when grave breaches of human rights occur anywhere.
It also justifies international criminal prosecutions and actions by international bodies like the United Nations.
Thus, erga omnes obligations compel all states and international organizations to take measures to prevent and punish human rights violations like genocide, emphasizing the universality of human rights protection.

Opinio juris is a fundamental element of customary international law. It represents the belief held by states that a certain practice is carried out of a sense of legal obligation, not merely out of habit or convenience. This belief helps distinguish legally binding customs from mere general practices, preventing unwanted or casual practices from being recognized as law.
Statement 1 is correct because opinio juris ensures only those practices carried out with a sense of legal duty become customary law.
Statement 2 correctly defines opinio juris as the belief that an action is performed because it is legally obligatory.
Therefore, both statements are correct.

Amicus Curiae literally means “friend of the court.” This person is not a party to the case but is appointed by the court to offer expertise or insight that is relevant to the issues in the case. The amicus curiae does not represent any of the litigants; instead, their role is to assist the court by providing neutral, expert opinions on complex matters such as environmental science, constitutional interpretation, or public policy.
In this case, the Supreme Court appointed an amicus curiae to navigate the complex scientific and policy details of the environmental dispute. The expert offered valuable, unbiased input which helped the Court make an informed decision.