Legality of the security council action: does the international court of justice move to take up the challenge of judicial review?

Abstract

There is absolutely no question that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been endorsed with the similar jurisdiction to the one enjoyed by a national constitutional court. No express authorization is stipulated in the UN Charter that the ICJ could examine the legality of the Security Council’s decisions. The General Assembly and/or the Security Council may, however, seek advisory opinion from the ICJ in matters associated with the legal questions. This article examines whether the ICJ has implied power to conduct judicial review in matters undertaken by the Security Council where legal questions are involved. In the beginning of the 1990s the question of judicial review of the decisions of the Security Council has got heightened importance in the scholarly debate, especially with regard to the Lockerbie incident. The view of the ICJ over time slightly moved, however, particularly with one of the Judge’s conviction to invoke principle of jus cogens in the Bosnia-Herzegovina case. Whether the application of Article 103 of the Charter does have any relevance in conceiving the principle of jus cogens in a conflicting resolution of the Security Council has been a matter of fundamental debate. Although, the ICJ has not clearly made any statement regarding judicial competence to review a Security Council decision which conflicts with the norm of jus cogens, the idea of raising the issue of jus cogens suggests an increase in the Court’s competence to provide an opinion on a Security Council resolution adopted under Chapter VII of the Charter.