Historically, international courts have played a marginal role in major geopolitical conflicts. Their influence was limited to disputes with narrow legal parameters. However, recent developments show a growing reliance on these institutions to address complex international disputes. This trend reflects a significant shift in how states and international actors perceive the role of judicial mechanisms in global conflict resolution.
Two primary factors can explain this change. The first is the substantive expansion of international law, which has created binding legal obligations across diverse fields such as human rights, environmental law, and the law of armed conflict. With these obligations present in general convention, often come jurisdictional clauses, enabling disputes to be heard by international courts. The second factor is an increasing willingness among states to use international courts as a strategic tool. By bringing disputes before international judicial bodies, states seek not only legal remedies but also moral and political validation with regard to another state’s conduct, often shaping global narratives and public opinion in the process.
The cases of Gaza and Ukraine provide compelling illustrations of this phenomenon, showing how international courts like the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) are being utilized to exert pressure on states and decision-makers. This essay argues that, even when not enforced, decisions by international courts in major geopolitical conflicts play an important role in shaping the narratives of the actors involved.
The Decisions of International Courts in the Gaza Conflict
In December 2023, South Africa filed a case against Israel at the ICJ under the 1948 Genocide Convention, alleging that Israel’s actions in Gaza constituted violations of international law. As the conflict intensified, the ICJ issued three binding provisional measures. These measures directed Israel to refrain from actions that could breach the Convention and to halt its military offensive due to the risk of violating the treaty. These rulings marked a significant moment in the legal dimension of the Gaza conflict, drawing global attention and prompting several states to intervene in the proceedings.
The actions before the ICJ did not stop there. In July 2024, the Court issued an advisory opinion requested by the UN General Assembly, declaring Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory unlawful. It ordered Israel to cease its occupation immediately and held that the state was obligated to provide “reparation for the damage caused to all the natural or legal persons concerned in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”. This ruling, although advisory in nature, carried significant political weight, reinforcing the legal argument against Israel’s actions and placing it under increasing international scrutiny.
Simultaneously, the ICC became involved in the conflict. In November 2024, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and Yoav Gallant, accusing them of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed during the Gaza conflict. Although not final, these decisions are an indication that the ICC Prosecutor found enough evidence to initiate a case against individuals allegedly responsible for international crimes.
The decisions of International Courts in the Ukraine Conflict
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has addressed Ukraine’s conflict with Russia through two significant legal cases brought by Ukraine. These cases reflect Ukraine’s efforts to hold Russia accountable for its actions under international law.
First, in 2017, Ukraine initiated proceedings against Russia based on the Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (ICSFT) and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). These claims focused on Russia’s activities in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula following its annexation of Crimea in 2014. In January 2024, the ICJ delivered its judgment. Under the ICSFT, the Court found that Russia had failed to meet its obligation to investigate information provided by Ukraine concerning individuals accused of financing terrorist activities. Regarding CERD, the ICJ ruled that Russia had violated the Convention through its implementation of policies in Crimea, particularly in restricting the use of the Ukrainian language in schools. Additionally, the Court condemned Russia for exacerbating the dispute and for disregarding the provisional measures previously ordered.
Second, in 2022, Ukraine launched a separate case against Russia under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. This case directly challenged one of Russia’s primary justifications for its full-scale invasion of Ukraine—an alleged genocide against Russian-speaking populations in eastern Ukraine. Ukraine sought to refute these claims and requested the Court to declare Russia’s invasion unlawful. In March 2022, the ICJ issued provisional measures, ordering Russia to immediately suspend its military operations in Ukraine. More than 20 states intervened in the proceedings. Despite the legally binding nature of these measures, Russia has consistently ignored them.
On the criminal side, the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber II issued arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, accusing them of war crimes, including the unlawful deportation of Ukrainian children. Like the ICC’s actions in Gaza, these warrants impose legal and diplomatic restrictions on the individuals named, limiting their ability to travel and conduct international diplomacy freely.
The Impact and Limitations of International Judicial Actions
The two cases demonstrate a strategic use of international conventions to address major geopolitical conflicts. While the cases do not directly target the core of the controversy between the states – centered primarily on the legality of the use of force – they reflect a calculated effort to leverage international courts and tribunals to shape narratives, influence the parties involved in the conflict, and sway the broader international community. Despite the judicial decisions, neither the ICJ’s provisional measures nor the ICC’s arrest warrants have succeeded in deterring Russia or Israel from continuing their actions. This raises a fundamental question: what purpose do these courts and their decisions serve if compliance cannot be enforced?
Two key arguments illustrate the enduring value of international courts in major geopolitical conflicts.
First, international courts play a crucial role in shaping both legal and moral narratives. By formally acknowledging violations of international law, their rulings – even preliminary ones – frame non-compliant states as defying established legal norms. This damages their legitimacy and reputation on the global stage, influencing how other states and international actors perceive them. For instance, the ICC’s arrest warrants for Vladimir Putin and Benjamin Netanyahu impose both practical and symbolic constraints, restricting their ability to travel freely and complicating diplomatic engagements. Putin’s absence from the 2024 G20 summit and his likely absence from the 2025 BRICS summit in Brazil demonstrate the broader diplomatic consequences of these legal actions.
Second, international justice operates on extended timelines, reflecting the intricate nature of global disputes. While progress may seem slow, prolonged non-compliance gradually undermines a state’s legitimacy and creates mounting pressure for eventual accountability. Over time, states may be forced to negotiate reparations or resolve disputes in ways that integrate court decisions into the outcome. For instance, Israel will likely have to confront the genocide allegations brought by South Africa, while Russia will eventually face accountability for disregarding ICJ orders. These rulings frequently influence the structure of peace agreements or post-conflict settlements, embedding international legal principles into future resolutions.
Other cases before the International Court of Justice might serve as an example of these strategic use of litigation with broader political interest in relation to major conflicts. The case of Syria in relation to the Convention against Torture moved by Canada and the Netherlands or the case of Gambia against Myanmar with regard to the violation of the Genocide Convention can be read under the same lens.
The growing role of international courts in geopolitical conflicts reflects broader shifts in global governance and the enforcement of international law. These courts now go beyond merely adjudicating narrow legal disputes; they actively influence perceptions of the legality and legitimacy of state conducts. Additionally, they provide platforms for other states to articulate legal arguments. While enforcement challenges persist, the impact of international courts extends far beyond the immediate outcomes of cases. Their decisions shape international discourses, reinforce the interpretation of certain rules and establish a foundation for eventual accountability. Ultimately, their true effectiveness will only become evident over time, as these conflicts evolve, and the role of legal accountability takes center stage.
