Picture: The Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands – dwelling of the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (Picture: Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ)
On 5 November 2025, I interviewed Decide Yuji Iwasawa, President of the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice. It was a wide-ranging dialog through which we mentioned, amongst different issues, Iwasawa’s priorities for his Presidency, the rising quantity and complexity of the Courtroom’s caseload and the challenges and alternatives at present going through the worldwide authorized order. The interview has been edited and condensed for publication.
President of the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice, Decide Yuji Iwasawa (Picture: Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ)
I start by asking Iwasawa how he got here to be a choose, and in the end President, on the Worldwide Courtroom of Justice (ICJ). The place did his curiosity in worldwide regulation come from? ‘Properly, I used to be to start with curious about worldwide relations. And since I’ve a scientific thoughts, the logic of regulation appealed to me. And thus it was pure for me that I grew to become curious about worldwide regulation.’
Iwasawa’s curiosity in worldwide regulation has led to a various and distinguished profession on this subject. He has labored in academia, primarily as Professor of Worldwide Legislation on the College of Tokyo, and as a practitioner at a number of worldwide our bodies and organisations, together with as chairperson of the United Nations Human Rights Committee and as a choose on the Asian Growth Financial institution Administrative Tribunal.
In 2018, following the resignation of his compatriot Decide Hisashi Owada, Iwasawa was elected as a choose to the ICJ by the United Nations’ Member States. He was re-elected in 2020 to serve a full nine-year time period from 2021-2030. I ask Iwasawa what made him determine to run for election in 2018. ‘On the time, I used to be a tutorial educating worldwide regulation, and the ICJ, in fact, is a vital establishment in worldwide regulation. I noticed serving as an ICJ choose, if given the chance, as a useful solution to contribute to the event of worldwide regulation and the strengthening of the worldwide authorized order.’
I’m curious to know the way Iwasawa discovered the election course of. The calls for of worldwide election campaigns can come as a shock to candidates from outdoors the diplomatic world. A lot of the people interviewed on this collection admitted they hadn’t loved their election experiences. Particularly, Iwasawa’s compatriot Decide Tomoko Akane, President of the Worldwide Felony Courtroom, famous that the discomfort was particularly acute for Japanese candidates as a result of ‘[i]n Japan, there isn’t a tradition of selling oneself.’ Iwasawa doesn’t touch upon his personal marketing campaign however observes that ‘the election course of has modified in recent times. Every time it’s extra aggressive. There are extra candidates, a number of from the identical area, all of whom are extremely certified.’
And what has Iwasawa discovered to be probably the most rewarding a part of being an ICJ choose? ‘It’s most gratifying to see the work of the ICJ contributing to the peaceable settlement of disputes between States and to the clarification of their authorized obligations. And, on a distinct observe, seeing the Courtroom’s choices and the separate opinions of particular person judges recurrently being learn and analysed rigorously by States and commentators. It’s attention-grabbing to comply with States’ reactions to our choices and to learn commentators’ evaluations of our work.’
***
In March this yr, following Decide Nawaf Salam’s resignation to turn out to be Prime Minister of Lebanon, Iwasawa was elected President by his fellow judges on the ICJ. He’ll function President till February 2027, when Salam’s time period was initially scheduled to finish.
I ask Iwasawa what made him put himself ahead for the Presidency. ‘Since I already had the expertise of a choose and knew the inside workings of the Courtroom fairly properly, I felt able to tackle the problem at a second when the Courtroom is busier than ever.’
Iwasawa identifies three key aims for his Presidency. ‘My primary precedence is for the Courtroom to proceed issuing judgments and advisory opinions of the best high quality, in order that States proceed to belief the Courtroom. The effectiveness of the Courtroom relies upon not solely on States deciding to deliver a dispute, but in addition on States complying with the Courtroom’s choices. For that, it will be important that the selections of the Courtroom are well-reasoned and based mostly on regulation.’
One other precedence is ‘to deliver the Courtroom nearer to the general public. The Courtroom will commemorate the eightieth anniversary of its inaugural sitting in April subsequent yr. This can be a superb alternative to extra broadly share the work of the Courtroom. We’re planning a number of actions with this in thoughts.’
Lastly, Iwasawa is dedicated to ‘additional enhancing and modernising the Courtroom’s working strategies.’
Iwasawa’s priorities are revealing. If the primary is about continuity, the latter two recommend an consciousness that the ICJ – typically seen as extra formal and reserved than different worldwide courts and tribunals – is working in a altering world and a willingness on Iwasawa’s half for the Courtroom to maneuver with the instances. States’ use of the Courtroom and its working strategies are themes we are going to return to in additional element later in our dialog, however in the interim I observe to Iwasawa that elevated openness and adaptability by the Courtroom would probably be welcomed by many within the worldwide neighborhood.
***
On the time of talking, Iwasawa is simply over six months into his two-year time period as President and the Courtroom has already issued main advisory opinions on the local weather disaster and Israel. What are his reflections on an eventful first quarter to his Presidency? ‘The Courtroom has been extraordinarily busy. In recent times, we have now obtained a median of 4.5 new instances per yr, which is double the typical variety of instances obtained yearly prior to now. We obtained 4 requests for advisory opinions in lower than two years. The workload of the Courtroom is unprecedented.’
Iwasawa sees the heavy caseload as a mirrored image of the ICJ’s standing. ‘The belief that the worldwide neighborhood locations within the Courtroom may be very reassuring. The dedication of the judges and the Registry workers is spectacular. They work day and evening to make sure that the Courtroom points choices of the best high quality in a well timed method.’
***
However whereas Iwasawa is assured the ICJ enjoys the respect and belief of States, he recognises that the identical can’t essentially be mentioned for worldwide regulation extra typically in the meanwhile. A few months in the past, on the event of the eightieth anniversary of the entry into power of the UN Constitution, Iwasawa issued an announcement which acknowledged that ‘the worldwide authorized order faces critical challenges’.
I ask Iwasawa what these challenges are, how they affect the ICJ and the way States and the Courtroom can reply to them. ‘There are troubling indicators of disengagement from worldwide obligations. The Courtroom is a crucial actor within the worldwide system by way of clarifying the authorized obligations of States, however it is just one actor. The Courtroom contributes to strengthening the worldwide authorized order by decoding worldwide regulation in good religion and by resolving disputes between States peacefully. On this sense, it performs an necessary position. Nevertheless, the Courtroom’s position is constrained by its jurisdiction, which is topic to the consent of States, and by the boundaries of the judicial operate.’
Iwasawa is obvious that each the UN and States have a job to play in overcoming this disengagement. ‘With a view to reply to the challenges confronted by the worldwide authorized order, it will be important for all organs of the United Nations to work in a complementary method and for States to adjust to their worldwide obligations. The applying of worldwide regulation rests primarily with States.’
Along with indicators of disengagement from worldwide obligations, one other problem at present going through worldwide authorized establishments, and multilateral organisations typically, is funding cuts. The UN particularly is going through a extreme price range disaster. In October this yr, whereas presenting a sharply decreased common UN price range for 2026, Secretary-Basic António Guterres warned that the UN faces a ‘race to chapter’ except Member States pay their dues in full and on time. I ask Iwasawa if the price range disaster is affecting the ICJ which, because the principal judicial organ of the UN, is funded by the organisation. ‘The price range of the Courtroom is a part of the final price range of the United Nations. Nevertheless, it represents just one%. We’re a lean establishment. Individuals are typically stunned to be taught that there are solely 125 everlasting workers on the Courtroom. We’re conscious of the price range disaster on the UN and we’re doing our greatest to be as environment friendly as doable. The Courtroom has historically been very conservative in making a price range request. Between 2012 and 2024, solely two workers members had been added whereas the caseload doubled. I simply got here again from New York, the place I engaged with representatives of the Member States. I’m happy that the Courtroom enjoys very broad help and I’m assured that the Courtroom will proceed receiving the modestly elevated, but very obligatory, price range to carry out its features.’
***
My interview with Iwasawa takes place within the ICJ’s dwelling within the Peace Palace in The Hague. We meet within the Palace’s Crimson Room, the place the Courtroom’s judges convene to debate instances throughout breaks in oral proceedings within the Nice Corridor of Justice. The Crimson Room’s partitions are lined with the imposing portraits of former Presidents of the Courtroom, underlining the ICJ’s standing as one of many oldest and grandest worldwide authorized establishments. However regardless of the aura of historical past and immutability that the Courtroom and its stately setting exude, the ICJ has undergone one thing of an evolution in recent times with numerous important developments in its caseload and utilization by States and Worldwide Organisations.
First, utilization of the ICJ by States and Worldwide Organisations has elevated dramatically, with an unprecedented 24 contentious instances at present on the Courtroom’s docket and a spate of necessary advisory opinion proceedings during the last couple of years.
The second necessary growth is in the subject material of the instances on the Courtroom’s docket. Historically, the majority of the Courtroom’s docket has consisted of self-contained instances of comparatively slender software, similar to territorial and maritime boundary disputes. In recent times, nevertheless, the Courtroom has more and more been referred to as upon to adjudicate on alleged breaches of erga omnes obligations of collective curiosity and software to the worldwide neighborhood, similar to genocide, torture and racial discrimination.
Lastly, alongside the spike within the variety of instances earlier than the Courtroom there was a big enhance within the variety of States collaborating in these instances. For instance, 33 States sought to intervene on the preliminary objections stage of Ukraine’s case towards Russia beneath the Genocide Conference and 14 States (so far) have sought to intervene in South Africa’s case towards Israel (additionally beneath the Genocide Conference).
These will increase within the variety of instances and individuals could also be a corollary of the change in material of ICJ instances from self-contained bilateral disputes to extra ‘existential’ problems with wider software and concern to the worldwide neighborhood. Underneath multilateral treaties such because the Genocide Conference, the Conference In opposition to Torture and the Conference on the Elimination of All Types of Racial Discrimination, each State Social gathering to the Conference could have a authorized curiosity to make sure that the Conference is complied with.
In mild of those developments, I ask Iwasawa what challenges and alternatives the rising quantity and complexity of the Courtroom’s caseload current for the ICJ. ‘As I discussed earlier, I imagine the rising quantity of the Courtroom’s caseload is an indication that States and Worldwide Organisations have belief and confidence within the Courtroom. Earlier than the Courtroom, all States are equal, no matter their measurement or energy. Their arguments are heard with full respect for his or her procedural rights, impartially and independently. The rising variety of instances can also be good as a result of it signifies that totally different elements of worldwide regulation are interpreted, and obligations of States are clarified, by the Courtroom. The popularity by the Courtroom of obligations erga omnes can also be an necessary growth.’
And the challenges? ‘After all, these alternatives actually additionally current challenges. The Registry of the Courtroom has primarily remained on the similar stage of resourcing whereas the instances have elevated in each measurement and complexity. Moreover, the Courtroom has restricted jurisdiction and its choices solely concern the authorized elements of disputes. So, these are limitations that we want to concentrate on. We can’t overload the Courtroom with expectations.’
As an apart, I ask Iwasawa whether or not he thinks the profile of candidates in future ICJ judicial elections will change to replicate latest developments in the subject material of the instances earlier than the Courtroom. He says it’s ‘unattainable to foretell’ however that so far ‘the profile [of candidates] has remained the identical, individuals of excessive ethical character who possess the best authorized {qualifications}, no matter the developments within the case regulation.’
***
Iwasawa’s remark about not overloading the Courtroom with expectations is an attention-grabbing one. Does he really feel that the worldwide neighborhood’s expectations and calls for of the ICJ are unreasonably excessive? ‘It’s good that the worldwide neighborhood has excessive regard for the Courtroom. It is a crucial establishment to protect the rule of regulation and peace and there are numerous situations the place the Courtroom’s judgments and opinions have introduced in regards to the peaceable settlement of a dispute or have led to elevated dynamism in diplomatic negotiations. That is reassuring, however we should remember that the Courtroom’s position is restricted. There are totally different strategies of peaceable settlement of disputes. The ICJ is just one of them.’
Iwasawa’s evaluation that the Courtroom’s burgeoning docket is a measure of the great standing it enjoys amongst States echoes an interview with the ICJ Registrar, Philippe Gautier, a few years in the past, through which he described the rising variety of instances as ‘an indication of profitable multilateralism’. I ask Iwasawa if he agrees. Is the elevated caseload a superb measure of success for the Courtroom? ‘We have to have a look at a number of elements to measure the success of the Courtroom. First, the variety of disputes introduced by States and advisory opinions requested by Worldwide Organisations. Second, compliance by States with judgments and actions taken by Worldwide Organisations on the premise of advisory opinions. Third, the rigour of the Courtroom’s reasoning and the respect it instructions from States not events to the disputes. The success of the Courtroom thus is dependent upon a number of elements, and I’m optimistic about our future.’
***
Iwasawa’s highlighting of States’ compliance with, and respect for, ICJ judgments as a measure of success for the Courtroom prompts a follow-up query. Most of the instances earlier than the Courtroom have necessary political dimensions and the selections of the Courtroom typically result in robust political reactions by States. How does the Courtroom take care of these points? ‘It’s true that most of the instances earlier than the Courtroom have a political dimension. That is a part of the character of worldwide regulation. Nevertheless, the position of the Courtroom is to settle disputes on the premise of worldwide regulation and, very importantly, throughout the scope of its jurisdiction. The Courtroom can solely act when States have given their consent to its jurisdiction. So, in essence, we act on the premise of two premises: the instrument defining the scope of the Courtroom’s jurisdiction and the truth that disputes have to be selected the premise of regulation. These two issues decide the Courtroom’s actions.
After all, the Courtroom shouldn’t be blind to the political context or the human struggling behind a lot of our instances. The Courtroom itself, in its judgments, takes observe of those issues. Nevertheless, the choice relies on regulation. When the Courtroom identifies the obligations of a State or determines whether or not sure obligations have been violated, it bases its resolution on authorized issues.’
***
The latest development within the quantity and complexity of the Courtroom’s caseload raises a query about its working strategies. The Courtroom’s insistence on States furnishing it with a number of arduous copies of (typically voluminous) filings and ‘moist ink’ signatures has come to really feel more and more anachronistic and impractical within the trendy, technological world through which the Courtroom now operates. Having recognized ‘enhancing and modernising the Courtroom’s working strategies’ as certainly one of his priorities as President, I ask Iwasawa whether or not the Courtroom’s inside processes and dealing strategies are outfitted to deal with the elevated caseload and participation by States. ‘The Courtroom is consistently reviewing its working strategies and exceptions to established procedures have been made in sure instances for the sake of effectivity. There’s a group of judges throughout the Courtroom which have been tasked with reviewing the working strategies and making proposals. We’re pondering of the way through which we will use know-how to make our work extra environment friendly. We’re dedicated to protecting abreast with the progress of know-how and having a Courtroom of the twenty first century.’
Iwasawa makes the purpose, nevertheless, that there are limits to what the Courtroom can do on this regard. ‘Within the lifetime of a case, more often than not is utilized by States to organize their written submissions. There’s solely a lot that the Courtroom can do to expedite the method.’ He additionally warns that makes an attempt to streamline the Courtroom’s processes and dealing strategies should nonetheless permit its judges to do their job correctly. ‘We can’t sacrifice the standard of choices by chopping down the deliberation phases. The power of the Courtroom lies in well-reasoned choices and its deliberation course of has stood the take a look at of time.’
***
Transferring from the inner to the exterior, I ask Iwasawa how he sees the ICJ’s relationship with different courts. Is there a neighborhood of observe? ‘The ICJ follows intently the work of different worldwide courts and tribunals. Even when generally the selections of different courts will not be cited in our choices, the Courtroom nonetheless analyses them intently. We additionally recurrently meet with judges of different courts to debate problems with widespread curiosity, throughout each substantive and procedural points, together with working strategies. This yr, for instance, we met with judges from the ECOWAS Courtroom of Justice and ITLOS.’
***
I conclude the interview by asking Iwasawa if he has any plans for when his present time period as an ICJ choose ends in 2030. Iwasawa replies that the calls for of the Courtroom’s present caseload imply he’s not pondering that far forward. ‘My focus immediately is on the duties of the Presidency and the work of the Courtroom.’
