1.Introduction.

International courts are fundamental bodies of international justice, contributing to the formation and implementation of norms of international law. Through their decisions the content of international legal norm is identified, clarified and specified.

2. Materials and methods.

International courts perform the crucial function of settling disputes by peaceful means. They ensure legal certainty, promote the rule of law, and strengthen trust between states. By examining specific cases, courts not only apply existing norms but also interpret them, adapting them to the changing conditions of international life [1]. Despite the existence of common principles (publicity, adversarial process, judicial independence), each court develops its own procedural framework. It can be resemble the procedures of other international judicial bodies or incorporate certain elements from the legal systems of various countries, yet it always remains distinct. For example, in some courts, significant attention is given to the written stage of proceedings, while in others oral hearings play a greater role. Moreover, international courts may borrow elements from different legal systems—both civil law and common law traditions. This makes international adjudication flexible and adaptable to various legal cultures [2]. Courts are divided into the categories:

— Interstate courts — for the resolution of disputes between states (such as the International Court of Justice and the Economic Court of the CIS).

— Courts for criminal prosecution of individuals who have committed international crimes (such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Court, and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda).

— Regional human rights courts (such as the European Court of Human Rights, the Inter-American Court, and the African Court). They provide subsidiary protection of rights, and their case law is often more progressive (for example, the recognition of positive obligations of states in cases concerning climate issues, enforced disappearances, and discrimination).

International judicial institutions perform a function similar to constitutional review at the national level. Without judicial bodies, many norms would remain merely declarative. It is precisely through court decisions that the interpretation of provisions takes place — for example, the “prohibition (interdict) of the use of force” (article 2(4) of the UN Charter), how to distinguish lawful self-defense from aggression, and where the line between intervention and humanitarian assistance.

A vivid example is the case concerning military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (1986) — Nicaragua vs United States.

The circumstances of the case relate to events that occurred in Nicaragua after the fall of the government of A. Somoza in July 1979 and the actions of the United States in that country thereafter. The United States also provided financial and military assistance to irregular anti-government groups (known as the “Contras”). On April the 9, 1984, Nicaragua filed an application before the International Court of Justice, alleging that, among other things, the United States had breached its obligations under international law to refrain from the use of force and the threat of force. After the Court affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the case, the United States refused to participate in the proceedings.

However, despite the U.S. refusal, the Court continued the case in its absence. In its judgment in «Nicaragua vs United States», the Court examined state practice and held that the rule contained in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter constitutes a “fundamental and paramount principle of international law.”

Article 2 of the United Nations Charter: The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll [3].

Moreover, the Court found that the rules of the UN Charter concerning the prohibition of the use of force represent an example of a jus cogens norm. The Court also noted the need to distinguish the most serious forms of the use of force (those amounting to an armed attack) from other, less grave forms of breaches of the obligation not to use force. As for the less serious forms, the Court referred to certain acts listed in the Declaration on Principles of International Law [4]. It shows how the Court, even when faced with non-compliance, reinforces legal norms for the international community as a whole.

It is also important to note the development of «the doctrine of Jurisprudence constante». Article 59 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that a decision of the Court is binding only upon the parties to the case and only in respect of that particular case [5]. The Court consistently relies on its previous conclusions. In this way, a stable body of case law is formed, which over time may evolve into a customary norm.

The impact on the formation of the doctrine was influenced by the Corfu Channel Case (1949). British warships were passing through a strait considered to be international. In October 1946, two ships struck mines, resulting in the loss of life and serious damage. The Court held that the Corfu Channel constituted an international strait, and therefore states enjoy the right of innocent passage through it even in peacetime. The Court also articulated an important principle: a state must not allow its territory to be used in a manner that causes harm to other states.

However, following the incident, the United Kingdom independently carried out a mine-clearing operation in Albanian waters. In the Corfu Channel Case, the Court unequivocally rejected the United Kingdom’s argument that a state may unilaterally use force in what it considers to be support of the Security Council or the work of the International Court. Deficiencies in the system of the UN Charter do not justify unilateral uses of force by a state.

In a famous passage that later cited in the Nicaragua case, the Court stated that “the alleged right of intervention is the manifestation of a policy of force which in the past has given rise to the most serious abuses and which cannot, whatever be the present defects in the international organization, find a place in international law” [6].

In the early 1960s, the United Nations was actively involved in peacekeeping operations, particularly in the Middle East (following the Suez Crisis) and in the Congo [7]. This raised the question of whether the General Assembly had the authority to authorize such operations and whether Member States were obliged to finance them. The Court concluded that the expenses of such operations constitute “expenses of the Organization” and that Member States are therefore obligated to bear them in accordance with the UN Charter. France challenged the obligatory nature of financing peacekeeping operations and proposed amendments.

The opinion of the judge Jean Spiropoulos that expressed in his statement the refusal of the United Nations General Assembly to adopt the French amendment indicates that the Assembly did not wish the Court to examine the question of whether the decisions of the Assembly and the United Nations Security Council concerning United Nations operations in the Congo and the Middle East were consistent with the UN Charter. “Indeed, it seems natural that the General Assembly would be reluctant for the Court to pronounce on the validity of resolutions that have been applied for several years” [8].

An international court is a unique forum in which diverse legal traditions interact and seek to be reconciled. The composition of judges from different countries (15 in the International Court of Justice and 18 in the International Criminal Court) ensures different approaches and assessments. At the same time, it is often in dissenting opinions that ideas are formed which may influence the further development of the law.

For example, in the case concerning state immunities (Germany and Italy, 2012), Germany brought a claim against Italy because Italian courts had accepted civil claims filed by individuals against Germany [9]. These claims concerned crimes committed by German armed forces during the Second World War, including forced labor, deportations, and mass killings. Italy allowed such claims to proceed despite Germany’s reliance on the principle of state immunity — the rule according to which one state cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another state without its consent. Italy was required to prove otherwise and, in support of its position, advanced three arguments. According to the first of these, under contemporary international law a state no longer enjoys jurisdictional immunity in cases where it has caused death, personal injury, or damage to property on the territory of the state where the proceedings are brought.

Another argument by Italy in support of its position concerned the nature of the violations underlying the claims. Since such violations constitute international crimes, acts contrary to jus cogens norms, a state that has committed such acts should not enjoy immunity before the courts of another state. The last argument required the Court to assess the fairness of the rules on state jurisdictional immunity. Italy’s representatives before the Court pointed out that Italian courts had been compelled to deny Germany’s jurisdictional immunity, as there was no other way to ensure that the claimants could obtain fair compensation for the suffering and damage they had endured during the Second World War.

The Court did not accept any of these arguments and, in its judgment adopted by 12 votes to 3 (one of the dissenting judges being the ad hoc judge appointed by Italy), held that Italy, by allowing civil claims related to acts committed by German armed forces between 1943 and 1945 to be brought before its courts, had violated its obligation under international law to respect the immunity which Germany enjoys under international law before the courts of other states [10].

The Court can render a judgment, but it has no army or police force. In addition to the classic example of the United States and Nicaragua [11], one may also refer to the non-compliance with the decisions of the International Court of Justice in the case “Yugoslavia and NATO States” (1999).

In 1999, during the Kosovo conflict, NATO countries (including the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, and others) initiated a military operation against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia without authorization from the United Nations Security Council. The stated justification was the presence of Yugoslav armed forces in Kosovo and Metohija (not their own country’s territory). Thirteen member states of the North Atlantic Alliance deployed their air forces to carry out strikes against Yugoslavia. Among them were France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain, the United Kingdom, and even Turkey [12].

The most horrible thing that bombing strikes were carried out against civilian cities, bridges, public buildings, schools, universities, hospitals, and kindergartens. Women, the elderly, and children were killed. Many civilians who were killed and buried under the rubble were later listed as missing. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia regarded these actions as a violation of international law and brought the case before the International Court of Justice.

Yugoslavia filed claims against 10 NATO states, alleging that they had violated: the prohibition on the use of force (Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter), norms of international humanitarian law and the principles of sovereignty and non-intervention. Accordingly, the State requested that NATO’s actions be declared unlawful, the bombing be brought to an end and compensation for the damage caused be provided.

According to expert estimates, the total damage to the economy of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia amounted to an enormous sum—up to 100 billion US dollars, with more than 200 industrial enterprises destroyed. It is hardly necessary to examine the downturn in other sectors in detail, because the result is obvious.

The most tragic consequences were the civilian victims. Up to 2,500 civilians were killed in NATO bombings, and more than 12,000 were injured, including many elderly people, women, and children. The exact number of victims has not been definitively established to this day; however, even the Western human rights organization Human Rights Watch confirms more than 90 incidents involving civilian deaths.

The International Court of Justice refused to order provisional measures, stating that its jurisdiction had not been established and that there were insufficient grounds for intervention at that stage. The Court formally discontinued the proceedings against most NATO states citing a lack of jurisdiction and the fact that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, at the time of filing the application, did not have the proper status within the United Nations system (which affected its ability to bring the case).

Later, an independent UN commission found the air strikes against the no longer existing Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to be unlawful [13]. However, the commission was established with the support of various international organizations, but not by the United Nations itself. The use of depleted uranium and cluster munitions was widely criticized [14].

Thus, this case demonstrated the limited capacity of the international judicial mechanism in the absence of state consent to the Court’s jurisdiction [15].

Analyzing international law through the lens of judicial institutions reveals its evolving nature. International courts are not merely mechanisms for dispute settlement they determine direction of international law. Through their work, abstract norms acquire concrete legal meaning, practical applicability, and gradually develop into a consistent body of jurisprudence.

The analysis of case law demonstrates that international courts play a crucial role in clarifying fundamental principles such as the prohibition of the use of force, the sovereign equality of states, and the relationship between state immunity and accountability for international crimes. Even in situations where states do not fully comply with judicial decisions, the value/ the importance continues to exert normative and doctrinal influence on the international community.

Moreover, particular significance has the formation of a consistent body of case law that contributes to the formation of norms of customary international law. In this is manifested the unique role of courts of interpretation of international law. The variety of the composition of judges and the presence of separate opinions strengthen the legal analysis and create space for the further development of legal norms.

3. Results of the study and discussions

During the study:

1) the role of international judicial institutions in the formation and development of modern international law has been considered;

2) some international cases have been analyzed through the prism of abstract norms;

3) the stable judicial practice in relation to international cases has been analyzed.

4. Conclusion.

In conclusion, international courts demonstrate that international law is not a static system of norms, but represents a mechanism that develops under the influence of judicial practice and international relations. Their activity strengthens the rule of law at the international level, contributes to the peaceful settlement of disputes, and forms the foundation for a judicial order.