THE ICJ’S INEFFICIENCY IN HUMAN RIGHTS DISPUTES

by SAMUEL ESPINAL JR STAFF WRITER

Humanrights were initially limited to our basic needs: food, water, and a residence. As society expanded, so did the scope of “human rights”; additional concepts became essential in describing what humans were entitled to. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague, Netherlands has played a significant role in mediating human rights discourse. The ICJ has unlimited jurisdiction over inter-country disputes, but its scope of adjudication becomes limited when these disputes involve human rights. The public looks towards the court as the ICJ determines what is considered a human right. However, the court faces a double bind: While the public looks towards the court for an example, a ruling can harm the court’s legitimacy if the ruling doesn’t match the current social attitude. Due to the ICJ’s inefficien- cy, human rights should be socially defined domestically rather than globally. legal services. On April 30, 2019, the UAE objected, doubting whether the Court had jurisdiction and if CERD was applicable. After public hearings in 2020, the ICJ upheld the UAE’s objections and found it lacked the jurisdiction to entertain Qatar’s claim on February 4, 2021.

The ICJ is notorious for its inefficiency in mediating disputes. Though the court has a thorough decision-making process, delays in deciding cases permit countries to overpower the court and stagnate human rights within a regime’s lifespan.

On June 11, 2018, Qatar filed a claim against the United Arab Emirates (UAE), accusing them of violating the International Convention on the Eliminatinon of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD).

The UAE pausing and eliminating a three-year-long process displayed the court’s weakness in handling human rights issues. Though the subject is nuanced the ICJ ultimately revealed to the public it was wrong and wasted its efforts. During the legal process, the UAE’s Prime Minister changed as Khalid bin Khalifa bin Abdul Aziz Al Thani was instated in January 2020. Changes in countries’ representation often reflect shifts in social values. The public remains content with political leaders if they represent their opinions, highlighting how society defines the legal system through rulings and legislation. As generational and political changes define the majority at a given moment, these changes reflect the transition of political leaders. Consequently, temporal distance between major decisions limits the court’s legitimacy as countries and their leaders frown upon the ICJ’s decisions.

Specifically, the UAE implemented discriminatory measures against Qataris based on their nationality. Initially, the Court, on July 23, 2018, decided it could review the interpretation of CERD in this context. The Court initially decided the UAE must reunite Qatari families and grant affected Qataris access to

This notion is clear in Croatia v. Serbia: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. In 1999, Croatia accused the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia of genocide. The crime of genocide contains two constituent elements: physical (the acts conducted inflict bodily or mental harm to the targeted group) and mental (intent). Following the filing, Yugoslavia objected to the Court’s

CONTINUED ON PAGE 29

. . .collective understanding of nuanced gender relations and identities needs to evolve, so does our acceptance of diversity in gender presentation, particularly in the workplace. Department stores may remain divided into “Men’s” and “Women’s,” but consumer interests have developed. For LGBT+ community members whose gender isn’t represented by a simple binary, the choice between skirt, slacks, or other, carries a significance deeper than polyester. Besides navigating the treacherous waters of workwear, non-binary and gender-nonconforming folks are tasked with self-expression in a professional setting without drawing unwanted attention or endangering themselves. Following questions of the spectacle and safety of individuals’ gender presentations come concerns about respectability. “At a law firm, what we’re looking for is for your presence to have a trustworthy and executive nature. Whether you identify that as being a suit and tie or you identify that as being in belted dress, either works as long as it comes across polished and modern and clean, wrinkle-free,” Lauren A. Rothman said in an interview with The New York Times As queer folks rise to meet present standards for professional attire, there must be a subsequent softening of our social fabric, opening up our hearts and minds towards authentic presentation, regardless of its conformity with expectations.

The elimination of our pre- conceived notion of respectable workplace appearance need not be limited to gender: Race also demands this consideration. Legal professionals of color are already strained; they bend over backward to code-switch their speech, understand foreign cultural contexts, and justify what their background offers. What’s more, there’s an implicit bias against styles deemed distinctly “ethnic.” Certain patterns and garments are warned against, lest they be viewed as too loud, distracting, or different. For Black people, hair is one such problematized accessory. Luckily, pioneers have made recent strides to protect Black and brown professionals from employment or promotional discrimination through the law. The Crown Act was pioneered by the Crown Coalition, a collaboration between Dove, the National Urban League, Color Of Change, and the Western Center on Law & Poverty. The act, implemented in 2019, demands legal protection from discrimination based on hair texture or protective styles of Black hair.

“Implicit and explicit biases against natural hair are deeply ingrained in workplace norms and society at large and continue the legacy of dehumanizing Black people… no one should be harassed, punished, or fired for the beautiful hairstyles that are true to themselves and their cultural heritage,” U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) said in an appeal to the Senate on March 27, 2021. Professionals and students sporting styles such as box braids, bantu knots, locs, twists, and more are now protected from the denial of employment and educational opportunities grounded in prejudiced preconceptions of respectability.

There is no right way to “dress for success.” For people who spend their working days studying rules, it might come as a shock that the only faux pas in fashion is exclusionary ideas of what a legal professional looks like. Nonetheless, it’s true: Clothes do not make the man, and neither does hair, makeup, or RayBans. Though it may seem like the journey is slow, the legal industry is surely marching toward acceptance and equity in workplace attire.

CONTINUED FROM PAGE 27 jurisdiction over Croatia’s claims. In 2008, the Court rejected Serbia’s objections. By then, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became the Republic of Serbia, significantly shifting the Eastern European political climate. In 2010, the Republic of Serbia filed counterclaims, prompting the court to hold public hearings in 2014 and deliver its judgment in 2015. Following a 16-year process, the ICJ concluded it lacked jurisdiction.

Ultimately, legal processes takeconsiderable time. In fact, some cases take decades before reaching a resolution. However, the problem lies in how the public perceives the Court’s adjudication. The ICJ reflects the United Nations (UN) as its highest court.

Though the Court seeks transparency through public hearings, this doesn’t rectify the dejection resulting from the Court’s repeated public acknowledgment of mistakes.

Primarily responsible for settling international human rights conflicts, the public trusts how the court’s decisions can affect their country’s image. The ICJ’s decisions reflect how citizens should view their countries in the contexts of global unity and nationalistic identity.

The public grows invested in the trial as they believe their country embodies what they stand for; the ICJ provides or removes legitimacy from this belief accordingly. But watching a case accomplishes nothing if the public isn’t granted a final verdict. Canceling leaves gray area, confusing the public about how to move forward.

The ICJ should instead relegate human rights discourse to countries, so they can compromise diplomatically.

Countries can negotiate through conferences or treaties, better knowing their nations’ needs. A country’s political climate better reflects its social values. Though the Court aims for impartiality, the global context is influential when determining human rights. Not only does the ICJ’s inefficiency make it less suited to handle conflicts, but placing human rights under diplomacy paves the way for the broader development of global consciousness, better achieving the ICJ’s goal: maintaining peace.