City Research Online

Abstract

The UK proudly describes its longstanding commitment to the International Court of Justice as a sign of its broader commitment to international adjudication and, in turn, the international rule of law. This article calls into question this narrative suggesting that, despite official pledges and rhetoric to the contrary, the UK cannot be said to have truly accepted the authority of the Court to scrutinize its conduct, nor to have consistently acted in a manner that is respectful of that institution. To the extent that the UK wishes to present itself as a genuine supporter of the international rule of law, this article posits that it should reformulate its approach to the Court with regard to both its contentious and advisory jurisdictions.

Publication Type:	Article
Additional Information:	This version of the article has been accepted for publication, after peer review (when applicable) and is subject to Springer Nature’s AM terms of use, but is not the Version of Record and does not reflect post-acceptance improvements, or any corrections. The Version of Record is available online at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40802-023-00237-1
Publisher Keywords:	International Court of Justice; Optional Clause; UK Declaration; Advisory Opinion; International Rule of Law
Subjects:	J Political Science > JX International law K Law > KD England and Wales
Departments:	The City Law School > Academic Programmes

Export

Downloads