IRO

The UN has six principal organs: the General Assembly (the main deliberative assembly);
the Security Council (for deciding certain resolutions for peace and security); the Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC) (for promoting international economic and social co-operation and
development); the Secretariat (for providing studies, information, and facilities needed by the
UN); the International Court of Justice (the primary judicial organ); and the United Nations
Trusteeship Council (inactive since 1994). UN System agencies include the World Bank Group,
theWorld Health Organization, the World Food Programme, UNESCO, and UNICEF. The UN's
most prominent officer is the Secretary-General, an office held by Ban Ki-moon of South Korea
since 2007. Non-governmental organisations may be granted consultative status with ECOSOC
and other agencies to participate in the UN's work.
General Assembly
- Deliberative assembly of all UN member states

may resolve non-compulsory

recommendations to states or suggestions
to the UNSC

decides on the admission of new members,

following proposal by the UNSC

adopts the budget

elects the non-permanent members of the

UNSC, all members of ECOSOC, the UN
Secretary General following proposal by the
UNSC, and the 15 judges of the ICJ

Each country has one vote.

UN Security Council
- For international security issues -

responsible for the maintenance

of international peace andsecurity

may adopt compulsory resolutions

has 15 members: five permanent

members with veto powerand ten elected
members

The International Court of Justice (French: Cour internationale de Justice; commonly referred
to as the World Court or ICJ) is the primary judicial branch of the United Nations. It is based in
the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. Its main functions are to settle legal disputes
submitted to it by states and to provide advisory opinions on legal questions submitted to it by
duly authorized international branches, agencies, and the UN General Assembly.
Composition
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General
Assembly and the UN Security Council from a list of persons nominated by the national groups
in the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The election process is set out in Articles 419 of the ICJ

statute. Elections are staggered with five judges elected every three years, in order to ensure
continuity within the court.
Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge in a special election
to complete the term. No two may be nationals of the same country. According to Article 9, the
membership of the Court is supposed to represent the "main forms of civilization and of the
principal legal systems of the world". Essentially, this has meant common law, civil
law and socialist law (now post-communist law). Since its creation, four of the five permanent
members of the Security Council (France, Russia, China, the United Kingdom, and the United
States) have always had a judge on the Court. The exception was China (the Republic of China
until 1971, the People's Republic of China from 1971 onwards), which did not have a judge on
the Court from 1967 to 1985, because it did not put forward a candidate. The rule on
a geopolitical composition of the bench exists despite the fact that there is no provision for it in
the Statute of the ICJ.
Article 6 of the Statute provides that all judges should be "elected regardless of their nationality
among persons of high moral character", who are either qualified for the highest judicial office
in their home states or known as lawyers with sufficient competence in international law.
Judicial independence is dealt with specifically in Articles 1618. Judges of the ICJ are not able
to hold any other post, nor act as counsel. In practice the Members of the Court have their own
interpretation of these rules. This allows them to be involved in outside arbitration and hold
professional posts as long as there is no conflict of interest. A judge can be dismissed only by
a unanimous vote of other members of the Court.[4] Despite these provisions, the
independence of ICJ judges has been questioned. For example, during the Nicaragua Case, the
USA issued a communiqu suggesting that it could not present sensitive material to the Court
because of the presence of judges from Eastern bloc states.[5]
Judges may deliver joint judgments or give their own separate opinions. Decisions and Advisory
Opinions are by majority and, in the event of an equal division, the President's vote becomes
decisive.[6] Judges may also deliver separate dissenting opinions.
The right of nations to self-determination (from German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Vlker),
or in short form, the right to self-determination is the cardinal principle in modern international
law(jus cogens), binding, as such, on the United Nations as authoritative interpretation of the
Charters norms.[1][2] It states that nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and
fairequality of opportunity have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and
international political status with no external compulsion or interference[3] which can be traced
back to the Atlantic Charter, signed on 14 August 1941, by Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of
the United States of America, and Winston Churchill, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom who
pledged The Eight Principal points of the Charter.[4] The principle does not state how the decision
is to be made, or what the outcome should be, whether it
be independence, federation, protection, some form ofautonomy or even
full assimilation.[5] Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be or
even what constitutes a nation. In fact, there are conflicting definitions and legal criteria for
determining which groups may legitimately claim the right to self-determination.[6] National self
determination in WW1 referred to the U.S. wanting to stay out of the war. The U.S. wanted to
be self-sufficient, and did not want European affairs to dictate their lives. They also wanted to
secure a policy of neutrality, which would help them avoid entering the war.
AD HOC JUDGES
Article 31 of the statute sets out a procedure whereby ad hoc judges sit on contentious cases
before the Court. This system allows any party to a contentious case who otherwise does not
have one of that party's nationals sitting on the Court to select one additional person to sit as a
judge on that case only. It is possible that as many as seventeen judges may sit on one case.
This system may seem strange when compared with domestic court processes, but its purpose
is to encourage states to submit cases to the Court. For example, if a state knows it will have a
judicial officer who can participate in deliberation and offer other judges local knowledge and
an understanding of the state's perspective, that state may be more willing to submit to the
Court's jurisdiction. Although this system does not sit well with the judicial nature of the body,
it is usually of little practical consequence. Ad hoc judges usually (but not always) vote in favor
of the state that appointed them and thus cancel each other out.

Chambers
Generally, the Court sits as full bench, but in the last fifteen years it has on occasion sat as a
chamber. Articles 2629 of the statute allow the Court to form smaller chambers, usually 3 or 5
judges, to hear cases. Two types of chambers are contemplated by Article 26: firstly, chambers
for special categories of cases, and second, the formation of ad hoc chambers to hear particular
disputes. In 1993 a special chamber was established, under Article 26(1) of the ICJ statute, to
deal specifically with environmental matters (although this chamber has never been used).
Ad hoc chambers are more frequently convened. For example, chambers were used to hear
the Gulf of Maine Case (Canada/USA).[8] In that case, the parties made clear they would
withdraw the case unless the Court appointed judges to the chamber who were acceptable to
the parties. Judgments of chambers may have less authority than full Court judgments, or may
diminish the proper interpretation of universal international law informed by a variety of
cultural and legal perspectives. On the other hand, the use of chambers might encourage
greater recourse to the Court and thus enhance international dispute resolution.
JURISDICTION
As stated in Article 93 of the UN Charter, all 193 UN members are automatically parties to the
Court's statute.[11] Non-UN members may also become parties to the Court's statute under the
Article 93(2) procedure. For example, before becoming a UN member state, Switzerland used
this procedure in 1948 to become a party, and Nauru became a party in 1988. [12] Once a state is
a party to the Court's statute, it is entitled to participate in cases before the Court. However,
being a party to the statute does not automatically give the Court jurisdiction over disputes
involving those parties. The issue of jurisdiction is considered in the two types of ICJ cases:
contentious issues and advisory opinions.
Examples of contentious cases[edit]

A complaint by the United States in 1980 that Iran was detaining American diplomats
in Tehran in violation of international law.[22]
A dispute between Tunisia and Libya over the delimitation of the continental shelf between
them.[23]
A dispute over the course of the maritime boundary dividing the U.S. and Canada in
the Gulf of Maine area.[24]
A complaint by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against the member states of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization regarding their actions in the Kosovo War. This was denied on
15 December 2004 due to lack of jurisdiction, because the FRY was not a party to the ICJ
statute at the time it made the application.[25]
A complaint by the Republic of Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) that
Greece is, by vetoing their accession to NATO, in violation of the Interim Accord of 13
September 1995[26] between the two countries, was decided in favor of Macedonia on 5
December 2011.[27]
Law applied[edit]
Main article: Sources of international law
When deciding cases, the Court applies international law as summarised in Article 38 of the ICJ
Statute provides that in arriving at its decisions the Court shall apply international conventions,
international custom, and the "general principles of law recognized by civilized nations". It may
also refer to academic writing ("the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the
various nations") and previous judicial decisions to help interpret the law, although the Court is
not formally bound by its previous decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis. Article
59 makes clear that the common law notion of precedent or stare decisis does not apply to the
decisions of the ICJ. The Court's decision binds only the parties to that particular controversy.
Under 38(1)(d), however, the Court may consider its own previous decisions.
If the parties agree, they may also grant the Court the liberty to decide ex aequo et bono ("in
justice and fairness"),[28] granting the ICJ the freedom to make an equitable decision based on

what is fair under the circumstances. This provision has not been used in the Court's history. So
far the International Court of Justice has dealt with about 130 cases.
Procedure[edit]
The ICJ is vested with the power to make its own rules. Court procedure is set out in Rules of
Court of the International Court of Justice 1978 (as amended on 29 September 2005).[9]
Cases before the ICJ will follow a standard pattern. The case is lodged by the applicant who files
a written memorial setting out the basis of the Court's jurisdiction and the merits of its claim.
The respondent may accept the Court's jurisdiction and file its own memorial on the merits of
the case.
Preliminary objections[edit]
A respondent who does not wish to submit to the jurisdiction of the Court may raise
Preliminary Objections. Any such objections must be ruled upon before the Court can address
the merits of the applicant's claim. Often a separate public hearing is held on the Preliminary
Objections and the Court will render a judgment. Respondents normally file Preliminary
Objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and/or the admissibility of the case. Inadmissibility
refers to a range of arguments about factors the Court should take into account in deciding
jurisdiction; for example, that the issue is not justiciable or that it is not a "legal dispute".
In addition, objections may be made because all necessary parties are not before the Court. If
the case necessarily requires the Court to rule on the rights and obligations of a state that has
not consented to the Court's jurisdiction, the Court will not proceed to issue a judgment on the
merits. If the Court decides it has jurisdiction and the case is admissible, the respondent will
then be required to file a Memorial addressing the merits of the applicant's claim. Once all
written arguments are filed, the Court will hold a public hearing on the merits.
Once a case has been filed, any party (but usually the Applicant) may seek an order from the
Court to protect the status quo pending the hearing of the case. Such orders are known as
Provisional (or Interim) Measures and are analogous to interlocutory injunctions in United
States law. Article 41 of the statute allows the Court to make such orders. The Court must be
satisfied to have prima facie jurisdiction to hear the merits of the case before granting
provisional measures.
Applications to intervene[edit]
In cases where a third state's interests are affected, that state may be permitted to intervene in
the case, and participate as a full party. Under Article 62, a state "with an interest of a legal
nature" may apply; however, it is within the Court's discretion whether or not to allow the
intervention. Intervention applications are rare the first successful application occurred in
1991.
Judgment and remedies[edit]
Once deliberation has taken place, the Court will issue a majority opinion. Individual judges may
issue separate opinions (if they agree with the outcome reached in the judgment of the court
but differ in their reasoning) or dissenting opinions (if they disagree with the majority). No
appeal is possible, though any party may ask for the court to clarify if there is a dispute as to the
meaning or scope of the court's judgment.[29]
Non-state actor
Non-state actors (NSA) are entities that participate or act in international relations; They are
organizations with sufficient power to influence and cause a change even though they do not
belong to any established institution of a state.[1]
The admission of non-state actors into international relations theory rebukes the assumptions
of realism and other black box theories of international relations, which argue that interactions
between states are the main relationships of interest in studying international events.

Types

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs)typically considered a part of civil society.

Multinational corporations (MNCs)for-profit organizations that operate in multiple

sovereign states.

The International Media

Violent non-state actorsArmed groups, including groups such as Al-Qaeda or criminal

organizations, for example drug cartels.

Religious GroupsQuakers and other religious sects are quite active in their
international advocacy efforts.[2] They have in part founded other non-state actors such
as Amnesty International,Greenpeace, and OXFAM.

Transnational diaspora communitiesEthnic or national communities that to influence

their original and current territories.

Cell-based, independent intelligence agents.

Roles
Non-state actors can aid in opinion building in international affairs, such as the Human Rights
Council. Formal international organizations may also rely on non-state actors, particularly NGOs
in the form of implementing partners in the national context. An example is the contribution
of COHRE (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions), to the protection of land and property (HLP)
rights inKosovo by conceptualizing the Housing and Property Directorate (now Kosovo Property
Agency) within the framework of the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in
Kosovo.[6]
Another example that shows the importance of non-state actors in peace-building is the
contribution of ICBL (International Campaign to Ban Landmines) to the international prohibition
on the use of landmines. ICBL is a global network of NGOs that has operated in over 90
countries since 1992. Its primary goal is to make a world free of anti-personnel landmines. Their
passionate advertising appealing for global cooperation drew Diana, Princess of Wales to
become an ardent advocate. Together, they brought the issue to the United Nations General
Assembly. ICBLs efforts led the international community to urge state.
a state actor is a person who is acting on behalf of a governmental body, and is therefore
subject to regulation under the United States Bill of Rights,
NATIONAL SELF DETERMINATION
The idea of national self-determination, although not a new idea, was undergoing a strong
revitalization in the World War I era. The imperialistic powers that were involved in the war felt
the pressures of the various states under their control who attempted to exert their own
power. As an acknowledgement of the need for change in Europe and other areas of the world,
the Versailles treaty made provisions of a sort for a measure of national self-determination in
certain cases. The policy of national self-determination that President Wilson referred to in his
Fourteen Points was applied somewhat arbitrarily after the war, and the practical aspects of the
procedure were not very clear cut. The cure-all that Wilson envisioned for the problems in
Europe had the potential to cause more harm than good.
One set of actions during the Paris Peace Conference, performed under the guise of national
self-determination for one set of people, was also violation of that principle to another set of

people. The area of Poland received quite a bit of attention during the peace talks. At the start
of the war, Russia had control of the area; however Germany took over most of it during the
course of the war. In the interests of national self-determination, plebiscites were held in
certain regions that were of questionable nationality. Naturally, Polish nationalists wanted the
areas most inhabited by Poles, but they also wanted access to the Baltic which was controlled
by German citizens. In areas of vital importance like Danzig, national self-determination could
not be applied. The Polish Corridor was created as a response to Point Thirteen in Wilson's
Fourteen Points without regard to the ethnography of the area solely because it suited political
and economic purposes.
The Saar Valley was another area in Europe in which the Treaty of Versailles attempted to
initiate a policy of national self-determination as well as considering economic and political
issues. The area was populated with Germans; however the coal mines in the area were of
great interest to France. In an attempt to recompense France for the destroyed mines in the
previously German occupied territories, the treaty gave economic rights to the French for a
period, while retaining the nationality of the area.
In areas outside of Europe, national self-determination was not an often considered factor. The
Colonial Mandates that were put into effect in German colonies in Africa and the pacific were a
prime example of the arbitrariness of the application of Wilson's altruistic notions. Clearly there
were some groups of people that did not deserve, or do not have the capability of demanding
national autonomy. Only the people who had been provided a voice at the peace conference
had even a chance at obtaining autonomy.
The fate of the city of Constantinople was an interesting one if looked at from the standpoint of
national self-determination. Before, and throughout the war, the fate of the city was a subject
of much discussion and maneuvering. Italy, Greece and Russia each had reasons for wanting the
city. In secret agreements prior to any official settlement, Britian and France acknowledged a
Russian claim on Constantinople and the straits. The government of Greece pushed their claim
to Constantinople up until the peace conference where they gave it up in favor of other
territories. Eventually, the area was tuned into an international concern, and then it reverted
back to Turkey, which was the only portion of the Ottoman Empire left after the war. Even
though Constantinople, the previous capitol of the Ottoman Empire became a Turkish city,
there was no element of national self-determination involved in the process. The city was
populated with a wide variety of people, some nationalities of which had their own conflicting
designs on the city. Attempting anything like a plebiscite would have been impossible. Even
though the Turks did not have the majority of the population of Constantinople, they retained
control of the city.
The issue of national self-determination, although a noble sentiment, proved to be a difficult
proposition in practice. With no clear boundary lines of race and ethnicity, political and
economic concerns weighed heavily in determining the fate of different areas that were under
contention. Outsiders often determined the fate of peoples based not on sentiments of what is
best for the people, but what is best for other interested parties. The expansive multiplicity in
existence in many areas today precludes the concept of pure national self-determination as a
peace process. Peace must be determined within an area between the citizens, rather than
trying to separate them by ethnicity or other factors.