Explore publications.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) occupies a central position in the maintenance of international peace and the adjudication of disputes between states. Yet, its authority often collides with the enduring principle of state sovereignty, creating a persistent tension that shapes its effectiveness and legitimacy. This paper critically interrogates this delicate balance,examining how sovereignty constrains the ICJ’s jurisdiction, influences its decision-making, and undermines the enforcement of its judgments. Using an interpretive methodology grounded in Critical Legal Studies, International Relations Theory, and Postcolonial Theory, the study analyses treaties, case law, and scholarly commentary to explore the Court’s structural and political limitations, particularly in cases involving powerful states. The findings reveal systemic challenges (including the absence of compulsory jurisdiction, selective compliance, and political resistance) that weaken the ICJ’s authority. The paper concludes by proposing normative and institutional reforms aimed at enhancing state compliance and reinforcing the Court’s credibility and relevance within the international legal order. In doing so, it contributes to the broader discourse on global justice and the future of international adjudication amid enduring concerns over state sovereignty.