The United States and the "World Court" (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
Revised Oct. 17, 2018 |
| Report Number |
LSB10206 |
| Report Type |
Legal Sidebar |
| Authors |
Stephen P. Mulligan |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
| Older Revisions |
-
Premium Oct. 7, 2018 (3 pages, $24.95)
add
|
Summary:
The Trump Administration recently announced plans to reevaluate the United States’ role before the
International Court of Justice (ICJ)—commonly called the “World Court.” This year, Iran and the
Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO, designated as “Palestine” or “State of Palestine” within the U.N.
system) initiated separate proceedings against the United States at the international tribunal. After the ICJ
made a preliminary determination, over the United States’ objections, that it had jurisdiction to hear Iran’s
claims, the Trump Administration announced that the United States will withdraw from the treaties on
which both the Iran and PLO cases are based. The Administration also stated that it will review all other
international agreements “that may still expose the United States” to ICJ jurisdiction.
Some prior presidential Administrations have taken similar actions to narrow the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
Several decades ago, the Reagan Administration withdrew U.S. recognition of the ICJ’s compulsory
jurisdiction over a broad range of international legal disputes. And, in 2005, the George W. Bush
Administration withdrew from an international agreement giving the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes
between the United States and other parties to a consular convention. This Legal Sidebar reviews the most
recent ICJ proceedings against the United States by Iran and the PLO and the implications for Congress
of the Trump Administration’s withdrawal decision.
