Read on Twitter
I came across couple of #Somalis who are citing South China Sea maritime case and claiming that #Kenya can withdraw from the #ICJ case or completely ignore its ruling. I’d like to clarify this conundrum based on my international law capacity as there’s considerable confusion-1/6.
The China vs Philippines contentious maritime case was considered and arbitrated by the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) and not the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as some claimed. The PCA unlike the ICJ can only consider cases based on the consensus of the parties-2/6
The PCA can only offer its arbitration and conciliation services to consenting clients and countries as it doesn’t carry within its remit compulsory adjudicatory authority like the ICJ. The PCA clearly operates more like a tribunal and less as a judicial traditional court-3/6.
Therefore this means the PCA does not make any judicial decisions as it cannot enforce its judgements. It confines itself to non-contentious cases. This in large part can clearly explain why many countries conclude that they can easily ignore PCA rulings, just like China did-4/6.
Unlike the #PCA which currently operates more as a tribunal and less as a judicial court and doesn’t carry significant legal clout, #ICJ conclusions and judgments are clearly enforceable on #UN member countries through the UN Security Council as per Article 94 of @UN Charter-5/6.
