Abstract
This paper explores the concept of legal standing before the International Court of Justice (“ICJ” or “the Court”) in contentious cases and the legal theories that states may invoke to establish their entitlement to submit claims relating to specific subject matters. The concept of standing in international law requires a party to demonstrate a sufficient legal interest in the subject matter of their case. Three primary theories potentially provide such an interest for states parties to multilateral treaties: legal injury from the respondent state’s violation of an obligation owed to the applicant state, obligations erga omnes partes created by the treaty regime and owed to all parties collectively, and obligations erga omnes derived from general international law and owed to the world community. For erga omnes partes, the paper introduces a novel two-step framework for identifying obligations erga omnes partes under multilateral treaties, requiring (1) ascertaining the treaty’s core object and purpose and (2) evaluating whether the underlying treaty mechanics reflect a “common interest” in the object and purpose shared by all states parties. Applying this framework across various treaties, the paper illustrates treaties that clearly possess a common interest versus those where such interest is questionable or absent. The analysis highlights the importance of the ICJ not overexpanding the doctrine of erga omnes partes to avoid deterring multilateral treaty participation and ensure the continued fairness and legitimacy of international adjudication.
Recommended Citation
Elson Law,
Standing Before the ICJ: A Novel Framework for Erga Omnes Partes,
48 Loy. L.A. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 1
(2025).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/ilr/vol48/iss1/1
