The International Court of Justice decides cases impartially

“The International Court of Justice decides cases impartially”

Verdict: DISPUTED Important

Disputed. Its judges are elected by UN political bodies, a peer-reviewed study found they tend to favor the states that appointed them, and its president during 2024 had a long record as Lebanon's UN ambassador criticizing Israel. On the other side, in South Africa v. Israel the court declined to order a full ceasefire, its then-president said it had not found genocide plausible, and it is still hearing Israel's objections.

What this rates: whether the body's claim to be impartial is supported by the record — not whether any particular ruling or report is right. The evidence on both sides is shown with sources. These bodies are cited elsewhere on this site as sources for what they ruled, found or alleged, not as proof that the underlying facts are true.

What the ICJ claims

The court's Statute calls for "a body of independent judges," each of whom declares in open court that they will "exercise [their] powers impartially and conscientiously."

Evidence questioning the claim

Political election. Judges are elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council, where blocs of states vote together.
Measured national bias. A peer-reviewed study of ICJ votes (Posner & de Figueiredo, Journal of Legal Studies, 2005) found strong evidence that judges favor the states that appointed them and states similar to their own in wealth and political system.
The court's president. Nawaf Salam was ICJ president from February 2024 to January 2025. As Lebanon's UN ambassador (2007–2017) he had repeatedly criticized Israel; he left the court to become Lebanon's prime minister. Israel's foreign minister said his decisions on Israel should be disqualified.
Advisory opinions against Israel. In July 2024 the court advised that Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories is unlawful, and in October 2025 that Israel must facilitate UNRWA's work, finding Israel had not substantiated its claims of Hamas infiltration of UNRWA. Israel rejected both. (Advisory opinions are non-binding.)

Evidence supporting the claim

In January 2024 the court declined South Africa's request to order Israel to stop its military operations and ordered narrower measures; Israel's own judge, Aharon Barak, voted for two of them.
Its then-president, Joan Donoghue, said afterwards that the court had not decided the genocide claim was plausible (see our fact check).
Judge Julia Sebutinde of Uganda voted against every measure, calling the dispute "essentially and historically a political one."
The court is hearing Israel's objections to its jurisdiction; the case is in written pleadings, with Israel's final filing due in May 2029.

Rating: Disputed

The court's structure (judges chosen by political bodies), measured patterns of national favoritism, and its 2024 president's record give real grounds for doubt. Its actual orders in South Africa v. Israel were narrower than critics of Israel wanted. The genocide question itself has not been decided.

Scale and intent — side by side

October 7 (Hamas): about 770–840 civilians killed in one day. Intent to kill civilians is documented — in Hamas's written orders ("kill as many people as possible"), its fighters' own footage, and its leaders' statements.

Gaza (Israel): civilian deaths in the tens of thousands over two years (the civilian share is disputed, roughly 60% to 83%). Israel's stated aim is to destroy Hamas; warnings and large aid volumes are documented, and several incidents have been acknowledged by the IDF as errors. Intent to kill civilians is alleged, and has not been established by any court.

Both facts matter, and neither cancels the other. Every party's alleged crimes, on one scale: War Crimes Ledger.

Sources & References

Related Events

October 21, 2026

ICJ vs. ICC: Two Courts in The Hague, Often Confused