LLM trip to the Hague
Beste Yasav, International Law LLM student, reflects on her recent visit to the Hague as part of a class trip. The visit was undertaken by students taking the International Courts and Tribunals course as part of their LLM programme.
On 16 June, we took a trip to The Hague, where we visited the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC). We had a tour of the Peace Palace in the morning, followed by a Q&A session with one of the Law Clerks in the Court, Máté Csernus. In the afternoon we headed to the ICC, where we had a presentation about the Court, saw the courtroom and had the chance to ask our questions. Following that, we went back to the Peace Palace in the late afternoon and had the incredible opportunity to meet the German ICJ judge, Judge Nolte. We asked our questions and talked to him about the ICJ, the role of the judges, and some of the recent developments in the international courts and tribunals.
Firstly, we went on a tour of the Peace Palace, where we saw the library, the new wing, the gardens, and the iconic building of the ICJ. We found out that every State gifted something to the Palace, so there were many wonderful statues, fountains, and little pieces of all the countries. We saw the statue gifted by Hungary at the very entrance inside the Palace and learned that Scotland gifted the stained glass in the courtroom, which we got to see later in the morning. Following the lovely tour of the ICJ, we moved on to the courtroom (the one we see on the live streams of the cases!), where the judges sit and adjudicate on the case. It was an amazing experience to sit in the courtroom and ask our questions about the role of the court and the staff. We specifically talked about the roles of the law clerks and the judicial fellows as well as the judges. We discussed the diversity in the Court and learned that there were now more female judicial fellows, which was a huge improvement on the past. It was also mentioned that although there were still more male clerks, the percentage was getting better. On the other hand, out of the 15 judges sitting on the bench, only 4 of them are women, which is unfortunately the maximum number of women judges on the bench since the establishment of the Court. We all agreed that diversity in the court should be improved and even though it was doing better, there is still a long way to go.
We also talked about the recent increase in the use of tools such as intervention and erga omnes. It was stated that there were not many tools available to the States, so it was a positive step that they were starting to use the tools they have had for a long time. Then we asked about the prioritisation of cases, especially with the increasing number of cases brought in front of the Court. The exceptions to the normal ‘first come first served’ process were discussed, especially the different procedures for advisory opinions and provisional measures. Lastly, we spoke about the impact of AI in judging and whether it will have a role in the proceedings in the future. It has been said that currently it was not trustworthy enough, hence there was not much use of AI, but the future is uncertain as there are many fast-paced developments in the area. Overall, it was an amazing tour and Q&A session with Máté Csernus, where we had the chance to see the things we learned in class in person, and walk in the same hallways that the judges do.
The second stop of the day was the ICC. After a quick lunch break, we walked to the ICC as (luckily) the weather was wonderful. The two Courts were relatively far away from each other, which was an excuse for us to do a bit of sightseeing of The Hague on our way to the ICC. One of the most interesting things in the ICC was their e-courtrooms full of computers and headphones. It was quite a technological environment; they mentioned that they were trying to use minimal amounts of paper in the proceedings. We were also told that it was convenient for everyone involved and more accessible as well since no one needed to go through hundreds of pages of paper, instead they could just scroll on their computers. After a general tour and chat about the Court, we had a presentation about the ICC, followed by another Q&A session. We talked about the three ways the Court can have jurisdiction, and the types of crimes they have jurisdiction over (crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and crimes of aggression in limited circumstances). We touched upon the principle of complementarity, which we also learned in class, and discussed how ICC was a secondary court that only steps in if the individual is not being investigated or prosecuted for the same crimes. It was highlighted that the proceedings -if there are any- should be genuine, and not ‘sham’.
Following a question about the backgrounds of the investigators working in the Court, we learned that most of them had a police background - especially organised crime - and some of them had law backgrounds. We talked about how patience was very important in international criminal cases as they can take a long time. It was mentioned that many criminals also engage in combat, so after a very long time and a lot of money spent on cases, the individual might be dead and cannot be arrested nor sentenced. It was emphasised that the costs of litigation is one of the main challenges in the Court. Moreover, we talked about the requirement of ‘substantial grounds to believe’ to commence the case in the ICC.
Furthermore, they mentioned the delays in disclosure of identities due to the powerful people involved in the cases. There was a question about non-state parties hosting the criminals, or when the individuals with an arrest warrant seek asylum in non-state parties. It was said that the Court cannot ask the non-state party to hand over the individual but can invite them to do so. We also talked about the role of the Court regarding gender-based violence, where the important developments in the Rome Statute were discussed, especially touching on the fact that forced marriage can be a crime against humanity. Lastly, we discussed sentencing in the ICC. The maximum is life penalty, but the Court carries out sentencing on the lower end. The post-release procedures were also a discussion point, where we learned that it depends on what the State wants and whether they want the perpetrator back. To sum up, it was a very inspiring and informative presentation and Q&A session, where we had the opportunity to ask the questions we were discussing in class, to people who worked in the Court and were involved in the proceedings we have read about as our seminar readings.
The final stop of the day was our meeting with Judge Nolte. Following a quick break with our friends, where we did a bit more sightseeing, had some food and climbed the Binnenhof viewing tower in the city centre of Hague, we went back to the Peace Palace. It was incredible meeting with a current ICJ Judge. We asked him questions about his role as a judge and the ICJ in general. We discussed public interest litigation and the recent increase of it. He mentioned how the term comes from domestic law, and he prefers to refer to it as ‘community or collective interest’ in international law as we are talking about more global interests. We talked about ‘mass interventions’ in cases, and he spoke about how the interventions increase the number of pages to read as a judge. He mentioned the pages to read had doubled since he joined the Court in 2021, and being a judge has become a full-time job. Lastly, we learned that there were 120 people working in the ICJ and we reflected on the fact that it is a very small number compared to the ICC, circling back to the increased workload of the judges in the ICJ. To conclude, it was a wonderful opportunity for us to have these conversations with Judge Nolte, hear about his opinions and work, and ask any questions we had.
We are very grateful for this opportunity and feel very lucky to have had such a busy and inspiring day. Special thanks to Dr James Devaney, Dr Matina Papadaki, and Dr Joseph Crampin who taught International Courts and Tribunals and organised this trip. It was a wonderful note to end on for all of us, and it was truly a privilege to be a part of this trip, and to meet all the important people in the international legal order. It was a very surreal experience to meet the people whose judgments on cases we had read, and to see the courtrooms where those decisions were made.
~Beste Yasav, International Law LLM Student
