ICJ vs ICC: What Is the Difference? (Plain-English Explainer)

The ICJ and the ICC are both based in The Hague but do opposite jobs. The International Court of Justice settles legal disputes between states. The International Criminal Court prosecutes individual people for genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Who they judge

The ICJ only hears cases between states — for example, one country accusing another of breaching a treaty. The ICC puts individuals on trial: presidents, commanders and officials can be indicted, but countries cannot.

Where they come from

The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, created by the UN Charter in 1945; all UN members are automatically parties. The ICC is independent of the UN and was created by a separate treaty, the Rome Statute (in force 2002); only states that ratified it are members.

What powers they have

The ICJ issues binding judgments in contentious cases and non-binding advisory opinions. The ICC issues arrest warrants and criminal sentences, but — like the ICJ — has no police force and depends on states to cooperate. On why the ICC steps in only when national courts fail, see complementarity.

Frequently asked questions

Can the ICC arrest a sitting head of state?

Yes. The ICC can issue an arrest warrant against a sitting head of state, but it cannot carry out the arrest itself — a member state must detain and surrender the person.

Is the ICJ part of the United Nations?

Yes. The ICJ is the principal judicial organ of the UN. The ICC, by contrast, is an independent treaty-based court, not a UN body.

Which court hears the Israel–South Africa case?

That genocide case is before the ICJ, because it is a dispute between two states under the Genocide Convention.

Primary sources

• International Court of Justice — How the Court works
• International Criminal Court — About
• UN Charter, Chapter XIV (the ICJ)

קראו בעברית ←