The JURDI Association expresses its deep concern following recent public statements by Ms. Julia Sebutinde, a sitting member of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), who recently stated:
« I have very strong conviction that we are in the End Times. The signs are being shown in the Middle East […] the Lord is counting on me to stand on the side of Israel. »
These remarks, made by a judge called upon to rule on disputes directly or indirectly involving Israel (cases South Africa vs. Israel, And Nicaragua vs. Germany), raise serious legal and ethical questions regarding their compatibility with international obligations of neutrality and impartiality.
1. The legal obligations of the judges of the ICJ
According to Article 20 of the Statute of the ICJ, each judge takes an oath to "perform his duties impartially and conscientiously".
Article 17 prohibits any judge from participating in a case where there could be a direct or indirect conflict of interest.
The Bangalore Principles on Judicial Conduct (2002) remind us that not only effective impartiality, but also the appearance of impartiality, are essential to preserving public confidence in the justice system.
2. An objective doubt about impartiality
By publicly declaring himself invested with a divine mandate to "stand by" a state, the judge in question expresses a position that:
- creates a clear bias on present and future affairs; ;
- fuels objective doubt about its ability to fairly judge any dispute involving this State or its adversaries; ;
- This calls into question the credibility and authority of the Court in the eyes of the international community. Article 20 of the Statute of the ICJ states: «Article 20: Every member of the Court shall, before taking office, in open session, make a solemn undertaking to perform his or her duties with complete impartiality and conscience.»
https://www.unodc.org/documents/corruption/bangalore_f.pdf
3. A major institutional challenge
The ICJ is the supreme court of the United Nations for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
Its legitimacy rests on the trust that states and peoples place in the independence and impartiality of its members.
A failure to uphold these fundamental principles threatens not only the fairness of a procedure, but also the credibility of the entire international legal architecture.
4. Appeal of JURDI
Given the seriousness of the issues, JURDI:
- invites the ICJ to formally examine the compatibility of these statements with the oath taken by the judge concerned; ;
- recommends the voluntary or automatic recusal of the judge in any case where his impartiality could reasonably be called into question; ;
- reminds international institutions of the importance of ensuring, in all circumstances, strict adherence to ethical rules.
