Shadings of Nuance: Contextualizing a "Convergence of Opinion" Regarding a River Located in the Imaginarium of the Western Mind

Abstract

Article 38(1) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) makes it clear that a primary function of the Court is to decide disputes submitted to it. From jurisprudential and practical perspectives, debates arise over the meaning of a dispute. International public policy emphasizes the need for the following objectives in resolving disputes: finality, economy and efficiency, effectiveness, and certainty. These objectives promote the progressive development of international law and avoid the grand nemeses of international dispute resolution—decisions that do not decide disputes, judgments that are unclear, and outcomes that may evade the question posed. “Great shades of nuance” complicate the meaning of a dispute. The narrowness of the path taken by the ICJ to articulate a decision may mask weaknesses in judicial reasoning and undercut the coherence of the international legal order. However, such narrowness may also indicate judicial circumspection to protect the integrity of the Court’s judgments. Addressing more than the question posed invites unnecessary criticisms that may damage the Court’s reputation.