ICC and ICJ

The International Criminal Court (ICC) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are similar in one main way: they are both “courts”. However, in terms of function, they are quite different event if the general legal question brought before them is almost the same.For example, the case of South Africa v. the State of Israel is about genocide, a crime in international humanitarian law and in the Rome State (the treaty that govern the ICC). However, the outcome of a case about genocide adjudicated by the ICC will be radically different from the outcome of the same case when adjudicated by the ICJ, and the reason for such difference explain the principal differences that distinguish the two courts.As a criminal court, the ICC adjudicates criminal cases where individual (human beings) are accused of one of the crimes that fall under four broad category of crimes including genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. If convicted, a person indicted and convicted of the crime of genocide, for example, may end up being imprisoned. Individuals are the subjects in the ICC.The subjects of the ICJ, on the other hand, are States. States, they are recognized as a fictitious “legal person”, even though States are run by humans. Nonetheless, before the ICJ, States are the governing institution and orders of the court apply to the State, not to the individuals running the State. In a way, ICJ can be categorized as a “civil court” because the outcome is civil in nature; pay compensation, withdraw troops, stop a military operation, etc.Another difference between the two courts is the fact that the ICJ is an institution of the United Nations (UN), making all nation-states that are members of the UN party to this court, the ICC, on the other hand, is an independent organization, totally independent of the UN.Other differences between the ICC and ICJ can be derived from the above primary differences.