Which of the following statements accurately distinguishes the legal status of an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice from a decision rendered by the United Nations Security Council?
- Advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice are consultative and non-binding, whereas Security Council decisions under Chapter VII carry binding legal force for all member states.Answer
- BAdvisory opinions become legally binding once ratified by the General Assembly, whereas Security Council decisions require approval from all fifteen members.
- CBoth advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice and Security Council resolutions carry identical binding legal obligations on all sovereign states.
- DSecurity Council decisions are advisory unless supported by two-thirds of non-permanent members, whereas International Court of Justice rulings are always universally binding.
Answer
Advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice are consultative and non-binding, whereas Security Council decisions under Chapter VII carry binding legal force for all member states.
Advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) are consultative statements on legal questions requested by authorized UN organs and specialized agencies, carrying no binding force. In contrast, Security Council resolutions adopted under Chapter VII carry mandatory legal obligation for all UN member states under Article 25 of the UN Charter.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Distinction between ICJ Advisory Jurisdiction and Security Council Binding Powers