ICJ and ICC Explained: Which Court Deals With States, and Which Tries Individuals?

October 9, 2026 edition. Published October 10, 2026. Reporting cutoff: October 9, 11:59 p.m. India time.

International court headlines can be difficult to follow when two institutions have similar names. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and International Criminal Court (ICC) answer different legal questions. Knowing who is involved, which court is hearing the matter and what stage proceedings have reached helps readers avoid treating an accusation as an established finding.

The ICJ: legal disputes between states

Only states can be parties to the ICJ’s contentious cases. Its jurisdiction depends on their acceptance, which may arise through a special agreement, a treaty provision or reciprocal declarations. Individuals and companies cannot bring their own contentious cases before this court.

The ICJ also provides advisory opinions at the request of authorised United Nations bodies and specialised agencies. These opinions are generally non-binding, although particular instruments can give them binding effect. A contentious judgment, by contrast, binds the parties to that case. Identifying the type of proceeding is therefore essential.

The ICC: criminal responsibility of individuals

The ICC’s founding treaty, the Rome Statute, covers genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression, subject to jurisdictional conditions. The court complements national criminal systems where genuine proceedings cannot or will not be carried out. It is not a replacement for every national court.

A defendant is presumed innocent, and the prosecutor carries the burden of proving guilt. Prosecutors must consider evidence that supports and undermines an accusation. A warrant allows a case to move through the legal process; it does not mean that trial judges have convicted the person.

The ICC has no police force of its own. Arrests, transfers and enforcement rely on cooperation. A decision can therefore have legal significance even when its practical implementation is delayed.

One situation, different forms of responsibility

Article 25 of the Rome Statute addresses natural persons and individual responsibility. It also expressly preserves the separate responsibility of states under international law. The same conflict can raise questions about a government’s obligations and about a particular person’s conduct without those questions being interchangeable.

The statute identifies several possible forms of participation, including committing, ordering and intentionally assisting a crime. Each allegation still requires assessment under the relevant legal rules. A senior position, a political association or a news headline alone does not establish the elements of a criminal offence.

Three checks for the next headline

First, read the court’s full name. Second, identify whether the case concerns states or an accused individual. Third, check the document: a filing presents a claim, an interim decision addresses a particular stage, and a final judgment determines the questions before the court.

For example, a headline saying that a case has been opened should lead a reader to look for the filing and jurisdictional basis. A headline about a warrant calls for checking the alleged offences and procedural stage. Neither should be rewritten as a finding of guilt. These small checks make international justice reporting more useful and keep its conclusions within the evidence.

Sources: ICJ: How the Court Works; ICC: How the Court Works; UN legal archive: Rome Statute, Part 3.