In 1996, the International Court of Justice extended an Advisory Opinion as a response to the inquisitive anomaly between international states, organizations, and special agencies. The General Assembly (GA) and World Health Organization (WHO) were the contributors of the question regarding the “Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons by a State during Armed Conflict.” Agencies such as these rely on political actors in order to function as organs in maintaining International Order. These international agents are often referenced as International Governmental Organizations or IGO. It would appear that they maintain International order through their granted authority derived from established norms. Essentially, their ability to request opinions on a
…show more content…
After looking into case at hand with the WHO, and assuming the definition described by Wunderlich is the truest form of a Norm Entrepreneur it appears that that the ICJ is not an agent of social change in this instance. Analyzing how that conclusion was deduced is can be further explored in detail; Mueller believes a Norm Entrepreneur is an agent of social change and not just a Norm promoter. The fact that the ICJ refused to answer the question requested by the W.H.O. proves this theory. This action sparked a dialogue and debate that argues the ability of the ICJ to refute a question because it is the first time the International Court had ever denied a question. Diving deeper into their reasoning for doing so, it is clear in Chazournes and Sands edited text of authors, Chapter seven; by Michael Bothe, who explains how the ICJ was able to legally dodge the W.H.O. question. The very nature of the question pertains to justice or the justified actions carried out by nuclear weapons with no major referral to health which is a primary function and parameter of the competencies of the W.H.O. By refusing to answer the WHO’s inquiry, the ICJ was exercising agency, but not independent from its dynamic structure. Article 96 of the ICJ constitution also states its reservation of the right to limit responses on the basis of discretion in addition to the limited scope of “activities” and “competence” of the agency that requests it. This means to define the competencies of the ICJ which is to declare and settle disputes of legal concern but do so while taking into consideration that its agency is limited and must adhere to the restriction of activities and competences that exist inside its constitution. The conclusion on the justification of the ICJ’s refusal, is submissive to Mueller and Wunderlich’s argument that an
After looking into case at hand with the WHO, and assuming the definition described by Wunderlich is the truest form of a Norm Entrepreneur it appears that that the ICJ is not an agent of social change in this instance. Analyzing how that conclusion was deduced is can be further explored in detail; Mueller believes a Norm Entrepreneur is an agent of social change and not just a Norm promoter. The fact that the ICJ refused to answer the question requested by the W.H.O. proves this theory. This action sparked a dialogue and debate that argues the ability of the ICJ to refute a question because it is the first time the International Court had ever denied a question. Diving deeper into their reasoning for doing so, it is clear in Chazournes and Sands edited text of authors, Chapter seven; by Michael Bothe, who explains how the ICJ was able to legally dodge the W.H.O. question. The very nature of the question pertains to justice or the justified actions carried out by nuclear weapons with no major referral to health which is a primary function and parameter of the competencies of the W.H.O. By refusing to answer the WHO’s inquiry, the ICJ was exercising agency, but not independent from its dynamic structure. Article 96 of the ICJ constitution also states its reservation of the right to limit responses on the basis of discretion in addition to the limited scope of “activities” and “competence” of the agency that requests it. This means to define the competencies of the ICJ which is to declare and settle disputes of legal concern but do so while taking into consideration that its agency is limited and must adhere to the restriction of activities and competences that exist inside its constitution. The conclusion on the justification of the ICJ’s refusal, is submissive to Mueller and Wunderlich’s argument that an