CLA News / President’s Message (May 2026) The ICJ at 80: Upholding the Rule of Law in an Age of Geopolitical Fracture by CLA President Steven Thiru
International law gives States the certainty of a common language — and the predictability of a common framework to resolve differences peacefully. To weaken it is to erode the foundations of global stability. To strengthen it is to invest in a world governed by justice, not fear. Let us choose to strengthen it. Let us recommit to the peaceful settlement of disputes.
António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations (Remarks at the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the International Court of Justice, The Hague, 17 April 2026)
An Institution Born from the Ashes of War
Eight decades after its establishment, the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) remains one of the most enduring symbols of the international community’s commitment to resolving disputes through law rather than force.
Over this period, the ICJ has played a defining role in guiding and shaping the development of international law, articulating foundational principles that continue to govern relations between States. In landmark decisions such as Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania) (Merits), the Court established the enduring principle that States must not knowingly allow their territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other States.
In the seminal case of Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the Court reaffirmed the prohibition on the use of force as enshrined in the United Nations Charter. More recently, the Court reaffirmed its continuing relevance through its advisory opinion on Obligations of States in respect of Climate Change, confirming that States bear legal obligations under international law to protect the environment and to take meaningful measures to mitigate climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Together, these decisions underscore the Court’s enduring authority in forging a rules-based international order grounded in responsibility, restraint, and the collective interest of humanity. The ICJ’s founding vision, born from the ashes of global conflict, was simple yet profound: justice between States could be pursued through reasoned judgment grounded in shared legal principles. This aspirational mandate rested upon the supremacy of the rule of law and the comity of nations. Yet, in recent years, this aspiration has increasingly been challenged and, at times, even disregarded with impunity.
The Strait of Hormuz and the Challenge to Maritime Order
This tension between law and power is starkly illustrated by the ongoing saga in the Strait of Hormuz. As one of the world’s most critical and strategically significant maritime channels, through which a substantial portion of global energy supplies transit, the Strait is far more than a passageway; it is a geopolitical fulcrum. It is now being actively weaponised as an instrument of strategic coercion. For example, three Thai crew members were later confirmed to have died following an attack on the Thai-flagged vessel Mayuree Naree in the Strait of Hormuz on 11 March 2026, when projectiles reportedly attributed to Iranian forces struck the stern, causing a fire and fatal damage. Twenty other crew members were rescued by the Royal Navy of Oman. This incident aptly illustrates the acute risks posed to international shipping and civilian crews amid escalating regional tensions.
The legal status of the Strait of Hormuz is not ambiguous. Under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (‘UNCLOS’), it constitutes an international strait to which the regime of transit passage applies. This regime was specifically designed to ensure that key maritime routes remain open to all States in light of their indispensable role in global trade and navigation, and that they do not become pawns in geopolitical contests or wars of attrition.
Unlike innocent passage, which may in limited circumstances be temporarily suspended, transit passage may not be suspended. This is plain from Article 44 of UNCLOS:
“Duties of States bordering straits
States bordering straits shall not hamper transit passage and shall give appropriate publicity to any danger to navigation or overflight within or over the strait of which they have knowledge. There shall be no suspension of transit passage”.
This distinction between innocent passage and transit passage represents a deliberate effort to prevent the disruption of critical shipping lanes and to ensure that coastal States do not exercise control over a transit passage in a manner that impedes international navigation. This is a foundational principle of international maritime law, and one that is gravely undermined when coastal States seek to circumscribe or restrict transit through threats of force or military action.
A blockade or restriction affecting vessels of multiple nationalities also raises broader legal implications extending beyond bilateral disputes. Such measures engage not only the rights of directly affected States, but also the collective interests of the wider international community. In the absence of a lawful basis under international law, including any relevant authorisation from the United Nations Security Council where applicable, measures that substantially interfere with transit passage are difficult to reconcile with both UNCLOS and the principles of the United Nations Charter. This is particularly so where their effects extend far beyond the States directly involved in the underlying dispute, and impact third States with no direct nexus to the dispute.
The Global Consequences of Regional Escalation
There is, moreover, a broader and longer-term institutional dimension to consider. The consistent application of international legal rules, particularly those governing freedom of navigation, has long been central to preserving stability in other strategically sensitive regions. Departures from these principles, even in response to pressing security concerns, may affect how such rules are invoked and relied upon in future disputes, and ultimately weaken the credibility and predictability of the rules themselves. In this sense, the issue is not limited to the immediate situation in the Strait of Hormuz but touches upon the coherence and predictability of international legal order as a whole. Indeed, the current Strait of Hormuz debacle may function as a flashpoint with wider repercussions for other contested regions.
It is manifest that frameworks such as UNCLOS were developed precisely to balance competing sovereign interests while preserving shared access to the global commons. Where States act within these parameters, even intractable disputes can be managed within an ordered framework. Where they abnegate their obligations, the danger lies not merely in immediate escalation, but in the gradual erosion of the legal architecture that underpins international navigation, commerce, and peaceful coexistence.
The developments in the Strait of Hormuz therefore serve as a timely reminder that the strength of international law depends upon its faithful and consistent observance by States, particularly in moments of heightened geopolitical tension.
The Rule of Law in a Moment of Strain
Thus, as the international community reflects upon eight decades of the ICJ’s existence, the central challenge remains much the same as it was at the Court’s inception: ensuring that law prevails over force in the regulation of inter-State relations.
It is in this spirit that the following words of ICJ President, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, delivered during the commemoration of the 80th anniversary of the International Court of Justice in The Hague on 17 April 2026, resonate with particular force: “The rule of law will endure only if we choose to uphold it consistently and collectively in the service of peace and justice.”
Steven Thiru
President
Commonwealth Lawyers Association
21 May 2026
Steven Thiru records his appreciation to Jaishanker Sadananda and Chin Oy Sim for their assistance in preparing this article.
