From the Peace Palace in The Hague to the UN: Election of five ICJ judges opens file on international judicial independence and future Kuwaiti and Gulf presence

As international conflicts escalate and the need to resort to the law grows, the United Nations witnessed, on November 3, 2026, the election of five judges to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for nine-year terms beginning on February 6, 2027.

The results included the election of Dapo Akande from the United Kingdom, François Alabrune from France, Mahmoud Daif Allah Hamoud from Jordan, Rina Lee from Singapore, and Phoebe Okowa from Kenya, with the Jordanian and Kenyan judges being re-elected for full new terms.

From a legal and practical perspective, covering the period from 2012 to 2020 at the Peace Palace in The Hague, headquarters of the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and reflecting Kuwait’s representation and that of the Asian continent in international justice institutions, the significance of the election lies in the names of the winners, the nature of the Court’s independence, the qualifications leading to membership, and the potential for building a future Kuwaiti and Gulf judicial presence at the International Court of Justice.

Nine candidates competed for five seats in elections conducted independently by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Four seats were decided in the first round, while the election of Kenyan judge Phoebe Okowa required three rounds.

A candidate needed 97 votes in the General Assembly and eight votes in the Security Council, without the veto power of the five permanent members, to win.

Article 10 of the Court’s Statute explicitly stipulates non-discrimination between permanent and non-permanent members in the election of judges; therefore, no state can use its veto power to prevent the election of a candidate who has secured the required majority.

This differs from the selection of the UN Secretary-General. Article 97 of the Charter requires the Secretary-General to be appointed by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council. This recommendation is substantive and subject to Article 27, allowing any permanent member to block it with a veto.

This difference reflects the nature of the two systems: the election of judges is governed by specific legal safeguards that protect the process from the veto power of major powers, whereas the Security Council retains a decisive role in selecting the UN’s chief administrative officer.

The veto does not automatically extend to all international posts. For example, the election of judges and the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) follows the Rome Statute without a Security Council vote. However, substantive decisions taken by the Council regarding the establishment of international institutions or missions and the definition of their mandates may be subject to the veto, without implying that all their appointments are subject to it.

The Court was established in 1945 and began its work in 1946. It is headquartered at the Peace Palace in The Hague and consists of fifteen judges elected for nine-year terms, with five seats renewed every three years.

The Court has jurisdiction to settle legal disputes between states when its jurisdiction is established and to issue advisory opinions at the request of authorized international organs. It differs from the International Criminal Court, which is competent to try individuals for crimes within its jurisdiction.

Elected judges do not represent their governments, and the Court cannot include two judges of the same nationality. Its composition also takes into account the representation of the main forms of civilization and the principal legal systems of the world.

He holds a Bachelor of Laws from the University of Ife in Nigeria and a Master of Laws from the London School of Economics. He is a Professor of International Law at the University of Oxford, a member of the International Law Commission, and a specialist in armed conflicts, immunities, and the use of force.

He studied law at the University of Limoges, graduated from the Sciences Po Paris Institute of Political Studies and the École Nationale d’Administration, served as head of legal affairs at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, acted as ambassador to the Netherlands, and participated in negotiations related to the establishment of the International Criminal Court.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in law from the University of Jordan, a master’s degree from George Washington University, a diploma in international human rights law from Lund University, and another master’s degree from the Franklin Pierce Law Center. He served as Jordan’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations and chaired the International Law Commission in 2021.

She holds a bachelor’s and a master’s degree in law from the National University of Singapore and an honorary doctorate from the University of Aberdeen. She served as Ambassador for International Law, chaired negotiations on the 2023 High Seas Biodiversity Agreement, and possesses expertise in the law of the sea.

She holds a bachelor’s degree in law from the University of Nairobi, a legal practice diploma from Kenya, a higher degree in legal studies, and a doctorate from the University of Oxford. She is a professor of international law at Queen Mary University of London and specializes in international responsibility and environmental law.

These biographies reveal three professional pathways to the international judiciary: the academic and research track, the legal-diplomatic track, and the litigation and international arbitration track. These pathways overlap, and none necessarily requires prior service as a national judge or the possession of a doctorate, provided the candidate meets the competence and integrity criteria set forth in the Statute.

The elections coincide with several cases currently before the International Court of Justice that carry global and Arab significance, notably:

- Regarding the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in the Gaza Strip, in which the Court issued provisional measures in 2024 without rendering a final judgment establishing the occurrence of genocide.

- Regarding obligations arising from the Convention against Torture and state responsibility for preventing and investigating violations.

These cases highlight the distinction between issuing a judicial ruling and enforcing it. Article 94 of the UN Charter obliges parties to a dispute to comply with the Court’s judgments, but it allows recourse to the Security Council in cases of non-compliance, where political considerations and the veto power in substantive decisions may re-emerge.

Kuwait, whose modern history has been closely linked to international legitimacy following the aggressive Iraqi invasion in 1990, possesses significant experience in defending state sovereignty and resolving disputes through legal means. Similarly, Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries have expertise in diplomacy, arbitration, and the law of the sea.

There are no reserved seats for Kuwait or the Gulf region; nominations are made through national groups at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, and elections are subject to approval by the General Assembly and the Security Council.

The experiences of Jordan and Singapore demonstrate that access to the Court depends not on the size of the state, but on building legal expertise with an international presence.

Hence, there is a need for a Gulf strategy encompassing advanced academic qualifications, participation in international law committees, experience in judicial and arbitral institutions, and support for diplomatically qualified nominations, while respecting the independence of candidates.

The next regular elections are scheduled for 2029, for a term beginning in February 2030, with the possibility of extraordinary elections to fill any vacant seats.

The 2026 elections underscore that the independence of the international judiciary relies not only on legal provisions, but also on the qualifications, integrity, and ability of judges to apply the law independently of governmental interests. This highlights the importance of enhancing Arab and Gulf legal presence in international institutions by strengthening the rule of law.

Given the importance of The Hague as a center for international justice, preparing a qualified Kuwaiti or Gulf judge to compete for a seat on the International Court of Justice is an institutional project worthy of study and early planning. A country’s standing is measured not only by its political and economic presence but also by the legal expertise it contributes to the independence and development of international justice.

Former observer of the Executive Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Peace Palace, The Hague