Last checked: 16 October 2026. Part of our Explainers series.
In brief: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the United Nations’ court for disputes between states. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is a separate, treaty-based court that tries individual people for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression. One decides whether a state broke international law; the other decides whether a person is criminally guilty.
News reports often say “the court in The Hague” without saying which one. The difference is not a technicality. It decides who can be taken to court, what the court can order, and what a ruling means for victims. This guide sets out the basics, then shows how both courts are dealing with real situations in Africa and Ukraine.
The short comparison
| International Court of Justice (ICJ) | International Criminal Court (ICC) | |
|---|---|---|
| Who appears before it | States only | Individuals accused of crimes |
| Legal basis | UN Charter and the ICJ Statute | Rome Statute, a separate treaty |
| Part of the UN? | Yes, a principal UN organ | No, an independent court |
| Judges | 15, nine-year terms | 18, in three judicial divisions |
| Typical outcome | Judgment on state responsibility; advisory opinions | Arrest warrants, trials, sentences, reparations |
| Prosecutor? | No | Yes, an independent Office of the Prosecutor |
The International Court of Justice: the court of states
The UN Charter calls the ICJ “the principal judicial organ of the United Nations” (Chapter XIV, Article 92). According to the Court’s own description, it began work in April 1946, sits in the Peace Palace in The Hague, and is made up of 15 judges elected for nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.
The ICJ does two things. It settles legal disputes that states bring against each other, and it gives advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorised UN organs and agencies. Under Article 34 of the ICJ Statute, only states may be parties in contentious cases. No individual can be prosecuted there, and the Court cannot jail anyone.
Jurisdiction depends on consent. A state can accept the Court’s authority through a treaty clause, a special agreement or a general declaration under Article 36 of the Statute. Many human rights cases reach the ICJ through the dispute clause of a treaty such as the Genocide Convention. Under Article 94 of the Charter, UN members undertake to comply with ICJ decisions, and a state that wins can turn to the Security Council if the other side does not comply.
The International Criminal Court: the court for individuals
The ICC was created by the Rome Statute, adopted in 1998. The UN Treaty Collection records that the Statute entered into force on 1 July 2002. Article 5 of the Rome Statute gives the Court jurisdiction over four crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
The ICC explains that its 18 judges work in three divisions: Pre-Trial, Trial and Appeals. An independent Office of the Prosecutor investigates and brings cases.
Three rules shape what the ICC can do:
- Territory or nationality. Under Article 12, the Court can act on crimes committed on the territory of a state party, or by a national of one. A non-member state can also accept jurisdiction by declaration.
- Security Council referral. Under Article 13(b), the Security Council can refer a situation in any country, member or not.
- Complementarity. Under Article 17, a case is inadmissible if a state with jurisdiction is genuinely investigating or prosecuting it. The ICC is meant to be a court of last resort, not a replacement for national courts.
The Assembly of States Parties listed 125 states parties when we checked on 16 October 2026. The UN Treaty Collection shows that both the United States and Iran signed the Statute on 31 December 2000; neither has ratified it.
Why the difference matters: two kinds of responsibility
The courts answer different questions. The ICJ asks whether a state breached its obligations, for example a duty to prevent genocide. The ICC asks whether a person is guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt. The same events can lead to both kinds of case.
The ICJ’s 2007 judgment in Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro illustrates the state side: the case concerned a state’s obligations under the Genocide Convention, not the guilt of any individual. Individual guilt for the same war was handled by a different body, the UN’s International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which predated the ICC.
For a fuller explanation of the crimes themselves, see War crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, explained.
Case study: Africa
At the ICC: Darfur, Sudan
The Darfur situation was referred to the ICC by the UN Security Council in 2005, because Sudan is not a state party. The ICC’s Darfur page states that on 6 October 2025 Trial Chamber I found Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman guilty of 27 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur between August 2003 and April 2004, and on 9 December 2025 sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. The page also records that both the defence and the prosecution have appealed, so the judgment is not final.
This was the first trial arising from the Darfur referral. It concerns events of two decades ago; the violence in Sudan today, including the fall of El Fasher, is tracked on our Africa page.
At the ICJ: The Gambia v. Myanmar
The ICJ case page shows that The Gambia filed its application against Myanmar on 11 November 2019 under the Genocide Convention, over the treatment of the Rohingya. The Gambia was not itself affected; it acted as a party to the Convention, whose obligations are owed to all parties. When we checked on 16 October 2026, the case page’s latest press release recorded the conclusion of public hearings on the merits on 29 January 2026. No final judgment was listed.
Case study: Ukraine
Ukraine is before both courts, in different ways.
At the ICJ, Ukraine filed Allegations of Genocide (Ukraine v. Russian Federation) in February 2022. The Court ordered provisional measures on 16 March 2022. In a judgment of 2 February 2024, it found that it had jurisdiction over only one of Ukraine’s claims. The case continues and, as an ICJ case, can result only in findings about the two states.
At the ICC, the Prosecutor’s investigation concerns individuals, and the Court has issued arrest warrants. We set out the warrants, the evidence documented by UN investigators and the state of accountability in our report Russian war crimes in Ukraine.
Common mistakes in news coverage
- “The ICJ charged…” The ICJ never charges anyone. Charges come from the ICC Prosecutor and are confirmed by ICC judges.
- “The ICC ruled that the country committed genocide.” The ICC rules on individuals. A finding that a state violated the Genocide Convention can come only from the ICJ.
- “Indicted” versus “convicted”. An arrest warrant means judges found reasonable grounds to believe a person committed a crime. It is not a finding of guilt.
- “The Hague court” for the European Court of Human Rights. That court sits in Strasbourg and belongs to the Council of Europe, not the UN or the ICC.
Why this matters for Boston readers
Massachusetts has communities with close ties to Ukraine, Sudan, Iran and many other countries where these courts are active. Knowing which court is which helps readers judge headlines, support victims’ groups responsibly, and avoid repeating claims that a court has not made. Our Issues page gathers our coverage of accountability and justice.
What you can do
Read the court’s own case page before sharing a headline; both courts publish press releases in plain language. If you find an error here, tell us on our Contact page.
Additional sources
- International Court of Justice, List of all cases and basic documents.
- International Criminal Court, About the Court and situations under investigation.
- UN Office of Legal Affairs, Rome Statute: drafting conference documents.
- International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, advisory opinion of 8 July 1996, an example of the advisory function.