The International Court of Justice in The Hague
ICJ Boosts Transparency with Article 78 Reform
The Hague: The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has taken a major step to enhance transparency and accountability in monitoring the implementation of its provisional measures by amending Article 78 of its Rules of Court. Effective February 2, 2026, the revised provision allows the Court, after considering the views of the parties, to make reports on compliance publicly accessible, in whole or in part, unless a party objects. This procedural change is widely viewed as a response to prior disputes in which limited access to compliance information hindered perceptions of enforcement.
Provisional measures are urgent directives issued to prevent irreparable harm while a dispute is pending before the ICJ, often in politically sensitive or legally complex cases. Under the previous Article 78, the Court could request information from parties on compliance, but there was no formal mechanism for public disclosure, leaving observers and stakeholders reliant on selective or delayed reporting. The amendment now clarifies the conditions under which compliance reports can be shared with the public, strengthening accountability while maintaining sensitivity to the positions of disputing states.
Recent cases illustrate the impetus for the reform. In Ukraine versus the Russian Federation, the ICJ issued provisional measures in 2022 concerning allegations of genocide. Although both parties provided information to the Court, the absence of public access led to criticism from international legal observers, human rights organisations, and diplomats, who argued that transparency was crucial for ensuring credibility and legitimacy in enforcement. Similarly, in the Qatar versus United Arab Emirates dispute arising from the 2017 Gulf diplomatic crisis, provisional measures were implemented, but monitoring was opaque, creating uncertainty about whether the directives were fully observed. Historical precedents, such as Iran versus the United States cases involving hostage crises and sanctions disputes, further highlighted that unclear compliance reporting could weaken the ICJ’s authority and the perception of impartial enforcement.
The amendment does not impose a new reporting obligation, as the Court could already request information under the previous rules. Instead, it enhances the framework for public accessibility, making transparency a central feature of the compliance process. Reports, once submitted, can now be shared with the international community, providing a verifiable record of state adherence to provisional measures. This ensures that provisional measures are not only legally binding but also visible to the global audience, which includes states, legal scholars, media, and international organisations.
The implications of this procedural reform are far-reaching. For states, public access to compliance reports introduces political and reputational stakes, encouraging careful adherence to ICJ directives. For the Court, the amendment strengthens its credibility as a transparent, accountable judicial body, capable of monitoring enforcement even in cases where compliance depends on voluntary cooperation. For diplomats, international organisations, and observers, the availability of reports allows evidence-based analysis of state behaviour, particularly in conflicts with global strategic significance.
Examples of where this transparency could have practical consequences include ongoing disputes such as the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where provisional measures involve the protection of civilians and cultural heritage; Israel-Palestine cases concerning humanitarian and border issues; and economic sanctions disputes involving states like Iran and North Korea, where monitoring compliance is politically sensitive. Public access to ICJ reports could influence negotiation strategies, multilateral pressure campaigns, and policy decisions by providing objective evidence of adherence or violations.
Legal analysts note that the amendment represents a broader trend in international law: as disputes grow more complex and politically charged, procedural transparency and accountability are essential to maintain the legitimacy of judicial institutions. By making compliance reporting accessible to the public, the ICJ signals that its authority derives not only from legal mandate but also from openness, verifiability, and procedural credibility.
In sum, the revised Article 78 balances the Court’s need for oversight with respect for state sensitivities, providing a mechanism that strengthens global confidence in the ICJ’s provisional measures. The reform underscores a simple but vital principle: in a world of heightened scrutiny and instantaneous global information, the enforcement of international judicial orders must be both credible and visible, ensuring that the ICJ continues to serve as an impartial, authoritative, and transparent arbiter of international disputes.
– global bihari bureau
