International Court of Justice

ICJ Logo

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the only international court adjudicating general disputes between nations and giving advisory opinions on international legal issues. Its member nations vote on and approve International Law which the court enforces. The Court is Headquartered in the City of Paragould within the Principality of Paragould. The Court is made up of four councils; The Economic Council, The Legal Council, The Peace Council, and The Human Rights Council. A President leads each council while the Chief Justice leads the court. The International Court of Justice also hosts the Valsoran International Police (VALPOL), the Valsoran Health Organization (VHO), and the Valsoran Weather Service (VWS).

International Court of Justice Justices

Chief Justice International Court of Justice	President The Legal Council	President The Human Rights Council	President The Economic Council	President The Peace Council
Peter San Angelo	Cristóvão Carvalho de Saldanha	Alfred Cervidae	Mark Capuano	Oohashi Sati
Volinovian	Estander	Romanoddlian	Malvekian	Myehnese
1st Term	1st Term	1st Term	1st Term	1st Term

Valsoran International Police Badge

International Court of Justice Staff

Chief The Valsoran International Police	Director The Valsoran Health Organization	Director The Valsoran Weather Service	Director The Green Cross	Director The Green Crescent
Marco Antonio V. Arellano			Henry Axleman	Isaac Seyed
Pangasinanese			Volinovian	Lafarian
1st Term			Term N/A	Term N/A

Operations of the Court

The Human Rights Council

The Human Rights Council has jurisdiction over all international laws and cases that are in reference to Human Rights and the violation of International Human Rights Laws. The Valsoran Health Organization (VHO) Humanitarian Aid Missions in reference to Prisoners of War, Notification of the families of Prisoners of War, and Human Rights fall under the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Council.

The Economic Council

The Economic Council has jurisdiction over all international laws and cases that are in reference to International Economics and violation of International Economic Law. The Valsoran Health Organization (VHO) Humanitarian Aid Missions fall under the jurisdiction of The Economic Council President. The Valsoran Weather Service (VWS) falls under the jurisdiction of the economic council.

The Peace Council

The Peace Council has jurisdiction over all international laws and cases that are in reference to Peace and violation of the International Laws of Peace and Prosperity.

The Legal Council

The Legal Council has jurisdiction over all international laws and cases that are in reference to the enforcement of International Court of Justice punitive actions and the duty to ensure that all proposed ICJ legislation is within the jurisdiction of the court and enforceable by the Court of Justice. The Valsoran International Police (VALPOL) falls under the jurisdiction of the Legal Council President.

Valsoran International Police

The Valsoran International Police (VALPOL) is the enforcement branch of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). VALPOL investigates and enforces all laws passed by the International Court of Justice and its member nations. Officers of VALPOL are selected by the appropriate body within their nation of citizenship and have jurisdiction solely in their nation of citizenship. VALPOL Officers work with other VALPOL Officers located in different nations to investigate, track, and affect arrests for violations of International Law.

The Chief of VALPOL has the duty to audit the member nations of VALPOL's Police Forces to ensure that they are compliant with International Best Practices with policing and that they are not issuing warrants, arresting, investigating, or detaining for purposes other then the duties of which they are entrusted by the International Court of Justice.

Valsoran Health Organization

Work in Progress.

Valsoran Weather Service

Work in Progress.

Internationally Recognized Terrorist Organizations

Organization Name	Organization Operating Area	Organization Nationality	Organization Ideology
Rastavan Freedom Army	Rastava & Volinovia	Volinovian & Rastava	Independence Faction
Supremos	Pangasinan	Pangasinanese	Human Supremacy

Major Past Rulings

Case 0001-34 | The Second Republic of Lointland vs The Kingdom of Estande

Judgement | The Second Republic of Lointland

Summary Judgement for ICJ CASE 0001-34: Lointland VS Estande: In a review of the facts of the case, we, the Justices of the Court, have found the following to be true:

The Kingdom of Estande (to be referred to as Estande from here on out) announced its declaration of its Exclusive Economic Zone surrounding its maritime territories on the Piscary Sea. The Republic of Lointland (to be referred to as Lointland from here on out), being a sovereign nation and dissatisfied by Estande’s declared Exclusive Economic Zone, refused to recognize Estande’s claims in the Piscary Sea. The issue was not brought up further between Estande and Lointland despite disagreeing to the extent of each nation’s EEZ. Estande’s maritime territory and EEZ boundaries were not sufficiently demarcated with physical markers such as buoys or floating beacons. On the 27th of June, 2034 at approximately 1756 hours, an Estander Coast Guard vessel intercepted a Lointish fishing vessel within its declared EEZ. The ECG vessel initiated a chase that lasted approximately one hour as the Lointish fishing vessel fled, before being apprehended at approximately 1900 hours after a warning shot was fired with the patrol vessel’s .50 calibre machine gun.The Estander Coast Guard identified themselves to the Lointish fishing vessel crew, but due to language barriers, such information was not communicated to them. It was found that the Lointish fishing vessel was ill-equipped for seafaring operations, lacking necessary specialized equipment such as VDR (Voyage Data Recorder) Devices. The Estander Coast Guard promptly arrested the Lointish fishing crew without providing additional warning or offers to escort the vessel out of Estande’s declared EEZ. During the arrest, a Lointish fisherman assaulted an Estander Coast Guard member with a sea bass, resulting in small cuts and a minor concussion injury. The Lointish fishing vessel was seized by the Estander Coast Guard, and its crew promptly brought into Estander territory to be processed and detained. Due to the lack of formal recognition of Estande’s declaration of its Exclusive Economic Zone in the Piscary Sea by other nations, the Lointish fishing crew did not knowingly trespass into Estander maritime territory.

In a review of the facts of the case, we, the Justices of the Court, declare our ruling:

1) Given that the Lointish fishing crew did not knowingly trespass into Estander maritime territory, the mens rea of the crime levelled against them, ‘illegal extraction of natural resources’, cannot be determined.

2) As a result of point 1, the Court finds the arrest and detention of the Lointish fishing crew to be ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL.

3) The Court finds the behaviour of the Estander Coast Guard to be ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL: a. Discharging a warning shot at the Lointish fishing vessel despite having known the identities of the fishing vessel as non-hostile and having posed no imminent danger towards the Estander patrol vessel b. Aggressive behavior during the arrest and detention of the Lointish fishing crew despite no signs of hostility during initial arrest.

4) The assault on Estander Coast Guard member, Corporal Afonso Roque, by Lointish fisherman, Jonathan Brigham Jr., is UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL under normal circumstances.

5) Following on point 4, given that Corporal Afonso Roque was assaulted in the commission of an action (detention of fishing crew) that the Justices of the Court considers UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL, Jonathan Brigham Jr.’s actions can be considered self-defense, hence LEGAL in the eyes of the Justices of this Court.

6) The Justices of this Court find that the Estander Exclusive Economic Zone to be well reasoned and within internationally recognized limits of extending 370km/230miles from its coastline, HOWEVER:

7) Given the complex narratives and conflicting arguments presented by both nations in regards to the extent of claims of Exclusive Economic Zones in the Piscary Sea, the Justices of this Court has postponed its ruling on this specific matter, pending further evidence as well as the opinions of other nations in the Piscary Sea that may be affected by this ruling that are not present in this case (Volinovia, Rouental, Illiricium, Plaguea, and Helvetria).

As a result of our ruling, this Court requests that the following remedial actions to be undertaken:

1) The Lointish fishing crew be released to Lointish custody forthwith along with their fishing vessel.

2) The government of the Kingdom of Estande provide financial compensation to the crew for damages and potential losses incurred during their captivity or as a result of their arrest.

3) The Estander government properly maintain the physical markers that outline its maritime territory and Exclusive Economic Zone through the usage of buoys and floating beacons to avoid further confusion.

4) The Estander government should engage in dialogue with the various nations inhabiting the Piscary Sea in order to get its Exclusive Economic Zone formally recognized.

5) That the nations of the Piscary Sea should agree to a common language of communication (an international language such as Valish or Sanctish) to be made mandatory to learn by all seafaring crew in the Piscary Sea to avoid further confusion and a repeat of the Piscary Crisis.

6) That all seafaring ships above 2000 gross tonnage be equipped with Voyage Data Recorder (VDR) Devices to facilitate accident investigations should they occur in the future.

Addendum: In regards to the Piscary Sea Exclusive Economic Zone Division:

1) Should the two nations find difficulty in engaging in negotiations regarding the proper division of Exclusive Economic Zones in the Piscary Sea, the Justices of this Court offers to provide its services to ensure a proper and unbiased division of maritime claims in the Piscary Sea.

2) With permission, the Justices of this Court may demarcate their EEZ borders based on the original 370km/230mile international limit, OR with slight modifications (for example, smaller EEZ claims) to allow for the establishment of international shipping lanes.

3) This further action may be initiated with the agreement of ALL nations inhabiting the Piscary Sea.