The International Court of Justice faces a high-stakes deadlock over its remaining vacant seat, being contested by former Indian Supreme Court Judge Dalveer Bhandari and British candidate Christopher Greenwood.
Among other things, the hallowed UN institution is now hearing the case of Kulbhushan Jadhav, an Indian convicted and sentenced to death for spying in Pakistan. The ICJ has 15 judges elected to nine-year terms by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, which vote simultaneously but separately. One third of the court is elected every three years, and the judges can stand for re-election.
To be elected, a candidate must receive an absolute majority in both the 15-member UNSC, dominated by the five permanent members (or the P5), and 97 votes or more in the Assembly, which comprises all UN members. As the ICJ website explains, “this sometimes makes it necessary for a number of rounds of voting to be carried out.”
This time, in a first, no permanent member has won a majority at the UNGA, and the battle has thus morphed into one between the two UN institutions. So, after 11 rounds of voting, Bhandari has nearly a two-thirds majority with 121 votes in the 193-member Assembly; Greenwood has a majority of nine in the Council. One report claimed PM Modi was personally lobbying for support for India’s candidate.
Meanwhile, incensed by rumours last week that Bhandari was in talks with the UK to withdraw in favour of Greenwood, India’s Permanent Representative to the UN Syed Akbaruddin categorically declared: “We intend to stay the course until the will of the majority prevails.”
He also vehemently opposed the idea of a joint conference made up of three representatives each from the Assembly and the Council to break the deadlock, describing it as undemocratic and a “can of worms.” Whether the P5 is willing to open that can of worms this week will not just decide the fate of the contenders, but also the democratic credibility of the UN itself.