Are there benefits except moral support for the victim country to approach ICJ when the offender is a UNSC Permanent member?
I am having some trouble understanding the present relevance of ICJ in matters of war between two countries when at least one of them is a permanent member of UNSC. Indeed, cases of 2 permanent members never appeared for the good.
Let's go back to the verdict of Nicaragua vs. USA, which was a decisive victory for Nicaragua. In the judgement, in all decisions Nicaragua won by majority. In 2022, anyone would say they should have unanimously (or unanimously minus one) won. In most of the decisions, only three were against: a British judge, an American judge and a Japanese judge. And in some 2 or 1, the same people.
Regardless, USA didn't follow the orders. I will not post their stated reason. What I am saying is today can't Russia do something similar?
Assuming Ukraine won the case, what would they really gain in real? Russia won't pay reparation, why should they, US didn't. I am not saying they should or shouldn't, it logically follows, isn't it?
