| III. | The International Court of Justice |
| 4. | JUDGMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE |
| 4.1. | General Questions |
¤
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia)
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90
[p. 219 D.O. Weeramantry] The Court, by its very constitution, lacks
the means of enforcement and is not to be deterred from pronouncing upon the
proper legal determination of a dispute it would otherwise have decided, merely
because, for political or other reasons, that determination is unlikely to be
implemented. The raison d'être of the Court's jurisdiction
is adjudication and clarification of the law, not enforcement and
implementation. The very fact that a justiciable dispute has been duly
determined judicially can itself have a practical value which cannot be
anticipated, and the consequences of which may well reach into the area of
practicalities. Those are matters beyond the purview of the Court, which
must discharge its proper judicial functions irrespective of questions
of enforceability and execution, which are not its province.
