The Normative Value of Human Rights Treaty Bodies’ Interpretations at the International Court of Justice

Although the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is not a human rights court, it has recently addressed human rights issues, which has prompted interaction with the opinions of human rights mechanisms. This article will analyze the normative value of human rights treaty monitoring bodies’ interpretations recognized by the ICJ in three cases of its jurisprudence: the Wall Advisory Opinion, the case of Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, and the case of Qatar v. the United Arab Emirates. This analysis indicates that the ICJ has ascribed great normative weight to these interpretations, but it has been reluctant to adopt their views without conducting its own interpretative assessment of the norms. In its most recent case, the ICJ took an approach that completely departs from the interpretation adopted by the relevant treaty body. This article argues that such a position must be considered in light of the growing criticism that treaty bodies are facing about the quality of their reasonings and command of general international law. Accordingly, treaty bodies could enhance their legitimacy by learning from the ICJ’s approach to treaty interpretation, and in addition, could take advantage of the positive aspects of their non-binding character to develop meta-juridical discussions.