Under Article 94 of the laws of the International Court of Justice, the fact that State B had refused to accept the Court’s verdict could be taken up to the Security Council for hearing Article 94 instituted the duty of all the UN members to comply with decisions of the Court involving them. If parties refuse to oblige, the issue may be taken before the Security Council for enforcement action. However, there are certain issues with this technique of rendering mandatory enforcement, especially if the judgment is against any of the five permanent members of the Security Council or their allies. Any resolution on enforcement would then be vetoed. This occurred, for example, after Nicaragua v. United States, the issue of the US’s non-compliance with the Court’s decision before the Security Council. Although the Court called on the United States to “cease and to refrain” from the unlawful use of force against Nicaragua, and that the US was in “in breach of its obligation under customary international law not to use force against another state” and ordered to pay reparations, the United States refused to comply.
Compliance proved useless as the United States is a permanent member of the Security Council vetoed any enforcement mechanism attempted by Nicaragua. Furthermore, if the Security Council refuses to enforce a judgment against any other state, there is no method of forcing the state to comply. It is seen that the ICJ has no mechanism to enforce its decisions; compliance and enforcement completely depend on the will of the parties, that are the states. In this context, it becomes necessary to examine the scope of the obligation to comply with ICJ decisions and explains the enforcement measures available for enforcing these decisions within and outside the Charter system.