The following essay examines the relationship between the ICJ and the ICC, at a time when both courts have increasingly found themselves seized of the same situations of mass atrocity crimes, including in Gaza, Myanmar, Ukraine and Afghanistan. It was published as part of PKI Global Justice Journal’s Special Issue on Human Rights and the International Court of Justice — Challenges and Opportunities, which also features insights from human rights and global justice scholars, including Michael Lynk, Ardi Imseis, Heidi Matthews, Bill Schabas, Faisal Bhabha, Payam Akkavan, Sara Seck and Penelope Simons, Christopher Campbell-Duruflé, as well as the organizers of the Special Issue, Alex Neve and Sharry Aiken. The volume is open access, and focuses on, inter alia, the following questions: Is the International Court of Justice becoming, in some fashion, a human rights court? If so, what does that mean? What are the strengths and weaknesses of viewing the ICJ as a human rights court? What are the challenges it faces in playing such a role? Are there opportunities to take that further? What of the relationship between the ICJ and the ICC? As Neve and Aiken write: “The time for examining these questions is both opportune and pressing.”

Introduction
In recent years, several wars and mass atrocity events have come under the scrutiny of not just one international court, but two. Situations like Russia’s war in Ukraine, Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and occupation of Palestinian territories, atrocities against the Rohingya people of Myanmar, as well as the Taliban’s persecution of women and girls, have fallen under the purview of both the International Criminal Court (ICC) and International Court of Justice (ICJ). Observers of international law are accustomed to these Hague-based institutions being confused for each other in media portrayals. This confusion is unlikely to abate given the increasing overlaps between the atrocity events that have come under each court’s jurisdiction.
Few have attempted to articulate the consequences of this new dynamic or the relative strengths and weaknesses of each institution as venues to address the perpetration of international crimes, let alone their potential to work constructively and together to deliver a proverbial one-two punch of accountability for mass atrocities. With both institutions coming under increasing strain and with each susceptible to wider attacks on whatever remains of a rules-based order, such an assessment seems timely and is therefore the focus of this essay.









