The ICJ primarily resolves disputes between states when they consent to jurisdiction. Which statement is true?

• A. It can compel a state to appear regardless of consent
• B. It only acts when states consent
• C. It enforces domestic law within states
• D. It adjudicates crimes by individuals

Answer: (B)

The key idea is that the ICJ’s authority comes from state consent. It cannot hear or decide cases unless the states involved have agreed to submit to its jurisdiction—either through a treaty or by recognizing the Court’s optional jurisdiction. That’s why the statement that it only acts when states consent is correct: without consent, the Court has no mandate to hear disputes or compel appearances.

This also explains why the other choices aren’t accurate. The ICJ cannot compel a state to appear regardless of consent, because it lacks general compulsory power. It does not enforce domestic law within states—its job is to interpret and apply international law in disputes between states, not to impose a country’s internal rules. And it does not adjudicate crimes by individuals; individuals accused of crimes are handled by international criminal tribunals (like the ICC), not the ICJ.