‘Insistent’ objectors:The (ab)use of procedural defenses before the International Court of Justice

Procedural defenses refer to tactical devices that object to either a court's jurisdiction or to the admissibility of an application, aimed at stopping a court from deciding on the merits of a case or, at least, at limiting the scope of its decision.In its (almost) eighty years of history, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has adjudicated 101 cases, with almost 80% of them featuring procedural defenses raised by States.These defenses have not only been plentiful, but have been extremely effective, leading to the ICJ's refusal to decide on the merits of 29 disputes, while restricting the scope of the Court's rulings on 21 occasions. Although an effective tactical device, the use of procedural defenses by States has also been marked by its inefficiency, with just about 20% of the objections raised being upheld by the Court. Through the examination of the ICJ's judgments andStates' written and oral pleadings, this Article analyses the 486 procedural defenses raised in all the cases decided by the ICJ and explores the behavior of a selected group of 'insistent' objectors: 10 States that have interposed more than 50% of the total number of procedural defenses raised before the Court.