The three disparate cases decided by the International Court of Justice (Court or ICJ) in 2014 may not contribute much to the development of substantive international law, but they are instructive about the operations of the Court. Perhaps the Court was not at its finest in terms of coherent legal reasoning in these three cases; it certainly avoided difficult questions in all of them. Yet each of the three cases had significant numbers of separate and dissenting opinions, which sometimes reveal more about the Court’s reasoning than is apparent from the judgment or order itself.

On October 9, 2014, the Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC or Court) unanimously held that, under the ICC Statute, a trial chamber has the power to order witnesses to appear before it to give testimony in pending proceedings, which imposes legal obligations on the individuals concerned to comply. In so ruling, the appellate chamber upheld a controversial trial chamber decision granting the ICC prosecutor’s request to summon eight witnesses to testify in the joint trial of Kenya’s vice president, William Samoei Ruto, and former journalist Joshua arap Sang, both of whom faced charges of crimes against humanity for their alleged role in “post-election violence” that led to the deaths of over twelve hundred people (para. 9).

In a proceeding brought against the People’s Republic of China by the United States (in which Japan and the European Union joined), the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that China violated its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)1 by imposing export restrictions on “rare earths,” minerals used in mobile phones, hybrid cars, and other high-tech products. In upholding the earlier decision of a WTO dispute settlement panel, the Appellate Body rejected China’s argument that export duties, quotas, and other restrictions could be justified by health and environmental concerns.

In Shepherd v. Germany, the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ) issued a preliminary ruling requested by a German administrative court in an asylum case brought by a United States Army service member. Applying the relevant asylum law of the European Union (EU), the ECJ held that, under certain circumstances, a conscientious objector who has deserted from his military unit may claim international refugee protection. It also clarified the conditions under which the basically legitimate prosecution of military deserters must be qualified as illegitimate persecution under international refugee law.