UN Elects Five Judges to the World Court as Record Caseload Tests the International Court of Justice

The United Nations has elected five judges to the International Court of Justice, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, for nine-year terms that will begin on February 6, 2027. The vote was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2026, at UN headquarters in New York, with candidates requiring an absolute majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council to win. The five judges elected are Dapo Akande of the United Kingdom, Francois Alabrune of France, Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud of Jordan, Rena Lee of Singapore and Phoebe Okowa of Kenya, who will join the 15-member court based in The Hague. Their election matters not because of ceremony, but because of workload. The court faces a record caseload, including South Africa’s genocide case against Israel over its war on Gaza, and its president told the General Assembly on October 29 that 24 contentious cases are pending, covering disputes over territory, human rights and the interpretation of international treaties. A court that is asked to decide such cases must be fully staffed, broadly representative and trusted by the states that appear before it. This election, held by secret ballot in two separate bodies, was how that staffing was renewed. At its core, this is the story of how the UN elects five ICJ judges November 2026, and what their nine years on the bench will be asked to decide.

1. How the world court chooses its judges

1.1 Two votes, one result

The International Court of Justice is not elected like a parliament. Its 15 judges are elected by the General Assembly and the Security Council voting separately but at the same time, and a candidate must obtain an absolute majority in both bodies to be elected. That double requirement is deliberate. It prevents a judge from reaching the bench on the strength of one body alone, and it forces candidates to command broad support across the UN membership and among the Council’s members. The votes are held by secret ballot, concurrently but separately, which means that a candidate’s support in one room does not automatically guarantee support in the other. In this election, nine candidates contested five seats, so competition was real and the outcome was not a formality. Akande, Alabrune, Hmoud and Lee received the required support in both bodies in the first round of voting, according to reporting on the election, while the fifth seat required additional rounds because the two bodies initially failed to agree on a single candidate. That extra-round process is a normal part of ICJ elections, not a sign of crisis, but it shows how carefully the balance of the bench is negotiated.

1.2 Why one-third of the bench changes every three years

The court comprises 15 judges elected for nine-year terms, with one-third of its membership renewed every three years. That staggered system is designed to preserve continuity while allowing renewal. A court that changed entirely at once would lose institutional memory, while a court that never changed would lose legitimacy. By renewing five seats at a time, the system ensures that experienced judges sit alongside newcomers, and that the court’s composition evolves gradually with the wider world. The five judges elected in November 2026 will serve until February 2036, subject to the court’s rules, and their terms will begin after the terms of five current members expire on February 5, 2027. Two of the five, Hmoud of Jordan and Okowa of Kenya, are currently serving on the court, having been elected in 2025 to fill vacant seats, so their election is in part a confirmation of service already begun. The other three are new to the bench in this cycle, bringing different national, legal and professional backgrounds to a court that must speak to states from every region.

2. Who the five new judges are

2.1 The five names and their countries

The five successful candidates come from five different countries and regions, which is itself part of the court’s design. Dapo Akande of the United Kingdom is a leading scholar of public international law and a professor at the University of Oxford. Francois Alabrune represents France, Mahmoud Daifallah Hmoud represents Jordan, Rena Lee represents Singapore and Phoebe Okowa represents Kenya. Together they give the court representation from Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa, alongside the judges from other regions who remain on the bench. That geographic spread matters because the court decides cases between states, and states are more likely to accept a judgement if they see the bench as representative rather than dominated by one region or legal tradition. It does not guarantee agreement on any case, and judges are expected to act independently rather than as representatives of their governments, but breadth of background shapes the court’s deliberations in ways that are hard to measure yet widely valued.

2.2 Experience that shaped their elections

Each of the five brings a different record to the bench, and the election result reflects the UN membership’s judgement of that record. Akande’s academic work on public international law is widely cited, and his Oxford professorship places him at the centre of debates about the law of armed conflict, international criminal law and the rules governing states. Okowa’s path is distinctive: she first joined the court in November 2025 after being elected to fill the vacancy left by Somali judge Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, who resigned, and she has now been elected for a full nine-year term. Reporting on her election notes that she secured 183 votes in the General Assembly and 13 votes in the 15-member Security Council, a strong showing in both bodies. Hmoud, likewise, was elected in 2025 to fill a vacant seat and now returns for a full term. Alabrune and Lee bring diplomatic and legal experience from France and Singapore respectively, two states with long traditions of engagement with international law. The precise vote counts for every candidate, beyond Okowa’s reported figures, remain unconfirmed in the reporting available, and should not be guessed.

3. A court facing a record caseload

3.1 Twenty-four contentious cases pending

The most striking figure attached to this election is not a vote count but a caseload count. ICJ President Yuji Iwasawa told the General Assembly on October 29 that 24 contentious cases are pending, covering disputes over territory, human rights and the interpretation of international treaties. Contentious cases are disputes between states, as opposed to advisory opinions requested by UN organs, and they are the core of the court’s work. A pending list of that size means the new judges will arrive at a court already busy, with written pleadings, oral hearings and deliberations stretching across their early years on the bench. It also means that the court’s procedures, its ability to manage parallel cases and its capacity to deliver judgements in a timely way will be tested. The court does not choose its docket in the way a national supreme court might choose appeals. States bring cases to it, and when they do, the court must respond within the framework of its statute and rules, however politically sensitive the dispute may be.

3.2 The cases the world is watching

Among the pending cases, two are especially prominent in public reporting. One is South Africa’s genocide case against Israel over its war on Gaza, a case that has drawn global attention and intense legal and political debate. The other is The Gambia’s case accusing Myanmar of genocide against the Rohingya minority, in which the court announced on Tuesday that it would deliver a judgement on November 19. Those two cases alone illustrate the range of the court’s work: they involve allegations of the gravest crimes under international law, questions of evidence and state responsibility, and judgements that will be read far beyond the courtroom. The new judges will not decide those cases alone, and they will not decide them immediately, but they will be part of the bench that hears, deliberates and rules on cases of this kind over the next nine years. That responsibility is why the election of judges, often treated as a procedural story, deserves attention as a substantive one.

4. What the election process revealed

4.1 Secret ballots and separate majorities

The mechanics of the election deserve attention because they explain why ICJ elections can take several rounds. Candidates need an absolute majority in the General Assembly, where all member states vote, and in the Security Council, where 15 members vote. A candidate who is popular in the Assembly but not in the Council, or vice versa, cannot be elected. In this election, four candidates cleared both hurdles in the first round, while the fifth seat needed further rounds as the two bodies worked towards agreement. That process can look slow from the outside, but it is designed to produce judges who are acceptable to both the broad membership and the Council. It also means that regional groups, legal traditions and personal reputations all play a part, alongside formal qualifications. No candidate is elected on academic reputation alone, and no candidate is elected on political support alone. The combination matters, and the secret ballot allows delegations to vote without publicly committing themselves in advance.

4.2 Nine candidates for five seats

The fact that nine candidates contested five seats is itself significant. It shows that states continue to value a seat on the court and to put forward strong candidates, even when the court’s caseload is heavy and its judgements are politically contested. Competition also means that some well-qualified candidates were not elected, and their absence will shape the bench just as much as the presence of those who won. The reporting available does not give a full, confirmed list of all nine candidates and their vote totals, so this post does not attempt to reconstruct that list from incomplete information. What is confirmed is the outcome: five judges elected, two of them returning after filling vacancies in 2025, three of them new to this cycle, and all five due to take office on February 6, 2027. That outcome, rather than the details of each ballot, is the story that will matter for the court’s work.

5. The Hague, the bench and the balance of the court

5.1 A principal organ in a small Dutch city

The International Court of Justice is based in The Hague, in the Netherlands, in the Peace Palace, and it is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations. That title matters. It means the court is not a subsidiary body or a temporary tribunal, but one of the UN’s main organs, alongside the General Assembly, the Security Council, the Economic and Social Council, the Trusteeship Council and the Secretariat. Its judgements in contentious cases are binding on the parties, although enforcement depends on states and, in some circumstances, on the Security Council. Its advisory opinions, requested by UN organs and specialised agencies, are not binding in the same way, but they carry great legal weight. The court’s location in The Hague, away from New York, is also symbolic. It places the court in a city associated with international law, at a distance from the day-to-day politics of the Security Council, even though its judges are elected in New York. That distance is part of its claim to independence.

5.2 Continuity and change on the bench

The renewal of five seats at a time creates a bench that is both continuous and changing. Judges who remain on the court carry knowledge of pending cases, of the court’s procedures and of its past jurisprudence. New judges bring fresh perspectives, new expertise and, sometimes, a willingness to question established approaches. The 2026 renewal follows that pattern. Hmoud and Okowa bring continuity from their service since 2025, while Akande, Alabrune and Lee bring new voices. Over the next nine years, the balance between continuity and change will be tested by cases that were filed before the new judges arrived and by cases that have not yet been filed. The court’s jurisprudence develops slowly, case by case, and a single judgement can shape international law for decades. That long horizon is why a nine-year term matters, and why the election of judges should be judged over years rather than days.

6. Why states still bring cases to the court

6.1 Consent, jurisdiction and trust

States bring cases to the International Court of Justice because they accept, in principle, that some disputes should be settled by law rather than by force or by negotiation alone. That acceptance is not universal and it is not unconditional. The court’s jurisdiction depends on consent, whether through a treaty clause, a special agreement between the parties or a declaration accepting the court’s compulsory jurisdiction, sometimes with reservations. That consent-based system means the court cannot simply decide any dispute it wishes. It can only decide cases that states have agreed to bring before it. The fact that states continue to do so, even in highly political disputes, suggests that the court retains a measure of trust. That trust is not automatic. It depends on the court’s perceived impartiality, on the quality of its reasoning and on the breadth of its bench. Elections that produce a representative, well-qualified bench help to sustain that trust, while elections perceived as narrow or politicised would undermine it.

6.2 The limits of what a judgement can do

A judgement from the court settles a legal dispute, but it does not by itself end a political conflict. States may comply, partially comply or resist, and the court’s ability to enforce its judgements is limited. That limitation is often cited by critics who argue that international law is weak, but it misses the court’s real influence. A judgement clarifies the law, creates a record of facts and legal findings, and shapes how other states, courts and international bodies understand a dispute. It can affect negotiations, sanctions, aid and public debate, even when direct compliance is incomplete. The new judges will therefore be working in a system where legal authority and political power do not always align, and where the court’s influence is exercised through reasoning and legitimacy rather than through force. That is a demanding environment, and it requires judges who can write clearly, reason carefully and withstand political pressure.

7. What this bench will face in its first years

7.1 Judgements already scheduled

The new bench’s early years already have landmarks. The court announced on Tuesday that it would deliver a judgement on November 19 in The Gambia’s case against Myanmar, a date that falls before the new judges take office on February 6, 2027, so that judgement will be delivered by the current bench. Beyond that date, the new judges will join a court with a full docket of pending cases, including the South Africa case and other disputes over territory, human rights and treaties. The order in which those cases are heard, the time taken for written and oral phases, and the composition of the bench for each case will all affect the court’s output. Some cases may take years to reach judgement, which means that the judges elected in 2026 may still be deciding cases filed in the 2020s well into the 2030s. That long arc is normal for the court, but it means that the impact of this election will unfold gradually, case by case, rather than in a single moment.

7.2 New disputes on the horizon

Beyond the pending docket, new disputes are likely to reach the court during the new judges’ terms. Climate change, maritime boundaries, cyber operations, trade and investment, and the law of armed conflict are all areas where states may seek judicial clarification. The court has already been asked to give advisory opinions on climate obligations and other global questions, and its answers have been closely watched. Whether states bring more contentious cases in these areas will depend on politics as much as on law, but the court must be ready. Its judges will need expertise across a wide range of legal fields, from the law of the sea to human rights law, from treaty interpretation to the use of force. The breadth of the five new judges’ backgrounds, spanning academia, diplomacy and national legal service, is therefore relevant not just to representation, but to the court’s capacity to handle the cases that may come.

8. What remains unconfirmed and what to watch next

8.1 What we do not know yet

Several details of this election remain unconfirmed in the reporting available and are flagged here rather than guessed. The full vote counts for Akande, Alabrune, Hmoud and Lee in both the General Assembly and the Security Council have not been confirmed in the same detail as Okowa’s reported 183 General Assembly votes and 13 Security Council votes. The full list of all nine candidates and the rounds in which each was eliminated or elected have not been confirmed from a single authoritative source. The precise composition of the bench for individual pending cases, including which judges will sit on which case and whether any judge will recuse themselves, is not yet known. The timing of judgements in pending cases beyond the November 19 date for The Gambia case has not been announced. These gaps do not undermine the confirmed outcome, but they mean that any detailed reconstruction of the election ballots should wait for the UN’s official records.

8.2 What to watch next

What to watch next begins with the official UN records of the election, which will confirm vote counts and rounds, and with the court’s calendar for 2027, which will show how the new bench is constituted for pending cases. Next will come the November 19 judgement in The Gambia’s case against Myanmar, which will be a test of the court’s reasoning on genocide allegations and will be read closely by states, lawyers and civil society. After February 6, 2027, watch for how the new judges participate in hearings and how the court manages its record caseload, including whether it can deliver judgements more quickly without sacrificing quality. Watch also for new cases filed during the new bench’s first years, and for whether states continue to accept the court’s jurisdiction in politically sensitive disputes. The election of five judges does not settle any case on its own. It ensures that the court that will settle those cases is in place, representative and ready. That readiness, tested over nine years, is the real significance of the vote held in New York on November 3, 2026.

Comments

comments