Enforcing a claim coming from a decision of the International Court of Justice

is usually faced with different problems resulting from the fact that, as we have
discussed, there is no real enforcement or enforcers or entities that could lay a
strong hand on a losing litigant in international law. There are usual remedies where
the winning litigant may call upon the United Nations Security Council to apply
pressure to the losing litigant and force it to comply with its obligations coming from
a ruling of the International Court of Justice. But all that would merely be theoretical
for the case of the Philippines in enforcing its claim from an ICJ ruling against China,
a big five member, as its plea upon the UN Security Council will be faced by vetoes
from China, the losing litigant, itself. The Yalta formula is largely to blame for this
limitation upon the action of the Security Council as it provides the big five
members, including China, the power of double veto on cases where the security
council is called upon to act and not even the general assembly nor the other big
five members may compel China to accede to a non-procedural question brought
upon it.
As the stronger powers of the United Nations Security Council may fail for
our case, we may resort to diplomatic measures by way of calling upon nations to
urge China to comply with its international responsibilities. This may be done
through the UN General Assembly by calling upon it to come up with a resolution
calling on China to comply with the ruling by the International Court of Justice; as
had been done by Nicaragua in enforcing its claim against the United States,
another big five member, to enter into talks with Nicaragua following the finding of
a breach of public international law in its intervention in the affairs of Nicaragua.
This procedure can be said to be another strong measure as the community of
nations may apply pressure on China collectively by limiting their interactions with it
in an attempt to impose sanctions upon China for its non-compliance with its
obligations and duties concerning international peace and security. By this recourse,
China may feel compelled to adhere to the ruling of the International Court of
Justice or to enter into talks with the Philippines in addressing the issue of
reparation of the damages brought upon the Philippines by China.