UK backs Dapo Akande for ICJ seat in 3 November UN vote

If UN court elections sound distant, this is the kind of story that helps bring them into focus. In a 29 October 2026 press release, the Ministry of Justice said Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor Alex Norris is at the United Nations to campaign for Professor Dapo Akande, the UK's candidate for a seat on the International Court of Justice, ahead of the election on Tuesday 3 November 2026. (gov.uk) The government says the push is being made by Norris alongside Chris Elmore, the minister for the UN. Its argument is simple: the ICJ gives states a legal way to settle disputes peacefully, and Norris plans to tell UN member states that Britain wants Professor Akande on the bench at a time when international law is under pressure. (gov.uk)

To see why this matters, it helps to pause on what the ICJ actually is. Under the UN Charter, the ICJ is the United Nations' principal judicial organ. It hears legal disputes between states and can also issue advisory opinions when authorised UN bodies ask legal questions. (un.org) This is not a public election and it is not a one-government appointment. The court has 15 judges, each elected for nine-year terms by both the UN General Assembly and the Security Council, and regular elections for five seats are held every three years. That is why a visit like this is diplomacy, not ceremony. (un.org)

This is also a good moment to clear up a common mix-up. **Quick guide:** the ICJ deals with states. If two countries have a legal dispute over matters such as treaties, boundaries or state responsibility, this is the court that may hear it, provided the states concerned accept its jurisdiction. (un.org) The ICC is different. According to the court's own explanation, it investigates and, where appropriate, tries individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression. So when you see ICJ and ICC in the same article, think states in one court and people in the other. (icc-cpi.int)

That distinction matters here because Norris's speech is doing two jobs at once. While backing Akande for the ICJ, he is also due to restate the UK's opposition to sanctions against the ICC, arguing that different courts can still depend on the same principle: judges must be able to work independently and without political intimidation. (gov.uk) There is recent context behind that line. On 9 October 2026, the UK joined a group of ICC member states in saying they strongly disagreed with sanctions announced by the United States against the court, and the ICC itself said the move was aimed at disrupting its operations. That does not make the ICJ and ICC the same institution, but it does help explain why Britain is framing both issues as tests of judicial independence. (gov.uk)

Professor Akande is not an obscure nominee. Oxford Law says he is the Chichele Professor of Public International Law, a member of the UN International Law Commission and a barrister at Essex Court Chambers. The university also notes that he has acted in cases before the ICJ, the ICC and several other international tribunals. (law.ox.ac.uk) **What it means:** when governments campaign for candidates to a court like this, they are really selling a record. The Ministry of Justice is presenting Akande as someone with academic depth, courtroom experience and credibility across different parts of international law, not simply as Britain's pick. (gov.uk)

The mechanics of the vote help explain why this lobbying exists. Under the ICJ Statute, a candidate must win an absolute majority in both the General Assembly and the Security Council. Those are separate bodies with different political pressures, so support has to travel well beyond one friendly alliance. (un.org) For readers, that is the deeper lesson in this story. Judicial elections at the UN are not just about prestige or flags. They shape who helps interpret international law at moments when states disagree over war, borders, recognition and treaty duties. (un.org)

There is one more layer to the timing. The Ministry of Justice notes that 2026 marks 80 years since the ICJ's inaugural sitting, which the court records as having taken place on 18 April 1946 in the aftermath of the Second World War. The institution was built on the idea that states should have a courtroom to turn to before they turn to force. (gov.uk) So the easiest way to read this visit is also the most useful one. Yes, it is a British government campaign for a British candidate. But it is also a reminder that international law only works if states keep backing the judges and courts that apply it, even when the politics become difficult. (gov.uk)