The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and would be the most natural forum for a state-to-state reparations claim if one were to be brought. But the ICJ’s jurisdiction depends entirely on state consent. States cannot be brought before the ICJ without their agreement, either through a prior treaty commitment, a special agreement, or a declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction.
Britain has made a declaration accepting compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, but with significant reservations. Even without those reservations, the ICJ’s jurisdiction requires both parties to accept it. CARICOM states would need to file a claim and Britain would need to accept jurisdiction for the case to proceed. Britain would not accept jurisdiction for a slavery reparations claim, and the ICJ cannot compel it to do so.
The practical consequence is that no ICJ case is possible without British consent. This is not a temporary obstacle that legal creativity might overcome. It is the fundamental architecture of international law, which is built on state sovereignty and consent rather than on any authority capable of compelling states to submit to judicial proceedings against their will. Short of Britain voluntarily accepting liability, which no British government would do, there is no legal pathway to a binding judgment against Britain on the reparations claim.
