ABSTRACT
National governments and their courts have varied widely in their reactions to ICJ decisions on consular access. Some national courts view them as highly persuasive authority, whereas others view them as only one datum among many in reaching a legal conclusion. The posture of the case matters considerably. With judgments of the ICJ, a state that has been a party to a proceeding in which the judgment is rendered is required by its membership in the United Nations to comply. The UN Charter, Article 94, says that a state that is a party to an ICJ case must implement the decision.
