<Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> </Table> <Tr> <Td> </Td> <Td> This section needs additional citations for verification . Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources . Unsourced material may be challenged and removed . (January 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message) </Td> </Tr> <P> The International Court has been criticized with respect to its rulings, its procedures, and its authority . As with criticisms of the United Nations, many of these criticisms refer more to the general authority assigned to the body by member states through its charter than to specific problems with the composition of judges or their rulings . Major criticisms include the following: </P> <Ul> <Li> "Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and so instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council . According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior or inferior against another . Therefore, there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs . Therefore, the absence of binding force means that the 193 member states of the ICJ do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction . Moreover, membership in the UN and ICJ does not give the court automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it is the consent of each state to follow the jurisdiction that matters . </Li> <Li> Organizations, private enterprises, and individuals cannot have their cases taken to the International Court or appeal a national supreme court's ruling . UN agencies likewise cannot bring up a case except in advisory opinions (a process initiated by the court and non-binding). Only states can bring the cases and become the defendants of the cases . This also means that the potential victims of crimes against humanity, such as minor ethnic groups or indigenous peoples, may not have appropriate backing by a state . </Li> <Li> Other existing international thematic courts, such as the ICC, are not under the umbrella of the International Court . Unlike ICJ, international thematic courts like ICC work independently from United Nations . Such dualistic structure between various international courts sometimes makes it hard for the courts to engage in effective and collective jurisdiction . </Li> <Li> The International Court does not enjoy a full separation of powers, with permanent members of the Security Council being able to veto enforcement of cases, even those to which they consented to be bound . Because the jurisdiction does not have binding force itself, in many cases, the instances of aggression are adjudicated by Security Council by adopting a resolution, etc . There is, therefore, a likelihood for the permanent member states of Security Council to avoid the responsibility brought up by International Court of Justice, as shown in the example of Nicaragua v. United States . </Li> </Ul>

When does the international court of justice meet