{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.025374855824682813, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.625954198473282, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of ICJ Procedure in the Emergence and Evolution of Erga Omnes Obligations

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) procedure has been, within and across contentious cases and advisory opinions, both a catalyst for, and a constraint on, the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations. Clarification, interpretation, and affirmation of the law have most frequently worked as catalysts for the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations. Judicial propriety and/or judicial discretion have most frequently tended to constrain the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations. Judicial propriety and/or judicial discretion, evidence, consent, and standing before the Court have been other catalysts. Formalism, jurisdiction, fact-finding, and interpretation have been other constraints on the emergence and evolution of erga omnes obligations.