The infamous Simon Commission had arrived in Bombay (now Mumbai) with the intent of reviewing the administrative practices and providing potential reforms towards British India in the year 1928. Among the many issues of such a commission, one pertinent and significant issue caused severe backlash from the Indians and boycotted by the Indian National Congress, the commission was even met with black flags and chants of “Simon Go Back” due to the very issue that has oppressed individuals through centuries and eons, the issue of representation. The commission simply consisted of seven Members of Parliament under the authority of Sir John Simon. A stark sense of historical irony can be realized with the aid of this case, but what has it taught us. We see that at the heart of any form of governance, administration or judgement, there is a need for proper representation to enable better and more importantly just outcomes. This paper extrapolates this very thread, by examining the question of representation in the context of women in international courts. The above historical account of the commission finds its place in this paper as a well-known account of clear-cut injustice in relations to a lack of representation and may form an inclination in the readers mind towards the premises and conclusions of this paper and an overall angle in which this paper navigates.
The paper essentially portrays the trends of international courts in appointing female judges, the stark under-representation of women in this field, the negative effects that this would thereby cause and finally methods to remedy this dearth of female judges. The need for affirmative action is especially highlighted with a clear demarcation in the differences of election between the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice. The striking gender-parity in the former gives rise to a possible model document that may be referred to, so as to attain the ideal of proper representation.