The World Court's exclusive resolution of inter-state disputes has become one of the cornerstones of its identity. This insightful critique challenges the implication that individuals have little importance in such disputes as a result, revealing their relevance in a myriad of disputes beyond those centered on violations of multilateral human rights treaties. Arguing for individuals' enhanced integration, it unveils a multitude of procedural practices with unquenched potential. It also carefully unpacks the Court's legal reasoning antithetical to individuals' critical relevance in traditionally state-centric territorial or maritime disputes, amongst others. Critically analysing and evaluating the legal and political underpinnings for the Court's approaches and state litigants' choices from a lens of social idealism, this pioneering study sheds light on the imbalance between individuals as key stakeholders in inter-state disputes and the degree to which they are treated as such in law and practice.