Research On The Preconditions For The Exercise Of Advisory Jurisdiction By The International Court Of Justice

Advisory jurisdiction originated during the League of Nations period.To compensate for the inability of international organizations to become parties the proceedings of international tribunals,the Permanent Court of International Justice was granted the authority to issue advisory opinions upon any dispute or question raised by the Assembly or the Council.The International Court of Justice has continued and developed the advisory jurisdiction system of the Permanent Court of International Justice.During its 70 years of operation,relying on the flexibility of the advisory function,the International Court of Justice has achieved significant achievements in the settlement of international disputes and the development of international law by issuing advisory opinions.Compared with the advisory jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice,the subject scope of the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice has been enlarged,the scope of subject-matter is blurred,and the restrictive effect of the principle of state consent has gradually decreased.The comprehensive guidance of the principle of cooperation has resulted in a positive expansion of the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in an attempt to play a greater role.This situation has led to considerable problems and dilemmas about under what conditions the International Court of Justice exercises advisory jurisdiction.For this reason,in the face of new changes in the international community,it is necessary to re-examine the way in which the International Court of Justice exercises its advisory jurisdiction,analyze the preconditions and limitations that the International Court of Justice should meet in exercising its advisory jurisdiction,and put forward reasonable and feasible suggestions on how to improve the preconditions in order to reduce opposition and disagreement based on the advisory practice of the International Court of Justice.This dissertation is divided into four chapters to conduct an in-depth study on the preconditions for the exercise of advisory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice,specifically as follows:The first chapter starts from the establishment of advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.During the period of the League of Nations,the Permanent Court of International Justice introduced and developed the advisory jurisdiction,and during the United Nations period,the International Court of Justice continued and innovated the advisory jurisdiction.Advisory jurisdiction is an innovation in international judicial practice.Secondly,it introduces the meaning of advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.By comparing with litigation jurisdiction,the essential attributes of advisory jurisdiction in terms of personal jurisdiction,subject matter jurisdiction,effect of jurisdiction are clarified.Finally,introducing the practice of the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice during the United Nations period,Finally,the practice of advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the United Nations period is introduced,which is mainly reflected in the low utilization of advisory jurisdiction and the comprehensive guidance of the principle of cooperation on advisory practice.One of the preconditions for the exercise of advisory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice is that the requesting organ must have the power to request advisory opinions.The second chapter defines the scope of subjects who are qualified for requesting advisory opinions,including the subjects who are entitled to request advisory opinions under the Charter of the United Nations and the subjects who are authorized to request advisory opinions by the General Assembly,and further explores the nature and the scope of this authorization.With the process of globalization,the number and functions of international organizations have been continuously expanded,and their relationships have become increasingly close.International organizations are active in all aspects of international affairs and play an important role in the international community.It would be inappropriate to continue to limit the scope of international organizations that have the power to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice.Therefore,the limitation of the scope of the subject of advisory qualification is analyzed,which is manifested in that the Secretariat of the United Nations and other international organizations have no advisory qualification.Finally,proposals for the reform of advisory qualifications are explored,mainly for granting the power to request advisory opinions to the Secretariat of the United Nations and establishing a special committee to exercise the power to request advisory opinions.At the same time,the questions raised by the requesting organ are legal questions within the scope of activities,focusing on the identification of legal questions.The third chapter firstly analyzes the influence of political nature,vagueness and abstractness on the identification of legal issues by reviewing various advisory opinions.Secondly,the problems existing in the identification of legal questions are explained from the improper interpretation of the questions and the extensive interpretation of legal questions.Finally,it discusses the suggestions on the reform of legal questions,including the interpretation of the questions raised should be consistent with the original intention of the requesting organ and the specific rules of the identification of legal questions should be perfected and clarified.The fourth chapter starts from explaining the relationship between the principle of state consent and advisory jurisdiction.Different from the establishment and adherence to the "Eastern Carelia Principle" in the exercise of advisory jurisdiction by the Permanent Court of International Justice,the International Court of Justice breaks through and deviates from the principle in the exercise of advisory jurisdiction,showing a trend of gradually reducing the restrictive effect of the principle of state consent.Secondly,the reason why the principle of state consent should be applied in the area of advisory jurisdiction is explained from the perspective of rationality and feasibility.Behind the dispute is the contradiction between the need for sovereign states to safeguard sovereignty and the pursuit of the International Court of Justice to expand its role.For this reason,it discusses the suggestions on the reform of the application of the principle of state consent,including applying the principle of state consent according to the differences in advisory matters,and regulating the participation of the parties in the advisory process.