A Study On Application Of Principle Of State Consent To The International Court Of Justice

In the context of countries’ participation in international affairs to safeguard their own interests,the importance of the consent principle of the parties concerned has been constantly highlighted.Countries maintain that the consent principle of the parties concerned aims to participate in or reject international affairs out of their own will,which can effectively protect national interests.The International Court of Justice,as a judicial institution of state authority,cannot operate without reasonable application of the consent principle.However,the application of the principle of consent of states concerned by ICJ has not had a good effect but is controversial.How to better apply the principle of consent of states concerned in various systems,we must first analyze the emergence and development of the principle of consent of States concerned and the relevant legal provisions of the International Court of Justice,so as to get the specific meaning of the principle of consent of states concerned in the court of International Law.Further,on the basis of summarizing,sorting and analyzing relevant practical cases,this paper expounds the status quo of the application of the consent principle in different systems.The principle of consent of states concerned is the basis of the jurisdiction of proceedings of ICJ.The principle of consent of the states concerned does not affect the determination of the advisory jurisdiction of ICJ,but is a discretionary power exercised as jurisdiction.In the system of participation of a third state,the consent of a non-state party is not required,but the consent of a state party is an important factor for the court to consider the participation of a third State,and the court’s initial jurisdiction over interim measures does not require the consent of a state party.After the analysis of the actual situation,it can be seen that there are still problems in the application of the principle of consent of the Parties to ICJ,and reservation clauses that embody the principle of consent of the Parties are too respected in optional compulsory jurisdiction.When a state defends a reservation to exclude jurisdiction,it can exclude the jurisdiction of the court regardless of whether the reservation is interpreted in accordance with the principles of international law.In addition,the court has the discretion to decide whether the implied consent of the parties is constituted,and there is no regulation on the mode and scope of the implied consent of the parties,which is easy to involve the countries in the litigation without express consent,so that the countries are unwilling to accept the new system.In exercising its advisory jurisdiction,ICJ disregards the principle of consent of states concerned as a discretionary factor,does not exercise judicial restraint in issuing advisory opinions,and the ambiguous nature of legal issues may lead to the substitution of advisory procedures for litigation procedures.In order to solve the problem of the application of the consent principle in ICJ,on the one hand,the validity of reservations should be reasonably limited in the jurisdiction of litigation,and all similar reservations should be declared invalid,so as to improve the reservation system.In the case of delayed jurisdiction,the criterion of implied consent of the State shall be established to gradually make the State accept delayed jurisdiction:,on the other hand,ICJ issued advice whether need to be involved in the core national interests as the standard,classification principle of parties agree that the court has issued advice at the same time will not infringe on agreed principles concerned,and the court to try to break the packing of the items,avoid again about the chagos islands territorial disputes published advice under this kind of packing,At the same time,opinions are carefully expressed in accordance with the judicial nature of the ICJ.