On The Application Of The Principle Of State Consent In Advisory Jurisdiction Cases Of The International Court Of Justice

The emergence of the principle of state consent in the field of advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of justice began in the East Karelian case,but it has been impacted in the follow-up development of the field of advisory jurisdiction.In the process of pursuing the overall interests of the international community,the responsibility of state consent has become a trend.However,the basis of the principle of state consent is the state,and the state is still the force point of the operation of international law,It is also the starting point of the formation of international law norms and the key to the establishment of international law norms.The principle of state consent embodies the value of "taking the promise as the rule" in international law.The formation of the jurisdiction system of the International Court of justice is closely related to the emergence of the principle of state consent.The International Court of justice can not abandon the principle of state consent and establish the advisory jurisdiction system.Through the analysis of six cases related to the principle of state consent handled by the International Court of justice,it is found that the International Court of justice has deviation in the application of the principle of state consent,The interpretation of "legal issues" in consultative jurisdiction may have the effect of adjudicating legal disputes in essence.Secondly,neither the statute of the International Court of justice nor the statute of the United Nations explicitly states the principle of state consent as the premise of advisory jurisdiction.Because of the lack of clear legal provisions,the International Court of justice has always adopted a relatively relaxed attitude towards the principle of state consent in the light of its motivation as an important organ of the United Nations that it should issue advisory opinions to serve international organizations.The International Court of Justice(ICJ)has a vague classification of advisory cases requiring the consent of the parties,which often leads to bypassing the consent of one party in the face of bilateral disputes,making the ICJ a tool to influence the sovereign interests of other countries.Finally,in the use of the optional clause,the national court has the intention to apply the general consent instead of the national consent.The International Court of justice should correct the above application deviation,clarify the connotation of "legal issues" and the identification of the advisory body,and restore the application space occupied by the principle of state consent.Although there is no explicit legal provisions on the application of the principle of state consent,combined with the judicial nature of the International Court of justice and the fairness and neutrality of judicial procedures,the International Court of justice should apply the principle of state consent to advisory jurisdiction,and the International Court of justice can also clarify the application of the principle of state consent through legal advice and guidance.The application of the principle of state consent should be put in front of the cases that need the consent of the parties to the consultation,which are related to general legal issues,disputes between members of international organizations and the interpretation of international treaties.Compared with general consent,state consent has its own unique value basis,applicable conditions and applicable purposes.The International Court of justice can not replace state consent with general consent.