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

The International Court of Justice has made a great contribution to the settlement of international disputes.The emergence of the Chagos Islands Advisory Opinion has drawn the attention of the world to the advisory jurisdiction enjoyed by the International Court of Justice.The precondition for the exercise of the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is that the General Assembly,the Security Council and other organs or specialized agencies of the United Nations authorized by the General Assembly request the Court for an advisory opinion.However,the right to give an advisory opinion is also limited by a fundamental principle,that of state consent.This means that the Court is competent to exercise jurisdiction only with the consent of the states concerned.This is the principle of state consent,a principle in the position of states that protects the right of states to freely choose,and its existence creates a wall against the expansion of advisory jurisdiction.The application of the principle of state consent to the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice is different.In theory,the exercise of advisory jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice requires the consent of the parties to the dispute.However,in reality,although the Permanent Court of International Justice,the predecessor of the International Court of Justice,confirmed the principle of state consent in the East Karelia Advisory Opinion case,the International Court of Justice today weakens the application of the principle in cases such as the Wall Advisory Opinion case and the Western Sahara Advisory Opinion case.There are two reasons why the International Court of Justice weakens the application of the principle of state consent in the advisory procedure.One is the tendency of the International Court of Justice to expand its advisory jurisdiction.The other is the vague definition of the nature of the issue being consulted.On the one hand,in order to enhance the international discourse power,the International Court of Justice tends to bypass the principle of state consent in international disputes so as to expand its advisory jurisdiction.On the other hand,when the International Court of Justice reviews the advisory jurisdiction,it often weakens the principle of state consent by blurring the nature of the advisory issue.The existence of these two reasons causes the difference between reality and theory in the application of the state consent principle in advisory jurisdiction.The weakening of the application of the principle of state consent by the International Court of Justice in the advisory procedure has two influences,including the stability of the international order and the weakening of the prestige of the International Court of Justice,indicating that the principle of state consent is not formally included,but in fact,the reasons of the principle of state consent should be taken into account when exercising the advisory jurisdiction.In order to avoid the impact of the weakening countries agreed principles,therefore,the international court of justice countries agreed principles can be programmed,by setting before accepting asked whether the dispute parties to participate in the preceding procedure,to prevent because of the nature of the counseling problems caused by fuzzy countries agreed principle is not applicable,can also be made effectively restrained expansion tendency of the international court.At the same time,for other countries may be through the international court of justice of China’s territorial sovereignty behavior intervention,on the one hand,China will firmly support countries agreed principles,trained personnel in the aspects of knowledge,and fully prepared for potential problems,protect the national sovereignty is inviolable,on the other hand can choose advocate diversified way of solving disputes,such as through negotiation,negotiation means to solve the problem,We will safeguard China’s sovereign interests.