A Study On The "Judicial Propriety" Of The International Court Of Justice’s Exercise Of The Advisory Jurisdiction

The Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion case has aroused great concern of the international community,among which the most heated controversy lies in the advisory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.The Court’s advisory jurisdiction includes two aspects:determination and exercise,with strict sequence requirements.In dealing with advisory cases,the Court should first determine whether it has jurisdiction;and then based on the consideration of "judicial propriety",judge whether it should exercise its discretion to refuse to issue an advisory opinion,that is,determine whether the advisory jurisdiction should be exercised or not.Despite the consensus of the establishment of the Court’s advisory jurisdiction in this case,the exercise of advisory jurisdiction caused fierce-controversies among various countries,which is also the main topic of this paper.This paper first summarizes the historical causes and the current process of this case,meanwhile analyzes the legal basis,characteristics and value of advisory jurisdiction,as the background and basis for the subsequent discussion of the advisory jurisdiction of this case.Secondly,through the comparative analysis of the relevant contents mentioned in the submitted written statements and in the oral proceedings,this paper summarizes the factors as considered by different countries that the Court should pay attention to when examining the "judicial propriety",including the demands of justice,the particularity of the Court’s function,the motivation of submitting the request,whether the relevant complex and controversial facts can be fully determined,etc.,and the "compelling reason" that was clearly confirmed to constitute a refusal to issue an opinion,that is,the effect of circumventing the consent principle.It also clarifies the controversial points of these factors one by one.Then,this paper summarizes the Court’s statement on the jurisdiction of this case,especially focusing on its response to the above factors,and leads to the standpoint that this response is relatively simple,and does not refine the understanding and requirements of "judicial propriety"."Judicial propriety" as an uncertain concept appears again and again in various advisory cases,but its understanding is actually implied in the broad terms used by the Court on this issue.A comprehensive reading of the past advisory opinions that the Court has made shows that the Court has indeed made an indirect definition of"judicial propriety";and in each advisory opinion,the Court uses a series of considerations to analyze the request for opinions,and the extraction of this model reflects the rich connotation of "judicial propriety" in essence.From this,this paper summarizes the Court’s practices and statements regarding "judicial propriety" and explains them in accordance with the influencing factors raised by parties in this case,to extract the rich meanings of "judicial propriety" and help to further understand it.Based on above analysis,this paper holds that the Court’s response to the jurisdiction in this case still follows the understanding of "judicial propriety" in its precedents,but it continues to hold that there are still some aspects that the Court should pay attention to when considering how to appropriately issue the advisory opinion,and should respond in the advisory opinion.