Why the International Court of Justice asks about jurisdiction first

When a dispute reaches the International Court of Justice, the first question is not necessarily who is right. It may be whether the court has authority to decide that dispute. The ICJ explains that only states can be parties to its contentious cases and that its jurisdiction depends on the consent of the states concerned.

Consent can take different forms. States may make a special agreement submitting a particular dispute. A treaty may contain a clause allowing certain disagreements to be referred to the court. States may also make declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction in relation to other states with corresponding declarations, sometimes subject to reservations. These routes are not interchangeable.

This is why an application’s legal basis matters. The court says an applicant should identify, as far as possible, the basis on which it claims jurisdiction. Merely filing documents does not demonstrate that the court has accepted that basis, nor does an allegation in an application become a judicial finding by appearing on a court website.

A respondent can raise preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction or admissibility. The court itself decides these questions. Reporting on a hearing about such objections should therefore distinguish procedural arguments from the merits of the underlying dispute. A decision allowing a case to continue does not, by itself, establish that the applicant’s substantive allegations are correct.

For readers, a reliable sequence is to identify the parties, the claimed jurisdictional route and the precise question in the decision being reported. Then check whether the document concerns an application, preliminary objections or a final judgment. The vocabulary is technical, but the organizing principle is straightforward: authority to decide and the eventual decision are separate parts of the judicial process.