ICJ Preliminary Objections: Jurisdiction and Admissibility

Introduction

Before the International Court of Justice can decide whether a State has violated international law, it must establish that the dispute falls within the authority conferred upon it and that the claims are properly before the Court. ICJ preliminary objections are the principal procedural means by which those threshold questions are determined before the merits are heard. Under the current Rules of Court, Article 79 governs preliminary questions identified by the Court, Article 79bis regulates objections filed by a party, and Article 79ter sets out the procedure applicable to both routes (ICJ, 1978, Arts 79–79ter, as amended 2019).

A preliminary objection is not simply a substantive defense presented at an earlier stage. It challenges the Court’s jurisdiction, the admissibility of an application or claim, or another issue that should be decided before the proceedings continue. Jurisdiction concerns the Court’s legal authority over the parties and the dispute, ordinarily derived from State consent expressed in a special agreement, a compromissory clause, an optional-clause declaration, or another recognized jurisdictional title. Admissibility generally concerns whether a claim should be entertained despite the existence of jurisdiction. The distinction is fundamental, but its application is not always straightforward. The Court considers the legal basis, substance, and intended effect of an objection rather than treating the category chosen by the objecting State as conclusive.

The filing of a preliminary objection ordinarily suspends proceedings on the merits. After receiving the parties’ written and oral submissions, the Court may uphold the objection, reject it, or declare that it does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. The judgment may terminate the case, remove particular claims, restrict the jurisdictional basis on which the proceedings can continue, or reserve an issue for determination at the merits stage. These outcomes require close attention to the operative clause: a State may succeed on several objections without ending the case, while the rejection of an objection does not determine whether the substantive claim will ultimately succeed.

Preliminary objections must also be distinguished from the assessment made when the Court considers a request for provisional measures. At that stage, the Court determines only whether the provisions invoked appear, prima facie, to provide a basis for jurisdiction. It does not finally settle jurisdiction or admissibility. The distinction was apparent in Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, where the Court indicated provisional measures in 2022 but, in its 2024 preliminary-objections judgment, excluded Ukraine’s claims that Russia had violated the Convention through conduct based on allegations of genocide. The Court nevertheless retained jurisdiction over Ukraine’s request for a declaration that it had not committed genocide in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions, and found that claim admissible (ICJ, 2024, paras 149–151, especially para. 151(2), (8)–(9)).

Preliminary objections protect the consensual basis of the Court’s jurisdiction and determine which claims, if any, reach the merits. Their operation depends on the jurisdictional title invoked, the formulation of the dispute, the legal character of the objection, and whether the threshold issue can be separated from the merits without prejudging it.

1. The Threshold Function of Preliminary Objections

The requirement that the Court establish its authority before deciding the substance of a dispute follows from the consensual basis of its contentious jurisdiction. States are not subject to that jurisdiction merely because another State alleges a breach of international law. The applicant must ultimately establish a valid title of jurisdiction, and the claims submitted must fall within its personal, material, and temporal scope. A preliminary objection allows these conditions to be tested before the Court determines whether the respondent has incurred international responsibility.

The procedure does not confer jurisdiction on the Court or make jurisdiction dependent on whether the respondent chooses to object. The Court must always satisfy itself that it possesses jurisdiction before proceeding to the merits, and a respondent’s failure to file a formal objection cannot supply consent that is otherwise absent (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984, pp. 426–427, para. 80). Objections to admissibility and other threshold questions may likewise be isolated for prior determination, but this should not be confused with a general duty on the Court to raise every possible admissibility issue on its own initiative.

1.1 Separating Threshold Issues from the Merits

The defining feature of a preliminary objection lies in the issue it asks the Court to decide. It concerns the conditions under which adjudication may occur, not whether the applicant’s substantive allegations are correct. In their joint separate opinion in Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway, Judges de Visscher and Rostworowski described an objection as prima facie preliminary when its nature or purpose is directed against the judicial proceedings and the conditions governing their institution, rather than against the law on which the claim rests (Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway, joint separate opinion of Judges de Visscher and Rostworowski, 1939, pp. 24, 28). That formulation remains useful because it directs attention to the legal effect of the objection rather than its formal label.

A respondent cannot transform a defense on the merits into a preliminary objection simply by describing it as jurisdictional. In Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, the Permanent Court declined to treat an argument ratione materiae as preliminary because the reasoning advanced in support of it formed part of the merits of the dispute (Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, 1939, p. 78). The objection would have required the Court to assess the substantive legal basis of the claim rather than a condition governing its authority to hear it.

The distinction is nevertheless functional rather than absolute. Jurisdiction may depend on the interpretation of the same treaty that supplies the substantive obligations invoked by the applicant. The Court may also need to examine diplomatic exchanges, official statements, or disputed events in order to determine whether a legal dispute existed when the application was filed. Such inquiry does not itself convert a preliminary question into a merits issue. The decisive consideration is whether the Court can determine the facts and law necessary for the objection without ruling on a breach that remains to be proved at the merits stage.

The reverse difficulty also arises. Some arguments appear substantive but, if accepted, would show that the claim falls outside the jurisdictional instrument altogether. Where jurisdiction rests on a compromissory clause, for example, the Court may have to interpret the treaty sufficiently to determine whether the alleged conduct is capable of falling within its provisions. That analysis concerns the scope of consent; it does not necessarily decide whether the treaty was violated. Maintaining the distinction requires the Court to identify the limited interpretive question that must be answered at the preliminary stage and to leave the respondent’s substantive compliance for later determination.

1.2 Consent, Economy, and Procedural Fairness

The first justification for preliminary objections is the protection of State consent. The Court has repeatedly treated consent as a fundamental condition of contentious jurisdiction: it cannot decide a dispute between States without a jurisdictional basis binding them in relation to that dispute (Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, 1954, p. 32). An early jurisdictional ruling, therefore, prevents the merits process from continuing where the asserted consent does not exist or does not extend to the claims presented.

This protection is not merely formal. Merits proceedings may require extensive documentary submissions, detailed factual argument, witness or expert evidence, and public examination of politically sensitive conduct. Separate determination of a jurisdictional objection limits the extent to which a respondent must address the merits before the Court has ruled on its authority. That protection is not absolute, however, because an objection may have to be considered later when it cannot be separated from the merits. The preliminary phase also protects the institutional legitimacy of the Court by keeping its decisions within the limits accepted by the parties.

Judicial economy provides a second rationale. If an objection disposes of the entire application, a separate preliminary phase avoids pleadings and hearings on claims that the Court has no authority to determine. Even where the case continues, an early judgment may exclude certain claims, clarify the jurisdictional title, or narrow the factual and legal questions requiring examination. The potential saving is greatest when the threshold issue is discrete and capable of resolution without substantial engagement with the merits.

Bifurcation does not invariably make proceedings faster or less costly. An unsuccessful objection may add a separate round of written and oral proceedings before the case returns to the merits. Where the same treaty provisions or factual disputes arise in both phases, the parties may repeat arguments, and the Court may revisit material already considered. Procedural economy must therefore be assessed in relation to the particular objection, not assumed from the fact that it has been raised before the merits.

Procedural fairness requires an early opportunity for the respondent to contest the Court’s authority, but it does not justify treating merits defenses as threshold objections. The Court must decide which issues can be resolved before the merits and reserve the rest. That approach protects consent without turning the preliminary phase into a second merits proceeding.

2. The Rules Governing Preliminary Questions

The Rules establish two routes for separating threshold issues from the merits. Article 79 allows the Court to direct a preliminary phase; Article 79bis allows a party to initiate one; Article 79ter governs the procedure that follows.

A “preliminary question” under Article 79 results from a procedural decision by the Court, whereas a “preliminary objection” under Article 79bis is submitted by a party. Article 79ter contains the procedure common to both routes (ICJ, 1978, Arts 79, 79bis and 79ter, as amended 2019).

These provisions regulate procedure rather than supply an independent basis of jurisdiction. Their legal foundation lies in Article 30 of the Statute, which authorizes the Court to frame rules for carrying out its functions and, in particular, to regulate its procedure. They determine when and how jurisdictional or admissibility issues are considered; they do not enlarge the parties’ consent or create a jurisdictional title (Statute of the ICJ, Art. 30).

2.1 From PCIJ Practice to the 2019 Rules

The PCIJ’s 1922 Rules contained no specific procedure for preliminary objections (PCIJ, 1922). Early jurisdictional proceedings, including Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions and Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, demonstrated the need for a distinct mechanism through which an objection could be determined before the merits. Article 38 of the 1926 Rules placed that emerging practice on a formal basis by requiring the objection to be submitted in writing and allowing the opposing party to respond before the Court ruled (Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, 1924; Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, 1925; PCIJ, 1926, Art. 38).

The 1936 Rules moved the procedure to Article 62 and supplied a fuller framework. Filing an objection suspended the merits proceedings; the objecting party had to state the supporting facts and law, and the Court could decide the objection or join it to the merits. This established bifurcation as a regulated incidental phase rather than an arrangement developed separately in each case (PCIJ, 1936, Art. 62).

Exercising that power in Pajzs, Csáky, Esterházy, the Permanent Court joined the Yugoslav objections to the merits by its Order of 23 May 1936 because their determination was closely connected with issues requiring consideration in the later phase (Pajzs, Csáky, Esterházy, Order of 23 May 1936, p. 9). The ICJ retained the essential structure in its 1946 Rules, including the authority to defer a preliminary objection for decision with the merits.

Joinder offered flexibility, but it also had procedural costs. A respondent could obtain a separate preliminary phase only for the objection to be postponed, after written and oral argument, until the merits phase. The 1972 revision removed the express power to join an objection to the merits and allowed the Court instead to declare that, in the circumstances, the objection did not possess an exclusively preliminary character. Such a finding did not reject the objection; it recognized that the issue could not properly be determined within the limits of the preliminary phase (ICJ, 1972, Art. 67(7)).

The 1978 Rules preserved this approach in Article 79. On 5 December 2000, the Court amended the provision with effect from 1 February 2001, requiring a respondent to file a preliminary objection as soon as possible and no later than three months after delivery of the Memorial. The previous rule had allowed filing within the period fixed for the Counter-Memorial, which permitted the respondent to wait until considerably later in the written proceedings before triggering suspension of the merits (ICJ, 2000).

The 2019 revision did not abolish or replace the preliminary objections procedure. It redistributed the former Article 79 among three provisions to clarify the source and procedural treatment of a threshold issue. Article 79 now addresses questions selected for separate determination by the Court. Article 79bis governs objections filed by a party. Article 79ter sets out the procedure applicable after either route has been activated. Commentary and judgments produced under the earlier Rules may therefore remain doctrinally relevant even though their references to Article 79 no longer correspond to the current numbering.

2.2 Court-Directed Bifurcation Under Article 79

Article 79 permits the Court to separate jurisdiction or admissibility from the merits without waiting for a formal preliminary objection. After the application has been filed, and following consultation with the parties, the Court may decide that the circumstances warrant a separate determination of questions concerning its jurisdiction or the admissibility of the application. The parties then submit pleadings on those questions within the time limits and in the order fixed by the Court (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79, as amended 2019).

This route reflects the Court’s responsibility for the orderly conduct of proceedings and for establishing the legal limits of its authority. A threshold issue may be apparent from the application, the parties’ initial communications, or the procedural circumstances in which the case was instituted. The Court need not await a party-filed objection or a full exchange of merits pleadings before ordering the separate determination of jurisdiction or admissibility.

Court-directed bifurcation differs from Article 79bis in both origin and form. Under Article 79, the decision to create a preliminary phase belongs to the Court after consultation with the parties. The resulting pleadings address the preliminary questions identified for separate treatment. Under Article 79bis, a party initiates the incidental phase by filing its own objections and formal submissions. The distinction prevents the Court’s procedural management of jurisdiction and admissibility from being treated as an argument advanced by one of the litigants.

The power is discretionary rather than automatic. Article 79 allows separation only when “the circumstances so warrant,” leaving the Court to consider the nature of the threshold question, its relationship with the merits, the procedural positions of the parties, and the potential value of an early determination. The provision does not establish a presumption that every identifiable question of jurisdiction or admissibility must be bifurcated.

Article 79bis applies only when the Court has not taken a decision under Article 79. Once the Court has directed separate consideration of jurisdiction or admissibility, the parties present their positions within that preliminary phase and according to the sequence fixed by the Court. This prevents two independently constituted preliminary procedures from operating in parallel (ICJ, 1978, Arts 79(2) and 79bis(1), as amended 2019).

2.3 Party-Filed Objections Under Article 79bis

Where the Court has not ordered separate determination under Article 79, Article 79bis permits the respondent to object to the Court’s jurisdiction, the admissibility of the application, or another issue whose decision is requested before further proceedings on the merits. The residual category is significant. A formal preliminary objection is not confined to arguments expressly classified as jurisdictional or admissibility-based, provided that the party requests a prior decision on an issue capable of affecting whether or how the merits proceedings continue (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(1), as amended 2019).

Article 79bis also permits a party other than the respondent to raise an objection. Such an objection must be filed within the time limit fixed for that party’s first pleading, rather than within the three-month period applicable to the respondent (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(1), as amended 2019).

A formal objection requires more than a reservation of rights or a general statement that jurisdiction is disputed. The pleading must set out the supporting facts and law, state the submissions on which the party asks the Court to adjudicate, identify the supporting documents, and include the evidence relied upon. Copies of the documents must accompany the objection. These requirements give the opposing party and the Court a defined case to answer rather than an undeveloped assertion that may shift during the preliminary phase (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(2), as amended 2019).

Receipt of the objection by the Registry suspends proceedings on the merits. The Court, or the President if the Court is not sitting, then fixes a time limit for the other party’s written observations and submissions, together with the evidence and documents on which it relies. Suspension follows from the filing of the objection and does not depend on a prior judicial determination that the objection will succeed or possesses an exclusively preliminary character (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(3), as amended 2019).

The parties may alter this sequence by agreement. Article 79bis requires the Court to give effect to an agreement that an objection be heard and determined within the framework of the merits. That arrangement differs from a unilateral attempt to reserve a jurisdictional defense for later consideration. It must also be distinguished from a later judicial finding that the objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character: the former rests on agreement between the parties, while the latter is a determination by the Court concerning the procedural nature of the issue (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(4), as amended 2019).

2.4 Common Procedure Under Article 79ter

Article 79ter governs the conduct and disposition of preliminary issues once either procedural route has been activated. The written pleadings must remain confined to matters relevant to the preliminary questions or objections. This limitation preserves the separation between the incidental phase and the merits while allowing the parties to address facts and law that bear directly on jurisdiction, admissibility, or another threshold issue (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(1), as amended 2019).

Following the written phase, the proceedings are oral unless the Court decides otherwise. The Court may request argument on any question of law or fact and may call for evidence relevant to the preliminary issue. This power allows the Court to obtain a record sufficient to determine the threshold question without converting the preliminary phase into an unrestricted presentation of the merits (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(2)–(3), as amended 2019).

After hearing the parties, the Court decides the preliminary question identified under Article 79 or rules on the objection filed under Article 79bis. It may uphold or reject an objection, or declare that the question or objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. The same procedural difficulty can therefore arise under either route: an issue selected for early treatment may prove too closely connected with the merits to be determined at that stage (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(4), as amended 2019).

The Court gives its decision in the form of a judgment. If that judgment does not dispose of the case, the Court fixes the time limits for the proceedings that remain. Rejection of an objection returns the case to the merits, while a successful objection may terminate the proceedings or exclude only part of the application. A finding that the issue lacks an exclusively preliminary character leaves its resolution for a later phase rather than treating the objection as legally unfounded (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(5), as amended 2019).

3. Filing, Timing, and Suspension of the Merits

The Rules translate the preliminary-objections procedure into a formal sequence. A State does not initiate that sequence merely by disputing jurisdiction in diplomatic correspondence or preliminary communications with the Registry. Article 79bis requires a written objection identifying the threshold issues on which the party requests a decision before the merits continue. Its filing determines the applicable timetable, suspends the merits phase, and defines the matters to which the preliminary proceedings should be confined.

3.1 Who May Raise an Objection

The respondent ordinarily raises preliminary objections because it is the party required to answer an application instituted against it. Article 79bis nevertheless permits another party to file an objection within the time limit fixed for its first pleading. The Rules therefore attach the ability to object to a State’s procedural status as a party rather than reserving it categorically to the respondent (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(1), as amended 2019).

A party-filed objection under Article 79bis differs from Court-directed separation under Article 79. The former is initiated by a party’s written objection and formal submissions; the latter results from the Court’s decision, after consulting the parties, to isolate jurisdiction or admissibility for prior determination. Only receipt by the Registry of a preliminary objection filed under Article 79bis triggers the automatic suspension prescribed by paragraph 3.

The respondent’s failure to use Article 79bis cannot create jurisdiction. The Court must still satisfy itself that jurisdiction exists and may consider that question on its own initiative. This independent responsibility does not entail an equivalent duty to formulate every possible admissibility objection on behalf of the parties (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984, pp. 426–427, para. 80).

3.2 Filing Requirements and the Three-Month Limit

A respondent must file its preliminary objections as soon as possible and no later than three months after delivery of the applicant’s Memorial. The three-month period is an outer limit, not an invitation to postpone an objection that could reasonably have been presented earlier. Its starting point is delivery of the Memorial rather than filing of the Application, since the Memorial ordinarily contains the developed statement of the applicant’s claims, facts, and jurisdictional position (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(1), as amended 2019).

The objection must set out the supporting facts and law and state the formal submissions on which the objecting party asks the Court to rule. It must also identify the documents relied upon, attach copies of those documents, and include the evidence offered in support. These requirements fix the content of the incidental case and allow the opposing party to determine whether the objection concerns jurisdiction, admissibility, another threshold issue, or a defense that properly belongs to the merits (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(2), as amended 2019).

A bare assertion that the Court lacks jurisdiction is therefore insufficient to perform the procedural function assigned to a preliminary objection. The pleading must connect the requested disposition to a jurisdictional title, a limitation on consent, an admissibility doctrine, or another identifiable legal obstacle. Formal submissions are particularly important because the Court’s operative decision must respond to the relief requested rather than to an undefined disagreement over its authority.

The three-month deadline governs use of the separate preliminary objections procedure; it does not establish jurisdiction by default. A respondent that has not filed a timely objection may still contest jurisdiction in its merits pleadings, and the Court remains responsible for verifying its authority to adjudicate. Such a later argument does not, merely by being raised, trigger the automatic suspension and separate preliminary phase provided by Article 79bis (LaGrand, 2001, para. 36; ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(3), as amended 2019). This distinction preserves the procedural deadline without treating silence as consent to jurisdiction.

3.3 Suspension, Joinder, and Procedural Sequencing

Receipt of a preliminary objection by the Registry suspends proceedings on the merits. The suspension follows from the filing itself and does not depend on an initial finding that the objection is persuasive or exclusively preliminary. The Court, or the President when the Court is not sitting, then fixes a time limit for the other party to present written observations and submissions, together with the evidence and documents on which it relies (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(3), as amended 2019).

Suspension preserves the purpose of the incidental phase. Continuing to require a Counter-Memorial or other merits pleading while the Court is considering whether it may hear the claims would undermine the procedural economy that bifurcation is intended to achieve. It would also require the respondent to develop its substantive defense before obtaining a ruling on the objection that prompted the suspension.

The Rules permit the parties to choose a different sequence by agreement. Under Article 79bis(4), when they agree that an objection should be heard and determined within the framework of the merits, the Court gives effect to that agreement. The objection remains available for adjudication, but it does not produce a separate preliminary phase before the merits proceedings continue. One party cannot impose this arrangement unilaterally.

An agreement to address an objection with the merits is not the same as a judicial finding under Article 79ter that the objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. The agreement determines the procedural sequence before the Court rules on the nature of the objection. A finding under Article 79ter follows consideration of the preliminary issue and reflects the Court’s conclusion that it cannot properly be resolved at that stage. The objection is neither upheld nor rejected; its determination is postponed because the necessary analysis is too closely connected with the merits (ICJ, 1978, Arts 79bis(4) and 79ter(4), as amended 2019).

The current procedure must also be distinguished from the former express power to join an objection to the merits. Although a finding that an issue lacks an exclusively preliminary character produces a comparable postponement, it records a judgment about the character of the issue rather than simply exercising a general power of joinder. The finding identifies why the Court has declined to determine the objection immediately and preserves the question for the later proceedings.

3.4 Provisional Measures and Definitive Jurisdiction

Article 41 of the Statute authorizes the Court to indicate provisional measures, but the jurisdictional inquiry at that stage is not definitive. The provisions invoked by the applicant need only appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the Court’s jurisdiction could be founded. An order indicating provisional measures does not prejudge the Court’s subsequent determination of jurisdiction, admissibility, or the merits (Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Provisional Measures, 2022, paras 24–25, 83).

The prima facie inquiry is conducted under conditions of urgency, usually before the parties have filed full merits pleadings or developed their jurisdictional arguments in the form required for preliminary objections. Prima facie jurisdiction is only one condition for provisional measures. The Court must also determine whether the rights claimed are at least plausible, whether there is a link between those rights and the measures requested, and whether there is a real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice requiring urgent protection.

The sequence of proceedings in Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention (Ukraine v Russian Federation) shows how the prima facie and definitive jurisdictional inquiries differ. In its Order of 16 March 2022, the Court concluded that Article IX of the Genocide Convention appeared, prima facie, to provide a basis for jurisdiction and indicated provisional measures. Ukraine later filed its Memorial, and Russia submitted preliminary objections on 3 October 2022 within the Article 79bis procedure (Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Provisional Measures, 2022, paras 48–49; Preliminary Objections, 2024, para. 13).

In its Judgment of 2 February 2024, the Court retained jurisdiction over Ukraine’s request for a declaration that Ukraine had not committed genocide in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and found that request admissible. It upheld Russia’s objection to Ukraine’s broader claims that Russia had violated obligations under Articles I and IV of the Convention through actions taken on the basis of its genocide allegations. Those claims, therefore, did not proceed to the merits (Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2024, para. 151).

The later judgment narrowed the case without reopening an issue already determined with res judicata effect. The 2022 Order made only the jurisdictional assessment required at the provisional-measures stage. The 2024 Judgment, delivered after full written and oral argument on Russia’s objections, definitively determined, for the purposes of the case, which of Ukraine’s claims fell within the Court’s jurisdiction and were admissible.

4. Classifying ICJ Preliminary Objections

Once a threshold issue enters the preliminary phase, its classification affects both the Court’s reasoning and the legal consequences of the judgment. Article 79bis recognizes three categories: objections to jurisdiction, objections to the admissibility of the application, and “other” objections on which a party requests a decision before further proceedings on the merits. The wording supplies a procedural framework, not an exhaustive taxonomy. Comparable arguments have been characterized differently across cases, and the Court does not treat the terminology chosen by a party as conclusive (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(1), as amended 2019).

The distinctions remain necessary despite those uncertainties. An objection to jurisdiction challenges the Court’s legal authority to decide the dispute or a particular claim. An objection to admissibility ordinarily accepts, or proceeds on the assumption, that jurisdiction exists but identifies a reason why the application or claim should not be entertained. A residual objection seeks advance determination of another issue capable of affecting whether or how the merits proceedings continue. The categories overlap at their margins because the same procedural result—dismissal of all or part of a case—may rest on different legal grounds.

4.1 Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Residual Objections

Jurisdiction depends on a legal basis binding the parties and extending to the dispute submitted. An objection may deny the existence or validity of the asserted title, contest its personal, material, or temporal scope, or argue that a condition attached to consent has not been fulfilled. If the objection succeeds, the Court lacks authority to determine the affected claim. The judgment may dispose of the entire case or only the claims lying outside the jurisdictional title.

Admissibility concerns a different inquiry. The Court may possess jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter, but conclude that the application or a particular claim cannot be entertained in its existing form. The alleged defect may concern the applicant’s entitlement to present the claim, failure to satisfy a condition governing its presentation, or another impediment to the proper exercise of adjudicatory authority. This account is necessarily general. The Court has not reduced admissibility to a single definition or test, and doctrines frequently associated with it do not all operate in the same way.

Classification changes the legal effect of the ruling. A jurisdictional ruling addresses the limits of the authority conferred on the Court. A finding of inadmissibility concerns the claim as submitted and may, depending on the ground, leave open the possibility of different proceedings after the defect has been removed. That possibility should not be assumed in every case: some admissibility determinations conclusively dispose of the claim, while others rest on circumstances capable of change. The operative clause and the reasoning necessary to support it determine the effect of the judgment.

Article 79bis also preserves a residual category for an “other objection” whose prior determination is requested. This language does not create an unrestricted right to obtain an early ruling on any issue selected by the respondent. The objection must remain genuinely preliminary: its determination must be sought before further proceedings on the merits because it could prevent, restrict, or materially alter those proceedings. A defense directed only at whether the respondent breached the applicable law does not acquire a threshold character merely because it is filed under Article 79bis.

Residual objections may concern the exercise of jurisdiction, the continued object of the proceedings, or another constraint on the Court’s judicial function. Their inclusion reflects the limits of a rigid jurisdiction–admissibility division. It also explains why the procedural category “other objection” should not be mistaken for a single substantive doctrine. The legal basis and consequences of each objection must be identified separately.

4.2 The Court’s Power to Reclassify an Objection

A party’s description of its objection is the beginning of the classification inquiry, not its conclusion. The Court considers the argument’s substance, the legal rule invoked, and the disposition requested. An objection labeled “jurisdictional” may, in reality, ask the Court to decline the exercise of jurisdiction that already exists. Conversely, an argument presented as admissibility may challenge an element required for the jurisdictional title to operate.

Reclassification prevents pleading choices from determining the scope of the Court’s authority. It also protects the effect of earlier judgments. If the Court has already decided that jurisdiction exists, a party cannot reopen that ruling simply by presenting the same objection under a different heading. A later objection directed at the exercise of jurisdiction, however, may raise a distinct issue that was not conclusively determined by the earlier jurisdictional judgment.

In the 2023 judgment in the Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v Venezuela), classification determined whether Venezuela’s objection had already been settled by the Court’s 2020 judgment. Venezuela maintained that its indispensable-third-party objection concerned the exercise of jurisdiction and the admissibility of the Application, while Guyana argued that it was jurisdictional and barred by the earlier judgment. The Court held that an objection based on the Monetary Gold principle concerns the exercise rather than the existence of jurisdiction and therefore is not an objection to jurisdiction. It further found that the 2020 judgment had not determined that issue, expressly or by necessary implication. Having found Venezuela’s objection admissible for consideration, the Court rejected it because the United Kingdom had accepted, through the Geneva Agreement, a dispute-settlement scheme in which it would have no role (Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899, Preliminary Objection, 2023, paras 63–74, 107–108).

That reasoning does not establish that every indispensable third-party objection must receive the same procedural label in every setting. It shows instead that classification follows the legal operation of the argument in the case before the Court. The difference between lacking jurisdiction and declining to exercise jurisdiction may determine whether an objection is foreclosed by res judicata, whether it can be raised after an earlier jurisdictional judgment, and how the Court frames its operative conclusion.

4.3 Objections with Unsettled Classification

The Monetary Gold principle is a clear example of a doctrine whose place within the procedural taxonomy has not always been expressed uniformly. In 1954, the Court concluded that it could not adjudicate where Albania’s legal interests would form “the very subject-matter” of the requested decision, and Albania had not consented to the proceedings (Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943, 1954, p. 32). The principle derives from the requirement of State consent, yet it operates where jurisdiction may otherwise exist between the parties before the Court. It has therefore been treated in terms of admissibility and the exercise of jurisdiction rather than consistently as a defect in the existence of jurisdiction.

One standard commentary places hypothetical or purposeless claims, moot claims, absence of a legal interest, and the Monetary Gold principle under the heading of admissibility (Aust, 2005, p. 457). That organization is useful as a secondary taxonomy but does not control the Court’s characterization in a later case. In Guyana v Venezuela, the Court expressly treated the objection before it as concerning the exercise of jurisdiction. That holding should be reported in its case-specific terms rather than converted into a universal definition of every third-party objection.

Mootness presents a similar difficulty. The Court does not consistently use “mootness” as a self-contained admissibility category. It has instead asked whether the claim retains an object and whether a judgment would perform a judicial function. In Nuclear Tests, the Court found that Australia’s claim no longer had any object after France’s public undertakings concerning atmospheric testing and concluded that it was not called upon to give a decision (Nuclear Tests, 1974, paras 55–62).

In Northern Cameroons, the Court declined to adjudicate after concluding that a judgment could have no practical consequence in light of the termination of the trusteeship and the circumstances of the claim. Its reasoning concerned the limits of the judicial function rather than a conventional finding that jurisdiction was absent (Northern Cameroons, 1963, pp. 33–34). Neither decision supplies a general rule that every subsequent change in circumstances renders an application inadmissible.

The time at which the asserted defect arises may alter its classification. If no dispute existed when proceedings were instituted, the jurisdictional requirement contained in the relevant title may not have been satisfied. If a dispute existed at that time but later events deprived the claim of its object, the issue concerns the continued purpose of adjudication rather than the original existence of jurisdiction. Describing both situations as “mootness” would conceal the different legal questions involved.

The three categories do not supply automatic answers. The Court must identify whether an argument denies jurisdiction, challenges the claim’s admissibility, concerns the exercise of existing jurisdiction, or invokes another threshold limit. That classification determines the issue decided and the preclusive effect of the judgment.

5. Objections to the Court’s Jurisdiction

Jurisdictional objections ask whether the States before the Court have consented to adjudication of the particular dispute. Consent must be established at several levels. The parties must be entitled to appear before the Court, a valid jurisdictional title must bind them, and the claims must fall within the personal, material, temporal, and procedural limits of that title. An objection may succeed at one level even though the requirements at the others are satisfied.

The existence of a treaty clause or optional-clause declaration is only the starting point. The Court must determine what consent was given, when it took effect, whether it remained operative when proceedings were instituted, and which claims it covers. These questions determine the legal extent of the Court’s authority; they do not concern whether the respondent ultimately breached the obligations invoked.

5.1 Access to the Court Under Article 35

Access concerns whether a State may participate as a party in contentious proceedings before the Court. Article 34, paragraph 1, of the Statute limits parties in contentious cases to States. Article 35 then identifies the States to which the Court is open. Under paragraph 1, the Court is open to States parties to the Statute; all members of the United Nations are parties to the Statute by virtue of Article 93, paragraph 1, of the UN Charter (UN Charter, Art. 93(1); Statute of the ICJ, Arts 34(1) and 35(1)).

Article 35, paragraph 2, addresses States that are not parties to the Statute. Subject to special provisions in treaties in force, the Security Council may prescribe the conditions under which the Court is open to them, provided that those conditions do not place the parties in a position of inequality. Access under this paragraph is exceptional and should not be inferred merely from the existence of an instrument purporting to confer jurisdiction (Statute of the ICJ, Art. 35(2)).

Access is conceptually prior to jurisdiction over the dispute. A State may be entitled to appear before the Court without having consented to the adjudication of a particular claim. Conversely, an instrument that appears to contain consent cannot provide a workable jurisdictional basis if one of the States lacked access to the Court when proceedings were instituted. Article 35 addresses the availability of the judicial forum to a State; Article 36 and other jurisdictional instruments determine whether the Court may decide the dispute.

The distinction controlled the 2004 judgments in the Legality of Use of Force cases. The Court held that Serbia and Montenegro were not a party to the Statute when it instituted proceedings in 1999 and therefore lacked access under Article 35, paragraph 1. It also held that Article 35, paragraph 2, did not open the Court through Article IX of the Genocide Convention, because the reference to “treaties in force” concerned treaties in force when the Statute entered into effect. Without access to the Court, the applicant could not rely on the asserted compromissory clause (Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Preliminary Objections, 2004, paras 46–115).

Access should also be distinguished from the requirement in Article 34 that only States may be parties. An entity may possess some international legal personality without qualifying as a State entitled to institute contentious proceedings. International organizations, individuals, corporations, and non-governmental organizations cannot become parties before the Court, even where their rights, conduct, or institutional powers form part of the underlying dispute. The relevant claim must be presented in contentious proceedings by a State with access and a valid jurisdictional title.

5.2 Consent and the Jurisdictional Title

Article 36 of the Statute identifies the principal jurisdictional bases founded on special agreements, compromissory clauses, and reciprocal optional-clause declarations under Article 36, paragraph 2. The Court’s jurisprudence also recognizes consent established after proceedings have been proposed through forum prorogatum, a procedure reflected in Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules. Each basis rests on consent, but the time, form, and scope of that consent differ (Statute of the ICJ, Art. 36; ICJ, 1978, Art. 38(5)).

A special agreement is concluded by the States after a dispute has arisen, or after its contours have become sufficiently clear for them to define the questions referred. It normally identifies the parties, the subject of the dispute, and the issues to be decided. Because seisin rests on a joint instrument, disputes over the existence of consent are less common than in proceedings instituted unilaterally. Questions may nevertheless arise over the interpretation of the agreement, the exact submissions authorized, or whether a later claim exceeds the subject matter referred to the Court.

A compromissory clause constitutes advance consent contained in a bilateral or multilateral treaty. It ordinarily confers jurisdiction over specified disputes concerning the interpretation, application, or fulfillment of that treaty. The clause does not grant jurisdiction over the parties’ wider legal relationship. When an applicant invokes a compromissory clause, the Court must determine whether the alleged dispute is capable of falling within the treaty provisions covered by the clause. The substantive treaty and its jurisdictional clause must be interpreted together, but jurisdiction cannot be extended to obligations derived only from another treaty or from general international law unless the clause itself permits that result.

Optional-clause declarations operate differently. Article 36, paragraph 2, permits a State to recognize the Court’s jurisdiction as compulsory in relation to another State accepting the same obligation. The resulting jurisdiction is reciprocal: it exists only within the area in which the declarations of both States overlap. A respondent may rely on a limitation contained in the applicant’s declaration even where its own declaration contains no equivalent wording, while either State may invoke reservations applicable within the common field of consent (Statute of the ICJ, Art. 36(2); Certain Norwegian Loans, 1957, pp. 23–24).

Reservations may exclude disputes arising before a stated date, matters within domestic jurisdiction, disputes involving particular States, or claims subject to another agreed means of settlement. Some declarations also contain provisions governing withdrawal or modification. A jurisdictional objection may therefore concern not only the existence of the declarations but their compatibility, interpretation, reciprocal effect, or continued operation when the application was filed.

The critical point is ordinarily the date of institution. A title must bind the parties and cover the dispute when the Court is seised. Once jurisdiction has validly attached, the later expiry or denunciation of the instrument does not ordinarily deprive the Court of authority already established. In Nottebohm, the Court explained that the subsequent lapse of Guatemala’s optional-clause declaration could not undo jurisdiction created when the application was filed (Nottebohm, Preliminary Objection, 1953, pp. 122–123).

Forum prorogatum provides a jurisdictional basis when the respondent accepts the Court’s jurisdiction after proceedings have been proposed. Under Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules, an application relying on consent yet to be given is transmitted to the respondent but is not entered in the General List, and no procedural action is taken, unless that State accepts jurisdiction. Acceptance may be express or inferred from conduct, but the respondent’s intention to submit the dispute to the Court must be clear and unequivocal. Participation solely to contest jurisdiction cannot be treated as consent (ICJ, 1978, Art. 38(5); Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters, 2008, paras 60–65; Application of the Genocide Convention, Further Requests for Provisional Measures, 1993, para. 34).

5.3 Scope, Time, and Preconditions of Consent

Even a valid jurisdictional title may cover only part of the dispute. Jurisdiction ratione personae concerns whether consent operates between the States appearing in the case. Jurisdiction ratione materiae concerns whether the subject of the dispute falls within the legal instrument invoked. Jurisdiction ratione temporis concerns whether the relevant acts, facts, or disputes occurred within the period covered by the title. These limits derive from the wording of the applicable treaty, declaration, or special agreement rather than from a single general formula.

Personal scope may depend on treaty participation, succession, reservations, or whether reciprocal optional-clause declarations were simultaneously in force. Material scope requires a close comparison between the claims and the obligations covered by the jurisdictional clause. Temporal scope may exclude disputes arising before a specified date, situations rooted in earlier facts, or obligations that had not yet entered into force between the parties. The Court must interpret such restrictions without presuming either an expansion or a contraction of consent beyond the text properly understood.

Treaty entry into force is especially important where jurisdiction rests on a compromissory clause. The treaty must bind both parties, and the clause must be operative between them at the relevant time. A reservation to the clause may prevent jurisdiction even though the reserving State remains bound by the treaty’s substantive provisions. The existence of a substantive obligation and consent to judicial enforcement are separate questions: acceptance of the former does not by itself establish the latter.

Some jurisdictional clauses impose procedural conditions before a party may seise the Court. Negotiation requirements, referral to a treaty body, waiting periods, or exhaustion of another agreed procedure may define when consent to adjudication becomes operative. Whether such language creates a legal precondition depends on the interpretation of the particular clause. The mere existence of earlier diplomatic contact is not enough when the clause requires a genuine attempt to negotiate the dispute later placed before the Court.

The majority judgment in Georgia v Russian Federation treated Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination as imposing a procedural precondition to seisin. Although the Court found that a dispute under the Convention existed when Georgia filed its Application, it concluded that Georgia had neither made a genuine attempt to negotiate that dispute nor used the procedures provided by the Convention. Because neither avenue had been pursued, the Court did not need to decide whether the two routes were cumulative or alternative. It upheld Russia’s second preliminary objection by ten votes to six and found that it lacked jurisdiction (Georgia v Russian Federation, Preliminary Objections, 2011, paras 157–184 and operative clause).

The conclusion was contested within the Court. The joint dissent challenged both the majority’s interpretation of Article 22 and its application to the exchanges between the parties (Georgia v Russian Federation, joint dissenting opinion of President Owada, Judges Simma, Abraham, and Donoghue, and Judge ad hoc Gaja, 2011). The judgment is binding between Georgia and Russia, but its reasoning should not be converted into a universal rule that every reference to negotiation in a compromissory clause creates an identical jurisdictional condition. The effect of such language depends on the wording, context, and structure of the particular treaty.

Material scope produced a different form of narrowing in Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention. Ukraine invoked Article IX of the Genocide Convention. In its 2024 judgment, the Court accepted jurisdiction over Ukraine’s request for a declaration that there was no credible evidence that Ukraine had committed genocide in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions and found the claim admissible. A dispute concerning whether a State had fulfilled its obligations under the Convention could fall within Article IX even though the applicant sought a declaration of compliance rather than a finding of breach by the respondent (Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2024, paras 81–109, 151(8)–(9)).

The Court nevertheless upheld Russia’s ratione materiae objection to Ukraine’s broader claims concerning Russia’s conduct based on allegations of genocide. It concluded that the Convention did not regulate a State’s recognition of entities or its use of force merely because those acts were said to respond to an alleged genocide. Those claims, therefore, fell outside Article IX, even though the surrounding dispute had arisen from Russia’s invocation of genocide. The finding was adopted by twelve votes to four, confirming that the treaty-scope question was contested within the Court (Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2024, paras 131–149, 151(2)).

The two cases illustrate distinct limits on consent. In Georgia v Russian Federation, the relevant dispute fell within the substantive treaty, but the procedural route to the Court had not been completed. In Ukraine v Russian Federation, one claim fell within the compromissory clause while others exceeded the Convention’s material scope. A jurisdictional judgment must therefore be read claim by claim: consent may be valid and operative without extending to every legal characterization or remedy advanced by the applicant.

5.4 The Existence and Subject of the Dispute

Contentious jurisdiction ordinarily presupposes a dispute between the parties. The classic definition comes from Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, where the Permanent Court described a dispute as a disagreement on a point of law or fact, or a conflict of legal views or interests. Later decisions refined that formulation by requiring the claim of one party to be positively opposed by the other (Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, 1924, p. 11; South West Africa Cases, Preliminary Objections, 1962, p. 328).

The existence of a dispute is determined objectively. It does not depend solely on an applicant asserting that disagreement exists or on a respondent denying it. The Court asks whether the parties held clearly opposed views concerning the performance or non-performance of the international obligation invoked. A political disagreement, hostile relationship, or broader armed conflict does not automatically establish a legal dispute under the particular jurisdictional instrument.

Unless the jurisdictional instrument imposes a specific notice requirement, no particular form of communication is indispensable. Diplomatic notes, statements before international organizations, bilateral exchanges, public declarations, legislation, and conduct may establish the necessary opposition. The evidence must show that the respondent was aware, or could not have been unaware, that the applicant’s legal position was positively opposed to its own. General criticism, political disagreement, or allegations directed primarily at third actors may not satisfy that test (Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament, Preliminary Objections, 2016, paras 38–41).

The dispute must, in principle, exist when the application is filed. Conduct or evidence arising after institution may help confirm the nature or existence of an earlier disagreement, but it cannot retroactively create a jurisdictional condition that was absent at the critical date (Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament, Preliminary Objections, 2016, paras 42–43).

In Georgia v Russian Federation, the Court examined a long sequence of diplomatic exchanges and public statements to determine when a CERD dispute emerged. It found that many earlier exchanges concerned armed conflict, territorial status, peacekeeping, human rights, and ethnic violence without establishing a legal dispute between Georgia and Russia under CERD. It nevertheless concluded that statements made during August 2008 revealed direct accusation and opposition concerning conduct capable of falling under the Convention by the date of filing (Georgia v Russian Federation, Preliminary Objections, 2011, paras 30–114).

The Court is not bound by the title or legal characterization assigned by the applicant. It determines the subject matter of the dispute objectively, while giving particular attention to the applicant’s formulation, the facts presented as the basis of the claim, the submissions, and the positions of both parties. This authority prevents formal drafting from extending jurisdiction to a controversy outside the parties’ consent, but it does not permit the Court to substitute an entirely different dispute for the one submitted (Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction, 1998, paras 29–32).

Judicial characterization has limits. The Court may clarify the real subject of the claims, but it cannot replace the dispute submitted with a different one or admit claims that transform the case after filing. The question is whether the legal controversy placed before it existed at the critical date and falls within the jurisdictional title—not whether some related dispute could have been framed in a way that would satisfy those conditions.

6. Objections to Admissibility

An admissibility objection does not ordinarily deny that the parties have conferred jurisdiction on the Court. It challenges whether the application or a particular claim may properly be entertained in the form presented. No comprehensive doctrine governs every admissibility objection. Some issues described as standing depend on the substantive obligation invoked; others concern the conditions governing diplomatic protection or the proper use of the Court’s judicial process. Their classification follows the legal basis and effect of the objection.

The consequences also differ. A curable defect may prevent consideration of a claim only in its existing form, whereas another objection may dispose of the claim conclusively. The Court must identify the specific rule said to bar adjudication, the interest protected by that rule, and the procedural stage at which its requirements must be satisfied. Some admissibility conditions are assessed when proceedings are instituted; others depend on circumstances existing when the Court rules.

6.1 Standing and Entitlement to Invoke Responsibility

Access, jurisdiction, and the applicant’s entitlement to pursue a claim address related but distinct questions. Access determines whether a State may appear before the Court under Articles 34 and 35 of the Statute. Jurisdiction concerns whether a valid title of consent authorizes adjudication of the dispute. The terms “standing,” “locus standi,” and “entitlement to invoke responsibility” are not used with complete uniformity in the Court’s jurisprudence. Standing often describes whether the applicant is legally entitled to invoke the respondent’s responsibility and pursue the claim before the Court.

Analytical precision, therefore, requires attention to the source of the asserted entitlement rather than reliance on terminology alone. A State may have access to the Court and invoke a valid compromissory clause while lacking entitlement under the substantive legal regime to present the particular claim. Conversely, a State may possess a legally protected interest but remain unable to proceed because no jurisdictional title binds the respondent. In The Gambia v Myanmar, however, the Court held that Myanmar’s attempted distinction between entitlement to invoke responsibility under the Genocide Convention and standing to pursue that responsibility before the Court had no basis in law in the circumstances of that treaty (Application of the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2022, para. 108).

The traditional position is clearest where an applicant alleges injury to its own rights. A bilateral obligation identifies the States entitled to demand performance, and an injured State may invoke responsibility for its breach. The analysis becomes more complex when the obligation protects a collective interest, and the applicant does not claim individualized injury. The question is then whether the relevant treaty or rule entitles every member of the protected group to demand compliance.

The Court has recognized that some treaty obligations are owed to all States parties collectively. In Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, it held that every party to the Convention against Torture had a common interest in compliance with the obligation under Article 6, paragraph 2, to conduct a preliminary inquiry and the obligation under Article 7, paragraph 1, to submit the case to the competent authorities for prosecution when the alleged offender is not extradited. Those obligations were erga omnes partes, and Belgium did not need to establish a special interest in Senegal’s compliance (Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite, 2012, paras 68–70).

The same reasoning became central in Application of the Genocide Convention (The Gambia v Myanmar). Myanmar argued that The Gambia lacked standing because it had not suffered injury and was not specially affected by the alleged violations against the Rohingya. The Court rejected the objection. It held that the obligations under the Genocide Convention were erga omnes partes and reflected the common interest of all States parties in preventing, suppressing, and punishing genocide. Any State party could invoke another party’s responsibility for an alleged breach without demonstrating that it had suffered individual injury (Application of the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2022, paras 107–115).

That holding did not establish a general right for States to litigate every alleged breach of international law. The entitlement arose from the character of the obligations under the Genocide Convention and the common interest created by that treaty. Whether comparable reasoning applies under another instrument depends on its text, object and purpose, structure, and the nature of the obligations invoked. The expression erga omnes partes should not be applied merely because a treaty protects an important public interest.

The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility provide a useful, but non-binding, formulation of the distinction. Article 42 addresses invocation by an injured State, while Article 48 concerns invocation by a State other than an injured State where the obligation is owed to a group of States for the protection of a collective interest or to the international community as a whole. The Articles are not a treaty, and the customary status of individual provisions must be assessed separately. In The Gambia v Myanmar, the Court based its conclusion on the Genocide Convention and its own jurisprudence rather than treating Article 48 as an independent source of jurisdiction or standing.

Myanmar also argued that the Organization of Islamic Cooperation was the “real applicant” and that The Gambia was acting as its proxy. The Court noted that The Gambia had instituted the proceedings in its own name and asserted its own rights as a party to the Genocide Convention. Acceptance of an intergovernmental organization’s proposal to bring proceedings, or receipt of political and financial support from that organization and its members, did not detract from The Gambia’s status as an applicant. The Court further found no evidence that its conduct amounted to an abuse of process (Application of the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2022, paras 44–50).

6.2 Nationality and Exhaustion of Local Remedies

Diplomatic protection raises a more individualized set of admissibility requirements. A State invokes the responsibility of another State for injury caused to one of its nationals and adopts the claim at the international level. The claim must ordinarily satisfy the nationality requirement, and available and effective local remedies must have been exhausted before international proceedings are pursued (Interhandel, Preliminary Objections, 1959, p. 27).

Nationality links the injured person or corporation to the State, asserting diplomatic protection. For natural persons, the claimant State must establish nationality at the legally relevant times. The continuous-nationality rule is commonly formulated as requiring nationality from the date of injury until the official presentation of the claim, subject to limited exceptions. The International Law Commission expressed that rule in Article 5 of its 2006 Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, but the Draft Articles are not binding and should not be treated as a comprehensive treaty statement of customary law.

Corporate claims require separate attention to the legal personality of the company and its shareholders. The general rule developed in Barcelona Traction is that the State of incorporation is entitled to protect the company when the company itself has suffered injury. Injury to the company may reduce the value of its shares, but that economic consequence does not ordinarily convert the company’s rights into rights belonging to the shareholders. A shareholder’s national State may nevertheless protect rights vested directly in the shareholder, such as rights to participate in corporate organs or receive declared dividends, where those rights have been infringed (Barcelona Traction, Second Phase, 1970, paras 38–47).

Ahmadou Sadio Diallo required the Court to apply those distinctions to three categories of claim. Guinea sought to protect Diallo’s individual rights arising from his arrest, detention, and expulsion; his direct rights as an associé in Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire; and, by substitution, rights belonging to those companies. Diallo was a Guinean national, but both companies were incorporated in the Congo and possessed legal personality separate from him.

The Court held that Guinea could exercise diplomatic protection in respect of Diallo’s individual rights, subject to satisfaction of the local-remedies requirement. It also rejected the DRC’s objection to Guinea’s standing to protect Diallo’s direct rights as an associé. The definition of those rights under Congolese law, and whether the measures taken against Diallo had infringed them, were questions for the merits rather than the preliminary phase (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections, 2007, paras 39–48, 49–75).

The claim by substitution was treated differently. Guinea argued that it should be allowed to protect the companies because they were incorporated in the respondent State, and the Congo could not exercise diplomatic protection against itself. The Court found insufficient support in customary international law for a general exception allowing the shareholder’s national State to substitute itself for the State of incorporation in those circumstances. It therefore declared Guinea’s claims concerning injury to the rights of Africom-Zaire and Africontainers-Zaire inadmissible (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections, 2007, paras 88–94).

This division shows why nationality and corporate personality cannot be reduced to the claimant’s economic interest. Diallo controlled the companies and would have benefited from the recovery of their assets, but control did not erase their separate legal identity. Guinea’s entitlement depended on whose legal right had allegedly been violated: Diallo’s individual right, his direct right as a shareholder, or a right belonging to the Congolese companies.

The exhaustion of local remedies rule applied to the surviving diplomatic-protection claims, but the burdens were divided. The applicant had to establish that the injured person had exhausted available remedies or that exceptional circumstances excused non-exhaustion. The respondent, for its part, had to establish that available and effective remedies existed in its legal system and had not been exhausted (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections, 2007, para. 44).

In Diallo, the Court confined its examination of local remedies concerning Diallo’s individual rights to his expulsion because the parties had not adequately developed the issue in relation to his arrest, detention, treatment, or consular claims. It found that the DRC had not proved the existence of an available and effective remedy against the expulsion measure. As to Diallo’s direct rights as an associé, the DRC had not identified any distinct remedy that he should have pursued. The Court therefore rejected the local-remedies objections to both surviving categories of claim (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections, 2007, paras 45–48, 74–75).

6.3 Delay and Abuse of Process

Delay and abuse of process are distinct objections. Delay concerns the consequences of prolonged inaction before a claim is pursued. Abuse of process concerns the misuse of the Court’s procedures in a manner incompatible with their judicial purpose. Neither doctrine gives the Court a general discretion to reject an inconvenient or politically charged case.

Neither the Statute nor the Rules prescribe a general limitation period for contentious applications. In Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, the Court accepted that a delay by a claimant State may render an application inadmissible even in the absence of a treaty time limit. International law establishes no fixed period, however, and the effect of delay must be determined from the circumstances of the case. The Court rejected Australia’s objection because Nauru’s delay in seising it caused no prejudice to Australia (Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Preliminary Objections, 1992, paras 32–36).

Delay should not automatically be equated with waiver or acquiescence. Waiver requires a sufficiently clear abandonment of the claim, while acquiescence depends on conduct from which acceptance of the relevant position may properly be inferred. Passage of time may contribute to either conclusion, but elapsed time alone does not establish them.

Abuse of process is still more exceptional. The Court has recognized that an application may be inadmissible where judicial procedure is used in a manner incompatible with its purpose, but it requires clear evidence of exceptional circumstances. The doctrine cannot be established merely by showing that the respondent regards the claim as weak, strategically motivated, or politically hostile (Immunities and Criminal Proceedings, Preliminary Objections, 2018, paras 150–152; Certain Iranian Assets, Preliminary Objections, 2019, paras 113–115).

The Court has distinguished abuse of process from abuse of rights. Abuse of process may affect admissibility because it concerns the misuse of the judicial procedure itself. An allegation that a substantive right has been exercised abusively may instead depend on whether that right exists and how it was exercised, questions properly reserved for the merits (Immunities and Criminal Proceedings, Preliminary Objections, 2018, paras 150–152).

Political motivation, litigation strategy, or outside support does not by itself establish abuse of process. Interstate proceedings frequently form part of wider diplomatic or institutional strategies, but the Court decides legal disputes without assessing whether an applicant’s motives are exclusively judicial. In The Gambia v Myanmar, OIC encouragement and financial support neither displaced The Gambia as the applicant nor supplied evidence of procedural abuse. The judgment establishes that such support alone is insufficient; it does not foreclose an abuse objection where clear evidence of exceptional circumstances is otherwise present (Application of the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2022, paras 44–50).

The exceptional threshold confines abuse of process to genuine misuse of judicial procedure. It does not permit dismissal because a claim is politically sensitive, collectively supported, or pursued with outside assistance. Admissibility turns on a defined procedural defect, not on whether the applicant’s motives are purely judicial.

7. The Boundary Between Objections and the Merits

The separation between preliminary objections and the merits becomes difficult when both phases require interpretation of the same treaty, examination of the same conduct, or consideration of the same documentary record. A jurisdictional clause may use terms drawn from the substantive provisions of the treaty, while an admissibility objection may depend on facts also relevant to responsibility. The presence of that overlap does not determine the procedural result. The Court must decide whether the threshold issue can be resolved without reaching conclusions that belong to the merits.

Some engagement with substantive law and disputed facts is unavoidable. The limit is reached when deciding the objection would amount to determining responsibility on an incomplete record. Article 79ter permits an immediate ruling when the threshold issue can be resolved within that limit; otherwise, the Court may declare that it does not possess an exclusively preliminary character (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(4), as amended 2019).

7.1 Preliminary Issues That Require Factual Inquiry

A preliminary question does not lose that character merely because the parties dispute facts relevant to it. The Rules permit written and oral argument on questions of fact as well as law and allow the Court to receive evidence bearing on the objection. The procedural limit concerns relevance: the factual inquiry must remain directed at jurisdiction, admissibility, or the other threshold issue submitted for prior determination (ICJ, 1978, Arts 79ter(1)–(3), as amended 2019).

Many jurisdictional conditions are factual or mixed questions of fact and law. The Court may need to determine whether the parties were bound by the relevant instrument at the critical date, whether a legal dispute existed when the application was filed, whether negotiations occurred, or whether conduct relied upon by the applicant falls within a temporal reservation. In diplomatic-protection cases, it may have to consider nationality, corporate status, or the availability and use of local remedies. Deciding those matters does not necessarily require a conclusion on whether the respondent violated the substantive obligation.

The Court drew that line in Georgia v Russian Federation by examining the record only for the jurisdictional questions before it. It reviewed diplomatic exchanges, statements before international organizations, and public accusations extending over several years to determine when a dispute under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination emerged and whether the negotiation requirement in Article 22 had been satisfied. Those factual findings supported its jurisdictional ruling; they did not determine whether racial discrimination had occurred or whether Russia bore responsibility for the alleged conduct (Georgia v Russian Federation, Preliminary Objections, 2011, paras 30–184).

The inquiry becomes more difficult when a factual proposition performs two functions. Evidence that identifies the subject of a dispute may also support the allegation that a treaty was breached. The Court must then isolate the limited factual finding needed for the preliminary question. It may determine that a statement communicated a legal accusation, for example, without deciding whether the accusation was true. It may be found that negotiations took place without assessing the merits of the positions advanced during them.

A disputed fact should be reserved for the merits when resolving it is unnecessary to the objection or would require the Court to determine the dispute, or an element of it, on the merits. The preliminary phase may include factual findings necessary to establish jurisdiction or admissibility, but it is not the proper stage for final determinations of attribution, breach, justification, injury, or reparation. If answering the objection would require such a determination, the Court should declare that the objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character.

7.2 Objections Without an Exclusively Preliminary Character

Article 79ter permits the Court to declare that a preliminary question or objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. The formulation applies where the issue is genuinely capable of affecting jurisdiction, admissibility, or further proceedings, but cannot be adequately determined without fuller examination of matters belonging to the merits. It avoids forcing the Court either to reject a potentially valid objection or to decide substantive questions on an incomplete record.

Such a declaration is not a finding that the Court has jurisdiction over the disputed issue, that the application is admissible, or that the objection lacks legal merit. Nor does it decide the substantive claim. It records a procedural conclusion: the Court cannot rule on the objection separately at that stage. The issue remains available for determination once the later proceedings provide the legal and factual context needed to resolve it.

The modern formulation differs from the former power to join an objection to the merits. Under the earlier Rules, the Court could postpone the objection through an order of joinder. Since the 1972 revision, the Court has instead given a judgment identifying why the objection cannot be treated as exclusively preliminary. The practical result may still be later consideration, but the current approach requires an express judicial characterization of the objection rather than reliance on a general power to combine phases.

The treatment of the United States’ multilateral-treaty reservation in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua provides an important example. The reservation excluded disputes arising under a multilateral treaty unless all treaty parties affected by the decision were also before the Court or the United States specially agreed to jurisdiction. At the preliminary stage, the Court could not determine which third States would be “affected,” because that question depended on the general lines of the eventual merits judgment. It therefore concluded that the objection concerned matters of substance connected with the merits and did not possess, in the circumstances, an exclusively preliminary character (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984, paras 73–76).

Deferral preserves the objection but does not predetermine its later disposition. The developed record may provide the facts required to uphold or reject it, show that it has become irrelevant, or permit the Court to decide the substantive claims on a legal basis unaffected by the objection. The allocation of proof at that later stage depends on the particular jurisdictional or admissibility issue rather than on a general rule that every burden rests on the objecting party.

The Court should defer an objection only when the overlap with the merits prevents an independent ruling. Careful treaty interpretation or a limited examination of disputed evidence is not, by itself, a reason for postponement.

7.3 Protecting the Merits from Premature Determination

The need to protect the merits does not prevent the Court from interpreting the jurisdictional instrument. A compromissory clause has meaning only in relation to the treaty whose disputes it covers, and an optional-clause reservation must be interpreted before its scope can be applied. The Court may therefore determine the meaning of legal terms that will also appear in the merits phase, provided that it confines the inquiry to whether the claim falls within the consent given.

In treaty-based proceedings, the Court often asks whether the facts alleged by the applicant are capable of falling within the substantive provisions covered by the compromissory clause. This does not amount to accepting those allegations as proved. A finding that the conduct alleged could fall within the treaty satisfies the relevant aspect of jurisdiction ratione materiae, but the claim may proceed only if the remaining jurisdictional and admissibility requirements are also met. Conversely, conduct that cannot fall within any obligation covered by the clause lies outside the Court’s material jurisdiction.

The Court used that method in the preliminary objections judgment in Oil Platforms. Iran relied on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the 1955 Treaty of Amity as the compromissory clause and alleged a breach of the freedom of commerce protected by Article X, paragraph 1. The Court interpreted the latter provision and concluded that Iran’s claim concerning the destruction of the platforms was capable of falling within its scope. It therefore found that it had jurisdiction under Article XXI, paragraph 2, to entertain the claims made under Article X, paragraph 1. The judgment did not determine whether the United States had breached that obligation or whether a treaty defense justified its conduct; those questions remained for the merits (Oil Platforms, Preliminary Objection, 1996, paras 38–52 and operative clause).

Necessary preliminary interpretation may nonetheless have significant consequences for the later case. A ruling that a treaty provision cannot cover the type of conduct alleged removes that claim from the proceedings. A finding that the claim is capable of falling within the provision permits adjudication but does not prejudge breach. The distinction turns on the question answered: the scope of the jurisdictional consent may be settled conclusively even while compliance with the substantive rule remains open.

The Court crosses into the merits when it decides more than is needed to establish or deny the threshold condition. Determining whether an alleged act is capable of falling within a treaty differs from deciding whether the act occurred, is attributable to the respondent, violated the treaty, or caused compensable injury. If resolving the objection would necessarily determine any of those merits issues, the objection should be deferred rather than decided through a premature merits finding.

No universal test resolves the boundary. The Court must identify the facts needed to decide the objection and ask whether determining them would settle an element of responsibility. If the objection cannot be resolved without doing so, it belongs in the later phase.

8. From Written Objection to Judgment

Bifurcation creates an incidental phase with its own pleadings, evidentiary limits, hearings, and judgment. Once a preliminary objection has been received by the Registry, proceedings on the merits are suspended, and the Court fixes the sequence for addressing the threshold issues. The purpose is not to reproduce the entire contentious case in compressed form, but to create a record sufficient to determine whether the application, particular claims, or asserted jurisdictional bases may proceed.

The preliminary phase remains adversarial. The objecting party must set out the factual and legal grounds of its submissions, while the opposing party has an opportunity to contest the objection and present supporting material. The allocation of proof depends on the particular jurisdictional or admissibility issue; it does not invariably rest on the party raising the objection. The Court is not confined to the parties’ classifications and may determine the legal nature and effect of the objection for itself.

8.1 Written Observations and Oral Hearings

Following receipt of an objection under Article 79bis, the Court—or the President if the Court is not sitting—fixes a time limit within which the other party may submit written observations and formal submissions. Those observations must address the objection rather than supply a premature Memorial or Counter-Memorial on the merits. They may nevertheless contain substantial factual and legal analysis where the threshold issue depends on the existence of a dispute, the scope of a treaty clause, the status of the parties, or another matter connected with the substantive controversy (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis(3), as amended 2019).

Formal submissions define the disposition each party asks the Court to adopt. The objecting State may seek dismissal of the application, exclusion of particular claims, rejection of one jurisdictional title, or a declaration that another threshold obstacle prevents further proceedings. The opposing party may ask the Court to reject the objections, find that jurisdiction and admissibility requirements are satisfied, or declare that an issue does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. The operative clause of the eventual judgment responds to these legal requests, although the Court is not bound by the terminology through which the parties classify them.

Article 79ter requires the written pleadings to remain confined to matters relevant to the preliminary questions or objections. This restriction does not prohibit reference to facts that also bear on the merits. It limits their use to the purpose for which the preliminary phase was constituted. A party may rely on diplomatic correspondence to prove that a dispute existed, for example, without inviting the Court to decide whether the conduct described in that correspondence breached the treaty (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(1), as amended 2019).

Proceedings are oral unless the Court decides otherwise. During the hearings, counsel normally address the jurisdictional title, the admissibility doctrine invoked, the classification of the objection, and the consequences of the requested ruling. Treaty interpretation and factual chronology may occupy much of the argument when they are indispensable to the threshold question. The parties must nevertheless avoid treating the hearing as an opportunity to establish responsibility, justify the challenged conduct, or argue reparation before the Court has decided whether those questions are properly before it (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(2), as amended 2019).

The Court may direct questions to the parties, request clarification of their submissions, or ask them to address an issue not developed adequately in the written phase. Such questions may expose differences between the objection as pleaded and its actual legal effect. An argument described as jurisdictional may prove to concern admissibility or the exercise of jurisdiction; an alleged procedural condition may require interpretation of the jurisdictional clause before its classification can be settled.

The boundary with the merits is maintained through relevance and necessity rather than an absolute exclusion of substantive material. The parties may discuss a treaty obligation when its meaning determines the material scope of the compromissory clause. They should not seek a definitive ruling on compliance unless that issue cannot be separated from the objection. The Court’s control of the oral proceedings allows it to hear what is required for the preliminary determination while reserving the remaining dispute.

8.2 The Evidentiary Record at the Preliminary Stage

The evidentiary record may include treaties, optional-clause declarations, reservations, instruments of ratification or accession, diplomatic notes, official statements, records of negotiations, legislation, institutional documents, and other materials relevant to jurisdiction or admissibility. The documents annexed to the objection and the written observations often provide the core record, but Article 79ter permits the Court to call upon the parties to produce further evidence bearing on the preliminary issues (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(3), as amended 2019).

Evidence serves different functions depending on the objection. Treaty records may establish whether an instrument bound both parties at the critical date. Diplomatic exchanges may demonstrate whether a dispute existed or whether negotiations were attempted. Corporate records may identify the nationality and separate legal personality of a company. Domestic procedural materials may show whether a local remedy was available and capable of providing effective redress.

The Court may determine contested facts where they are necessary to resolve the preliminary issue. It is not required to accept every factual assertion in the application merely because the merits have not yet been heard. Nor should it decide factual disputes whose resolution would add nothing to the jurisdictional or admissibility inquiry. The extent of the required determination depends on the nature of the objection.

Some questions can be resolved from undisputed documents or formal legal acts. Whether an optional-clause declaration was in force, whether a treaty reservation applied, or whether an objection was filed within the prescribed period may be established without extensive factual inquiry. Other objections require evaluation of a broader course of conduct. Determining whether negotiations occurred, whether opposing legal views had crystallized, or whether delay caused prejudice may require the Court to compare competing accounts and assess the significance of events over time.

The standard of inquiry is not uniform across all preliminary objections. In a material-jurisdiction analysis, the Court may ask whether the facts alleged are capable of falling within the treaty provision invoked, without deciding whether those facts have been proved. In a local-remedies objection, it may have to determine whether a remedy actually existed and was available, and effective. In an objection based on the absence of a dispute, it must decide whether the record objectively demonstrates opposing legal positions at the date of institution.

Legal and factual determinations necessary to the operative decision may bind the parties in later phases of the same case. Incidental observations or findings unnecessary to the disposition do not automatically acquire the same preclusive effect. The scope of what has been decided must be identified from the operative clause read together with the reasoning inseparable from it (Statute of the ICJ, Arts 59–60; Application of the Genocide Convention, 2007, paras 116–127).

8.3 Upholding, Rejecting, or Deferring an Objection

Article 79ter allows the Court to uphold the objection, reject it, or declare that it does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. Upholding may end the proceedings or remove only the affected claim or jurisdictional basis. Rejection removes that particular obstacle but says nothing about the respondent’s responsibility. A finding that the issue lacks an exclusively preliminary character leaves the objection unresolved for possible determination after the merits record has been developed (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(4), as amended 2019).

A judgment may combine these outcomes. The Court may uphold one objection, reject another, and defer a third. It may also reach different conclusions concerning separate claims presented under the same jurisdictional clause. The legal consequence is controlled by the operative clause, read together with the reasoning necessary to understand what was decided.

The Court gives its decision in the form of a judgment. If the judgment does not dispose of the case, it fixes time limits for the proceedings that remain. Rejection of an objection permits the affected claim to proceed only to the extent that no other ruling prevents it. A successful objection may terminate the proceedings or exclude part of the application, while a finding that an issue lacks an exclusively preliminary character preserves it for possible determination in a later phase (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79ter(5), as amended 2019).

8.4 Partial Judgments and the Surviving Claims

A preliminary judgment need not resolve the application as an indivisible whole. Applications frequently contain several submissions, invoke more than one legal obligation, or seek relief based on distinct factual allegations. The Court may possess jurisdiction over some of those claims but not others, and an admissibility defect may affect only one category.

The 2007 preliminary objections judgment in Ahmadou Sadio Diallo divided Guinea’s claims according to the legal rights they asserted. The Court allowed Guinea’s claims concerning Diallo’s individual rights and direct rights as an associé to continue, while declaring inadmissible the claims through which Guinea sought to protect rights belonging to the Congolese companies. The preliminary judgment did not simply declare the application admissible or inadmissible. It separated the rights of the individual, the shareholder, and the companies and determined the procedural fate of each category (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections, 2007, operative clause).

The 2024 judgment in Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention produced another mixed result. The Court retained Ukraine’s claim seeking a declaration that it had not committed genocide in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions. It excluded the claims alleging that Russia had breached Articles I and IV of the Genocide Convention through actions taken on the basis of its genocide allegations. The 2024 preliminary objections judgment, therefore, left Ukraine’s application alive, but in a form substantially narrower than the application originally presented (Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2024, para. 151).

A mixed judgment must be read by matching each objection to the claim or jurisdictional basis it affected. Only then is it clear what remains for the merits. A respondent may defeat the widest claims without ending the case, while an applicant may preserve one central claim after losing the broader legal route originally pleaded.

The votes recorded in the operative clause may also differ from one submission to another. A judge may agree that one claim lies outside the Court’s jurisdiction while rejecting an objection to another. Separate and dissenting opinions may therefore address only particular paragraphs of the operative clause rather than the judgment as a whole. Describing the Court as uniformly accepting or rejecting the respondent’s position can obscure both the voting structure and the limits of the majority’s reasoning.

A partial preliminary judgment also reshapes the merits phase. The later pleadings must respect the operative clause and the reasoning necessary to support it. A party cannot circumvent a final jurisdictional or admissibility ruling merely by assigning a different legal label to the same excluded claim. Facts associated with that claim may still be relied upon where they are genuinely relevant to a surviving claim and do not revive the legal issue already removed from the proceedings.

The operative clause is therefore the starting point for understanding the judgment’s effect. The reasoning explains why each objection succeeded or failed, but the operative provisions identify the claims over which the Court retained authority and those no longer before it. Labels such as “victory,” “defeat,” or “dismissal” are inadequate where the preliminary phase has divided the application and left only part of the dispute for adjudication.

9. Finality and Res Judicata

A judgment on preliminary objections is not an interim procedural ruling that remains open for reconsideration when the merits are heard. Article 60 of the Statute provides that the Court’s judgment is final and without appeal, while Article 59 limits its binding force to the parties and the particular case. These provisions apply to a preliminary judgment even when the decision leaves part of the dispute for later adjudication (Statute of the ICJ, Arts 59–60).

Finality does not mean that every sentence in the judgment has an identical preclusive effect. The Court must distinguish matters actually decided from observations included to explain the procedural background, describe the parties’ arguments, or identify questions that remain open. Res judicata attaches to the operative decision and to findings inseparable from it. It does not ordinarily extend to incidental reasoning or provisional comments unnecessary to the disposition.

This distinction is particularly important after a mixed preliminary judgment. The Court may conclusively settle one jurisdictional title, reject an admissibility objection, and declare that another issue does not possess an exclusively preliminary character. The first two determinations are final within their respective scope. The third is also final as a procedural determination, but it does not settle the substantive validity of the deferred objection. That issue remains available for decision in the later phase.

9.1 What a Preliminary Judgment Conclusively Decides

The operative clause identifies the formal conclusions adopted by the Court. It may find that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the application, possesses jurisdiction over specified claims, or that a particular claim is inadmissible. Where the judgment excludes only one claim or jurisdictional basis, the preclusive effect is correspondingly limited. The remaining claims are not determined merely because they arose from the same facts or were advanced in the same application.

The reasoning must nevertheless be considered when the operative clause is expressed at a general level. A finding that the Court “has jurisdiction” may rest on several indispensable conclusions concerning access, the existence and validity of the jurisdictional title, the existence of a dispute, and the scope of consent. The question is not merely whether a point appeared in the reasoning, but whether the Court had to determine it, expressly or by necessary implication, to reach the operative conclusion.

The Court articulated that distinction in the 2007 judgment in Application of the Genocide Convention. It stated that res judicata does not attach to a matter that was not determined expressly or by necessary implication. A general finding must therefore be read in context to establish whether it included the particular issue later raised. At the same time, a general finding of jurisdiction does not necessarily foreclose examination of a distinct jurisdictional issue that was not resolved by the earlier judgment (Application of the Genocide Convention, 2007, paras 116–127).

An unsuccessful objection cannot be reopened merely by changing its terminology. A State that unsuccessfully challenged the material scope of a compromissory clause cannot ordinarily present the same argument later as a question of admissibility or judicial propriety. The Court must compare the substance of the later argument, the disposition sought, and the matter previously determined rather than the labels chosen by the party.

A later argument is not barred, however, simply because it also concerns jurisdiction or admissibility. It may rely on a different legal condition, concern a separate claim, or raise an issue the earlier judgment did not need to decide. The preclusive effect of the first judgment depends on the identity of the matter determined, not on the broad procedural category to which both arguments belong.

An objection declared not to possess an exclusively preliminary character occupies a different position from an objection that was rejected. The procedural determination that the issue must be deferred is final. The Court has not, however, decided whether the objection is legally sound. The parties may return to their substance when the factual and legal record has been developed, subject to the limits already fixed by the preliminary judgment.

Observations concerning the merits require similar care. When deciding jurisdiction ratione materiae, the Court may interpret a substantive treaty provision or determine that the conduct alleged is capable of falling within it. That conclusion may settle the provision’s relevant scope for later proceedings. It does not establish that the alleged conduct occurred, was attributable to the respondent, or constituted a breach. Statements made only to identify a possible treaty connection cannot be converted into findings of responsibility.

The Court’s judgment must also be distinguished from separate and dissenting opinions. Those opinions may expose disagreement over the scope of the operative clause or the reasoning necessary to support it, but they do not bind the parties. Their significance is explanatory and scholarly. The controlling decision is the judgment adopted by the required majority.

Articles 60 and 61 provide specific procedures for interpretation and revision; neither permits an ordinary appeal from a preliminary judgment. Interpretation addresses a dispute over the meaning or scope of what the Court decided. Revision is available only under the restrictive conditions governing the discovery of a decisive fact that was unknown when the judgment was delivered. Neither procedure permits a party to repeat an objection merely because later developments make the earlier result appear unfavorable.

9.2 Implicit Findings and the Bosnia Litigation

The litigation between Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, later Serbia and Montenegro, provides the leading example of an implicit jurisdictional finding. Bosnia instituted proceedings in 1993 under Article IX of the Genocide Convention. In its 1996 judgment, the Court took note of Yugoslavia’s withdrawal of its fourth preliminary objection, rejected its remaining preliminary objections, held that the Convention bound the parties, and found that the dispute fell within Article IX. It concluded that it possessed jurisdiction on that basis and that the Application was admissible (Application of the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 1996, paras 17–47 and operative clause).

The 1996 judgment said nothing expressly about the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s status in relation to the United Nations or its capacity to participate in proceedings under Article 35 of the Statute. Both parties had refrained from requesting a decision on those matters. The Court nevertheless proceeded to deliver a final judgment affirming jurisdiction under Article IX of the Genocide Convention (Application of the Genocide Convention, 2007, paras 122–123).

The uncertainty surrounding Yugoslavia’s position within the United Nations changed when it was admitted to membership on 1 November 2000. The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia then sought revision of the 1996 judgment, arguing that the circumstances surrounding its admission demonstrated that it had not previously been a UN member or a party to the Statute. In 2003, the Court declared the request inadmissible because Yugoslavia had not established the discovery of a decisive fact that had existed in 1996 but was then unknown to the Court and the party seeking revision. The judgment did not determine whether Yugoslavia had actually been a UN member or possessed access to the Court in 1993 (Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996, 2003, paras 69–72; Application of the Genocide Convention, 2007, paras 112–113).

The issue acquired greater force in the Legality of Use of Force cases. Serbia and Montenegro had instituted those proceedings in 1999 against several NATO States. In 2004, the Court held that Serbia and Montenegro had not been UN members, and consequently had not been a party to the Statute, when the applications were filed. The Court was therefore not open to it under Article 35, paragraph 1. It also rejected access under Article 35, paragraph 2, and dismissed the cases for lack of jurisdiction (Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Preliminary Objections, 2004, paras 46–115).

Those judgments did not formally overturn the 1996 ruling. Article 59 confined its binding force to the parties and the particular Legality of Use of Force proceedings. They nevertheless exposed an apparent tension. If the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia lacked access to the Court in 1999, a question arose as to whether it had possessed access when Bosnia filed its Application in 1993 and whether that issue had already been settled in the Bosnia case.

Serbia raised the matter at the merits stage in the Bosnia litigation. It argued that the 1996 judgment had not determined access under Article 35 and that res judicata therefore did not prevent the Court from examining the issue. Bosnia maintained that the final jurisdictional ruling necessarily included the determination that the respondent could appear before the Court.

The Court accepted Bosnia’s position. It reasoned that it could not have validly proceeded to determine jurisdiction in 1996 unless the respondent had possessed the capacity to participate in proceedings under the Statute. The operative finding that the Court had jurisdiction under Article IX, therefore, had to be understood, by necessary implication, as including a conclusion that the Court was open to Yugoslavia. The Court declined to go behind that conclusion and reconsider the basis on which it had satisfied itself concerning access in 1996 (Application of the Genocide Convention, 2007, paras 128–140).

The Court distinguished the Legality of Use of Force judgments through the case-specific operation of res judicata. No earlier judgment establishing jurisdiction bound it in those proceedings. In the Bosnia case, by contrast, the 1996 judgment had already settled jurisdiction between the parties. The difference in result did not rest on a general determination that Yugoslavia simultaneously possessed and lacked access. It followed from the finality attributed to an earlier jurisdictional judgment in one particular case.

The operative conclusion rejecting Serbia’s jurisdictional objections and affirming jurisdiction was adopted by ten votes to five. That division does not mean that all ten judges endorsing the result accepted every part of the Court’s res judicata analysis. Judge Tomka voted in favor of jurisdiction but stated separately that res judicata did not prevent reconsideration of access. Judges Ranjeva, Shi, Koroma, and Skotnikov, together with Judge ad hoc Kreća, voted against the operative jurisdictional conclusion; their positions must be assessed from their respective opinions rather than treated as a single dissenting rationale (Application of the Genocide Convention, 2007, para. 471(1); separate opinion of Judge Tomka).

The judges disagreed over what “necessary implication” requires. A matter does not acquire the force of res judicata merely because it was legally relevant to an earlier decision or because a fully articulated analysis would have addressed it. The Court’s reasoning treated access as a logically indispensable premise of the 1996 finding of jurisdiction. The competing view was that logical necessity could not substitute for an actual determination of an issue absent from the earlier judgment’s express reasoning.

The 2007 judgment does not establish that every unexpressed jurisdictional prerequisite is automatically covered by a prior finding of jurisdiction. The Court emphasized the need to determine what the earlier judgment decided in its specific context. The Bosnia litigation demonstrates that necessary implication can extend beyond the express words of an operative clause, but also that doing so may be controversial where the earlier proceedings contain no reasoned determination of the alleged implicit premise.

The Bosnia litigation shows why res judicata must be applied narrowly but effectively. A preliminary judgment bars renewed argument on matters decided expressly or by necessary implication. It does not make every unexamined jurisdictional premise final. The operative clause, the reasoning required to support it, and the procedural context determine whether a later objection remains open.

10. Strategic Effects of Preliminary Judgments

A preliminary objection is both a legal challenge and a litigation choice. Article 79bis permits a respondent to seek a prior decision on jurisdiction, admissibility, or another genuinely preliminary issue, and filing the objection suspends proceedings on the merits. The decision to use that procedure, therefore, affects the sequence, scope, cost, and public framing of the case even before the Court rules on the objection (ICJ, 1978, Art. 79bis, as amended 2019).

The most ambitious objective is complete dismissal. Where the applicant lacks access to the Court, no valid jurisdictional title exists, or a condition governing consent remains unsatisfied, a successful objection may terminate the proceedings without a determination of responsibility. The Legality of Use of Force judgments ended the relevant cases because the applicant lacked access to the Court. In Georgia v Russian Federation, the Court found that a dispute under CERD existed but that Georgia had neither attempted to negotiate that dispute nor used the procedures provided by the Convention. Because neither avenue had been pursued, it did not decide whether they were cumulative or alternative. It upheld Russia’s second preliminary objection and found that it lacked jurisdiction under Article 22 (Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Preliminary Objections, 2004, paras 46–115; Georgia v Russian Federation, Preliminary Objections, 2011, paras 157–184 and operative clause).

Complete dismissal is not the only strategically valuable result. An objection may remove particular claims, categories of injury, forms of relief, or asserted bases of jurisdiction while leaving the rest of the case intact. In Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, the preliminary judgment excluded Guinea’s claims by substitution on behalf of the Congolese companies but permitted claims concerning Diallo’s individual and direct shareholder rights to continue. In Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, the Court retained Ukraine’s request for a declaration that it had not committed genocide while excluding claims directed at Russia’s recognition of entities and use of force under Articles I and IV of the Convention (Ahmadou Sadio Diallo, Preliminary Objections, 2007, operative clause; Allegations of Genocide under the Genocide Convention, Preliminary Objections, 2024, para. 151).

Such narrowing may substantially alter the merits phase. The applicant must reorganize its legal submissions around the surviving claims, and the respondent need not answer excluded claims as independent bases of responsibility. The same conduct, documents, or factual allegations may nevertheless remain relevant as context or evidence for claims that survived. A partial success may therefore be significant even where the case remains on the General List. Assessing the strategic effect requires attention to the legal importance of the excluded claims rather than a simple count of objections upheld and rejected.

After the applicant files its Memorial, a preliminary judgment can define the jurisdictional title before the respondent submits its Counter-Memorial and the full merits record is completed. In Oil Platforms, Iran relied on Article XXI, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Amity as the compromissory clause and invoked Articles I, IV, paragraph 1, and X, paragraph 1, as substantive bases for its claims. The Court treated Article I as stating an objective in light of which the Treaty’s other provisions were to be interpreted, found that the conduct alleged did not fall within Article IV, paragraph 1, and concluded that the destruction of the platforms was capable of affecting the freedom of commerce protected by Article X, paragraph 1. It rejected the United States’ preliminary objection and retained jurisdiction only over the claims made under Article X, paragraph 1. The judgment thus defined the treaty basis of the merits proceedings without terminating the case (Oil Platforms, Preliminary Objection, 1996, paras 24–52 and operative clause).

Suspending the merits may postpone factual disputes that need not be resolved until the Court has defined the scope of the case. The respondent may avoid immediately presenting a complete defense concerning attribution, breach, justification, injury, and reparation. This can be especially consequential where the allegations concern armed conflict, discrimination, detention, economic coercion, or other politically sensitive conduct. The procedural benefit is legitimate when the objection identifies a genuine threshold issue; it does not depend on an assumption that the underlying allegations are unfounded.

An objection that lacks an exclusively preliminary character produces a less certain strategic result. The respondent may secure recognition that the issue remains open, but the objection will have generated a separate phase without resolving the asserted obstacle. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, the Court deferred the effect of the United States’ multilateral-treaty reservation because it could not determine which third States would be affected without knowing the general lines of the merits decision. The objection remained relevant, but it did not prevent the case from advancing (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua, Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 1984, paras 73–76).

The costs of bifurcation can be substantial. A separate phase requires written pleadings, oral hearings, unless the Court decides otherwise, and a judgment before the merits timetable resumes. If an objection is rejected or deferred, the same treaty provisions, documents, or factual chronology may return because they bear on different questions at the merits stage. Matters conclusively settled by the preliminary judgment cannot, however, be reopened. Duplication concerns the renewed use of common material, not reconsideration of an issue already determined with res judicata effect (ICJ, 1978, Arts 79bis–79ter, as amended 2019; Statute of the ICJ, Arts 59–60).

For the Court, a separate preliminary phase carries institutional consequences. A threshold judgment may protect the consensual basis of contentious jurisdiction and conserve judicial resources by terminating the case or narrowing the merits record. Where the objection and the merits overlap extensively, the separate phase may instead consume substantial judicial time, fragment the adjudication, and postpone final resolution. These are consequences of the procedural structure, not independent legal grounds for upholding or rejecting an objection.

Early adjudication can enlarge the political exposure surrounding the dispute. The judgment is public, records the parties’ competing legal positions, and may produce separate or dissenting opinions that sharpen disagreement over jurisdiction, State consent, or the underlying dispute. Even where the Court does not decide responsibility, its characterization of the claims or interpretation of the jurisdictional instrument may influence diplomatic narratives. A respondent seeking early dismissal must therefore account for the possibility that an unsuccessful objection will produce an authoritative ruling affirming the Court’s jurisdiction and allow the applicant to present that result as an important legal success.

The applicant bears strategic costs of its own. The preliminary phase may delay adjudication of the alleged violations and increase the cost of maintaining the proceedings. A judgment rejecting an objection may nevertheless settle the particular jurisdictional or admissibility matter conclusively, preventing its reformulation later in the same case to the extent that it was decided expressly or by necessary implication. A mixed judgment may leave both parties with partial gains by excluding overextended claims while confirming jurisdiction over a narrower legal core.

Filing a preliminary objection is not inherently obstructive. A jurisdictional objection may enforce the limits of State consent, while an admissibility objection may protect distinct requirements concerning entitlement to invoke responsibility, corporate claims, or exhaustion of local remedies. Criticism is justified where an objection merely repackages a merits defense, repeats a matter already settled, or has little capacity to dispose of or narrow the proceedings. Its procedural legitimacy nevertheless depends on its legal basis and suitability for preliminary determination, not on an unsupported assumption about the respondent’s motives.

Strategic value depends on the likely legal effect of the threshold ruling. Delay alone offers a fragile advantage: it may be followed by a public judgment confirming jurisdiction and a longer merits process. A well-founded, claim-specific objection can produce a more durable result. Even without terminating the case, it may remove the claims carrying the greatest legal and diplomatic exposure and define the record the respondent must answer.

Also read

• ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction Explained

• ICJ Provisional Measures Explained

• ICJ Advisory Opinions Explained

• The Barcelona Traction Case (Belgium v. Spain)

• Guyana v Venezuela and the Essequibo Dispute

• Corfu Channel Case Analysis: Sovereignty, Evidence, and Law

• South China Sea Arbitration and Its Legal Impact

Conclusion

ICJ preliminary objections determine whether, and to what extent, a dispute may proceed before the Court without deciding whether the respondent has violated international law. Their central function is to enforce the limits of consent, identify admissibility defects, and separate threshold issues from questions properly reserved for the merits. That function is fulfilled only when the Court isolates the precise legal obstacle asserted and determines no more than is necessary to resolve it.

The procedure is not governed by a single jurisdiction–admissibility formula. Access under Article 35, the existence and scope of a jurisdictional title, compliance with procedural preconditions, entitlement to invoke responsibility, nationality, local remedies, delay, and abuse of process each rest on distinct legal foundations. The Court’s classification follows the substance and effect of the objection rather than the label chosen by a party. At the margins, however, the categories remain unsettled, particularly where an objection concerns the exercise of jurisdiction, collective-interest obligations, or the Court’s judicial function.

The boundary with the merits is therefore decisive. Disputed facts, treaty interpretation, and examination of the parties’ conduct do not prevent a preliminary ruling when they are necessary to establish jurisdiction or admissibility. The Court may touch upon the merits to the extent required for that limited purpose, but it should not make final findings on attribution, breach, justification, injury, or reparation. If answering the objection would determine the dispute, or an element of it, on the merits, the objection does not possess an exclusively preliminary character.

Preliminary judgments often narrow rather than terminate proceedings. They may exclude particular claims, jurisdictional bases, categories of injury, or forms of relief while allowing a smaller case to continue. Their effect must therefore be read from the operative clause claim by claim. Matters expressly decided, or determined by necessary implication, are final between the parties, although the Bosnia litigation demonstrates that identifying an implicit jurisdictional finding can itself produce serious doctrinal disagreement.

Preliminary objections confine adjudication to the authority States have conferred on the Court. Their value lies in resolving genuine threshold defects before responsibility is tried. When an objection merely repeats a merits defense or cannot be separated from the merits, bifurcation adds cost and delay without performing that function.

References

1. Aust, A. (2005) Handbook of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

2. Charter of the United Nations (1945) signed 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, 1 UNTS XVI.

3. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1465 UNTS 85.

4. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) adopted 9 December 1948, entered into force 12 January 1951, 78 UNTS 277.

5. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965) adopted 21 December 1965, entered into force 4 January 1969, 660 UNTS 195.

6. International Court of Justice (1953) Nottebohm Case (Liechtenstein v Guatemala), Preliminary Objection, judgment, 18 November 1953, ICJ Reports 1953, p. 111.

7. International Court of Justice (1954) Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Italy v France, United Kingdom and United States of America), Preliminary Question, judgment, 15 June 1954, ICJ Reports 1954, p. 19.

8. International Court of Justice (1957) Certain Norwegian Loans (France v Norway), judgment, 6 July 1957, ICJ Reports 1957, p. 9.

9. International Court of Justice (1959) Interhandel (Switzerland v United States of America), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 21 March 1959, ICJ Reports 1959, p. 6.

10. International Court of Justice (1962) South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia v South Africa; Liberia v South Africa), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 21 December 1962, ICJ Reports 1962, p. 319.

11. International Court of Justice (1963) Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 2 December 1963, ICJ Reports 1963, p. 15.

12. International Court of Justice (1970) Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Second Phase, judgment, 5 February 1970, ICJ Reports 1970, p. 3.

13. International Court of Justice (1972) Rules of Court, adopted 6 May 1946, as amended 10 May 1972, ICJ Acts and Documents No. 2, pp. 43–146.

14. International Court of Justice (1974) Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), judgment, 20 December 1974, ICJ Reports 1974, p. 253.

15. International Court of Justice (1978) Rules of Court, adopted 14 April 1978, entered into force 1 July 1978, as amended.

16. International Court of Justice (1984) Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, judgment, 26 November 1984, ICJ Reports 1984, p. 392.

17. International Court of Justice (1992) Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v Australia), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 26 June 1992, ICJ Reports 1992, p. 240.

18. International Court of Justice (1993) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Further Requests for the Indication of Provisional Measures, order, 13 September 1993, ICJ Reports 1993, p. 325.

19. International Court of Justice (1996a) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 11 July 1996, ICJ Reports 1996 (II), p. 595.

20. International Court of Justice (1996b) Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Preliminary Objection, judgment, 12 December 1996, ICJ Reports 1996 (II), p. 803.

21. International Court of Justice (1998) Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, judgment, 4 December 1998, ICJ Reports 1998, p. 432.

22. International Court of Justice (2000) Amendments to Articles 79 and 80 of the Rules of Court, adopted 5 December 2000, entered into force 1 February 2001.

23. International Court of Justice (2001) LaGrand (Germany v United States of America), judgment, 27 June 2001, ICJ Reports 2001, p. 466.

24. International Court of Justice (2003) Application for Revision of the Judgment of 11 July 1996 in the Case concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objections (Yugoslavia v Bosnia and Herzegovina), judgment, 3 February 2003, ICJ Reports 2003, p. 7.

25. International Court of Justice (2004) Legality of Use of Force (Serbia and Montenegro v Belgium), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 15 December 2004, ICJ Reports 2004, p. 279.

26. International Court of Justice (2007a) Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 24 May 2007, ICJ Reports 2007 (II), p. 582.

27. International Court of Justice (2007b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), judgment, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007 (I), p. 43.

28. International Court of Justice (2007c) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v Serbia and Montenegro), separate opinion of Judge Tomka, 26 February 2007, ICJ Reports 2007 (I), p. 310.

29. International Court of Justice (2008) Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Djibouti v France), judgment, 4 June 2008, ICJ Reports 2008, p. 177.

30. International Court of Justice (2011a) Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 1 April 2011, ICJ Reports 2011 (I), p. 70.

31. International Court of Justice (2011b) Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, joint dissenting opinion of President Owada, Judges Simma, Abraham and Donoghue and Judge ad hoc Gaja, 1 April 2011, ICJ Reports 2011 (I), p. 159.

32. International Court of Justice (2012) Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v Senegal), judgment, 20 July 2012, ICJ Reports 2012 (II), p. 422.

33. International Court of Justice (2016) Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 5 October 2016, ICJ Reports 2016 (II), p. 833.

34. International Court of Justice (2018) Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v France), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 6 June 2018, ICJ Reports 2018 (I), p. 292.

35. International Court of Justice (2019a) Amendments to Articles 22, 23, 29, 76 and 79 of the Rules of Court, adopted and entered into force 21 October 2019.

36. International Court of Justice (2019b) Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 13 February 2019, ICJ Reports 2019 (I), p. 7.

37. International Court of Justice (2022a) Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation), Provisional Measures, order, 16 March 2022, ICJ Reports 2022 (I), p. 211.

38. International Court of Justice (2022b) Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v Myanmar), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 22 July 2022, ICJ Reports 2022 (II), p. 477.

39. International Court of Justice (2023) Arbitral Award of 3 October 1899 (Guyana v Venezuela), Preliminary Objection, judgment, 6 April 2023, ICJ Reports 2023, p. 262.

40. International Court of Justice (2024) Allegations of Genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Ukraine v Russian Federation: 32 States intervening), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 2 February 2024, General List No. 182.

41. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/56/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II, Part Two.

42. International Law Commission (2006) Draft Articles on Diplomatic Protection, with Commentaries, UN Doc. A/61/10, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2006, vol. II, Part Two.

43. Permanent Court of International Justice (1922) Rules of Court, adopted 24 March 1922, PCIJ Series D, No. 1.

44. Permanent Court of International Justice (1924) Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, judgment, 30 August 1924, PCIJ Series A, No. 2.

45. Permanent Court of International Justice (1925) Certain German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia (Germany v Poland), Preliminary Objections, judgment, 25 August 1925, PCIJ Series A, No. 6.

46. Permanent Court of International Justice (1926) Rules of Court, adopted 31 July 1926, PCIJ Series D, Addendum to No. 2.

47. Permanent Court of International Justice (1936a) Pajzs, Csáky, Esterházy (Hungary v Yugoslavia), Preliminary Objection, order, 23 May 1936, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 66, p. 9.

48. Permanent Court of International Justice (1936b) Rules of Court, adopted 11 March 1936, PCIJ Series D, No. 1, 4th ed.

49. Permanent Court of International Justice (1939a) Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria (Belgium v Bulgaria), Preliminary Objection, judgment, 4 April 1939, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 77, p. 64.

50. Permanent Court of International Justice (1939b) Panevezys-Saldutiskis Railway (Estonia v Lithuania), joint separate opinion of Judges de Visscher and Count Rostworowski, 28 February 1939, PCIJ Series A/B, No. 76, pp. 24–30.

51. Statute of the International Court of Justice (1945) adopted 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945, annexed to the Charter of the United Nations.

52. Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights between the United States of America and Iran (1955) signed 15 August 1955, entered into force 16 June 1957, 284 UNTS 93.