(3). Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the Court (“Optional Clause” System)
　　A third means of consent to the Court’s jurisdiction is described in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 36 of the Statute: "2. The States parties to the present Statute[8] may at any time declare that they recognize as compulsory ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the Court in all legal disputes concerning: (a) the interpretation of a treaty; (b) any question of international law; (c) the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation; (d) the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation. 3. The declarations referred to above may be made unconditionally or on condition of reciprocity on the part of several or certain States, or for a certain time."
　　A total of 63 States have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (with or without reservations). Besides the limited number comparing with the States to the Statutes (187 in 1995), Matters are further complicated by reservations to the acceptances of compulsory jurisdiction, which serve to limit their scope. The two most important of these reservations, that relating to other methods of pacific settlement, which is found in 33 declarations, and that relating to matters of domestic jurisdiction, which is found in 23 declarations, correspond to Article 95 and Article 2 (7) of the United Nations Charter respectively. The declarations are made for a specific period, generally for five years with tacit renewal — as a rule — and usually provide for the declarations to be terminated by simple notice, such notice to take effect after a specified time or immediately. For instance, in 1985, the US has withdrawn its acceptance of the ICJ’s jurisdiction.
　　Regarding this, I will guide you to review this case, the Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) Case (1995-1998). On December 4, 1998, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled (12-5) that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute brought by the Kingdom of Spain against Canada in 1995. As the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction, Spain relied on the declarations made by the two parties accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute. Canada challenged the Court’s jurisdiction, invoking a reservation contained in its 1994 declaration excluding from jurisdiction "disputes arising out of or concerning conservation and management measures taken by Canada with respect to vessels fishing in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization (NAFO) Regulatory Area, as defined in the Convention on Future Multilateral Co-operation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries, 1978, and the enforcement of such measures."

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 页 共[7]页