The Court agreed with Canada that the words of an Optional Clause declaration, including a reservation contained therein, must be interpreted in a natural and reasonable way, having due regard to the intention of the state making the reservation at the time when it accepted the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction. Such state’s intention, in turn, may be deduced not only from the text of the relevant clause, but also from the context in which the clause is to be read, the circumstances of its preparation, and the purposes intended to be served. The Court rejected Spain’s argument that Canada’s reservation should be interpreted in accordance with the legality under international law of the matters sought to be exempted from the Court’s jurisdiction, which matters in Spain’s view violated international law by involving the use of force on the high seas against a Spanish vessel. The Court explained that there is a fundamental distinction between a state’s acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, requiring mutual consent, and the compatibility of particular acts with international law, which is a question that can only be addressed when the Court deals with the merits after having established its jurisdiction.　In offering its interpretation of Canada’s reservation, the Court considered that the reservation’s purpose was to prevent it from exercising jurisdiction over matters that might arise with regard to the international legality of the Canadian legislation and its implementation.
　　4. Advisory Jurisdiction (Advisory Opinion)
　　The court is authorized by Article 65 of the Statute to give advisory opinions on any legal questions at the request of whatever body may be authorized by or in accordance with the UN Charter to make such a request. According to the U.N. Charter Article 96: “1.The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question. 2. Other organs of the United Nations and specialized agencies, which may at any time be so authorized by the General Assembly, may also request advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising within the scope of their activities.” For example, In the request for an advisory opinion by the World Healthy Organization on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons by a state in armed conflict case, the court held that three conditions must be satisfied in order to found the Advisory jurisdiction of the Court: first, the agency requesting the opinion must be duly authorized, under the Charter, to request opinions from the Court; second, the opinion requested must be on a legal question; third, and this question must be one arising within the scope of the activities of the requesting agency.

第 [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] 页 共[7]页