 In contrast to its responsibilities under its advisory jurisdiction, the court settles disputes under its contentious jurisdiction. And in order to have jurisdiction to settle the dispute that has been submitted to it, the court must be satisfied that two fundamental conditions are met. First, the dispute must exist between subjects of international law that have access to the court that may appear before it. This is the issue of Locus standi, or Jurisdiction ratione personae. Second, if the parties to the dispute have access to the court and standing before it, the court will only have jurisdiction to settle their dispute if they have both consented to its jurisdiction. And this is the issue of Jurisdiction ratione materie. Both claimant and respondent must have accepted that the object of the dispute be submitted to the ICJ for adjudication through a binding decision. In other words, to become parties to a contentious case before the court, states must have access to it and they must also accept its jurisdiction. And let me turn first to the Jurisdiction ratione personae, the access to the court. As stated under article 93 of the UN Charter and article 35 of the ICJ Statute, the court is open to states. The contentious jurisdiction of the court does not extend to disputes between other subjects of international law and notably international organizations cannot be parties to disputes before the court. Neither does the court judge individuals, nor is it entitled to inquire about complaints lodged by individuals or groups of individuals or any other state entity, against states for instance. Furthermore, the disputing states must both be party to the statute of the court. Since the member states of the UN are ipso facto, as you know, parties to the statute, they all have locustandi before the court and they have access to it. Access is automatic for UN member states. States that are not members of the UN may become party to the statute, on conditions to be determined in each case by the General Assembly upon the recommendation of the Security Council and this is article 92, paragraph 2 of the Charter. And this has been the case for Japan, Lichtenstein, San Marino, Switzerland and Noru before those states became members of the UN. If a state is neither a member of the UN nor a party to the ICJ statute, it may nevertheless have access to the court under conditions laid down in a resolution, resolution 9, adopted by the Security Council in October 1946, pursuant to article 35, paragraph 2 of the statute. Jurisdiction rationé personé is not a matter of consent by the disputing states but it is a statutory issue that the court may examine ex-officio even if none of the disputing parties have raised any objection in that regard. And furthermore, Jurisdiction rationé personé logically precedes the question of consent. It is only if states have access to the court that they may consent to the jurisdiction of the court. And this has been made clear by the court in several cases and notably in the judgement of February 2007 in the case concerning the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, a case between Bosnia and Serbia. Finally, Jurisdiction rationé personé must, as a matter of principle, exist on the day the dispute is submitted to the court. And this is a general rule, Jurisdiction, be it rationé personé or matérie, Jurisdiction must normally be assessed on the day of the filing of the Act instituting proceedings. However, in the Croatia versus Serbia case, the court has exceptionally accepted that the Jurisdiction rationé personé condition be fulfilled at the time of the judgement. The court came to such conclusion on the basis of the particular circumstances of the case and the requirement of a sound administration of justice. In that case, Croatia filed an application against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in July 1999 for alleged breaches of the genocide convention. And at that time, in July 1999, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia pretended to continue the legal personality of the socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which was a founding member state of the UN in 1945. And this continuity claim stood in sharp contrast with the situation of the other states that emerged from the dismantlement of the former Yugoslavia, which were all considered as new successor states. And as a result, the continuity claim by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not accepted by the international community. And when elections took place in Serbia and when President Kostunica took over from President Milosevic, one of the first foreign policy decisions he took was to apply for UN membership. And the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia became a new member state of the UN on 1st November 2000. And this meant that the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had relinquished its continuity claim. And also, logically, its accession to the UN meant that prior to that date, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had not been a party to the ICJ statute. On the date Croatia had filed its case, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not a party to the statute and could therefore not have been validly attracted then before the court as respondent in a case. In other words, the court was lacking jurisdiction rationer-personer on the day of the Croatian application. However, the court did not decline its jurisdiction. Well, why is this? Well, the court took note of the fact that on the day of its judgment in 2008, both Croatia and Serbia continued the personality of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia when Monti Negro became independent in 2006. Both states were no parties to the statute. In other words, the previously unmet condition governing the court's jurisdiction was subsequently satisfied. The court said that in such a situation, its jurisdiction rationer-personer had to be assessed with some flexibility. The court considered that declining jurisdiction in such a situation would be contrary to the interests of the sound administration of justice as it would compel Croatia to begin the proceedings anew. And therefore the court ruled that despite the fact that Serbia had no standing before it on the day the proceedings began, it retained its jurisdiction because on the day it ruled over it, the rationer-personer condition, which was previously unmet, was no fulfilled. In the Bosnia versus Serbia case, application of the Convention on Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the court had found in 1986 that it had jurisdiction to hear the case. At that time, 1996, the court did not examine its jurisdiction rationer-personer. And that judgment on jurisdiction was resjudicata. Which was definitive and could not be overturned later, except by way of revision, which is a specific procedure that we shall turn to later in the court. In the court. But the court declined in 2003 to revise its jurisdiction judgment of 1996. But when the case came to the merits in 2007, Serbia claimed again that the proceedings were not properly instituted, because it was clear then that it was not a UN member state when Bosnia filed its application in 1993. However, the court rejected such claim and the reason for this was that its jurisdiction had been retained under the 1996 judgment and that such judgment was final on the matter. The court could not depart from a judgment having the force of resjudicata. Those two cases should also be discussed in light of other cases brought this time by Serbia against 10 member states of NATO for the aerial bombing during the war in Kosovo. In those cases, the court declined jurisdiction in 2004 for the reason that the proceedings were instituted by a state that was not party to the ICJ statute at the time of the applications. And of course, it might be difficult to reconcile those different cases and their respective outcomes might be seen as result-oriented. But because of the introductory character of this course, I shall stop here on the issue of jurisdiction ratione persone, which can also be an issue in arbitration, notably investment arbitration if the claimant is not an investor within the meaning of the bilateral investment treaty, or the other instrument under which the investment tribunal is established. Jurisdiction ratione persone has only been a problem in the case law of the court on very rare occasions and because the vast majority of states are no members of the UN, it is not very likely to be a problem in the future. However, the same cannot be said about jurisdiction ratione materie, which is the issue addressed in the next video.