Individuals, corporations, parts of a federal state, NGOs, UN organs and self-determination groups are excluded from direct participation in cases, although the Court may receive information from public international organisations.
For instance, Article 36(2) of the United Nations Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances provides for mediation and other dispute-resolution options, but also states that "[a]ny such dispute which cannot be settled ... shall be referred, at the request of any one of the States Parties to the dispute, to the International Court of Justice for decision".
In 1987, upon the initiative of Mikhail Gorbachev, all of the permanent members of the Security Council began negotiations for expanding the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ.
"The 'Fernandes clause' has thus had the merit, not only of having represented a historic step forward for international law, but also of constituting today, for 62 States, one of the bases of the Court's jurisdiction", according to its president.
[2] Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice's statute.
On receiving a request, the Court decides which States and organizations might provide useful information and gives them an opportunity to present written or oral statements.
In principle the Court's advisory opinions are consultative in character and as such do not generally result in judgments that aim to resolve specific controversies.
The Court had to consider an application from Libya for the order of provisional measures to protect its rights, which, it alleged, were being infringed by the threat of economic sanctions by the UK and United States.
The Court decided, by eleven votes to five, that it could not order the requested provisional measures because the rights claimed by Libya, even if legitimate under the Montreal Convention, could no longer be upheld since the action was justified by the Security Council.
There was a marked reluctance on the part of a majority of the Court to become involved in a dispute in such a way as to bring it potentially into conflict with the Council.
The Court stated in the Nicaragua case (Jurisdiction) that there is no necessary inconsistency between action by the Security Council and adjudication by the ICJ.