<P> The key principle is that the Court only has jurisdiction on the basis of consent . The court has no true compulsory jurisdiction . Jurisdiction is often a key question for the Court, because it is challenged by the respondent . At the Preliminary Objections phase, a respondent may challenge (i) jurisdiction and / or (ii) admissibility of the case . Article 36 outlines four bases on which the Court's jurisdiction may be founded . </P> <P> Only states may be parties in contentious cases before the ICJ . 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 . This does not preclude non-state interests from being the subject of proceedings if one state brings the case against another . For example, a state may, in case of "diplomatic protection", bring a case on behalf of one of its nationals or corporations . </P> <P> First, 36 (1) provides that parties may refer cases to the Court (jurisdiction founded on "special agreement" or compromise). This method is based on explicit consent and is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the Court's jurisdiction . It is effective because the parties concerned have a desire for the Court to resolve the dispute, and are thus more likely to comply with the Court's judgment . Parties will usually define the nature of the dispute between them and the legal questions on which they wish the Court to rule . </P> <P> Second, 36 (1) also gives the Court jurisdiction over "matters specifically provided for...in treaties and conventions in force". Many treaties will contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ . For instance, Article 32 (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". Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement, since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the Court and may refuse to comply with a judgment . Since the 1970s the use of such compromissory clauses has declined . Many modern treaties set out their own dispute - resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration . 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 content of these negotiations is to date unknown, and no agreements were reached . See Richard B. Bilder, "Judicial Procedures Relating to the Use of Force," ch. 28 in Lori Damrosch & David Scheffer, Law and Force in the New International Order (1991). </P>

What would be the consequences of accepting both special orders