That is the ratio that underpins the International Court of Justice holding in the sense that the “lack of ju
risdiction” (Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v. Honduras), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, Z.C.J. Reports 1988, p. 69. ):
The existence of jurisdiction of the Court in a given case is however not a question of fact, but a question of law to be resolved in the light of the relevant facts. The determination of the facts may raise questions of proof. However the facts in the present case – the existence of the Parties’ dec- larations under Article 36 of the Statute, the signature and ratification of the Pact of Bogota, etc. – are not in dispute; the issue is, what are the legal effects to be attached to them? The question is whether in case of doubt the Court is to be deemed to have jurisdiction or not. This question has already been considered by the Permanent Court of International Justice in the case concerning the Factory ut Chorzhw, Jurisdiction, when it obsemed : “It has been argued repeatedly in the course of the present pro- ceedings that in case of doubt the Court should decline jurisdiction. It is true that the Court’s jurisdiction is always a limited one, existing only in so far as States have accepted it; consequently, the Court will, in the event of an objection – or when it has automatically to con- sider the question – only affirm its jurisdiction provided that the force of the arguments militating in favour of it is preponderant. The fact that weighty arguments can be advanced to support the con- tention that it has no jurisdiction cannot of itself create a doubt calculated to upset its jurisdiction. When considering whether it has, jurisdiction or not, the Court’s aim is always to ascertain whether an intention on the part of the Parties exists to confer jurisdiction upon it.” (P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 9, p. 32.)