Introduction
As a general rule, judicial bodies are instituted through convention, being its contracting States’ consent the cornerstone of such judicial bodies’ jurisdiction upon them.
The subject-matter attributed to the conventional judicial bodies is also established in their institutional act, ensuing the jurisdictional subjective and objective limits, competence requisites, and admissibility requirements. Truly, some of those aspects pertaining to jurisdiction in general, and others themes as well, may, and generally, they are, relegated to procedural rules.
The crucial point is that the convention instituting a judicial body is, ope legis, its constitutional framework and its judicial power fountain. Thus, that convention interpretation and application, for that judicial body’s powers so intrinsically being related, could not be, presumably, made by other body rather than the own judicial body by the convention instituted.
That is an open question, which must be carefully analysed against the consent principle in the backdrop. However, would not be the jurisdictional power of Court or Tribunal subjected to an exogenous judicial body when the instituting convention itself envisages that it may be interpreted by other court?
In this post, the problem is treaty-disposition like the article 64 of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes Between States and Nationals of Other States.
