Abstract
Objections to jurisdiction have been long embedded in the practice of international adjudication and form an integral part of the proceedings. Following the traditional practice of determination of the jurisdiction prior to the merits, preliminary objections to jurisdiction were regulated for the first time by the PCIJ in its Rules of Procedure in the Mavrommatis case. The ICJ is considered the backbone of international adjudication and thus its procedures on preliminary objections are emulated in both permanent and ad hoc adjudicative bodies. Throughout the years, the increase in recourse to international adjudication along with the existence of the Optional Clause at the ICJ as well as the compromissory clauses in institutionalised arbitration at the PCA, ICSID, and ITLOS, have allowed for unilateral applications that in turn gave rise to litigation tactics being employed around the application and the administration of the rules regarding objections to jurisdiction. Evidently, the ICJ has does not only provide a consistent point of reference for the rest of the courts and tribunals when it comes to procedural questions, but it could also benefit from their corresponding practices. Also, procedural principles such as procedural fairness, good administration of justice and equality of the parties have been challenged by the parties to the disputes however, these principles have also provided good grounds to the courts and tribunals to develop and adjust their Rules of Procedures accordingly.