国际法院对争议案件的管辖权完全基于国家的同意。管辖权延伸理论为国家表明接受国际法院管辖权提供了一个非正式的途径。经过常设国际法院采用后,管辖权延伸规则首先在其传统的扩展既存管辖权的意义上被加以适用。有时法院对当事国的属人管辖权以及对于某事件的对事管辖权,已经由先前的同意而确立。在程序开始后,当事方不是通过明示的声明就是通过连续的隐含同意的行为来承认延展他们的同意以覆盖额外的问题。另外,有时候一个国家会单方面提起申诉以在法院前启动程序,但依赖于有缺陷的管辖基础,或者就是明确不存在有效的管辖基础,有时候还会直接地声明该申诉不在现存的管辖权范围内且法院对被告国的管辖权有待建立。这个时候,法院已接到了申诉,但是它却对申诉的实体问题没有管辖权。被告国实际上被给予了接受法院管辖权的机会。有些时候,通过明示的声明或者连续的隐含同意的行为,比如不经更多争执就论辩案件实体问题等,被告国在案件启动后会同意接受法院的管辖权。之后,法院会认为其管辖权已经确立并继续裁断争端。适用管辖权延伸概念的这一方面并非对案件提起之时既存管辖权的延展,而是确立了对该事件的“初始”管辖权。此理论的适用给刻意寻求和平解决国际争端的国家在别无他途的情况下最后的一条通往国际法院的通道。 The jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice on controversial cases rests solely with the consent of the State. The theory of the extension of jurisdiction provides an informal way for States to show their acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. After adoption by the Permanent Court of International Justice, the extension of jurisdiction was first applied in the context of its traditional extension of existing pre-existing jurisdiction. Sometimes the Court’s personal jurisdiction over the parties and the jurisdiction over an incident have been established by prior consent. After the proceedings have begun, the parties acknowledge the extension of their consent to cover additional issues either through express declarations or through continuous implied consent. In addition, sometimes a State lodges a petition unilaterally to initiate proceedings before a court, but relies on a flawed basis of jurisdiction or simply that there is no valid basis for jurisdiction and sometimes declares directly that the claim is not under existing jurisdiction The jurisdiction of the court against the accused state remains to be established. At this time, the court had already received the complaint, but it did not have jurisdiction over the substantive issue of the complaint. The accused State is in fact given an opportunity to accept the Court’s jurisdiction. In some cases, the accused countries would agree to accept the court’s jurisdiction after the case was launched, either through express statements or through continuous and implicit consent, such as arguing the subject of the case without more disputes. After that, the court will consider that its jurisdiction has been established and the dispute continues to be settled. This aspect of the concept of extension of jurisdiction is not an extension of the pre-existing jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the case, but establishes “initial” jurisdiction over the matter. This theory applies to the last passage to the International Court of Justice in a country that has deliberately sought peaceful solutions to international disputes without any alternative.