This may also be seen in the governing Statutes of the PCIJ and the ICJ, and in
the arbitration treaties and conventions, as these were all created by the states
themselves.

It is also important to have the input of those individuals who have been
granted the power to make the jurisdiction decisions in the actual cases--the
justices and the arbitrators of the various international tribunals. In any case
brought before any court, before reaching the merits of the case, the question
of competence must first be answered. So it is with an international court. This
justiciability debate has recurred again and again. What these tribunals have
defined as their own boundaries should be very important contributions to this
discussion.

Does all this evidence point to one clear-cut answer to the problem? Or does
disagreement reign, producing only confusion? How does this speak to the very
definition of the term justiciable? Sythesizing all of the collected evidence will
be the goal of Chapter 5.

Finally, I will draw some conclusions regarding the current status of this
legal/political dichotomy in international law. As indicated previously, the
questions here are: "Does this dichotomy exist?" and "Should this dichotomy
exist?" Based on the conclusions I reach regarding these questions, I will make
my own recommendations regarding the changes I see as necessary for
international law.

-6-