State consent is the cornerstone of jurisdiction at the international level. Increasingly, private persons, namely individuals and corporations, have gained access to international courts and tribunals, notably through treaties in the context of human rights litigation and investment arbitration. This calls for a comprehensive and cross-cutting analysis of the way State consent to international jurisdiction is expressed, interpreted and revoked in these contexts, as opposed to inter-State dispute settlement mechanisms. This study demonstrates that, despite the practical differences that exist in how State consent operates across these contexts, a State’s acceptance of international jurisdiction remains fundamentally the same undertaking, whether addressed to other States or to private parties. Importantly, rather than the nature of the parties involved, this study identifies the instrument in which State consent is contained as the key parameter for analysis. Further, it identifies two other parameters explaining the way in which the operation of State consent varies across contexts, namely the role played by reciprocity at the inter-State level and the degree of legal certainty that may be expected. These findings seek to provide clarity and guidance, both doctrinally and practically, on the operation of a fundamental notion of international law, State consent to international jurisdiction, when it is addressed to, and can be invoked by, private parties rather than States.
