5 20. Even though 11 would not have made the aforementioned declaration. Senegal, by its attitude, left open the possibility, however sl im, that it migh t accept the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the application. * 2J The fundament:ll principle regarding the . acceptance of the jurisdiction of an internalional Court is indee d that of const:nl. a principle which 1tse lf is derived from that of the sovereignty of the State . A State 's conse nt is the cond ition sine qua non for the jurisdiction of any international Court9, irrcspectivt: of the moment or the way the consent is expressed 10• 22. This principle of jurisdiction by consent is also uphel d by the Protocol. Thus. in contentious matters, the Court can exercise jurisdiction only in respect of the States Parties to the Protoco l. The scope of the Court's jurisdiction in such cases and the modalities of access thereto are defined in Articles 3 and 5, respectivel y, of the Protocol. 23. By becoming Parties to the Protoco l, member States of the African Unio n ipso facto accept the j urisd iction of the Court to entertain appli catio ns from other States Parties, the African Commission or African Inter-governmental Organizations. The jurisdiction of the Court in respect of applications from individuals or NonGovernmental Organizations against States Parties is not, for its part, automatic; it depends on the optional expression of consent by the States concerned. 24. This i~ provided for in Article 34(6) of the Protoco l which states that: ''At the time of ratificatton of this Protoco l or any time thereafter, the State shall make a declaration accepting the com petence of the Court to rece ive cases under Artic le 5 (3) of this Proto col. The Court sha ll not receive any petition under Article 5 (3) involving a State Party which has not made such a decla ration". As it is drafted, this provision raises two questions: 25. The first is rhe meaning to give to the word •·shall" used in Lhe first sentence which suggests that filing of the declaration by the State Party is an '·obligation·· for the State Party and not simpl y •·a matter of choice''. 26. Understood in this way, Artic le 34 (6) would make it ob ligatory for State Partit!s to make such a declaration after depositing their instrument s of ratification (or accession) 11. This prescription does not however have any real legal effec t·because it does not set any time limil. 4 ·'It tS a wc:ll eslablbhed principle 10 lntemnuonal Law that no Suite can be compelled w submit Its dlspule!i wfth other to mediauon, arbhratinn or to any method of peuceful solution w1thout 1ts consent", Permanent Court of lntemo uonal JUSlJce, Statute of Eastern Carella, Adv1sorv Opm1o n of 23 July I913, Series 8, p.l7 State~ 10 "Su~:h consent may be g1vcn once and (or ull tn lhe fonn of a fret:!}' accepted obliga llon II may however be g1ven specilic case beyond any pre-exisling ubligalion" 1d In u 11 Parogruph 6 of Lhe English vetS iOn, unlil-:e the french , provu.le'l that the i.h:clt!rJIIOn may be freely maJe nn twu differc n1 ·n1 the 11me pi the rntlfic:ntlon otth1s Protoc ol or unv Ume t!Jereallcr'' (emphasiS added), !he Arnll ilnd Portuguese versions of the said Paragraph 6 are Identical to the Eng Itsh~ occu:.lons