11. The ICJ, for its part, has constantly held that "in principle, a request for an Opinion must not be refused"3 and that only compelling reasons could lead the Court to such a refusal of a request for an Advisory Opinion "4. The compelling reasons relied on by the Court include the non-juridical5 nature of the questions, matters which concern cases essentially within the ambit of national jurisdiction6, or indeed questions which should lead to a "final determination of a dispute",7 etc. 12. Like PCIJ, the ICJ refused on only one occasion to respond to a request for an Advisory Opinion. That was the Opinion on the request by the World Health Organization (WHO) on the Legality of the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict8. In that request, WHO prayed the Court to rule on the following question: "given the effects of nuclear weapons on health and the environment, would their use by a State in the course of a war or other conflict constitute a breach of its obligations under international law, including the WHO Constitution?." Referring to Article 2 of the Constitution of WHO9 which lists the 22 functions conferred on the Organization, the Court notes that "none of these points expressly concerns the legality of any activity dangerous to health; and none of the functions of WHO is predicated on the legality of the situations which require it to act "(§20). Later on, the Court adds, in relation to Article 2 of the Constitution of WHO concerning the Organization's means of achieving its aims, that " the provisions of Article 2 may be read as empowering the organization to address the health effects of the use of nuclear weapons or any other hazardous activity and to take preventive measures to protect the health of populations in the event such weapons are used or such activity is carried out (§21). However, the Court notes that "the question posed in the present case, relates not to the effects of the use of nuclear weapons on health, but to the legality of the use of such weapons, given their effects on health and the environment. Whatever the said effects, the competence of the WHO to address them is not dependent on the legality of the acts which produce them. Accordingly, it does not appear to the Court that the provisions of Article 2 of the WHO Constitution, interpreted in accordance with the above criteria, can be understood as conferring jurisdiction on the Organization to address the legality of the use of nuclear weapons and, hence, to put a question to the Court "(§21)10. And the Court thus held in conclusion that "Having reached the conclusion that the request for Advisory Opinion submitted by WHO does not concern a question which arises (within the scope of the activities” of that organization in accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 96 of the Charter, the Court finds that an essential condition for founding its jurisdiction in the present case is lacking and that it cannot therefore give the Opinion requested. Consequently, the Court does not have to examine the arguments which 3 ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950, Competence of the General Assembly of the Admission of a State to the United Nations, Rec. 1950. P. 71 4 ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapon, Rec. P. 235 para. 14, Advisory Opinion of 9 July 2004, Legal Consequence of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Rec. 2004, p. 156 – 157, para. 44 5 ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 20 July 1962, Certain Expenses of the United Nations, Rec. 1962, p, 1155 6 ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950 already cited, p. 70 7 ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 15 December 1989, Applicability of Article VI, Section 22 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations 8 ICJ, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 already cited. 9 The WHO Constitution was adopted and opened for signature on 22 July 1946; it entered into force on 7 April 1948 and was amended in 1960, 1975, 1977, 1948 and 1994 10 Emphasis not in the text 3|Page