- 22 B. Bases of jurisdiction invoked by Ukraine 33. The Court recalls that its jurisdiction is based on the consent of the parties and is confined to the extent accepted by them (Immunities and Criminal Proceedings (Equatorial Guinea v. France), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2018 (I), p. 307, para. 42). 34. To establish the Court’s jurisdiction in the present case, Ukraine invokes Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT and Article 22 of CERD (see paragraph 2 above). The first of these provisions reads as follows: “Any dispute between two or more States Parties concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention which cannot be settled through negotiation within a reasonable time shall, at the request of one of them, be submitted to arbitration. If, within six months from the date of the request for arbitration, the parties are unable to agree on the organization of the arbitration, any one of those parties may refer the dispute to the International Court of Justice, by application, in conformity with the Statute of the Court.” Article 22 of CERD provides that: “Any dispute between two or more States Parties with respect to the interpretation or application of this Convention, which is not settled by negotiation or by the procedures expressly provided for in this Convention, shall, at the request of any of the parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision, unless the disputants agree to another mode of settlement.” 35. Ukraine and the Russian Federation are parties to the ICSFT, which entered into force for them on 5 January 2003 and 27 December 2002 respectively. Neither of them entered any reservations to the ICSFT. Ukraine and the Russian Federation are also parties to CERD. The Convention entered into force for Ukraine on 6 April 1969. The instrument of ratification, deposited by Ukraine, on 7 March 1969, contained a reservation to Article 22 of the Convention; on 20 April 1989, the depositary received notification that this reservation had been withdrawn. The Russian Federation is a party to the Convention as the State continuing the international legal personality of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, for which CERD entered into force on 6 March 1969. The instrument of ratification, deposited by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on 4 February 1969, contained a reservation to Article 22 of the Convention; on 8 March 1989, the depositary received notification that this reservation had been withdrawn. 36. The Russian Federation contests the Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the dispute on the basis of each of the two instruments invoked by Ukraine. In this regard, it argues that the dispute is not one which the Court has jurisdiction ratione materiae to entertain, either under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT or under Article 22 of CERD, and that the procedural preconditions set out in these provisions were not met by Ukraine before it seised the Court. The Respondent further contends that Ukraine’s claims under CERD are inadmissible, since, in its view, available local remedies had not been exhausted before Ukraine filed its Application with the Court.