- 27 own interpretation is, on the contrary, supported by the preamble, the context and the preparatory work of the Convention. The Applicant argues that the Russian Federation is conflating the States’ duty under Article 18 of the ICSFT to prevent terrorism financing with the notion of State responsibility for committing terrorism financing. 54. Ukraine is of the view that providing funds to groups with the knowledge that such groups carry out acts of terrorism is sufficient to fulfil the requirement of knowledge under Article 2, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT, and that certainty that the funds will be used to commit specific acts is not required. Ukraine contends that the groups in question do not need to be designated as terrorist by, for instance, the Security Council, a competent organization or a considerable number of States, for a financing entity to have knowledge of the terrorist groups’ activities. 55. Ukraine also addresses the terrorism offences referred to in Article 2, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT. As to the offence defined in Article 1, paragraph 1 (b), of the Montreal Convention, it holds that “the civilian or military status of the aircraft is a jurisdictional element of the offence, not subject to an intent requirement”. The Applicant also maintains that the phrase “act intended to cause death or serious bodily injury” in Article 2, paragraph 1 (b), of the ICSFT, does not refer to a specific mental element; it is “an objective statement, referring to the ordinary consequences of an act”. It points out that this provision further refers to the purpose of an act of terrorism to intimidate a population or compel a government. Ukraine states that in many cases the specific agenda of the perpetrators of acts of terrorism will be unknown, but that in such cases the requisite purpose can be inferred, as the provision suggests, from the “nature or context” of the act. * * 56. The Court will now determine whether the dispute between the Parties is one that concerns the interpretation or the application of the ICSFT and, therefore, whether it has jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article 24, paragraph 1, of this Convention. 57. As the Court stated in the case concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), pp. 809-810, para. 16) and, more recently, in the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) (Preliminary Objections, Judgment of 13 February 2019, para. 36), in order to determine the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae under a compromissory clause concerning disputes relating to the interpretation or application of a treaty, it is necessary to ascertain whether the acts of which the applicant complains “fall within the provisions” of the treaty containing the clause. This may require the interpretation of the provisions that define the scope of the treaty. In the present case, the ICSFT has to be interpreted according to the rules contained in Articles 31 to 33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 23 May 1969 (hereinafter the “Vienna Convention”), to which both Ukraine and the Russian Federation are parties as of 1986.