One of the most challenging developments in the procedural framework of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the emergence and expansion of a phenomenon known in legal literature as the multiplicity of jurisdictional grounds. This situation arises when a claimant invokes more than one legal basis to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. These bases may include a combination of jurisdiction derived from different treaties, jurisdiction based on the Optional Clause under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, jurisdiction arising from reciprocal declarations, or even jurisdiction grounded on the respondent’s implicit consent. The tendency to employ this legal strategy has noticeably increased since the 1980s as a tool to strengthen likelihood of the Court accepting a case. In recent decades, the Court has faced situations such as Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia (2007), and Iran v. United States (2018), where more than one jurisdictional basis was invoked. In these cases, the Court was not only compelled to analyze and select the appropriate basis but in some instances resorted to an expansive interpretation of fundamental principles of international law, such as the principle of consent. The fundamental question addressed in this article is: What are the legal and institutional impacts of the simultaneity and multiplicity of jurisdictional grounds on the procedure, jurisdictional analysis, and status of Court within international legal order? To answer this question, article employs a descriptive-analytical method relying on judicial precedents, advisory opinions, and authoritative theoretical sources. findings indicate that although the multiplicity of jurisdictional grounds may functionally enhance the Court’s dispute resolution role, it generates serious theoretical tensions between the principle of consent and expansive interpretation of jurisdiction. Furthermore, employing such strategies can lead to instability in judicial practice, increased complexity during preliminary objections, and may even undermine legitimacy of Court’s decisions.