The Director General of the World Health Organisation, by a letter dated 27 August 1993 sought an advisory opinion from the ICJ. The question reads as follows: "In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?" The Court considered that there are three conditions which must be satisfied in order to found the jurisdiction of the Court when a request for an advisory opinion is submitted to it by a specialized agency: The agency requesting the Opinion must be duly authorized under the Charter to request opinion from the Court, and the opinion requested must be on a legal question, and this question must be one arising within the scope of the activities of the requesting agency. The first two conditions had been met. With regard to the third, the Court found that although according to its Constitution, the World Health Organisation is authorized to deal with the effects on health of the use of nuclear weapons, or of any other hazardous activity, and to take preventive measures aimed at protecting the health of populations in the event of such weapons being used or such activities engaged in, the question put to the Court in the present case related not to the effects of the use of nuclear weapons on health, but to the legality of the use of such weapons in view of their health and environmental effects. The Court further pointed out that international organizations do not, unlike States, possess a general competence, but are governed by the "principle of specialty" that is to say, they are invested by the States which create them with powers, the limits of which are a function of the common interests whose promotion those States entrust to them. Besides, the WHO was an international organisation of a particular kind- a "specialized agency" forming a part of a system based in the Charter of the United Nations, which was designed to organise international co-operation in a coherent fashion by bringing the United Nations invested with powers of general scope, into relationship with various autonomous and complementary organisations, invested with sectorial powers. The Court therefore concluded that the responsibilities of the WHO were necessarily restricted to the sphere of public "health" and can not encroach on the responsibilities of other parts of the United Nations system. Thus there was no doubt that the questions concerning the use of force, the regulation of armament and disarmament were within the competence of the United Nations and lied outside of the competencies of the specialized agencies. The request for an advisory opinion submitted by the WHO therefore did not relate to a question which arises "within the scope of the activities" of the organisation. The Court found that it is not able to give the advisory opinion which was requested of it by the WHO.