Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:03:41.898Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Thirty—Third Year of the World Court*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Manley O. Hudson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The history of the International Court of Justice in its thirty-third year is contained in narrow compass. It is chiefly confined to one judgment rendered by the Court in the Case of the Monetary Gold Removed From Borne in 1943, and to the advisory opinion given by the Court on the Effect of Awards Made By the United Nations Administrative Tribunal. Apart from these, in the Nottebohm Case between Liechtenstein and Guatemala, the time for the rejoinder of Guatemala to be filed was extended for one month, to November 2, 1954. Action was taken by the Court ordering that the “Électricité de Beyrouth” Company Case be removed from the list at the request of the French Government; the Court also ordered that two cases brought by the United States against Hungary and the Soviet Union, relating to the Treatment in Hungary of Aircraft and Crew of United States of America, should be removed from the list for lack of jurisdiction.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 49 , Issue 1 , January 1955 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This is the thirty-third in the writer’s series of annual articles on the World Court, the publication of which was begun in this JOURNAL, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 15.

References

1 I.C.J. Reports, 1853, p. 37.

2 Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 1655; [British] Treaty Series, No. 56 (1947), Cmd. 7173.

3 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, pp. 244, 250. The amount of compensation due from the People’s Republic of Albania to the United Kingdom was fixed at £843,947. See this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 579.

4 The text of the Washington Agreement of April 25, 1951, is to be found in 91 United Nations Treaty Series 21; Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 2252; and [British] Treaty Series, No. 39 (1951), Cmd. 8242. The text of the attached Statement appears in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 24 (1951), p. 785. In this case it matters little that the three governments parties to the Agreement were agreed to go before the Court, and the question of the importance of the Agreement as furnishing a basis for the Italian Application really disappears; the Court at no time considered the text of the Agreement.

5 The text of the application does not appear in the Court’s judgment; it is full of interest for the student. The facts of the case seem to be set out with considerable particularity, and it bears on the fullness of the Italian case. Apart from this fact, the application does not deal directly with the two questions which were before the Court in the present proceeding.

6 I.C.J. Reports, 1953, p. 37.

7 Ibid., p. 44.

8 I.C.J. Reports, 1954, p. 10.

9 Mr. Herman Phleger, Agent of the Government of the United States, stated that since he did not expect to supplement his written statement, he would not be present at the oral proceedings.

10 I.C.J. Reports, 1954, p. 19; digested in this Journal, Vol. 48 (1954), p. 649.

11 Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 1707; [British] Treaty Series, No. 3 (1948), Cmd. 7298.

12 Resolution 785 (VIII)A of Dec. 9, 1953. General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/2630), p. 41.

13 I.C.J. Reports, 1954, p. 47; digested in this Journal, Vol. 48 (1954), p. 655.

14 The nearest thing to the ease is when State A files an application against State B, where State B has not recognized the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction, and afterwards urges that B’s acceptance of a point of procedure is equivalent to B’s recognition of the jurisdiction of the Court. See Hudson, Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, pp. 410 ff.

15 I.C.J. Reports, 1954, pp. 99, 103.

16 I.C.J. Reports, 1953, p. 41.

17 I.C.J. Reports, 1954, p. 13.

18 Ibid., p. 107.

19 Ibid., p. 16.

20 Ibid., p. 110. [This paragraph was prepared before the publication of the request for advisory opinion adopted by the General Assembly on November 23, 1954; as it was reproduced in the request for an advisory opinion, it was headed “voting procedure on questions relating to reports, and petitions concerning the territory of South-west Africa.”]

21 Resolutions 805 (VIII) and 806 (VIII) of Dec. 9, 1953. General Assembly, 8th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 17 (A/2630), pp. 54, 55.

22 Israel was absent because of a holiday; San Marino did not have a representative. Even if one of these states had been represented in the vote, and if its representative had voted for Mr. Zafrulla Khan, it is difficult to see why Mr. Pal did not have the majority of the votes.

This matter raises the question of the meaning of Art. 10 of the Statute in providing that one who obtains “an absolute majority of the votes in the General Assembly and in the Security Council shall be considered as elected.” It is difficult to see why the term “absolute majority” should be thus construed; it was differently construed in the days of the League of Nations.