Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:28:04.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Twenty-Eighth Year of the World Court*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

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

Extract

Substantial contributions to the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice were made during its twenty-eighth year—in two judgments in the Corfu Channel Case, and in an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations. The prospect for the greater activity of the Court improved notably during the year, as a result of the institution of proceedings in three contested cases—between the United Kingdom and Norway, France and Egypt, and Colombia and Peru, respectively; and as a result of three requests emanating from the General Assembly for advisory opinions—concerning questions arising under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania; the competence of the General Assembly to admit new Members of the United Nations; and the international status of South West Africa. On the other hand, the year has not been marked by a great increase in the jurisdiction conferred on the Court under Article 36 (2) of the Statute or otherwise.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , January 1950 , pp. 1 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1950

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 twenty-eighth 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, 1947–1948, p. 15; this JouRNAL, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 690. The judgment was commented on by the writer in this journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 1.

2 Security Council, Official Records, 1947, No. 34, p. 726.

3 I.C.J. Reports, 1947–1948, p. 53.

4 Judge čEer, like Judge Daxner, is of Czechoslovak nationality. A judge ad hoc is not required to be a national of the state appointing him.

5 Commodore Bull did not take part in the inquiry.

6 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, pp. 142–150, 152–162, 163–169.

7 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 4; this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 558. The judgment ie admirably summarized in 1949 A.M.C. 1239–1284.

8 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, pp. 171, 222.

9 The statements are reproduced in the volume of “Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents” relating to the case. A statement by the Union of Burma appears to have been lost in transit, but a copy was transmitted to the Registry after the Court’s opinion had been given.

10 These statements were also reproduced in a separate brochure, published in Holland, as “Oral Statements by Dr. Ivan S. Kerno, Agent, and A. H. Feller, Counsel.” Strictly speaking, however, agents and counsel do not appear in advisory proceedings.

11 I.C.J. Reports, 1949, p. 174; this Journal, Vol. 43 (1949), p. 589.

12 The International Law Commission noted that “a great majority of the States of the world have… established a new international order under the Charter of the United Nations, and most of the other States of the world have declared their desire to live within this order.” Report of the International Law Commission, General Assembly, Official Records, 4th Sess., Supp. No. 10 (U.N. Doc. A/925), p. 8; this Journal, Supp., p. 15.

13 Hudson, , Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942, pp. 205–206, 588–589Google Scholar.

14 Series E, No. 4, p. 291.

15 Series B, No. 18, p. 18.

16 See Series E, No. 4, p. 291; No. 12, p. 197; Hudson, op. cit., p. 589.

17 The U. K. declaration under Art. 36 (2), dated Feb. 28, 1940, was filed with the Secretariat of the League of Nations on March 7, 1940; the latest Norwegian declaration was filed with the Secretariat of the United Nations on Nov. 16, 1946.

18 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 37; Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. 7, p. 684; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 34 (1940), p. 201Google Scholar.

19 Art. 37 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that : “Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to… the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall, as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice.”

20 Art. 2 of the Montreux Convention provides:

“Subject to the application of the principles of international law, foreigners shall be subject to Egyptian legislation in criminal, civil, commercial, administrative, fiscal and other matters.

“It is understood that the legislation to which foreigners will be subject will not be inconsistent with the principles generally adopted in modern legislation and will not, with particular relation to legislation of a fiscal nature, entail any discrimination against foreigners or against companies incorporated in accordance with Egyptian law wherein foreigners are substantially interested.

“The immediately precedmg paragraph, in so far as it does not constitute a recognized rule of international law, shall apply only during the transition period [from Oct. 15, 1937, to Oct. 14, 1949].”

21 Bulgarian Treaty: Art. 2; Hungarian Treaty: Art. 2 (l);Rumanian Treaty: Art. 3 (1). The texts of the treaties are published in U. S. Treaties and Other International Acts Series, Nos. 1649, 1650, 1651; also in Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), pp. 179, 225, 252.

22 Hungarian Treaty: Art. 2 (2); Rumanian Treaty: Art. 3 (2).

23 Bulgarian Treaty : Art. 36; Hungarian Treaty : Art. 40; Rumanian Treaty : Art. 38.

24 U. N. Docs. A/985, pp. 5, 8, 11; A/990, pp. 5, 7, 9.

25 U. N. Docs. A/985, pp. 14, 17, 20; A/990, pp. 11, 14, 16.

26 U. N. Docs. A/AC.24/58 and A/AC.24/57.

27 Resolution 272 (III), General Assembly, 3rd Sess., Pt. II, Official Records, Resolutions (U.N. Doc. A/900), pp. 17–18.

28 U. N. Docs. A/985, pp. 22, 23, 25; A/990, pp. 19, 20, 21.

29 U. N. Docs. A/985, p. 48; A/990, p. 34.

30 U. N. Docs. A/985, pp. 58, 59, 60; A/990, pp. 40, 41, 42.

31 U. N. Docs. A/985, pp. 61, 63, 65; A/990, pp. 43, 45, 47.

32 U. N. Docs. A/985, pp. 67. 69, 71; A/990, pp. 49, 50, 51.

33 U. N. Docs. A/985 and A/990.

34 U. N. Doc. A/948.

35 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 535 (Oct. 3, 1949), p. 491.

36 U. N. Doc. A/AC.31/L.1/Rev. 1.

37 U. N. Doc. A/AC.31/SR.10, p. 2.

38 Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 21, No. 538 (Oct. 24, 1949), p. 623.

39 U. N. Doc. A/AC.31/L.3.

40 U. N. Doc. A/AC.31/9, p. 3.

41 U. N. Doc. A/1043.

42 U. N. Press Release, GA/600, Dec. 10, 1949.

43 U. N. Doc. A/1043, pp. 2–3.

44 Security Council, Official Records, 1st Year, 2nd Ser., No. 19, pp. 467–68.

45 Series B, No. 5; Hudson, , World Court Reports, Vol. 1, p. 190 Google Scholar.

46 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 21.

47 Art. 37 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides that : “Whenever a treaty or convention in force provides for reference of a matter to… the Permanent Court of International Justice, the matter shall, as between the parties to the present Statute, be referred to the International Court of Justice.”

48 Colombia, Tratados, Convenciones y Acuerdos aprobados por el Congreso Nacional de 1913, p. 15.Google Scholar

49 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 323; Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. 4, p. 2412 Google Scholar; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 22 (1928), p. 158.

50 Article 63 (1) of the Statute of the Court provides: “Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such states forthwith.”

51 June 23, 1949, U. N. Doc. S/1342.

52 Hudson, , World Court Reports, Vol. 4, p. 43.Google Scholar

53 Ibid., p. 495.

54 British Treaty Series, No. 1 (1949), Cmd. 7599; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 43 (1949), p. 59.

55 Hudson, , International Legislation, Vol. 4, p. 2529 Google Scholar.

56 Spain denounced the Act on April 8, 1939.

57 See, for example, Resolution 252 (III), General Assembly, 3rd Sess., Pt. I, Official Records, Resolutions (U. N. Doc. A/810), pp. 151–155.