Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:40:08.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Francis O. Wilcox
Francis O. Wilcox*
Affiliation:
Library of Congress
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On August 2, 1946, the United States Senate approved the Morse resolution by the overwhelming vote of 62-2, thereby giving its advice and consent to the acceptance on the part of the United States of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. It was the same Senate which, just one year and one week earlier, had cast a vote of 89-2 in favor of the United Nations Charter. On August 26 Herschel Johnson, acting United States representative on the Security Council, deposited President Truman’s declaration of adherence with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. At long last the United States assumed far-reaching obligations to submit its legal disputes to an international court.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 40 , Issue 4 , October 1946 , pp. 699 - 719
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1946

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.)

References

1 The opinions expressed in this article are, of course, those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the point of view of the Library of Congress or the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

2 For relevant documents see Compulsory Jurisdidion, International Court of Justice, Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, 79th Congress, 2nd Session; International Court of Justice, Report of the Foreign Relations Committee, No. 1835, 79th Congress, 2nd Session; Congressional Record, 79th Congress, 2nd Session, July 31, August 1, 2, 1946; S. Res. 160, 79th Congress, 1st Session; S. Res. 196, 79th Congress, 2nd Session; H. J. Res. 291, 79th Congress, 1st Session.

3 On the background of this problem see P. C. Jessup, “Acceptance by the United States of the Optional Clause of the International Court of Justice,” this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), p. 745; also his article on the Court in Foreign Policy Reports, Aug. 15, 1945; L. Preuss, “The International Court of Justice, and the Problem of Compulsory Jurisdiction,” in Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 30, 1945; M. O. Hudson, “The New World Court,” in Foreign Affairs, Oct., 1945; Department of State Publication No. 2491. The International Court of Justice, 1946; also N. J. Padelford in International Conciliation, No. 413.

4 UNCIO Documents, Vol. 13, p. 413.

5 Congressional Record, July 27, 1945, p. 8247.

5a Congressional Record, August 1, 1946, p. 10757.

6 See Hearings, and the Committee Report, cited above.

7 Senator Hatch, who was observing the Bikini tests during this period, was necessarily absent.

8 The resolution reads: “Resolved, That the American Society of International Law strongly favors a declaration by the United States Government of its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the types of legal disputes enumerated in Article 36 of the Statute of the Court.”

9 George A. Finch and Lester Woolsey, Vice-Presidents, and Pitman B. Potter, Secretary, appeared on behalf of the American Society of International Law. Philip C. Jessup, Lawrence Preuss, Helen Dwight Reid, Edgar Turlington, and Robert G. Wilson, all members of the Society, also appeared. President Charles C. Hyde, Clyde Eagleton, Quincy Wright and Norman J. Padelford, among others, sent statements for the record.

10 Congressional Record, July 27, 1945, p. 8249.

11 See 79th Congress, 1st Session, Senate Report No. 717, p. 8.

12 Text in New York Herald Tribune, March 1, 1946.

13 See Committee Report, p. 10.

14 For the texts of these declarations see M. O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920-1942, pp. 681 ff.

15 See Committee Report, p. 5; Hudson, pp. 465-6.

16 Article 95 reads: “Nothing in the present Charter shall prevent members of the United Nations from entrusting the solution of their differences to other tribunals by virtue of agreements already in existence or which may be concluded in the future.”

17 See the Connally amendment, however, as it is discussed below.

18 Congressional Record, p. 10833.

19 In five of the eleven cases arising under Article 36 the Court’s jurisdiction was challenged. In two cases the Court ruled it had jurisdiction, in two other cases that it did not, and in the fifth case it ruled that one of the objections to its jurisdiction was well founded. See Hudson, pp. 477-481.

20 Records of Fifth Assembly, Plenary, p. 225; Hudson, p. 453.

21 Article 94, paragraph 2, reads: “If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment.”

22 Hearings, p. 36. Senator Morse later opposed the amendment and while Senator Austin voted for it he said he preferred the resolution without it. Congressional Record, p. 10840.

23 Congressional Record, p. 10839.

24 Eight of the 15 sponsors of the original Morse resolution voted for the Connelly amendment. Four voted against it. Congressional Record, p. 10841.

25 Congressional Record, pp. 10757, 10760.

26 Hearings, p. 44.

27 Committee Report, p. 6.

28 Article 63 reads: “(1) 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. (2) Every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it.”

29 Congressional Record, p. 10768.

30 Same, p. 10767.

31 Congressional Record, pp. 10842-10849.

32 Hearings, p. 44.

33 Congressional Record, p. 10844.

34 Subject to the limitations discussed above.

35 Congressional Record, p. 10831.