No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Eighth Year of The Permanent Court of International Justice1
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
Extract
During the year 1929, the Permanent Court of International Justice held two sessions, and handed down three judgments and three formal orders. The sixteenth (extraordinary) session of the court began on May 13, 1929, and ended on July 12, 1929; and the seventeenth (ordinary) session began on July 8, 1929, and ended on September 10, 1929. At the sixteenth session, the court gave an order in the “ Case Concerning the Denunciation by China of the Treaty of November 2, 1865, between China and Belgium” ; an order in the “ Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow (Indemnities)” ; a judgment (No. 14) in the “ Case Concerning the Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France” ; and a judgment (No. 15) in the “ Case Concerning the Payment in Gold of the Brazilian Federal Loans Issued in France.” At the seventeenth session, it gave an order in the “ Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,” and a judgment (No. 16) in the “ Case Relating to the Territorial Jurisdiction of the International Commission of the River Oder.” In addition to these activities, extensions of its jurisdiction and changes in the court's structure, which have been previsaged, make the year notable in the history of the court.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1930
Footnotes
1
Continuing the series of annual articles begun in this JOURNAL , Vol. 17, No. 1, January, 1923.
References
2 For the earlier history of this case, see this Journal , Vol. 22, p . 1; Vol. 23, p. 19
3 The orders are to be found in Publications of the Court, Series A, Nos. 8, 14, 16.
4 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 18.
5 The history of the protracted litigation before the court, growing out of the Polish Government's taking possession of the nitrate factory at Chorzow, is related in this JOURNAL ,Vol. 23, pp. 14-15.
6 The order is to be found in Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 19, Annex, p. 14.
7 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 19.
8 Prudhomme, Andrè-,Les Emprunts des États Bresilien et Serbe devant la Cour permanente de Justice Internationale de la Haye, 56 Journal du Droit Internationalp. 837 ( 1929)Google Scholar
9 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 21. See ante, note 8.
10 The diplomatic history of the compromis is set forth in the message of the Swiss Federal Council to the Federal Assembly, of Nov. 25, 1924 (Doc. 1911).
11 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 22.
12 Zones were first established in Gex in 1602 and in Savoy in 1603. An excellent account of their history was given in two communiqués issued by the Secretariat of the League of Nations, July 8 and July 24, 1929. See also the European Economic and Political Survey for March 15-31,1929, Vol. IV, p. 411 (published by the American Library in Paris); Berard, Victor, Genève, La France et La Suisse (4 vols.), Paris: Librarie Armand Colin, 1927; Google Scholar Paulus, J., “ Les Zones FranchesAutour de Genève,” 5 Révue de Droit Internatiorial et de Legislation Comparie (3 ser.), p. 58. Toynbee, Survey of International Affairs, 1925, Vol. II, p. 215 Google Scholar.
13 Hertslet, Map of Europe, p. 262.
14 Ibid., p. 346
15 Ibid., p. 370.
16 Hertslet, Map of Europe, pp. 326, 342.
17 Ibid., p. 421.
18 15 Bulletin des Lois de l’Empire Frangais (11th series), p. 891, No. 7744
19 Art. 435 of the Treaty of Versailles is as follows: “ The high contracting parties, while they recognize the guarantees stipulated by the Treaties of 1815, and especially by the Act of November 20, 1815, in favor of Switzerland, the said guarantees constituting international obligations for the maintenance of peace, declare nevertheless that the provisions of these treaties, conventions, declarations and other supplementary Acts concerning the neutralized zone of Savoy, as laid down in paragraph 1 of Article 92 of the Final Act of the Congress of Vienna and in paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Treaty of Paris of November 20, 1815, are no longer consistent with present conditions. For this reason the high contracting parties take note of the agreement reached between the French Government and the Swiss Government for the abrogation of the stipulations relating to this zone which are and remain abrogated.
“ The high contracting parties also agree that the stipulations of the Treaties of 1815 and of the other supplementary Acts concerning the free zones of Upper Savoy and the Gex district are no longer consistent with present conditions, and that it is for France and Switzerland to come to an agreement together with a view to settling between themselves the status of these territories under such conditions as shall be considered suitable by both countries.”
The annex to this article sets forth notes exchanged by the two governments.
20 For the full text of the diplomatic correspondence, see the Message of the Swiss Federal Council of November 25, 1924 (No. 1911).
21 Art. 54 requires that the “ deliberations of the court shall take place in private and remain secret,” and Art. 58 requires that every judgment shall be “read in open court.”
22 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 22, p. 49.
23 For the full text of the compromis, see the British Treaty Series, No. 1 (1929), Cmd. 3250.
24 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 23 (Annex 2), p. 28.
25 Ibid., Annex 3, p. 41
26 Denmark and Sweden are clearly in this category. As to Germany, the situation was that Germany was not represented in what was generally known as the Preliminary Peace Conference, in which various commissions drafted the “ conditions” later submitted to Germany. But Germany was represented at the peace conference at which her acceptance of the modified conditions was negotiated.
27 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 23 (Annex 4), p. 44.
28 “Disputes which may arise between interested Powers with regard to the interpretation and application of the preceding articles shall be settled as provided by the League of Nations”
29 Count Rostworowski sat as a judge ad hoc; but the court contained no judge of British, French, German or Swedish nationality, in hearing this case
30 Art. 331 reads: “ The following rivers are declared international: the Elbe (Labe) from its confluence with the Vltava (Moldau), and the Vltava (Moldau) from Prague; the Oder (Odra) from its confluence with the Oppa; the Niemen (Russtrom-Memel-Niemen) from Grodno; the Danube from Ulm; and all navigable parts of these river systems which naturally provide more than one state with access to the sea, with or without transhipment from one vessel to another; together with lateral canals and channels constructed either to duplicate or to improve naturally navigable sections of the specified river systems, or to connect two naturally navigable sections of the same river.
“ The same shall apply to the Rhine-Danube navigable waterway, should such a waterway be constructed under the conditions laid down in Article 353.”
31 Twenty-five candidates were nominated to succeed Judge Weiss, and twenty-four to succeed Viscount Finlay. League of Nations Document, A. 26. 1929. V.
32 League of Nations Document, A. 57. 1929. V.
33 In the Assembly, representatives of fifty-two members voted. Sir Cecil Hurst received 40 votes, and M. Fromageot 37.
34 See the list of states in the Fifth Annual Report of the Court. Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 5, pp. 385-391.
35 An interesting study entitled “The Optional Clause”, was published by the League of Nations Union, (2d ed.), July, 1929. No. 240.
36 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 63, p. 19. A resolution of the Fifth Assembly, Oct. 2,1924, stated that the terms of Art. 36 of the statute would permit states to sign the optional clause with the reservations which they regard as indispensable. Ibid., Special Supplement No. 21, p. 20.
37 This acceptance of the Optional Clause led to an interesting discussion in England. An editorial in The Times, Sept. 20, 1929, was followed by a spirited correspondence, also published in The Times, in which Lord Salisbury, Mr. A. P. Fachiri, Prof. A. Pearce Higgins, Prof. Edward Jenks, Mr. Wm. Latey, Prof. H. A. Smith, Prof. J. L. Brierly, Lord Parmoor, and Mr. George F. S. Bowles participated. Mr. Bowles expressed the view that the British acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction is the “very same proposal” as that made in 1907 for establishing an- International Prize Court. Prof. Pearce Higgins concluded that “the Permanent Court of International Justice has been in effect constituted an International Court of Prize, before which parties aggrieved by decisions of British prize courts will be able to compel the British Government to appear.” Mr. Fachiri replied “that by international law jurisdiction in all matters of prize belongs exclusively to the courts of the states concerned.” The views of His Majestys Government are set forth in a memorandum on the signature of the Optional Clause, published on Dec. 9,1929, in Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 12 (1929), Cmd. 3452, dealing at length with the objections made to the acceptance. “ His Majesty's Government consider that our acceptance of the Optional Clause makes no difference to the principle that prize cases must be decided first in our own prize courts before any question of reference to Permanent Court of International Justice could arise.”
38 To the list appearing in the Fifth Annual Report of the court (Series E, No. 5, p. 137), Greece, Hungary and Nicaragua may now be added
39 League of Nations Document, C. 163. M. 59. 1929. II.
40 League ,of Nations Document, A. 21. 1929. V. A similar proposal had been made by M. Rundstein before the Committee of Jurists on the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, March 18, 1929. League of Nations Document, C. 166. M. 66.1929. V.
41 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 74, p. 17.
42 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 63, p. 11. See also this Journal , Vol. 23, p. 27.
43 The minutes of the committee have been published as League of Nations Document, C. 166. M. 66. 1929. V. For comment on its work, see Cassin, René, “ La revision du statut dela Cowr -pennanente de justice intemationale,” 36 Revue G&n&rale de Droit International Public (1929), p. 377 Google Scholar. Raestad, Arnold,“ Le Projet du ComiU de Juristes concemant la revision du Statut de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale,” Revue de Droit International, 1929, p. 340 Google Scholar.
44 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 74, p. 10. The minutes of the conference have been published in League of Nations Document, C. 514. M. 173.1929. V.
45 League of Nations Document, C. 492. M. 156. 1929. V.
46 See Hudson, Manley,“ Amendment of the Covenant of the League of Nations,” 38 Harvard Law Review (1925), p. 903 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
47 League of Nations Document, C. 166. M. 66. 1929. V., p. 119.
48 Verbatim Record of the Tenth Assembly, Sept. 14, 1929, p. 9.
49 League of Nations Document, 1926. V. 26.
50 For the text, see League of Nations Document, C. 166. M. 66. 1929. V, p. 96. 51 For an account of the work of the Committee of Jurists, see Arnold Raestad, Les Etats- Unis d Amerique et La Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale" 3 Revue de Droit International (1929), p. 308.
51 For an account of the work of the Committee of Jurists, see Arnold Raestad, Les Etats- Unis d Amerique et La Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale" 3 Revue de Droit International (1929), p. 308.
52 Ibid., p. 9.
53 For an excellent review of the work of the Committee of Jurists, see Jessup, Philip C., “The United States and the World Court,” World Peace Foundation Pamphlets, Vol. XII, No. 4 (1929)Google Scholar. See also Jessup, Philip C., “The Permanent Court of International Justice,” International Conciliation Pamphlets, No. 254, November, 1929; and editorial, infra, p. 105 Google Scholar.
54 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 74, p. 15.
55 League of Nations Document, C. 493. M. 157. 1929. V.
56 Press release of the U. S. Department of State, Sept. 5,1929. On Nov. 18, 1929, the Secretary of State requested the Presidents authority for directing the signature of the protocol, and the authority was given on Nov. 26,1929. The correspondence is published in Press Releases, Dec. 14, 1929.
57 The point is the more important because the Protocol of Amendment of September 14,1929, provides (paragraph 5): “After the entry into force of the present protocol, the new provisions shall form part of the statute adopted in 1920 and the provisions of the original articles which have been made the subject of amendment shall be abrogated.”
58 Verbatim Record of the Tenth Assembly, Sept. 14, 1929, p. 6.
59 Since the United States has become a signatory to the three court protocols, it might now proceed to ratify the Protocol of December 16, 1920, its ratification to become effective on the coming into force of the protocol for American adhesion of September 14,1929.
60 For the report of the Supervisory Commission, of July 31, 1929, see League of Nations Document A. 5. (a). 1929. X. The resolutions of the Assembly are printed in League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 74, pp. 35 ff.