Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T23:00:52.935Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The First Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2017

Manley O. Hudson
Manley O. Hudson*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The efforts made at the Hague Conference of 1907 to establish a Permanent Court of Arbitral Justice in addition to the panel which we call the Permanent Court of Arbitration, bore fruit at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 in Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The task of establishing a new court was too delicate for the Peace Conference to undertake. So the Covenant stopped short with directing the Council of the League of Nations to formulate plans for a Permanent Court of International Justice, and submit them to the members of the League “for adoption.” The Council lost no time after its organization in discharging this responsibility. At its second session, in February, 1920, which was really its first session for the transaction of business, it set up a Committee of Jurists to draft a scheme. This Committee deliberated through the summer of 1920, and its draft project was submitted to the Council at San Sebastian in August.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 1923 , pp. 15 - 28
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1923

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 League of Nations Official Journal, March, 1920, p. 33.

2 Ibid., September, 1920, p. 318. See Dr. James Brown Scott's Commentary on the Project, published in 1920 as No. 35, Pamphlet Series of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law.

3 Records of First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 500. The protocol was approved by the Council on December 14, 1920. For the French and English texts of the Statute as finally adopted, see League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. VI, p. 390. For the French and English texts of the Statute as originally drafted, the modifications of the Council and Assembly of the League of Nations, and the final text, see Proceedings of The American Society of International Law, 1920, pp. 43-78. For an Italian text, see 13 Bivista di Diritto Intemazionale 478.

4 The League of Nations Official Journal for September, 1922, p. 1025, lists thirty-four ratifications of the protocol and thirteen ratifications of the optional clause as to compulsory jurisdiction. See also League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. VI, p. 411. On September 20,1922, the Secretary General notified the members of the League of the thirty-fifth ratification of the protocol and the fourteenth ratification of the optional clause by Esthonia.

5 It seems that no formal declaration was ever made of the precise date on which the twenty-fifth ratification (the League then had forty-eight members) was effected. But on September 8, 1921, the Secretary General reported to the Second Assembly that twentyeight states had ratified. Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 161.

6 An account of the first election, by Dr. James Brown Scott, was published in 15 American Journal of International Law 556. See also 39 South African Law Journal 14.

7 Records of Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 293.

8 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1922, p. 306.

9 See John Bassett Moore, “ The Organization of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” 22 Columbia Law Review 497. Of the numerous questions of a formal nature which came before the Court, some were handled in consultation with the Council of the League.On the rank and title of the judges, for instance, see League of Nations Official Journal,June, 1922, p. 568; on the financial administration of the Court, see ibid., p. 564.

10 See the address of Chief Justice Taft before the American Bar Association, August 10,1922, reprinted in American Bar Association Journal, October, 1922, p. 601. On the regulation of procedure by Rules of Court in the United States, see 13 Law Series, Missouri Bulletin 3.

11 See Mr. Hammarskjold's valuable and authoritative study of the reglement, in 3 Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparee (3d Series), p. 125.

12 The Rules of Court have been reprinted in 16 American Journal of International Law (Supp.), p. 173; 22 Columbia Law Review 518; 3 Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparee (3d Series), p. 245; 14 Rivista di Diritto Intemazionale 233. See also the volume entitled “ The Permanent Court of International Justice, Statute and Rules,” published by the International Intermediary Institute at The Hague, in 1922; and Niemeyer's,Zeitschrift fur Internationales Reckt, Vol. XXX, p. 200.

13 Compare, for instance, Articles 39 and 40 of the Rules of Court with Article 63 of the Convention on the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1907.

14 Judge Moore has described this giving of advisory opinions as “obviously not a judicial function,” 22 Columbia Law Review 507. But it is not strange to American lawyers to have this function in the hands of a court. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has had the duty of giving advisory opinions to the executive and legislative departments of the government since 1780. See Thayer, Legal Essays, p. 42. On the weight to be given to advisory opinions, see Perkins v. Westwood (1917) 226 Mass. 268, 271.

15 1616 American Journal of International Law 60. Cf. Rougier, L’Organisation de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale, 108 Revue Politique et Parlementaire 177,188.

16 League of Nations Official Journal, June, 1922, pp. 526, 609. The Minutes of the Council meeting of May 12, 1922, contain a statement that “it was agreed that the revised text of the resolution should be submitted to the Council at a later meeting.” This may have been for the purpose of enabling the Court itself to express an opinion on the resolution.No further consideration seems to have been given to the matter by the Council.

17 League of Nations Official Journal, June, 1921, pp. 528, 610.

18 This formulation of the question was criticized by the Netherlands Government,in a communication dated June 7,1922.

19 The proceedings of the Court on June 22, 24, 26, 29, and 30 have been reprinted in the International Labor Office Official Bulletin, July 19, 1922, pp. 33-92. See also 49 Journal du Droit International (Clunet) 460.

20 Publications of Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, No. 2. The text is reproduced in the International Labor Office Official Bulletin, August 16,1922, p. 291.

21 See Minutes of First International Labor Conference, 1919, pp. 206-7.

22 League of Nations Official Journal, February, 1922, p. 106.

23 Minutes of First International Labor Conference, 1919, p. 199.

24 League of Nations Official Journal, June 1922, p. 528.

25 The arguments were held on July 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10; they are reproduced in the International Labor Office Official Bulletin, July 26, 1922, pp. 122-207. For supplementary memoranda submitted by MM. de Lapradelle and Albert Thomas, see International Labor Office Official Bulletin, August 30, 1922, pp. 312-327.

26 Publications of Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, No. 1. The text is reproduced in the International Labor Office Official Bulletin, 6 September 1922, p. 339.

27 Judge Barbosa and Judge Huber did not attend the session of the Court which lasted from June 15 to August 12, 1922. They were replaced by Deputy-Judges Beichmann and Negulesco.

28 The opinion was not without its repercussions in various countries, particularly France. It gave rise to most unfortunate recriminations in Le Temps of August 17, 1922.

29 The text of M. Poincare's letter is reproduced in League of Nations Official Journal,August, 1922, p. 892.

30 The very forceful memorandum of the International Labor Office is reproduced in the League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, p. 896.

31 League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, p. 794.

32 M. de Lapradelle's argument before the Court on August 3, 1922, is reprinted in the International Labor Office Official Bulletin, September 13,1922, p. 389. M. Albert Thomas' argument on August 8, 1922, is reprinted in ibid., p. 398.

33 Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series B, No. 3. The text is reproduced in the International Labor Office Official Bulletin, September 13, 1922,p. 377.

34 This opinion, like the second, was rendered in French and English, the English being authoritative. The Court's first opinion was rendered in French and English, the French being authoritative.

35 New York Times, October 27,1922.

36 For an appraisal of this action, see Judge Loder's illuminating paper in the British Year-Book of International Law, 1921-22, p. 6.

37 League of Nations Official Journal, September, 1922, p. 1025. Esthonia ratified the optional clause on June 29, 1922, but the Secretary General was not notified of it until September 16,1922.

38 These articles of the various treaties are listed in the author's article on “The Permanent Court of International Justice,” 35 Harvard Law Review, 245, 260. See also the fuller and most useful article by Professor Blociszewski, “De la Competence de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale,” Revue Generate de Droit International Public, 1922, p. 23. The peace treaties also contain a number of provisions for handling disputes as the League of Nations may provide. See also Sophy Sanger, “The Permanent Court of International Justice and Labor Cases,” Proceedings of the International Law Association 1921, p. 46.

39 The treaties with Greece and Armenia have not been ratified.

40 On the ratifications of these Barcelona Conventions, see League of Nations Official Journal, September, 1922, p. 1025. The texts of the Barcelona Conventions have been published in League of Nations Official Journal, Treaty Series, Vol. VII, p. 11 et seq.

41 British White Papers, 1920, Cmd. 670.

42 League of Nations Official Journal, January, 1922, p. 59. Apparently, this agreement has not yet been registered with the Secretariat. The notification was published in League of Nations Official Journal, January, 1922, p. 60.

43 League of Nations Official Journal, January-Febraary, 1921, pp. 84-95. The text of the Japanese mandate, including this article, is recited in the treaty between the United States and Japan of February 11, 1922, reproduced in 16 American Journal of International Law (Supp.) p. 94.

44 League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, pp. 847-892.

45 Ibid., p. 865.

46 Ibid., p. 1007.

47 Ibid., p. 1013.

48 British White Papers, 1922, Cmd. 1757, p. 5.

49 League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, p. 787.

50 The expenses of organizing and maintaining the Court to date have been: for 1920,124,499 gold francs; for 1921, 339,603 gold francs; for 1922, 1,500,000 gold francs. See League of Nations Audited Accounts for Third Fiscal Period, Doc. A. 13 (1). 1922.' X.

51 Document C. 715. M. 427. 1922. X.

52 Records of the First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 765.

53 League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, p. 786; ibid., Spec. Supp. No. 9, p. 11.The Assembly resolution to this effect was adopted on September 23,1922.

54 U. S. Treaty Series, No. 654.

55 New York Times, November 2, 1922.

56 In 1 Cambridge Law Journal 41.

57 See Chief Justice Taft in 8 American Bar Association Journal 569; John Bassett Moore,in 22 Columbia Law Review 497; Elihu Root in 6 American Bar Association Journal, p. 181 (reprinted in 9 Kentucky Law Journal 109); John W. Davis in 8 American Bar Association Journal 77 (reprinted in 28 West Virginia Law Quarterly 161); W. J. Curtis in 8 American Bar Association Journal 158; William D. Guthrie in 66 N. Y. Law Journal 1401; E. D. Dickinson in 11 Michigan Law Review 413; Frank E. Hinckley in 10 California Law Review 103; David Jayne Hill, in 14 American Journal of International Law 387; R. L. Buell, in Current History for December, 1922; E. M. Borchard in 4 Illinois Law Quarterly 67; Manley O. Hudson, in 35 Harvard Law Review 245, and 8 American Bar Association Journal 83. See also the various papers in The Annals, July, 1921, pp. 98-137. See also Lord Stemdale, in 66 Solicitors' Journal 393; Lord Sumner, in 151 Law Times 349; Sir Erie Richards, in the British Year Book of International Law, 1921-22, p. 1; Lord Phillimore, in Transactions of Grotius Society, Vol. VI, p. 89; William Latey, in 4 Journal of Comparative Legislation and International Law, (3d ser.), p.89; F. N.Keen,in League of Nations Union Pamphlets, No. 91;Newton W. Rowell, in 1921 Proceedings of Canadian Bar Association, p. 162; editorials in 66Solicitors' Law Journal 275-“a solid gain to civilization and the peace of the world” ; 58 Canada Law Journal 81; 38 South African Law Journal 63; 39 ibid., 14,207. See also Ruegger,La Constitution de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale, La Revue de Geneve, February,1922, p. 271; Altamira, El Proceso Ideologico del Proyecto de Tribunal de Justicia Intemadonal (Madrid, 1921); Bourquin, 2 Revue de Droit International et Legislation Comparee (3d Ser.) 17; Yamada, 21 Japanese Review of International Law, Nos. 2 and 6;Morellet, “VOrganisation de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale (1921); Cosme de la Torriente, “Cuba, Bustamante y el Tribunal Permanente de Justicia Internacional,'' in Carnegie Endowment, Year Book, 1922, p. 155. An English translation of the last-named is published in the pamphlets of the International Conciliation, New York, No. 178.

58 In 16 Illinois Law Review 207.

59 15 American Journal of International Law, p. 558.

60 New York Times, October 31, 1922.

61 151 Law Times 349.