Page images
PDF
EPUB

they form part of the Council, and likewise in the deliberations preceding it; but the required unanimity may be had without counting their votes.

This opinion was read in open court on November 21, 1925, and then transmitted to the Council of the League of Nations. It was promptly "adopted" by the Council, which proceeded to take a decision under Article 3 of the Treaty of Lausanne, on December 16, 1925.

PROPOSED SUBMISSION TO THE COURT

At its twenty-fifth session in Geneva, in January, 1925, the Governing Body of the International Labor Office discussed the possible admission of Mexico to membership in the International Labor Organization. The question arose whether a state not a member of the League of Nations could be admitted to membership in the International Labor Organization, and the possibility of seeking the opinion of the court on this question was discussed. The matter was later brought by M. Albert Thomas, Director of the International Labor Office, before the Seventh International Labor Conference in Geneva in June, 1925, but no action was taken."1

JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

On November 20, 1925, the Hungarian Government deposited with the Secretariat of the League of Nations the Hungarian ratification of the protocol of signature of the court. This protocol has now been signed by 48 members of the League of Nations, of which 37 have ratified it.

On September 25, 1925, M. Hymans, on behalf of Belgium, signed the optional clause annexed to the protocol of signature of December 16, 1920, accepting the compulsory jurisdiction described in Article 36 of the court Statute, in the following terms:

On behalf of the Belgian Government, I recognize as compulsory, ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other member or State accepting the same obligation, the jurisdiction of the court in conformity with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the court for a period of fifteen years, in any disputes arising after the ratification of the present declaration with regard to situations or facts subsequent to this ratification, except in cases where the parties have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to another method of pacific settlement.72

Belgium is thus the twenty-fourth state to make such a declaration, fifteen states having accepted the court's compulsory jurisdiction unconditionally." It seems probable that other states may soon follow suit.74

"International Labor Conference, Seventh Session, 1925, Report of the Director, pp. 23, 24. 72 Journal of the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations, p. 254.

73 See Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Question of American Participation (1925), pp. 335-339. Cf., Baker, "The Obligatory Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice," British Year Book of International Law, 1925, p. 68.

74 Apparently such action is contemplated by the Government of Czechoslovakia.

The jurisdiction of the court continues to be enlarged under the provision in Article 36 of the Statute that it shall comprise "all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force." One of the most interesting developments is in connection with the renewal of pre-war arbitration treaties providing for reference to the Permanent Court of Arbitration. On November 9, 1924, Great Britain and Sweden renewed such an arbitration treaty of August 11, 1904, and provided by exchange of notes that in place of reference to the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the reference shall be made to the Permanent Court of International Justice.75 A similar exchange of letters took place when on May 13, 1925, Great Britain and Norway renewed their arbitration treaty,76 and more recently when Great Britain and the Netherlands renewed their arbitration treaty. On March 18, 1925, the United States and Sweden exchanged ratifications of an arbitration treaty signed on June 24, 1924, with a somewhat similar exchange of notes," but conditioning the substitution upon favorable action of the United States Senate with respect to a pending proposal for American adhesion to the court protocol. It seems quite clear that if such action becomes general, future resort to the Permanent Court of Arbitration will be much less frequent, and in some measure that body will be superseded by the Permanent Court of International Justice.

For several years past, the Government of the Swiss Confederation has followed an aggressive policy of extending compulsory arbitration and utilizing the Permanent Court of International Justice. It has signed no fewer than thirteen significant treaties to this general end: with Germany, on December 3, 1921;78 with Sweden, on June 2, 1924;79 with Denmark, on June 6, 1924;80 with Hungary, on June 18, 1924;81 with Brazil, on June 23, 1924;82 with Italy, on September 20, 1924; 83 with Austria, on October 11, 1924;84 with Argentine, on November 17, 1924; 85 with Japan, on December

Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 419.

"Ibid., p. 433.

77 32 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 273; U. S. Treaty Series, No. 708. On similar action taken by the United States and other countries, conditioned upon the Senate's giving advice and consent to American adhesion to the court protocol of signature, see this JOURNAL, Vol. 19, p. 64.

TM 12 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 271. "33 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 199. 34 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 175.

#1 Ibid., p. 387.

33 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 415.

"Ibid., p. 91. See Diena, "Le Traité de Conciliation et de Règlement Judiciaire entre L'Italie et La Suisse," 6 Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée (3d Ser.), pp. 1-16.

* 33 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 423.

12 Bulletin de l'Institut Intermédiaire International, p. 318; Feuille Fédérale, February 11, 1925, p. 447.

26, 1924; 86 with Belgium, on February 13, 1925; 87 with Poland, on March 7, 1925;88 with France, on April 6, 1925; 89 and with Greece, on September 21, 1925. Though the treaties vary, considerably, all of them are designed to realize a general policy formulated in a comprehensive report presented to the Federal Assembly by the Federal Council on December 11, 1919.90 The treaty signed by Belgium and Switzerland on February 13, 1925, provides for conciliation of all disputes not settled by diplomatic negotiation, as recommended by the Third Assembly of the League of Nations, and for the submission of all disputes of a legal nature not settled by such conciliation to the court. A novel provision finds place in this treaty, as follows: 91

Article 13. Should one of the contracting parties not accept the proposals of the Conciliation Commission or not come to a decision within the time fixed by that body, either party may refer the dispute, by means of a single application, to the Permanent Court of International Justice, provided that it relates to the interpretation or application of treaties, conventions, or agreements binding the contracting parties or to a universally accepted point of international law.

In the event of a dispute as to whether the matter is suitable for judicial settlement in conformity with the preceding paragraph, the decision shall rest with the Court of Justice.

In placing this treaty before the Belgian Chamber, M. Hymans referred to the Belgian-Swiss treaty of November 15, 1904, withholding from arbitration disputes affecting the respective States' honor and vital interest, as "of the formerly classic type." Such a reservation he said was "hardly in keeping" with the Covenant of the League of Nations and the establishment of the Permanent Court of International Justice.

The whole subject of arbitration treaties has recently been examined by a committee of the first chamber of the Netherlands States General, in the light of the new position created by the Covenant of the League of Nations and the Statute of the court.

Other treaties recently concluded providing for possible reference to the court are: Netherlands and Poland, May 30, 1924, promulgated by the Queen of the Netherlands, May 22, 1925; Denmark and Latvia, November 3, 1924; Germany and Great Britain, December 2, 1924; Czechoslovakia and Poland, April 23, 1925. The convention on conciliation and arbitration signed at Helsingfors on January 17, 1925, by representatives of Esthonia, Finland, Latvia and Poland, contains some interesting provisions for possible reference to the court.92 The various documents initialled at Locarno on 86 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 422. 87 Ibid., p. 423; Feuille Fédérale, May 20, 1925, p. 460. 88 Ibid., p. 430; Feuille Fédérale, May 20, 1925, p. 471.

89 Ibid., p. 428; Feuille Fédérale, May 20, 1925, p. 450.

"0 Published as a pamphlet and numbered 1187.

91 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 423. The original text of the treaty is in the French language.

92 12 Bulletin de l'Institut Intermédiaire International, p. 295.

October 16, 1925, and signed at London on December 1, 1925, include arbitration treaties between Germany and France, Germany and Belgium, Germany and Poland, and Germany and Czechoslovakia. These treaties made elaborate provision for the possible use of the Permanent Court of International Justice in connection with the arbitration of disputes.

The court possesses a jurisdiction under the mandates which may prove of great importance in the future. A difference in the texts of the Palestine and East African (Tanganyika) mandates, relating to the court's jurisdiction, was noted by Judges de Bustamante and Moore in their dissenting opinions in the first Mavrommatis case,93 and greatly relied upon by Judge de BustaAt the sixth session of the Mandates Commission, held in Geneva from June 26 to July 12, 1925, M. Rappard (Switzerland) stated that he had reason to believe that the wording of Article 13 of the British mandate for East Africa, on the one hand, and of the corresponding articles of the other mandates, on the other hand, was due to an accident in the drafting of the Tanganyika mandate. He therefore proposed that the discrepancy be drawn to the attention of the Council with the suggestion that the East African mandate be modified by the omission of the second paragraph of Article 13. His proposal was considered at length by the commission, but was not adopted.

The convention signed at the close of the Second Opium Conference, on February 19, 1925,95 follows the lines established by many other international conventions negotiated through the use of the League of Nations machinery, in providing for possible resort to the court. The convention contains the following provisions (Article 32):

4. Disputes which it has not been found possible to settle either directly or on the basis of the advice of the above-mentioned technical body [appointed by the Council of the League of Nations] shall, at the request of any one of the parties thereto, be brought before the Permanent Court of International Justice, unless a settlement is attained by way of arbitration or otherwise by application of some existing convention or in virtue of an arrangement specially concluded.

5. Proceedings shall be opened before the Permanent Court of International Justice in the manner laid down in Article 40 of the Statute of the Court.

7. The parties to a dispute shall bring before the Permanent Court of International Justice any question of international law or question as to the interpretation of the present convention arising during proceedings before the technical body or arbitral tribunal, the decision of which by the Court is, on the demand of one of the parties, declared by the technical body or arbitral tribunal to be necessary for the settlement of the dispute.

* Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 2, pp. 61, 82.

"Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission, Sixth Session, pp. 55-6. League of Nations Document, C. 386. M. 132. 1925. VI.

"League of Nations Official Journal, May, 1925, p. 691. The convention has now been signed by at least thirty-four states or members of the League.

On June 17, 1925, a convention for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War was signed at Geneva, by the representatives of some twenty-two states, including the United States of America, providing (Article 35):96

The high contracting parties agree that disputes arising between them relating to the interpretation or application of this convention shall, if they cannot be settled by direct negotiation, be referred for decision to the Permanent Court of International Justice. In case either or both of the states to such a dispute should not be parties to the Protocol of December 16, 1920, relating to the Permanent Court of International Justice, the dispute shall be referred, at the choice of the parties and in accordance with the constitutional procedure of each state, either to the Permanent Court of International Justice or to a court of arbitration constituted in accordance with the Hague Convention of October 18, 1907, or to some other court of arbitration. The inclusion in this convention of the expression "in accordance with the constitutional procedure of each state," was due to the insistance of the American delegation.

THE SIXTH ASSEMBLY AND THE COURT

At the request of the Danish Government, the following item was placed on the agenda of the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations: "Establishment of a Conciliation Commission attached to the Permanent Court of International Justice." The Danish representative submitted a reasoned statement of the purport of the request, to which was attached a draft proposal for establishing such a conciliation commission. On September 22, 1925, the Assembly decided to postpone this proposal for consideration at a later session of the Assembly.97

On September 14, 1925, M. Buero (Uruguay) submitted the following resolution to the Sixth Assembly:98

The Assembly requests the Council to undertake a detailed examination of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, taking into account the work and experience of the court and the views expressed in parliaments and scientific and other circles, with a view to the jurisdiction of the court being more widely adopted.

When this resolution was discussed in the First Committee, it met with a very cold reception, as a result of which M. Buero accepted an adjournment of its discussion.99

On September 12, 1925, the Swiss delegation to the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations proposed that the Assembly recommend that those states

"League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1925, p. 1119. See the Proceedings of the Conference, League of Nations Document, A. 13. 1925. IX., pp. 31, 49. The convention has been signed by at least twenty-two states or members of the League of Nations.

97 Journal of the Sixth Assembly, p. 192.

98 Verbatim Record of the Sixth Assembly, September 14, 1925, p. 2.

99 Journal of the Sixth Assembly, p. 145.

« PreviousContinue »