Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T14:10:28.475Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eleventh Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

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

Extract

The Permanent Court of International Justice has settled down to continuous hard work. The experimental stage seems now to be passed, and though the revision of the Statute is still pending, the Court has entered upon a period in which attention is to be concentrated on its functioning from month to month. During 1932, the Court was in session for 240 days. The 23rd session, which began on November 5, 1931, and was broken by a recess from December 15,1931, to January 11,1932, was not concluded until February 4, 1932. The 24th session began on February 1, 1932, and was concluded on March 8,1932. The 25th session began on April 18,1932, and continued until August 11,1932.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 27 , Issue 1 , January 1933 , pp. 11 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1933

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

*

In continuation of the series of annual articles begun by the writer in this Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 15.

References

1 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 1135.

2 Id., p. 1137.

3 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 44.

4 For the text of the Paris Convention, see 6 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 189. It is supplemented by the Warsaw Agreement of Oct. 24, 1921. 116 id., p. 5.

5 Paragraph 5 of Article 104 reads as follows: “The Principal Allied and Associated Powers undertake to negotiate a treaty between the Polish Government and the Free City of Danzig, which shall come into force at the same time as the establishment of the said Free City, with the following objects:

“ . . . (5) to provide against any discrimination within the Free City to the detriment of citizens of Poland and other persons of Polish origin or speech.”

6 League of Nations Official Journal, 1923, p. 1008.

7 League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, p. 523.

8 See, also, Kuhn, Arthur K., “The Greco-Bulgarian Inter-Governmental Debts and the Hoover Moratorium,” This Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 572 Google Scholar.

9 For the text of this convention, see 1 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 67.

10 112 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 361; British Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1930), Cmd. 3484.

11 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 2261.

12 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 45.

13 League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, p. 270.

14 Id., p. 1186.

15 Id., p. 1187.

16 See, also, Kuhn, Arthur K., “The Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex,” This Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 801 Google Scholar.

17 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 22. See this Journal, “Vol. 24 (1930), p. 29.

18 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 24. See this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 8.

19 The text of Article 435, paragraph 2, reads as follows: “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.”

20 1 Hertslet, Map of Europe by Treaty, p. 326.

21 Id., p. 346.

22 Id., p. 421.

23 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 46. See also Series C, No. 58.

24 2 Martens, Nouveau Recueil de Traités, p. 656.

25 4 Martens, Nouveau Recueil de Traités, p. 214.

26 Article 2 reads as follows: “Failing the conclusion and ratification of a convention between the two parties within the time specified, the Court shall, by means of a single judgment rendered in accordance with Article 58 of the Court’s Statute, pronounce its decision in regard to the question formulated in Article 1 and settle for a period to be fixed by it and having regard to present conditions, all the questions involved by the execution of paragraph 2 of Article 435 of the Treaty of Versailles.

“Should the judgment contemplate the import of goods free or at reduced rates through the Federal Customs barrier or through the French Customs barrier, regulations of such importation shall only be made with the consent of the two parties.”

27 For the text of the convention and the annexed statute, see 29 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 85; 2 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 1265.

28 League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, p. 540.

29 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 47.

30 Article 17 reads as follows:

“The high contracting parties declare that any member of the Council of the League of Nations shall be entitled to draw the attention of the Council to any infraction of the provisions of the present convention.

“ In the event of any difference of opinion in regard to questions of law or of fact concerning these provisions between the Lithuanian Government and any of the Principal Allied Powers members of the Council of the League of Nations, such difference shall be regarded as a dispute of an international character under the terms of Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations. The Lithuanian Government agrees that all disputes of this kind shall, if the other party so requests, be referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice. There shall be no appeal from the Permanent Court’s decision, which shall have the force and value of a decision rendered in virtue of Article 13 of the Covenant.”

31 League of Nations Official Journal, 1926, p. 1424.

32 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 49.

33 See this Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 17. See also Preuss, Lawrence, “The Dispute between Denmark and Norway over the Sovereignty of East Greenland,” This Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 469 Google Scholar.

34 On Dec. 8,1932, the Court ordered that the hearings be resumed on Jan. 16,1933.

35 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 48.

36 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 48.

37 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 203.

38 4 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 2529; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 204.

39 For the text of the convention, see 118 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 365.

40 League of Nations Official Journal, 1931, p. 228.

41 Id., 1931, p. 1151.

42 Id., 1931, p. 2263.

43 League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, pp. 510-513.

44 Id., p. 1201.

45 Ibid.

46 League of Nations Official Journal, 1932, p. 1169.

47 For the text of the convention, see 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 412. On September 14, 1932, ratifications of this convention had been deposited by: Albania, Austria, Belgium, Great Britain, Bulgaria, Chile, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, France, Greece, Hungary, India, Irish Free State, Italy, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Netherlands, Portugal, Rumania, South Africa, Switzerland and Yugoslavia.

48 Publications of the Court, Series A/B, Fascicule No. 50.

49 It is the opinion of the writer that a draft convention adopted by the International Labor Conference becomes a convention on its coming into force. See 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 392. This view seems to be confirmed by the Court’s speaking of the “convention” concerning employment of women during the night. The Court wisely refrains from ventilating any question as to the consequences of the fact that the Washington Labor Conference was held before Part XIII of the Treaty of Versailles came into force.

50 For the text proposed, see 1 Proceedings of the International Labor Conference, Fifteenth Session, p. 727. The vote on the proposed amendment was 74 to 40, and it therefore lacked the necessary two-thirds majority by two votes. Id., pp. 476–478.

51 The writer acted as rapporteur for the drafting committee at the Washington Conference in 1919. He is in accord with Lord Halsbury’s statement in Hilder v. Dexter [1902] A. C. 474, 477, that “the worst person to construe “ a statute or a text “ is the person who is responsible for its drafting.” Yet he entirely subscribes to the Court’s statement as to the indications of this report. For the text of the report, see the Proceedings of the International Labor Conference, 1919, p. 178.

52 Agreement No. II on the Financial Obligations of Hungary resulting from the Treaty of Trianon. 121 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 81; Supplement to this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 24. Article 10 of this agreement reads as follows: “Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Roumania, of the one part, and Hungary, of the other part, agree to I recognise, without any special agreement, a right of appeal to the Permanent Court of International Justice from all judgments on questions of jurisdiction or merits which may be given henceforth by the Mixed Arbitral Tribunals in all proceedings other than those referred to in Article 1 of the present agreement.

“The right of appeal may be exercised by written application by either of the two governments between which the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal is constituted, within three months from the notification to its Agent of the judgment of the said Tribunal.”

53 See Deák, Francis, “Computation of Time in International Law,” This Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), p. 502 Google Scholar.

54 72d Cong., 1st Seas., Senate Report No. 758. For a comment on this report, see Hudson, Manley O., “The World Court Protocols before the United States Senate,” This Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 569 Google Scholar.

55 See Hudson, Mauley O., “The Cuban Reservations and the Revision of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” This Journal, Vol. 26 (1932), p. 590 Google Scholar.

56 Verbatim Record, Oct. 14,1932, p. 7.

57 League of Nations Document, A. 27. 1932. V.

58 The revision protocol provides, paragraph 7: “For the purposes of the present protocol, the United States of America shall be in the same position as a state which has ratified the Protocol of December 16, 1920.” For the text, see 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 582. The effect of paragraph 7 can doubtless be avoided by the agreement of all states or members of the League of Nations which have ratified the Protocol of December 16, 1920.

59 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, pp. 104–119.

60 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 8, pp. 47–51.

61 League of Nations Document, A. 40. 1932. X.