1 There are two cases pending before the Court, namely: Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council (India v. Pakistan), see I.C.J. Communiqué No. 71/12, Sept. 16, 1971. For background of the case instituted by India on Aug. 30, 1971, see ibid., No. 71/11, Sept. 1, 1971. On April 14, 1972, the United Kingdom instituted proceedings against Iceland relating to the latter’s decision to extend as of September, 1972, the exclusive fishing limits to a distance of fifty miles. I.C.J. Communiqué No. 72/2, April 14,1972.

2 To wit: Argentina, Canada, Finland, Italy, Japan, Liberia, Mexico, Uruguay, Australia, Ivory Coast, the United Kingdom. Doc. A/8042, Aug. 14, 1970, and Add. 1 and 2.

3 Ibid., p. 3, par. 1.

4 Ibid., par. 2. The initiative of the twelve Members was followed by the decision of the American Society of International Law to establish a Panel on the Future of the International Court of Justice. Judge Philip C. Jessup was Chainnan of the Panel until the autumn of 1971. He was succeeded by Ambassador Edvard Hambro. The present writer serves as Rapporteur of the Panel.

5 Doc. A/8238, Dec. 11, 1970.

6 Ibid., p. 27, pars. 69–71.

7 GAOR, 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28(A/8028), p. 128.

8 See Docs. A/C.6/L.800/Rev. 1 and A/C.6/L.808/Rev. 2, in Report of the Sixth Committee, Doc. A/8238, pp. 5, 9.

9 Doc. A/8238, p. 24, par. 63.

10 The conditions for coming into force of amendments to the Statute of the Court are laid down in General Assembly Res. 2520(XXIV) of Dec. 4, 1969. GAOR, 24th Sess., Supp. No. 30 (A/7630), p. 4.

11 See Review of the Rôle of the International Court of Justice, Report of the Secretary General, Doc. A/8382, Sept. 15, 1971, p. 4. Although a copy of the questionnaire was transmitted to the Registrar of the Court by the Legal Counsel of the United Nations, the Court, under par. 3 of the Resolution, was invited “to state its views, should it so desire,” irrespective of the questionnaire. The letter from the President of the Court to the Secretary General, dated June 18, 1971, is printed in 1970–1971, I.C.J. Yearbook, 116, and Doc. A/8382, p. 130.

12 Namely: I. The role of the International Court of Justice within the framework of the United Nations; II. Organization of the Court; III. Jurisdiction of the Court; and IV. Procedures and methods of work of the Court. Doc. A/8382, cited note 11 above, p. 6.

13 This, at any rate, was the conviction of the Society’s Panel on the Future of the Court. After due deliberation, the Chairman of the Panel, acting on its behalf, in the summer of 1971 addressed a communication to legal officers of the states which received the questionnaire, as well as to the President of the Court. Accompanying it was a reasoned Memorandum on “The Future of the International Court of Justice” and a “Summary of Points.” In the Panel’s view the establishment of an ad hoc committee to advance the study of the Court was “profoundly desirable.”

14 The Report of the Secretary General, Doc. A/8382, is cited, note 11 above. The responses received from the United Kingdom and Senegal are reproduced in Doc. A/8382/ Add. 1, the responses from Ivory Coast, Turkey and New Zealand are ibid., Add. 2–4, respectively.

15 For citation see note 10 above.

16 Doc. A/8382, note 11 above, p. 124, par. 375.

17 Doc. A/C.6/407, Oct. 11, 1971.

18 “He hopes,” he said, “that in the same spirit of courtesy other States which had been the victims of discrimination would be allowed to participate in the activities of the United Nations.” Doc. A/C.6/SR.1279, Nov. 16, 1971, p. 2. One wonders whether the Soviet delegate had in mind states parties to the Statute of the Court which are not Members of the United Nations or only certain non-member states.

19 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1283, Nov. 19, 1971, p. 8.

20 Review of the Rôle of the International Court of Justice. Report of the Sixth Committee. Doc. A/8568, Dec. 10, 1971, pp. 4–8.

21 Ibid., p. 28.

22 A/PV.2019, Dec. 15, 1971, pp. 3–5.

23 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1294, Dec. 3, 1971, p. 6.

24 Report, Doc. A/8568, cited note 20 above, p. 27, par. 67. The “unalterable opposition” to any revision of the Charter should, of course, be taken with some grains of salt. For at the same Twenty-Sixth Session the General Assembly adopted on Dec. 20, 1971, an amendment to the Charter which would increase the membership of the Economic and Social Council from 27 to 54 (Res. 2847(XXVI)). U.N. Press Release GA/4548, Dec. 28, 1971, Part IV, p. 63.

25 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1283, pp. 8–9. Italics supplied.

26 See Leo Gross, “The International Court of Justice: Consideration of Requirements for Enhancing Its Rôle in the International Legal Order,” 65 A.J.I.L. 253, passim (1971). See also “What Future for the International Court of Justice?” Proceedings, American Society of International Law, 65 A.J.I.L. 261–285 (Sept., 1971).

27 Docs. A/8238, note 5 above, and A/8568, note 20 above.

28 E.g., Cyprus, the United States, Switzerland, Sweden, Doc. A/8382, pars. 113, 116, 120–123.

29 Report, Doc. A/8568, note 20 above, p. 15, par. 30. The significance of the proposal emerges with greater clarity from the following passage: “The Court’s composition should therefore be enlarged or modified so that it would reflect the structure of the international community. In that respect, the view was expressed that the criterion of geographical distribution was difficult to define: rather than referring to the principal legal systems of the world, it would have been preferable to speak of legal cultures, since the old dichotomy of the Anglo-Saxon and Roman systems had been superceded in part of the western hemisphere with the emergence of an independent Latin American legal culture which had made far-reaching contributions to international law. Similarly, the young countries of Africa were forging their own legal culture. In considering the share which should fall to any legal culture in the composition of the Court, it was suggested that the guiding consideration should be a judicious balance between them all, and not the number of States which subscribed to any one.” Report, note 5 above, par. 37. See also note 11 above, par. 112 (Yugoslavia).

30 Senegal, Doc. A/8382/Add.1, p. 11, par. 4.

31 Cyprus, Doc. A/8382, p. 58, par. 160.

32 Ibid., pp. 58–60, pars. 161–166.

33 Switzerland and Sweden in Doc. A/8382, pp. 60–62, pars. 167–172, and Israel in Doc. A/C.6/SR.1278/Corr. 1, p. 3.

34 Mexico and Switzerland in Doc. A/8382, p. 116, pars. 348–349, New Zealand, ibid., Add. 4, p. 4.

35 United States in Doc. A/8382, p. 115, par. 346, Sweden, ibid., p. 116, par. 350, Canada, ibid., p. 126, par. 380, Turkey, ibid., Add. 3, p. 5, par. 18, and New Zealand, ibid., Add. 4, p. 4; Japan in Doc. A/C.6/SR.1280, p. 9, and Turkey, ibid., SR.1283, p. 21.

36 United States in Doc. A/8382, p. 105, par. 322, Switzerland, ibid., pp. 106–110, pars. 323–332, Sweden, ibid., p. 111 , par. 333, Canada, ibid., par. 334, Austria, ibid., par. 335, United Kingdom, ibid., Add. 1, pp. 8–9, pars. 22–23. The Swiss Government suggested that “in the absence of any imperative reason to the contrary, an objection relating to the existence of compulsory jurisdiction should be ruled upon as a preliminary matter, whereas an objection regarding the extent of a compulsory jurisdiction that has already been established can more conveniently be joined to the merits of the case. The adoption of such a rule would not necessarily require an amendment to the Statute, but could take the form of a recommendation in a resolution.” Ibid., p. 110, par. 332.

37 Report, Doc. A/8283, cited note 5 above, p. 14, par. 32.

38 [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6, at 51–57.

39 Switzerland in Doc. A/8382, p. 118, par. 353.

40 Doc. A/8382, p. 37, par. 100. The United States went on to state: “A judgment based on less than a two-thirds majority might be delivered in declaratory form, on the basis of which the parties would negotiate a settlement. This alternative might be studied further.” Indeed, further study of this surprising suggestion would seem eminently desirable. For a reasoned statement in favor of declaratory judgments see Switzerland, ibid., pp. 81–85, pars. 238–247.

41 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1278/Corr. 1, pp. 3–4.

42 Laos, in Doc. A/8382, p. 66, par. 184. But see the comment of the same government, ibid., p. 120, par. 359, which indicates that there may be a misunderstanding in the use of the term “compulsory.”

43 Doc. A/8382, p. 68, par. 191; see also Ambassador Hambro (Norway), in Doc. A/C.6/SR.1279, p. 8.

44 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1279, pp. 11–12; see also Finland, (bid., SR.1277, p. 6.

45 E.g., Cyprus, Denmark, Guatemala, the United States, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Argentina, Finland, Mexico, the United Kingdom, in Doc. A/8382, pp. 70–77, and ibid., Add. 1, p. 6. See also Greece, Norway and Turkey in Doc. A/C.6/SR.1279, pp. 6, 7 and ibid., SR.1283, p. 20.

46 Doc. A/8382/Add. 1, p. 7, pars. 14–15.

47 E.g., France, Doc. A/8382, pp. 76–77, pars. 220–222.

48 E.g., Cyprus, Laos, Denmark, Guatemala, United States, Argentina, Italy, Finland, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, Madagascar, Iraq, Austria, Yugoslavia, Belgium, in Doc. A/8382, pp. 90–101.

49 The United Kingdom, in this context, recalled that the Committee on Applications for the Review of Administrative Tribunal Judgments established by General Assembly Resolution 957(X), provides a precedent. Doc. A/8382/Add. 1, p. 7, par. 16. See also Canada, Doc. A/8382, p. 98, par. 292.

50 Doc. A/8382, p. 98, par. 291. This idea merited consideration in the opinion of the Austrian Delegation, see Doc. A/C.6/SR.1278, p. 12.

51 [1971] I.C.J. Rep. 16.

52 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1283, p. 18. See also statements by Iran, ibid., p. 10, Afghanistan, ibid., p. 16, Sudan, ibid., p. 6.

53 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1279, p. 7. Italics supplied.

54 Doc. A/C.6/SR.1278/Corr. 1, p. 2. For a summary of views on the state of international law, see also Report A/8238, cited note 5 above, pp. 14–15; Report A/8568, cited note 20 above, pp. 13–15; and Report A/8382, cited note 11 above, pp. 22–27.

55 See remarks by the representative of Israel, Doc. A/C.6/SR.1278/Corr. 1, p. 3.

56 Doc. A/8382, p. 130, and 1970–1971 I.CJ. Yearbook 116. In this connection it may not be amiss to quote the comment by Iraq on the question of the future action of the General Assembly: “Under the Charter, the General Assembly could request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on legal questions. Surely, the Statute of the International Court of Justice is pre-eminently such a question. Consequently, the General Assembly could, if it so decides, request an advisory opinion from the Court on the question of the latter’s Statute and Rules.” Doc. A/8382, p. 129, par. 389. With respect, what is the question?

57 See the remarks of the delegate of Israel, Doc. A/C.6/SR.1278, Corr. 1, p. 3.

58 Engel, Salo, “Annual Reports of the International Court of Justice to the General Assembly?” 44 Brit. Yr. Bk. Int. La 193–201 (1970)Google Scholar.

59 1970–1971 I.C.J. Yearbook 87.

60 Doc. 8382/Add. 1, cited note 11 above, p. 9, par. 24.

61 As it did on a previous occasion in the wake of the Court’s judgment in the South West Africa cases. See Leo Gross, “The International Court of Justice and the United Nations,” 120 Hague Academy of International Law, Recueil des Cours 324 f. (I, 1967).