Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-dnltx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T02:13:22.225Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Twelfth Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

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

Extract

The twelfth year of the Permanent Court of International Justice has not been marked by a large number of judgments and opinions, but in the Eastern Greenland Case the Court had the greatest triumph which it has achieved down to this time. During the year 1933, the Court was in session for 178 days. The 26th session of the Court, which had begun on October 14, 1932 and in which a recess was taken on December 16,1932, was resumed on January 16, 1933, and continued until April 5, 1933. The 27th session, the ordinary annual session, began on February 1 and continued until April 19, 1933. The 28th session was held from May 10 to May 16, and the 29th session from July 10 to July 29,1933. The 30th session began on October 20, 1933, and continued until December 15,1933.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 1934 , pp. 1 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1934

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

1

This is the twelfth in the series of annual articles on the work of the Court, begun by the writer in this JOURNAL, Vol. 17 (1923), p. 15.—ED.

References

1 For the text of the agreement, see Series C, No. 61, p. 10.

2 Series C, No. 61, p. 9. The Turkish representative declared “in conformity with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 35 of the Rules of Court” that the jurisdiction of the Court was accepted for the particular case. The requirement in the resolution adopted by the Council of the League of Nations on May 17, 1922, is slightly different, but as the text of that resolution was annexed to paragraph 2 of Art. 35 of the Rules, the declaration was not inadequate.

3 By orders of Nov. 30,1931, March 8,1932, and June 23,1932. Series C, No. 61, p. 33 ff.

4 Registered with the Secretariat of the League of Nations, No. 3191, May 24, 1933.

5 Series A/B, No. 51.

6 Series A/B, No. 52.

7 In addition to his convocation of the Court, the President telegraphed to the Polish Minister for Foreign Affairs, “suggesting to him the desirability of considering the possibility of suspending any contemplated measures of constraint directed against the Prince von Pless pending the meeting of the Court and pending its decision” on the German application. Series E, No. 9, p. 165, note. In other words, the President felt it to be his duty to exercise a conciliatory function in the circumstances.

8 Series A/B, No. 54.

9 Series A/B, No. 57. The publication of this order in the A/B series seems to be a departure.

10 Series A/B, No. 59.

11 On a previous occasion, doubt had been expressed as to the propriety of such appointments of diplomats in active service. Series C, No. 16-111, p. 811.

12 Series A/B, No. 53. See the comment by Charles Cheney Hyde, in this journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 732.

13 1 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 194.

14 For the text of Mr. Lansing's declaration of Aug. 4,1916, see 3 United States Treaties and Conventions, p. 2564; U. S. Foreign Relations, 1917, p. 700; this JOUBNAL, Supplement, Vol. 11 (1917), p. 59.

15 For the text, see 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 203.

16 7 British and Foreign State Papers, p. 294.

17 See James W. Garner, “The international binding force of unilateral oral obligations,” this journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 493.

18 For an interesting discussion of the effect of constitutional requirements on the engagements of a state, see Castberg, “Le Conflit entre le Danemark et la Norwège concemant le Groeriland,” 5 Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée (1924), pp. 252, 261-262.

19 Norsk Lovtidende, 2nen. avdeling, 1933, p. 134.

20 Series A/B, No. 48.

21 ibid. See this journal, Vol. 27 (1933), p. 29.

22 See note 19, supra.

23 Series A/B, No. 55.

24 For the text of this agreement, see 121 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 81; this journal, Vol. 25 (1931), Supplement, p. 24.

25 Series A/B, No. 56.

26 Series A/B, No. 58.

27 Series A/B, No. 60.

28 For the text of this agreement, see 121 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 81; this Journal, Vol. 25 (1931), Supplement, p. 24.

29 Series E, No. 9, p. 172.

30 Series A/B, No. 61.

31 Article 10 reads as follows: “Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Roumania, of the one part, and Hungary, of the other part, agree to recognize, 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.“

32 Article 250 reads as follows: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 232 and the Annex to Section IV the property, rights and interests of Hungarian nationals or companies controlled by them situated in the territories which formed part of the former Austro-Hungarian Monarchy shall not be subject to retention or liquidation in accordance with these provisions. “Such property, rights and interests shall be restored to their owners freed from any measure of this kind, or from any other measure of transfer, compulsory administration or sequestration, taken since November 3rd, 1918, until the coming into force of the present treaty, in the condition in which they were before the application of the measures in question. “Claims made by Hungarian nationals under this article shall be submitted to the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal provided for by Article 239. “The property, rights and interests here referred to do not include property which is the subject of Article 191, Part IX (Financial Clauses). “Nothing in this article shall affect the provisions laid down in Part VIII (Reparation) Section I, Annex III, as to property of Hungarian nationals in ships and boats.“

33 Cf., Series A, No. 7, pp. 32, 33.

34 This assumes that no objection to the coming into force of the amendments will be made by the United States.

35 Series E, No. 9, p. 168.

36 League of Nations Official Journal, 1933, p. 1189.

37 The Accession Protocol of September 14,1929 would create for the United States a special privilege of withdrawing its adherence. See 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 596.

38 If the Revision Protocol of September 14,1929 comes into force, the new text of Article 4 of the Statute will take care of this situation. See 1 Hudson, International Legislation, p. 584.