1 13 K.A. no. 463, p. 401.

2 For an anecdotal account of the Alabama arbitration, see my “L'Affaire de l'Alabama” written in honour of the centenary of the arbitration and published in the Tribune de Genève of 14 September 1972. Republished in my An International Law Miscellany (1993) 125Google Scholar. During the Mandate period, Palestine was a party in a major international arbitration concerning the Ottoman Public Debt. (1925). I Reports of International Arbitral Awards (hereafter RIAA) 529.

3 For particulars, see Stuyt, A. M., Survey of International Arbitrations 1794-1989 (1990) 35Google Scholar.

4 Ibid., at 260-270.

5 205 Consolidated Treaty Series 250.

6 (1963) 57 Am. J. Intl L. 500CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Communication from the Secretary-General to the Members of the Administrative Council of 9 June 1992, No. C.A.22.653. 92nd Annual Report of the Permanent Court of Arbitration 7 (1992). At the time of writing, work on these Optional Rules has not been completed.

8 Permanent Court of International Justice, Series E, No. 5, 246 (1929).

9 PCIJ, Ser. E, No. 3, 177 (1927); Ibid., No. 7, 276 (1931); No. 13, 145 (1937). When jurisdiction is conferred on the Court after the arbitration proceedings have been commenced and a Member of the Court is a member of the arbitration tribunal, he has to recuse himself from sitting in the Court. This occurred in the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 case. Judge Bedjaoui had been a member of the arbitral tribunal, the validity of whose award was the subject of the dispute brought later before the Court. [1991] ICJ Rep. 53.

10 “Reflections on International Arbitration and Litigation in the International Court”, in An International Law Miscellany (1993) 231Google Scholar; “The International Court of Justice and International Arbitration”, (1993) 6 Leiden J. of Int'l L., special issue, 297CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

11 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, article 287, paragraph 3. Doc. A/ CONF.62/122, Sales No. E.83.V.5; United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982: A Commentary, Volume V, Rosenne, Sh. and Sohn, L.B., eds. (U. of Virginia, Center for Oceans Law and Policy, 1989) 40Google Scholar. On the origin of that provision, see my “UNCLOS III. The Montreux (Riphagen) Compromise)”, in An International Law Miscellany 495 (cited)Google Scholar.

12 The major disputes concerning the law of the sea settled by arbitration during the twentieth century include the following (cases marked * were determined by a Panel of the Permanent Court of Arbitration); the Grisbadarna* case (Norway/Sweden, 1908), XI RIAA 155; North Atlantic Coast Fisheries* case (Great Britain/United States of America, 1909), Ibid., at 173; the I'm Alone case (Canada/United States of America, 1924), III Ibid., at 1613; the Anglo-French Continental Shelf case (France/ United Kingdom, 1977, 1978), XVIII Ibid., at 3; the Guinea/Guinea-Bissau Maritime Delimitation case (1986), 77 International Law Reports (hereafter ILR) 636; the Filleting in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence case (Canada/France, 1986), 82 Ibid., at 590; the Guinea-Bissau/Senegal Maritime Delimitation case (1989), 83 Ibid., at 1; the Delimitation of the Maritime Areas case (Canada/France, 1992), 31 International Legal Materials 1165 (1992). Law of the Sea cases determined by the Permanent Court of International Justice or the International Court of Justice (those marked ** by a Chamber of the present Court) include: the Lotus case (France/Turkey), PCIJ, Ser. A, No. 10 (1927); the Corfu Channel case (United Kingdom v. Albania), [1949] ICJ Rep. 4; the North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Denmark/Federal Republic of Germany, The Netherlands/Federal Republic of Germany), [1969] Ibid., at 3; the Fisheries Jurisdiction cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland, United Kingdom v. Iceland), [1972] Ibid., at 12, 30, [1973] Ibid., at 302, 313, [1974] Ibid., at 3, 175; Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case (Greece v. Turkey), [1976] Ibid., at 3; Tunisia/Libya Continental Shelf case, [1981] Ibid., at 3, [1982] Ibid., at 18, [1985] Ibid., at 192; Libya/Malta Continental Shelf case, [1984] Ibid., at 3, [1985] ibid., at 13; Delimitation in the Gulf of Maine Area case** (Canada/United States of America), [1984] ibid., at 246; Passage through the Great Belt case (Finland v. Denmark), [1991] ibid., at 12; Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute case** (El Salvador/Honduras, Nicaragua intervening), [1990] Ibid., at 92; [1992] ibid., at 351; Maritime Delimitation in the Area between Greenland and Jan Mayen case (Denmark. Norway), [1993] ibid., at 38; Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain case (pending). In addition the Red Crusader case was determined by a Commission of Enquiry operating under the Hague Convention of 1907 (Denmark/United Kingdom, 1962), 35 ILR 485; and the Jan Mayen Continental Shelf Delimitation case (Iceland/Norway, 1981) was settled through a process of conciliation, 62 ibid., at 108.

13 With regard to the Court's being a principal organ of the United Nations, I have also heard of a preference for arbitration in a case where possibly unregistered treaties susceptible to registration under Article 102 of the Charter are or might be relevant. Paragraph 2 of that provision lays down that no party to such an unregistered treaty may invoke it before any organ of the United Nations.

14 Compare on this The Code of Maimonides, Book XIV, The Book of Judges, Treatise I, The Laws concerning the Sanhedrin and the Penalties within their Jurisdiction, XXII, 4: “It is commendable at the outset of a trial to inquire of the litigants whether they desire adjudication according to law or settlement by arbitration. If they prefer arbitration, their wish is granted.” (Yale Judaica Series, Vol. III, 66, trans A. M. Hershman, 1949). See also the Shulhan Arukh, Hoshen Mishpat, Hilkhot Dayyanim [the laws concerning judges], XII:2 (Ketuvim, ed., Jerusalem 1993, 408)Google Scholar. English translation not available. This concept is incorporated in the secular civil procedure of Israel.

15 XVI RIAA 1 (1962). The Governments have agreed not to make the pleadings public, and attempts sometimes found to “reconstruct” that case are unauthorized and as far as I can ascertain, inaccurate.

16 Taba arbitration (1988), 80 ILR 224. See article IX of the Arbitration Compromis (ibid. 354), and paras. 8 to 11 of the Award (p. 242). It is possible that this attempt at conciliation was too closely tied in with the arbitration, and that in most cases of this character it would be preferable to lessen the ties between the conciliation and the arbitration. Essentially they are distinct processes, and the qualifications required for the one are not necessarily those required for the other. The Israeli member of the Tribunal, also critical of the close tie with the arbitration, has stated that in reality this was an attempt at mediation. Lapidoth, R., “Some Reflections on the Taba Award”, (1993) 35 German Yrbk Intl L. 224, at 238Google Scholar.

17 On that fund, see my Documents on the International Court of Justice 903 (First bilingual edition, 1991); Bien-Aimé, T., “A Pathway to The Hague and Beyond: The United Nations Trust Fund Proposal”, (1990) 22 N.Y. Univ. J. Intl L. and Politics 671Google Scholar; Bekker, T., “International Legal Aid in Practice: The ICJ Trust Fund”, (1993) 87 AJIL 659CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The first instance of assistance of this kind was that granted to Chad for the Chad/Libya Territorial Dispute case [1994] ICJ Rep. 6. See the statement of the representative of Chad in the proceedings in the Court on 14 July 1993, CR 93/32, 63-64.

18 Resolution 48/3, 13 October 1993.