1. Cf. at global level: Resolution 1 (XXIV) of 13 August 1971 of the UN Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, Article 4(b), pursuant to ECOSOC Resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 27 May 1970, Article 6(b)(1); UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 41(c); Optional Protocol to the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Articles 2 and 5(2)(b); UN International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Articles 11(3) and 14(7)(a); Rules of Procedure of the UN Trusteeship Council, Rule 81. And, at regional level: European Convention on Human Rights, Articles 26 and 27(3); Statute of the OAS Inter-American Commission of Human Rights, Article 9(bis)(d); Regulations of the Inter-American Commission, Article 54; American Convention on Human Rights (not yet in force), Article 46(1)(a) and (2)(b).

2. Rolin, Henri, “Le contrôle international des juridictions nationales”, Revue belge de droit international [1968] p. 182, see pp. 182/185.Google Scholar

3. Biays, P., “La Commission centrale du Rhine”, Revue générate de Droit international public [1952] pp. 223/278Google Scholar; van Eysinga, W.J.M., “La Commission centrale pour la navigation du Rhin”, Leyden, Sijthoff, 1935, pp. 103 and 234/277Google Scholar; Hostie, J., “Le statut international du Rhin”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1929]-III, pp. 203/209Google Scholar; Walther, H., “Le statut international de la navigation du Rhin”, Annuaire Européen/European Yearbook [1956] pp. 10/31.Google Scholar The functions of the Commission are listed in Article 45 of the Mannheim Convention.

4. Cf. Articles 33 to 40 of the 1963 Mannheim Convention, esp. Articles 34 and 35.

5. Walther, H., op.cit. supra n. 3, pp. 23/24Google Scholar; and see van Eysinga, W.J.M., op.cit. supra n. 3, pp. 85/87 and 123/130.Google Scholar

6. Biays, P., op.cit. supra n.3, pp. 269 and 254/255.Google Scholar

7. On conflict of competence, see Walther, Henri, “La révision de la Convention de Mannheim pour la navigation du Rhin”, Annuaire français de Droit international [1965] pp. 815/818.Google Scholar

8. Article 45(bis) of the 1963 Revision Convention.

9. Cf. cases reported in European Yearbook, volumes XI et seq.

10. Cf. Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences-Conference of 1907, vol. II, Meetings of the 1st Commission/2nd Sub-Commission, Oxford, University Press, 1921, pp. 781/848 and 1051/1086.Google Scholar The vote against the project was cast by Brazil, dissatisfied with its share in the appointment of judges (cf. statements by Mr. Ruy Barbosa in ibid., pp. 796/798, 827/831 and 843/846); the six abstentions were cast by Japan, Russia, Turkey, Siam, Venezuela and the Dominican Republic (ibid., pp. 781sol;848 and 1051/1086).

11. Proceedings, vol. II, pp. 791 and 794.Google Scholar

12. Ibid., pp. 791/792 and 794; a further inconvenience was to have decisions of the highest national court exposed to annulment by an International Court (p. 792).

13. Ibid., pp. 794/795.

14. Ibid., p. 795.

15. Ibid., pp. 801/802.

16. For some of the difficulties, see: Gregory, C.N., “The Proposed International Prize Court and Some of Its Difficulties”, American Journal of International Law [1908] p. 459Google Scholar; Curtius, F.D., “La Cour Internationale de prises”, Revue de Droit international et de legislation comparée [1909] pp. 5/36Google Scholar; Brown, H.B., “The Proposed International Prize Court”, American Journal of International Law [1908] pp. 476/489Google Scholar; Diena, G., “L'individu devant l'autorité judiciaire et le Droit international”, Revue générate de Droit international public [1909] pp. 73/76.Google Scholar

17. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras and Guatemala.

18. Hudson, M.O., “The Central American Court of Justice”, American Journal of International Law [1932] pp. 785/786Google Scholar; Scott, J. Brown, “The Central American Peace Conference of 1907”, American Journal of International Law [1908] p. 141.Google Scholar

19. In all the five inter-State cases, namely, Honduras v. Guatemala and El Salvador (1908)Google Scholar, 1910 Revolution in Nicaragua (1910)Google Scholar, 1912 Revolution in Nicaragua (1912)Google Scholar, El Salvador v. Nicaragua (1916)Google Scholar, and Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (1916)Google Scholar, – the Court consistently tried to see first that different means of negotiation had been duly exhausted. In the last of the above cases a resolution was adopted stating inter alia that that requirement had been met. Cf. Anales de la Corte de Justicia Centroamericana, V, n. 14/16, pp. 87/89Google Scholar, cit. in. Hudson, M.O., op.cit. supra n. 18, p. 774, see pp. 768/776.Google Scholar But the local remedies rule proper was raised in cases brought to the Court by individuals.

20. Anales, I, n. 3, pp. 199/214Google Scholar, cit. in: Hudson, M.O., op.cit. supra n. 18, pp. 770/771.Google Scholar

21. Anales, IV, ns. 9/111, pp. 1/119Google Scholar, cit. in: ibid., pp. 772/773.

22. Anales, IV, ns. 11/13, pp. 1/12Google Scholar, cit. in: ibid., p. 773.

23. Cit. in: ibid., p. 770.

24. Anales, III, ns. 1/8, pp. 26/67Google Scholar, cit. in: ibid., p. 772.

25. Cit. in: ibid., p. 772.

26. For an evaluation, cf. Hudson, M.O., op.cit. supra n. 18, p. 785Google Scholar and sources cited therein; also von der Heydte, F.A., “L'individu et les tribunaux internationaux”, Recueil des Cours de l'Academie de Droit International [1962]-III, p. 321.Google Scholar

27. Cf. League of Nations Official Journal [1932–1933], special supplement, n. 106, p. 169.Google Scholar

28. Council resolutions of 25 October 1920, 27 June 1921, 5 September 1923, 10 June 1925, and 13 June 1929.

29. League of Nations docs. C.24.M.18.1929.I, and C.8.M.5.1931.I.

30. Cf. ibid.

31. League of Nations Official Journal [1923] p. 1431.Google Scholar

32. League of Nations docs. C.24.M.18.1929.I, and C.8.M.5.1931.I.

33. League of Nations Official Journal [1923] pp. 480/483, 717/718, 1071/1072 and 1291/1293.Google Scholar In his 1923 Hague course (op.cit. infra n. 43, pp. 478 and 480) Mandelstam deemed it desirable to include the local remedies rule in the procedure for minorities petitions, but, as already observed, Council Resolution of 1923 decided otherwise.

34. League of Nations Official Journal [1923] pp. 1426/1431.Google Scholar And in the same sense: PCIJ, German Settlers in Poland case, Series B, n. 6, 1923, pp. 22/23Google Scholar. Rapporteur Rio Branco also reminded that if recourse to the League was rendered needlessly difficult to petitioners, the dangers of minorities appealing directly to a neighbouring State would be increased; cf. League of Nations Official Journal [1923] p. 1430.Google Scholar

35. League of Nations doc. C.C.M.1, report of the Committee instituted by Council Resolution of 7 March 1929; and League of Nations Official Journal [1929], special supplement, n. 73, p. 61.Google Scholar

36. League of Nations Official Journal [1929], special supplement, n. 73, p. 57.Google Scholar See also the Mello Franco report of 1925, in League of Nations Official Journal [1925] p. 879.Google Scholar

37. Composed of six jurists; cf. League of Nations Official Journal [1932] p. 1421.Google Scholar

38. Cf. ibid., p. 1422.

39. For the Jurists' reasons, cf. ibid., p. 1423. For different reasons of a political nature, however, the Jurists' report was not accepted by the Council; cf. criticisms in: Kopelmanas, L., “Du conflit entie le traité international et la loi interne”, Revue de Droit international et de législation comparee [1937] p. 120.Google Scholar

40. Cf. PCIJ's dictum in the Minority Schools in Albania case, Series A/B, n. 64, 1935, p. 17Google Scholar; cf. further PCIJ, German Settlers in Poland case, Series B, n. 6, 1923, p. 25.Google Scholar

41. de Azcárate, P., “League of Nations and National Minorities: an Experiment”, Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1945, pp. 123/130Google Scholar; Stone, J., “International Guarantees of Minorities Rights”, London, Oxford University Press, 1932, p. 56Google Scholar; Stone, J., “The Legal Nature of Minorities Petition”, British Year Book of International Law [1931] pp. 76/88.Google Scholar

42. As stated by a Committee of Jurists in an Opinion of 1928: League of Nations Official Journal [1928] p. 1493.Google Scholar

43. League of Nations Official Journal [1929]Google Scholar, special supplement, n. 73, pp. 15/16. And see: Mandelstam, A., “La protection des minorités”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1923]–I, pp. 468 and 478/480Google Scholar; Feinberg, N., “La pétition en Droit international”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1932]-II, p. 609Google Scholar; Nøbrgaard, C.A., “The Position of the Individual in International Law”, Copenhagen, Munksgaard, 1962, p. 114.Google Scholar

44. This is not the same as stating that the minorities system was devoid of any judicial element. This latter was present in the possibility of the Council and its members resorting to the PCIJ for consultation. Stone, J., “International Guarantees …”, op.cit. supra n. 41, p. 266.Google Scholar

45. They thus became the “usual forum” of the League in matters concerning minorities protection; de Azcárate, P., op.cit. supra n. 41, pp. 111/113.Google Scholar

46. Cf. Mandelstam, A., op.cit. supra n. 43, pp. 512/513Google Scholar; de Azcárate, P., op.cit. supra n. 41, p. 134.Google Scholar On the minorities system as a transitional experiment in the process towards generalization of recognition and protection of human rights, cf. Scelle, G., “Précis de Droit des Gens-principes et systématique”, part II, Paris, Sirey, 1934, pp. 252/255Google Scholar; and see also Ganji, M., “International Protection of Human Rights”, Geneva, Droz, 1962, p. 48.Google Scholar

47. Signed in Geneva on 15 May 1922, came into force on 15 June 1922. Cf. League of Nations Official Journal [1922]-I, p. 542, and II, p. 806.Google Scholar

48. By Resolution of 8 September 1928 and by the 1929 Paris agreement; League of Nations Official Journal [1928] pp. 1492/1493 and [1929] pp. 993/995Google Scholar, respectively. And cf. comments in Kaeckenbeeck, Georges, “The International Experiment of Upper Silesia”, London, Oxford University Press, 1942, p. 359.Google Scholar

49. League of Nations doc. C.366.1933.I, in: League of Nations Official Journal [1933]-II, pp. 934/935.Google Scholar But see the Adatci report on a petition under Article 147 brought by the Zwiazek Palakov (1928)Google Scholar, and on another such petition lodged by the Deutscher Volksbund (1928)Google Scholar, in: League of Nations Official Journal [1929] p. 556 and [1928] p. 1675, respectively.Google Scholar

50. See Kopelmanas, L., op.cit. supra n. 39, p. 120.Google Scholar

51. League of Nations Official Journal [1933]-II, p. 813.Google Scholar

52. League of Nations doc. C.323.1933.I, in: League of Nations Official Journal [1933]-II, pp. 813/814.Google Scholar

53. Article 148 of the Geneva Convention on Upper Silesia of 1922.

54. Article 152(2) of the Upper Silesian Convention.

55. Articles 152 and 153 of the Upper Silesian Convention.

56. Stone, J., “Regional Guarantees of Minority Rights – A Study of Minorities Procedure in Upper Silesia”, New York, MacMillan, 1933, pp. 202/203Google Scholar; Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, pp. 534 and 254.Google Scholar

57. Stone, J., op.cit. supra n. 56, pp. 203/206 and 13Google Scholar; Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, pp. 499 and 28/29.Google Scholar

58. Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, p. 86Google Scholar, and, on the non-necessity to exhaust domestic remedies see ibid., p. 93, and cf. further, p. 360 n. 5 and p. 361 n. 1.

59. On the subject, see Korowicz, M.St., “La personnalité internationale de l'individu d'après la Convention relative à la Haute-Silésie (1922–1937)”, Revue internationale française du Droit des Gens [1938] pp. 13/14.Google Scholar

60. Steiner and Gross v. Polish State case, in: Decisions of the Upper Silesian Arbitral Tribunal, vol. I, n. 1/2, pp. 1/36Google Scholar, cit. in: Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases (ed. McNair and Lauterpacht) [1927–1928] pp. 291/292 and 418.Google Scholar

61. Ibid., in: Annual Digest [1927–1928] pp. 472/473.Google Scholar And see also the Niederstrasser v. Polish State case (1931, similar claim)Google Scholar, in: Annual Digest [1931–1932] pp. 66/68.Google Scholar

62. Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, p. 486Google Scholar; Korowicz, M.St., op.cit. supra n. 59, pp. 14/15.Google Scholar

63. Article 588 (1)(2) of the Geneva Convention on Upper Silesia of 1922.

64. Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, p. 29 n. 1.Google Scholar

65. Evocation case E.2/28, cit. in: Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, p. 489 n. 1.Google Scholar

66. Article 688(4) of the Geneva Convention on Upper Silesia of 1922.

67. Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, p. 395 n. 2 and p. 487.Google Scholar

68. Evocation case Beier, in: Decisions of the Upper Silesian Arbitral Tribunal, vol. II, pp. 2ss.Google Scholar, cit. in: Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, p. 395 n. 2.Google Scholar

69. Korowicz, M.St., “Une expérience en Droit international: la protection des minorités de Haute-Silésie”, Paris, Pédone, 1946, pp. 95, 109 and 114Google Scholar; Kaeckenbeeck, G., op.cit. supra n. 48, pp. 481/496 and 847/851Google Scholar; Stone, J., op.cit. supra n. 56, pp. 12 and 206Google Scholar; de Azcárate, P., op.cit. supra n. 41, pp. 154/157Google Scholar; Korowicz, M.St., “The Problem of the International Personality of Individuals”, American Journal of International Law [1956] pp. 553/557.Google Scholar -For other procedures under the Upper Silesian system, see Article 72(2) and (3) of the Convention, and see further account in: Korowicz, M.St., “Une experience.…”, op.cit., pp. 29/34.Google Scholar

70. On the non-applicability of the local remedies rule in minorities [Upper Silesian] matters, cf. the Administration of the Prince von Pless case (1932–1933), PCIJ, Series A/B, n. 52; Series C, n. 70.

71. League of Nations Official Journal [1921] pp. 701/702.Google Scholar

72. League of Nations Official Journal [1920] pp. 49 and 51Google Scholar, and League of Nations doc. 1/23071/27099 Annex A.

73. League of Nations Official Journal [1925] pp. 863 and 950.Google Scholar

74. PCIJ, Series B, n. 15, pp. 17/18 and 26/27.

75. League of Nations Official Journal [1923] p. 300.Google Scholar And see further the subsequent Undén report (touching also on mandates petitions), in: League of Nations Official Journal [1925]-II, pp. 1364/1366 and 1509/1512.Google Scholar

76. Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes of the Sixteenth Session, 11 1929, p. 80Google Scholar; Minutes of the Eighteenth Session, 06/07 1930, p. 175.Google Scholar And cf. comments in: Bentwich, N., “The Mandates System”, London, Longmans, 1930, p. 114Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “Mandates under the League of Nations”, Chicago, University Press, 1930, pp. 169/172Google Scholar; Van Rees, D.F.W., “Les mandats internationaux - le contrôle international de l'administration mandataire”, vol. I, Paris, Rousseau & Cie., 1927, p. 99.Google Scholar

77. Cf. criticisms in: Sibert, M., “Sur la procédure en matière de pétition dans les pays sous mandatet quelques-unes de ses insuffisances”, Revue générale de Droit international public [1933] pp. 257/272.Google Scholar

78. Permanent Mandates Commission, Minutes of the Thirty-Fourth Session, 06 1938, Annex 16, p. 217.Google Scholar

79. P.M.C., Minutes of the Twenty-Third Session, 06/07 1933, Annex 20, p. 184.Google Scholar

80. P.M.C., Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Session, 06 1935, Annex 30, p. 219.Google Scholar

81. P.M.C., Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Session, 10/11 1935, Annex 11, p. 190.Google Scholar

82. P.M.C., Minutes of the Twenty-Eighth Session, Annex 15, pp. 124 and 193/194.Google Scholar

83. P.M.C., Minutes of the Twenty-Seventh Session, 06 1935, pp. 180/181.Google Scholar

84. P.M.C., Minutes of the Twenty-Third Session, 06/07 1933, Annex 15, pp. 174/176.Google Scholar

85. Even though in a self-restrained way it refused to comment on the policy involved in the case; P.M.C., Minutes of the Thirty-Sixth Session, 06 1939, Annex 13, pp. 272/273 and 248.Google Scholar

86. P.M.C., Minutes of the Sixteenth Session, 11 1929, pp. 26/27.Google Scholar

87. Cf., e.g., Diena, G., “Les mandats internationaux”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1924]-IV, pp. 246/261Google Scholar; Wright, Quincy, “The Mandates in 1938”, American Journal of International Law [1939] pp. 342/349Google Scholar; Feinberg, N., “La juridiction et la jurisprudence de la Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale en matière de mandats et de minorités”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1937]-I, pp. 612/614.Google Scholar

88. As stated by the Italian representative (Mr. Scialoja) to the Permanent Mandates Commission (eighth special session) in reply to a point raised by the British representative (Sir Austen Chamberlain), “in the case of petitions from minorities, the minorities were placed under the sovereignty of a State and the question was one of the relations between a sovereign and subjects. In the case of a mandate, on the contrary, the question concerned populations protected by a mandatory of whom they were not the subjects. There was accordingly an essential difference between the two cases which might very well justify a difference of method in regard to the communication of the resolutions”. League of Nations Official Journal [1926] p. 526, and see pp. 878/879.Google Scholar

89. Nationals of an Allied or Associated Power, not prohibited by the laws of their country to bring a case before the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal; Article 304 (b) (2) of the Treaty of Versailles.

90. Cf. Article 297 (e) of the Treaty of Versailles. The experiment gave rise to much doctrinal controversy; see: Strupp, Karl, “The Competence of the Mixed Arbitral Courts of the Treaty of Versailles”, American Journal of International Law [1923] pp. 669/670Google Scholar; Rundstein, Simon, “L'arbitrage international en matière privée”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1928]-III, p. 231Google Scholar; Spiropoulos, J., “L'individu et de Droit international”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit international [1929]-V, pp. 222/229Google Scholar; Egido, J. Puente, “Algunas Consideraciones en torno a la Situación Procesal de los Particulars ante Instancias Internationales”, Revista Española de Derecho Internacional [1967] pp. 295/296Google Scholar; Blühdorn, Rudolf, “Le fonctionnement et la jurisprudence des tribunaux arbitraux mixtes créés par les traités de paix”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1932]-III, pp. 174/176Google Scholar; Eustathiades, C.Th., “Les sujets du Droit international et la responsabilité internationale – nouvelles tendances”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1953]-III, p. 562Google Scholar; Bos, Maarten, “Les conditions du procès en Droit international public”, Bibliotheca Visseriana [1957] pp. 143/144.Google Scholar

91. Burchard, Arthur, “The Mixed Claims Commission and German Property in the United States of America”, American Journal of International Law [1927] pp. 472/479Google Scholar; but see Carabiber, Ch., “L'arbitrage international entre gouvemements et particuliers”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1950]-I, p. 243.Google Scholar

92. E.g., Administrative Decision of 25 May 1927 of the Tripartite U.S.-Austrian-Hungarian Claims Commission.

93. Rundstein, S., op. cit. supra n. 90, p. 388Google Scholar; Kaufmann, Erich, “Règles générales de Droit de la paix”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1935]-IV, pp. 421/427 and 407/409Google Scholar; de Beus, J.G., “The Jurisprudence of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico”, The Hague, M. Nijhoff, 1938, pp. 303/304CrossRefGoogle Scholar (for the majority view).; but, a contrario sensu: North American Dredging Co. of Texas (U.S.) v. Mexico case (1926)Google Scholar, Report of International Arbitral Awards, vol. IV, p. 28, para. 6.Google Scholar

94. Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, vol. II, Paris, Rec. Sirey, 1923, p. 9.Google Scholar

95. Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes, vol. VII, Paris, Rec. Sirey, 1928, p. 20.Google Scholar

96. Ibid., p. 26.

97. Under Art 239 (b) of the Treaty of Trianon; cf. Recueil des Décisions des T.A.M., vol. IX, Paris, Rec. Sirey, 1930, p. 190.Google Scholar

98. For a comparative analysis of the express waiver of the rule in those six Commissions, see: Feller, A.H., “The Mexican Claims Commissions (1923–1934)”, New York, MacMillan Co., 1935, p. 34Google Scholar; Feller, A.H., “The German-Mexican Claims Commission”, American Journal of International Law [1933] pp. 71 and 78/79Google Scholar; Nielsen, F.K., “International Law Applied to Reclamations”, Washington, John Byrne & Co., 1933, p. 70.Google Scholar

99. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. IV, p. 25.Google Scholar See also Commissioner Nielsen's Dissenting Opinion in the International Fisheries Co, (US) v. Mexico case (1931)Google Scholar, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. IV, p. 713.Google Scholar For criticisms, see: Borchard, E.M., “Recent Opinions of the General Claims Commission, United States and Mexico”, American Journal of International Law [1931] pp. 735/738Google Scholar; Eagleton, Clyde, “L'épuisement des recours internes et le déni de justice d'après certaines décisions récentes”, Revue de Droit international et de législation comparee [1935] pp. 518/519 and 525/526.Google Scholar

100. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. IV, pp. 26/28 and 32/33.Google Scholar In support of the renunciation of the rule in case of express waiver by a treaty, see: Witenberg, J.-C., “L'organisation judiciaire, la procédure et la sentence internationales”, Paris, Pédone, 1937, p. 155Google Scholar; cf. also Witenberg, J.-C., “La recevabilité des réclamations devant les juridictions internationales”, Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International [1932]-III, p. 52.Google Scholar

101. Jenks, C. Wilfred, “The Prospects of International Adjudication”, London, Stevens/Oceana, 1964, p. 370.Google Scholar

102. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol VI, p. 129.Google ScholarBut see the Owner of the “R.T. Roy” (U.S.) v. Great Britain case (1925)Google Scholar, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. VI, pp. 147/149.Google Scholar

103. Cf. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. VI, pp. 358/370.Google Scholar

104. Jenks, C. Wilfred, op. cit. supra n. 101, pp. 423/424.Google Scholar

** The present article is based upon part of the fifth chapter of the author's PH.D. thesis on “The Rule of Exhaustion of Local Remedies in International Law” (Cambridge, 1977).Google Scholar