Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:04:21.276Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fourth Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

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

Extract

The year 1925 has been the busiest year in the history of the Permanent Court of International Justice to date. During some part of every month of the year, with the exception of September and December, the court has been in session. Its sixth (extraordinary) session began on January 12 and ended on March 26; its seventh (extraordinary) session began on April 14 and ended on May 16; its eighth (ordinary) session began on June 15 and ended on August 25; and its ninth (extraordinary) session began on October 22 and ended on November 21. During 210 days of the year, the judges were at work at The Hague, and without counting the days required for travelling for which indemnities are paid, they exceeded by ten the 200 days during which indemnities are paid to them to supplement their salaries. The result of the work of these four sessions was three judgments and three advisory opinions, each of which has contributed to the settlement of some difficult problem. In four years, the court has handed down six judgments and twelve advisory opinions. Taken together these judgments and opinions constitute a significant addition to our international jurisprudence, and if they cannot be said to have dealt with problems which might have led to war, they have nevertheless served useful ends in contributing to the removal of possible sources of friction.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , January 1926 , pp. 1 - 32
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1926

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

In continuation of the writer's series of articles on the work of the court published in this Journal in previous years. See“The First Year of the Permanent Court o f International Justice,” Vol. 17, pp. 15-28; “ The Second Year of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” Vol. 18, pp. 1-37; “ The Third Year o f the Permanent Court of International Justice,”Vol. 19, pp. 48-75. The three previous articles are included in a volume entitled The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Question of American Participation(Harvard University Press, 1925).

References

2 The session was suspended, however, from June 19 to July 15, pending the submission of documents.

3 This volume compares very favorably with theearly work of the Supreme Court of the United States, which in its first four years handed down but three opinions. See 2 Dallas,402, 415, 419.

4 32 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 75; British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), Cmd.1929, p. 174. The date ofthe convention's coming into force is slightly indefinite, for the convention provides that it shall come into force immediately after the ratification of the treaty of peace signed at Lausanne, by the high contracting parties. The treaty of peace did not come into force until a procès-verbal of the deposit o f ratifications was drawn up, and this may have taken place after August 6,1924. See 28 League of Nations, Treaty Series, p. 11.

5 League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1924, pp. 1663 ff.

6 League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1924, p. 1672.

7 League of Nations Official Journal, February, 1925, p. 155.

8 See Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-1.

9 Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 10.

10 On the English law of domicile, see Westlake, Private International Law (6th ed. by Norman Bentwich, 1922), p. 344.

11 Decided on August 17, 1923. See Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 1.

12 The legal section of the mixed commission had required an intention to remain permanently.Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-1, pp. 157-160.

13 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1925, p. 441.

14 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 3. For comment on this judgment, see this Jottbnal, Vol. 19, p. 54; Ténékèd, Les Réparations de Guerre en Gréce en I’Etat A duel Des Lois et Des Traiés,13 Bulletin de L’Institut Intermédiaire International, 195.

15 Article 60 provides: “ In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.”

16 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 4.

17 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 2. See the comment in this Journal , Vol. 19, p. 48; Fachiri, The Permanent Court of nternational Justice (1925), pp. 203-213. The concessions at Jaffa were eliminated from the consideration of the case on the merits.

18 Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-II, p. 33. The Rules of Court (Articles 4755) adopted on March 24, 1922, deal with the court's reception of evidence.

19 On the English law, see La Roche v. Armstrong, [1922] 1 K.B. 485. See also Wigmore, Evidence, § 1061.

20 See Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-II, p. 355.

21 For the text, see 28 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 203; British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), Cmd. 1929, p. 203. The protocol is entitled “ Protocol Relating to Certain Concessions Granted in the Ottoman Empire, ” and was signed by the British Empire, France, Italy, Greece, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and Turkey.

22 For the text of the mandate, see League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, p. 1007.

23 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 5.

24 The American law of contracts would not be different. 3 Williston, Contracts (1924), § 1569.

25 See Article 311 of the treaty between the Allied Powers and Turkey, signed at Sfrvres on August 10, 1920, printed in Supplement to this Journal , Vol. 15, p. 270.

26 In a previous instance, the court has studied negotiations antedating the signature of a treaty. See Advisory Opinion No. 3, in Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 3, p. 41. However, Sir Douglas Hogg (British Empire) opposed this practice very vigorously in his statement before the court on October 26,1925, with reference to the request for an advisory opinion concerning Article 3 of the Treaty of Lausanne.

27 Borchard, Edwin M. , “ The Mavrommatis Concessions Cases,” this Journal , Vol. 19, pp. 728, 735 Google Scholar.

28 6 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 189.

29 A new procedure for handling disputes between Poland and the Free City of Danzig has recently been elaborated. League of Nations Official Journal, July, 1925, pp. 880 ff.

30 The painting of these boxes in black, white and red colors, as formerly used by Germany, was reported by the High Commissioner as having taken place on January 7, and created an unfortunate incident. The High Commissioner's report to the Secretary General of the League of Nations was dated January 17, 1925.

31 The text of the decision of M ay 25,1922, is published in the Decisions of the High Commissioner, 1922, p. 15. These decisions are published in annual volumes, in German and English.

32 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1925, p. 472.

33 Except possibly the Hedjaz. See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 261.

34 Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 11.

35 Decisions of the High Commissioner, 1921, p. 15.

36 Ibid., 1922, p. 56.

37 The English text is authoritative only for Advisory Opinions Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6, and 11. The French text is authoritative for all the judgments to date, and for all other advisory opinions.

38 See League of Nations Official Journal, July, 1925, pp. 882-887.

39 For the actual line, see League of Nations Document, C/430. 1925. I.

40 League of Nations Document, C/35th Session P. V. 13 (1), p. 40.

41 Reliance was placed on the proceedings at a session of the Lausanne Conference on January 10, 1923. See British Parliamentary Papers, Turkey No. 1 (1923), Cmd. 1814, p. 327. The Turkish demand for the removal of the Patriarchate from Constantinople had been withdrawn on the understanding that “ the Patriarchate was no longer to take any part whatever in affairs of a political or administrative character, and was to confine itself within the limits of purely religious matters.”

42 For the text of this convention, see 32 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 75; British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), Cmd. 1929, p. 174.

43 League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1924, pp. 1663-1670.

44 League of Nations Document, C. 129. 1925. VII. See also, A. Rustem Bey, “ The Future of the (Ecumenical Patriarchate,” 3 Foreign Affairs 604; Karl Strupp, “ Le Differend Greco-Turc sur V Olloignement du Patriarche de Constantinople,” Revue de Droit International de Sciences Diplomatigues, Politigues et Sociales, 3d year, p. 11; T6n6kid6s, “ L'Expvlsion du Patriarche (Ecumtnique et le Confiit Grico-Turc, ” 7 Revue Generate de Droit International Public (2 ser.), p. 102.

45 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1925, p. 488.

46 Except possibly the Hedjaz. See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 261.

47 League of Nations Official Journal, June, 1925, p. 855.

48 League o f Nations Treaty Series, No. 271. The convention came into force upon the exchange of ratifications at Oppeln, on June 3, 1922.

49 The objection filed by Poland was placed on the court's list, and hence Poland submitted a case. Count Rostworowski therefore speaks of Poland as the applicant. Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 6, p. 31. But in the introduction to the judgment, the court names Germany as applicant and Poland as respondent; and the operative part of the judgment declares that Germany's application is admissible.

50 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 6.

51 At the time Germany was not a member of the League of Nations and not a party to the protocol of the court. Sftie did not file with the court the declaration mentioned in the Council's resolution of May 17, 1922, but the court decided that this was not necessary. See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 261. Article 35 of the court statute provides that “ when a State which is not a Member of the League of Nations is a party to a dispute [submitted to the court], the Court will fix the amount which that party is to contribute towards the expenses of the Court.” It is notable that with reference to the Wimbledon Case, decided on August 17, 1923, the court decided on September 13, 1923, not to demand any contribution from Germany. See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 256.

52 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 2.

53 British Parliamentary Papers, Turkey No. 1 (1923), Cmd. 1814, pp. 400-404.

54 League of Nations Official Journal, March, 1923, p. 249.

55 Ibid., p. 201.

56 28 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 11.

57 Entitled “ Protocol Relating to the Evacuation of the Turkish Territory occupied by the British, French and Italian Forces.” See British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), Cmd. 1929, p. 215.

58 League of Nations Official Journal, October, 1924, p. 1465.

59 Ibid., p. 1292.

60 League of Nations Official Journal, October, 1924, pp. 1337-9.

61 Ibid., pp. 1358-1359.

62 League of Nations Official Journal, November, 1924, pp. 1659-1662.

63 League of Nations Document, C. 400. M. 147. 1925. VII.

64 League of Nations Official Journal, October, 1925, p. 1382.

65 For the earlier draft, see British Parliamentary Papers, Turkey No. 1 (1923), Cmd. 1814, p. 688.

66 Especially: “ Article 5 of the Covenant provides that the decision of the Council upon which the Turkish Government will be represented will have to be unanimous so that no decision can be arrived at without their consent.” British Parliamentary Papers, Turkey No. 1 (1923), Cmd. 1814, p. 401.

67 See Hudson, “ The Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice, ” International Conciliation, No. 214 (November, 1925), pp. 349-351.

68 Except possibly the Hedjaz. See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 261.

69 Publications of the Court, Series B, No. 12.

70 See the advisory opinion of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England, with reference to the Irish Boundary Commission, published by the Colonial Office on August 1, 1924. (Cmd. 2214.)

71 International Labor Conference, Seventh Session, 1925, Report of the Director, pp. 23,24.

72 Journal of the Sixth Assembly of the League of Nations, p. 254.

73 See Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice and the Question of American Participation (1925), pp. 335-339. Cf., Baker, “ The Obligatory Jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Justice, ” British Year Book of International Law, 1925, p. 68.

74 Apparently such action is contemplated by the Government of Czechoslovakia.

75 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 419.

76 Ibid., p. 433.

77 32 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 273; U. S. Treaty Series, No. 708. On similar action taken by the United States and other countries, conditioned upon the Senate's giving advice and consent to American adhesion to the court protocol of signature, see this Journal , Vol. 19, p. 64.

78 12 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 271.

79 33 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 199.

80 34 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 175.

81 Ibid., p. 387.

82 33 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 415.

83 Ibid., p. 91. See Diena, “ Le Traité de Conciliation et de Règlement Judiciaire entre L’ltalie et La Suisse, ” 6 Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparee (3d Ser.), pp. 1-16.

84 33 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 423.

85 12 Bulletin de l’Institut Intermédiate International, p. 318; Feuille Fédérale, February 11, 1925, p. 447.

86 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 422.

87 Ibid., p. 423; Feuille Fédérale, May 20, 1925, p. 460.

88 Ibid., p. 430; Feuille Fédérate, May 20, 1925, p. 471.

89 Ibid., p. 428; Feuille Fédérate, May 20, 1925, p. 450.

90 Published as a pamphlet and numbered 1187.

91 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 423. The original text of the treaty is in the French language.

92 12 Bulletin de l’Institut Intermédiaire International, p. 295.

93 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 2, pp. 61, 82.

94 Minutes of the Permanent Mandates Commission, Sixth Session, pp. 55-6. League of Nations Document, C. 386. M. 132. 1925. VI.

95 League of Nations Official Journal, May, 1925, p. 691. The convention has now been signed by at least thirty-four states or members of the League.

96 League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1925, p. 1119. See the Proceedings of the Conference, League of Nations Document, A. 13.1925. IX., pp. 31, 49. The convention has been signed by at least twenty-two states or members of the League of Nations.

97 Journal of the Sixth Assembly, p. 192.

98 Verbatim Record of the Sixth Assembly, September 14, 1925, p. 2.

99 Journal of the Sixth Assembly, p. 145.

100 Journal of the Sixth Assembly, p. 192. Cf., 41 Law Quarterly Review, 373.

101 The original Austrian declaration had been made on March 14, 1922, for a period of five years.

102 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, pp. 241-272.

103 Ibid., pp. 247-8.

104 Ibid., p. 254.

105 See “ The Statute and Rules of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” published by the International Intermediary Institute, as a provisional substitute for Publications of the Court, Series D, No. 1. See also, Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, pp. 351 if.

106 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 127.

107 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 265.

108 League of Nations Official Journal, June, 1922, pp. 545-6.

109 Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 260.

110 See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 1, p. 261.

111 The publications are distributed in the United States of America by the World Peace Foundation, 40 Mt. Vernon St., Boston, Massachusetts.

112 League of Nations Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 23, pp. 37-39.

113 League of Nations Official Journal, February, 1925, p. 124.

114 An extract from this report was presented to the Sixth Assembly on August 20, 1925, by the Secretary General. See League of Nations Document, A. 7 (b), 1925.

115 The 1926 estimates of the court, as approved by the Sixth Assembly on September 26, 1925, total 915,838.32 Dutch florins. See League of Nations Document, C. 619. M. 201. 1925. X.