Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T20:01:58.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2017

Jan Hostie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Opinions differ widely as to the part which an international court of justice should play in world organization. Individuals and governments for whom

Individuals and governments for whom the pursuit of certain national or international aims which are not susceptible of immediate achievement transcends the need for law and order will be inclined to conceive the role of such a court as more restricted, more subordinate, than those who believe that, in the long run, the interests of the mightiest and most dynamic nations and the most ambitious ideals of social betterment on a world-wide scale will best be served by first securing such measure of orderly world government as is today within our reach.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 38 , Issue 3 , July 1944 , pp. 407 - 433
Copyright
Copyright © by the American Society of International Law 1944

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.)

References

1 The following paper was composed by Dr. Hostie as a report to the Institute on World Organization, Washington, D. C. It was based on a preliminary draft made by Mr. Hugh McKinnon Wood, coincides with the consensus of the committee, and takes into account views expressed by other members of the committee, including Dr. Ricardo Alfaro, Professor Hans Kelsen, Professor Ellery C. Stowell, and two members who felt compelled to remain anonymous because of their official positions. No one of the members is responsible for any specific item in the paper; Professor Kelsen disagrees with the distinction between justiciable and non-justiciable disputes and appointment of the judges by governments, directly or indirectly.

1 See the text of this convention and the related convention on the repression of terrorism in the League of Nations publication “Proceedings of the International Conference on the Repression of Terrorism.” League of Nations, Publications, 1938, V. 3.

2 Commission to Study the Organization of Peace, Annex ID 4 to the Preliminary Report of March, 1941; International Conciliation No. 369, p. 346, point 3.

3 League of Nations, Publications, 1929, VIII 7, pp. 11, 64.

4 Jenks, C. Wilfred, “Regionalism in International Judicial Organization,” this Journal , Vol. 37 (1943), p. 315 Google Scholar.

5 World Organization, A Symposium of the Institute on World Organization, Washington, American Council on Public Affairs, 1942, p. 305,

6 Statute, Art. 36: “The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it and all matters specially provided for in treaties and conventions in force.” Covenant, Art. 14: … “The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it… .”

7 The Court adopted this expression with some hesitation and on the understanding that it was not to be understood in the technical sense which any particular legal system might give to it. See statements by Judges Fromageot and Rostworowski on p. 343 of the minutes of the Court’s discussions of the revision of the Rules of the Court in the year 1935 (Court Publications, Series D, No. 2, Third Addendum: Elaboration of the Rules of the Court of March 11, 1936).

8 Court Publications, Series D, No. 6; Collection des textes régissant la compétence de la Cour, p. 620.

9 International Conciliation, as cited, p. 505.

10 See the text of this convention and the related convention on the repression of terrorism in the League of Nations publication Proceedings of the International Conference on the Repression of Terrorism, League of Nations, Publications, 1938, V. 3.

11 International Conciliation, as cited, p. 347, item 10.

12 First Assembly, Minutes of the 3d Committee, p. 385.

13 British Yearbook of International Law, 1938, pp. 67–103.

14 Advisory Opinions, A/B 65, p. 60.

15 Advisory Opinion B 5 (Eastern Carelia).

16 Advisory Opinions A/B 41 and A/B 42.

17 Interpretation of the Statute of the Memel Territory; A/B 49, p. 311; also, concerning the definition of the port of Danzig, Polish Postal Service in Danzig, B 11, p. 41.

18 Court Publications, Series D, No. 2, pp. 383–398.

19 First Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 464.

20 On one occasion Poland and on another Turkey resisted the request for an opinion but they subsequently acquiesced in the proceedings by taking part in them.