Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:13:09.405Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Twenty-Seventh Year of the World Court*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Manley O. Hudson
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The resumption of its judicial activity after a lapse of eight years was the outstanding feature of the twenty-seventh year of the World Court. A judgment rejecting a preliminary objection in the Corfu Channel Case was handed down on March 25, 1948, and the case was still pending at the close of the year. An advisory opinion on Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations was given on May 28, 1948; and late in the year the General Assembly requested an advisory opinion on Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , January 1949 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1949

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

*

This is the twenty-seventh in the writer's series of annual articles on the World Court, the publication of which was begun in this Journal,Vol. 17 (1923), p.15.

References

1 Doc. S/247, Jan. 10, 1947.

2 Security Council, Official Records, 1947, No. 6, p. 124; No. 7, p. 130.

3 Ibid., No. 29, p. 609.

4 Ibid., No. 34, p. 726.

5 I. C. J. Reports, 1947–1948, p. 4.

6 Ibid,., p. 7.

7 This latter submission may be thought to have been based upon a misconception. The President’s order set a time-limit within which Albania should present its counter-memorial if it wished to do so. A respondent has no duty to file a counter-memorial.

8 On the precedents for such an appointment of a non-national, see Hudson, Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, p. 366.

9 I. C. J . Reports, 1947–1948, p. 15; this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 690.

10 I. C. J. Reports, 1947–1948, p. 53.

11 I. C. J. Reports, 1947–1948, p. 9,

12 Ibid., p. 57; this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), p. 927.

13 Doc. A/661, Sept. 29, 1948.

14 Doc. S/996, Sept. 11, 1948.

15 Docs. A/623/Bev.2, S/991/Bev.2, Oct. 15, 1948, and ibid., Corr. 2, Oct. 18, 1948.

16 Paraguay has been omitted from this list, although the effect of the Paraguayan decree of April 26, 1938, is still unresolved.

17 The exclusion of “disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America, as determined by the United States of America” has been roundly condemned by the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association and by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York (American Bar Association Journal, Vol. 33 (1947), p. 249; Report of the Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, approved on Jan. 20, 1948).

18 Pan American Union, Law and Treaty Series, No. 24 (1948).

19 Articles V to VII read as follows:

“Article V. The aforesaid procedures may not be applied to matters which, by their nature, are within the domestic jurisdiction of the state. If the parties are not in agreement as to whether the controversy concerns a matter of domestic jurisdiction, this preliminary question shall be submitted to decision by the International Court of Justice, at the request of any of the parties.

“Article VI. The aforesaid procedures, furthermore, may not be applied to matters already settled by arrangement between the parties, or by arbitral award or by decision of an international court, or which are governed by agreements or treaties in force on the date of the conclusion of the present Treaty.

“Article VII. The High Contracting Parties bind themselves not to make diplomatic representations in order to protect their nationals, or to refer a controversy to a court of international jurisdiction for that purpose, when the said nationals have had available the means to place their case before competent domestic courts of the respective state.”

20 Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series, Nos. 1780–1783, 1786–1795.

21 Public Law, 80th Congress, Ch. 169, 2d Session, approved April 3, 1948.

22 No such provision appears in two agreements with occupation zones of Germany. Department of State, Treaties and Other International Acts Series, Nos. 1784, 1785.

23 Yearbook 1947–1948, pp. 67, 69–70.