1 40 Dept. of State Bulletin 118 (1959). See also statement by Secretary of State Dulles to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 14, 1959, where he said that “we envisage further steps to encourage the greater use of that Court.” Ibid. 153.

2 See, e.g., Loftus Becker, “Some Political Problems of the Legal Adviser,” address before the American Society of International Law, April 26, 1958, 38 Dept. of State Bulletin 832 (1958); 1958 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 267; Attorney General William P. Bogers, “International Order under Law,” address to the 48th Conference of the International Law Association, printed in 39 Dept. of State Bulletin 537 (1958).

On April 29, 1954, the Institut de Droit International unanimously adopted a voeu expressing the hope “ t h a t States which include in their declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice a reservation in respect of matters of domestic jurisdiction will leave it to the Court to decide in each particular case whether the reservation is applicable.” 45 Annuaire de 1'Institut de Droit International 197, 300 (Tome II , 1954).

In the Introduction to his Annual Report for 1956-57, the U.N. Secretary General deplored “new and far-reaching reservations” which “may render the whole system of compulsory jurisdiction virtually illusory.” General Assembly, 12th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 1A, p. 5 (1957).

The American Bar Association has opposed the Connally reservation ever since its adoption. See 32 A.B.A.J. 873-874 (1946); 33 ibid. 249, 430, 512 (1947). In August, 1958, the Report of the Special Committee on International Law Planning of the American Bar Association (Hon. Thomas E. Dewey, Chairman) stated, in part:

“The committee believes that the withdrawal of the United States reservation to the jurisdiction of the International Court, to the extent that it allows the United States unilaterally to determine which disputes lie essentially within its own jurisdiction, would be a most salutary step. It would be a demonstration of faith in the rule of law, and a persuasive example to others. We believe it would materially strengthen the position of the United States in the world community as a leader in efforts to achieve the goal of the settlement of all disputes by peaceful means.“

3 T.I.A.S., No. 1598; 1957-1958 I.C.J. Yearbook 212. Italics added.

4 The materials are discussed in more detail in the writer's lectures delivered at the Hague Academy of International Law in August, 1958, on “Reservations to the Acceptance of Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” which will shortly appear in 93 Recueil des Cours 223-367 (1958, in press). See also the admirable reports of C. Wilfred Jenks, “Compétence oblgato?re des instances judieiaires et arbitrales internationales,” in 47 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International 34-322 (Tome I, 1957).

5 Australia (1954), Belgium (1958), Bulgaria (1921), Cambodia (1957), Canada (1929), China (1946), Colombia (1937), Denmark (1956), Dominican Republic (1924/1933), El Salvador (1921/1930), Finland (1958), Prance (1947), Haiti (1921), Honduras (1954), Israel (1956), Japan (1958), Liberia (1952), Liechtenstein (1950), Luxembourg (1930), Mexico (1947), The Netherlands (1956), New Zealand (1940), Nicaragua (1929), Norway (1956), Pakistan (1957), Panama (1921), Paraguay (1933), Philippines (1947), Portugal (1955), The Sudan (1957), Sweden (1957), Switzerland (1948), Thailand (1929), Turkey (1958), Union of South Africa (1955), United Arab Republic (1957), United Kingdom (1958), United States of America (1946), Uruguay (1921). 1957-1958 I.C.J. Yearbook 192 ff., and current materials from United Nations Secretariat.

6 Australia, Cambodia, Canada, France, Israel, Liberia, Mexico, New Zealand, Pakistan, The Sudan, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, United States.

7 Albania, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Iran, New Zealand, Rumania, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom, Yugoslavia. Four other states—Argentina, Egypt, Iraq and Poland—drafted declarations containing domestic jurisdiction reservations but the declarations never entered into force. Cf. P.C.I.J., Series E, No. 16, pp. 49, 345 ff. (1945) ; Manley O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920-1942, pp. 682 ff. (1943).

8 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 77, pp. 82-83 (1939).

9 [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 9, 22.

10 Ibid. 133-134.

11 P.C.I.J Series A/B, No. 67, p. 15 (1936).

12 Loc. cit.

13 [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 89, 92-93.

14 Loc. cit.

15 P.C.I.J Series B, No. 4, pp. 7 ff. (1923).

16 P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 44, p. 4 (1932).

17 [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 65.

18 In only three of these cases—the Losinger, Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., and Eight of Passage cases—was the jurisdictional plea founded on a reservation to a declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction.

19 [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 93.

20 Memorandum on the Signature … of the Optional Clause … , Great Britain, Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 12 (1929), Cmd. 3452, p. 12.

21 Hudson, op. cit. 471. Cf. J. H. W. Verzijl, “Affaire relative à Certains Emprunts Norvégiens,” 4 Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Internationaal Eecht 382 (1957).

22 Waldock, C. H. M., ‘’ The Plea of Domestic Jurisdiction before International Legal Tribunals,” 31 Brit. Tear Bk. of Int. Law 99, 115, 124, 140 (1954).Google Scholar

23 Lauterpacht, H., ‘’ The British Reservations to the Optional Clause,'’ 10 Economica 137, 148-155 (1930).Google Scholar

24 Res. 160. 91 Cong. Bee. 8164 (79th Cong., 1st Sess.).

25 Compulsory Jurisdiction, International Court of Justice, Hearings before a subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, IT. S. Senate, 79th Cong., 2nd Seas., on S. Res. 196, July 11, 12 and 15, 1946 (160 pp.).

26 International Court of Justice, Report of the Committee on Foreign Relations, U. S. Senate, No. 1835, 79th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 25, 1946, p. 5.

27 92 Cong. Rec. 10697 (79th Cong., 2nd Sess., Aug. 2, 1946).

28 India later withdrew her entire declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.

29 [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 9, 26-27.

30 [1956] I.C.J. Rep. 73-74.

31 Order of Oct. 24, 1957, on Bequest for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection, [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 105; digested in 52 A.J.I.L. 320 (1958).

32 Interhandel Case, Oral Proceedings, Oct. 12 and 14, 1957, I.C.J. Distr. 57/168, pp. 18-20.

33 Interhandel Case, Preliminary Objections of the Government of the United States of America, filed with the Court June 16, 1958, p. 26.

34 Ibid., p. 19.

35 Observations et Conclusions du Gouvernement de la Confédération Suisse sur les Exceptions Pré1iminaires du Gouvernement des Etats-TTnis d'Amérique, filed with the Court Sept. 22, 1958, pp. 28-33; Interhandel Case, Oral Proceedings, Nov. 5 to 17, 1958, I.C.J. Distr. 58/185, pp. 103-110, 159 (oral argument of Prof. Paul Guggenheim, Swiss Co-Agent, Nov. 12 and 17, 1958).

36 Ibid., I.C.J. Distr. 58/185, p. 105.

37 Société Internationale, etc., v. Eogers, 357 V. S. 197 (June 16, 1958); 53 A.J.I.L. 177 (1959).

38 Oral Proceedings, I.C.J. Distr. 58/185, pp. 3-4, 36, 137 (oral argument of Mr. Loftus Becker, IT. S. Agent, Nov. 5, 6 and 14, 1958).

39 Preuss, , “The International Court of Justice, the Senate, and Matters of Domestic Jurisdiction,” 40 A.J.I.L. 720, 733 (1946).Google Scholar This article and the articles by Wilcox, Francis O., “The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction,” 40 A.J.I.L. 699 (1946)Google Scholar, and by Judge Hudson, Manley O., “The World Court: America's Declaration Accepting Jurisdiction,” 32 A.B.A.J. 832-836, 895-897 (1946)Google Scholar, contain most valuable information on U. 8. acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.

40 [1953] I.C.J. Rep. III , 119-120; digested in 48 A.J.I.L. 327 (1954). See also Georges Berlia, “Jurisprudence des Tribunaux Internationaux en ce qui concerne Leur Competence,” 88 Hague Academy Recueil des Cours 105-157 (1955).

41 Cf., Norwegian Loans case, loc. cit.

42 59 Cong. Rec. (Pt. 5) 4599 (66th Cong., 2nd Sess., March 19, 1920).

43 Cited by Preuss, loc. cit. 732.

44 “ Memorandum of John Foster Dulles concerning Acceptance by the United States of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, July 10, 1946,” printed in Senate Hearings (cited in note 25 above) at pp. 43-45.

45 92 Cong. Rec. 10698 (79th Cong., 2nd Seas.).

46 lbid. 10702. The text of Art. 38 of the Court's Statute reads as follows: “ 1 . The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by the contesting states; b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law; c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations; d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law. “ 2 . This provision shall not prejudice the power of the Court to decide a case ex aequo et bono, if the parties agree thereto.“

47 Hudson, loc. cit. note 39, at 895-896.

48 However, the Japanese Declaration of Sept. 15, 1958, contains the following exclusion: “This declaration does not apply to disputes which the parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to refer for final and binding decision to arbitration or judicial settlement.''

49 Australia, Belgium, Cambodia, Canada, France, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, The Sudan, Thailand, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom.

50 For brief discussions of this reservation, see Lauterpacht, 10 Economica 145-147 (1930); Hudson, op. cit. 469-470; Hambro, 25 Brit. Tear Bk. of Int. Law 145-148 (1948); Vulcan, 18 Acta Scandinavica Juris Gentium 44-46 (1947-1948).

51 U.N. General Assembly, 2nd Sess., Official Records, Resolutions, Sept. 16-Nov. 29, 1947 (Doc. A/519), p. 104.

52 Loc. cit. 44.

53 32 A.B.A.J. 836 (1946).

54 Report (cited in note 26), p. 6.

55 92 Cong. Rec. 10618, 10621 (79th Cong., 2nd Sess., Aug. 1, 1946).

56 Hudson, loc. cit. 836, 895.

57 Wilcox, loc. cit. note 39, at pp. 714-716; Quincy Wright, 41 A.J.I.L. 445-452 (1947), and comment thereon by Hudson, 42 A.J.I.L. 12-13 (1948). For a valuable analysis of the Statute and the practice of the Court, see Hambro, Bdvard, “ The Interpretation of Multilateral Treaties by the International Court of Justice ,“ 39 Grotius Society Transactions 235-255 (1953).Google Scholar

58 Art. 63 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice provides: “ 1 . Whenever the construction of a convention to which states other than those concerned in the case are parties is in question, the Registrar shall notify all such states forthwith. “2. Every state so notified has the right to intervene in the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construction given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it .“

59 For more detailed discussion, including an analysis of the Court's jurisprudence with reference to reservations ratione temporis, see the writer's Hague Academy lectures for 1958.

60 Bulgaria, Cambodia, China, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Philippines, Portugal, Switzerland, Thailand, Uruguay.

61 Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, El Salvador, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Pakistan, The Sudan, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Arab Republic, United Kingdom, United States.

62 Australia, Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Finland, France, Israel, Japan, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, The Sudan, Sweden, Turkey, Union of South Africa, United Kingdom.

63 Lauterpacht, 10 Economica 139-144.

64 Bulgaria (1921), Colombia (1937), Dominican Republic (1924), El Salvador (1921), Haiti (1921), Nicaragua (1929), Panama (1921), Paraguay (1933), United Arab Republic (1957), Uruguay (1921).

65 See Waldock, C. H. M., “Decline of the Optional Clause,” 32 Brit. Year Bk. of Int. Law 244, 267 ff. (1955-1956).Google Scholar