Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T21:55:52.231Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Election of Members of the Permanent Court of International Justice

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 progress made in international organization during the course of the last decade is nowhere better illustrated than in the elections of members of the Permanent Court of International Justice. A generation ago, when the Permanent Court of Arbitration was created, following the meeting of the first Peace Conference at The Hague in 1899, no attempt was made to depart from the equal representation of all participating States; and the Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of that year provides (Article 23) that each State may name four members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Nor did it prove possible to depart from that system at the second Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907; in the projet for a permanent court of arbitral justice which was drawn up at that time, no provision could be made for the election of judges of such a tribunal, because agreement could not be reached. The International Prize Court, provided for in the Convention of October 18, 1907, which was never ratified, was to be composed of judges and deputy-judges appointed by each of the contracting Powers. It was to have fifteen judges sitting at any session; those of the eight “Great Powers” were to sit in all cases, and the judges and deputy-judges appointed by other Powers were to sit “by rota” ; but this provision was not accepted by at least ten of the signatories to the convention. Here was a recognition of the special position of the great Powers, and an attempted compromise with the principle of equal representation which failed. In the years following 1907, an effort to have the same system applied in the selection of judges of a permanent court of arbitral justice proved abortive. In the Central American Court of Justice, existing from 1908 to 1918, one judge was selected by each of the States maintaining the court. So that in our entire experience before 1914, there was no indication of any successful method by which the members of a permanent international tribunal might be selected, apart from the equal representation of all States concerned.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 24 , Issue 4 , October 1930 , pp. 718 - 727
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1930

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 Annex to the first voeu of the Second PeaceConference of 1907. An Epglish translation is published in Scott, Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907, p. 31.

2 Published in League o f Nations Document, A.31.1930.V. The Venezuelan nominations were published on September 9, 1930, in Document, A.31(a).1930.V.

3 230 British Parliamentary Debates, p. 399. See, also, 68 Law Journal, p. 85, for a misconception of the system.

4 “One dream of the ages has been realized in our time.” Scott, James Brown , in this Journal, Vol. XV, p. 558. “ It should have given to every lawyer a thrill of cosmic vibration. ”Google Scholar Wigmore John H., in 16 Illinois Law Review, p. 207.

5 Records of the Second Assembly, Plenary Meetings, p. 255 (1921).

6 For a report on the procedure by the General Committee of the Assembly, see League of Nations Document, A.57.1929.V.

7 Published in League of Nations Document, A.31.1930.V., p. 23.

8 The record of the election is published inthe Journal of the Eleventh Assembly, 1930, pp. 270-274. The Assembly and the Council acted under the provisions of the Statute as annexed to the Protocol of December 16,1920;but the assembly seems to have envisaged the possibility that the Revision of Protocol ofSeptember 14, 1929, may come into force during the next nine years. M. Pilotti (Italy),as rapporteur for the First Committee, therefore made the following statement to the assembly: “ If fifteen judges were elected under the new proposal, recourse would only behad to the deputy judges in quite exceptional cases. The present assembly, however,wouldhave to elect four deputy judges in conformity with the Statute of 1920. These deputy judges, however, would not be called upon to fulfill their duties in the event of the new Protocol coming into force.” Idem, p. 270.