Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T16:15:57.814Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Eligibility of British Subjects as Judges of the Permanent Court of International Justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Walter Pollak
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The object of the present article is to attempt an interpretation of paragraph two of Article 10 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice in order to discover, if possible, the position of the British Empire and of the British Dominions in regard to the election of judges of the Permanent Court.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 20 , Issue 4 , October 1926 , pp. 714 - 725
Copyright
Copyright, 1926, by the American Society of International Law

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 League of Nations Official Journal, 1920, p. 37.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., p. 226.

3 League of Nations, Records of First Assembly, Meetings of the Committees, Vol. I, p. 413.Google Scholar

4 League of Nations Official Journal, 1920, p. 319.Google Scholar

5 League of Nations, Records of First Assembly, p. 24 (Plenary Meetings).Google Scholar

6 Ibid., pp. 48, 52.

7 League of Nations Official Journal, November-December, 1920, p. 18.Google Scholar

8 Records of First Assembly, Meetings of the Committees, Vol. I, pp. 277, 278, 411, et seq. 714Google Scholar

9 Ibid., p. 282.

10 Ibid., pp. 296, 526, et seq.

11 Ibid., pp. 342, 590.

12 Mr. Doherty had proposed an amendment to Article 4 providing that the judges were to be elected by the Assembly and Council from a list of persons nominated by the governments of members of the League of Nations.

13 Records of First Assembly, Meetings of the Committees, Vol. I, p. 344.Google Scholar

14 Ibid., p. 528.

15 Ibid., p. 304.

16 Records of First Assembly, p. 497 (Plenary Meetings).Google Scholar

17 League of Nations Official Journal, 1921, Vol. 2, p. 809.Google Scholar

18 4 and 5 Geo. V, c. 17; 8 and 9 Geo. V, c. 38; 12 and 13 Geo. V, c. 44.

19 4-5 Geo. V, c. 44; 10-11 Geo. Y, c. 59; 13-14 Geo. V, c.

20 Act No. 48 of 1920.

21 It may, however, have been adopted since the 1924 Statutes which are the latest to which the writer had access.

22 Section 9, subsection (1).

23 I.e., Part II.

24 I.e., The Dominion of Canada, The Commonwealth of Australia, The Dominion of New Zealand, The Union of South Africa, Newfoundland.

25 Of New Zealand the writer has no record.

26 Act No. 4 of 1910 (South Africa).

27 Section 9.

28 33 Viet. c. 14.

29 Section 26, subsection (2).

30 Act No. 11 of 1903 (Australia).

31 [1920] 1 Ch. 348.

32 9-10 Edw. VII, c. 27, section 2 (Canada).

33 11-12 Geo. V, c. 4. (Canada).

34 13 Geo. V, c. 1.

35 The writer has not been able to find any such law in the materials at his disposal.

36 [1921] 2 Ch. 67, 82.

37 Cf. Markwald's Case, supra.

38 Since this article was written the British Nationality in the Union and Naturalization and Status of Aliens Act 1926 (Act No.18 of 1926, South Africa) has been passed. This Act adopts the definition of a natural-born British subject contained in the Imperial Acts. It also adopts Part 2 of the Imperial Act of 1914. Hence a certificate of naturalization granted in South Africa after July 1, 1926, has now the same effect as a certificate of naturalization granted in the United Kingdom.