Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T14:27:55.615Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Exclusion of Political Disputes from Judicial Settlement

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2017

Louis B. Sohn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Current Notes
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 38 , Issue 4 , October 1944 , pp. 694 - 700
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 This Journal, Vol. 2 (1908), Supplement, p. 297. Cf. H. M. Cory, Compulsory Arbitration of International Disputes, New York, 1932, pp. 51–57.

2 Article 36 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice: this Journal, Vol. 17 (1923), Supplement, p. 65. On the history of this provision see M. O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920–1942, New York, 1943, pp. 189–193, 456464.

3 Locarno Arbitration Treaties, Article 1, this Journal, Vol. 20 (1926), Supplement, pp. 26, 30, 31, 32.

4 Kelsen, H., Law and Peace in International Relations, Cambridge, Mass., 1942, pp. 159–168 Google Scholar; same author, Compulsory Adjudication of International Disputes, this Journal, Vol. 37 (1943), pp. 397–406.

5 But see Lauterpacht, H., The Function of Law in the International Community, London, 1933, pp. 187–189, 205–206Google Scholar.

6 Article 5. 108 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 191.

7 Records of the Fifth Assembly (1924), Plenary, p. 484.

8 27 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 419.

9 Hudson, work cited, pp. 689–690. A similar reservation was made by Great Britain when acceding to the Geneva General Act of 1928: 107 League of Nations Treaty Series, pp. 529–531.

10 Great Britain, Parliamentary Papers, Misc. No. 12 (1929), Cmd. 3452, pp. 6–7.

11 Hudson, pp. 683, 685, 691–2, 695–6, 699–700. Similar reservations were made by Australia, Canada, India and New Zealand when acceding to the Geneva General Act: 107 League of Nations Treaty Series, pp. 531–536.

12 Hudson, p. 686.

13 Same, pp. 692–3.

14 Same, p. 693.

15 Same, p. 698.

16 Same, p. 688. In accepting the Geneva General Act, France made a more precise reservation providing that “disputes which the parties or one of them may have referred to the Council of the League of Nations will not be submitted to the procedures described in this Act unless the Council has been unable to pronounce a decision under the conditions laid down in Article 15, paragraph 6, of the Covenant”: 107 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 529.

17 Hudson, p. 694. Similarly, Italy’s reservation made in accepting the General Act of Geneva excepts “disputes which may be submitted to the Council of the League of Nations in virtue of one of the provisions in the Covenant”: 111 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 415.

18 Hudson, p. 697. This reservation was not repeated by Peru in her instrument of accession to the Geneva General Act.

19 This time-limit may be too long; the declarations of the members of the British Commonwealth did not hesitate to require the submission of the dispute to the Council within ten days after notification.