¹ Department of State, Making the Peace Treaties, 1941-1947 (Department of State Publication 2774, European Series 24, 1947), p. 44.

² Institut Prava Akademii Nauk S.S.S.B., Mezdwnarodnoe Pravo (Moscow, 1947), p. 475.

³ N. Y. Times, Dec. 6, 1946, p. 1, col. 1; see Domke, “Settlement-of-Disputes Provisions in Axis Satellite Peace Treaties,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 41 (1947), p. 911. Thus Art. 36 of the treaty with Bulgaria provided (to which corresponded mutatis mutandis Art. 40 of the treaty with Hungary and Art. 38 of the treaty with Rumania):

“ 1. Except where another procedure is specifically provided under any article of the present Treaty, any dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall be referred to the Three Heads of Mission acting under Article 35, except that in this case the Heads of Mission will not be restricted by the time-limit provided in that Article. Any such dispute not resolved by them within a period of two months shall, unless the parties to the dispute mutually agree upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request of either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one representative of each party and a third member selected by mutual agreement of the two parties from nationals of a third country. Should the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month upon the appointment of the third member, the Secretary-General of the United Nations may be requested by either party to make the appointment.

“ 2 . The decision of the majority of the members of the Commission shall be the decision of the Commission, and shall be accepted by the parties as definitive and binding.” (This JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 42 (1948), pp. 193, 242, 268.) The Three Heads of Mission so referred to were those of the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States (Article 35).

⁴ This JOURNAL, pp. 742, 752.

⁵ Hudson, “The Twenty-Eighth Year of the World Court,” this JOURNAL, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 1, at p. 24; see also Liang, Notes on Legal Questions concerning the United Nations, ibid., p. 100.

⁶ E.g., Bulgarian Treaty, Art. 2; this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 42 (1948), p. 180.

⁷ E.g., United States note to Bulgaria, Aug. 1, 1949, U.N. Doc. A/985, Sept. 23, 1949, p. 59.

⁸ E.g., Bulgarian note to the United States, Sept. 1, 1949, ibid., p. 63.

⁹ U.N. Doc. A/1043, Oct. 22, 1949.

¹⁰ Such questions were, first, whether the diplomatic exchanges concerning the obligations of the former Axis satellite states under the political provisions of the Peace Treaties disclosed disputes subject to the settlement-of-disputes provisions of such treaties; and, secondly, in the event of an affirmative reply to the first question, whether such states were obligated to carry out such settlement-of-disputes provisions, including the appointment of their national representatives to the treaty commissions.

¹¹ See Carlston, The Process of International Arbitration (New York, 1946), sec. 21.

¹² Request for Advisory Opinion concerning the Status of Eastern Carelia (July 23, 1923), Advisory Opinion No. 5, Ser. B, No. 5.

¹³ The Court did not refer to the case of the Frontier between Iraq and Turkey (Series B, No. 12), in which the Permanent Court of International Justice rendered an advisory opinion concerning the authority of the League Council under the Treaty of Lausanne to settle a dispute between Turkey and Great Britain in regard to the Iraq-Turkey frontier, notwithstanding that Turkey, a non-member of the League, had not given its consent thereto and had contended that the questions involved were of a political character not capable of judicial settlement.

¹⁴ Feller, The Mexican Claims Commissions, 1923-1934 (New York, 1935), pp. 72-73.

¹⁵ Mixed Claims Commission, U. S.-Germany, Opinions and Decisions in the Sabotage Cases, handed down June 15 and Oct. 30, 1939, p. 310; see also this JOURNAL, Vol. 33 (1939), p. 770.

¹⁶ Feller, op. cit., at p. 76.

¹⁷ Written Statement of the United States of America on Questions III and IV submitted to the International Court of Justice by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 294 (IV), dated Oct. 22, 1949; Certain Procedural Questions relating to the Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, Statements in Court (February-March 1950). It is not known, however, whether all of the relevant documents produced before the Court had reached this country at the time of this writing.

¹⁸ Lauterpacht, Annual Digest, 1929-1930, p. 426.

¹⁹ 190 U. S. 524 (1903); but cf. Irish Free State case (1924), Lauterpacht, op. cit., 1923-1924, p. 368.

²⁰ Sturges, A Treatise on Commercial Arbitration and Awards (Missouri, 1930), sec. 205.

²¹ Carlston, op. cit., at pp. 42-43; see generally in this connection, ibid., sees. 11-14.

²² “Considérant qu 'au cows de la troisiéme session de la Commission, un certain nombre d'affaires ont ètè plaidèes, que, pour les autres, ils peuvent encore 1'ètre sans inconvènient.” Recueil Gènèral Pèriodique et Critique des Dècisions, Conventions et Lois Relatives au Droit International Public et Privè, 1936, Pt. 2, p. 11.

²³ Carlston, op. cit., see. 10.

²⁴ E.g., Art. 2, Agreement of Aug. 10, 1922, providing for the German-American Mixed Claims Commission, this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 16 (1922), p. 171, at p. 172.

²⁵ Such a treaty provision was involved in the famous Hungarian Optants Case. Art. 239 (a) of the Treaty of Trianon of June 4, 1920, provided for the creation of Mixed Arbitral Tribunals composed of three members, two to be appointed by each government concerned, and a President to be chosen by agreement between them. In addition to a clause dealing with a case of failure to reach an agreement on the appointment of the President, the article provided a means for the appointment of a substitute arbitrator in case of a vacancy which the government concerned failed to fill within due time. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 113, 1920, pp. 599-600; this JOURNAL, Supp., Vol. 15 (1920), pp. 108-109. After the withdrawal of the Rumanian arbitrator in the agrarian cases, Hungary applied to the Council of the League of Nations for appointment of deputy arbitrators pursuant to the treaty. Application by the Hungarian Government to the Council of the League of Nations of May 21, 1927, Annex, B.2, pp. 3, 25. Eventually the Council recommended a solution involving the reconstitution of the Mixed Arbitral Tribunal. League of Nations Official Journal, Vol. 9, 1928, p. 446. An account of the dispute, with references to the relevant literature, will be found in Carlston, op. cit., sees. 37 and 56.