Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-05T15:01:26.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Official Interest in the Work of the International Law Commission: Replies of Governments to Requests for Information or Comment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2017

Herbert W. Briggs
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
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 48 , Issue 4 , October 1954 , pp. 603 - 612
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1954

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 U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/4, Feb. 2, 1949, Statute of the International Law Commission; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 42 (1948), pp. 2–8.

2 For this reason a request by the Secretary General of Jan. 3, 1950, pursuant to General Assembly Resolution 375 (IV) of Dec. 6, 1949, for comment on “whether any further action should be taken by the General Assembly” on the Draft Declaration on the Eights and Duties of States is not included in the tabulation which provides the basis of this study. Of 60 governments requested, 48 made no reply. Eeplies were received from the following 12 governments: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Egypt, France, India, Israel, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Syria, and United Kingdom. Eeplies are mimeographed in U. N. Docs. A/1338, Aug. 30, 1950, with one addendum thereto, and A/1850, Aug. 10, 1951, and were considered by the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, Nov. 17–23, 1951, at its sixth session, A/C.6/SE.253–257.

3 This reply also covered the requests for information on arbitral procedure and on the regime of the high seas.

4 Cf. U. N. Doc. A/C.6/SB.253, Nov. 17, 1951, par. 18.