Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T02:12:59.369Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The World Court—An Inside View

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Judge Hardy C. Dillard
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Mr. Chairman, President Rogers, Professor McDougal, Judge Hack-worth, honored guests, ladies and gentlemen: When Steve Schwehel called me up over long distance I was peacefully having supper at the Promenade Hotel in The Hague. He asked me if I would quickly pinch-hit for Manfred Lachs, who had accepted but was laid low by illness. I accepted in a mood of exuberant indiscretion. I did not know then that my good friend, Myres McDougal, would steal most of the time theoretically allocated for what is called the major address of the evening. However, I forgive him because of his gracious allusion to Mrs. Dillard. This is the kind of thing we Southerners indulge in with the grace and respect for the amenities for which we are renowned.

Type
Annual Dinner Saturday, April 14, 1973 at 7:30 p.m.
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 67 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 67th Annual Meeting Washington, D.C. April 12-14, 1973 , November 1973 , pp. 296 - 305
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1973

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 Because of the time factor, I did not prepare a written manuscript. Except for some judicious editing I have preserved the less formal presentation revealed by the taped recording. I have also added a few cautionary footnotes.

2 The printed program listed the dinner and speech at 7 p.m. followed by Music and Dancing at 10 p.m.

3 In my view a banquet speech immunizes the speaker from the need to qualify every generalization as if he were reading a textbook. It is not the appropriate occasion for an analysis of the plain and ordinary meaning canon of interpretation or the many other controversial aspects of the processes of interpretation which bedevil the historian as well as the jurist. I have commented on these matters elsewhere.

4 Subsequent to the delivery of this talk this case has been decided and two new, widely publicized, cases have been brought involving requests for interim measures of protection. One by Pakistan against India, involving the threatened transfer of 195 P.O.W.’s to Bengladesh, has been postponed at the request of Pakistan. The Court by a vote of 8 to 6 granted the request by Australia and New Zealand against France in the Nuclear Test case. Pending are further proceedings in this case dealing with questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. A request by Fiji to intervene in the above case was also the subject of an Order by the Court. As is well known, Iceland and France have refused to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court and have failed, so far, to appoint agents to appear before the Court.

5 This resolution was followed up by Resolution 2818 (XXVI) and the matter has been under consideration by the Sixth Committee.

6 As is well known the two official languages of the Court are English and French. In its present composition English is used as the chosen language by nine judges and French by six. However a number of judges can use both languages without difficulty.

7 I was informed by a senior judge that in his experience it was quite rare for a judge to shift his position once it was written and reinforced by his oral presentation. This is reminiscent of the remark attributed to Justice Brandeis that “Justice Day was in capable of being persuaded by anyone but himself.” My own observations lead me to believe that judges are by no means so inflexible and the oral exchanges are capable of producing modifications in the previously expressed point of view. Of course much depends on the individual judge.