Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T00:25:33.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The International Court of Justice and the General Act Of 1928

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2009

J. G. Merrills
Get access

Extract

The 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes was the creation of the ninth session of the League of Nations. Containing important provisions on judicial settlement, as well as on conciliation and arbitration, the Act provided the Permanent Court of International Justice with an indisputable basis of jurisdiction. Whether the Act survived the demise of the League and is equally effective today is, however, a matter of some disagreement.

Type
Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , April 1980 , pp. 137 - 171
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 1980

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

2 For contemporary views of the Act and its significance see Borel (1929) 27 Hague, Recueil des Cours 592 (with bibliography) and Brierly (1930)Google Scholar 11 Brit. Yearbook Int.L. 119.

3 On 31 December 1977 the following 15 States were recorded as parties to the whole Act: Belgium, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Denmark, Ethiopia, Finland, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Peru, Switzerland, Turkey. In addition, the Netherlands and Sweden were recorded as parties to the provisions relating to conciliation and judicial settlement. Estonia and Latvia, still recorded as parties to the Act, have been ignored in the present computation. See Multilateral Treaties in respect of which the Secretary General Performs Depositary Functions, List of Signatures, Ratifications, Accessions, etc. as at 31 December 1977, pp. 616–620.Google Scholar On the positions of India and Pakistan see the discussion of the Prisoners of War case below.

4 [1951] I.C.J. Reports 15, 37. The reference is to the Act's provision for reservations.

5 Certain Norwegian Loans, Judgment [1957]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 9.

6 Trans.

7 For analysis and commentary see Verzijl (1957) 4 Neth.Int.L.Rev. 373.

8 [1957] I.C.J. Reports 25.

9 The separate opinion of Judge Lauterpacht (ibid., p. 62) contains a passing reference to the General Act with no bearing on the present discussion.

10 Ibid., p. 74 (trans).

11 Ibid., p. 76 (trans).

12 Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Judgment [1939] P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 77, p. 64.Google Scholar

13 [1957] I.C.J. Reports 75, 76 (trans).

14 Temple of Preah Vihear, Preliminary Objections, Judgment [1961]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 17.

15 Aerial Incident of 27 July 1955 (Israel v. Bulgaria), Judgment [1959]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 127. For analysis and commentary see Caflisch (1960) 54 Am.J.Int.L. 855 and Verzijl (1960) 7 Neth.Int.L.Rev. 1.

16 For an outline of this and the other issues in dispute see I.C.J. , Pleadings, Temple of Preah Vihear, Vol. II, pp. 106–109.Google Scholar

17 The Court went on to hold in favour of Cambodia on the merits, see Temple of Preah Vihear, Merits, Judgment [1962]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 6. For commentary on both stages of the case see Verzijl (1962) 9 Neth.Int.L.Rev. 229 and Johnson (1962) 11 Int. & Comp.L.Q. 1183.

18 The full sequence of events is set out in I.C.J. Pleading Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, pp. 22–24.

19 Ibid., pp. 143–150. For an outline of these and the other jurisdictional issues see nawaz (1973) 13 Ind.J.Int.L. 251.

20 Ibid., p. 149.

21 Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, Interim Protection, Order of 13 July 1973 [1973]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 328.

22 Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War, Order of 15 December 1973 [1973]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 347.

23 Multilateral Treaties in respect of which the Secretary General Performs Depositary Functions, List of Signatures, Ratifications, Accessions, etc., as of 31 December 1977, p. 620.Google Scholar

24 Ibid.

25 See I.C.J. , Pleadings, Fisheries Jurisdiction, Vol. II, pp. 374–376.Google Scholar

26 See I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. II, pp. 347–357.Google Scholar

27 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 229.

28 Ibid., p. 231.

29 New Zealand v. France [1973]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 139; the Order in the Australian case is a little less explicit.

30 See Mendelson (1972–73) 46 Brit. Yearbook Int.L. 259, Goldsworthy (1974) 68 Am.J.Int.L. 258, and Merrills (1977) 36 Carab.L.J. 86.

31 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of 22 June 1973 [1973]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 99, 102; New Zealand v. France, ibid. pp. 135, 138.

32 Ibid., p. 129.

33 Ibid., pp. 125, 126.

34 Ibid., p. 112 (trans.).

35 Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Judgment [1974]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 253; (New Zealand v. France) ibid., p. 457.

36 See McWhinney (1975) 3 Syr.J.Int.L. & Com. 9, 39–45.

37 See Rubin (1977) 71 Am.J.Int.L. 1, 29.

38 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 307 (trans.).

39 ibid., p. 311.

40 “Avant cette instance l'Acte générale d'arbitrage se trouvait, depuis 1939, dans une sorte de clair-obscur, formellement en vigueur si l'on ne tenait compte que de dénunciation expresse, plutôt en sommeil…” ibid., p. 296.

41 [1976] I.C.J. Reports 8.

42 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Interim Protection, Order of 11 September 1976 [1976]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 3. For discussion see Gross (1977) 71 Am.J.Int.L. 31 and Merrills (1977) 93 L.Q.R. 29.

43 A joint communiqué issued to the press by the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey, following a meeting between them in Brussels in May 1975. Greece argued that this constituted an agreement to refer the dispute to the Court. This argument was rejected on the ground that at most the communiqué envisaged a joint reference of the matter to the Court by means of a subsequent special agreement, and that Greece's present unilateral application was therefore unauthorised.

44 Trans.

45 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Judgment [1978]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 3.

46 Ibid., p. 54.

47 Ibid., pp. 72–74.

48 Ibid., p. 62.

49 See, for example, the reservation, already described, which India invoked in the Prisoners of War case.

50 “L'Acte de Genève était une partie intègrante du système de la SdN dans la mesure où le reglement pacifique des différends internationaux devait nécessairement, dans ce système, accompagner la sécurité collective et le désarmement. A cette intégration idéologique correspondait une liaison intime entre l'Acte et les structures de la SdN …” I.C.J. Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. II, p. 349.

51 Ibid., p. 182.

52 12 R.I.A.A. 281; 24 I.L.R. 101.

53 Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, Preliminary Objections, Judgment [1964]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 6. For commentary see Verzijl (1965) 12 Neth. Int.L.Rev. 2.

54 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 330, 331.

55 Ibid., pp. 332, 333.

56 Ibid., pp. 333, 334.

57 I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. II, p. 350.Google Scholar

58 See the dissenting opinion of Judge De Castro [1974] I.C.J. Reports 372, 379.

59 I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. I, p. 275.Google Scholar

60 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 336.

61 Ibid., p. 337.

62 I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. II, pp. 352, 353.Google Scholar

63 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 229.

64 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 339, adding “Even more decisive is the fact that, of the six parties to the 1928 Act which have become parties to the Revised Act, at least four are on record as formally recognising that the 1928 Act is also still in force for them.” Ibid., pp. 339, 340.

65 Ibid., p. 414.

66 I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. II, p. 348Google Scholar (trans.).

67 Yearbook of the International Law Commission (1966), Vol. II, p. 237Google Scholar, quoted in [1974] I.C.J. Reports 338.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid., p. 339.

70 Ibid., pp. 340–343.

71 Nottebohm, Preliminary Objection, Judgment [1953] I.C.J. Reports 111.Google Scholar

72 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 344.

73 On 31 December 1977 the following parties had made declarations under Article 36 (2): Belgium, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Finland, Luxem- bourg, Norway, Switzerland, Netherlands, Sweden. On the positions of India and Pakistan see the discussion of the Prisoners of War case above.

74 Trans.

75 See I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. II, pp. 356, 357.Google Scholar

76 See the observations of Judge Barwick [1974] I.C.J. Reports 418, 419.

77 Ibid., p. 350.

78 See I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. I, p. 322.Google Scholar

79 Ibid., p. 356 (trans.).

80 P.C.I.J. Series A/B No. 77 at p. 76.

81 I.C.J. , Pleadings, Nuclear Tests, Vol. I, pp. 317–318.Google Scholar

82 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 352.

83 Appeal Relating to the Jurisdiction of the ICAO Council, Judgment [1972] I.C.J. Reports 46.Google Scholar For commentary see Fitzgerald (1974) 12 Can. Yearbook Int.L. 153.

84 [1974] I.C.J. Reports 355, 356.

85 The legal effects of non-appearance are examined in Eisemann (1973) 19 Annuaire Francais de Droit Internationale 351.

86 The Greek argument, which is outlined in the text, is set out in full in I.C.J. Pleadings, Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Jurisdiction of the Court, Uncorrected verbatim record, CR 78/1, at pp. 46–50.

87 I am indebted to the Registrar of the Court for making available to me a copy of this letter, together with the record of the written and oral proceedings in the case, in advance of their official publication.

88 See [1973] I.C.J. Reports 35.

89 See, for example, Elias (1971) 134 Hague, Recueil des Cours 333, Nahlik (1971) 65 Am.J.Int.L. 736Google Scholar and Rozakis (1973–75) 16 Archiv des Volk 150.

90 See [1974] I.C.J. Reports 296, 297.

91 It is interesting to note that both Judge Waldock and Judge Gros were members of the recent Court of Arbitration which summarily dismissed a French argument that the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf had been rendered obsolete by developments in customary international law. See the United Kingdom- France Continental Shelf Arbitration (1977), Cmnd. 7438, Misc. No. 15 (1978) paras. 45–47.Google Scholar

92 See (1976–77) 48 Brit. Yearbook Int.L. at p. 197.

93 South West Africa, Preliminary Objections, Judgment [1962] I.C.J. Reports 6.Google Scholar

94 See Friedmann (1967) 6 Colum.J.Transnat.L. 1, Prott (1967) 3 Rev.Belge Droit Int. 37, Cheng (1967) 20 Current Legal Problems 181 and Merrills, op. cit., n. 92 above.

95 Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment [1973]Google Scholar I.C.J. Reports 3, Federal Republic of Germany v. Iceland, ibid., p. 49.

96 See Dugard (1975–76) 16 Virg.J.Int.L. 463, McWhinney (1977) 37 Zaö RV 1, Merrills (1978) 41 Modern L.Rev. 638 and the works referred to in n. 94 above. For a highly original analysis of this issue see Prott, The Latent Power of Culture and the International Judge (1979).

97 See in addition to the references in nn. 36 and 37 above, Prott (1973–74) 7 Sydney L.Rev. 433, Lellouche (1975) 16 Harv.Int.L.J. 614 and Franck (1975) 69 Am.J. Int.L. 612.

98 It should be noted, however, that Greece argued with some justification that in the light of the uncontradicted finding of the six dissenting judges in the 1974 case, the status of the General Act could now scarcely be regarded as a matter of doubt. See I.C.J. Pleadings, Aegean Sea Continental Shelf, Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection, Uncorrected verbatim record, CR 76/1 at pp. 64, 65.

99 [1961] I.C.J. Reports 38.

1 [1978] I.C.J. Reports 17. In addition, Judge Stassinopoulos drew attention to the importance of clarifying the status of the Act for the benefit of the applicant, ibid., p. 72.

2 [1957] I.C.J. Reports 34–66. And see also Lauterpacht's dissenting opinion in the Interhandel case ([1959]) I.C.J. Reports 6) in which he said (ibid., p. 102) “…the answer of the Court to the challenge to the validity of the automatic reservation inevitably raises the issue of the effectiveness and the validity of the Declaration of Acceptance as a basis of any pronouncement of the Court on any aspect either of jurisdiction or the merits. Whatever may be the inconvenience and the difficulties, from various points of view, of a decision on these questions, it is not possible for a judicial tribunal to postpone it.”

3 On the origins and functions of individual opinions see Anand (1965) 14 I.C.L.Q. 788.

4 On the recent attempt to draw a clear distinction between individual opinions and declarations, and on the special problems posed by the latter, see Jhabvala (1978) 72 Am.J.Int.L. 830.