¹ Lauterpacht, Hersch, The Development of International Law by the International Court 34 (London, 1958).Google Scholar

² The term “World Court” is here used to embrace both the International Court of Justice (hereafter referred to as the I.C.J.) and the Permanent Court of International Justice (hereafter referred to as the P.C.I.J.).

³ Schiff, , “The Use of Out-of-Court Information in Fact Determination at Trial,” 41 Can. Bar Rev. 335 (1963).Google Scholar

⁴ “Judicial notice” is used by Schiff to refer to those propositions in a party’s case as to which he will not be required to offer evidence, being taken for true by the tribunal without need of evidence: see Ibid., 338–55.

⁵ Ibid., 337.

⁶ Jenks, C. Wilfred, The Prospects of International Adjudication 184 (London, 1964).Google Scholar

⁷ When considering the power of an international judicial tribunal to call evidence of its own motion, the problem will immediately arise, what is the difference between law and fact? This consideration is of importance because there is no question of proof of a general rule of international law — jura novit curio: see Brazilian Loans Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A., No. 20/21, 124 (1929). Further, if a state relies on something special unto itself such as a treaty right or regional rule of international law, the tribunal will take account of these more specific rules if it is aware of them; a state, however, obviously takes a risk if it does not submit enough material upon which to lay the foundation of its right: see Judge Basdevant in the Case of Certain Norwegian Loans, [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 9, 74. Thus questions of law as opposed to questions of fact need not be raised by the parties themselves; the tribunal can, and should, examine them proprio motu. See Smith, Carsten, The Relation between Proceedings and Premises 104–05 (Universitets foalaget, 1962).Google Scholar

⁸ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 34(1), provides that “only states may be parties in cases before the Court.” (Reference will only be made to the I.C.J. Statute and Rules except where the provisions of the P.G.I.J. Statute and Rules differ.)

⁹ For example, Right of Passage over Indian Territory, [1960] I.C.J. Rep. 4; Temple of Preah Vihear Case, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 6.

¹⁰ For example, Chorzow Factory Case, P.G.I.J., Ser. A., No. 17 (1928); Oscar Chin Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 63 (1934); Corfu Channel Case (Merits), [1949] I.G.J. Rep. 4.

¹¹ Durward, V. Sandifer, Evidence Before International Tribunals 3 (Chicago, 1939).Google Scholar

¹² Serbian Loans Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 20, 19 (1929); referred to in the Southwest Africa Case (Preliminary Objections), [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 319, 423, with approval. Clearly, disputes concerning exclusively matters of fact may be brought before the Court, for the states concerned may agree that the fact to be established would constitute a breach of international law: see Serbian Loans Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 20, 19 (1929).

¹³ Temple of Preah Vihear Case, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 6, 67.

¹⁴ [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266, 287.

¹⁵ Sandifer, op. cit supra note 11, at 15.

¹⁶ P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 72 (1931). See Sandifer, op. cit. supra note 11, at 15.

¹⁷ P.C.I.J. Ser. C, No. 72, 510 (1931). Several factors contribute to the difficulties faced by tribunals and counsel in the acquisition of evidence. Those factors which have received most frequent attention before the World Court and other international judicial tribunals are: (i) the principle of territorial sovereignty (for example, see Corfu Channel Case (Merits) [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 18); (ii) absence of authority to compel the attendance of witnesses, administer oaths and impose penalties for perjury; (iii) absence of authority to compel the production of documents; (iv) negligence of claimants in furnishing material to substantiate their claims; (v) complex conditions provoking the conflicting claims submitted to judicial settlement; and (vi) the elements of distance and time. For a discussion of these factors, see Sandifer, op. cit supra note 11, at 15 et seq.

¹⁸ P.C.I.J., Ser. D. No. 2 (add.), 101-02 (1926). The Court has been very libera] in the admission of evidence submitted to it at any time before the submission of the case to the Court for decision: see Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 46, 155–56 (1932); German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 7, 72–73 (1926); and Chorzow Factory Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 9, 19 (1928).

¹⁹ P.C.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2 (add.), 249, 250 (1926) (translation by the author).

²⁰ White, Gillian M., The Use of Experts by International Tribunals 8–9 (Syracuse, N.Y., 1965).Google Scholar See also Rosenne, Shabati, The International Court of Justice 408–10 (Leyden, 1957)Google Scholar; Lauterpacht, op. cit. supra note 1, at 362–67; and Winterberg, , “Onus Probandi Devant de Jurisdictions Arbitrales,” 55 Rev. Gen. de Droit Int’l Public 321 (1951).Google Scholar

²¹ In certain cases the burden of proof may be determined by presumptions: see Cheng, Bin, General Principles of Laws as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals 304–06 (London, 1953)Google Scholar; and Sandifer, op. cit. supra note 11, at 98–100.

²² See for instance Legal Status of Eastern Greenland, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 54, 49 (1933) (Norway although in effect in the position of a defendant carried the burden of proof in relation to certain allegations it made in respect of several Danish administrative and legislative acts) ; Asylum Case, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 266 (Colombia as applicant invoked a regional rule of international law which, not being general international law, may be regarded as a question of fact and as outside the principle of jura novit curia. The Court held that a party who relies on a custom of this kind must prove its existence and that it is binding on the other party); Minquiers and Ecrehos Case, [1953] I.C.J. Rep. 47 (both parties were subjected to equal burden of proof in establishing their respective titles to the islands in question, the Court being called upon to “appraise the relative strength of the opposing claims”: ibid., 67).

²³ Winterberg, supra note 20. Cf. Sandifer, op. cit. supra note 11, at 97–98; and Georges Scelle, Report on Arbitral Procedure, I.L.C. Doc. A/CN 4/18, paras. 64, 71.

²⁴ Winterberg, supra note 20, at 331, 335, 339.

²⁵ P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 63 (1934).

²⁶ But see the arbitration involving the boundaries between French Guiana and Brazil, where the Swiss Federal Council, in its decision as arbitrator, declared that ‘“the arbitrator holds he is not bound to confine himself to the contentions of the parties and the sources of evidence which they invoke. ... It is the duty of the arbitrator… to ascertain the truth by all means which are at his disposal.” This passage is reproduced in Commentary on the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure, I.L.C. Doc. A/CN. 4/92, 58 (1955).

²⁷ P.G.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 63, 88 (1934). Cf. Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 46, 162 (1932).

²⁸ P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 63, 146 (1934).

²⁹ Ibid., 147.

³⁰ The Court has, in several cases, declined to make use of experts notwithstanding the requests of the parties to that end. See infra note 68.

³¹ See infra 161–64.

³² See infra 164–72.

³³ White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 9.

³⁴ Ibid.

³⁵ This also applies to cases brought before the I.C.J, by special agreement. For provisions contemplating the amendment of stipulated legal procedures upon the request of the parties, see I.C.J. Statute, Art. 39 (official language), and Art. 46 (hearing in public).

³⁶ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 30 (1), provides “the Court shall frame rules for carrying out its function. In particular it shall lay down rules of procedure.”

³⁷ See White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 5–6.

³⁸ Notably in the articles governing the composition of the tribunals and the extent of its jurisdiction.

³⁹ Carlston, Kenneth S., The Process of International Arbitration 260 (New York, 1946).Google Scholar He also refers to the assurance concerning the mode of rendering the award and the form and substance of the award. See also Simpson, J. L. and Fox, Hazel, International Arbitration 147–54 (London, 1959)Google Scholar; and Bin Cheng, op. cit. supra note 21, at 257–386.

⁴⁰ Carlston, op. cit. supra note 39, at 260. Again in the same work Carlston states “procedural rules should be carefully adapted to the requirements of each arbitration as it arises so that it may be consummated, speedily, economically, and justly” : ibid., 4.

⁴¹ For a discussion of the term “principal” jurisdiction, see Rosenne, I, The Law and Practice of the International Court 318–19 (Leyden, 1965).Google Scholar

⁴² Ibid., 319.

⁴³ Ibid., 422–23.

⁴⁴ Treatment of U.S. Aircraft and Crews in Hungary, [1954] I.C.J. Rep. 158, 160.

⁴⁵ What the objective facts are, and the conditions for the exercise of any particular aspect of this incidental jurisdiction are laid down in the Statute and Rules of the World Court and in general principles relating to the administration of justice.

⁴⁶ Hudson, Manley O., International Tribunals 86 (Concord, N.H., 1944)Google Scholar; Simpson and Fox, op. cit. supra note 39, at 147, 15s; Sandifer, op. cit. supra note 11, at 28-29. See also the dictum of the United Kingdom-Mexican Claims Commission in the Cameron Case, 5 U.N.R.I.A.A. 29.

⁴⁷ Sandifer, op. cit supra note 11, at 28–29.

⁴⁸ Ralston, Jackson H., Law and Procedure of International Tribunals 197 (Stanford, Calif., 1926).Google Scholar

⁴⁹ P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 72 (1931).

⁵⁰ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

⁵¹ 4 Corfu Channel Case-I.C.J. Pleadings 428 (1949-50); 5 Corfu Channel Case – I.C.J. Pleadings 255 (1949–50).

⁵² [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 32.

⁵³ This was the position in the case of Appeals from Certain Judgments of the Hungro-Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral Tribunal, P.G.I.J., Ser. G, No. 72 (1931).

⁵⁴ P.C.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2 (add.), 127 (1926).

⁵⁵ P.G.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2 (3rd add.), 101 (1936).

⁵⁶ P.G.I.J., Ser. E, No. 8, 261 (1932). For a lengthy exchange of views between the Danish and Norwegian Agents during the proceedings in the case concerning the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland with reference to allegations by the latter that Denmark had submitted with her case a number of incomplete and misleading quotations, see P.G.I.J., Ser. C, No. 36, 992-95, 1003 (1933); P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 67, 3291–94, 3556–58 (1933).

⁵⁷ Sandifer, op. cit. supra note 11, at 73.

⁵⁸ It should be noted that through a request to a public international organization for information the Court may also receive documentary evidence relevant to the proceedings before it: see infra 173–76.

⁵⁹ [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6, 348.

⁶⁰ International Status of Southwest Africa Case, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 128.

⁶¹ [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 6, 348.

⁶² For a detailed and critical discussion of the use of experts in international judicial proceedings, see White, op. cit. supra note 20.

⁶³ The powers of the Court over experts called by the parties are discussed infra 167–73.

⁶⁴ I.C.J. Rules, Art. 57(1).

⁶⁵ For examples, see Oscar Chin Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 63 (1934); Phosphates in Morocco Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 84 (1938), and P.G.I.J., Ser. C, No. 85 (1938); Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case – I.C.J. Pleadings 360 (1952); Nottebohm Case (Second Phase), [1957] I.C.J. Rep. 9.

⁶⁶ P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17 (1928).

⁶⁷ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

⁶⁸ Orders of September 13, 1928, P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 17, 99 (1928).

⁶⁹ Judgment, ibid., 52.

⁷⁰ Order of September 13, 1928, ibid., 99.

⁷¹ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

⁷² (Preliminary Objection), [1947–1948] I.C.J. Rep. 15, 17.

⁷³ Brierly, James L., The Law of Nations 422 (6th ed. Waldock, Oxford, 1963).Google Scholar

⁷⁴ [1947–48] I.C.J. Rep. 134.

⁷⁵ Ibid., 126–27. These provisions may well have been included because of the lively contest as to the facts which had taken place, and of the degree of reliance which the Court was obliged to place on circumstantial evidence.

⁷⁶ This may be discerned from the letter of January 4, 1949, sent by the Yugoslav government to the Court: see 5 Corfu Channel Case – I.C.J. Pleadings 253 (1949–50).

⁷⁷ Ibid.

⁷⁸ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 31.

⁷⁹ For the observations, see 5 Corfu Channel Case - I.C.J. Pleadings 93, 115 (1949-50).

⁸⁰ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 152–62, 163–69.

⁸¹ Ibid., 18.

⁸² Ibid., 20.

⁸³ Ibid., 21.

⁸⁴ Ibid.

⁸⁵ Ibid., 238.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 249. For the experts’ report, see ibid., 258–60.

⁸⁷ White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 114.

⁸⁸ Ibid., 114.

⁸⁹ P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 78 (1939).

⁹⁰ Ibid., 178.

⁹¹ Ibid., 182.

⁹² White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 115.

⁹³ Ibid., 116.

⁹⁴ Lauterpacht, op. cit. supra note 1, at 48. See also Dillard, , “A Tribute to Philip C. Jessup and Some Comments on International Adjudication,” 62 Colum. L. Rev. 1138, 1145 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁹⁵ White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 165.

⁸⁶ P.C.I.J., Ser. E, No. 10, at 106 (1934). France and Switzerland agreed to appoint three experts, in the economic and finance field, to draw up revised regulations for the exchange of goods between regions concerned.

⁹⁷ White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 165.

⁹⁸ This right of the parties was not expressly included in the order of December 17, 1948; the Registrar was merely under a duty to communicate the report to the parties. See [1947–48] I.G.J. Rep. 124, 127.

⁹⁹ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 21.

¹⁰⁰ See I.G.J. Statute, Art. 50.

¹⁰¹ P.C.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2 (3rd add.), 247 (1936).

¹⁰² This expression refers to evidence by means of witnesses as distinguished from documentary evidence.

¹⁰³ See Hudson, op. cit. supra note 46, at 94; and a Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 41, at 572.

¹⁰⁴ Each witness and expert is required by the I.C.J. Rules, Art. 53, to make a declaration before giving testimony.

¹⁰⁵ For the effective administration of testimonial proof a tribunal must have the power, it is suggested, to compel the attendance of witnesses and the giving of evidence by the witnesses, and to punish for perjury.

¹⁰⁶ I.C.J. Rides, Art. 49, make provision for the calling of witnesses by the parties.

¹⁰⁷ See I.C.J. Statute, Art. 51, and I.C.J. Rules, Art. 53.

¹⁰⁸ This procedure was followed in the Corful Channel Case: see 3 Corfu Channel Case – I.C.J. Pleadings 427 (1949–50). For an example of technical explanations, see 4 Anglo – Norwegian Fisheries Case – I.C.J. Pleadings 64 (1951).

¹⁰⁹ I.C.J. Rules, Art. 54.

¹¹⁰ I.C.J. Rules, Art. 56.

¹¹¹ For example, Corfu Channel Case, [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4; Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 116; Temple of Preah Vihear Case, [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 6; Southwest Africa Case, [1966] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

¹¹² P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 7, 96 (1926); P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 11, 29 (1926).

¹¹³ P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. II, 29 (1926).

¹¹⁴ I.G.J. Rules, Art. 60(2). See also P.C.I.J. Rules, Art. 60(2), which differs slightly from the I.C.J. Rules.

¹¹⁵ P.C.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2 (3d. add.), 240–41 (1936).

¹¹⁶ There was no equivalent provision in the P.C.I.J. Statute.

¹¹⁷ This denotes the agreements that establish the status of the Specialized Agencies.

¹¹⁸ I.L.O. Agreement, Art. IX(1), Agreements between the United Nations and the Specialized Agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, U.N. Doc. ST/SG/14(1961). See also F.A.O. Agreement, Art. IX(1); U.N.E.S.C.O. Agreement, Art. X(1); I.R.O. Agreement, Art. X(1); I.T.U. Agreement, Art. VII(1); W.M.O. Agreement, Art. VII(1); I.M.C.O. Agreement, Art. X(2) : Ibid. No such clause appears in the agreements with the I.B.R.D., I.M.F., I.D.A., and U.P.U.: ibid.

¹¹⁹ I Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 41, at 287.

¹²⁰ Although no equivalent provisions to those discussed are to be found in the Rules or Statute of the P.C.I.J., that Court adopted a procedure very similar to that contemplated by the Rules and Statute of the I.C.J, in the Monastry of St. Naoum Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 9 (1924).

¹²¹ (Preliminary Objections), [1947–1948] I.C.J. Rep. 15.

¹²² [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 93.

¹²³ (Preliminary Objections), [1962] I.C.J. Rep. 319.

¹²⁴ [1963] I.C.J. Rep. 15.

¹²⁵ [1952] I.C.J. Rep. 200.

¹²⁶ [1959] I.C.J. Rep. 127.

¹²⁷ I.C.A.O. Doc. C-MP/2609 of February 21, 1958, para. 5.

¹²⁸ I.C.J. Rules, Art. 57(4).

¹²⁹ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 34.

¹³⁰ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4.

¹³¹ 2 Corfu Channel Case - I.C.J. Pleadings 258 (1950).

¹³² 5 Corfu Channel Case - I.C.J. Pleadings 200 (1949–50).

¹³³ Ibid., 244, 233. These documents were not admitted as evidence but, on agreement between the parties, were used in the examination of one witness.

¹³⁴ Ibid., 234.

¹³⁵ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 17.

¹³⁶ For the definition of the term “judicial notice” as used in this section, see supra note 4.

¹³⁷ In only two instruments creating international judicial tribunals has the writer found provision expressly conferring on the tribunal authority to take judicial noticie of certain facts. See Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nuremberg), Art. 21, and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Far East), Art. 13(d), cited by Bin Cheng, op cit. supra note 21, at 303, fn. 10.

¹³⁸ P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 7, 73 (1926).

¹³⁹ P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 41, 70 (1931). See also Competence of the I.L.O. with respect to Agricultural Labour Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 2, 31 (1922).

¹⁴⁰ P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 23, 18–19 (1929).

¹⁴¹ P.C.I.J., Ser. A, No. 21, 124 (1929).

¹⁴² Ibid., 124.

¹⁴³ P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 65, 61 (1935).

¹⁴⁴ Ibid., 61.

¹⁴⁵ P.G.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 70 (1937).

¹⁴⁶ Hudson, , “Visits by International Tribunals to Places Concerned in the Proceedings,” 31 Am. J. Int’l L. 696, 697 (1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar And see Hudson, Manley O., The Permanent Court of International Justice 566–67 (New York, 1943).Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 81, 553 (1937).

¹⁴⁸ Cf. Free Zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex Case, P.C.I.J., Ser. A/B, No. 46, 162–63 (1932), in which the Court declined to make an investigation on the spot, which it was authorized to do under the special agreement between France and Switzerland.

¹⁴⁹ P.C.I.J., Ser. C, No. 81, 222–23 (1937).

¹⁵⁰ Hudson, , “Visits by International Tribunals to Places Concerned in the Proceedings,” 31 Am. J. Int’l L. 696, 697 (1937).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵¹ Perhaps “other evidence” may encompass such things as documents relevant to the dispute which are not relied on by either party, and exhibits.

¹⁵² [1953] I.C.J. Rep. 44.

¹⁵³ Ambatielos Case-I.C.J. Pleadings 347, 566 (1953).

¹⁵⁴ 4 Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case - I.C.J. Pleadings 474 (1951).

¹⁵⁵ I.G.J. Statute, Art’s 34–64.

¹⁵⁸ I.C.J. Statute, Art’s 65–68.

¹⁵⁷ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 34(1).

¹⁵⁸ It is clear, however, that the parties may agree as to the facts of a dispute and request the Court to determine “any question of international law” arising from those facts. As to the effects of such an agreement, see infra 183–86.

¹⁵⁹ I.C.J. Rules, Art’s 32–60. See also P.C.I.J. Rules, Art’s 32–60.

¹⁶⁰ I.C.J. Rules, Art’s 70–73. It should here be briefly mentioned that P.C.I.J. Statute, Art’s 26–27, provided for the appointment of a special Chamber of the Court to adjudicate on labour cases relating to transit and communications. Further, the P.C.I.J. Statute, Art. 28, provided that Chambers of the Court could sit elsewhere than at The Hague if the parties consented. These provisions were never applied.

¹⁶¹ I.C.J. Rules, Art. 72(5).

¹⁶² P.C.I.J. Ser. D, No. 2 (3d add.), 365–66 (1936).

¹⁶³ Ibid., 363.

¹⁶⁴ P.C.I.J., Ser. A, Nos. 3 and 4 (1924 and 1925).

¹⁶⁵ This question is considered in somewhat more detail by Smith, op. cit. supra note 7, at 104–11.

¹⁶⁶ P.C.I.J., Ser. E, No. 3, 212 (1927). See also Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, [1951] I.C.J. Rep. 116, 140.

¹⁶⁷ Smith, op. cit. supra note 7, at 107–08.

¹⁶⁸ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 38, provides that the Court shall apply “general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.”

¹⁶⁹ See I.C.J. Statute, Art. 65, which provides that the right to request advisory opinions is reserved to authorized “bodies.”

¹⁷⁰ Smith, op. cit. supra note 7, at 107-08. An exception to this is where the Court deals with hypothetical cases when giving abstract interpretations of treaties. See Hambro, , “The Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,” 76 Recueil des Cours 125, 166 (1950–1).Google Scholar

¹⁷¹ [1949] I.C.J. Rep. 4, 84.

¹⁷² Bin Cheng, op. cit. supra note 21, at 299.

¹⁷³ Bin Cheng, op. cit. supra note 21, at 302.

¹⁷⁴ P.C.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2, 370 (1922).

¹⁷⁵ Ibid., 409.

¹⁷⁶ For a discussion of the use of experts in advisory proceedings, see White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 43–46.

¹⁷⁷ U.N. Charter, Art. 96.

¹⁷⁸ I.C.J. Statute, Art’s 65–68.

¹⁷⁹ The advisory procedure is not unique to the World Court, but is also a common feature of some municipal law systems. See for instance Frankfurter, , “A Note on Advisory Opinions,” 37 Harv. L. Rev. 102 (1923–24)Google Scholar; and Rubin, , “The Nature, Use and Affect of Reference Cases in Canadian Constitutional Law,” 6 McGill L. J. 168 (1958).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁰ For example, see Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania, [1950] I.G.J. Rep. 65.

¹⁸¹ See infra 189.

¹⁸² I.C.J. Statute, Art. 65(2). See 2 Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 41, at 478–80.

¹⁸³ P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 5 (1923).

¹⁸⁴ Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 65, 72.

¹⁸⁵ P.C.I.J., Ser. B, No. 5, 28 (1923).

¹⁸⁶ White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 45.

¹⁸⁷ Fitzmaurice, , “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: International Organizations and Tribunals,” 29 Brit. Y.B. Int’l L. 53 (1952).Google Scholar

¹⁸⁸ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 31, and I.C.J. Rules, Art. 83.

¹⁸⁹ I.C.J. Statute, Art. 66(2).

¹⁹⁰ In the Case of Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crime of Genocide, [1950] I.C.J. Rep. 406, 407 and advisory matter, the Court thought it advisable to receive information from the I.L.O. and instructed the Registrar to notify that Organization, in application of Art. 66(2) of the Statute.

¹⁹¹ See supra 174.

¹⁹² Winterberg, , “La théorie des preuves devant des jurisdictions internationales,” 56 Recueil des Cours 5, 97 (1936–II) (translated by White, op. cit. supra note 20, at 80). See also Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 4, at 409.Google Scholar

¹⁹³ Hudson, Manely O., International Tribunals, Past and Future 93 (Washington, D.C., 1944).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁴ Carlston, op. cit. supra note 39, at 81–124.

¹⁹⁵ white, op. cit. supra note 20, at 17–20; Sandifer, op. cit. supra note 20, at 10.

¹⁹⁶ See Schiff, supra note 3.

¹⁹⁷ See P.C.I.J., Ser. D, No. 2 (add. 3) (1936).

¹⁹⁸ For an account of such legislation, see Anderson, , “Production of Evidence by Subpoena before International Tribunals,” 27 Am. J. Int’l L. 498 (1933)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Jessup, , “National Sanctions for International Tribunals,” 20 A.B.A.J. 55 (1934).Google Scholar

¹⁹⁹ Jenks, op. cit. supra note 6, at 184.