^{page 150 note 1} Cf. for instance the respect of the sovereignty of States in the great multilateral treaties: the Covenant of the League of Nations, Art. 4 § 5, Art. 5 § 1, Art. 15 § 8; the Statutes of the PCIJ and the ICJ, Art. 34; the U.N. Charter, Preamble, Art. 1 § 2, Art. 2 § 1 and 7, Art. 51, Art. 78; The Charter of the Organization of American States (Bogota, , 04 30, 1948Google Scholar), Preamble, § 2, Art. 1, Art. 5 b), Art. 6, 9, 16; Manila Treaty (September 8,1954), Preamble and Art. 4, and the Pacific Charter (included in this Treaty), § 1, §4; Bandung Conference Final Communiqué (Apr. 24, 1955), § G—principles; Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (October 26, 1956), Art. IV, C. etc.

In the field of international justice, cf.: PCIJ, Judgement of August 17, 1923, Wimbledon case, A. No. 1, p. 25; PCIJ, Judgement of Sept. 7, 1927, Lotus case, A. No. 10, p. 18; ICJ, Adv. Op. March 30, 1950, ICJ Reports, 1950, p. 71.

In the field of international arbitration, cf.: U.N. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, Vol. I, pp. 97, 103, 420, 611Google Scholar; Vol. II, 641, 642, 761, 768, 838, 839, 1184, 1203, 1254, 1287; Vol. III, 1400, 1627.

As for reservations to protect the sovereign will of the State in arbitration treaties, cf.: 1) League of Nations, Arbitration and Security, Systematic Survey of the Arbitration Conventions and Mutual Security deposited with the L. of N. Geneva 1926, Analysis by Van Hamel, , pp. 3–14. 2Google Scholar) U.N. Systematic Survey of Treaties for The Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1928–1948, Lake Success, N.Y. 1948. Analysis of treaties, pp. 3 ff. 3) Habicht, Max, Post-war Treaties for Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Cambridge, Mass. 1931, Analysis of the treaties, pp. 971 ff.Google Scholar

For the exceptions of domestic jurisdiction, called also reserved domain or exclusive competence of States, cf.: 1) Geneva Research Centre, Walter Schiffer, Repertoire of Questions of General International Law before League of Nations 1920–1940, Geneva, §§ 137–295 (1942). 2) U.N. Repertory of Practice of U.N. Organs, New York, Vol. I, pp. 62–131 (1955)Google Scholar.

For the reluctance of States to accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, cf.: ICJ Yearbook 1954–1955, 189–200. Cf. in literature: Laurent Jully, Arbitration and Judicial Settlement, Recent Trends, 48 AJIL, 380 ff, 391 ff. (1954). About the U.S.A. declaration of August 14, 1946 concerning the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ: M. O. Hudson, The Twenty-Fourth Year of the World Court, 40 AJIL, p. 1 ff. (1946). Idem, 41 AJIL, 9–14 (1947); Francis O. Wilcox, The U.S. Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction, 40 AJIL, 699 ff. (1946); Charles Cheney Hyde, The U.S. Accepts the Optional Clause, ibidem, 778 ff. Potter, Pitman B., As Determined by the U.S.Google Scholar, ibidem, 794 ff.; Preuss, Lawrence, The ICJ, The Senate and Matters of Domestic JurisdictionGoogle Scholar, ibidem, 720 ff.; Waldock, C. H., The Plea of Domestic Jurisdiction before International Legal Tribunals, Br. YBK of IL, 1954, 97 ff., 131, 142 (1956).Google Scholar

American publicists belonging to the category A) as above, and their followers take also into consideration not only USA Courts' judgments in the field, but the reluctance of the influential part of American public opinion to accept restrictions on sovereignty. For instance, Dr. Luther Evans, director general of the UNESCO, had to reckon with that attitude when he stated: “However, as director general of the UNESCO, I can state unequivocally that UNESCO's objectives in no way involve an attempt to establish a world government or threaten the sovereignty of any of its member nations” (U.N., Oct. 13, 1955, cf. New York Times, Oct. 14, 1955, Unesco Director Replies to Legion).

^{page 151 note 1} The most impressive here—besides the multilateral political and custom union agreements—are the European Union, the European Convention on Human Rights, Rome, November 4, 1950, and the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty, ECSC, Paris, April 18, 1951, in force July 25, 1952, text in AJIL, Suppl. 46, 107 ff. (1952). Text of the Convention in European Yearbook, Vol. I, Published under the Auspices of the Council of Europe, The Hague, 273 ff. (1955). Cf. in literature: A. H. Robertson, The European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Br. YBK 1950, 145 ff. (1951); The ECSC Treaty is regarded by many publicists as a revolutionary treaty, creating “supra-national” organs. Cf.: Joseph Kunz, Supra-National Organs, 46 AJIL, 690 ff. (1952); Paul Reuter, Le Plan Schuman, 81 Hague Rec. 523 ff. (1952); Raymond Vernon, The Schuman Plan Sovereign Powers of the ECSC, 47 AJIL, 183 ff. (1953); D. G. Valentino, The Court of Justice of the ECSC (The Hague, 1955). Cf. also: W. Friedman, Some Impacts of Social Organization on International Law, 50 AJIL, 475 ff. (1956); Walter Schätzel, Les Limites à la Souveraineté en Matière d'Immigration et de Naturalisation, in Revue Internationale Française du Droit des Gens, Paris, t. XXIII, 24 ff. (1954). The Treaty for the European Economie Community, as well as the Treaty Creating a European Atom Authority, both signed in Rome on March 25, 1957, play here also a stimulating rôle.

^{page 152 note 1} Cf. for instance: Mouvement Européen, Comité d'Etudes pour la Constitution Européenne. Projet de Statut de la Communauté Politique Européenne, Bruxelles, Novembre 1952; Herbert Briggs, The Proposed European Political Community, 48 AJIL, 110 ff. (1954); Cf. also Draft of a World Constitution, (Chicago 1948), text in Prof. Sohn's collection, op. cit. 109–125. Ibidem, The Luxemburg Declaration, Adopted by the Second International Congress of the World Movement for World Federal Government, September 10, 1948, text. pp. 1125–1128. Cf. in literature: Philip Marshall Brown, World Law, 40 AJIL, 159 ff. (1946); Clyde Eagleton, The Demand for World Government, 40 AJIL, 390 ff. (1946); Idem, International Government (New York, 1948); Inis L. Claude, Swords into Plowshares. The Problems and Progress of International Organization, New York, Ch. 17: World Government and World Order, 407 ff. (1956). Cf. also: Ralston, Jackson H., A Quest for International Order, Washington, 1941Google Scholar; Corbett, P. E., Law and Society in the Relations of States, New York, 1951.Google Scholar

Immediately after the Second World War, several most prominent statesmen such as Spaak of Belgium, Eden and Bevin of Great Britain, and Mackenzie King of Canada pronounced themselves in favor of a “World Law” and a “World Organization”. Cf. Philip Marshall Brown, World Law, 40 AJIL, 159 (1946); Keeton, and Schwarzenberger, , Making International Law Work, London, 171–174 (1946).Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 1} L'Etat, , op. cit., t. I, 349.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 2} Traité de Droit Constitutionnel, 40 (1906).Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 3} Korowicz, M. St., La Souveraineté, op. cit. 140–176.Google Scholar

^{page 153 note 4} Die Lehre der Rechtssouveränität, 1906, and L'Idée Moderne de L'Etat, 13 Hague Rec., 567, 576.

^{page 154 note 1} Les Rapports de Système entre le Droit Interne et le Droit International Public, 14 Hague Rec., 276 ff., 310 ff. (1926), also Joseph Kunz, La Primauté du Droit des Gens, Revue de Droit International (1925); Korowicz, , Souveraineté, op. cit. 98–121.Google Scholar

^{page 154 note 2} Principles of International Law (New York, 1952), 111, 156, 108 ff., 315 ff. Cf. also Kelsen, , Théorie du Droit International Public, 84 Hague Rec. (1953)Google Scholar where he presents the same viewpoint.

^{page 154 note 3} Rev. Gen. de Dr. Int. Publ., 23 (1908).

^{page 154 note 4} Der Staatenverband der Haager Konferenzen, 115 (1912).

^{page 154 note 5} Les Nouvelles Tendances du Droit International Public, Paris, 18 (1927).

^{page 154 note 6} Ibidem, 24.

^{page 154 note 7} Op. cit. 58 Hague Rec., 579 (1936).

^{page 155 note 1} Op. cit. 295.

^{page 155 note 2} Le Principe de la Souveraineté de l'Etat et le Droit International Public, Rev. Gen. de Dr. Int. Publ. 109, 116, 117 (1926).

^{page 155 note 3} Précis de Droit des Gens, Première Partie, Paris, IX, 13, 14, 80, 81 (1932).

^{page 155 note 4} A Textbook of International Law, London, 40, 44, 45 (1947).

^{page 155 note 5} Constitution of the U.N., Kobenhavn, 129 (1950).

^{page 156 note 1} Charles Rousseau, L'Indépendance de l'Etat dans l'Ordre International, 73 Hague Rec., 190 (1948).

^{page 156 note 2} Droit International Public, Paris, 90–92 (1953).

^{page 156 note 3} Johan-Gottlieb Fichte, Reden an die Deutsche Nation, Langensaltza (1896). A series of lectures given at the Berlin University in 1807/08.

^{page 157 note 1} Georg Wilhelm Hegel, Grundlinien der Philosophie des Rechts, cf. §§ 331–333 (1821).

^{page 157 note 2} R. v. Ihering, mainly in “Der Geist des Römischen Rechts”, vol. IV, and in Der Zweck im Recht (1877); Georg Jellinek in System der Subjektiven Öffentlichen Rechte, and in Allgemeine Staatslehre, 4th ed. Berlin (1922); Bergbohm in Völkerrecht, Berlin (1886). A survey of teachings of these jurists in Jellinek's books. Cf. A. Verdross, Le Fondement du Droit International, 16 Hague Rec., 262 ff. (1927).

^{page 157 note 3} Cf. A. Verdross, Règles Générales du Droit International de la Paix, 30 Hague Rec., 345 ff. (1922).

^{page 157 note 4} Cf. the very significant opinions of Prof. Joseph Kohler, in Notwehr and Neutralität (Berlin, 1914).

^{page 157 note 5} Cf. Hitler's Mein Kampf; Alfred Rosenberg's Der Mythus des Neunzehnten Jahrhunderts; Helmut Nicolai, Die Grundlagen der Neuen Verfassung (Berlin, 1933). Cf. J. Fournier, La Conception National-Socialiste du Droit des Gens (Paris, 1939), and Lawrence Preuss, La Conception Raciale National-Socialiste du Droit International in Rev. Gen. de Dr. Int. Publ., 669–677 (1935).

^{page 158 note 1} Cf. here articles published in the AJIL: Eugene A. Korovin, The Second World War and International Law, 40, 742 ff. (1946); Minotauts Chakste, Soviet Concepts of the State, International Law and Sovereignty, 43, 21 ff. (1949); W. W. Kulski's periodical comments: the last ones in Vol. 48, 307 ff. (1954); Vol. 49, 518 ff. (1955).

^{page 158 note 2} Cf. M. St. Korowicz, Soviet Conception of Law and Protection of Human Rights, in Studies of the Association of Polish Lawyers in Exile in the USA, New York, 27–50 (1956).

^{page 158 note 3} Cf. T. A. Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law, New York, 46, 47 (1935). Julius Stone, Legal Control of International Conflict, N.Y. 60–63 (1954).

^{page 158 note 4} Cf. Serge Krylov, Les Notions Principales du Droit des Gens, 70 Hague Rec., 449–451 (1947), and idem, The Fight of the Soviet Union for the Principles of International Law, published in Polish, in Panstwo i Prawo, Warszawa, No. 11, pp. 43, 49 (1950). Cf. also Krylov's position in respect to the “reserved domain” in Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, La Haye, Vol. 43, t. I, 33–35 (1950).

^{page 158 note 5} About Some Problems of the Theory of State and Law, in Russian, Sov. Cos. i Pravo, Moscow, No. 6 (1948).

^{page 159 note 1} Problems of International Law and International Politics, Polish ed. Warsaw, 362, 686, 687 (1951).

^{page 159 note 2} The Creative Role of the USSR in Just Settlement of Territorial Problems, in Polish, in Panstwo i Prawo, No. 12, pp. 8, 9 (1950).

^{page 159 note 3} How the USSR respects the principle “pacta sunt servanda” is abundantly shown in the U.S. Senate Doc. No. 85, August 1, 1955, Soviet Political Treaties and Violations. Forword by Senator J. O. Eastland, cf. pp. III–VI.

^{page 159 note 4} For the complete Soviet doctrine, cf. also: Jean Yves Calvez, Droit International et Souveraineté en USSR (Paris 1953); Ivo Lapenna, Conceptions Soviétiques de Droit International (Paris, 1954).

^{page 160 note 1} Cf. Amos J. Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations, Concord N.H. vol. I, pp. 6–8 (1950): Constitutions mentioning either sovereign people or sovereign monarchs, as the source of sovereign power. The term “sovereignty” is used in new constitutions also in its other international law sense. The Preamble of the French Constitution (Sept. 28, 1946) announces, for example, that “on condition of reciprocity, France accepts the limitations of sovereignty necessary to the organization and defense of peace”. Ibidem, Vol. II, 8. Still, in a different sense, the term is used in Art. 7 of the Italian Constitution (Dec. 22, 1947): “The State and the Catholic Church are each in its own sphere independent and sovereign.” Ibidem, Vol. II, 279.

^{page 160 note 2} Cf. Basdevant, , op. cit. 58Google Scholar Hague Rec., 578 (1936) also, for example, U.N. Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. I, 611, the expresion (Eugène Borel, Arbitrator): “L'Arbitre, statuant souverainement.”

^{page 160 note 3} Cf., for example, the correspondence between the British Foreign Office and Law Officers concerning the position of Rajah Brooke of Saravak, in 1853–1856, where the term “independent sovereignty”, understood as “the independent absolute power”, is constantly used, an likewise the term “independent sovereign” which is supposed to mean an independent monarch. Cf. Sir Arnold McNair, Aspects of State Sovereignty, Br. Ybk. IL. 1949, 20–31, 35 (195p). We have seen above, that many outstanding British publicists together with Lord Finlay recognize the existence of dependent sovereignty.

^{page 161 note 1} Used first probably in 1943, and included in the UN Charter. Cf. Declaration of Four Nations, Moscow, Oct. 30, 1943, § 4. Documents on American Foreign Relations, VI, 1943–1944, 229. Cf. also Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, Washington, Oct. 7, 1944, Ch. II, § 1, about the principle of sovereign equality.

^{page 161 note 2} The inadequacy of such terminology, fusing in one concept the notions of equality and sovereignty, was realized at the San Francisco Conference. In this connection the Rapporteur of Committee 1 to Commission I, writes: “I hope that the Commission will feel satisfied with paragraph 1, as is presented by the Committee after we put before it the explanation that was made in support of that text. The Committee voted to use the terminology “Sovereign equality” on the assumption that it includes the following elements: 1) that States are juridically equal, 2) that each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty, 3) that the personality of the State is respected as well as its territorial integrity and political independence, 4) that the State should under international order comply faithfully with its international duties and obligations. Cf. Documents of U.N. Conference, San Francisco 1945, Vol. VI, Commission I, Doc. 944, 1/1/34/1. Cf. Criticism of this terminology by Goodrich and Hambro, Charter of the U.N., Boston, 99, 100 (1949).

^{page 162 note 1} Cf. for instance, Annual Digest and Reports of Public International Law Cases, ed. by Prof. Lauterpacht, London, Year 1948, 7 Title of § II, “Sovereignty and Independence” (1953); Year 1949, 12, title of § II, “Sovereignty and Independence”. It suffices to read newspapers in order to ascertain that almost every day this terminology is used by scholars, diplomats and newsmen. Treaties apply this expression systematically, sometimes even in an exaggerated way. For instance, in The State Treaty for the Re-establishment of an Independent and Democratic Austria, Vienna, May 15, 1955, Article 1 carries the title: Re-establishment of Austria as a Free and Independent State. Adjective “Free” replaces “sovereign”, which would please Nicolas Politis (see above). The text of this Article reads: “The Allied and Associated Powers recognize that Austria is re-established as sovereign, independent and democratic State.” Art. 3 speaks once more about “Austria's sovereignty and independence”, and so forth. Cf. Journal du Droit International, Paris, No. 2, p. 503 (1956). In his declaration of October 22, 1956, Dr. Adenauer, Prime Minister of Western Germany, stated: “The German Government and the German people respect without reserve Austria's integrity, neutrality, independence and sovereignty.” New York Times, 10 23, 1956.Google Scholar