Procès-verbaux des séances tenues du 26 février au 5 mars 1948

COURINTERNATIODEJUSTICE

MÉMOIRESPLAID01RETDOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DU DETROIT
DE CORFOU

III

INTERNATIOCOUROFJUSTICE

PLEADENG, RAARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

THE CORFU
CHANNELCASE

ORAL PROCEED(mST PART)Tous droits réserves par la

Cour internationale de Justice.

A11riphts reserved by the
Iniernacitinal Court of Jusiice.

No de vente :
Sales ntunberAFFAIRE DU DETROIT DE CORFOU

THE CORFU CHANNEL CASE: COUR INTERNATIDEJUSTICE

MGMOIRES,PLAIDOIDOCURENTS

AFFAIRE DU DETROIT

DE CORF OU

VOLUM111,
1 INTERNATIONAL COURT OFJUSTICE .

PLEADTNGS,ORAL ARGUMENTS,DOCUMENTS

THE COWU

CI3ANNELCASE

JUDGMENTS OP MA25th, ~9APRKgh AND
DECEMBEl~~th,1949 31EUXIÈME PARTIE

PROCÉDURE ORALE

A.- SEANCESPUBLL;&UES

&fi'~kesulais de la PLaxHaye,
d~ a6fdvria%5 mur$rgd.

PART IE

ORAL PR'OCEEDINGS

A-PUBLIC SITr INGS
htda£thePeau Pdacei,ThRag~c,
frm Febwastaq2680~Uarçhjthrg@* MINUTES OF THE SITTINGS

HELD PROM FEBRUARY 26th TD iURCH sth, 1948

PEAK 1948

FIRST PUBLIC SITTING l (26 148, 4 $.m.)
Praelzd:Pï&d~?% EtuERRER0 ; r/'b-~rmidenlBASDEI~A W
ALVAREZ ,AEELA H,ACKWORT H NIARSRI, ZORICTC DE VISSC~R,
Sir ARNOLD MCNATR K,LAEST-mB , ADAIV PIASHA , RYLOVR , EAD,
Hsv Mo,Ae~vzoo ; 15,DA,YNER cJwdgead hoc ; R~gisCrarHAMBH U
Mr. BECKE~"~ A,genl forthe Gowemmmt of the U.i~it& Kifigduwe;
SirRartley Cj~.\wc.~osProfessorLAUTERPACH Pro,fessor ~YALDOCK,
htr. WIZBERFORCE M,r. Mmyn JONES, W. KEIID,Co~sseL ~OYdhe
Gouev~aaie~oJtthe U~Zted Iiingdm ; M. KAHEMAN Yt~r, Agmd
for the Gmieiertammof the Z~GI)$/BRe$~blicoj AI~CL~~;~Orofessor
Voc~crL.P,rofessoLAPENNA ,umsel for the AlbalaiaGovcrrtmsnt.

The Pmsme~r, +n opening thehearing, saidthat theCourt had -
before itat pment two acs, nnmely :
(z)The Carfu Channelcase,in which a prelinhq objection hàd
been raisedupon which the Court would presently hear argument;

The &sident statedthat the ,Court tms assemblecl thaday tcr
hear the Parties in the Cmfu C11mnelcasebetween the Governrnent
of the United Kingdom of GreatEntain and Nortliern Irehznand
the Govcrnmedt of the People'sRepublic of Albania, conceniinthe
preiiminay oùjcchon raised by the latterovetnrneiit.
bruughtc&forewthe CourtGbyea;neapplication dateMay zznd, 1947.
citing Article 4(1)and Articl36 Ir)of theCourt's Statuterelated
to a dispute=king between the Britisli and Albanian Governments
asa wmlt of thexptosionofmines inthe watersofthe CoriuChannel,
ca~ising10soflif nd damage to Britishships.

Tlie Partiehad resptively appointeci:.

The Bri#&k Gov~r.iamet8
Mr. W. E, Beckett, C,M.E.,K.C,, Legai'Adviset to thè Foreign
Office,asAgent, ancl

Eiftkimeeting theCnurt The Right HQ~. Sir HatEey .Slia\vcross, K.C., N.P., Attorney-
General, -
Professor FI. Eauterpacht, Frofessoraf internationallaw at .te
University of Cambridge,
Professor H. IValdock, Profesor of international law at the Uni-
versity of Oxford,
MT, R. O. FVilberforct!
and rnembers of the English Bas,
ML. J, Mervyn Jones 1
&lr.M. E. Red, of the Attarnq-Generalps Office,aç çounsel.

The Alba~z'aaGowmmed :
R.E. M. Kahreman YIJi, Albanian Bfinistein Paris, asAgent,and

M, V. VocbE
and Professorsof internationallaw,
M. 1. Lapenna
asCounsel.

Parties weredpsesentdinCourt.the .Agents and representativa ofthe
He furthcr mentioued tiiat the Albmian Government, having na
judge of its nationality in thCourt, had avded itself of. the rigI-it
conferrd upon it by Article 3r of the Statute ad had designatedi
as judge, M. Igor Daxner, doctor of laws, Pxesident of the National
CaÜrt of SLovakia.
The President then calFedupsn RI, Igor Dmer, in accordance
mith Article5 of the Rules of Court,tta make the sdemn dcclaratron
provid~l far by Article20 tif theStatute.

Br. Igar DAX~TX having made thk dedaration, &e YREÇ~PENT
placed iton record, and dedarireclhirn duly instnlled inbis functions
asjjudge for the pqoscs of tlie rase before theCourt.
The President state'chat,asthe Particshad notnotified theCourt
theiryrelwesentativesliould be called uponatoispeak,tlieeCourtwhadh
decidecl,in accorclancc with Articl51 of. thRules, to hear fird tlie
Agent forthe Albania n owernmcnt, that Governrnent havlng raised
the preliminar oyjection whidi the Court h~d to consider at tliat
stage of the proceedings.
Nc\~edc11eless,the Parties'Agents Iiavhg açked him, befwre the
opening of the actud heniings, todbw them Lasay a few words an
a subjectquite distincGun~ the case before tliCourt,and asCounsel
for the Governent of the United Kingdom had been the firstto
rnake this request,the Sresident saicl that he wouldhçt callupon
hirn to address tlie Court.
Sir Hartley S~acvcnoss made the specch reproduced inthe am@x

The PRES~HNT then çalled upon the Agent for the Alhaniâtt
Government toaddress the Court.
M. &m~e~ilv IrLu made the speech rreprduced in the annex l.

ht rcproduced.[Mds by bh Registrar.] congratulationsTacldressedtollthe Court,tehcnwouldthbe rcpresentingl
the unanimous feeling ohis colleaguesin thanking Sir HLtrtleyShatv-
cross and M- ICahreman YI1 mmost hebily for their kind words.

As the moment had xfived for the Court to procecl with the
business before it, the fiesident calledupon the Agent for tlie Albmian
Governmcnt to make bis statement.Re asked hh,in order tufacilitate
interpretation, to break ohi5 statement from time to time ntsuttable
moments.

M. KAHREMA Y ILI, Agent for the A'ib-anianGovernrnent, made
theveeh reproduced intlie annexI,afterwltichhc asked the Prcsident
to allow M..Vodioi.,Counselfox the Alhanian Gov~nment, to address
the Court.

The lattebegan Ris çtatemerit(se@anex 9, which, as he had nut
coi~clnded xhen the Court rose, he wodd contidue on Pnday,
Ftbniary 27th, at .ro.3oam.

'The Court:rw at 6.20p.m.

{Siped) E. HAMBIIO,
Registrar.

SECONDPUBLIC SITTING (27 rr48, 10.30 #.m.)

- Besa~f : [Çee firçt sitting.]

The YRESIDEN in, opening the hearing, called on Couuscl forthe
Albanian Government.
Professor Voc~oi: continrrtd his argument (annex *).

At the reqneçt ofthe PRESIDEXT P,ofessor Vachai: bmlcc off his
speecli,
,The Prsideiit acijournedthe hearing at r2.30 p.m., statiingthat
itwould be remed at 4 pm.
(The hearing was rcswned ai 4 p.m.)

The PRES~ITNT invited Professor Voc~oi: to proceed with his
argument.
.The latter made the speech reproduced in the annex

sec p,15.
= *, ,,fg.
8 Sixth meeting of thCourt.
4 See p, 25.
,. .*35 The PRESIDEN aked ProfessorVochuC if he intmded to conclude:
his mgurnent the followhg morning.

Professot VocrroEreplied inthe fimative.
The I%ES~F.W t'Sn askedhh howlong he would take tocondude
h argument.

ProfessorVamoE replied that he wouldspeakin French for about
one hour more.
The PRES~E~T then asked tlie British Agenifhe \vasprtpmed to
speak as soon asProfessor VochoEhad concluded bis speech.

The BR~SR AGENT repliedinthe ahative.

The hearing was ndjourned at 6.50 p.m, and would be sesiuned
on Satwday, February &th, at 10.30 am.

THLRD PUBLIC SITTING 1 (2811 48, ro.30am,)

Present: [See firssitting.1

The PRESIBEW iT,opening thesitting, calledon Counsel for the
Aibanian Government.
Professor Voc~oCcontinued and concludedhis stat ment (.dnnex2).

The PHESIDENT asked the Agent forthe United Kingdom whether
liewas ready to addrcss theCourt.
Mr. BECKETT stated that SirHattley Shmvcr~s, Counsel for the
United Kingdom Fovernment, muid open the proceedings.

Sir Hartley SHAWGRQS began hissta-tement(annw $1.
(The hearing was adjourneClrit12.45pm. and resumed at 4 p-m,)

Sir Hartley SHAWCB~ Çonthued hiç statement (mcx '1.

The PRES~ENT dechrd that the hearhgs would b resumed on
Monday, Match rst,at 10.30am.

The Court rose at 6.5 p-m.

1Eighth mceting ofthCourt,
aSce p.41%
a ,ari51.
,, ,59. Pvesmt : [Seefint sitting.]
The PREsmam called upon Courisel for the United Hingdom
'Governmmt.

Sir Rartley S~~wcaoss çommenced the statement reproducedin
the annex
(The hearing !vasadjourned at 12.43 p.ml and resumed at 4 p.m.)

At the conclusionofhis ofm statement (amex Sir Nadey SHAW-
CROSS askd 'theCourt to allow Mr.Beckett, Agent for the United
Kingdom Governrnent, to spak.
Mr. BECICET bTegan the statement xeproduçed inthe amex ..

The PHESIDEN declxed tbat the hea;rirrgs ;svaube mspended
and remed to-morrow, Mxch znd, at IO-jo a,m.
ïhc Court rose at 6.15 p.m.

[sig~ar~.j

PIFIT1 PUBLIC SITTING (2 Irz48, 10.30 am.)

The PIESTD~NT i, openhg the liaring, caliedon the Agent for
the British Government,
Mr. BECRETc ontinuedIis argument (anne x ).
{The Iiearingms adjauméd at xz,35p.m. and resumed at4 p.ni.)

The PRE~~ENThaving cailedan the Agent for theBritish Govern-
ment, Mr. BECKETT continued and çonduded 'frisargument (annex 7).

The PRES~ENT waç happy ta notethat both Parties hadpresented
their arguments very fully. Although proceedings on a prslirninary
objection-wcre rnuch shorter tflanthose on the rnetitsof a case,the
Court ivas quite preparedta hear a ~epiy, if such were the wlsh of
the Amanian delegation. Iqesuggesteclhat, inview of the otliercases
on the Court's agenda, such a rcply sbould be as short as possible-

Tenth meeting vths Co&.
SFep.75.
7, ,,91.
* ,, *,97.
6 Elereathmeeting ofthc Court.
' Se p, 105.
*# t+1r7- M. KARREMAN Yu2 &x,pre%ed the Albanian desire te say a few
wor& in mswer to a number aE points mised by the British. He
requested thatthe next meeting of the Courtbe on Monday,Plarch 8th.
He undcrstood that the British Agent liad iio objection tothisdate.

The Pri~çm~n~çaid the Court would meet imrnediatetyand decide
thk point. It. seemeddifficultrhim to postpone hearingç till Monda7;
for ,in tliat casethe reply and rejoinclerwould probabiy 1st tiil the
end of next week. The Court's decision would be cornrnunicatttedin
a few moments to the Agents by the Registrar.

Mr. BECKE' Lad he took note of the Preident's remarksregarding
a reply and rejoinder and that they tvere in accordance xvith wkat
the British undmtood to be the practice of the Court. As for the
Albanian request,he did not oppose it: he simply plrtçed himselfrit
the dii;poçal of the Court.

Thç PRESIDENT stated that within a haLf-hour tlieAgents would
know the Court'sdecision regadmg the interval sought. '

TIie Conrt rose af 17.4 5.m.

[Sigmtw C-1

SKiX PUBLIC SITïTNG (5rrr qS, ro a.m).

The P=S~ENT,in opening the heaing, calledon the Agent f~r
the Albanian Governmmt to ptesent his reply.
M. ~<AITRETUE~YLLI kgan Iliargument (annts He then asked
The 'Prcsident to aU~w Professor VoçhoC,Cciunsel for the Albanian
Governerit, t0 spcalr.

The PRESTDENcT d2d ori Frofcssor Vac~oE.
The latter begnn the speech reprodumd in the annex 3,

{fie hearing was adjourne from 12.20 p.m- to 3-30 p.m-)
The .PRESIDENT having called an Couws~r, FOR THE ALBANIAN
GOVER~ENT, the latter continued and conciuded his reply (anex j).
The PRESIDEN3 Isked the British Agent if he wished to present
his rejoinder ~t uorlc~

Mr. BECICET replied infhe amative stating that the sejoinder
of the United Kluigdom would 'bepresented by SirHartley Shawcrriss.

1Thvteenth meetingof the Court.
See p.128.
Y. 7,4. 135.
* *, m, 143.presentedStherejoinder oftheGovernmmtir Hof the United Kingdamo
(annex 1).

At the conclusionofthis rejobde~ the PRESIDENTmked +theAgmt
for theAlbanianGovernrncnt ifthe silbrnissions whihe had made
in hisPrelirninarObservationsof Decernberrjth,1947 ~ere hisfinal
çubmissians.
M. KAHREMA YNLLT replieinthe aihmtive.
The TESI IDE Nthen asked the Agent for the United Kingdom,
whether the submissions made in theOlxervations ofJanuary zgth,
1948, were bis final submissions.
Mr. BKC~TT replkd in the afamativc,

Agents ofStheParties thatthey would bennotifieindueinthemeofthe
date on which the Court wwuld deIiver jndgmentat apublic sitting.

The Court rose at 6 p.m.
[Sig*d#~=-] ANNEXES AUX PROCES-VERBAUX

EXPOSCS ORAUX DE FEVRTER-MARS 1948

(EXCEPTlON PRÉL~~)

ANNEXES TO THE MïNUTES

ORAL STATEMENEOF FEBRUMY-MARCH 1948

(PlUXJMiNAltEY OBJECTIOV

Mansieur le Prbsident,Messieursles Juges,
La solution des problèmesinternationaux en généraq luiviennent
devant la Cour internationalede Justice, depend essentiellemende
la prédispositiodes nationspur lerhglernetit pacifiquedes cliffkrends
et du respect formel de l't2galitsouveraine des États.En effet,le
but noble qu'est la paix et lerespect du principe de Ségatitédes
nations sont étr~itement lik, parcqu'unesolution juçte serait diffici-
lement imaginable sans l'applicatiorigourense de ce principe.
Vouloir rkgler pacifiquemenles dfiérends,c'estavoircomme point
de départ laconsidérationque le*Etats, petitau grands, sont pleine-
ment égauxdans Ie libre excrcicede leur souverainet&,
Le Gouvernement all>anaîspart dern point devm, et c'estdansle
respect formel decesprincipes qu'il envisage la sollrdesndiffOends
internationaux.Dmç ledifférend existantentrele Gouvernement de
la.Républiquepopulaired'Albanieet leGoiivernenlent duRoyaume-Uni,
leGouvernement albanais aadopte,dès ledebut,unp.attitude conforme
en dvrie d'unensolution pxcitique. Touten n'&tandetasomembrelodes
Nations Unies nipartie au Statutde la Cour, l'Albanie a répondu
volontairment aux invitations chaque fois que deinvitationlui ont
4td adressgesà cet effet.
Nous avons manifesté le désirde nous conformer aux prescriptiouç
de la Charteetdu Statut, quant au différeactuel.Nous avons déclarh
et nous répétonsque nous acceptons lrésolutiondu Conseilde Siecurite
~nvitant les Gouvernements de l'Albanieet du Royaume-Uni à sou-
mettre immédiatement Ie disrend à laCourinternationale de Justice
conformément à son Statut.
En déférant & lar6solutiondu Conseilde Sécuritél,e 9avd I94Y1
le Gouvernementalbanais a entendn s'entenirets'entient pleinement
auxtermes et Al'esprit de cette recommandation,et pu suite auxdispositionsdu Statat de la Cour.Mais le Gouvernementbritannique,
dépassant la recommaiidaticrn du Conseil de Securltedi1g avril r947
et les dispositionsrluStatu te la Cour auxquellescette recommart-
dation se rkfcre expsessknent,a prhsenté à laCour nnerequste, prhfé-
rant ainsi unecitation unilatQdt~eet ahtraire en violation flagrante
et en coiitradiction ou~erteavec les principes du droit international
en ghnhal et les disposi.tiondiiStatut de la Cous en particulierLe
principe de la soltverainetéexige qu'aucun tat ne puisse Etre traduit
devant la Cour sansson consentement. .
L'Albanie n% signé aucun traite on convention ~ec 1e Gouver-
nement l~ritm~iiqileprévoyantde soiimettre leur diffémld. à laCour
intcrrlationalede Justice. Ellen'a pas non plus signé k clause facul-
tative de l'artic 3ledu Statutde lnCour,.En wnséqnence, l'Albanie
zic peut &trecitéedirectement et sans un compromispréalable,el par
suite le Gouvernement britannique n*a pas pu,par sa requete,.saisir
valablement la Cour dans l'affaire concernànt les incidents du canal
de Corfou. Confornément i larecommandafion dd Conscil de SCcuritk
du g avril 1947etconformément aux dispositions thStatut de InCorv,
la seulevoie legale ar laqiiellaCour doit etsesaisiedans cc cas est
le compromis. Le E)ouverncment du Royaume-Uni a non seulement
viol6 le principefondamental et gknérd dii droit internationalpublic
concernant l'acceptation pr6dable de la juridictionde la Cour, mais
il a viole aussilx lettreet l'esprit de la 1i.i:çolutim du g avril 1947,
Dans ces conditions, l'Albanieamait été dailssDn droit de ne pas
répondre da tont 5 la requete du Gouvcmement britannique et de ne
point notifieh la Cour son agent.
Mais, malgr& l'absente de toute convention ou de tout trait&. le
.,Gouvernement albanais,canvaincude sajust-cause,ne négligeraaucune
occa$ian de témoigner de sabonne volonté et de sondevouernent aux
principes dkunecollaboration amlale entre les nationset du reglement
pacifique des difikreilds. Dès qu'ia CU çonimunication de ln requ$te
bpet AniseeprgsenterdevantntlaCour, sous rCservede la façon dont lere
Gouvernement britannique s'est adressé cette Corn,
Par sa repense l, Gouvernement albanais a &lit preuve d'unÉtat
qui cherche tout prixla solutionjaste et:p&que clesdifférends et
en mhe temps ila faitpreuve de respect quant àI'autori26et l'impor-
tace de la Codr internationalede Justice- C'estdans cet esprit que,
malgré l'irrégddté de la requ&te britannique et étant don116 que
la Cour n'avait pas rejet6cettertqugte exIrqîca'o,'Albanie notifia de
se prescnterdevant la Cour pour exposer son point de mie devant
vous, Monsieur b Pksident et Messieurs les Juges:
Lc Gouvernementde EaRépublique popdaire d'Albanie l'a d&clar&
par sa lettredu 2 juilledernier etle dklare par ma voix devant cette
Haute Cour, qu'il accepte librementet de hnnè volonté la Résolirtioii
.da Conseil de SCcurit6du g avrll1947, et ilestpr6t k procéder avec
leGouvernement britannique à l'établissement diicompromis nbcw-
sai. pour soumettre valablement Iediffhnd àlaCour,puisque l'Albanie,
comme elle l'adkdark,accept le juridiction de la Couret elle dkd
que le différendtrouve unesolution devant cette Haute Cour.
Mais L'Albanien'accept eas et ne peut accepter d'et* traitée
dPinf6rieureet contrainte de se solimettre A une procédure judiciaire
injuste, contraüe A scs droitset à+ sesinthrets, En effet,ce i~ht pas une purefomdité â remplirque nom deman-
dons ; le probleme se pose sur un plan beiucaiip plus lxge et: plus
profond, D'abord parce cjae le çeiiinstsument valable en droit, d~ns
lecas qui nous occupe, est le compromis,et ensrritparce que le corn-
promis, par son essenceen tar~q tu'instrument jirridiquerenferme un
ordre d'idéesnhQentes et insepasabks tr6.sirnptantespour l'ensembie
du différend.
Iciil s'agid'intéretssubstmticls trE~importants. 11 n'estdonc pas
question de l'acceptationdi: la juridiction de lCour, encore moins
du prttendu abus de procédure dont on fait ;illusion quclq~~ part
dans lcs Observationsdu Gotlvernement britmique. Ici, is'agi de
la recluEtebritannique, qui est dans ce cas.iine voie de procédure
contraireau &oitinternattanal et aux dispositions dearticles36 et 40
dn Statut de laCour, et je me demande, &Tonsieurle Pré-;icler,ur
quellebase légale,sur quel texte ou sur quelledisposition envigueur
a ét6fond& cette requéte.A notre avis,quinoilsparait justet logiqne,
le seul fonclernent était ta volonte du Gauvernement bitannique
d'imposer 3.l'a~~trePartie une procedur qui n'est çcrtainement pas
la bonne, me procédure qui passe outre larésolution du Conseil de
Sé&té, qni passe outre lesdispositionsdu Statut di:la Cour et qui,
enh, ne tientaucun compte des droits légitimesde I'autre Partie,
Et c'st pr6cisément pur celaqne le Gouvernement albanais. tout
en acceptan ltajuridiction de la Cour dam cetteaffaire,a fait les
réserves lesplns expressesquant au procedi: inégal adopte par le
Gouvernement britannique, parce qu'ilest inadmissible qu'on nous
impose une procedufe quine tient pascampte de nos droits,de notre
Devantéela Corir internaiionaide Justice I'&galitdes parties estune
conditionsme qMa on. La nipture avec ce principecrke une sjtuation
qui ne répond plus L l'article 352, du Statut de la Cour et qui
neb~épond plus au principe générad le I'kgalitk.
If ne doit y avoir dans ce diffkend ni d4fendeur nidemandeur;
ilestabsolnment nécessaire cl'écarteroute possibilitpur une Partie
d'impos ervdonte àl'autre,Le Gouvernement albanais insistferme-
meni our que lxgalité des Parties soit respectéesans autre devant
cetteP)aute institntion. $'(castdr'untel p~incipe,c'estcréer un cas
sansprécedent qui n'apas saviement desconséquences d'un caractére
procediiriel, d'ailleutrb importantes, mais aussi des cçonsCquences
d'un caractère moral et substantiel.Nous ne pouvons nousengager
dans une td1e voie.
L"Alhariie,pxrl'expérie nêcmede sonhistoire,a appris nppr&cier
ha11temen-tIegrand principe du respec des droitsdes nations, et clle
s'jntkresse vivement h P'tulstencet au d6veloppemeilt du droitinter-
national comme de Zacmpération entre lepeuples etdu pro@&humain.
1L'Albanie s%attaçlied'antant plus à cesprinçïp parce que, petite
nation, elle voit en eau desmoyens importxnts pour sauvegarder ses
jntQ6ts et sed6fendre contre toute atteinteportéeA sesdroits,
C'csten effetpar Ia méconnaissançe de ces principesdans le monde
.que l'Albaniea tant souffertdansle passk, Ma&l'hlbaiiie n'a jamais
ces& d" 2trrefermement attacliée, Four lasauvegarde de seshtérêts,
pour qu'ellevi,veindkpendante et souveraine, pour que lemonde vive
dans une paix jli~teet durable, L'Albanien'a pas 6~argné le sang de
sesmefipurs fils durantla clernikeguerre. En defendant ses intérêtset sesdroits légitimesen tant que petite
nation, elle est convaincnc d'apporter une cantrihutio~~efficaceet
solide % lacollaboration mondiate.
Mais en témoignant de cet qtit clecmprkhension et de ce désirdu
rklement pacifique des différendseue ne peut pttsoublier de prêter
l'attentionvoulue àla .auvegarde de sesQoits, en utilisantles moyens
jmidiquesi, conformkrnent au droit international Ellc a fait valoir
ces moyens devantcette Haute Cour, devant laqdelleeliea estimé
an devoir cle sptksenter,sachant servi sn méme temps h cause de
la justice interiiationet en Etant pleinement consciente dela part&
et de l'importancede cetteprcmikre affairequela nouvelleCour serait
appelec a juger.
La lettre du z juillet adrAsée A la Corn indique clairement wt
état d'esprit,a savoir prédispositiondu Gouvernement de laRépu-
blique your,une solution juridiquepacifique du différend, tout en ,
faisant 'expljciternent les réservesles plus expresses quant à la
façon dont le Gouvernement brit anhiqueavait porté l'affairdevant
la Cour,
En effet, nousavions, au mornent de la rkephon de larequate
britanniqae, entike liberte et droit de l'ignorer complètement
comme entachée de nullité absolueToutefois,nous n'avons pas voillu
C'estrpourquoisnous avonsoud&claréetretprgtsAsnous présenter devant.
la Lour, en m6rne temps appsant immédiatement des rkserves les
plus expresses cette declarationet indiquant Eeobjets decesrGscwes
que nous ferons valoir devant la Cour.
Notre positionest airisclaire, et j'ajüumhme que.ç'éta litseuie
attitude,conforme au bon sens et au droit,qu'on pouvait adopter A
la suitede la requête britannique.
Far sa lettre,le Gouvernement albanaiss'est rkm6 le droitde
revenir Ic caséchkant sur i'irs&giila~ide larquGte britannique.
II a utilisoedroit normal conformément aux dispositio7is du Règle-
ment de la Cour (art. 625,en déposant dap le ddlaiMgal l'exception
prirliminairqui crinstituc l'objet nos dCbats et que noussoutenons
aujourd'h devant cetteHaute Cour,
Pour développer plus longuement notre8thèse sur I'cxception, je
&mande, Monsieur le Prksidrnt, de bicn vonloir donner 1aparole au
conseil dii Gouvernement de l'Albanie,M. le professeur VoclioE. 2. - EXPOSE DE M. vOCHOC
(ÇOESE~, DU GOUVE~EBIENT AT,BANMS)

Aux &,ANCES PUBLIQUES DES 26, 27 ET 28 F~VRRR 1948

Monsieur le Prdsident, Messieursde IR Cour,
C'est3Lmoi1 tourde diretout d'abor I'hotion profande qui m'anime
quand j" aiprivilhgeinsignede prendre la liarollors de lapremierc:
audience de la Cour internationale de Justice,
11 estbien entendu que jc me rends compte que cen'est pas & nos C
incidestesrnkites que revient ce grand lionneur.C'est en vertirdes
principes seculairesde la procédureconfentieuse qii'ilen est insi.
En effet, nousapprenions dCjA à l'école:excepdioneTeus fitnciw.
Le C;ouvernementbritannique a présent6 h la Cour une ~equbtecontre
leCouvcrnement albanais. LeGouvernement albanais a sonlev6l'excep-
tionpréliminairecontrecetterequêteC, 'esimoiquereviennent Yhonneur
et Ia responsabilité de présenteL ta Cour plus amplement les motifs
et lesmisons de notre exceptionetda tâcher de justifier nos conclusians
demandant a la Cour qu'illuiplaisededireet jugcr que laditrequète
brit;i;nniquest irrecevable parce qu'entachée de nullité,
II estpeut+he utile decommencerma tâche par lecommencement,
et de voirtout d'abord conimeiit lrequCte a dû sc présenterà l'esprit
da Gouvernementbritannique quand il s'estdCcidéA 'adressesarequête
A IaCour.
JA Gouverrlçmmt britanniqueadfi voir toutdkabord ceque la requete
doit contenir, ia donc CiÙregarder de pluspr&l'article 32 du Règle-
ment de la Cour,et plus particu~i~scmentson paragraplie2.
C'est ce paragraphequi prescritce que La reqiiêtedoit iudiquer et
contenir lorsqu'uneaffaireest portPcdevant laCozit par une rcqnéte,
T,a requete doit indiquer, d&jàd'aprbleStatut, lapartie requérante
et la artie contre laqueliela demmde est formée ainsi que l'objet
du di '&rend. M;iis,~tatitant qiie possibir,la requ&te doit canlenir
en outre « 1%mention de la disposition par laquellele requÉrprdtend
etablir la compktence çiela Cour n.
Fornulant sa sequete,leGouvernement da Royaiirnc-Uilis'estdonc
vu obligE de dire aussi sur quell'oe il a fa prdtention de s'adresser
ii la CourLe Gouvernement britanniqiiefut ainsi amen4 A seprononcer
sw l'artic 36edtt Statut de la Cour par rapport B J'afiaire prksente.
Si nous lisonsle paragraphe premier de l'arti cledu Statut, para-
graphe d'inipo-ance sicapitaie,il semble qujly a troisbases possibles
sur lesquelles pourraitse i~anclla cornpetence cle la Cour,
Il y a en premierlieu Lelait quec lacompktence dela Cour s'étend
d tontes lesabires queles parties luisounicttrontn. Cett disposition
ne sepritait pas évidemment Q çcrvir au Gocivernement britannique'
en l'oçcurrence, c'est-à-clmft fins de sa requête.
Si lesparties veulentsotmettre une affaireàla Cour, ilfaut qu'elles
'le fctsst.d'accor d.'elles procédcnt ensemble.C'est ei?tont cas le sens pmpre de cettedisposition-le paragraphe premierde l'mticle36
parle ici des n partiesü. Si une partie seule voulaitsoumettre une
affaireà la Cour, il na s'agirait pIiiscrdes partiesi) prévues au
paragraphepremia de l'article 36: ce-=mit quelque chose de tout
A fait autre.
Nous reTiendtons plus amplement au 'cours de nos euplications
présentessur cette question, cpi présente un intbretasez important.
Pour lemoment, nous noirsbornerons a constater Te ladite disposition
du paragraphe premier de l'article 36, concernant la soumission de
l'affaireFaCour par lesparties,n'aurap itetre invoquéepar le Goiiver-
nement briianniqiieque dans le cag d'me entente préaIabl entre lui
et leGouvernement albanais,ce qui,jusqn'kpr&set , nes'estpasproduit.
11restait an Goilvernement britannique a voir s'il luitait possible
d'invoqiier uneautre dispnsihon dri paragraphe prcmier de L3asticl36
diiStatut,
f,a qnestionetait clonepour Iui lasuivante: s'agit-il, dans l'affaire
présente,d'un cas itspécialement prCvu dans la Charte des Nations
Unies et dans les traités econventions en vigueur n? Nous poirvons
passer rapidement s~u lx disposition mentionnéei.wI;:wdans cepassage.
II n'hit paspossible au Gouvernement britannique, quand Il'formrdait
sa reqirGte,de trouver un seul traite,une seule convention dont te
Gouvernementalbanais ferai tartie, qui aurait stiprpciiiune affairr:
ou pour une catégoried'affairesla compétencedc la Corn daris les rap-
ports cntreleGouvernement albanais etle Gouvernement britannique.
On voit hnc queEe chois à faire au mois de mai dernier,pour le
Gouvernement britannique.était bien étroitllnelui restait qu'à voir
s'il pouvaitenter çachance avec laprescription que contient le nouvel
article 36du Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice.
Le Gouvernement britamique a dh voir s'ilne pouvait pas invoquer
la Çh&e desNations Unies, c'est-&-d uneedispositionde cetteCharte
qui aurait prévlispécialementun casauquel la compétencede Ia Cour
s'&tend.
C'étaitla dernikredispositiondu premier aragraphe de l'articl36
qu'il aiuait pu choisir. II nen avait pas$autre.
Le Gouvernement britannique a fait ce choix que nous trontfons
&tonnant. Sa requete dit te~tuellernent que le Gouvernement di1
Royaume-Uni soutient que «la CorIr est compétente en vertu de*
l'article 36, paragaplieT,de son Statut,attendu qn'il s'agit d'uncas
spkialement pevu dans la Charte des Nations Unies B,
Ainsi, ce svailesdispositions de la.Charte qui dol~neraieatl'&&&ire
présente sa base quel'articl32, paragraphe z,du Règlement de laCour
exigc.
Quels sont le senset la portée dKunc teIleciïspoçition?
11devrait s'agirici d'unedisposition de laCharte de San-Francisco
pri.voyant lajur-idjctivobligatoire de9 Cour pourdes cas déterininéc;.
n'est asquestion de cas où les Etats sont libres d'der ou non
devant Pa Cour- I)e tels cas sont déjà rouverts par la prernihrc
- phrase du paragraphe premier de lkarticle 36: la compétence de
la Cout s'étend tous les cas que les parties lusoumettent S.
Par contre,rtun caç spécialement prkvu dans la Charte dcs Natioiis
Unmie s:+ sens de i'artic 36edmStatut, p0;ur~ait ktxesadement un
, casoh I'Etat est obligé de seprésenter devant laCour, et cela parce
que quelquhun estendroit de le lui demander, de l'exiger. IIn'est pas queskion ici dese demander tout d'abord sil'on veut
ou non, pour l'affaire donnk, acccpfe lr juridiction de laCour non
plus que de dgocier, de posa dcs conditions, de compromettre, etc,
Dans iulcasspécialement prévupa;ila Charte dont parle le nouveau
paragraphe premier de l'article 36, 1ktatdevraitse présenterdevant
la Cour de plein dtoit, sans autre façon de procéder.
11 s'agirait bien ici-de 1';lpplicatiodn principe de la juridiction
obligatoire, et le Gouvernement britannique, dans sa requ&te du
13 mai demiér, a indiqiih m cas de juridiction, abiigatoiqui serait
spécialement pdm, par la Charte des Nations Unies. comme la disp*
sition p~ktendue de la compétence de Ja Cour pour l'affaireprésxnte.
'l'oujom en suivantles prescriptiondu paragraphe z de l'article: 32
les motifs danssatrcqvête,carninepauvAt pase ase&contentm d'indiquer
la dispositionsans adtre explication.
Ces motifs sont au nombre de trois et sont mentionnés dans la
lesmots et dans l'o~dresuivants:
,requete
N ta)Le Conseilde Sécurité des Nations Unies, h l'issue des déhats
au cowrsdequels il s'estoccupédu &&rend en vcrfri de l'article 36
de la Charte, a dkidé, par une rrjsolutio....<lerecommander,
tunt au Gm~uemmelttdzt Roynunae-Uni qdau Griwemement albanais,
de porter leprCsén tzfférenddevant laCous internationale deJustice;
h) le Gouvernement albanais a accepté l'invitation quien vertu de
l'articl32 de 3aClirtrte,lui avait éadresskepar leConseiide Securitd
de pzrt~cipcr à l'examen du différend et iEa accepté la condition
qu'avait poske le Conseilde Skcurité,lorsde l'envoi deson invitation,
1isavoirque l'Albanieaccepteraitdans lecas préwnt: toutesles~blîga-
fions qu'auraita assumer dans un cas dc meme ordre un hfembre des
Nations Unies ...;c) l'artickzj de laCharte dispose queles Membres
de l'Organisation contriennentd'accept etrd'appliquerles décisions
du Conseil de Sécurité,conformément ILIn pr&seilteCharte. D
Tels sont les motifs avancds par la requ6te britannique L I'appui
de h jilridictioobtigat~ire dela Cùur.p~étendrr en vertildes diqosi-
tions spécialesde la Charte,
Si nous procddons & l'analyse de cesmotif2 - et cela tout d'xbcird
avec le désir de les comprznrTreautant que pssiliie-, ce qui nom
frappe tout d'abord. c'estque la requtte nc cite aucune ~ositioa,
aucun texte récisqui seraitu spkialement prévu irdansla Charte.
Pourtant, Y nous seitible que l'article 36 du Statut pabien claire-
ment, ct sans douteavec une intention bieamgtie, n clescas spéciale-
ment pr4m dans la Charte u,
Nous compreilons lesmats u spécialement prevus ficornme prCvoyant
lescas.par un texte précis,exprès.II s'agiten $ffet,en I*occurrcnce,
d'une rnatihre trkgrave en ce qui concerne le3btatttet siirement des
cas de ce genre dont doit sorth-!a compktenceobligatoire de la Cour
ne peuvent pas ettedéfinipar un tmte quelconque,par un textevague.
'Ilfaudrait bien un texte rspicid3, une disposition stiptiilant expressé
nient, nettement,clairement, excluanttoudoute possible,quelajuridic-
tion obligatoirde la Cours'applique à des cas dehis dans la Charte,
Or, ce qui saute toutd'abord aux ycux, en parcourant Its motifs de
la reqiigtisbritanilique,c'est que ceux-ci n'indiquent aucunement
une telIe disposition prgcisde la Cltarte. uUncasspécldernent prévudansfa Charte ascmit,ti'apkslarequete,
un ms qni commence par une recommandation du Conseilde Sécurité,
prise d'apr&sle chapitre VI de laCharte, et qui, par l'entremise de
l'artic 3lede la Charte (parce qu'il s'agitd'un Etst non membre),
aboutirait 2 l'artic 25ede la Cliarfe,c'est-&-direaboutirait 1 l'article
qni traite de l'obligationdes gtats Membres de l'Organisation des
Nations Unies d'exbcuter Tesdécisions du Conseil conformément aux
dis ositions de 4a Cliarte,
8vidernment. ilest dificilede dire qi'il s'aginit ici d'un texte
couvrant rcun cas spkiaIernent prévu dans la Charte linAyant Tu et
relu 1e.stroismotifs allégués par le Gouvernement britannique, on se
demande toujour osise trouve cecas spécialementprbvirdans la Charte
et oh ilse cache.
Siun tel cas est vraiment prknt dans la cornbinAsoirprkonisée
pa~ la Grande-Bret~ne des trois articles de laCharte(adicle 36,para-
pphe 3,article32 et artide 251,on ne pourrait le découvrirque par
lui raisonnement. Mais ce n'est:pas ttnn cas spécialement prévu s.
Ge raisonnenientnous scmble etse peu prés le suivan:t La recnm-
mcmdatîon lancéep'w le Gomil de Sécuritéle 9 avril dernier au 'sens
de E'artide 36, paragraphe 3, dc lCharte vaut ilnedecision du Conseil,
ayant, d'aprk l'articlz5delaCharte, forc obligatoire epour leGoiivet-
ment du. Royaume-Uni etpetle Gouvernement albanais sont Ledonc obligés

d'aTinousefaut constater que ce n'estpas le Gouvernement britannique
lui-menle qriiailraitdonné, jusqu' présent,une telIeqEication coor-
clonnée et syoit4n~ntiqude ces tr~ia srticlede laCharte invoqudspar
lui par rapport a l'affaire p~ésente, J-e Gouvernement britanniques'est
borné, dans sa requéte, tout simplement à indiquer les trois motifs
pr&cit&et h nerien dire de plusprkcisen ce qui conccrncle jeilcorn-
hiné desdits trois articles.
- Les Observations duGouvcrncment britanniquean dkte du zo janvier
dernier, deji en t6pn~e à notre question préliminaire,passent encore
ces motifs plut6t soussilence.C'est seuIeméntdans la finde leur para-
graphe 12 que leGouvernement britanniqizes'estréservh,le ea janvier
dernier, (Ic droit d'invoquer, s'iy s lieu,A l'appui de la c.ompçience
de laCour, en l'mpèce, les motifsénoncés dans sa requCte initials.
Hous sonilrlesbien entendu, trés curierixd'entendre iinpeu plizs, de
la part des éminents repréçentmts dii Gatiirernerncntbritannique,
concernant ces motiis, En attendant, nous.sommes obliges de procéder
par nos propres moyens, par nos propres litrnikres.
A~vtntde à l'analyse detaillée de la conskuction juridique
élahr&epar Ie Gauvernemcnt britannique dans sa requete di113 mai,
et qui s'appuie sur JE jeu combiné pritendu des trois articles de
la Charte, nous prenons la liberté de nous arrêter irn instantpour
contempler l'aspect d'une certaine grandeurqui se d4gqc de cette
eonstnrction.
En srrpposaat:pour le moment que cette construction estsdide, que
les articlede la Çhxrtè eh question contiennenten effetLW diçpositlonç
et ont cette prirt6e quele Gouvernement britannique croit pouvoir y
discerner,il s'agirait aiaçnn doute dc dispositions parmi lesrplus
importantes et lesplus audacieuses que la collaborationentre lcs htats
et leur organisation internationale eussent jusqu'h présent praduitts. Si le Conseilde Sécurit6 pouvait vraiment, avec force obligatoire,
menm les États en litige devant la Cour de Juçtice,il s'agirait d'un
6norme pouvoir du Conseil de SkuritC. Seul le chapitrVI3 de la Charte,
qui prfvoit l'action du Conseil de Sécurit6en cas cle menace contre
la paix, de rupture de la paix et d'actes .'agression, le surpasserait.
Pour caractériser L'ampleur de ce po~ivor prétendudi1Conseil de
S6nirit.6on peut dire bribement que den? choses cl'une grande impor-
bnD'uneeputal-seetceci sembletbienencore, de cesdeux choses,la moins
importante -, 1'organisati onternationale seraitavancée d'un gmnd
pas vers cet idéal que beaucoup de permnnes - mais certainement
pas toutes- consid+-rentcomme la soliition de la question dlapaix et
de Ja guerre,c'est-à-direvers la solutionjudiciairedes difléxenclsentre
lés Etats, rcrs l'idéal de la juridictioncomplète etobIi,rratciiredans
le droit international.Jusqu'B ce jour, la jutidictïom obligatoirecles
Etats, malgré le son que rend le mot aobligatoire I!esttoujours b&e
nécessairement sur le consentement des États; il faut toujours des
traités et ddesconventions. Dans le cas que nous envisageons, sila
constmction britannique répanciait à Iaréalité ,escra: torrjocirçcncore
la juridiction obligatoire acceptécLibrement par 1cs i~tats,en ce serris
que cette juridiction ne pourrait exister sans que I'gtat en question
s~it au prCatnble Membre des Nations Unies et. partant, ait accGù6
A In Charte. Malsune telle obligationdGcoula intsofactode fa.Charte
meme, serait sanrdoiitti quelquechose dkautreque des manifestations
" de volonte créant la juridiction obligatoie forrnuI&e par da traités
et tanventions d'une duréelimitée ct, comme il arrivesous des rbsert-es
tr&s importantes. Ceci vaut en principe &galement pour la clause facul-
tative, qui, ellaussidépendde la volont6 des d'une du& 1WFitPe
et sujett iedes riscrves,
-Dans le cas egvisagé, la juridiction obligatoirede b Caiir serait
acceptée par les Etats Membres des h'ationçUnies pour la dm4e de la
Gharte ou, au moins, pour ladude de leur participation a l'Organisation
des Nations Unics comme Membres.
Mais il y aunit encore un r6le tr&s importent 5.jouerpotrr le Conseil
de Sécuritédans cettejiiridiction obligatoirIIsufiraitque le Conseil
prît une r&olution valable, c'est-&-dire par lmajorité nécessaire,par
oliliger n'importe queEtat dans n'importequelleaffairejuridique d'aller
devant la Cour. Ce serait un prociid6 eatrwrdinairc pour forcerles
Gtats à aller devant IaCour sans avoir aucun @rd 5 leur vulor1t6
Individuelle etsans aucun 4gasd a la quesfjon de savo~ s'ilsse sont
engagés ou non h accepter Lajuridictionobligatoire par un autre trait6
ou convention ou même par la clause facultativeMême les l3taiç qui
n'auraient aucun engagement pi.éalabIedc cette sorte, devraient
toujours aller devant la Coursi1eConseil clcSécurité, roct5dant suivant
les articl3 es,paragraphe 3, et25 de la Charte corn ~nes,prenait uiie
telle décision.Un ntat Membre des Nations Unies nepourrait pas
invoquerqu'il n'a assumé aucune obligation parun trait&oucunventioii
quelconque cl'dl~r devant b Cour, qu'il n'a pas souscrit 5 la clause
faciiltativeUn Etat Membre nepourrait non plus invoquer les réserves
qu'il a faitesayantsouscrit A certains engagements de lajuridiction
obligatoire. Breftous les États,pnds et petits, obligésounon d'aller
devant la Cour, devraient forciment le faire auçsitbt que le Conseil
de SFcwité aurait pris unedkision au sens de l'article:3paragraphe 3,et de t'articlzj de laCharte, ainsi quele' Gouvernementbritannique,
dans sa requete, le faitprévoir.
Nous resumons nos impressions de cette construction juridique
bâtie par le Gouvernement brifandquc pour les -finsde la présente
affaùe, en '&nt que le moncleaurait, cette fois-Ilun gouvernement,
un directoire,aurnoin, pourles affaires juridiques et lrenvoi devant
la Cour.
Nos dbufes concernant cette construction fahulieu~ecommencent
au vu du simple fait que, juçqu'i présent, jusqu'aumds de mai de
I'amée dernihe, paonne n'en a entendu rien dire.
Nous avons, nous autres ,n peusuivi la Conférence deSan-Francisco,
non5 efforçant, nous aussi,dans la mesure de nos moyens, d'aider
A la collaboration internationde. Mais il faut avouer que, jusqu'k
présent, personne ne nous a rien ditconcernant cettejuridiction obli-
gatoire du Conseil de $écurite.
X cet égard,nous POUYO~S nom ~é &fa auGouvernement britannique
lui-meme . Aya~it signE laCharte cle San-Francisco, le Gonvernement
br-itanniqne l'a soumise A son Parlement ; il a expliqué'd celui-ciet
àson opinion publique cequi estarrivé,et dans quel sens l'organisation
internationale a été développée et dans quelles conditions la Charte
a 6th signée,Or, cet ex~lleiitcommentaire officiedu Gouvernement
britannique,publie par'le SfatiotaerOflZc~ ,ur la Chatte des Nations
Unies, ne mentionne rien, ne contient: aucun mot sur les pouvoirs
extraordinad iurCsonseilde Séçuritc,srlr sa dCciçion n matière de
juridiction obligatoireJe me 16f&reparticuli4rernentaux pages 8 et g
de ce commentaire officiel,qui traitent du chapitre VA dc la Charte
et de l'article rg de la Charte eparticulier. Il y a seulementrinefois
où Le commentaie mentionne la force obligatoire du Conseilde Skcurité
pou les États,mais il s'agitbien d'une décision prise en.vertu du
chapitre VITIde la Charte. Ainsi,le Gonvcrnernent du Koyaurnc-Uni
lui-rnhc n'a pas eriçorc annonce au monde ta chose la plus avancée
dam sel'aturép~ésent k contre nous.o et qu'il invoque à son intention
Il n'existe pas, d'aileurs, d'autre gogvernerne nut monde qui
aurait trouvh dans la Charte le sens que la rcqilPtc britannique du
r3 mai y trouve. Nous avons pris çonaaisiance desdebats gui se sont
déroulb devant le Comitéparlementaire clu Congr&$américain en
juillet1945 . aus aurons encurel'occasionde citer cmtainesdesopinions
prononcées i cetteoccasion. Pour le moment, noas pouvons coilstater
que personne n'a parléaux Etats-Unis du pouvoir extraordiliaire du
Conseil de Sécurite par lacombinaison prétendue des articles 36et zg
de la Charte. Au contraire, on a affirméde façon todfe particiili&re
k cette occasion: avous ne pouvez pas traîner unEtat devant la Cour
sans sa volonté a.11 cn est ainsi pourie mste du monde. Je me réfère
encore sen9ernentau &bat qui s cstdkoulé en automne dernier A 1:
Commission VI, lors de la derniese Assemblke des Nations Unies, a
New-York.
C'estaussi dansle même sens que,depuis,cesquestions ont Et&trait&
par les auteurs.
En résumé,la tlik britanniques'appuie çonhe noirsslrrtrois motifs
qui scrnhlent, $rilm jdcie, n'êtreétablisque pour les besoins de
la came. Jamais aucun Etat n'a acceptéune chose telleque b juridic-
tion obligatoire dela Çauenvertud'une décisiondu Conseilde Securité.
/ Monsieur lePrésident,Messlm de la Cour,

Nous non$ sommeç arrEt6shierau moment de commencer lba1~e
des trois motifsindiquk par la requhtebritannique à l'appui de la
prétenduedispositionqui serait contenue dam la Charte des Nations
Unieset q~ fonderaitfabasedela juridiction obligatoire,pourI'Albanie,
dans la -présentaffaïre.
Au premier des motifs parlequel IeGouvernement britannique,dans
sa requetedn 22 mai dernier,pose la question:a Qrielle est lnatm
jhdiqixe d'une recommandation psise par le Ganseil de Sécurité?
Une telle obligation oblige-t-e1separties? %ije rkpondsqu'ilsemble
bien, encore une fois,que poser laquestion, c'estla dsoudre. Aussi,
je ~i'abuserïasdutemps précieux delaCourpour traitercettequestion
pIusen détail.
Hème si la jeune existence des Nations Unies n'avait@s encore
déjà abondantenque les recommandations prises soiterarle Conseilde
Sécurités,oitpar l'AsçernblCcn,'ontpas de force ob gatoirepour les
partiesauxquelleseues s'adressentily a ici toute In grande ex@riente
et,peut-on dire, foute la jurisprudende laSociété des Nations,pour
nous idmer qu~ les reçommandatiotis du Conseil de Sécuritén'ont
pas ifisofactde forceobligatoire.
. Le termea derecommander ide laCharte serattache bienaujourd'hiri
auterme employejadis par lePacte dela Sociétédes Nations. Parmi
les documents que nous nous sommes permis de soumettre a la Cour,
nousavonsinclus, sous l'annexe3, undomment du Conseil.delaSociété
desNations, datant dkjàde xgzo,d'oh ilressort de façofrappante que
le fermen reconawndation a,employh enangiais, n'a pas, en franpis,
d'autre simation que cellede a vceu i~.
Avant de teminer ces remarques concernant la nalzrp non obliga-
toiredes recommandations, jeme permets de me servir encore seule-
ment de llaütontS particujiérequise rattache m&me aux obelmdicta
de la Cour permanente de Justice,
C'estsurtout dans l'avis consultatino rzconcernant la fameuse
question de laffrontihde l'Irakque la Cour s'espronon& avectoute
la nettete voulue,sur cepoint que le Conseilnefait quede a simples3
.recommandations qui, rnbe si elles sont faitesh l'unanimité,ne
tranchent pas obhgatairement le d8érelzd. Cette opinion de la Cour
peynanente se tmuve plus amplement traitée aux pages 7 et 28
de l'avis;
PIdecisionn,siaE'onentend par le termenadkishn c1unpiacteunee décla-
ration de t-ofont&laquelle il fauobeir,qui a forceobligatoireetexé-
cutoire.
Toutefois, ilnous semble bien que la requ2ie du Goumment
britanni ue arrive A traitela ~ecommandation du Conseilde S6curité
.comme 4ant, i$so factoune décisionJ'ai déjà dithierque le Gouver-
nement britannique ,a uq'A présent omis dkxppliquer d'me facon
plus clairecomment cenouveau mystére de latranssubstantisa etion
matérialise_

3 J: me -pe&ts d'affirmer que ce n'est paspossible. La recomrnan-
-dation du Conseil de Sécuritén'estpas i$so fado une décisionau sens
de l'arti 2clede laCharte,
Taut d'abord, c'estletextemhe de la Chartequinous aide conridé-
rablement à comprendre qu'il en soit ainsi, en faisan ti-m&me la
-distinctionentre ecdécisionD et n recommandation n. L'article N,
. paragraphe 2,de la Charte stipule que le Conseil deSkurité a peut
fairedes recommandations ou dkider des mesuresa pmidre pour faire
exécuterl'arrêt8)De même, les articl39 et40 de la Çharteprévoient
que ale Conseilde SGcurit6faitdesrecommandations ou dccide quelles
mesures seront prises...n.
Le Pacte de laSucikté des Nations employait déjAles denx mCmes
ternes a la fois edistingnait hien entrrdécision iet n:recommanda-'
tion n.C'estainsi que l'artic 5leu Pacte prévoyait r les décisionde
l%ssssembléoeu du Condl prises5 l'unanimité n,tandis que quelques
m~tt.eçdispositionsdu Pacte parlaient, d'autre partdes irremman-
dations ii,
n s'esprésentéausi. au cours deibactivitdela Soci&té desNations,
sonsle régimedu Pacte,plusieursfoislaquestion desavoir où commence
et où finit laforcobligatoire des actes ddnomnîdsen l'oc~urrence,les
dgcisions du Conseil bu de l'Assemblée.C'était, parexemple, lorsde
la Premihe Açserribléen 1920, la question de savoir quelleportée
aura la cdécision nde l%swmbl&e quant a2iStatut de laCourqui lui
était soumis pour apprahatinn. L'opinion se faisaitjour alors qu'il
.sufi tout simplement d'un vote unanime de I'AssemblPepour que
le Statut soit adoptéet la Cour constiti_rd. 'escela (1ladecision n.
Dans le débat, dkatres orateurs, par exemple hl- Politis (Grèce),
croicntIque la divergencd'opinionprovien dtun malentendu. L'Asr~ern-
bléeput sansdoute prend= les décisionsIiantles Etatsmais seulement
dans les limites deses pouvajrs.statutairedéfinispar le Pacte. n La
Courvoudra bientrouver cette explication dM.Politisdans 11anne4c1.0
que nous luiavons soumise,
Et c'esde nouveau dans le m~me sens que la question de laportCe
des décisionsdu CcinçeildeSécurité au sensde l'artide25 dela Charte
s'estposCe à laConfé~enmde San-Francisco.
Cet articleas de laCharte (articl4edu chapitre VI des prùposi.tiort~
de Dumbarton Oaks) se trorive dansle chapitreconcernant les princl-
palesfonctionset pouvoirsdu Conseilde Sécurité. a fait tout Tabord,
an sein du cornite cornpktënt de la Conference, L'objet d'unintéres-
sant amendement belge. -La délégationbelge étaitpréoccupd ée savoir
'spasun tel libelléde I"at"4ide DurnbartonOaks (DmliartowPropo-
- aujourd'liuil'articl23 - carte blanche n'&tait pas donnée
onseil deSécuritée,tellproposait de limitelaportée del'articl35
au chapitrequi porte aujourd'h uino VII, concernantl'actionen cas
d'agression,de menace c0nb.ela paix,La dblégationdu Canada suivit
-darila discussiondans le nihe ordre d'idées.Le dClEgu6 canadiena
poséla q~estion de savoir siu le c~nseilde Sécurité pourra 011 non
demander ;Iun Membre d'engager une ahon militaire qui n'est pas
prévuedans 1eonle accords s@cizluxauxquels ce Membre sera partie
en vertudu aragraphe3 de lasection Bdu chapitre VIIIB (aujourd'hui
chapitre VIf). Alors,c'estd'abord le dkiégué de 1a:Grande-Bretagne,
suivi parle délégu ées Etats-Unis,qdidonne desassurances apaisates,
tant h la déltgation belge,A ladéiegation canadiennequ'A d"autresdélégationsqui abondaientdansla mbe sens.Je citele procès-verbai
de laCanfkrence :

doitL2trelintapf&tt?e dansson ensembleouetaqn'aucunfaparagcaphe nee
peut Gtre isoledu reste dudo~ument. Ily a des dispositions spéciales
qui depasseraientles drspositianghkal~, etlaréponse Ala question
pos4e estun unon mcatdgorique. ii

Z"amendementbelp ne fnt pas adopte, mais h dixussion au sein
du Cornit6 respectif dla.ConfCrence de San-Francisco thoigne d'nne
façontrh sure que tout le monde étaitbien d'açcord que l'articlzj
de laCharte n'est niillement une cwte blanche donnge au Conseil de
Skcuritépar lesMembresdes Nations-Unies.Le dGli.gu6des Etats-Unis
ainsi que le déléga6du Royaume-Uni étalentles premiers 1 souligner
l'importance de larègle que a s$ecirdgroeiisimsoaiww,'gmeual provi-
se'o~n,que lalez s$eciwl derogattegigexerdi,Ilsontmis bien enrelief
lasignificationdu texte de l'artic25 de la Charte,qrii-di: acorifor-
mérnent à laprésenteCharte i).
Bous n'insister polsssur cetteportéa de l'articl25 dè la Chàrte
qui, A notreavis,ne peut Gtr e ise sérieusernenten doute. Nous nous
bornons sealement C1attirer I'attentisur le faitme dans 3em&me
Fris abonde le rapport officiel sula Conference de San-Fmcisço
soumis par M. Stettin iuMs,b Présidentdes États-Unis,que dans
le mCmesens seprononce le commentaire officiepublidpar le Statiomery
O@ce de Londres, qui contient leopinionsoficielks duGouvernement
britannique et ne parle pas rion plus de l'articl25 dans le sens de
i{décisions obligatoire2, et ~ltentionnpar contre des « sfiecifitoh&
gaiio~zv sousle chapibe VI, Et peut-êtrenous sera-t-il permisdeciter
un livre qui constitue un despremiers commentairesde la Charte et
mi est 1'Œ1ivrede deux auteurs qui participérentà la Conference de
San-Ftancisco, l'un comme serétaire de lacomrnisçionpour Ie régle-
ment pacifiquedes différendsl'aiitrcomme membre de Ia délégation
norvégienne. Ce livre s'intit:u leCharter of the United Nations.-
Commentary and Documents a,de Goodtich et Hambro,
commentaire mivant, a;lu ...The pkeciseextentraof this obligation of
Memhers cari.be determined anly by referenceto other ravisionsof
the Charter, particularlChapters VI, VII, VIII md XI~ Decisîons
of the Security Conncil take oa binding charactet onlyas they rehte
to the preventian or suppressionof haches of the peace.
I The word u decisianIIas ~sedin this Articleclearly does lzot indude
recommendation which the Çedty Council içempowered to make
tindet Articles 36, 37 an38, Ptwas made clear in the discussionsat
5an Francisco,as itshou1.be appa~ent from thewording oftheCharter,
that such recommendatiom have no binding force bi

Ce que nous venons- de dire d'une fapn gen6raIe quant:A la portée
de l'article25 de la Cllatte, nousavons la bonne fortune de pouvoir
l'appliquerel de i'illustrencore d'une façon trPsconcrèteen ce qui
concerne plusspécialement le chapitre VIde la Charte - ler&glement
pacifiqrredes différendinternationaux - et encoreplus spkiderne~rt
en ce quiconcernel'articl36,paragraphe3, qui faipartiedece chapitre
et qui serapportejustement l'affairequi nouoccupeen ce moment. C'estencore une fois la d8égatiorlbelgequia bien meritéd'éclaircir
la port& des articlesde la Charte, nkociésa San-Francisco,endeman-
dant (me ïéponseVpl ursciseà sa question, dFjà posee, savoir si
le terme a recommandé 11a11chapitre VIII,section X - chapitre VI
de la Charte d'aujourd'hui-, comporte iles obligations pourdesÉtats
qui sont yarties un litigeou signifieseulement que leConseil offre
un avis quipeut on non etre accept4 1).Le délPgtidu Royaume-Uni,
le premier,et, aprèsluile déréguédesEtats-Unis, ont don116de nouveau
a cet4gard ciesassurances, dsortequeled&légu de laBelgique3.déclaré:
a Puisqu'il est maintenant clairement entendu qu'me secornman-
dation faite parle Conseilsms la section Adu chapitreVI11 n'entraîne
aucun effet obligatoire, i[le d6lée;aébeige] accepte de retirerson
amendement. iiLa commission a considéré ce point comme tout à
fait important, et c'est pourquoi le rapporteut de Ja ço~nmission.
AT-Arkadiev,a 6thmande par la commission d'enfairemention expresse
dansson rapport. Dans Ic rapport de M. Arkadiev,membre de ladélé-
gation soviétique, &luen séance publique le 18 lui11à San-Francisco,
nous tronvons que le Conseil de Sécuritépent, dans des cas envi-
sagés, rem~nmlafideles termes d'an règlement de mème pue les proce-
dures et les rnkthodes d'apsement. Au cours de la discussion d'un
amendement proposépar le del&gu& de la Belgique, les dél4guk du
Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis ont donne l'assurance que toutes les
recommandations de la part du Conseil de S6carit6 n'obligeraienf
nullement les >)
Nous pourrions encore citerun grand nombre de dacumenk qiii tous
abondent dans LemEme sens.
J'ai déjh citéle rapport deM. Stettinius hM. le PrésidentTruman.
Le rappnrk du Gouvernement du Canada sm la Conférencede San-
Francisco, sip& par le premier ministre Mackenzie King, s'exprime
dans le mEme sens (voirl'annexe 5 des documents soumis par nous à la
Cour), Nous avons aussi soumis à la Lourla déclarationtrésénergique
faiteA cet égardpar le sénatenr ConnaTly, qui, on le sait, étaitparmi
lespremiers dtrlkgn6des E tatsUnis CIL Confkrencede San-Francisco.
Je me permets seulement encore ,dementionner qu'a l'annexe 7 de
seurode 1'TJnivmsitédc New-York, publiée de:dans1'American Jourmlfes-
O I~ter~atioaatLaw. Nods avons t$ché dxviter des citationstrop
nombteuses. Mais norisavons fait exceptionpourI'articlë de M. Clyde
Bagleton, parce qu'il Etaitmembre de la,.délkgationdes gtats-Unis
à côtécle1%.Harold Stassen dans lacommission de laConférence de
San-Francisco qui a élaboré lechpitm VI de la Charte d'aujourd'hui.
Dn document que nous avonssoumis, i1,ress clrtement que le Conseil
de Sécuriti:n'a aucun pouvoir de régler obligatoirement un diffërend
soitsle couvert du chapitre VI de la Charte,
Et tout cecia.étécoiifirrnexpressément par rapport au paragraphe 3
de l'article 36de la Charte.
Ce paragraphe est Icibase de notre affaire actneleparce que ckst
la base d'où estsortieIa rec~~andation qde le ConseildeS6curité a
faite au Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni ethl'Albanie le9avril dernier,
Le rapporteur du comité chargk de la 'questionà San-Francisco
au sujet du prcijcde kt articlde la Charte ((souligne quecet article,'
d'une façon définitive,ne comportepas Je principe dela compétence
obligatoire; de plirs,il n'nutotiçe Ic Conseil à porter devant la EXPOSÉ ZIE M. VWHOC (ALSANIE) - 27 1148 29
Cour aucun.W6reridjusticiable. LeConseil lui-même neposae, confor-
rn4ment àcet articleaucundroit de ce genre. On rappellesimplement
au Consed qu'en r4le génkralelesdifférendsjusticiablesdevraient être
portés devartt Ja four. Le Conseil n'estpas autorise insisterpour
qile lespartics dansun tel différmdles portent devant la Cour. Cette
dispositionest compatible en fout point avecl'article 36 du Statrlt
de la Cour adopt6 au Comitd N/x. n
Dans cet ordre d'iddes, la délégationnorvégienne, pour'marques
encore, parune expressionbien placée,qu'ilenest ainsi,afaitaccepter
wn amendement au textc du paragraph 3ede l'articl36 dela Charte,
arnenclement qaditend à y ajouterlesmots : n par lespartiesP. Si bien
quc le textedéfinitifdit cgui suit:s les diffdrenclsdoiveetre soumis
1s Cour, conformément son Statut,et par lesparties 11Le rapport
a spécifieque cettemodification a étéappo~téepour qu'on comprenne
nettement que ((le Conseil de Sécprité n'a pas le droit ni le devoir
de ddfFrorun difE6rendjusticiableà la Courinternationalede Jnstice n,
Je passe d'autres thoignages, mais tout de mêmeje crois utile de
rn'arreter encore aux déclarations particuliéresfaitesdans le même
sens par hl.Haçkworkh,qui pr4sidait laI;omrnissionde Ia Conférence
de San-Francisco qui s'occupait du Statut.
C'est aa mois de juille1947 que M- Hachorth, aprés M. Pasvolsky,
a éttmadt comparaître dev,ml lacommission qui s'occupaitde la
Carte de San-Fnncisca en vue de sa ratificatiori par le Congrdes
htats-Unis. IE y a fait des déclarationscatégoriques (voir nos docn-
ments, annexe n"7). Ila ét4tat6gorique parce qu'ilsetrouvait devant
quelques sénateurs qu ne voulaient pas croirequ'iln'y avait rien cle
chan@ dans le monde par suite de l'artic 3le pz~ag~aphe 9,de la
Charte des Nations Unics, et prétendaient qu'un Etat pedt Btre
poursuivj sans son consentement devant la Cour ci, spkialernent, que
le Conseilde Skarité poséde lepcitlvoide citer les fitats-devantla
Cour. Zes riporises de M. Hackworth aux sCnateurs étaient toujours
dans JemGmc sens: Kle ConseildeSécurité n'apas un droitquelconque
de jeter Iesparticslitigieuses devant lCour n; rileConseil put faire
des recommandations anx parties d'aller devanlaCoar, mais les gtats
ne sont pas du tout obligésde suivre les reccirnmandationsdu Conseil
dans cettebreçtion i),Et encore :a il n'ya.aucime loi possible pour
le Conseild'obliger lesÉtats d'aller dev3n.t:la Coizik.
Il nous reste à voir encore le troisiÈme élémede ladite construction
britannique contenue dans IwrequSte du 13 mai dcrnier, c'est-à-dire
qrlelleimportance peut avbirpour Yaffaireyrkente l'article~z de la
Charte.
La fonction decettedispositiondelaCharte semblebien depermettre,
d'une part, 2 i'-Ubanie, d'autrpart, auConseil de Skurité, de traiter
ensemble une daire ou le Gouvernement albanais est mis en cause,
En vertu de cetartide, 1"Albanieesthabilitke S participeaus dîscus-
siom du Conseil de Sécuritd.
La question sepose de savoir s'idéccmlede cestatut assumépar
l'Albaniead hocet auxfins de ladiscussiondevant le Conseide Sécurité,
des conséquencescn ce qui concerne la position du Gouvernement
albanais envers la Cour.
Pour nous, noilsn'en voyons aucune.
L'article32 de la Charte estkne dispositionqui ne touche enrien
Iharticle35,paragraphe 2, du Statut et l'articl36 du RègIement de Uniesrpeutracquérirle droidketer enjusticeodevantelaCQdr. Nations
Tout ceci nous semble dant tellement de soi que vraiment
jJh6site$ poursuivre entore ce point. Toutefois, je me permets
encore de placer sous les yeaxde IsCou un des pa-gs du rapport
de M. EBeaerts van Blokland, rapportetirdu Cornite d"Experts,sur
lesconditions d'accèsüila Colisinternationalede Justiced'gtats non
partiesau Statutde la Coiir.Jecite de la pige.15d4usupplkment no6
aux P~o~ésverb&u o.$cietdu Cmseil de Skc~rife'ela premi&re ande,
seconde série: tIl importe de souligner que le simple dépBt d'une
déclaration{d&&rationau sens de l'artic36 du Rhglement de la Cour)
ne suffit paspour conférercompbtence A Ia Çour dans un litigdéfer-.
miné. Un Ètat partie au Statut nepeut seyoir, sgnssonconsentement,
traduitdevant la hrlr par un gtat nonpartie au Statut. L'accord de
volontédûs deuxparties en iitigeesjn6cessairr, qu'~ise un cas parti-
culierouqu'il s'exprime d'une manière général en vue de differends
, A naltrepourque la Çow puisseêtresaisie a'uncaffaireii
Je viens dcterminer l'analyse desarticles13para raphe g, 32 etz~
de la Charte qui sontles motifs produits par le E ouvernement du
Royaume-Uni h l'appui clela prétendue dispositionconformément 3
l'ârticle 3du RGglernent de la Cour.
le conclusqu'aucun de cestroismotifsinvoqués par le Gouvemenient
britannique n, l'article 36, paragraphe 3,l'article23,ni l'artic32
de laCharte, ne fournissent aucunebase.pour la pretendne disposition
qu'il s'agissait, dans l'affprkestnte, d'un cassp6ciaIernentprévu
dans la Chartedes Nations Unies ndont parle l'artic36 du Statut de
la Cour.
Le rCsultat absolument nbat8 de l'analyse que nous avons entre-
prisepour comprendre les trois motifs invoquéspax teGouvernement
britannique b l'appui de la prétendue disposition dontfait état sa
requete, nom a surpris,e l'avoue, un peu nous-rn4mes.
Nous avons donc étk amenes 9 nous poser h nous-mgmes la
8question de savoir comment s'expliquer ,cette nouvelle disposition
de l'article 3ajoutée à l'articl36 de la Courprrnmente, Qu'est-ce
que cette expression run cas spécialement prévupar la Charte des
Nations Unies 1)pour être soumis h la compétencede la Cour inter-
nationaiede Jmtice ?
Le rktiltatde nos recherches A cetéga~d nous a amen& direque
tionné dans l'articlei!du Statutlde laCourn'existe pas.nLas requête
britanniquedu 13 mai seréclamait bien d'me lettre mort'-de à cet
&xd. C'est le secretde l"6checscomplet de latentativeque la,requ&te
a entreprisepourse baser sur la nouvelledispositiondel'articl36 du
Statut.
Lachose s'espsée ?tpeuprh de la fapn suivante: une conférence
des juristedei Nations Unies fut convoquéeunpeu avant l'oavqture
de la Conférence de San-Francisco hWashington. M. Haskworthprksi-
dait cetteconférence, Ces juristes prAvoyaientalors- ou quelqu'un
parmi eux prévoyait,c%tait meme peut-être le Gonvernemeiit améri-
cain lui-meme - que Ia Charte fdkire des Nations Uniescontiendrait
me clansecon,cernétntla juridiction obligatoire pour leÉtats par
rapport Ala compétencedu Conseil de Sécurité.Le rapportqui, .&la
suite destravaux de cette conférence,fut présentéle 26 avril 1945, par M. jules Basdevant, membre du cornit&,éclairel'intentiondes
auteur su sujetde ces troimots interpolk dansl'article36 dtStatut
de laCourpermanente : rim the Chader of the Uaited Ndiorls il.Le
rapport de M. Basdevarit au sujetdu projet de Statut de la Ca et
au nom du Comitédes Juristes s'ex-e ainsi: i ce textereprùddt
1iartic36 du Statut avec me additionpour lecas oh la Charte des
Nations Unies viendraitA faire quelqueplace la juridiction .obliga-
toiren.
Or, pourcomprendre ce quis'estpass6 au sujet decdte proposition
à laConf hnce de San-Francis,m, ilestbon de ne pas pperdrede vue
le faitqu'iy avait hlaconf4~nce deus comitésqui s'occupaientde
cettequestion. C'était -loe itér de la Commission IV prksid& par
M. Hackworth, dont la tkhe &tai d'klaborerle Statnt de laCour,et
le Comitéz de laCommission XII, qui s'occupait du chapitreVI de
la Charte sur le réglernent pacifigtides différends internationaux.
Aa mois de mai, pendant les premiéres semaines de laConférenc les,
cornit& en questionne went pas~çexactemcn ltqueld'entreeux devait
s'occuperspécialement de laqucçtion. C'estseulement versla .findu
mois de mai que le Cornit& z de la Commission III, le Comité du
chapitreVI dela Charte, fuassuréque le Comité3 de laCommission IV
ne serait pasaisidu parapphe 6 de cechapite VX, c'&-&-dire des
propositions de Dmbarton Oak, c'est-&-dirdu rdleque le Cariseil
de $écurit& pourrait avoir jouer en vue de faire somettre les
diff6rendsjmticiable21la Cour internationale deJustice. LeComitéz
de la.Commission 111 a termine ses travmx au cornencement de
juin, et BI. Basdevant, en tant que membre de la délégation
françaisefaisant partie dece mêmeComitf. z de la CommissionIII
etsp4cialement aussi de son sotls-comité,savaitdone dkjh,au dkbut
de juinqu3 n'y auraitrien dans la Charte de cette juridiction obliga-
taire qu'on prévoyaipeut-6tre encore aumois d'avril à Washington.
C'est dansces cenhtions que nousvoyons M. Basdevant apparaître
, dans la ~omrnission de M. Hackrvorth,pmr proposer le 6 juin 1945
d'dimiiier lemots : u ir,the Clmtcrof the U$tited Natiom ilirdtant
donnéqu'il paraFtque laCharte: neconfèrea laCriirraucunejuridiction
dam aucun cas1,.Tontefois,cette proposition de 3f-Basdevant ne
futpas agrSe par le Camlth x de laCommissian ni,c'est-&-p dirre
la~ommission du Statut de la COUT , ans nos documents (annexe 1)
soumis h la Cour lzo janvier,nous avons citéla phrase suivantrnrné-
diatement Lapropositionde M. Basdevant, qui dit que: toutefois, une
autre opinion a éteexprimSe, savoque le paragraphe6du chapitre VI1
a) de la Chde se réfèreà 3a soumission obligatoire desaffaires la
Courpar le Conçeilde S4curite.Pws cetteraison,ila &téagrég que le
passagenesera pas barré. ii
J'ai d6jh cité auparavant le rapport de M. Arkadiev concernant
lestravaux ciiiComité 2 dc la Commission III,Jnajoutemaintenant
qu'ia et6également précis&dans cerapport que al'articl5,quiest une
nouvelle version de la premiéeephrasede l'ancienparagraphe 5, ne
traite que del'action du Conseil de Sccuritélorsque celui-ciformule
sesrmammandationsen vertu de l'articl4,11tient compte du fait
que le Comité IVJI a examinéla qaestion de fajuridictionde la Cour
internationaleet a recommandél'acceptationdu principe de la clause
facultative.M Je me permets de rher cette histoire endeux mots: c'estla
Commissiondu Statut de la Cour qui avait entre autres égalementla
charge de l'article 36 du Statut avec les mots nouvellement ajoutés
a dans la Chartecles Nations Unies D, Elletravaillait sans laliaison
.nbceççaireavec le Comitéz de la.Commission III, etc'estainsiqu'une
emur de rédaction skt produite.Ilest trk compréhensibleque dans
la h&te des clernihs semaines de la Conférence de San-Francisco le
Cornit4 de coordinationet le Cornit&de rédadion n'aient plus eu le
temps nécessaire $examiner ce point de plus prks.

No* avious besoinde faireladhonstratlon qaiprhdde pournous
préparerlesbasesd'une meilletirdiscmçimde larequêtceommemon
de kir laCour. La situatim estceile-ciA ce qu'ilnous semble :si
la pr6tendue disposition invoqnée par le Gourterriement b~itanniqiie
l'appui de sa, requste n'existe pas, le Gouvernement britannique
n'&kt pas fonde à saisir laCour par la requ$te.
Le Gouvernerrientdu Royaume-Unine tfouvait pas nécessairede
consacra A la question de l'admissibilité,de la recevabilitéSri sa
requtte, l'attentionque cette giiestion méritaitencore même dans
son Mémoire p&ntk 3,la tour au Icroctobredernier,suivant l'ordon-
nance de M.le Présidentdela Courdu 31juiliet dernierA lasuitede
notre exception duIC~ décembredernier,le Gouvernement britannique
se trouvaitcette fois-cbien oblig&d'examiner #un peu plus prhs la
question. Ses Observations du 20 janvier s'attachent maintenant
surfontA la question de savoircomment sauver larequete sielle n'est
pasen ordre,Les arpents avancésà cet@rd par les Observations
du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni du zo janvier dernier sont au
nombre de trais, e me permettrai de les examiner un par un:
1) D'après lesd bservations, l'initiatqu'aprise le Gonvernment
duRoyaume-Uni en vertu de larecommandation dirConseilde Sécurité
du g avril dernier aurait 6th fondéenp~mi~r lieu, surle désirexpr&s
du Conseil de Sécttritrecommandant une action immédiate.
En effet,11se trouve dans la recommandation le mot o immédiate-
ment n; on recommande aux Gouvememcnts de soumettre immé-
diatement leurs différends àla Cour.
Mais, diremerit,Iaqaestion sepose de!savoir si unetdle dispwition
l'affairSi c'&aitvrai, lemotritimmédiatementtouterimeraitn'importe
quelIrautre dispositionrelative à l'affasoitqu'ele setrouve dans la
R4.s.çolutidu 9 avrilsoit, ceqni est encore plus important, dans Te
Statut de laCour.Or, il n'y a sDrementnulle part aucune disposition
qui autoriserait I$kits SLpasser outread Statut de la Cm et kson
Ri:giement uniqumcnt parce qu'un tiers, en Yoccurrence le Conseil
de Secmité,veut bien leurconseiller de s'adresseEa Cour N immédia-
ternentn.
2) Le deuxihe argument avancé par les Observationsdu 20 janvier
dit que le Gouvernement britannique a pris son initiativde porter
l'affaidevant laCQW par larequêtp earce que(jecite:u ..,deuxih~e-
ment, la r&solutiandont ils'agit[R&salutinndu g avril du Conseilde
SécuritC],sms faire allusiona la conclusion d'un cornpromis,s'est
bornée A recommander aux deux Gouvernernéntd sesoamettre le Ktige
5 laCour, Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uii s'estralliésans &serve àmtte dkision, etila supposq bue leGouvernement albanais adopte-
raitla mEmcattitude. »
Ch,en cequi con,cernecesixguments, nous contestons toat d'abord
que larecmmandation du Conseil du g avrilse soitbarn& A tecorn-
rnancleraux Gouvernements de murnet tre lhtige k b Corn. Les Obser-
vations ne citent pa la rccammandation correctement. La reçomman-
dationrecommande au Gouvernement drrRoyaume-Uni et au Gauver-
nement albanais,~xpvewis zierb2.qAsoumettre à EaCour leur différend
ren conformite cln Statut de la Cour ».
Or,d'aprEs le Statutily a deux voiesponr aller devantIsCour, soit:
par notification du campramis, soit par une squCte,
Pomquoi, de cesden? voiesA choisir,le Gouvernement britannique
a-t-il choisjustement la requête7 Si larecommandation ne fait pas
allusion h wr compromis, elleliefait pas plus allusioà la requQte.
Encore, le Gouvernement britanniquea « supposé que le Golivemc-
ment albanais adopterait la meme attitudeR.
A cet égard, iP y a lieu de faire remarquer: jusqu'àpx&+nt le
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a çuppd syshatiquement que
le Gouvernement ahanais fera toujouri lcontra,irede ce qu'ddevrait,
d'aprés lui,faire.Poiirquciicn l'occirmnce, suppose-t-ique leGou-
vernement albanais adopterait la mGme attitude ?
3)Enfin, nous arrivons $IItroisièmemotif, le.plus important, des
Observations du zojanvier &l'appuide larequgte:britannique du13mai.
Ce troisièmemotif contientune tentativede jmt-ificatioqui s'efforce
de sauver la reqn&tepar des raisons Siréesde laprktenduenature jmi-
dique de la requête,Cet argument at libellé danslesObservations
(par. 9, lit,e)de la fa~on suivante:
IrRien dans Ie Statut ni dans le R6gkment de la Cour nhterdit
formellement l'instancepar voie de repuete, rnhe si la compétence
de la Corlr est etablen vertu,soit d'un renvodevant Ia Cou diicliffé-
rend par Ies partiessoit &un compromis. En conséquence, leGouver-
nement du Royaume-Uni, en introduisnt la présente affaire devant
la Cour parvoie de requéte,a,de l'avisdece Gouvernement, agicorrec-
tement. n
Ch, Ja requéteserait 1e moyen d'introduirel'hstame mhe au cas
du compromis, Lkrggument employé ici noas parait trop impertant
pour notre exception préliminairepur que je puisse omettre ddeve-
lopper plus amplement: comment ce point de vue du Gauvemernent
britannique est encoreet surtout i cet &rd erron4
Le terme arequete a, pour dhommer le: moyen formel de po~ter
l'affairdevant la Cour, n'apas unelangue existence.Nous le cherchons
en vain daas lesactesde la Conférencede La Haye de ~Sgg et de rgq.
M. de Lapadelle, comme rapporkeur du Cornit6 consultatif deJuristes
en juin et jnillet1920, pdparant Je Statut de la Cour permanente,
explique clansson rapport cet etat de choses. 11ditrrLe projet de la
Cour de Justice arbitralede rgo7 n'avait attaché qu'une attention
rkduite P un poht aussi particuliera 11 s'agissaide 1squestion de
savoirde quellemanifirela Cour estsaisieM. de Lapradellecontinuait :
a mais d&sl'instant quela,constitutiodela Soci6tédesNations permet-
taitlacréationd'rineCourvraimentpermanente, detels dCtaiIdevaient
être cll~ecternenabordés a.Le projet du ComitE de Juristes de 1920
a donc consacré.un articlespéciala la miére dont la Cour-doit ktre saisie,Son article 38, qui serait aujourd'hl uirticle 40 du Statnt,
prescrit:nrla Cour es?sàisiepar une requêteadresséeau Greffe s; ,
en anglais: u wrilten a$$lic&tionii,
Comme ilest conna, ce pr~jet desjunstes de rçzo prévoyait,ùans
sonartide 34 (aujourd' aridle 36 du Statut), lajuridictioobliga-
. toireentre lesÉtats Membres de laSmi6té clesNations pour lesdiffé-
rendsd'ordre juridiqzlc.C'étaitletraitsaillande ceprojet.La reqiizte
serait donc,d'apres ce projet,le moyen par excellence unilathl.
Commeun le sait,le Conseil dla Soci6Wiie sationset laPremière
Assembléede rgzo ont complètement modsé le ppi.ojetdes juristessm
ce point capital. A lasuite de cettenouvelle rédaction d6finitive du
Statut, la compétence de la Cour permanente n'est pas obligatoire,
mêmepou les différendsd'ordrejuridique.
Il est pour nous intéressa de tnoter qu'avec la disp&thn dela
juridictionobligatoiedu Statat, disparaît aussidans l'arkicle.3du
projet des juristesla requ&te comme étant le seul moyen formel de
saisir laCour,et Ia notificationdu compromis apparaît à chté de la
requête ainsi que l'artic 40edu Statirt de rgzo en témoigne.
Comme ilestconnu,la formule de la premièrephmc de l'ahçle 40
du Statut provientde N. Fmmageiit; membre de la délégationfran-
$aiseà la PrerniéreAssemblée et membre de la Sroisihe Commission
i laAssembléeq,uiavait pour tâçhe.d'claborletexte définitduStatut,
On trouve, àlapage368 des prqcès-verbauxdela Troisième Commission,
comment la discussion concernantl'artic4le d'aujou$ hi, articl38
& cetteépqne, s'estpoursuivie:
a La camrnission s'esrendu con~pte me #deux as peuvent se pr&sen-
ter :comment porter l'&aire devant la C'ir 7
1") La Cour estsaisie unilateralemenpar une des parfies,Dans ce
cas,c'est la partiedemanderesse qilisakit IaGour ;
2") II ya un accord spécialentreles partiesDans cette dventualité,
l'une desparties s'adresseCilaCour et celle-cidkide si Irequête est
recevable.u
Ainsi ta dixussion a commencé.

d'employer la requêtemême damqu'ilecasrd',uncompromis.deRLarmfiberth
d'un Etat d'accepterou non d'der devant laCour'peut se trouver
compromise par Ia requ&te.nU a donc proposé la rédactionsuivante :
u La Corn est saisie, selon lcas,soitpar notificationdu compromis,
mit par me requete dressée ad Greffe.Dans les deux cas,l'objetdu
diffkcnd estre icspartiesen cause doit Stre indjqu6-n
Lesdits proch-verbaux eclairent bienlaquestion de savoircomment
il fautcomprendre cetteexpression ;a selon les cas n.
TI ya le cas oùil existe un accmidspCcidentre les partiesetle cas
06 la Courpeut saisie unilat&raIernentpm i'unedesparties.
Dans le premier cas, ily a nohfimtion du compromis. Dans le
deuxième cas,et seulementdans ce cas,il ya la requête.
Je n'abuser paidu temps de laCour en citantlesnombret~~ anteurs
qui commentent l'article40 du Statut dans le même sens que celiii
que jeviens d'indiquer.Je me borneseulement Aciter le gmd spgcia-
Irstede la Cou pennatlente de Justice, le juge Manlcy O. Hudson.
Dans son ouvrage consacré5 la Cour permanente (édition1934,~ 168):
ildit au sujet dla dismion de l'artic38 qne nous venons e cite- The textwas redrafted andgiven ifsbal form by the sub-conimittee
oftheThirdCornmitteeof the Assembly, inordet todistinpish betweeri
bysethe agreement ofet~voor more States.axStateand casessubmittd

Depuis, nous pouvons bieril'affirmer, c'est toujourainsi qu'on
comprend et qu'on app1iqrl.e'articl40 da Statut, et c%st 'surtout
aux travaux m&ms clela Cour internationale de Justice que nous
voulons noas réfber A cet kgard.

[Séance$w.tiligtted~27 /&fierrg&, a+r2s-midi.]
Bfomieur leWsident, Messieurs de la Çour,
J'ai ditce matin qu'il fallase tournerauçsi versles travaux dela
Courpermanente de Justice internationale pourbien comprendrele
sens de la requêtecomme moyen technique d'introduirel'instance
devant la Cour.
Je ne pense paci iciaux mets, aux avis çmsultatLtlfde la Caur
permanente. En effet,il me semble que les affaires onttoujou~ &té
poursuivies devant la Cour permanente soit par lecompromis, soit
par larequête, selon ltas.S'il g avait decas où la questionde reçe-
vabilités'étaitpl&, elles'estpo&e pour dhditres raisons.
Mais il cstencore une autre source pour connaître la doctrinede
la Cour permanente relativemer~t la reqdte comme moyen approprih
d'introduirel'instancdevant la Caur. Nous pensons aux délibérations
de la Cour permanente consacrées,depuis 1922jusqu'k 1936, al'&labo-
ration et larevision clson Regjement. C'estun grand document que
cohtiennent lespublications de la Çour permanente se rapportant
la revision deson Réglernententreprisepar elle en 1926,1g3r, et de
1934 à ~936,et encore,bien entendu, à la session prklimkaire de la
Cour pour élaborer son Règlement en 1922.
Or, dans cette mine d'or que reprkentent ces travaux de laCour,
on trouve que phsieurs membres de laCour ermanente, cles noms
bien connus dans ledmit internationalont pm ?essed'une façon systé-
matique I'idJequ'ifaut bien distingueentreIa notification dcornpro-
mis et la requête.
C'est ainsique M. Anzilottia d$clar&en rgzz : Je d&re faire une
distinction nette ehtre lcasaAla procgdure débute par une requCte
ou bieu par Ia notificatiod'un compromis. n Et. encorecette année
même,c'était M. Huber qui estimart que n fa ptemihre question k
résotidreest de savoir siune afhirepeilt êtrprtke devant la Cour
toire de la Cour.Personnellement,estd'avisqueécen'est paspossiblei~a-'
(P. 201, Règlement zgzz.)
En 1922, la Cour n'avait pas encore eu I'occasion d'approfondir
cette qilestionJe me permets de fairela remarquequ'aussi pour la
Couret son RAglementvaut que c'ed l'expériencequi Iiti coafhrde
l'ampleur,et de la certitade.
Mais au coiiis dla revisiadu Réglernenten r926 n,ousrencontrons
dhjh dam lesdiscussionsdes membres de ZaCourdes éclaircisçementç
importants et approfondisen ce qui coicernela requstecomme moyen
technique de posteruneaffairedevarit lCour. Je me r&f&r eotamment
aux pages 177 et suivantesdu volume consad A larevisiondu Règle-
ment de la Çour en 1926. La Cour s'occupait surtout de Ia qnestion de savoir comment
iatmdirire:une procédure en interprétation. Je crois que c'&tait '
l'articl60 du Statut qui k cemoment &taitendiscussion. II s'agissait
de savoir si un peut introcluire une telle pr&drlre par reqirét. ous
avons soumis h laCoirr,par l'annexe no 12,la partieprincipalede la
discussion que j'kvaqueen ce moment. On peuty voir qile 3%.John
Bassett Moore s'estdemandé rtsi la Courdans son Eègiunent, ne s'est
prisserviedumot arequ6te ü exdusivemedt i3 ohetlepossédejmidiction

obligatoirei).C'estsurtout M. Hammarskjold, le grand savant qui
excellait damla connaissancedetailleedc toutle m&anisme de i5Cou,
qd a donné fa repens àela question de &f,Moore.
Je cite textaeltement:
P(IR Greffiertfniitlaquestion de terminologisoulevéepax M. Moorc,
que laCour, se basant sut I'articie40du Statut, a toujours appel&
trrequdta 1)la pikce introductived'inskce déposéepar une partie
prktendant qu'ily avait juridiction obligatoire sl'objet chlitigeLe
terme correspondant en anglais a étt u ap$licat%'on. Dans l'autre
kventualité, leterme français a &.té(Icompromis v, et l'expression
anglaisecorrespondants a s$ecid apemmt ii.n

Nous croyons pouvoir affirmer non seuIemeiit que la réponse de
M. Hammc~t.skjiit d,tait correctemais qu'en &ct on ne tronve pas
d'opinioncontraire,On peut trouver dans lesditsdocuments de Ea Cour
certainesautres observationsqui sc rapportent Acertains détailsct k
certainesnuances de la question dela port& dirterme rcrcqiiete3 au
sens technique, Hoosdknonimeririnscesopiflion(idesremarques mxrgi-
ndes *.Ainsi, par exemple, ilestvrxi que 19mot a rcqriêteM n'estpas
employb dans le Statut ou Rkglement de laCot~r seulementexclusive-
ment clanslesens de l'arti40edu Statut.Voir1% requ&tepourcle~nander
l'avis consulL~tiMais,d'une fa~on générale,le faiest,d'après nous,
certainque pour introduire l'instancsehn la psoeéd~~rceontentieuse,
la reqiiéest lemoyen, au sens deI'artic 40edu Statut, reiserv6poar les
&abes de juridiction obligatoirC'est pou+ cetteraison qu'elleestle
moyen unifathl. Nous avons essayéde nom frayerun chemin jtravers
ces quelquesmillierçclepages queconstituent lestravaux'de ta Cour se
rapportant rl sonRkglement, Nous n'avons pas trmvk i'ordbred'une
opinion contrair,en cequi conmrne leüit câract$r de larequete.
La revisiondu RèglementdeIaCourentreprise de 1934jusqu'à ~935,
saus laprkidence de sirCccilHurst, a étésans doute laplus importante
.detoutes. D'aiIleurslaCour internationale de Justice ena tiréprofit
pour son Rkglement aujourd'h enivigueur.Or, lors de cettedernihe
revision,laCour s'estocc~rpée sousdivers rapprts, de la requgteTous
lesjuges,notamment MM. Anxihtti, vanEysinga, Fromageot, Guerrezo,
Negulsm, filin-Jaequemyns, mentionnent la requete cornme une
pih sinilateraletsupposxnt lajuridiction ohligatoire.Je cite encore-
une foisM. Anziiotti:uRI.Anzilotti[ala page 139 dudocument de19361
insiste [Tnouveau sur ladiffkrencequi séparelarequ6te ducompromis-
Tandis que cedernierest l'ceuvrcorrimunedes deux parties,larequête,
en revanche, est l'Œuvre d'une seule partie,n
Lors de cette derniêrerevision de son Réglernentde rg34 A 1g36,
la Coar eut l'occasion des'ocçnpm de larequ8te surtouta propos de
la grande question que constitue fe probléme du forulri@orogatrn. On trouve dans ce docurnent de la Cour pnbliéen rg36 surtout la
page 69 et lessuivant esi serapportentà cesproblèmes. ,
La question s'estprésentée sous l'anglesuivant : Comment'faut-il
procéder,si les dispositions prétenduespah requeteen ce qui concerne
sa base paraissentdouteuse ou mtme inexistante;l
C'est encoreM,Hamrnarskjtild qfli a décrit aux membres de laÇour
la manière doritcelle-ci procèclen pareillocclirrence.On trouve son
iexplicaticànIapage 845 du volume de 1936 :* Le Grefier Uidtqneque
siIaquête étaitp5aentke en vertu d'dn acteautre que la clauselaçul-
tative,connue de la Cour et dans lequel 1egouvernement citéaurait
accepté lajuridictioobliga-toirde la Çour,elleserait sanaucundoute
transmise autamatiquement ; si elle invoquait quelque clause de cc
genre inconnn de laCo-, le~equkrant seraitvraisemblableme nnvité
a fournirdesexplicationsIine faut pas oublierqueIeGouvernementcité
peirt,aureçu de ia requête ,tre dispos6iaccepter la juridictioad lzac
de laCour,même 5'3 n'estpas obligkde le faireC'estlkun motif pour
notifieles reqüétesdans tous les cas,n
Ccs explications du savant GsEffiede la Courpermanente éciairent
la questioncomment et pourquoi la Caus peut setrouver en état de
recevoir,etmême, en cequi la çonmc, di:transmettre des requêtes
dont la,baseparait @tredouteuse sinon manquant de tout fondement.
La riquete présuppose: nnc disposition dela jmidiction obligataire.
Néanmoins, ilarrivequbne requêt eaisisslaCour d'une affairsans que
cette conditiosoit mmplie.Comment, alorsprocéder 7Les explications
deM. HammarskjGId indiquent assezclairement quela Courpermanente
professait,enpareilcas,uncertai pnenchant pour le jo~m pr~mgatza~.
On pourrait expliquerperit-étrede différentes rnanihs ce penchant
delaCour permanente. Cest Jaascette salle memequ'un jourI'aftomey-
gewral sirDouglas Hogg a décl=& :u 1 am consciousthat even iithe
powersiof theCourt astetrendetuits jurisdiçtiasextensivecaspossible.
Iam familiarwith themaxirn bonzpdicis asea?npliareimhsd.lcEa'onen. ,
Ce serait une explication. Mais il a d'autre esplicationspossibles.
Les procés-verbaux des d&lib&ratiomde la Cour permanente elle-m&me
témoignent du soucide la Coirrd'assurer hsa juridictioIaacc& uslibre
et facilen,ainsique celaa dkjh étéproclamé La Haye en 1907 .atu-
rellement, ici,epose laquestion: jusqnr~Uest-il permià laCour d'alles
pour permettre et faciliter ~OYU~ firorogntwmsut une zequete qui
primitivement manque de fond ?
Nous croyons que c'estici lecasoh vaut lamaxime Est modws adhi-
bendm iltrebm: c'estleca5 de la mesure S.appliqzier.
Dans les délib6rationde la Cour pour la revisionde .son R+gI+
ment en r926, Jf- Fromagent a envisagé mgme le cas d'un forum
$~.mogaiwmqul se rkaliseraiaitpar des ~equêteç présentéesunilatéra-
lement par l'me et l'autre partie, sarisleur entente préalable. ks
collkguesde M. Fromag-eotont trouvéqu'unetelle hypothèse dépassait
leslimitesdu fmm +ra~og~fm.Notre document, quenous nous sommes
permiç de placer sousleyeux de laCon enannexe no 14,se réfke,entre
autres, h cettehyprithese.
certains auteurs pensent que la Cour est dl& peutdtre, dans son
Arrst rz,le plusloin sur le chemindu fomm fir~ogdtdw pouradmettre
sa juridiction sur de simples actesconcluants. Peutêtre les opinions disf;identesdesjugesM. Huberet M. Nyhalm ont-eues reriduservice
enmontrant à cette occaion Je signe duredkighsur cecherniri.
Pourles besoins de notre présentedhoristration, nous croyons $tre
fondés à tirerde tous ces travaux importantsde la Courpermanente
quenoas avons examinés toutà i'hezrrles conclu~ionsmivantes :
r) Tout #abord, ily a.unprincipemajeurqui reste toujonrs entié-
renientenvigueur. C'estque lajuridiction dela Cour nerepose anfond
que sur,lavolont< desparties.T8t on tard, au cours d'une instance,il
est toulo'vs nécessairde voir de pluspréç si et comment une tek
volonté existe et comment elle a été formée.
2) La requgte, considkréesous l'angle de ce p~inçipe majeur, -
restetoujou~s le moyentechniqueappropriépr&u par le Rkglement
pour porter devant laCour Ies afTairesde la juridiction obligatoire
unilat6raIement.
S'il arriveque Ie consentement fondédans I'obligation acceptée
d'avancede la juridiction obligatoide la Courvienne manquer, un
telélbrnentconstitutif poularequete peut etrefournipast+ieurement.
C'estainsique,dans un casdonnP, nous pouvons arriverlecashchbnt,
au farwm prvragdt2bm.
Mais, 3)il faut absolumentet tonjours qu'antd co'wntemnt inter-
denne au moinspostérieurement, Sinon,la requêteé, tant pasa nature
, Jemoyen unilathal,n'estpas validée,esteinfirme etfrappée denullité.
Lesconséquences nécessairess'imposentalors:la requêteestirrecevable.
En résumant par ces trois principesles renseignements que naus
croyons pouvoir tirerdes travaux de la COUT permanente, ilne nous
'pardtpas nécessairede nousattarderdavantage surle témoignage que
noris purrions gagner dans le même sens d'autres sonrces que de la,
Coisr permanente eue-rn;me, Toutefois, nous- demandons encore la
peLepremierdeest,encore rine fois,Jf.Rammskjolld,ineparlant comme
membre de l'Institut de Droit international, en 1927. C'est dans
l'Annw&re de L'Institzde cette ann&, page 821, que nous trouvons
quelques remarques ph6tmnteç de l'ancien Greffier dc ia Couàl'égard
de la reqilête,Nous nousbornons k citerla phrase suivante :a En
parlant de la Cour permanente de Justice internationa oneentend,
le ,plussouvent, pattrjuridiction obligatoiijjiiîidictioparrequete
unilatCrde.Partout ohlacomp&tençe dela Cour sur rquEte miiat6rale
n'estpas expmstrnent pthvue, un compromis estaussi n6çeçsairepour
saisirlaCourque pour saisirnn tribunalarbitralqueIconqde. i,
Et je demandeencore lapermission de citer, à l'appui dc th& que
j'expose,Sopinion de M. l'agent britannique l~-même présentici.
M. l'agentbritamiqne, parlant en qualit6de professeur al'Acad6rrile
de Droitinternationaldans ce Palais merne,en 1-32, disaiexactement
ceci:ruLe R&glement de la Cour a prévu deux moyens d'intentesune
actiondevant laCour :a) parvoie derequ4te unilatéral; b)par ledépbt
d'un compromis. La premièremethode ne peut être employéeque
lorsquela compétence de laCour pour le litige en questionestune
compétence obligatoireLadeuxikmemethode, si lesparties sod'accord
pour lhutiliser,peut Etemployéeau lieu de la requéte dans le ça oir
laCour a compétence obligatoireet de toute façon lorsque LaCour
n'aque compétence façutative.a
On nesaurait mieux dire.Mais 571 en est ak, simiment iln'ya
qne ces deux moyens possibles, alors inous semble que terIium nondrahr.Acet kgad, il fautfairobserverque les Observationsdu Guuver-
nement britanniquedu zojanvierfont encorektatdanç leparagraphe9 d)
.in fi~ectd'un renvoi devant la Cour s- De deux chosesl'une, Un
renvoi devant taCour d'me affaire peut avoir lieusur la base d'nn
compromis ou sur la baçed'une requkte,mais accepté ae+wterio& par
les arties. Tln'y a pas une troisième solution.
: du ,oncluons de toutes cesexplicationsdOjà longues que, aucune
dispositionétablissantlacompétencedela Cour dans l'affaire préxne
n%xistaritau inornent oùlarequête a kt6 présenté eevant la Courau
mois de mai de l'année dernitrela ~eqatte manquait d'une base néces-
sairequelconque et estpar conséquent irrecevable.
Il y avaitseulement un moyen, mais il nedépendait que du Gouver-
nement albanais.
Bien entendu. c'estnous, Gouvernement albanais, qui pousrions
toujours encore sauver la xeqnete irrecevable. dépendait de notre
bonnevolantede jeter la planchde salutA la requêtese débattant çiir
fa mer honleiise. Mais, usant du droitde tous lesplaideurs dans tous
1~ temps, nous nous sommes refuséset nous nous sefusons tletendre
cette planche de salut.
Le Go~~vernement albmais, dés Ir: comrnenmmcnt, s'est refuséà
consentirque l'affairen causesoit p&e devant laCourpar la requ&te
et serefuse encoremaintenant a $aslariw.de valider la requOtepar sa
vfDanstéça lettre du 2 juiftt,le Gouvernement dbanais s'estdéclaré
pret, malgrél'erreur et l'irrégularitcommise$ par le Gouvernement
britannique, à der devant la Cour. Mais il a ajouté: (IToutefois,le
Gouvernement albanais fait les réserve lssplus expresses' sulafapn
dont le Gouvernement britannique a saisi la Coaren applicationde la
recommandation du Conseil,et surtoutquant a I'inferprEtatioqu'il
.avoulu donner de l'articl25 de la Charte par rapport au caracthre
obligatoiredes recommandations du Conseilde S6curité. s
En s'accsoçhant A une lettre néemorte parceque rienne lni rhporid
dans la Charte ; ense servantà tort de larequgte,moyen formel de'la
juridiction obligatoire dla Car, le Gouvernement da Royaume-Uni
s'estmis dams des dificultés évidentes, 1lesaurait évitees s"iavait
suivi la recommandation du Conseilde Sécuritddu g avril dernier.
En effet, d'aprèsle texte de la recommandation, le différenddoit
&se soumis (par les parties à la Cour internationale de Justice et
mnfomément am dispositions du Statut de laCour 3.11nous semble
bien que le Gourreniementdu Royaume-Uni a dû regarderbienplus près
le sens proprede ces mots i(lespartiesiiet Hconformément au Statut
de la Cour jr.
Or, d'aprh nous, le Gavernement du Royaume-Uni ne l'apas fait.
An rieu de suivrelarecommandation du ConseildeSécurit6du g avril
dernier, leGouvernementdu Ro yame-Uni l'a YioErA eetteviolation
de la recommandation du Conseilde Sécuritécommise parle kuverne-
mentbritannique, c'eslta questionque je me permettrai desoumettre
maintenant h. la Cour.
Tout d'abord, je vem encoreune fois mentionnerque le Conseilde
.Sécuritéd,'a@ letextede saRésolution du 9 avrilrecommande aaux
Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni E$ de l'Albanie de soumettre immk-
diatement ce diffbrend AlaCourinternationalede Justice,conformément
aux dispositionsda Statut de laCour 11. Cette recommmdaticrn du g avril a pour auteur, voire mhe
rédacteur, sirAlexander Cadogan, le représentant du Gouvernement
britannique au ConseildeSimit&. SirAiexander Cadogan, en proposant
cette recommandation, le 3 avrildernier, auConseil de Sknsité, s'est
'visiblement inspir&du texte meme,des mots, destournures de phrase
ditparagraphe 3 de l'arti c6lee laCharte.
S'ilen est ainsi, lmots qui serencontre dans larecommandation :
rrrecommande aux Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni et de l'Albanie ii
- ces mots concrétisentdans la recommandation les tcrrncsu by the
$dies 3 que cantient l'artic34, paragraphe 3, de la Chatte.
Le terme u les partiesiisignifie qu'en faut au moins deux, donc,
que ces parties doivent procéder a leurs fus respectives ensemble,
d'accord.
Dans notre affaire, le contra5rea fité fait :le Gouvernement du
.Royaume-Uni a procédé j.usqu'àpresent tout seul.
La Cour voudra bien rxrmpmndre que ces mots ipar les parties a
ont une certaine importance pour notre cause.Aussi je prie laCour de
rnkxcnser en me considérant cibligd'expliquermaintenant un peu plus
amplement que lkxpression i(lesparties13,aispluriel,signifie quces
partiesdoivent procéde~ensemble, d'un commun accord, et jamais une
de ces parties seule,
Heureusement pour nous,ce terme itth +ades n a fait-déjil'objet
de ciifferentesinteqretations,de diffkrentes pratiques dans le droit
internationaietdans lesactesdiplomatiques. 11yaenmême une occasion
mhoralrile rsùlesens de ce terme que jediscute maintenant a dt6 âpre-
'ment discuté.
phraseede l'articnrqedntPacte dedlaSociét6destoNations.rL'article di:
rcLe Conseil estchargé de préparerun projetde Cour permanente de
Justice internationaleet de le soriinettraux Membres de la Soci&t&.
Çctte Courconnaitra de tous diffdrends de çxract&r ieternationalque
lesparfies lui soumettrontn On voudra bien remarquerles mots ndiffé-
rends .,.'que les parties luisoumettront n.
' Ces mots et cette phrase se rép&tent dans I1&cle 36, para-
graphe premier, du Statut de laCourpermanente de: Justice interna-
tionale,et les m&meçmots et lameme phrase reviennen tujourd'hui
dans le paragraphe 3 de l'articl36 de laCharte. .La seule différence
phraséologiqtieentre le paragraphe 3 de lkticlide 36 de la Charte,
l'article6 du Staküt de la Cour et le paragrapherq du Pacte de la
- Sociétédes Nations .consisteen ceciqüe ce ne sont pasles parties qui
soumettent leursdifférendsk laCour mais que les différendsont soumis
par lesparties à laCour.
- L'histoirecluenous avons en vue parrapport au terme (rles partieii
commencelors de i'élaborationdaPacte de laSociété des Nations. Je
prends lesrenseignements snivantsdans le rapport du juge de la Cour
permanente, M. Neguleçco (p. 782 du volrrme concernant la revision
'du Règlement de la Cour de 1936).
D'après M. Negulesco,il y avait, lors de l'61abo'ratrlu Pacte, un
fexte proposépar le présidentWilson et lord Robert Cecil.Par voie
d'amendemen hl,hrnaude, d61égu éranqais,propos&+ pour Ihrtricq,
entre autres dispositions, qula Cour pourrait juger crtous différends
que, avec 1'assentimen.de laCour et du Conseil exécutif,I'me quel-
conque des partiesdésirerailtui voir soumettren.Or, cettepropositionfut modifiéedans ce sensqne le consentement des deux parties serait
nécessaireC. 'estdans cet esprit que le Comité de rkdaction a établi
le texte définitifequenaquit le terme rcles partie>idans ladeuxième
phrase dc l'articler4 du Pacte,
Une annee aprés, ce contenu du terme ales partiesn de l'articl14
fut scrute dans la mkmorable occasion que jeviens de mentionner.
Je fais allusionau Cornitg consultatifdes Juristeschargé de prilparer
un projet pour ltétablissernent dla Cour permanente de Jnstiçeinter-
nationale visée2 l'article 1du Pacte.
M. de Lapradelle,rapporteur du Comité, consacrak faquestion qui
se posait alorsau sein de:ce savant Cornit6 les lignes suivants ence
quitouche le senspropredes mots r(lespartiesiideI'arliclrq : nUne
opinion s'esfaitjjom au sein duCornit&,d'aprèslaquelie,confomhent
à I'artide14da Pacte,laCour pouvait Ch saisienonpar n lesparties r
mais par gune partie D,le mol partie n ktmt pris ici dansson sens
Xe plw g&o&al,comme exprimant non seulement toutersles parties
mais chacune d'elles.Mais une telle interprétation semblaitexcessive
h tous lesautres membres du Comité. ILe membreunique du Comité
dont il s'agietatM.Loder, le premier Prksident de laCour permanente.
Lomme on lesajt,M. Loder professait desiddes t* avanckes enfavem
de la compétence gbiigatoire de laCour, mêmesur ,ldemande unila-
tdrale de chaque Etat. Il a tente d'y amener et d'en convainc= ses
collEguesdu Comité.Du texte de l'arti 14ldu Pacte, pour M. Loder,
a ilne découle pas gvidemrnent que, pour obtenir justice contrecson
adversaire,'n devra accluérirr6alablement son çansenternent gracieux,
letexte nele ditpas, Pour le lui f&e dire, faut tenirle raisonnement
suivant : l'article diu les parties lusoumettront iic'estdonc qu'il
en faut au moins deux et qu'ellesdoivent seprksenter ensemble, d'où
An cesomotsprle.sens le plusrsimple, leplusunatnrd ,etslebplus banal
aussi,savoir que la Cour contiaftrde tous les litige2 que. lpartics,
c'esta- clire la partie ou Ia partie 33,oula partieC,lui soumettront
B l'avenir.A quoi bon, autrement, crCer cetteCour pour constituer
une cIouMure de la Cour d'Arbitrage,par conserver un étatde choses
déplorable? u,etc.
Cettc opinion de M- Loder fut.vigomeuçement combattue au sein du
Cornit4 enpremier lieu par lord PhilIhme.
Nous avons reproduit l'opinion deIwd Pliillirnore, qni pprknte pour
mus, en l'occurrence, une certaine valeudans ledocument annexe noz.
Selon lord PhiIlimore - je cite lc ptocés-verbal- : a l'articl14
nepeut signifier qu'une chose :I"accorC1es deux partiesest n&tessaire
pourqu'me &aire puisse êtrportéedevant laCour. Le langagejuridique
anglais ne sesert drrplnrielen parlant des parties, quepour désigner
lesdeux parties enlitige. Son interprétationse trouve cornboxée par
plusieu~s juristeanglaiset par des membres de b Section juridique de
la Socikte des Nations. a
Nous pouvons laisser à ce marnent le Cornite des Jitristes d1920
par.& que laquestion a 6téfranchée avec.une autorité singulike au
Conseil de la Sociétédes Nations. M. Balfour s'exprima alors de la
fapn suivante ausirjet dl'articleq : L'articlerq ..cn6sage claire-
ment :a)quela Courneconnaît quele diffërend qtilespartiesdécident
de leurplein:@ de luisovettre. iM. Bi@iir avait &idemment en
vue l'opinion de M. .Lader,en ajoutant: ((11n'est jamais entiiéd~s42 EXPO& DE M, VOCHOC (ALB~) - 27 IL48

I"intenti& des auteursde cet article e l'unedes partiesau différend
dût conhindre l'autrepartieA allerTevant le tribunal.ia
C'estdans le sens expliqiiépaM. Balfour quel'article 36,paragraphe
premier, du Statut de laCour internationalecleJusticefut finalement
rédigé,Et tout le monde estd'accor que lesmots de l'arti c6,para-
graphe premiw :a Ia comp6tençe de laCour s'étendà toutes les affaires
que les partiesluisoumettront n signifienque les partiessoumettent
l'affai dr'accorq d,e Sune d'ellesn'a pas le droit d'assign uenlatté-
rdment lkautre.S'in'en étaitpaq ainsi, tauttaportée de l'arti cle
paragraphe premier, seraitrenversie. ,
à la pagequjzlde l'Arrêeto.~zedeulaCourrpermanente,imde la fa~on sui-
vante ; ((Soumissionpar lesparties signifidans l'articl36 du Statut,
soumission par un accord - acte bbatkral - intervenu entreelles en
vue dkn nz spécia; le castypique, mais pas nécessairement le seul
de cette ss@e, est lecompromis proprement dit. Pour qu'un Rtat
puisse soumettre une affaireparun acte unilatéralilfaut qu'un accord
antérieur lui confhe cette faculté.n
Noussommes donc arrives a,ssexaisémena Iac~ncl~~sionueIe teme
rtles partiesn,;LUplwiel, conformémentà' Tuticle 14du Fade de la
Sociéti:desNations et A l'article 36 du Statut, vtoujours direissvi-
tablement et selonles opinions les mieux zutoriskq s,e lesparties
daivent prodder d'accercl.
S'ien estainsi,voyons comment leschoses seprdsenteiitmcsre dans
lé Statut et le ït&glment de la Cour, parce que, naturellement, ces
deux instrumentsparlent sansce= desdeux parties; esi nowe expli-
cation est exacte, nousdtvonstrouver cosfisrnation de notre thhse
que lesparties doivent toujours prodder d'accord a,la fois dans le
Statut et dans Ee Règlement clela Cour elle-même.
Or, ilnous semble bien qu'en analj.sant lescas où le Statut on fe
Reglementde laCour prévoient ce terme ~lesparLies *,c'estbien tou-
jours dans le sens u lesdeux parties ensemble a que Statut et Règle-
ment emploient ce terme. L1se peut que le Statut ou lRegleinent de
la Conr disent dansle textemême qu'is'agita d'un commun accord ir
parlesparties,ainsique ledit, parexemple, l'arti c1 du Règlement.
Mais ce qui estplus intéressa potur nous, c'estde pouvoir affirmer
qu'il en est demgme si le teme a les pattien s&mt seul,
C'esttoujours dansle seni. pe rlespaxtaes doivent pracEder
d'accore dt,non indiddueilenlent l'une au l'autre,que Je Statut ou
le Rhgiement emploient ce pluriel.,
Nous nouspermettons de donner quelquespreuves d'exemples de
nos atrirrnationà cct égard.
Voyons par exempte I'aticle 3du Statut,dans son paragraphe 3 ;
rLa Cour, Ala demande de toute partie, autoriseral'emploiparcette
partie d'une langue autre que le franpis ou l'anglaisiiC'estle texte
d'aujourd'hiii, pluspr&cisémen tetexte depuis 1931. Au commence-
melit, en ~920,le Statut primifine disait pasa&la demande de toute
partic 3,mais M a lademande des partiesih.Voicipourquoi letexte a
dtémodifié.Un incidentse produisità la huitiPrriséancepubliquede
l'année 1923, dans ce Palaismèrne,au cbun des debats de lkaffüe
du vapeur Wi~hledoa,Voir lapage 17 du volume 1, SérieÇ, desActes
etDocuments de la Cour. n Le Président, en donnant la parole à
M. Sçliiffert, reprkentantdGouvernement allemand,expose que, à larqn&te de lapxrtie dtfenderessei laCour a 'autossé.M. Schiffert h
employer devant elle la langue tilEemande a, etc.M. Basdevant, qti
remarquerenque,nd'aprèsnIcstermes de l'article39 duCStatut dcelavCour,r
c'est aEarequgte desparties (cemot étant au pliirid) que la Cour peut
autoriserl'emploi d'une langue autre que le français ou l'anglaisIl en

conclut que larequête devait ttre faiteaprès accord entre les parties,
et il désireen conséquence faire desréservesde principe au sijet de
la solution que la Cour a admise ; cependant, en I'occurrence,il.admet
qu'il y avait de bonna rraiçonsp~ur permettre A l'agent alleniand
d'employer sa propre langue, Le Frgsident, au nom de laCour, prend
acte des observations de M, Basdevant. r A la suitede cet incident, en
zgzg, leComiti: des Juristes, s'occttpant de larevision du Statut de
la Cour, a modifié le texte prirnitil del'article 39C'est ail]-o~ird'hui
R i lademande de toute partie iiquela bus autoriserait l'emploid'une
autre langue quele français ou i'anglais. L'ancientexte,en effet,n les
partiesii,nesuppszit pasladerriande de chaquepartie individuellement.
Un autre exemple de cesens colectif di1terme a les partiesn nous
est présentepar l'article 46 di1 Statut ayant trait à lapubIicité des
audiences, Dkpri4s letextc franqaiçdu Statut, ilfaut que (lesdeux par-
ties ,demandent qne le ublicne soit pas admis. liraisiest intiressant
de noter quele texte mg Paisdit sirriplerneatthe $artissMdans le meme
sens, couvrant ainsi nécessaitement aussi 1'accord commun des deux
parties-
Un autreexemplede cette Lctm du terne u les partiesnpeut ètre
trouvé clans les dispositions du R4glement de fa Cour prkvoyant
15nstitution desassesseurs.L'article 7 duRbglement de la Courde rg36
prévoyaitl'institution d'assessem u siles parties santd'accord n,Mais
le 'Règlement de la Cour internationale de Justice a pris une autre
disposition, L'article 7 prévoit w la demande que présenterait une
partie iic f.kx~egadcoff a gartyriEn 1936 ,es partiertevaicieptrocéder
dJaccotd,aujourd'hui,une seule peut soilmettre la demande. Cesdeux
situationsdiffhntes sontexprimées,en 1936par lestermesa lespartiesa,
aujaclrd'hui parIes termes (1rule partie ».
Encore dans Iemcme ordre d'idéesi,l esinstructifdesuivrela fonction
du terme riles partiesndans les dispositions dn Statutetdu Réglernent
qui s'occupent des Chambres spéciales. Nous pensons aux Chambres
prévuep sar les articl e6s28 et 29 du Statut et Lr ;rticles71 et72 du
Règlement. Ces dispositions ont étébicn remat.lj&s depuis le StatLit
de 1922. Celui-ciprévoyait la demande rcdes parties ilpour instituer
laprochduredevant laChambre. La documentation y afférenteprouve
que leterme i(lesparties w veut dire les parties d'uncommun accord.
Azijourahui, I'asticl26rdu Statut pr4voit que6les2Chambrestustatueront
nsi lesparties ldemandent iiOr, à cesdispositionsser&f&rel'articl71,

paragraphe premier, du Règlemend t 'aujourd' huuils ségleen détail
et qui précisedonc toujours dans notre sens que .ril est fait droit5
cettederriande s'ily a accord entre les parties)BLe R6gltment de la
Cour aujourd'hui comprend donc que le terme ctles parties.nsignifie ,
rrlesparties d'accord s.
D'aprésl'article 29 du Statut, la Courcompose me Chambre, mais
lorsque a lesparties le demandent l; cette disposition a fait l'objet
d'une d6iibkration de la Cour,notamment en 1926. A cette Cpoque, le Prhident de la Cour - jecrois que c'étaitM. Hirber - a relevéà de€
égard: r 551 n'y apas accordentre les partiés,ilriesauraits'agird'une
a demande des parties iiiiCe point de vue, d'ailleurs, a étémanifesté
de ineme en d'autresoccasions.

ikrtide,72ndu Rkglernent deolaCour.Commetionlhartiçlprickilent, celni-ci
prévoit kgalement une démarche cornmunc. 011du moins un accbd entre
. les partiesdans lebut qu'il règle.Entrc ailCresdispositionsl'article 72
prévoit que laClnnibre peut, ?tla demande des partics, autoriserla
présentation d'une deuxième pike éc~ite lors de la procédnre &crite
devant la Chambre de procédure sommaire.Lorsqu'on a prépar6 ce
texte au coiirsde la revision du Règlement en 1936, on a proposé de
dire qexphent : fIa Chambre peut donner suite à un accord entre
lesparties 11Mais, as changer l'intentionde cette dispositioqle texte
definitif ditout simplement rlà la demande des parties r~.
Lors de ladiscussion concernant ce.point de l'arti c lelejonkheer
van 17ysinga se demandait, a proposde la rtdaction primitive de ces
dispositions:

u Au point dc vue de la rédaction,ilestdit i~ladeurrihe phrase du
deuxième alinha :a Toiltefois, la Chambre peut,sait pour donner mite
nà un accord entre lespartie...JIA-t-on vise lnnaccord formelpresenté
par exemple dans undocument particulier?n- M.van Eysinga demandait
cette prkcisionparce que le te-de pourrait &freainsi interprété.rrNe
serait-ipas preferabd leeresourir a la fomuie qir'emploie le Statut
dans plusieursarticles (notamment & l'articl273 lorsqu'iveut exprimer
l'idéeque lm deux parties sont d'accord pourprésenter nne demande,
et.de dire simplement si les partiesle dhirent iiou a lorsque les
rcpdes le demandent >7 n
Il est instructif desuivre lapa e.672 et aux suivantd eusdocu-
ment concernant la sevision de x93 8 Iesdélibérationsde laConr au
sujet de ce terme rcles partiesn.Tous les juges qui participent aux
discussions sont â'accorcl que les mots a les partiesu veulent dire
u l'accorddes deux pâirtieil;la seulequestion est pour eux de savoir
comment l'accord doit être exprimé.Fideles A leur procildégén&mJ.
~oiipleet libéral, ilne veulent aç que le mot caccord 1signifie un
accord trop formel. Ainsi, nM- Rlerrero, ~ice-~rkident, souiigne que,
dans l'esprit du ComitC de rédadion, lemot rraccord nne comporte
pas ntcessaircment l'existence d'un instrument prcdablement signé
par les parties, mais bienune simple entente entreces dernikresi)Mais
ckst tout lknjeu &ç délibératio~sde .la Courconcernant la formule
employer. Il nkst pas question que quelqu'un doute que si l'on dit
simplement, comme letexte définitif le di:cck la clemande des par-
ties)~, 'yl ait quelque chose d'tiutrequ'unaccordcntre les parties.
. La rricrimandation du Conseilde Sécuritkdu 9avril derniera donc
donnéau Gowernernent albanais et au Gouvernementdu Royame-
Uni des indications tr&snettes sur lemoyens de mettre son bon coirseil
en-Œuvre. D'une part, les clcuxpartiesdoivent procéderd'irn commun
accord cksst lesensdes mots a byfke partiesi; et,d'antre pxtl elles
cloivent procéder a conformément ELU Statut de la Cour 1).
Voyons maintenant encore d'un peu plus près comment les deux
6uvernernent.s doivcnt s'y prendre pour soumettre l'affairA la Cour
conformémentau Statut. Les deux partiespeuvent s'dresser à laCourseulement dans le cas
où elles sant mivéesa:firion'ou a +ostsraOR un accord. Dans l'affaire
prdsente,c'estbien de la nécessité d'linaccord préalable qu'il s'agrt.
Arrives A ce r6sdtat, nous éprouvons bien le sentiinentque nous
nouç trouvons dans une partie du droit international bien conniie.
En effet, nous nous trouvons Iciau chapitredn compromis.Nuiis n'en
5qqrnes d'ailleursnullement slqrîs :il n'y a pas d'autrv eoie ponr
l'affiire présente.Quelle autre facon de prwéderla recommandation
dir g avril dernier aurait-ellepu proposet aux Gouvernements du
ROyaume-Uniet de L'Albanie7 Tous lèsmaîtres du droitinternational,
toite l'histo irplamatiq~redes natisns, toutes lesmurs d'arbitrage,
etplus rEcemment encore, nais avec ilneautorit& pasticulièrcla Cour
permanente de Justice internationale, nJenseignent que cettevérité
fonclam~ntale :que les Etats sont libres dese décider aallm au de ne
ciair;lerchoix d'me telle solution dependentiérementade leurvolantd.- n.
Le profcsseur A. Pearce Higins, ancien titu4aireclela chairc de
droit intcmatlond de I'Universitb:deC=mbridse, dit ceci;

aIt isa gmal ml8 of internationallaw that a SStatcannot be corn-
pelledto submit any dispute withanother State ta arbitmtim or judi-
ciai clecision. n

A la suite du Pacte de 1a Soci&t<des Nations, le doyen 1,arnaucie
s'exprimaitainsi :
rL'arbitrn a'enreste~LS moins yurunent volontaire,c'esS'Aaa.hre
essentidle,11 faut,paitr qu'il y ahtarbitrag qe5ntervienne ce qu'on
appelle un compramiç, c'est-R-dn inrcontrat fatt entrelesdifférent=
parties enlitigcDniis ce contrat onchoisitsonjuge, on indique exacte-
ment lesqnestions qiii seront saunlises a l'arbitr;aegne un mot, on
fait une sortede petit code de procédure A l'usagede ceux qui auront
A juger lelitige. Maion ne recourt pas l'arbitragecontraintet forcé;
sin ce point, le Pacte est formel, et nefait que confirmer une régle
absolument inco tedée clu droit internationalit

Aujourd*huiA ,la suite delaCharte des Nations Units, M,Kackwmth
s'e-qrimeainsi chant le Cowitd des Sénateurs,aumois de juille195 :
e Unlcss a State has accepted conipulsory jurisdictioa,itgoes into
Courtonly by itsown free ivilby agreementin advance with the other
party to the dispute,to üllom the Court todetermjne the uestim. If
It has accepteclcornpulsoty jutiçdiction; then it rnay b% rougM uito
Court by the other party to the disputejust as -ou may bring a suit
against me ina Court in the Districtof Glumbia. 1 have no choice ;
~iou can sue me and Imust answer. But undcr this Statute, ifyou
ivere a State you codd not sue r6e-anather Çtate-unlcss 1 agreed
with yoil tcgo to the Court,or mies I accepte compuLory jurisdic-
tion under the Optional Clause. B

En procédant ensemble, par le compromis,les deux parties\tant en
mêmctemps donner satisfactionà la dispositionde l'articl36, para-
graphe 3, de la Charteet donner kgalement satisfactioi laRésolutmn
du Conseil de Sécuritédu g avril, c'est-&-diles partievont procéder.
devant laCour conformément au Statut de la Cour. Le sens de cettedisposition de la re&rnrnandationne sauraitfaire
aucundoute. La recommandation avertiticile Gouvernwientsliritan-
.niqueet dbanais de ne pas vodoir tentez d'allerdevant laCour par
un procede quelconque, mais elle leurrecommande d'aller &vant la
Cour d'aprésceque son Statut prévoitetdétermine.Nous savons déjk
ce que cela veutdire: r Les affairesont portéesdevant la Cmr, selon
le cas, soitpar notification ducomprornisj soit par une requste...n
.les affaire.sdevala Cour,mais ceSqui est sûretecertainc'estque you.
canmofJtme ifboth ways-
QrielIest cellede ces deux voies prévues par l'article40 dStatut
que la recommandation du 9 avrildernieravaiten vue ?La notification
du c~mpromis ? La requkte? L'article40 du Statut nous donnepour
guide lkxpression w selon lecas iiCc terme est plusque çu£Ksant.Le
Gouvernement albanaisn'&tant sujetBaucune dause de la juridiction
obligatoire,l'&aise présente ne peut pas ètre portée devant la Cour
par la rqu&te.C'est parnotification dcompromis que l'affaip reçente
doit étreportéedevant la Cour.Ckst la seule voiequi,en l'espèce,peut
6trc suivie pourdonner satisfactionü conformément au Statut de la
Cour P.

Mansieur L Pr6sidenLM, essieursde la bar,
J'ai mentionnE hier la questiondu fwum $p.owgakzm et j'aicite1i.
ce sujetl'opinionde l'ancien Greffide la Cour,qtu &ait d'avisque le
Gouvernement citepouvait, aureçu de larequgte, 6tredispos6accepter
la juridiction hocde la Cour,même s'in'ktaitpas obligéde le faire.-
Je me permets ce matin d'approfondir enc- un peu plus cette
question etd'examinerdeplas prksl'attitude de1'Etata quiune reguete
manquant de fond est transmise par laCour.
Le juge van Eysinga s'esprunoncé au sujet de cettequestion lors
de h reviçion de 1934-1936 du Rhglernent de la Cour ;voir page 157
du volilme concernantla revision de1935.11 a dit:
. rSi un gtat s'adresspar requ$teà la Cour et.sicette requgte est
transmiseala partie çléfendereçset,rpossibilitpeuvent se prbmiter :
n~'Etat peut sereconnaihe astreint suivre le demandeur devant la
C~urparce qu'ily a un Lienqui l'y oblig; ou bien ileut opposer une
exceptiond'incompétenc eau,enfin,malgr6l'absenced elienqui l'oblige
àsuivre ledemandeur devant la Cour,ilpeut, dans un cas donne, être
disposé ZLvenir devant eue.ii
Avec tout le respecenvers cetteop*on du juge vanEysinga, nous
croyonq su'ily a encore une autre possibilitP qui peuse présenter:
L'gtat k qui larequGte manquantde fond a été transmise peut corn-
pletcrnent ignorer cfait de la trançmiçsiunde larequete. Peut-être
n'accusera- rt-ilpas G~eption, peiit-etre ne nommera-t-il méme
pas son agent; etsiçkt unktat qui n'est pas endroit d'estenjustice,
il n'entreprendra rien pour obtenir ce statut.
Sans doute, à consld&rer, une telieattituden6gative de é éta btn
question ne sonne peut-étrepas tout A faitagréablement aux oreilles,
Mais il peut s'agid'intdrè trs&graves. Le gouvernementd'un paysquelconquen'es tamais c;ompl&€emen touverain clansses décisions:
il cst Iksclave elesdfeur des intérê tesson pays.
Xous devons considérer siet quand le gonvernernent est en droit
&ignorer larequtte qui luiesttransmise,
Une attitude ncgative enversla rcquêteest,dans cerfahs cas assuré-
ment, conforme aux principesdu dmj t gée&al etsurtout aussiauStatut
de la Cour,
Le Statut lui-rntmecontient l'articl53, riia été&di& pourle cas
de l'absence del'ktat del'instanceCet art9cen'exdut pas qu'une telle
attitude négativepeut déjà commencer par le faique l'gtat à qui la
requ&te est transmise l'ignore complètement.
En diffkrmtes occasions, dans les déhbhtians concernant le Rtgle-
ment, les membresde la hur permanente de Justice scsont mcupés '
aussi de cetarticle, 11Huher a qualifiecommeun acte extrêmement
important ettréçavancd que le jugement par contumace, contre un
etat, ait p trouver place dam le Statut, Jappréciai tettediçposition
rietek façon non,pas pour marquer son éthnnementqu'u Etat piit
ignorer la requètetransmise; mais que Je Statutait troirv4 lcourage
de permettre à la Cour de procéder meme enl'absence d'un État.
En tout as, il sembleressortir rfcet état de choses que, dans le
domaine internationalla question du conlmpt oJ Coawf ne seprisepas
i+so facb siI'Etat htdressk juge ndcessnirede se comporter de cette
façon.
J3ien entendu, çiun gtat se decide à prendre une telleattitude,il
derrraavoir des raisonssufisantes pour le faire, Nomcroyonspouvoir
dire que de telles raisonpeuvent exister dans un casdéteminb,
Les a~tes juridiques sont soumis aussi, mêmeen droit international,
mx rhglesgênéralesdeleus didité et deleurnullitéLa nullitépeut etre
inexistant'defplein droit.l'acte peut 6tresi compl6te que lbcte est
C'est surtout ladoctrine fsanqaisqui a dgveloppéplus pardculih*
ment lathéorie desactes nds etnon existants.MM. Basdevant etPolitis
ont soutenuen 1927,il'occasion del'affa etentissantedite deoptants
Ixoilgroiç,la thèse de leur collèM.eGaston Jhe, appliquée au caseu
question, que K l'acte rioit 6tre tenpour inexistant en tant qu'acte
jiiridique.II n'eçt pas besriinqukzirieautorité publique, un jnga
constatent cette inexistence. L'acte ne produira aucun des effets juri-
diques voulus par son auteur.IJ
M. Anzilottisouligne, dansl'affair53 de laCour permanente, que
I'xtc inexistantest celuioù l'&ment essentid manque,
Or, il nous semble bien que la requêtebritannique, au moment où
ellea ét6transmiseau Gouvernement albanais,abien pu étreconsidérée
par ce Gouvernement comme un acteinexistant etdépourvud'aucun
effet jmidique,43s éléments essentielsngcessaltes Asa validitkman-
quaient à la requêtebritanniquelorsqnkellea ététransmise au Gouver-
nement albanais. C'étaitunepiece unilatéraleconçuesans aucunaccord
avec le Gouvernement albanais. Il n'est même pas nPcessairede
mentionner qu'elleseréclamait d'unelettre morte.
Le Gouvernementalbanais aurait 6t& dans sondroit dela classertout
simplemat, et,silaCouravait vouluprocider dans nne telihypothéise,
cûnfonn4ment i l'article 53 du Statutc ,'est-&.d lAreanie étant
absente de S'instance,sans doute aurait-ellemis aubas de la requete,
d'unefapn bien lisible, mat w niant n.: ~oiiefois, la Cour n'aurait méme pas pu mcéderainsi, I'Aibanie
n'étant pas A cetteépoque un Gtat A mgme X'esterenjustice devani:
la Cour.
D'autre part, il &.tapossible au Goumnement dbanais; cette
&poque-là d,: contidgrelkttitude prendre à I'kgardde larequdteavec
une entièreIlberté dedécisionet de mouvement. En effet,leGouverne-
ment albanais nesxétaitpas encare,jusqu'a zujuillet dernieprononcé
sur la question de savoir s'il accepteraion non la recommandation
du Conseilde Sécuritédu g avrildernier.Memesen représentant devant
leheil de Sécurits'est$rcinonc6seulementune fois an sujetde cette
recommandation, et ce futdans le sens nkatif.
Les choses se présentant ainsije crois qu'onn'apas appr4dé suffi-
samment jusque& présentl'attitudeprise parleGouvernement albanais,
Malgré toutes ces conditions de. nullit&, mal@ les circonstances
lui laissa ntute Libertéle Gotivernernent albanaiss'est decide ?i.
prksenterdevant 3% Cour. Poui- agis ainsi,leGouvernement albanais
considéraitdm raisons etdes motifs d'ordre divers:le respect envers
la justicc internationale ela confiance dans laCour, dfnne part, et,
d'autre part,le désirde contribuerà la collahoration pacifique entre
les riations.
filais touten d6clarmt pue, pour des raisons de cet ordre,il était
pas naturellement 'passerI1é.pangeur leeprocédebrjbtannique entachk,
sous plusieurs chefsde nullit6et de vice de forme.
' C'est ~ourqrioi,a marne temps qdil ssdéclaraitetre préAparaître
devant la Cour, le Gouvernement albanais. a,dans lap.lime suivant
immédiatement, formule lesr&serves les plus expreçses sur la façon
dont le Gouvtrncment britannique a saisi lCour,en application dela
recommandation du Conseil du g avril dernier.
La lettre du z jitiiie-tcaract&ielle-même ses dmes ccme les
plus expresse';De plus, lalettre ne s'epaç contentée de lesexprimer
sous laforme habitrielle,comme par exemple ; asoustoutes réservesn,
mais elle dEfLnitexactement l'objetsur lequel les réserve.ortent, a
savoir: u surla façondont le Gouvernement britannique a voulu saisir
la Cour M.
Ce qui caracteriselesObservations dn ~olvernement britanniquedu
20 janvier, c'estqu'elles passentnos rCservessous silence.
Je me permets ici d'attirl'attentiondela Coursurle paragrap9 h,e
lit.g,des Observations du 20 janvier:u m&me si - ce qui estcontesté
par le Gouvernement britanniqac - la mdthode adoptée pour intro-
duire la présente instance comportait une irrégulixitéqiidcanque de
forme, tette Isrégularitka kt4 rkpar4e parce que Ie Gorivernement
aibanaispar sa lettre du zjuille1947 a renoncéa tonte objection et
a admis la cornpetence de laCour pi.
Eh bien, le Gouvernement aIbanais s'est déclaré textuellement,
malgré les irrégularitls,préà allerdevant /aCour,mais en formulant
en nierne temps Lesréservesles plus expresses sur la faqun dont le
Gouvernement britannique a vodu saisirla Cour.
On voit bien qile le prolil&méque pose.notre exception n'esp tas
simplement le problème de facompAtence de la juridiction dla Cour,
commeles Observationsdu GouvernementduRoyaume-Univoudraient
le faireenteache. 1
1 Jeme permets tl ee rbcber de l'opinion deM.Witenberg, l'auteur
.polonaisquia &tudi&la questionde la recevabiliten droitinternational
pIus particuliérementM. Witenberg a professé k La Haye vers 1932
un cours trèsindructif,et ila publie en 1937 un livre consacréCLces
questions. Voicicomment il s'exprime ;

aLa tendance trCsnette de nombreux tribunaux 'iriternationau~r
natureeconditionnant l'action en justice comme lerèglestde forme, de
délai,la règld'épriisementdesvoies de recoursinterms, lesconditions
de nationalit...11convient en réalitéde luttercontre ctttetendance
qui,brouillafitout,ne peut qur nuire au progrèsde l'arbitrageinter-
national.En examinantIs thkorie dela recevabilite da réclamations
internationaleson verra quelacûmp&tencen'estqu'unedes conditions
entre diverses autres aiixquellesest subordonn6e la recevabilitk.ji
(1.C. Inlitenberg, L'O~ga.~p.isaZFdici~i~l,aProcédureel Ic aentence
intarmrtatio7ea15,437p~p- roo cisqy.)

Je suis ainsarrivéa la findes partiesque nous*considérons comme
Ies plusimportantes pour ia thèsedu Gouvernement albanais.
. Je me permets maintenant briévenlent:de me prononcer au sujet
des arr2ts de lCour que lesObservationsdu Gouvernement britannique
du zo janvier citent dansleurparagraphe 10,bien que cesoit pfutdt
une discussion dockinale etçavmte qui pourrait sedéveloppersur ls
conceptions que I'on pourrait avoir au sujet de ces arrêts.
Nous acceptons naturellement tout ce que laCour permanente dit
observer que, pour la phpari,uvecesarrêtsconcernent.idesspoints, soits
de fait, soit de droit, clsont diffhents de notre affaire.
Je me permets à cet kgard dc faire une remarque au sujet de
1'ArrGi no z rendu dans l'affaire dcompétence Mavrommatis. A la
page r3 del'éditionfrançaisedesObscwations du ao janvier,le Gauver-
nemcnt britannique a cité certaines parties decet arrêt.Dans cette
affaireles instruments en questionnketaientpas encoreen vigueur lors
de la prhentation de la requ&te 1sCour ; mais il auraiétépossible
POUT lapartie demanderesse deprkenter a nouveau sa reqiiêtedans
les mêmes ternes, après l'entréeenvigueur du Traité de Lausanne,
- Or, ilest certainque leGouvernement britanniquene pourra jamais
présenter sarequête dans lcs mgmes termçs aussitôt qllenotre excep-
tionpréliminaireauraet6 acceptée par InCotir.Ce n'estpx bigisidclla,
cela doit êtreiinc autrerna~iihrede saisilaCour, par la notification
du compromis, X'1conclii: l'affaireMavrommatis, Arrêtno2, n'aaucun
rappmt avec noire affaire.
Je me permets encore de mentionner ici SArretno x2 citésous les
paragraphesa) etb),pages 8 ~t9, de I'éditiufrançaise desdites Obser-
vations, Cet arr8t contient kgalemendes passagesqui, d'aprèsletexte
prodilitparle Gouvernementbritanniqiie,sont sans rapport avec nofxe
affaire.
Mais l'Arrê ntoxz,aux pages 24 et 25,contient certainsconsidCrants
de ia Courpermanente qui me semblent autrement importants pour
mitre affaire queles passagescitéspar le Gaizvernement britannique.
L'affaire étaisimple : Sagent polonais a plaidé l'incompétencealors
aualorsddit àol'agent polonais :vouseavez introduit votre exceptionr d'incompétencetrop tardivement. L'erreur Stait de itemander une
décisionsurIe fond sans faire de résmes Al'6gard de la compétence.
La juridiction dla Cour a étéacceptéesans autre par le faitd'avoir
plaidélefond sans seserverla cpiestion.de compétence.L'agent polo-
naisdans l'affaino rz auraitbiensauvega~dé les inter@&de son pays
en faisantà tmps des rkems ngcesçaires.
Mais c'est cqu'a fait,mwtatism~dalarkiç,sGsu~~emment aibanais.
Iia,dan5 sa lettredu z juilletexprimé sa,volont&de pa~aitredevant
laCour, rnaisen faisantimmédiatement les résewes les plus expresses
et endtf.firiissantl'obsurIeqnelclle porte, savoirIa façon clontle
Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni a tenté de.sais larCour,

Monsieurle Président,j'arrià vla finde mes explications.
Ce serait rn6cannaitre la portdeYexception.préliminairealbanaise
si l'on voulala classifmcomme depm fame, comme une chic;arie
procédurière.
Au cours de lliistoire, l'Angletearcnslign6au mande & respecter
MG m1e 01 dam.
Nous sommes sfirs que nos éminentsadversaires comprendront le
désirquenousavonsd'&tre traiMs,nous aussietsusleplan intemational,
indue procws O/ baw.
' Lesformes juridiqueet surtout !proddiire contentieusoentd'autres
raisons qaePaforne seuleLa forme sauvegardeici deprofondsintérêts
sociauxetestindispensablk l'organisation dqabldelasacihtéhumaine.
nique luiuest edeffetimposéparalCIEraisons d'une portce matérieflet
de politiquegénérale considérables. .
C est,en premier lieu, lsouci im@& de sauvegarderla dignitt
de 1'Etatalbanais.
Un petitÉtat pourrait fadanent perdrelerespect quilni estnéces-
saire damla familledes nations s'iletapermis A n'impoI.tequelEtat
pluspuissant de letraiter sansfapn.
Ce souci de dignitése rattache étroitemerit 9lankssité pour le
Gouvernement albanais de veiller sursonistatut d'dgalitparmi les
hgaux,et ce principecr'i.galités'impossurtout enrnatierejudiciaire.
C'estvraimentleseul terraiohl'égalité:ntrèLes&ats peut Ctrerespec-
t& enfibrement ;mais eiledoit1'6trepar if+a~fis.nomhabetzm@riwm~
D'ailleursl'arti 3j.paragrapliez, dirStatut mentionneexpreshent
leprincipede l'égalitéquandil s'agitd'unPtat non membre devant
la Cour.
j'arrïvesous l'angle de cetteid&, B iiqe conclusion ptaiique le
Gouvernementalbanais ne peut admettre qu'une définitiode l'objet
dzldiffcreridans l'affairpremte soit faite parle Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni unilat6ralernencomme il a entreprisde le fairedans
sarequête.L'kgalitédeparties dansI'iilstanceintroduidoit straduire
anssipar 1'i:labotationen commun des questionsqui doivent etresou-
misesS laCour. En m6me temps, un tel procedéwt seul conforme Ala
recommandation du ConseildeÇkcutitéet au Statu de la Cour,comme
jeme suis permis de chercher i le démontrer.
. Nonsieur le Président, Messieurs de la Cou, je vous remercie
respectnemrnent de l'indulgence que vous avez pretée 'a notre
exposé dejk trop long.J'ai dit.
!
1 3.'-~TATEMENT BY SIR HARTLTSY SHAWCROSS

Mayit please the Court. 'I should Bke,if I may, at the outset, to
make some observations a£ a rather ge'eneraclliamçtearisingdirem
fromthe 1st remarkstvhich-rvere made by my leamed colleagtrethe
Connsel for theCovernrnent of Alhania. 1 want in the cnurçe ofwhat
1 sayto thsuw outa suggestionwhich Ihope wilnot lx rtsented,becaum
toitheacause ofwhiclifthe Counseltforthe Governmentf AofAibanihpfaas
just been speaking, the cause of maintaining and strengthening the
rnle of law, and fielpfultthis Courtin enabling it togetdom to the
actud realities of thisimportant matter.
Noiv, MT. Pdesidont,avhen1 liçtenedta the leamd arpent whlch
was addressecl to the Tribunal this morning and yesterclay and on
'IBursday afternoon,the= was allthe time çtilecl-ioiqinmy ears the
noble TVOT~S of the Agentof the Govcr~ment of Albaniain his orighd
feEicitatoryspeech,and indeed alw the stnternents ~vhiclmy learned
friend Professor VachoF made not once but many timeç,when he said
that the Governent of -4lbaniaUitended and intends to observe in
the lettes andin thespirittherecommendation ofthe SecuntyCouncil.
1 must confcss, Mr. President, that1 was a liitlepuzzleElby itail.
1 reallywas : 1 bope that you wiUnot think that I am saying thisin
any spirit oflevity. 1 \vas not really quitesure whak dl this long
discussian was about, 1 do not mean by tbat that I do not under-
stand fully the legd argument wliich has been so clearrlpresented
'byProfessor VochoE, and I should like, if 1may do sowithout imper-
tinence, tcisay hotv much 1 and my colleaguesappreciate the cour-
VochoC hashegresenteclhislcase.tBut iaU tliesame, whaving listened tor
it rnost casefuiIyand mat anxiously,and bearing in miridthe origind
comments which wcre made about this rnattcr,I stiliam not quite
srne why all this time is being occupied by thisdi5cussion. 1 have
listenedto these learnedarvrnents. but the more I listenedthe more
my wonder grew whethes al1 th debate is not redly completely
academic.
Of course, the Grivemment of Albanîa is fdy entitled, if it wishes
so to do, to plead that this High Tribrrnalhas no jurisdiction to try
'tliis case.That is-exactly what one would expect the Govetnrnent
ofAtbania toda ifitsrealdesirewere to avoidany iudicidinvestigation
of the grave rnatterstvhich are inissue here. It çays, however, that
that is not itdesire. It saysthat it isanxious thatthisdispute about
what happened in the Çorfu Channelshould be füUy investigated by
this Court. It has used hïgh soiilidhg phrases. It says that itjs
"pmfoundlyconvincedof the justiceofitscase" andtbt it is resolved "to neglect no opportunity of giving evidence of itsdevotion to the
principlesof thepeaceful settlement of dispntes".and so on. Indeed,
the Court could welPundentand that the Government of Aibania mnst
wish very earncstly ta exrinerate.itselEfrom any c~mplicitp in the
odiotiscrime rvhich was cornmittedi by someone, in waters so close .
to the shoresof Albmîa.
NOW,if the Government of Albaniadoes desiretohave thismatter
investigated,what isal1 thisabout ? The Government of Albania is
here, the Govetnrnent of the United Kingdom is here; the issue has
been defined by tile Resoltition othe Securîty Councii ;the Tribunal
isready. %y should we not go on to dm1 with the mal merits of
t.3 dispute ?
I listenedand Iistened very carefally,foi theream. It was çtated
-in a phrase atthe heginning ofthe observations of the Agent for the
Govesment ofAlbania, and itwxs stated ia1phrasc juçta fewminates
ago asProfessor VochoZconclnded his address. Apparentlythe reason
for this rcliminary objmtionisçome feelingabwt prestige, the prestige
of the Zovernment of Nbania-prestige, that strange and i&e con-
ceptionurhich,unfortunately, has done somuch in the pastto cinbitter
international relationand ta C~QW jealousies md misundersbndings.
Naw, 1 understand prestjgc,but there is reallyno occasion for us
to worrfrabout matters of prestige in tks casc. If tQe Goverment
of Albania thinkç that the prestige of itscountry is involvcd hy its
ment of the United Kingdom has donetion-sofor eighteentyears-letemtlie
Gavernrneritof Albania, whilst still maintainhg itsobjection to any
question ofcomptilsory jurisdiction, submit volwitdly to the Court's
irivestigafioof tl~is disrp~tte.
The United Kingdom Government 'is$nite confident that this
,Tribunal is nosvfully seizcof thiscase,and that it has anunquestion-
ablejurisdictionto tryit and indue course I shaIl go on to arguethat
proposition and to attempt to convince th& Tribunal that it is right.
But I çlo net want to insistupon that. Mg Government does not
want to attach any prestigeimportance ta establisking the validity
of the positionihich we took up when Ivemadc mir original application
to the Court, Governments and corntries which are confidentof fheir
position do not need to preoccupy themselves tvïtquestions ofprestige.
If to-day the Governmnt of Albania is willingto do what 1 mther
gat1zered from the remarks made by Professor VochaCrnigl~t be the
case, if jt is wjllingto do, what we sayit did doin any event by
that lettw of the 2nd July of 1styem, if it iwilling, to-day,vtil~~n-
tarily to accttptthe juridiction af the Coud, whilçt of course main-
taining its positiotithat the Court is not comptent towmpel itto
appem, thw, sa far as any question of cornpetence isçoncerned, so
far as tcncerris the crimpulsQry jnrisdictionof this Co&, so far as
concernç the obligatory &ect of Article25, oftlic Chartrtcr-al1 these
rnatters go. Cedit qusslio. %me othcr day between some other
parties insome other. case the Court may have to consider them, but
for the purpose of th& case we cm put them completely aside. .
Inded, MT. Presldent, 1 gofurther. On Thursdaywe-I sa "we" .
mentu ofAlhania-paidovemuchntLipservicetoathe principlesofthe judi~ial
settIement of disputesand the importance ofextending tlijurisdiction ofthis Court. Hm better muld we demonstratean effectiveand-
dramatic demonstration-that itwas not merely Zipservice, but that
m rneant what said, than by both of us freeLyand equauy, sub
mitting this rnatter vol~intarilto the jurisdictionof this Court ?
If the Goverornent of -4Ibaniri says,as it did say in the last
ten minlites, that a speciagreement 1srequi~ed,I offerhere andnow
to enter into that speçiaI agreement. There is no diffimlty. There
is no formdity about it. It rvantsonly twen ty or thirty words: "The
Agent of the Çovcrnment of Altimis and the Agent ofthe Goveqment
of the United Kingdom on behalf of their respective Gol~ermnents
agrm that the dispute formulated and defmed inthe Resolution of
the Stcurity Conncilof the 9th Al~silrg47 ,hallstand referred totlie .
Court of International Justice." Thase are the nnly cvordsthat are
necesSv; thete is noneed tsintroduceany artificial difficulties, and
that agreement codd besigned at once and tlris Courcould be invested
rvithan undoiibted voluntary jurisdiction.
1 tbow that out, RSr.President, not as a challenge-because this
is notthe occasion to rnake,challenges-but as an offer which 1hope
lwilbe considered by tlieGovernment ofAibania in the spirit iwhich
it is made, WC do not, of course, expect an ansiverte-day, but
phones wrll be ~vorking. thTheouAgentiof thebGovemment ofut t-4lbânia
can obtain,instnlctions, andif hisGovernment accept the suggestion,
then an Munday morning we çan sign the agreement and the Court
can then make suck orders as itthinkçright forthe further hearingof
tlzicase liereafker.
Then d tliis discussioabout Article25 ofthe Charter and Artide 36
of tlie Statute nnd what ttsornebrssaid inSm Francisco ad .wbat
somebody else wrate at iturnbarion Oaks-all that çan be put on
one side. If, onthe otlierIiand, theGovernment of Alhania saysthat
Itis not prepared to take that course, then of course this case witl
continue in the ordinaryway and the Court wiil eventnally pronounce
judgment upon tliis preliminary objection ; buwe shall at leastbe
ableto go on without the pretcnce, rvikhfioatny further pretence, tlrat
.the Government of Albania really desires the circumstmccs of this
grave rnrtttettobe investigated by the Court,
Now, Mr. President,I leave any reference ta the motive behini the
prelimintiry objection ofthe Government ofAihania and 1 mme to
tliesubstance of the matter, the vdldity of the objection which the
Government ofAlbania seekç to make. It'may be that the Govern-
ment of Albania will respond to idle suggestiothat:1 have jmt made,
ininternationalwaffairs. Ifgitdoeserespontito thatesuggestion,it rviIl
not be aecessar~ for the Tribunal to decide any of these questions,
but, in the meantirne, in order that thetirne ofthe Court willnot be
wasted, we inust go on with -ille argument in order to establishthe
cornpetcn ofthe Court in the event of theAlbaniaG novernment not
being preparedta enter into a special agreement.
I hope the'Tribuna1wilEnot think f~om the remarks which 3:11am
made that I in an way unclerrate the importance of this objection if
the Governent o YAlbania peeists osthnt I in any way dispute the
rightto make a technical objection ofthis sort. .Ytis Erueof course,
that the rnattefich you are told youhave no jurisdiction$0 consider concernsthe rnnrder of forty-four Britishsailors,and thatis the kind
ofthing-thk iswhy Imention it-which in theabsence of any methûd
of judicialçettlement constitutes,or-codd çonstitute, a grave threat
to international peace,
1 suppose tliatpeople who ase rnoE faniiliarwith thejurisdIctioriof
national than of international tribunal5 rnust thinkitpassing strange
that the State which is accused of complicity in sueh a grave crime
should be entitled to say tothis, the highest Court of dl, that you
cannet investigate itunlees that State consents. 1 do nut tab thht
view. 1 do not find it stmge. That isexactly one of &e places
where the mle of law inthe international- fielhas not yet achieved
the fullapplication which we reognize ana give to itin the national
sphere. 1 agree at once that if this Court is to extend its influence
and Is toincrease the field ofitsactivitie?, iis proloundly important
Shat it should cla nothing to usurp a juridiction rvhich it does not
clearlyposscss. Howeves technicalanobjection to the jurisdictioma7
be, and this one is exçeedinglytechnial, and howver lacking inment
itmay be, and thisone Iscompletelylacking in merit,nonethe less
it would I-iinimical tothe establishment and maintenance of the rule
of law in international affairçifthisCourt sought to exercisea juris-
diction which had not in the first place been freely and voluntarily
given to itby the nations of the rvorld. 1 do nat dispute fhat propo-
sition;indeed I emphasize it and assert it. But I assertaalsothat it
wouldbe equallg inimid to the development of the rvorkof th4 Court
ifit shrank from excrcising itsjurisdictionin a case where it wasçEear
that the Statute, Charter, or the actsof the Parties had giv~e ita
juridiction, 1 shallask the Court to say that it is abundantly clear
Lnthis case that it is onwhich,botb by the ferms of the Statute and
stillmore perhaps byaie acts of the Parties, the Court is fdly mm-
petent to try.
Let me say that I attach primary importance to the acts of the
Parties. Let me deal with them. On the 9th April,1947 the Securitp
recanimmding thatesthetdispute shoiildchbe immediately referredchto
the Court by the Parties. That Resoliition having been passed, we
have to consider what action tçitake in regard to it. I do not know
whether the Government of Albaniamrisidered what action it should
take, but inspite of the factthat time dter tirneinthe murse of his
speech CoumeI for the Government of Athnia said "we acçept the
juriçdiction of the Court"-"we desire that the dispute should be
settled by it"*d "we daim to abida loyaLly by tliedecision of the
Security Çouncil"-in spite of al1thisthe Government of Mbania did
not appem at anytime to liaveconsidered what it was goingto do to
impiement the Remlution of the Security Çouncit. But we did. '6Ve
considcred the matter and we thought--we may have been vvrong-
that that Resolution gave rise to a mm &ry jurisdiction not mly
in relationtothe Government of Albania,gut inrelation tothe Govern-
- ment of the United Kingdom as ivell. FVe thought that Articlezs
applied. 1% thought that Article36of the Statute of theCourt,whete
it refers to matter5 specially provided for in the Charter, was alw
involved. We felt that we qere under a legal and cestainly under a
rrioral duty to Esringthis matter before the Court as quickly as we
codd. We rnay have been wrong aboutlth&. I am not.çoncedingthat wtswere ; on the conitraryT shall arguewith as much force as I:
can command, that we were righk-bt~t we may havebeen wrong. If
we were tvrong-and you are entitledto consider this inmaking up
your rninds whether we were wrong. or not, because the wnduct of
the parties tcia treaty isone of the means of interf-retinwhat the
treaty reall prùvide%--we were certainly wrong in good Company,
since,as IsKal1show yu beyond anv possibility odoubt, the Security
Council thought as we thought, and intended, as we understood they
intended, thatthisReçolution shouldcseate an obligatioand shsuldgive
the Court a compuIsory jiitisdictirinTt ispossible that theSecurity
Council was wrong ; itis cissiblethat wewere wsong ; itis possible
that the Governrnent of E;bania alone was right ;but that is what
the Court has to decide. 1 am merely saying this. 1 say Itprtly
becauseyou \vilhave todirect yourmin& to what the Security Council
said about this inorder to see ivhat is the proper interpretationto
put upon the Reçûlutian, and upan the articlesof the Charter under
which itwas made, and I Say it also becausit \vassuggested thai we
on1y thought of this quetion of ccimpulso~jrjiirisdiction alter the
Albanian Govment had made Its objection, andfhat what we were
doing \vas a flagrant violation of the Reso'lution.One disposesof
tbat at once by çaying that at the time the Remlution wss passed
and ona subscqtrent uccasion when the dect had to be consrdered,
the Security Council wll~ dearly of the opinion that the Remlution
creatcd an obligation and gave this Caurt ,z Jurisdiction.Wemay
have bm wrmg about that, TV&rnq have been mistaken in thinking,
as the rest of theÇecurity Coiincilthought, that the effect af the Res-
olr~tion ?vasreallyto put both PkrtLs,the United KingdamGovern-
ment and the Governent of ALbmia,in much the same position,as
if both of them had signed the Optional Clause. We may bave been
wrang, but that \vas tlie vievwe took, and we fild the application
under Article40 ofthe Statute.
In pssing it may help the Court:if T indicatethe cases Inwhiçb, 1
I thinkuitwas suggestediby rnyleamedilafriend that therewas onlyeone
such case,but in OUT subrnission there are four. One Is where the
parties have signed the OptionalClause, The second iswhere thereis
some otl~er treaty involving compulmry arbiisation br the Court.
The third, we shall submit, iswliere the Security Cound, by avalid
resolution,impriçes an obligation to refer tothe Court on a country
which is bound b y the resolution of the SecuritCouncil ashem the
Governrnent of Aibania bcçame bound undcr Article 25by the under-
taking they gave whea they took part in the praceedings bfose the
Security Cauncil. The fourth case iswhete the SmuRty Council. by
a vdid molution, providesfororrecommends subdçjon of a dispute
to the Court and thus attracts the provisions of Article 3(1) ofthe
Statute of the Court.
we thought that we came under one or other, ~tnd,perhaps, more
than one of these four Iieadsso WC submitted our application iinder
Article 40.
Assumefor the purpose of this argument thai we wae wrong. 1
am not admitting it. Bnt assume for the purpose of this are-
ment that -thse was no ïegd rightto submit anapplicationunder Art:
icle40, that the Rmlution af the Security Conncil was no more thad perçua~ive, and that not one of these four cases 1 have mentioned
had in tact aisen. M7ha.t then wew the courses open ta the Govern-
ment of .4lbmin? I think tliatthe~e is no dispute between Courisel
forthe Eovemment of Alhania and mysdf in regard to *kat matter,
but at al1eventsthere were three quitesimple.coursesopen which could
easilyhavebeen selected and chosen.
Firstof ail, ifhad thoughtit ercpedicnt.,theGevemment of Albanis,
would have been entitled to ignore thc cvholethiag, It could bave
refuse8 to appear. Etcouid have put the application away some-
where or tom it up and thrown it intothe ttfaste-paperbasket, andon
that viav thi s ourt rrioulthen have had todeal witli theapplication
and to satisfy itself ~vhethor not it wrtscaaipetent to try the case.
On The hypothesis on ~vhicli1am arguing notv, that our appIication
ivasin fact ivrongthe Court woiild inevitablyliavecornet Ofliecondu-
sion that ithad ne jurisdiction,whichwould have been anend of the
matter. That was the ht course.
The second course \vastliatthe Government af Albaniamight have
appeared and objectd to the jurisdictian-&pp~ing only in order
to argue itsobjection on the grounds of cornpetence; not suhmitting
itselto the jurisdiction ofthe Court at all,biltappearing before the
Court in order to argue that tbe Court was notcornpetlent. Clearly
that course rvas open to the Governmcnt of Albania ifit cI.ioseta
take it.
The third course was that ofappearingbefore the Court and, whiM
objectingto any questionof compulsory jusisclictionand reseiying its
positioiinregard to the grounds upon which the conlpulsory juris-
dictionwas alleged to cxist, submittingnoirethe less to a vol~txtary
jurisdictioaof the Cotlrt,
. Now that is the coursewhichlearned Coufisel for the Goverriment
ofAlbaia described as threwin g life-line.It was not perhaps a
vq happy metaphor tvhen orle considers' tirerirnstancesof this
case,but it Ras a vmy significant ancl important metaphor, and 1
invite the '!Aibunalto atta~h great importance to it. What learned
that the Britishapplicationwaslike aidrowning man, Itl rwasemingraves
danger, but-and this isthe signficant tbg-it could be savtd Isy
throwing a life-line. He said that the Government of Albania Iiad
notthrom a.life-linand didnot intend fa do so,but it muId be saved
by thrawing a life-Iine. I%at sttatement by the learnd Caunsel for
the Government of Albania--and I am sure that such an obvioady
important remark wodd not havebeen made without cmfd consider-
ation tù itç signifrcance-that the British application \vas Iik'ea
drowning man ~vhocould be saved by throxvinga life-line, iiiiaur
sthmissicrn, of great'importance. We do not admit that thc British
applicatipnwa drownirig, but le certainly-as that rty theu, lettcx
ofthe 2nd July Iast yearthe Governmeatof Albmia threw the neces-
sary Ise-line. Itisclexr, inmy snbmiçsion-and I shaU develop ths
B littte more later-thatthat course would, as indeed learnd Counsel
for theGovernrnent of Alhaniaconceded, givethc Court jurisdiction.
T1.ie1.s-nt,need whatever-and this seems to be very çleariy estab-
lished by the jurisdi ionfof.the Court-for any spccial agreement.
The old Pmanent Caurt has saidmore than once that the Court's
jurisdiction isnot tû be subordkatecl to th1 use of partieula £mm, STATEMENT BY SIR BARTLEY 5FIAWCKOSS (u.K.) - 28 48 57
and that is whatone modd expect, if1may say so withrespect, ofthis
High 'fiiliunalthatit isnot gokig ta have itsjurisdictionaflectedby
mere technicalities ; thait will Imk at the substance of the matter
and that it tvill disregarmere technical questions. Ifboth parties
appear before the Court, that has the equivalent ekt sf a special
agreement. These is no need for a written document if the intention
.afbath partiesis to corneto the Court and let theCourt try the case,
That, we say, was the intention of the Goverment of All>anla in the
letterof the 2nd Jdy of last par.
1 said thete wwe three courses. There 3s a fourth corn, but it is
a course which, inmy submission, is clearl~not open to a partybefore
the Court. Itis the coursewhich the Gobeniment of Albania is now
seekiog tù pursue,the course of getting the)est of both tvorlds. It
isthe course of saying in one breatk that they are anxieus that the
caseshould Is triert and that they accepthe juridiction of the Court
(the after time Coumel for the Government of Albania lias said in
teins "Albania, as has been stated, açcepts the Court's jiurisdiction.
We accept the Court's ju~isdiction")and then saying in the next
breath : "Weobjectto theCourt trying thiscase.''That isan atiempt
to blow hot and cold, and an attempt to get the best of both tvorlds,
a coursewhich it isnot possiblefor a par& before thisCoutt to adopt.

(The PREXDEN asked if Sir WartleyShamow woufd speak prhaps
for a tm-minute period only, ço âs to albw forthe translation to
take place before the Court adjouqed,)
Sir Hartley SFLAWCR :OIfSyou plewe, Mr. President.

WeU, 1cornenow tu the question : whichof the threpossiblecourses
which wwe open tu Albania did she,in fact,&do@ ? And that brhgs
me to the letter of the 2nJuly, Nm that brings me indeed tawhat
I submit to the Tribunal is rdly the crux, the corc, the centrpoint
inthis case,and, indeed, theone point-perhaps tlieonly point-that
thisCourt need really concern itselfwith. Because if the Tribunal
acceptsthe view that I am goingto put befm it in regard tothi part
Article25sand Article 36, and dhe the rest of it-becornesebeside the
point,and itwouldnot be necesçar for the Tribunal to decide those
questions at all. I apprehend-1 da not know-but I apprchend-
that if the Courtis çatkfiedthat it hasjurisdictiounder .one headit
tvillnot goontr~kvatigate the hypotheticd question whetherit might
also have jurisdiction undera numùer of other heads, If the Gurt
issatisfiedthat bythe act af theParties here,avoluntary junsdiction
has been created, fhen it remains interestingbut becornesacademic,
to consider whether thrre is also compulsory jurjsdiction arjsingfor
otherreasons. FVellilow, we haveliead, if3:may çay so,al1yesterday
and to-day, very little about the letteof 2nd July. Periiaps thatis
notsurpriiing when an exprienced and ableadvocate cornesup against
a pointwhich is obvimsly hopeless and unarguable :he glmses it over
asquickly as he cm and seeksto detractattention irom it by daborate
mgurnent about other matters thatarenot at issuat all,asfor instance,
whether the ivard means parties, or something dse,
" Learned Couriselcor thesGomment of Albmia isa very exper-
ienced advocale and he glossed rivethisletteras lightly ashe possibly
558 STATEMENT BY. SIR HARTL'EF SHAWCIEOSCj(u.K.) - 28 Il48
codd, but we reaiiy musf corne dom to earth now and look at the
letter and considerwhat,on2nd jiily,1947,the Govexnment of Albania
said. They rnay have chariged their rninds since; there rnayhave
been reasons uthich led them-to alter theifposition; but what we are
concerned with at the moment is what they then safd,
I rnust now referto the Ietter whiçh isset out in the annex to the

Observations which we.~ubmitted on rgth Jmq. I had perhaps
betterread the whole letter, although, ocourse,l am caUing attentioli.
to particulm parts ofit. 1 do not wat ta omit anmng that my
friend might think material,and, for the purposes of therecord, I mil1
read the whole of it,so that ivhen the Courtcornes to consider the
matter, it willhave the letter convenientlyin the record. It is dated
2nd Jdy, 1947 : .

"Sir,
. "1 hve the hoilour to cconfirmthe receipt of the Application
addressd by theGovernrnentof the United Ringdom to the Inter-
nationd Court of Justice against the Government of the People's
Republic of Albania regatding the inciderits ithe Straitof Corfu,of
which Applicationyouweregoodenough to inforr mnehy your telepm
of ~2ndMay hst. 1
"Having ~egat-d tathe contents of *theApplimtion,the Government
of the People's Republic of Albania desires topresent to you the fol-
lowjng statement and would requesi pu to ùe good enough iobring
it to the knowledge of the Court :
"The Government of the Peaple's Republic of Albani&hds itseff
obljged to observe ;
"1. Thd the Government of the United ICingdomi , ninstituting
proceedingç- before the Court, has nnotcomplied with the recornrnend-
ation adopted by the Secdrity Coancil on 9th April, 1947~ whereby
that body rect-rmmended 'that the Unitel Xhgdom and Albanian
Govemments çhould immediately rrefethe dispute totlie International
Court of Justice in accordance with the pr~visions ofthe Statute of
th"'TJieAlbanianGovernent considers th&, according both to the
Court's Statute and to general international laavin the absenceof an
acceptari= by Albania of Artide 36 of tlie Court's Statute orof any
othm instrument of international law wheréby the Albanian Govern-
ment might have accepted tl-icompulsory jarisdiction of the Court,
the Goverment ofthe United Ringdom wak not entitfed torefer this
dispute to the Court by uniMeral applicaüon."

:I corne now titlie paragraphs to which 1 desireto cd particular
attention, but pcrhaps beforedoing so 1 rnay make just thisone coi
ment. Qnite obvioudp tlis letterhad bwn very carefuily comidered:
This is not a letter which was mitten by çome offrce-boyin a minor
department of the Albanian Foreign Ofiîcem-;tk obvio~islya letter
which has been drafted by someinternational bwyer and puts thelegal
position vw carefdly, and itmy be co~rectly. This isa very care-.
fully comiderecl docilment. After au, the Government ot Albarlia
had bad arec rnorithinwhichto considerIibwthey were goingto carry
out the request which the Secuzlty Councilhad invitecthem to canyout 'immediatelÿ,and when this letter wab wriften theyhad no doubt
given very careful thought to their position. They say:

"It would appear that the Govemment of the United Kingdom
endeavours to jiistifythis ptoceedib nyg irivokingArLicie 25 of tlre
Charter of the United Nations.
"There cm, bowever, be no doubt that Article 25 of the Charter
relates solelyto decisions ofthe SecurityCouncil taken.on the basis
of the pr~visIom of Chapter VIT of the Charter and does mot apply
settlerncntofadisputes, sincetsuch~recommendations are tonotebindingc
ad consequentïy cannot âffard an indirect bais for the compulsoqr
jurisdictionof the Court, a juridiction whiçh càn ody ensue fnom
ercplicideclarations made by States Parties to the Statute of the
Court, inaccordarice with ,4rticl36, 3, ofthe Statute."

The Court wjll scefrom that that they draw a distinctionbctwem
ChaptersVI and VI1of the Charter. They are saying that Article 25
applies onlytoChapter VIT,andhas iioapplicationataU to Chapter VI.
1 th;& that inviem ofwhat yau have said to me, Mr, Presidexit,
1 had bettes break off theref~r the translation, becausif 1complete
the radhg of the,letterand my coments, I sbll go over the time
allotted,

May it please the Tribunal. T had been refemkrg tû the letterfrom
the Albanian Governent ofthe and july oflast yearand I hadreferred
to prqraphs I and z of thc letter,becairseI did notwant it to be
said that we had omitted ariything, That waç saîdthis morning. It
was said thatin our submissionsof 20th Januaq Ivehad not dealt with
the express rwnrations tvhich were made by the Albanian Govern-
mat iiiitsletter. 1 th* that the JmrneclCoufisel for the Aibanian
Governmcnt cannoi have read aç careftillas I would have hoped the
submissionswhich we made. In pwagraph 4 mcl the subsequent
paragtaphs, tireiliin fact ded veT fullyindeed with the reservations
whiçh were made by the Government of Albania, and ive made corn-
ment ori-them, camrnent which $vasset out in a niirnber ofseparate
pagraphs-iri pitragraph g, forinstance.in gteat dctail, 1 can only
obscrve, inregard to that, thatin hiso~n addresç the Iearned CounseE
for AFbania did not seekai ailto attempt to traverse any of the corn-
rnents wkch le made or the conclusionswhich tyeput fnluard on this
letter inOUT snbmission of 20th January. I think that he refersed
themneatfdl.em quite hriefly, but for the reshe rlidnot comment on
1 cornenow to the third and fourth pwagraphs of the letterfiam
the Albanian Govesnrnent.,vi.iicharethe reallyimportant paragraphs
to which I wiçh particularlyto direct the attention of the Court :

"The Abanian Governmentconsiders that, accordhg to the terms
cd the SecuritCorncil'srecommendaiionof9th April,1947t,he Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom, before brhging the case before the
Sn.ternationa1 ofJustice, should have reached an understarirlitig if the Charter with refe~nce to the bhding character of the Secdtïg
Council'ç recornmendations.'"

Whatthey are sayingfhwe isquite phin, and it is perhapan imper-
tinence forme toparaphrase it to this Tribunal,because it issochar,
They are saying: "Whilst we are agrming £0 apprar before the Court
in thiscase, that, of coursemust not be taken as admitting that we
think that the United Kingdom Government have made their applic-
ation in the rîght n7ay. Still lesmust it betaken as adrnittingthat
there is anyobligationas a resulof resolutions paçsed under Articl25
of the Charter. None the las, rve appear, lvhilemking these reserv-
atfons clear," Then tliey go on to use aphrase which is ofthe utmost
signifiwce. They say :

"The AlbanianGovernent wishestu emphasizekhat iZsacceptance
ofthe Court's jurisdictionfor thiscw caunot wnstitute a precedent
for the future."
What on earth can thnt mean unles it rneans what it says?
It says "cannot corlstitutea precedent fortlie friture". Of course
it could not constitute a precedent for the fiittttrif what they
were in factsaying was that they were not going toacçept the jmis-
diction of the Coilrt in this caseat ail. If they were not going to
accept the jksdiction of the Court in thiscase, there wonid be no
.caset.0conditute a premdentfor the future, They areconceding that
there is gointo be a caseh ,owever, and they say :" We are accepting
tlie jurisdictio; rve are reservin these points of Iaw, but we are
vdunt ariiy aç,ceptisg the jurisdictioon the clear undersfanding, be
it understood, that thisform of p~ocedureto which we are voluntarily
submitting must nat constitute my le@ precedent for the future.
We must protect the future position ofother parties, bntsofa as we
are concerned, because -rveare so anxious to show the justice of our
cause, and because ive aresesolved to neglectno ~pportunity ofgiving
exp~ession to the pciples of the pacific settEement ofdisputes, we
, are prepated to appear, but we emphasieethat our açceptanc of the
Court's jurisdiction for this case cannot constitute a precedent for
the future." They go on to say:

"AccordingIy, 'theGovmmeat of the People's Republic of Albania
has the honour toinform you that it appointsas itsAgent, iaaccord-
ance with Article 3j,paragraph 3, of theRules ofCourt,M. Kahreman
Ylli, Rlj~listcrPlenipotentiay of AIbania in Paris.J'
There it is, MrPresident. If wordsdo not, when they corne to be
used by the Governmeilt of Albania, bse their ordina* signuicance.
ti~esewords meant that whilçt the Goverment .of Aibania objectecl
that the procecdings had been irregulas, and that Article z~ was not
applicable,andwhilst asserting that thcase couldnbt afford a precedent
for the futare, itwas waiving itsobjection and was elocting volun-
tarily to appear,
That was the view of that document which wu ttakenby this Court
at that the. T venture to say that that miist be so, becauseofthe
course which was snbsequently faken. On 31St Jdy, after consul-
tation tviththe Parties,certain pleadings werE ordered by the Cou~t. f say "'after corrsultatiowith the. Parties". 1 do notknaw-the
Tribunal, of course, will have thisirifomiationbefore it,but 1 do not
possesç if-what fom the com~tltatt-tiûwith the Parties took. In
the case ofthc United Kingdom, 1thii~kthat the Agent was seen, and
nodoubt the Agent of the Albanian Government \vas also consulted;
but at any rate this is eqress~d in the order tohave been done after
consultatioiiwith the Parties. After tliatconsultation,an order1%-as
made by the 'Court tliatthe United Ringdom Government should
deliver aMernorial,1tliink by a date inOctober, ancitl-iatthe Albanian
Government should deliver aziother Mernorial by tlis10th Deceder.
If4t had been appreciated by the Court atthat th, or if the Agent
ha.drnadeit cleatat that tirne when Irewm tunsulted about thisrnatter,
that what the Government of Albmia was hing was to abject to the
jurixiictian,t is,1 ventun respectfullytO subrnit, inçonceivable that
the pleadings tvould have been ordered in that way, If the point
had beeiz pesent to thn mind of the Court at that tirne;that~vhat the
Governrne~itof Albmia mas sayirig riT!$'Tou have no jurisdiction
ta try this case",the Court would not have ardersclthe Government
of the Ilnit& Kingdam to clelivesa 3IIernarid onthe: merit; ittvorild
lime ordered the Government of AIbania to delivera hlcmorialon tlie
- questiun of jurisdiçtion.It dia not do that ; insteadoftliat,it ardered
the Govemmcnt of tlieUnited Kingdom to deliver the first hfernorial
on the rnerits, and ive diA that in perfect goodfaith, assuming that. the
question of jurisdictionW~S completely waived, and tljerikvervaited.
beforeatlie laçt dayQn \ilhich the Grsvernment of Altania wereentitled
todeliwr a Mmo~ial at dl. On the day hefore the lastday onwl~ich
they were entitled tridelitfer theirMernorial, ivaitingas we were for
a Mernorial an the rnerits,we got thk preliminary objection to the
jurisdicion.
- That is h0w tlie matter waç dealt with by the Court at that tirne.
Kt issignifiant alsa, inrny respectfiil stibmissitu the Tribunal, that
the Security Council :ktthat time took thelrtietthat the Government
of Albania had submittèd to the jurisdiction, The ,reason 1 say
that is significantis this. In hterpreting the meaning of a partic-
uhr treaty, amongst other metho& you are entifled to laok atthe
conduct of the partiesto the treaty'to seetheirin terpretaticiofwKat
happened.
. I should like to esplai t4 the Il'ribuna l hat the situation was at
this tirne, becaa5e you may tliink that the political background of
thisexplains very clearlywhat has hxppened ui the cowe of th& case.
At that time the Governent of Albania \vasseeking electionto the
United Nations aç a Member of the United Nations, and one of the
considerations whiçli \vas affecting the Security Couricil Zn deciding
. whether or not tû recommend Alba-nia for rnembership, rvas whethei-
or not Nbania had aqcepte he Resolution of the SeciitityCoumcil
ofthe 9th hpril in regard tothe sabmisçion ofthis matter to the Inter-
national Court. The Sewrity Council liad several discussions ahout
the rnatter,and 1 am citing them now and am gaing taread the para-
pqhs tu the Court. firsof aPIas iiidicatingwliattiie Swuritg CounciL
understood the nature. of Albania's obligation tcrbe under the
Resolution athich tlley harEpassed, and secondly as showing how the
Secunty Gouncil urirlerstood, and were peynitted by the GovernmentofMbania to mderstand, the action which that Govament had
takm bj7 her letter01 the 2nd.July,
1 am going to quote from the surnmaryrecord of the 16th) 17th and
18th Meetings of the Security Louncil Cornmittee on the admission
of new Members, 1 den1 first \vitthe r5tIl Meeting :

"R!lrde SouzaGomes stated thathis Governrnenthad always
been in favour of universal membership of the United Nations.
With regard tothe applicationof théPeople'sRepublic ofAlballia,
lie recallbd that Albania had ben invalved inthe international
controverçy rsgarding the incident in the Corfu Channel and
that the 9çurity Coumil, an gtli Aprif 1947 ,atl recçrmmended
that this case be referredto the InternationaI Court of Justice.
On zznd May 1947, the Gavernment of the United Kingdom had
applied to the InternationalCourt of *Justice."
1pausé there for a moment to remind you that this is tlie tl~iwe
are said to have done in flagrant violation of thResolutitsnof the
Securily Gouncil, vet hereis1lI.de SouzaGomes calling the attention
of the Security conncil to wliat we had done. He goes on:

"As yet, the Governmentof tlie People's Republicof Albmja
had not undertaken my steps tareferthe case to theCourt. He
therefore proposeil that theCornmittee should farmally ask the
Albanian Government whether it intendecito accept the recom-
mendation of the Security Council, The consideration of the
- applicationof Albanis ahouEd be postwned until a reply haclbeen
received. Re pointed out that the admission to membership in
the United Nations was not a right but a privilege.
MT. El-Khouri askeclwhether the Secretariat had any infom-
ation on this question.
Dr, Protitch referred to the nirrigendum tu warking papw
No. 4, to theeffectthat the YeoplèkR~epuhlic of Aibania had not
;?etinade ay application to the International Court of Justice.
'That did not mean that the Albanian Crovernmenthad mfused
to accept the recormnendation clfthe Security Gouncil.
the Corlu Chameln ronl9th April, the Security Council hadrecom-
mended that hoth States im'meediatelyrefer thcase to the Inter-
- national Co~irOCJiistice. Three rnonthsl~ad passedsince then....
Before stating its opinion on the admission of the People's
Republic of Albania, his Governmentwanted a satiçfactoy answer
from tliAlbania novernment to theend that theywauPd apply
to tlie International Court ofJustice inthe case of the incident
inthe ÇorIu Channel, and likewise that they wodd complÿ with
the reçolüitionadopted by the Security Council in the Greek
question."

Thenthereis a remark by Kr. Raynor, but &fore that MT.Ifindelen
said lie favoured thepmposd submitted by Mr. de Soma Gomes to
postpomthe examination of the application of thePeople's Republic
of Albania until furthet informatiohad been received from the Alba-
nianGovernment. Rtr. Raynor, the United States representative,
said thathis Government iavouredthe proposa1 subrnitted by Mr. de Soma Gomes, andhe suggesfed the fallowing warding for the letter
to be sent to the Albanian Goverment r

"Does Albania intend, in accordaice with mord and legal
obligationsundertaken bg Albania prior tu the Security Çouncil
. eut the Councilreçornrnendation tl~attheCorfuodisputebereferred
to the Tntetnational Court of Justice 7"

ClearlyMr. Raynor was under the impr&sian, rightly or wrongly,
that there was not merely a moral but a legal obligation oAIbania
ta do so.
Mr. Ordonneau said that the positionof France was the same. He
went on :
"Howmer,the incident in the Co& Channel must be t&n
into consideration. .He thmefore thought that the Cornmittee
had tu bevery meful mnerning the -Albanian application, and
hewas in agreement\t7iththe proposaissubmittedl>yMr. de %ma
Gomes,''

Thatwaswhat happenecl at thez6th Meeting. Then they adjourned
tintil the 17th Meeting, Thar was held on ~3rd July, so that the
16th Meeting, altliough 1have not got the date of it, masthave bem
before that. k5r eillascertainthe date. The ~7th Meeting was held
on the 23rd Jdy,and at itMr. Kasilnikov çpoke ratrieron the merits
of .thdispute, and Ishallnot read that atthe moment, but Mr. Raynor
interveiledon beùalf of the Gtivernment .a1 the United States. TIie
record says :
"Mr. Raynor did not wish to anmi Mr. Kraçilnikovin great
detail,as he co~sideredmost of his statement to be irdevant-
His Government [the U.S. Government] had doubts with regard
tathe peace-loving nature of Albania and ber ability and wilIing-
- nesstocmyoiittheobiigatlomçon~inediatheChrtrterforthe -
folIowing maçons.'" I

"Thirdly, in thecase of theincidents in the CorfuChannel, the
Albanian Governrricnt had *cep ted the provisions for pacific
settlement under Article 35 of the Charter,but aç yet had not
made application to the International Court of Justice,"

Mr.Nisot saidhe thought it important to lnow if Albaniaintended
to comply with therecommendatian of the Secnrity Council with
regard fo incidents in the CorRi Chanrlel. Ber attitude theteon, he
said, tvçiulbe an dement forthe appciation of the questionwhethet
she wuld be considered as willingto cary out her obligations.
- Then the Chairman read out the draft of:the proposed ietter,as
foIlows :
"Sir, I

Ihave the honour toinformyouthat duhg the reinamination
of the application of the People'Republiç of Albania formernber-
. ship in the United Nations, several points were raised by the STATZEKEMT EY SIR BARTLEV SHAWCROSS (u.K.)- 28 Il 48
65
various Members of the United Nations. The Cornmittee on the
Admission of New Members wauld be appreciativeif you would
bekhd enorigh tr,supply some aclditional information on the fol-
lowing points, tri assist thCornmittee in preparing its report :
1. Does Albania intend, in acct-irdance with mord and legal
obligations undertaken by Albania prior to the Security Council
discussion of the UnitedKhgclom cornplaint,to respect and cary
outthe Councit recornrnendationihat the Corfu disputebereferred
to the InternationalCourt of Justice ?
2. If50, ntrvhat tirne and by what proceduredoes Albania
intend to comply with this rccommendation ?"
Then Mr.Xrash&ov said that his Governent

"did notconsiderit necessar tp send any letter oftliatkind, as
the Government of Albania knew its obligations tmvards the
Uded Nations and the Security Council and diclnotried to be
rernii~dedoftiiern",
The Soviet delegate considered tiiatAlbania stmd inno need af
bing rdnded of the need to discharge her obligations under the
Charter. Re cIearlyregarcled the matter as an obligation under the
Charter, and in another passage he made that even more çlw, where
he says : "'TheAlbania n overnmei~tis evidentJy aware of its obliga-
tions, and the is no necessity vuhatever to send a telegram to the
Albanian Governrrient,asthe represmtatives of Brazil and tht! United
States have, with the support of other repesentatives, proposenl"a
The 18th Meeting was held on the 28th July, ancl the 17thJlleeting
apparently cunclwded without any final decisionas to the farm of the
letter which was to be sent. By the 18th Meeting on the 28th Juljf,
the ned for çeadinga letter haclpassecl, because for solnereason-1
am not sure why, na doubt in resjmnse to somc inquiryby the Secret-
ariat-tlre learned Xegistrarof this COL& sent tothe Secretary-General
of the United Nations a telegram which set out substantially in full
the lettcr which had becn received from the Government of AIbania-
the letter of the 2ndJuly. I da nat think 1 need read the telegram,
because it setsout the whole of the matenal parts of the lettervery
fully, and1 must say it very fairiy drxivs attention the reservatians
which were made inthe Ictter. It is,with perliaps one mina and
unimportant- omission,a cemplete account and çopyof theletter which
had been received. That telegram, having becn received by the
seczrrityCorncil,the SecuritlrCoucil proceeded to consider themaiter
in the light of the information which the letter ctsntained.
The Chaiman pointed out therelevance of the telegram with regard
to the drnftlettewhich the Cornmitteeproposeclto send to theGovern-
ment of Albania, as the cablegram clearly sho~vedthat the Albanian
Goveirnment had acceptsd the Security Coo ncil's recommendatiom .
He asked the members of the Cornmittee to state th& points of view
regarding the proposeclletter and the application of Albania.
ATr. Gomes, who had said that before it was reçommended that
Albania çhauld be put fornard for rnemkrship they had tobe satisfied
fiedwith the- information received fton-ithenRegishythof tlieInterna--
tional Court. It\vas no longer necessary to send tlieprqased letter.66 STATE~IENT BY SIRWARTLEYSHAWC$OSS (w.K.) - 28 II 48
He ohtd out that the,teIegr cirnnot clarîfyal1points on which
doi~gt existed-doubts existed on trtherpointsas well-and could not
prejudge the opinion of theCommittee regarding Albania'sadmission
to the United h'ations." Mr. Raynor and Mr. Lawfordagreed wlth
the statement made by Mr. &mes. Dr. Hsu agreed thattlierewas no
longer any reason to send the proposed letter. He said that in vktv
of the nerv situation11e cotdd sttite that hiGovernmcnt rnaintârned
the same attitude towards ,4lbania's application for rnembership as
1st year. Mr. Nisot greeted tlieinfamation given in the telegrrtm,
Although Albania'saccgtance of the jurisdîctiorof the Caurt was
+n important element, it sliould not prejudge lieradmission. The
application requixed fusther study. Mr. Krasilnikov stated that
"Albania" sacceptanceof the jurlsdictionof the International Court
fnlly siibstmtiated I-iiscontention athe iast meetingthat accusations
against the Albanian Goverment were unfounded". The Chairman,
speaking as the seprwentative of Polarid, agseed that 'fthe telegram
proved thak the Alhmian Government able and svitling to fdfil
itsobligations under the Charter. Itwasa good sign that this telegrarn
had Been sent before the Cornmittee l-iad made any enquiry-" The
Court may think tli,zt that iis a little significantHe reaffirrnedhis
Government's support of tl-ieAlbania npplication.
Later on, inconnexion with another part ofthe case,I shd mail
to yu ~stract from the minutes ofthe Security &uncil Meeting of
the 9th April,whereeveq person who spoke about tiiis rnatter appears
clearly tohave contemplated that tlieReçolution was going to create
an obligation on Albania aridon tlie United Kingdom ; but at the
moment 1 am concetned wi€h the view of ,theSecurity Cound as to
the eifectof this letter, That view was that Albania, by her l&er
of 2nd Jdy, had accepted jurisdîction. I .donot know, but the Caurt
inay tliinkthat the &banian Government .wnot possibly have been
iznaware that this question as to whether it bad acceptccl the juris-
rlictionof theCourt or not was going to he one of the relevant factors
in Ieading theSecurib Council to a conclusion whetha- ormat tosecorn-
inmd Albmia for rneniberso hithe United Nations. She was content
to allow the Security Council to act on the assura tian that by her
letter çhe Iind accepted the jurisdidion of the &urt. Eventually
Albanin was not rrecommenderifor membersbip, and sorne people may
ship of thetUnitedasNations that she changed theendattitudewhich sheh

çame rcason for wishingtttooshow herselfetoube ahgoodlocitizen of the
u?orld. Of course,si-tedid not c2iscloseher change of attitude until
9th Decemhr, the very last day forcomplethg ber pleadings.
- In regard to this matter, onthe facts rny snbmission tothe Court
isthat it isnat open t8 a'party which has at first siibmittedto the
jurisdictionof the Court lateo rn trichange itsmind, to have second
thoughts and to attempt towriggle out of .thesubmission that it has
made. - _t
1 have ascertained, Mr, Preçident, thatthe date of the first af thow
nieetin-the 16th Meeting-was the zrst july andnat the 4thAugust,
as I said.
1 am sure the Tribunalwilt appreciatethat I am nùt for amoment
sbggesting that becauste hé:Security Coilnciltook the view.tha teir '

1Resolution was obligato 7,orthat Albarliahadacceptedit and accepted
the jiirisdiction oftliiThisrCourttvillarriveoata cornpletelyindepend-
ént conclusion abriut .tliat matter. 1 have anlv cited tliosepassages
hecausetlie cammon understanding and mnduct of tlrc Partiesis one
ai the guides to which pu are entitled to looin interpretingtlie IegaE
nature oftheir duties and theirtrmty. Titiç on- one of the guides
-and I am not putting it any higher thm that-but sirnply ta draw
your attention to what the other partiesto this treatyand this Res-
oluticinthoughf: about thnt 'Rcsolutionand about the suùseqnent action
of Aibania in connexio~ witli it.
Miel1now, Mr. President, 1 corné to the law. I shall he very brief
On it.
The case to tvhicli 1 patirticularlyuqnt tacal)the attention of the
Court is Jlrdgment No. rz. That %vatshe case concerning the rights
of minuritieç-in regard to the Minority SchooIs in ljpper Silesia,
anclTm seading from the repartin tl-isecariclvolume of'Judg~ Madey
O, Hudson's çalleçtiun of the cases. It is repvrted intliat collection
on page 268. TheCbust mal; remember that that wasa dispute bet~veen
Gerrnany afid PaI~nd about minority rights- Polmd sougI-itin a
Rejoinder to oneof the pleadiagç that had been put in, to~vithdtaw
lier acceptance of the juxisdictionof the Court, Her acceptanco ef
jurisdiction had heen impIiec1from lierconduct in the proceedinçsup
to khat time :itlvas only when she deliverecl her liejoinder tliat she
took the point as tcijurisdlctionand it was held that it wasnolanger
open to her so todo.
Now I just wanted to citeone ortwo quite shurtpassages frotnthis
judpent. The first isoneon page 283, whicli refersto Article 38 of
the Rules of Comt. "The abjectof this articl\vas to lay dom rvlien
an objection tothe jiirisdicfion may validly be fiEedbut o~ly incases
wherc the objection is suhmitted as a prdiminary question. that is to
say, rvherithe respondent asks for a decisionuponthe objection before
any sul~sequerit proceedings on the merics. It isexclusi~e~y intkis .
event that the article 1a.p dom what the procedure should bc and
that this procedure ssliouldbe difietent fromthat on the merit:.
"Rut it does not fo4iowfrom this that an objection to the jurisdiction
which isnot filed aç a prelimii~ary objection in the sense indicated
above, cau be taken at sny stage of the procetxlings.
"The Cou~t'sjurisdiction depcrids an the iviil of the pmtics. The
Court is always ctimpetent once the lattes have nccepted its jutisdic-
tion, sincethe is no dispute whiçh Stakes entitled to appear before
the Court cannat refer tciit. Artide gG of tlre Statute,in Its first
paragraph, cstablishes this rinciple in -the following ternis :"(And
then it sets out the tems O fthe articl aeit then \vas.)
The acceptance bg a State of theCourt's jt~risdiction ia pasticular
case-and this is the passage to whiçb I attach importance-is not,
under the Çtntute, subordinriteclto the obriervcitionof certain forrns
such as, for instance,the conclusion of a speçial agreement,
Thus, in Judgment No. 5, tliCourt hç acceptecias sufficiena mere
declaration made by the respondent in the course of proceedings agree-
ingthat the Court should decide a point tvhith,ih the Court's-opinion,
would atherwise have cornewithin its jurisdiction,and there seems to
be no doubt that the consent of a Çtate tothe submission of a clispute to the Court rnay not only result !romanexpressdcclasafion,but may ..
aIso be inferrd from açts conclusively mtabIishingit. There isno mlt?
laying clownthat consen t ust take theform of.ariexpress declaration
rather than of actç conclusively eçtablishing it.If, in a special me,
the re~pondent ha in an express declaratitionindicated hi$ desire t~
obtain a decisionon the rneritsand hisintention toabstain frornmiGng
the question of jurisdiction-and that is tl-icase exactIy with this
Govesnment-this respondent Gavernment accepting iz theirletter'
of znd July-if, insuch a case, epndent Ilas,hy anexpress declar-
ation, indicaied his desirctu obtain a decision on the merjts and his
intention ta abdais £rom the question of jurisdiction. it seems be
cannot latcr on inthe procmdingsgo back upo-nthat dwlaràtivri.
Well, the learned Counsel for the Government of Albania hardly
rcferred to that case at all. Pezhaps tl~cztis understrtndable.What
he said abont that case was tliat he preferredthe opinions of the two
minority jadges. Well, fBat also is understandable. It is not un-
familiasfor thase against whom a decision isgivcn to prefer theviews
of the judges who did not concnr inthe decision against thm. And
that is the pmi tion-very understandable-of leanied Cornsel for
the Governent of Albania. But unfortiinately for that view, this
decision clid notstand alane, It luas foiiotved iJudgment NO. 13.
1 am not g-oingto takeup the by reading it,bit the Court may wkh
to refer to the Chorziiw Factory case.
So you have these two decisions,ofthe old Permanent Cowt of
Intemational Justice-and you rnay coasiderIt rig11tto follo~them-
ofithe jurisdiçtion of thCourtriçnottsitbordinated to theuse ofpartic-
ullar foms. Syecial agreements are one way of establishingjw%-
diction: tacit conduct is another way,
The leme8 Counsd for Aibania appeared atone stage tosnbmit-
and I do not think this was quite consistentwith the restof hisargu-
ment-that our application was void ab initzkand could not becured
by any subsequent cvent. He said itwar; a non-existent fact. That.
argument iç, ofcourse, qnite inconsistent with the argument that he
had previously wed about the life-lineYou remember the argument.
I rvill~~orepeat it. But reallythat point seems to be decided by the
judgment of the Court in one of the Iifavfornmatis caçes-J.~lrdgme~l .
No. 2. NOWagairi, I will not lefer toit, The caçe was referred to
this morning by learned Counsel,and the COurt%viln 1o dmbt read the
whole ofit. It is pcriettly truthatthe factsin thatcase.weredifferent,
and although the applicationwhich ms filedin order to commence
the prmeedingswas invalid at the time itwas filed, there didcorne a
stage rvhe~i,owing to legislative, treaty changes-législative changes
- in that sense, 1:mean-such an application could have ben validly
filecalthough nonew application was infact filcri, That is perfectly
true on the factofthat particularcase,but tvhat youlo~k for,of course,
in the judgrnent is not for the particularfacts, buitfor the principle
whichis enunciated in the judgment, and theprinciplein thatjudgment,
in rny submission,iç this-that initiaesror w invalidity can be cured
by subsequent everitç.
That matter .*rasde& witli Iater in another connexion, in 1936,
when the jiidgesof the then Court were considering the possibleal te^-
&ion ofthe Rules of Court and, mongst others, of Rule No, 32,whichdealt with the matter whiçh must becontained in the tvritten appIic-
ation. And 1 would like ta cd1 the attention of the Court tuwhat
was said then by the niajorio tythe judgeç inregaird to the matter.
It brciadly siipports the life-line argument,1imay describe it in that
way-it illustrates theview that, although the thing may be ùad in
the firstinstance, the &ber party mal' chcose not to rely upon thls
badness and may cureit hy his own conduct in thmwing a life-linand.
that isthe argument put forward by lameù Çounsel for Albania.
He certainly hadsolid authority behind hisargument, autlioritywltich
shows that it was a correctargument and one tvhich,if correct, corn-
pletely destroyshis case here. 1am quoting here from thedocumenb
relatingto the Court. Tlie volume fw 1936 dealswith the preparation
of the Rules, and on page69, firstof ail,Judge Schücking sa)?$this
xbriut the fwwm #r~~gatmz :

" Judge Schuckingagree dlth M, Anzilutti that t was not desirable
on rvhicboittwas based."ion containkg a ~eferenceto the treaty clause

Perbaps 1 ought, beforeI cite thisjustto explain the oint atissue.
The question at issriehere waç whether Rule 32 shouPd require an
application to state, in tems, the particuIar provision under the
Covenant y under sotne other treaty under which the application
was being submitted to the Court. And the question tkat was under
consiclerationby the judges was whether it was necessary ta tie the
applicant dom in his original application ta çtate precisely undm
what artide he was proceeding, :,adthe precise pointwas put that if
thé R~llcscompdled the applicant to çtate iinder wkat article and
what treaty he waç proceeding, it wodd prevent an applicant from
p~ittingin ân application in the hape that althongh there was atthat
stage no right to apply to the Court, the other pasty miglrt thmw a
life-lin:md give the Court jurisdictionIsy consertt. That was the
iv-haiepoint that was being dimssed here, and so it iç in tliicase. -
"M. Sçhückingagreed witti M. Adzilottithat it wa not desirableto
insiçtOTI the application mntaining a reference to the treaty clause
upon which it was based. The institutionof the formt pre~ogat-tdm
has been introduced inta the procedure hy the Court's practice,In par-
ticdar in Judgment XII. 12, and it was in the intersts of the gond
administration of justice. If they now made it a necesSm condi-
tion for the adrniçsibia lfian application tI-iat it niilspecifythe
treatj-clause, and if, Ln a given case, the applicmt were unable to
specify iibecause no such clause existec tle,Court wouldbe cornpelled
to rejectthe application alimina. But tkat .~vouldamount ta abolish-
ing the institution of the forvntprorogatztm, and, in his view, tfiat
\vorild not be fn the intereçtsof international justice.
" Tonklieervan Eysinngasaid he muld agreewitli aU fhat NM. Schiic-
kini and Anzilotti had said; but hewished to ernphasize, inaddition,
the necessitgof there beingfree md easy accessto theCourt ofJustice.
ofetimeeawasatone of the corner-stones ofothatitinstitution."rt space

'l'hen'911eV. ice-Presidcntof the Court thought that Article3% did
not provide for the cme of a uniIat-1 application not baseci on the'
Optional Clause conferring so-called compulsory jurisdiction on theCourt. Re asked the Registrar ivhetherthe Coart wodd automatidy
transinitsuc11an application to the cited government.
"The Registrar said that ifthe application were made under am
instrument other tlian the Optional Clause, hown to the Court and
inmlzich tlre'citccgovcrnmeat had accepted tlie Court's comydsory
jurisdiction,it ~vould no doubt be automatically transmitted; if it
invoked somt such clause unknowntothe Cozirt, tlie applicant would
be likelvto be asked for explanationç. Xt shodd not be forgotten
tliattliecited government might, upon receipt of an application, lie
willing to atcept the Court's jurisdiction ad hoc, even though not
obliged to do ço, This tvas a reaon fornotifykg applications inall
evmtç.
"M. Frornageot thought it should be di ulated in the Rides that
an application mut specify the provision &ticle 36 ai the Statute
or other clause}typonwhich itxelied. If the citedgwernment accqted
the Court's jurisdiction, although nat bound to do so. tlrat really
amounted to a special agreement."
M. Fromageut. )?ousee, was taking tlie view thatitwas not desirable
ta provide in the Rules for the case of an application which \vas not
made under sonle sp&c provision or articlcor treaty, but hc went
anta say-and that is the importance of if-tkat "ifa cited govern-
nient accepted the Court'sjuridiction, althotigh not ZMund to do so,
that really amounted to a special agreement.

"M. Anzilotti said that, in view of thispossibility,the Coutt shoulcl
not refuse ta tmnsmit the application." j

In otherwords, he wasinfavnirr ofthe proposition that if the original
application is bad and is hegular, -inview af tlie pcissibil-i'ythat the
other side açliiince of a-tingCoit andgço,inteffect,consfituteaispecid
agremen t.
Then, an page71, tire vce-Fresident "wnsidercrl that toimpose
obligations more extensive than those pladed II~QI~the @ies by the
Çtatiite worzlclamount to overçteppitn hg liniitsof the Statute, To
requirethe parties toindiwtt. ln the application the provisions selied
on by thak inçtrurnent in subrnitting the case to thc Court would,
moreriver, be harmful to the development 'of the Court's jurisdictjon
and inconsistent 137ithItspractice ;for tlris waulcle?rcIridethe possi-
b3lity of baçing thCourt's jurisdiction Onan expressor tacit agreérnent
by the parties In the coinse of the proceediiigs."

Afid then, on page 1'9 7 I
"Jonkheer van Eysinga held that the question must be considered
in closeconnexionwith the fmt paragnph of Article 38 ofthe Rules.
If a State appsoached the Court by meaqs of an application, and if
that document wer;e transmitt todthe ,respondent,three possible
situations mighE arise :
"The State might cunsidrlrihlf bound tioaçcompany the applicant
bef6rc the Court, because there was an u@Ttalung obliging ifto do
so; or itWght 6le an abjection to the jurisdiçtipn; or, again, even
in the absence of a provision ohligiiigit 40accompany the applicant
beforethe Court, il might, in given circumstanccs,bcdisposcd todo so."* ,[Lhat iswhat we Say the Albanians did here.] "The latter course
might sornetimes;IiavIng regard to the politicaconditions prevailing
at a given moment, be the only means ofsecuring the legai tlsettlemenr
of a dispute, and itwcts one whicli tlie Court should not exclude. It
\vas therefure hportarit that States should retain the yossibility of
presenting themselves before tlie Court in pursaance of a tacit
agreement.
"M. Schückingdesired that the textshould make a clea distinction
bhveen those requiremenls wliich must be fdfilled in arder thatan
application might be entertahed, and those which were merely in the
nature of recemmendations."

Weii,now, that $vasthe view of the judges at the the.
'rwo judges, M. Negde~co and Baron Rotin-Jacquemyns, took a
differei~tview ; they dissentedfrom the majority, but in tlie rcwlt
theRdeç'were ameridcdand the present rule, yriuwillremember-
Rule 32 (2)-provides, inrtgard to the application :
"It must also,as faras psslble, spwify the mvision on &?ch
theappliclni founds the jmisdiciion of the Fonrt ...."

Nw those ivords"as faras possibleJ'were delibrately put in for
the precise purpe of enablilina State to put an application before
the Court dthsugh there wxs no legal juriçdiction enablinit ço to
do, iu o~derthat the otherStatc might be givenn chance to throw the
lif~lineand appear voluntzlrily andsoestablishtacitly and by conduct
a specialagreement. .And that is,of mursc, exactly mhat we say has
been done in this casç.
Tliat concludes rvliat1tvant to say irpon thisaspwt of the matter;
The matter içde& with in more detair inthe Observations whFchwe
put in on 20th January, but since fhere ha really been no attempt
to traverse those Observations, 1do not lant to cover the matter in
the detail in which it icc0vere.d therere.l~edocument is before tlie
Court, and n0 doubt the Court will considerit, My sabrnissionon the
that if, conharyrttofOur subdssiorl,itIiere werclimperfektionsginnthet
manner in which our ,zpplicatiowas ariginaliysubmitted, those.irnpcr-
fections were curcd b the voluntary acceptance of the jurisdiction
of thc Court containe$ in the letterfrom thc Government ofAtbania
of 2nd July. 1 feel bûund to cornment that a country whîch talks
about its prestige anitsdignity cm hardfysucceed in tryingto wriggIe
out of the election which itclearl m ade, whether os not for political
reasonç, in that letter toaccept the jnriçdiction ol the Court.
1 now corne to the seconclleg,soto speak, af my argument. When
cinehas agmd and sufficient pund on whiçh one isentitledto succeed,
1 dways dklike traversing atjier groundbecause if you have one good
point you dn not strengthen itby referrimgto aIùt ofother points. 1
r;lioulnormally prefer to rest tlie case here on the lettof2nd July,
because if we are right in regard to that lettertlie whole of therest
of this matter bccomes çornpletey academiç,
Howeves, out of courtay to the Court, and out of courtw to onr
opponents, who have dmit with thcm in detail, 1 must, 1 think,deal
mith the otl-~rnatters atsumelittie.len gndh&., the othermatters
are, of course, of fundamentd importance noionly inconnexion withthis case,but in connexion wiü~ the grnerd position of the Semrity
Council. There has not ben any full exchange of detaited pleadings
setting out the arguments on one side and the ather in regard to this
fmther part of the me, and for that Leason,if the Court pmik it,
my Iearned friend Mr. Beckett willfoUow nie later and dewlop the
arguments in more detail on points on which 1 çhallnot be touching ;
%ut 1 t-hinkthat,asthese mattershavebeenraised, it tvouldbeimproper
fcirme to have the .asewhere it stands, thoughIwmt to make itqnite
clear,as 1 did atthe bcghning, that inouf sabmisçion the coreof this
case ROIW,in the circumstanees in which it hasdeveloped, is thislettw
of zndJuly. Ify~-take that view,you may weU decide thatyou mil1
accept jurisdictionon the basis of that Eetter and that you will not
give jltdgrnent inregard to tlime other and rreryimportant points in
a case ivhere it is nonecessary in order triestablish your jurisdiction
to give judgment on thosc points, and in a casewhere t1-i~~~as been
no exchange of detailed pleadings in regad to the matter.
Coming to the second legof the zrgument, assuming fhat the letter
sfthe 2nd July dia not constit~lta valid snbmfssion to the Court,
what aretlie otherpoiinds onwhîch, in the absence ofa spe~ialagree-
ment, the Court irentitled to exercise jurisdictio?i I am going to
put the matter before the Court in'three.alternative ways. Firstof
al1,I am going to contend that the Resolution of theSecurity Couilcil
was binding because dl decisions of the Security CounciI are binding,
and Article 25 in this respeccttw not distinpish between what are
in form "decisions" and what are in formm "recommend;itims". That
is the fmt submission ~vhich1 shdl makc.
Secandly-and this is, ofcourse, as the Court wilI appreciate, an
alternative submission-1 shallsubrnitthat althoagh al1 recommend-
ations rnay not be binding, those under Chapter VI of the Charter,
relatingta mdhds ofsettling disputes which encangerpeace, arebiilding.
'Thirdly,1shdl submi t thatrecommendations ofthe Security Council
under Article 36 (3) oftlie Charter-that ,is, a recornrnendationthat
the matter sliould lx refcmd to the Court-at tract the words "other-
ofjstheeStatuterofithe Court,tandhconsequcntiyh invest the Courtcwith6
ji~risdiction.
Those are al1independent and alternativearguments, and, -3T deal
with one More the others, itdoes not indicate that f attachprimary
importance toit. Ea~h argument stands on its omn fee, and one may
berig11tand the others wrong, ar they rnay be al1mng, or they may
be au right.
I cornefimt tcithecontention that de@ishns ofthe Sewrlty Council
are binding, and that Artide 25 doe not distinguish inthis rqect
betwmn recommendationç and deçisions, Professo rochot , indeal-
ing with thisrnattcr, before Irmacle any detailed examination 01 the
position, made thtee gèneraicornmentç,and 1slidd liketo follow him
indealing with those general comrnents. He said first ofa11that such
a proposition had never beenraised inany;casebefore. Well, perhaps
that dws net take the matter very lar. This is the firscase befoi-e
tbis Court. Article 25 did not exid in the Covenmt oi the Leagile
of Nations, and there wras no distinction in the Çovenant between
recomme~idations and deàsions, Neither \vasbinding, and there was
no point. therefore, in statlng that khere isno previous authority STATEMEhT BY SIR FURTLE? SHAM7CRûSS (u.K.)- 28 IL48 73
distingtisliingthem. Article 25, of course, marks a very important
step fnnvard in internationjlrelations from the dnys of the League
to the days of the United Nations. It was takeridetihrately, and it
was meant to havec~rtain important consequenees.
1 shallseek to shotv't Trebunal that,unless it hasthe çonsequence
for which Ive are contendmg in thiscase,it bas no consequencs at all. rn
This is thefirstcase inntllic lhi contentionmdd possibly have been
raised,and T çhailask the Courtto saytliatm-earehasdlj:to beattacked
becaiiseithas not bem raised before. IVtshouldlike to havebrought
thisçax kfore tlie Courta long tirneago,and it is not ourfault that
we have not been able to do so. We a~e raising this poinin the first
case inwhich it ha%been possibieta raiseitand atthe firsopportunity
when it coiiid be raixct.
Then lea~ned Counsel said that the United Kingdom on3y thailght
of thii.argument after this case lrad stated, and that nobody else
had thought of it. X have dealt with that point already. 1 ha~e
pointed out that itis abundantly clear-and 1 slialrefer to thedocu-
ments presently-that tlie Security Council thouglit of this at Tlie
tirned the Resolution anclagain laterwhen the question nrose about
Albanla's admission, We have orilvtaken ther.ieivtvhich\vasshared
by our cplleagues on the ~oirnd,
Then Iearned Counsel said-and 1 recngniee this a more contra-
versial matter-that the preparatorÿwork, as well as the writings of
mrious commentators on the Chaster, shows that Article25 is ofvery
limiteclapplication, and hat in ay ment it does not apply to Irccorn-
menclations. I sav that that is contro~retsialbecaux 1 rt1u5tmnfesrjs
tliat approach this questionofprqaratory rvorkwith al1the prejudice
of one who ha$ been brought upin the school afthe English Cornmon
Law, which rathe-s irorvns upon the historicaimetliod ofinterpret-
ation;but I know that the arc distinguished uristswho take df frent
' the.actualtpreparatoryhwork later,obuth1jiistrwantsto deal with itirt
general terrns hew.
Mucli of it,ztone wciuld expeçf Inview of the natureof the nqotia-
tiorrsiscontused ;muchof it isobscure, and a gmd dealoi itis conflict-
ina. Learned Counsel, who dealt with the matter very fairl py.inted
out yesterday tliatwo Cornmittees sittingat thesame ti~m were taking
dirtmetricallyopposite vietvs abotrt one particular swtion. That is
perhaps not altogethersurpcising,but if you laok on the preparatory
work as a whole and examine it carefully, iisby no means clear, in
rny submission to the Court, fhat it leadsto the condision çuggested
by the G-averrimmt of Albania.
What 1 want to safabout itnow-because I am goring to look at
it inmore detail Iatér-is that prepmtory mrk must in any event
be looked at witligreat caution, if indeed it ipmissible tolook at
.it aall. It is permissible to lookat preparato wryrk at a11ùnly d
the tvonds in the'treat 'rvi~icliyou are construing are themselves
obscure and cannot be darified by the other rnethodsof interpretation.
The best'indes tothe intention of the partiesta a treaty isprovided
by the ~vordswhicl~ they actudly use in it,or perhaps the conduct
' which achâlly oçcurs under it. Whm the meaniing of a keaty can be
gnllicreddeaily irom iti own Lms, ilis eh de O pr-mirrihle
to speculate about what the intention of the partiesmay have ben
674 ST.4lXMENT BY SIR HARTLEY SHAWC (u.KO)-SS28 II 48
6y referencetowhat soine af-them-not dl of them ; sometirnesthe
most important of them, sometimes the most vocal of thern-rnay
have çaid in the course 01 the preparatory negotiations leading up
ta the draftiag ofthe fzeaty.
Sometimts, of course, ithap ens that the actuttl discuçsionsare
coniused. Thase who attend t 7ese international conferences know
that if they read the minutes of what has been said the day before
they sometimes hd that the minutes record them ;tssajringthings
which do not altogether accurately rep~esentivlratin fact they did
S . Sornetimes Ive comct thae statements; sometimes we are far
toa busy to do so. At allevents, the minutes recorcl oniy the views
er;pressedby those who speke, and do not give much indication ofthe
vieus of those wlio rernainedsilent.
The negotiations here were very prottacted. Preparatory work
intentionofdtheypartiewhercsewhat you areg'terpretingjsosome tteaty
in thenature of a mntract between two or ihree or somequitelimited
number of States. M%enwliat isin question isa multilateratreaty,
coveringforty or more clfirent Statestaking partin the negotiations,
and when it ia treatyofa constitutionaand law-makingkind, in ~vhich,
as in this cae,not al! theeventual parties were partietothe prepar-
atory wmk, the prepasato wryrkis, in rnsubmission, a very unsafe
and vincmtain&ide.
In This case,and in the case01the United Nations generauj~,from
time to timeother nations acçededto tireCharterwho were not parties
to the preparato ryork at all; and to try and spellout from the
teported observations of thox who weretakingpart in the preparabrÿ
wotk, from the debates betrveenthe originai neptiators, what the
meaning is. is imy submission aprocesstvlljci~liableto 'bdarngerouç
ancl rvhich miistbe indulgeclinwith very great care.
Ihat matter was referedto insome detaii in anarticleby Srofessor
Quincy Wright in thc Arn~~a'tmJzournal oJ Iafemalional Law, Xg29,
Volume 23, at page 94, He draws a distinction betwcen the method
of histarical kterpretationwhere OU havé a statute which you are
interprethg anda contract. He gaysthat itmay bc very useful in
cases of contractto lookat the correspondencewhich passed between
parties before they conduded it, anany otBer evidencof their txpresiv
InWithioregard tarndtila+eral law-making treatiehe sap :"It is not
cornmon toutilizprelirnina-materials exmptin sofar asincorporate&
in scservations formdy attached to the instrument on signature or
ratification, andaccepted ùy the other .partiesto -the conveation.
During the World !Var theFrench Prize Courteven refmd to aecept
tlie report of the draftîng cornmittas a çonclirsivinterpretationof
the Dedaration of London. 'The clmr and precise provisionsafan
article tvbicthe State had adopted, ttroughillededaration itselhad
nat ken ratifted, coald not be weakened' by any extraneous dom-
ment.' " Then he gives a nurntierof casesin mimicipal courtswherc
hepoints out that courts have refusedto lliokatpreliminarynegotia-
tionsin regard to multilaterallaw-makingtreatieçowing to confusioa.
He concIirdethat the methoclof histo~icd interpretation is one wliich
liasto be used at hast ~4th the greatest cautionin cass whert you
are deaiingwith atreafy of thkind thatlthisCourtis nosvdealiag with. 1 shail refeIriterorito the incornpleteand sometimes xather selec-
tive-1 do not say thk by way of criticism,because obviously great
tarehas beei~ taken in the examination of records,and inthe putting
of materid before yolr-reco~dç whieh have been submitted by the
Government of Albania. Insoma casesthey zppea toselectpassages
~vhichfavour their vierv but do not includpassage which go the other
way. 1 ody observe now that the historical methodof iriterpretation
is the hst refugc of those who cannot make up their minds as to tlic
meaning af words constxuedin the lightof the ardinar prirnary canons
of construction. 1 shall ask the Tribuml to say that it has no ne.ed
in this case to resort' utocertainrnethods oftbat kind, beause the
Charter can be re~onably iinderstood from its oavn image,
As for the statesmen svhose remarks have been quoted, it may be
that somestatesrnen and some lamyers, in thecourse of specçhcsmacle
when reporting to their Iegislatures about the proposed Charter before
ittas conçluded, did put avery restricted interpretatioon the powers
of the SecurityCouncilunderthe proposed Article as, IVeii, one has
fo consider suchstaternents in the lightof the ci~ctimstancesexiçting
atthe time theywere made ;but neitlier this Tribunal nûr, 1 venture
ta suggest, therest of thefifty-sixUnited Natioi~s, can be bbmd by
a statement tvhich the representative of oneof their number may
lravc niade not to themselves, nat to the drafting committee, not
at San Francisco, but to some completely outsidebodyover ivhich the
restofthe members have nokincl of mntrol.
So far as any officiacommentariesof the BritishGovernment were
concerneclreference having ben made tathem, I have had thm ~mde
availableand there does not seernto be anything in aur own cornmen-
taries ~hich is inconsistent with thegencrar views whïch I am sub-
mittingnow. Indeed, iathe comrnentaryon the SanFrancisco Charter
adoptecland the original Dumbartan Oakç proposais,the amcial corn-ly
rnentar sayysthis: "The methods forthe spcifrc settlement of disputes
have ben clarified and the powers of the Sccurity Council fa take
, actionfor that pqose inmased and defined in Chapter VI." -There-
fore,what ttveare çayïng is that inChapter VI the pwers of the
Security Councilare norv greater than they werejnthe original draft.
So also isit the case inregard to tlie otlieunofficiacomme~itators.
No doubt some have taken-1 will no5 dispute it, and I dlnot canvass
the oppoçing views of others-a mare restrictd view of the powers
of the Security Council than the Security Couricilhas itseltakcn. 1
have great respect for the writers of textbooks and commentaries,
biitifthey were always right there would be littleneed for courts of
law, This matter is not to bedecided by the$se dixrtof commentators
or text writers.This Tribunal \vilhave ta corne to itsown conclusion
on the 'wording ofthe Charter inthe light of the way the Charter is
being interpreted Iiythe parties to it.

May itplease the Court. Yeçterday 1 kad the melancboly task of
reading through the sharthand note of my own speech, and 1 found
one passage ivhich was mot accuratn e,doubt owing tu çomeIack of76 STATISMENT BY SIR HARTLEJ- SHAWCROSS (u.K.)- fIII 48
clarityonmy own park,and which 1 thhk itrzllghtlxçonvenient if1
corrected notv, so that the Coiirt will hdGe before it the submission

wliich 1 actudly mahg in regard to thiç matter.
I said that in my submisçion there were four casa in rvhichan
applicationcould be made under Article 40 ofthe Statute oftheCourt,
and the passage in the note abont that ha5 becorne a litjle confused.
It is atpage 53. The firstcase is where the pa~ties havesignd the
Optional Clause.;the second case iswhere the= is sorne otl~ertrcaty
involving cornpulsory jurisdictionby the Court ;the thirdcase,as ~ve
subrnit,iswhere the SecurityCoUncil b,y a validresol~itionimposesan
obligation to referto the Court on a country uthich is bound by the
resolutions ofthe Sermity Cot~ncil,s here the Government of Albmia
became bound by the undertaking tvhichthey gave when they took
part intlie pmceedings before the Securit Gouncil, The fourth case
is where the Security Çouncil by a vdicY resolution provides fur or
secommcnds t7ie.submic;sionof a disputeto the Court, and thus attracts
the provisions of Article 3G(L) of the Statlite othe Court.
1 might have mentioned a. fifthcase,the fifthcase being where it is
not p~ssible to state in the application anjr precise provision under
which the jurisdicti~nof the Court is founded, but the application is
madein theexpectation os theliope thatthe oppositeparty willappear
volunLxriIyand by his appearance cure any defect of Eurm inthe
original application.
I thmght that it rnightIx conveni~ntif those five casestvereput in
that:way, in order tliatas1 dcal with the differeiitpoint12.a1gument
the Court tvilIappreciatethat 1 am saying that there areth~e several
cases, andnot only, as my learned friend suggested, one casewhere
applicaticn could be made under Article40.
I was dmling wjek the positioninregard ta Article25 ofthe Charter,
with the question of how fat it is obligatorandwhat doesii ernbmce,
onlgs toidccisionsllrldeChapter VlI oflbathe Charter.icThnt2haspyknes

coil-rseof the writtenimernorials whicharfrave benndsubhtted.aidThathe
position,in rny submissiari.is cornpletelyuntenable. If one rvereto
disregard-and 1 am going to say something about this Later-the
prepa~atory work aiid the coiririicntarieone çould riotfind in the
Charter itçelf ashredof sul~pçirfor the view that Article islimitd
in itsapplicationto Chapter VIL of the Clrdrter, At Ieason this point,
whatever may be said about 0th- points, the Charter is abundantly
and manifestly deas.
1 çhalirefer'tothe preparato* work. I donotwant il tabe tliought
that the preparatory work kads to a difiment conc1usion ;on the con-
trary, it leadsto exactly the same conclusiva. I coiild rely on it in
order to supportmy argument, but T am saying that rvherethe Chartes
is clearyou aienot entitled tolook at the preparatory work, dether
it supports me or is against me, I shall, howelter, reIeto itin vie.w
ofthe fact that certain passageshavebeen çomrnerited onby my leamed
fn~d ;but 1 want fmt to ded ~16ththe matter, tvitlioutrcferenceto
the preparatory wrk, underthe Charter itself.
. Article 25 of the Charter is tategoricaljn its terms. The decisions
arc binding. Itsays : 1 necessaryor desirable. Suchprovisionalmeasuresshallbewithout
prejndiceto the rights, claimor position of the partiecoric~rned.
The Secntity Councilshall duly talce .count of failureto comply
with such provisional measures. "
That appears to be in thc naturcof a qamrnendatir>n, ancl 1 shalï
corne presently to thequestion of thcobligatoryçharacter or otlienvisz
of that kind of phvision.
Article 4':sap :

"The Sccurity Cortncilrnay decide whst maures not involving
the use of armed force are to Fieernployedtu @;iveeffect ta its
decisiam, and it rnay cd upen the Mernbers ofthe United Nations
to apply such rnemres. These rnay, include çomplete or partial
intemptian of economic relations..I.':, andsfosth.
In Articles43 and 4 there are clauses forthe protïsion omilitary
Zorce and anobiigation isimposed in regardtcithwe. Article48 says:

"The action required to wry out the deWçionsofthe Secu~ity
Couacil for the maintenance of international peace and security
shll be taken by au the Menlbers of the 'United Nations or hy
some cifthem, as the Secufity Council mcly detemine.
Such deckionç çhaU be carried out by the Membm of the
United Nations directly andthmughtheir action in the appropriate
international agenciesof which they are members."
Article 49 says :

"The Mmbrtrs ofthe United Natioqshall joii nnaffordingmtitud
assistance inmying out the measures decided upon by the
SecurityCo~încil."

Noiv, in my suùmission, it is cleu that st,faras decisions-and 1
nean bv that deçisions strictiy sacclied;I am distinguishingfor the
moment between deciions in that sense'and remmmendations-are
coricerned,they are binding under the tcrms of Articles 40,q,
49. and Articlea5 is wholly otiose -inregard tu them. The a ions,
that Cbptw VI1 of the Charter contains itsown code of oblig t'
and those special provisions override thegentrd provisions,as ~ndeed
wasporetiedupon by Professor VochoE,s fsTfA~ticiee25risotowoperatecat
dl, it must operate in relationto the whale of the Charter ;that is
to =y, thewhole ofthose partsof the Chater, the four çhaptersunder
dich the Securïty Coiincilpossesses pwers.
Now, what ahut the preparatarv work 7 I am saying, of-course,
that it is notappropriatefor thc Court to refer to preparatotywork
in thiscase; but if theCourtcornes to the other conclusion,and holds
tha. it is, thcn 1 am entitled$0 the benefit of the preparatoryrvork
ust as muchasProfaor VochûE. I rnight,on the paragsaphswhich
! a about toread,have asked youta say'that yoriareentitled ta look
atthem because they are so vey mrich in my favour ; but that. of
course, would be inconsistent with my argument, because 1 am s3ying
that this isnot a casefor preparatorywork at al], and that reference
to the yreparatory work only obscures the red issue. The Court willhave to decide latewrhether ta look at the prepnratory worlr. If it
deItd\vil1beoremembesedy othat Professor Vocho?h devoted fsome part
of hi$ expaition tirreferences to Hie meetings lvhich took place at
San Francixo on the 23rd and 25th May 1945 in connexion with
Article 25, and he referred to a Relgian resolution whch had been
piitin ~vhichprovided for certain amendmentç to the Dum'oarton Oaks
dmft of that ArtArt. In the original appendk in which this matter
was submitted tothe Court by the Governmentof Albania, ther~ rvere
veqf important-I am sure dot intentional,but very important-
omissions fsom the records ofthase meetings. Those havesince been
rectified bya furthe appendix put in, very properly,by the Covern-
ment of Albania, whichgives amare complete accbunt ofthe meetings.
That being so,and asthe completerecord (though in tmo documents)
is now beforethe Court, Iam not going t9 =ad the wholeof them hem, '
but I wish toread one or trvopassages from tlic Minuteswliich were
omitted in the firçinstance.
The proposa1 in the Belgianamendment was to define,and to mme
extent to restrict, the powers giveto the Security Council under the
originaldritftof Racle 25. T said"the powers given to the Securily
Gouncil", but tliat was wrong ; 1 mem tlzeobligations attached to
the powen of the Security &uncil under Article 25. Dealing ivlU1
that gropor;al, the Min~rtesSayr

"The representativeof tho United Kingdom noted that while
. the Beldan amendment seemed to be a very simple one it \vas
realloneof substance and ofvery grpat importance. The Council
had other duties besides thospresentedin Chapter VlIL, and the
implications of the Bdgian amendment needed çarefd studg.'"

Ris first impressioweç that itwzts not a good thing tolimit the
powers. 1 shoulcl pwhaps say ai tliat point that inrcfening to
ChapterVIII, as isdone from time to time in thecourse of this record,
the reference is to Ch'apter VIL1 of the Dumbarton Oaks draft-
Chapter VI11of the Durnbarton Oaksdraft embraçed both Chapter VI
and Chapter VI1 of the actud Charter of San Francisco. That h a
most important point, and 1 shd einphasize itagain in n moment,
because what the Bdgians were doing there wastosay :"Donot extend
the obligationç under this article to evergthing that the Seçnrity
Coiincil doeç, but make iclearthat it applies noto Cliapter 'V4Itinly"
-tThe Minutes continuing:ehapter VII-"but to Chapter Vi as well."

"The hadian representative,however, pin ted out fhat the
text wxs not entirdy rlear in its implications anasked if oneof
the sponsoring governments would state whether or not under
tliis paragraph the SecurityCouna1 could ml1 on a.Mernber ta
takeinilîtaryaction not coveredin thespecialagreement or agree-
ments,to which that Mmber would Le a partyunder Cl~apterVITI,
Section 8."

That wauld now be Article 43. You wiIl observe that what was
being enquired about there was not the general obligation, but the
obligation to take military action. Bibliothéqdu Libraryothe Biblibthkes Bibliothckan -

Palaide laPaix PeacePalace Fricdenpalastes het VredespaFeis -
La Haye TheHague Haag Den Haag
i

DirecteurDr. B. LANDHEER Qk
STATEMExT 3Y SIR HARTLEY SRA1VCR095 (u.K.) - 3:11148
persuasivewhen people have agreed in advance tri acceptthern, as
they ~ery often do. .One can thirzkof mnjr instances in the fieldof
municipallaw or municipalpolitics whcrc that happens. In connexion
with trade disputes it often happens that both sides decide tosubmit
some matter fo an otitsidebody, athird body, and agree in ctclvmce
that they wiUaccept the recommendations which that borfyrnay rnake.
The body bas no power to give a biniling decisian ettcefor the fact
that the parties have aped h advarice ta accept any recomrnend--
ationswhich rnaybe made. Governmentssometim sestup committees
ofenqirify anclsome times-not al~vays by any means-they announcé
in advanceespecidly when they do riotdesireto get involved inany
political dficultyin the matter-tliat tliey wilaccept the ~ecommend-
ation which the committec of enquky may make. Again, in the
case of private disputes, itnot infrquently happenstht the pdies,
witl~out going to any farmd xbitration, brhg in sorne third part
and agree in advance thatthty will acceptthe recommendatioii rvhici
that outside party rnay rnake.
1s not that exactly what hasIiappenedInthis case? Artfde 25,
yuu .il1see,does notsay thatthe decisionsare binding, What Article a5
sriysinterms içthat: the Members of thc UnitedNations- agreeto accept
the decisions, and a recommendatian nndou btedly irtvolves the dcci-
sion. In my submission, followîng Articl24 (r),in which theMembers
of the United Nations agree that the Securitp CciunciIin dischrçing
al1 ofthese functions is acting on their behaIf,in Article25 they go
futl-ierand tliey agreeto accept the decisians,and what tliey apee
te accept in doing thatmeans inevitably that they agree ta accept the
recornmendatinns, for that iswhat the decisionsof the Council infact
amount to. Indeed, throughout the Charter-th& is a very sipif-
icant point and Ithink 1 am right, but theRfernkrs ofthe Court will
the Swu~ity Council reaches sae conclmion-anclsc1ramctusingaa-neutral
phrase-reaches a conclusion with regard towhich there is any scoye
for acceptanm or rejectionby meAmbers-and it' isoiziyin such a case
that Article2j tvouldbe ofmg u tilitat:&-the decisionkas invasiably
to be expressecin the form ofa secornmendation. It inogood having
a provision in this Charter providing that decisions arto be ,binding.
or, rafher, providing W the terms it does that the parties agrce to
accept the decisions,unleçs that art-icle relatfo dmcciçionin xvhich
othetwise parties wuuld have a choice whether to accept or not to
accept ; but in regard to every action, cextainl eyesy action nndef
Cliapter and 1 necd not go beyonclthat, where thc parties could
have any option to accept or reject, tlie conclusion of the Seçurity
Council has to be expressed in the fom of a recornmendation.
It foiloivsfromthnt that, if Articl25 is ta Iim any utility at al1
inforcing a Mcmberwha kas otheccvisethe choiçc of deciding ivhether
to accept or nat, itmust apply to the recornmendation, because it is
only iiiconnexion with recomrncndations that,under the sci~me of
tliisCharter, that choice behiwen accept-anceand rejecticinmists at
all. 1say that invariably that is the position, but, ocouse, under
Chapter VU;asT have pointeclout, the decisionsof thSecmity Coiincil
in regard to enfnrcement actioncarry their own obligation, Tliat is
another case :but inevery other case,I think, under the Charterwhere
sometlzùigdecided by the Cauncilinvolves actionby theparties,actionivhich tiiey may or rnay not take, thd décisionhas ta be formaily
expressed aç a recommendation. Wnless, thereforç, Articl95 applieç.
to it,itapplies to liothing.
Is there anything inthe Charter under Chapter VI or anywhere elsc
to whiçh Article 25 can apply, if itdoes not apply ta recommend-
ations? May 1just lookat Chapttr VI to sewhetherthere are,indeed,
anp decisions at all which the Security Council can take under
Chapter VI ;we haw thtlt Article 25 is intendedteapply to*CliapterYI,
without prejudiceta tlie questionof whether it appliesto the qziestion
of decisions or rscommenclations. Ive know itis intended to operate
rmdez Chapter VI. That is perftxtly cIear.fr ohenargument wtlich
1 Fiavealreadyaddressed to the Court. 1sthe anytliingin Chapter VI
in the nature ofdecisions to which it could possiblyapply ? Ifthere
iç not, it must follatv tliat itappliestto recommendatians, otherwise
'itwould have no applicationto anything, ~vhich,as Euclid tvouldhave '
said, is absurd.
Chapter VI,Artide 33 (2).uws the expTssion : "The SecurÎty bunçil
slrall,when it dzems necesaary, cal1upcin the partiesto settle their
dispute.*' That is not in form a decision or a recommendaticin. In
form the words wed are "dl upon". If 'thematter stood alone I
shouId subrnit that the words "call upon" svere mandatoq-, having
regard to the scheme ofthe Charter; biit in this particillacase thev
do not stand alone, Under pemgraph I ofArticle 33 there is alrcadp
an obligatianan aiithe Mernbers of the United Nations to use means '
of this kind, and the action of the Security Cauncil in calIing upon
parties to use those means perhaps does no more than cd1 their atten-
tionto an already existing obligation.
Under Article 34, the Seçurity Councii may investigare disputes in
order to determinewlicther the continuance bf the dispute or situation
is Iikely-tendanger the maintenance ofinternationalpeace or secutity,
Under thatArticle they would, it is true, have to ddecidwhether the
continiiançe ofthe situation was likelytû endanger the maintcnance af
international peaçe. That muld involve a decision, but it ia decision
of n prdiminaqi character leadhg up tothe actionthat they may take
under otber articles, and nbviouslyit isnot a declsion which dlç for:
,my ameptance or rejection or any action by anybody ek other than
themselves. Therefare, there iç no question of obligation under
Article 34, and the applicability ofArticle 25 does not anse,
In Article35 thereis no question ofany decisionor recornmendaticsn.
That is the Article under which the Mernbers of the United Nations
bring disputes to the notice of the Seçwity C~uncil or the AssembIy ;
but thcre isnothing which enables the Council to makea decision or a
recornmendation .
Article36 deds witlr ~commendations owly. Article 36 deals with
matters in which, fallowing the conclusion of the Security Cound-l
am trying a11the tirne to findneutral words-the partis may or may
not do wkat the Security Council hassuggested they should do-again
a neutml wcird. There is a score forchoice. Consequentiy itis upon
Article 36 that the obligatoryfarceof Articlezg ought tohaveefie~tif it
is to have effectat all. Article36deals entirely with tecommendatiorts.
Article37 {z) contains arefercnce to a rleçision; There theSecurity
Cauncil iscalledupon tcidecide whether to takeactioriunderArticle 36
or whethet to mommend terms of settlernent. There again that Ls ,itssown functionç, and again no question ofobligation under Article25
aises from that, Article 25dossnot operate onthat paragraph at dl.
The Tastarticlo-fChapter VI isArticle38, and that does notprovide
for a decision. There are, inrny subrnission-and 1 do not think this
canbe mt~tro~erted-no dectsions under CtlapterVI on which Ariiclezg
tan operate. There areno decisions under Chapter VII in regard tt,
which Article25 is requiredto operate, If, thereforeArticle25 is to
have any meaning at 311,it must operate nn recamrnendations. It
must opemte on rccommendations or it cannot ayerate on anything.
One getssome assistance forthat view whcn one looks atother provi-
sionsof the-Charter. If yau Iaakat 18 (2)and 18 (3)*jrou wiIsec that
18 {z) providesthat decisionsof the Generai Assemblg-it istruc that
it isthe Gmeral Assembly whicli isbeing dealt withhm, but itwould
be odd if one found one rneanin ggiven tothe word "cteçisisn" in one
articleofthe Charter and a completely difierentmeaning given to the
çme word in another article-on important questions ivould be made
by a twa-thlrds majority of the iilernbers present and vothg.
What are the dechiaris7 The very first thing th~t tharticlegoes
on to say is :

to "the maintenance sof internationalppe3/ceJions rvith respect

xnd then it dealrjwith the electionof non-permanent mernbm, and
se forth. Quite deady under that articledecisions include recom-
rnendations. You could not have it rrioreclea~iystated interms
than it isstated there.
RQ~, if you tvill looat 18 (33,you wiU.çee the same thing:

"Decisions on other questiom, including the determination of
additionalcategories ofqctestionsto be decided by a two-thirds
majority,slral!be made hy a majority ofthe Members present
and voting."
"Decisionsoii other questions" wery cIeasly includethe many classe?,
of cases where the Çeneral AssembIv has poww to makerecommencl-
ations of one kind or another. As 1 have said, it is beyond argument
that in Article 18 decision includesrecomrnendation, bat Article 18,
it istme, telate ta the General Assembly.
Let us look then at Article 27, which is in notable proximity to
Article 25 and forrns partof the code ofÇhapter V of the Charter.
That ssays:-
"1. Each member of the Seçurity Council ~hallhave one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Conricil on procedural rnatters
shrtilbe made by an afhrmative vote of seven rnembms.
3. Rzckions of the Security Councilon aitother matters shall
be mad ey an affirmative vote uf seven membets, includingthe
conçurnng votes of the permanent members ;pravided that, in
decisiom under Chapter VI, and under paragraph3.of A~tf~le $3,
a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting."

It isperfectlyclear,inrnysubmission,thatthat provisionofArticle27
applies tu recornmendatians. 1t is perfectiy clear that itis theacknowledged practice ofthe Security CounciSa , ncit ialso clear from
the wnrdiilg of the article,hcame if you will look atChapteir VI,
as 1havepointed out, there isrlothinginit ofany significanoeexcept se-
comrnendations, and itisin relation to those recommendatians thatthe
m-called unanimity rule is applied, incidentally, Isuppose that one
01 the reasons for that unanirnitv nile, and one of the reasom for
requiring the concurringvotes of di Great Pciwm, issurely that the
wsolutiliii igoringto be abligatory, and it woiild not be expetlientto
bind the Great Powcrs to a resolution whjchwas going tabe ubligatory
unless th~y consented to it. That isone of the purposes of the veto
provisions, a% they are mistakenly caIled.in the Charter tliat resolu-
tions inclufling reçornmendatioiiswillbe obligatory. 1 say "including
i-ecommendations"becanse the rdt -plies to recommendatims equally
as to decisions, anditwoiildiiottherefore be appropriatein the existing
state cd çvorld~ocietyto bind the Great Powers unless they tonsentecl..
If rei;omrnendationç are srterelypolitical ad persuasive, thentheiï
politicaland persuasive effeçt is hardly diminished by the fact that
one ofthe Great Powers votes against recommendations in which the
rest of the Great Powemconcur. The whole point about that right
to refuseto conciir or te vote:agai'it a .remlutionsupportecl by other
Great Powers is that ifthe rwlution is passed,it.rviiimpose an obli-
gation, There isthisfurther pointthat itreally follus thatifArticle25
does not cover recommendatians it rd1 then have ni^application even
to Çhapter VII. I point4 out that,90 faaadecisions under Chapter VIL
are concernedwith regard taenforcement action,the obligation in regard
to them is creat~d hy those articles, particularly 48 and49. As the
United Statesdelepte said in thatpart ofthe preparaiory work 1 have
read, those spcial provisions in .reg& to applications override the
general provisions of ArticIe ;but what about the ~ecmrnendations
which aree toahe folloirdCuppbyr enforcements'actionifonotncarried out.
Xsit to be saiù that nncr Chapter VI1 the~e is no obligation an the
parties to obey the ~commcndaticins of the Secutity Cciuncilin regard
to the restoration of peaccülthoiigh to thris recommendations are
attache8 the sanctions of'enforcernentaction by the SecurityCouncjl?
it rvoizld,imy submissio~i,be:çtrange indeed ifthr3serecommendations
to which, a 1say, in effeçsanctions of enforcernent actioare attached
were not in thernselves obligatory.
In rny sufsmissionthey are obligatory becauseArticle 25 appliesta
them anclinvolves the proposition that theparties to the Charttr have
agreed in advance to tlcceptthem.
[SirHartley Shawcross, interveni during'the intupretation of Iiis
grevions marks, saicl:1wonder wwhether I miglit correctQat ? 1
do 1-lothink that itisquite right. \&Qat1 saidwas that if the effect
of a recammendation waç meuzly political or persuasive, that effect
would not be gseatly diminished by thefact that oneof theGreat Powers
had not concurred in the recommeadation. It \vas for that reason
that 1 said that theparpose of the ruleabout the concmence of al1the
Great Powers \vas to cover the fact that recarnmend~tionIs not
medy plitical or persuasive bat is obligatory,]

-.LÏstening to"thetranslation, whkh wm pérfectlyaccurate an tliat
point about which 1:have just inte~~ened, I!séillfeel that perhaps.I. STATEEIENT BY STR HARTLEY SHAW'CROSÇ [u.K.)- X 11148 8 j
ilid not make my rneaning quiteclear ahut it. What Y.was seeking
to say was this : if the cffecofa recomrnendation iç pmely political,
purely persuasive,then secornmendation ciireçtedqainst a par ticular
Great Power wo~ild not loçe anything of its politicxl~nci persuasive
effect çimply because that Great Potver agWnst which therecornmend-
atian waç diected did not concur init. Obvio~~ty one wodd not
expect a Great Puwerta concur in a rccommaidation directcclagainst
itself, and if the recommendntion is pureIy persuasive it does riot
matter rvheth ehe Great Power concurs .ornot ;that recommendation
has tlte politicaldect sesulting from four votes against one. If,on
the otIierliancl,the recornmcndation is obligatory, thenthe fact that
the Great Power ag3inst which the recommendaticin is intended tobe
direct& may refuse toconcur init, anil therebgmake the recomend-
ation completely nugatory, is ofcourse:of thevery greatestiinportance.
That is why thismanimity ruleexist ;if itwas not for thnt parpose,
it cvonldhardly be necessary to have the provisioninthe Charter at ail.
In support of 4hat general argument 1 crave in aid two canons of
construction tuhich I think have not ben subjected to the criticism
tvhichlias beeitdirected againstthe historical inethod ointerpretation.
The first is tliattreatiesshould be conçtrued sa asto acliievc their
purpose,and the second Isthat you çao look at the conduct of the
jmrtiesto the treaties, undethetreaties,tosee tvhattheir understarlding
of the meaning of the treaties was. In this connexion, of course.
X attaell very great importance to the principlethat treati~sought
to be construd so as to give effectto their maififestpurposa Just
for a moment, consider, ify011wil1, the overridingprovisions of tlie
firçttwo artides of the Charter, Article r and Article2, Article I,
paragrnphx, çays :
"*fie purposes of theUnitedNations are : '
I. '1'maintain international peace and security,and to that
end : to take effective collectivmeasures" "

"for the preveriltioand reinoval of thmats to the peace, and for
the suppressionof actsof aggresiiioor other breaches oi thepeace,
and tu bring about by peacefd means, and in eonformity with
the principlcs of justice and international law, adjustmerit or
settlernmt of international disputes or situations which miglit
lead to a bxcach of the peace."
Then letus look at Articlez, paragraph 2 :

"Al1 Mmbers, in order to ensure to dl of them the:rights and
benafits resdting fmrn memhrship, shall fulfrlingaodfaith the
obligations assumcd by thern in accordance vrith the present
Charter.
3. Al1 Mernbers shall settle thtir international diiisputeby
peaceful means in such a manna that internatiop naace and
security, and justice, are not endangered."
There are the generd obligations. Thos obligatioris become very
Ii~le better than pious, ernptg platitudes,unless the Security Corncil
has mme. effective power under Article25 of retrimrnending how those
gencrd prinçipleçshould be carried out.86 STA~MEXT EV srn HI~R~.EY SETAWCROS~ @.K.) - rIII48
But, as 1 have said, Adide 2j coidd be usefui inthat regard only if
itoperates in regard tothose resolutions of theSecnritgCouncilwhich
involve action ùy the meiribms, and where çonsequently the efficacy
of the resoluticrn takenby the Coilncildepends upon its acceptance
by the rnember. Itis therc tl-ithe clerneiiof obligationisirequir~d,
and Article 25 can have practical valuein this Charter onlyin relataon
to those resolutions of tlie Security Council which by their nature
would afford scope for açceptance or rejection,
1 have said before, and 1repeat it çimyly Inconnexion with this
canon of interpretation, that, if ylook at the Charter, that kind of
r6oIution is almost invariahly, ifnot invariably,called asecomend-
ation. Tllere are few, ifmy, decisions underany part ofthe Cliarter
4ecisirins strictly so~called-on wllich Article25 could operate.
Article 25, nrider tvhich the Memberç of theUnited Nations agree
inadvance to acctpt t11cdecisiansof the Security Council (and 1 use
thc word now without prejudice ta iits actual definitionmarks, of
course, a very great stepforwud, 1 suppose the most im ortant step.
from the days of theCovenant of théJ-eague to thedays 0! the Charter
of the United Nations. II khatstep forward is tobegiven any effective
meankg at all, itrnust,in rny submission, seçultin the application of
Article 25 to thciseresolutions of the Secufity Council rn regard to
which othenvise Mérnber wsould have a free choie.
In view of that step fornard frorn the Cpvenant to the cl ide^, 1 -
am not sure,if 1maym say so rvïth respectthat wht may have been
said by distinguished statesmen ar jutists orcommentators at Geneva
and elsewhere in yeats gone ày is really véq milch help. The task
of searchin ogut,of digging out, extracts £romthefomer speeches and
wrïtings of judgcs,and çtilImore of one'sopponent s aIways a vergr
exçiting and amusing task, but1 am not sure that itisalways a very
useful task. \men ane hs the hrinour of being assistecias 1 have
befare this Tribunal, by dktinguishedmlleagues who have made many
important contîilouti~ns tthe iiteraturof internationalIaw, it must.
1 am sure, ba a yarticularly stirnulatintask for Professor VochoCta
engage upon, and T am certain-iï I may say so inthe mat friendly
way ta him-2hat he will be qoiteunable to resistthe teiriptatiori of
çome furthcr excursion info the wcrks ofrny coIleaguesbefore he bas
finished with thiscase.; but on th4 paticulat point, if I ma7 SQ
with great respect to Mr- Beckett, tvhat Mr. Beckett said in rg3z is
mot of great assistance, 1 am sure that he will be the firçtto agree
that the effectifJiidgment 12 of this Court, whicI have al~eady cited,
would resrrltin his notv reacliing a clifferent conclusion from the one
whiciihe e<qressed at that tirne.
Inany everit, ho~vever, the only comment which needs to be made
about what people have said in the paston this parLicul= question of
obligation, isthat the Govenantofthe League dicinat dran? anydistinc-
tion behveen a recommendation and a decisian. Of coum it did notz,
There was no obligation under the Govenant of the Leaguein regard
tcia recommendation, decisian, os wliatever you choosetc?cal1 it,and
so the gutrstion was one ~vhichsimply did not ariseat all. Inwhat- ,
ever form the CaunciE or the Açsernblgrof the League exyreçsed itseif,
in effectitmas persuasive, andno question ofobligation arose.
a Here we am cancernedwith a very differentdocument, one inwhich
quite deliberatelythe United Nations createdcertain obligatorypowes
1which iritre vestedin the Sectlrity.CaunciI, In rnv submission, the
frue view under the Charter is that thc SecusrfyCauhcil has the pmver
to make itsrvishesobtigatory. 'l'licriterion tvhethe6t has exercked
that power iç not to be ioiindçiniplyby asçertaini wlether the lorm
in which it has expressed its wishes is a recornmendation oa decision.
There is no rigid distinctionin the Charter for this purpose beheen
re~ommendation and decision. Sou must look at each particülar
case; you must observe under diat particdar artide the matter has
been d~alt witli;and then you must see ivhether the Secdty Councî1
was intenclingto do stirnething which thparties liadag~eedin advarice
to aocept, wbcther it was intending ta create m ~bligation or $vas
inerdy iritending to take persuasiveaction.
If you look at that last point, thpointofwliat the SecurityCarlncil
was intending tud-and you are entitledto look at that, under the
se~and canon of construction which 1 have just rncntionect to yw-
there can be no shadow of ddoubtin thiscase that itintended to create
in the Conrt a cornpulsory jurisdiction,
If 1 rnay now referto the Minutes of the Security Council hf&eting
of the 9th April,they bear out Eothe full the minutes that 1 read to
the Tsibud on Satrirday of tlic meetings inJdy, ivhen the Cound
\vas considering whether this obligation rYhlchthey had createrl, as
they thought, on the 9th April, had in fact been carried outby this
country against: whorn the obligation \vas directecl.These minutes
ofthe 9th Aprll are contained inone of the appendicesto outMemoriaI.
1am not going to read tlic wholeof thern,because to do su would take
a very long time ; but you ivillhave the opportitnityof reading the
whole, and 1 shail not, I hope, make any selectian or extract which
isin any ~vayunfair.
'1 have referred tothe meeting of April gth,but 1think that I onght
will appreciate, fiabeengunder discussion for same timein thehLouncil,

That 1sa IittEe significant, It iour own resolution,dand werestand by.
it. The resolution is inthe terms inwhich bve originally clrafted it.
This iswhat the representativeofthe United Statessaid onthe 3rdApril,
\~?.ilhhe resoluti o ns introducd :

"1 hop the Comcitwillfindnodaculty in supportingaridpass-
ing so eqtiitablea propositionasthat made by the representative
of the United Kingdom,
It would seem that the leas the Çouncil rnay do now is to
$ivethe impartial forum, which the Court ofInternational justice
cunstitutes,an oppartunity to repair, if ossible, some of the
damage which has been done by theaction o?tlreSecurity Gouncil."
We isrcferring there.t te fact that, owing tu the unnnîmity rule,
the Councilwas not able to reachany decision one way or anotlier.
He is saying that therightthiag to do is tagive the Court sorneoppor-
tunity of deciding tliimatter. SorneMembers of the Court \viUknow
Rlr. Herschel Johnson, and, ifI may say so, he isaüt a gentleman who
uses language carelessly ;but if the argument of the Government of
Albania is sight, the SecurityCouncil was not giving the Court any
opportuniiy at al1 ;what the Security Comcil wac: dohg in this resolu-
tion, according to the Government of Albania, mas to give the Tiie next speaker was Mr. Gromyko,anbelialf of the Soviet Union.
He spoke to some extent on the merits, and I do not want tacreate
prejudice one rvayor aniotïlerby referringtothe ments of this unhappy
matter ; but tltiis wliat:ie saiwhen he came to the question ofrefet-
ring thecase to theCourt :

"1 feelon the basisof what1 have said, tha1 mmt express my
ncgativc attitudetowards the propasal ofSir Alexander tzadogan,
asprescnted at the lastmeeting"of the Secunty Coucil. Albania
isinnocent of the crime attributed to .iby the United Ringdom
rcprescntative. %Irehave, aça reçult,nn basis fodragging Albania
before the International Crinrt of -Jr~stice.
Inotder to do $0,we mn~t haveabasis, we must hava a,aso on."
Those ivho know Rb.Gromykoknow that he:isvery careful inhis
TISEof languagt, and it isinconccii?ablthat hhewould have referred to
innocent Alhania "bcing dxagged before the Court of Justice" unless
his view had been, likethat of Nr. Krxdnikov f OUT months lafer, that
the remlution of the Security Corrricilwas bindingand that the effect
of it would be to oblige AlIsania to go to the Court.
Then the Prcsidcnt askcd whether anybodyelse ~vanted tu speak,
ad there \vasno response. Tlie President was the delegaie ofCba-
He said :

"1 think several delegatiwnshave referred ta the facE that this
c&e coitlhave been taken to the Interi~ationalCourt of .Justice
inthe first place, but 1 would reminr.tlmse clelegationstha-, as
Alhania isiicia rnember of the United Nations, shc could not be-
compelIed te appear before the PnterriatioaalCourt of Justice.
Bowever, çince her acceptance of the obligations ofthe Members
of the United Nations, ascontaineclin the Council's invitation for
lierto participatein a discussion ofthb case,sheis now, lilrany
~rovisions ofhekheiCharteriand, thelStatutesooflthe International

, Court of Justice."
As the representrrtiveof China,he supportedthe resohtion. He
again invited 0th~ ~ embers tn speak, Sut there was no response.
Every Member who spokc of the resolution atthis meeting and at
the previous meeting, as at the ones in July. regarded that resolution
as-~Migatov. If there w-me any nimber of the Security Cçn~iticil
who dalrlsted whether the resoltitiowas obligatory, he remained silent,
ancl when the resolution was adapted, as it evenbally was, it must,
in my submission, be t&en ta have bmn adopta1in tliat sense ; tl~at
is, inthe sense of itbeing an obligatory ~esolution.
I corne to the end of that part af the case. However unlikey it
rnay seem on tirsconsideringthe word "rect>mmendation",if yoiilook
at itini'icontext, itis, in my submissionapparentthat for thepurpases
of the Chuter, Adide 25 isnot intended to make any Rgid distinction
bettveen recommendation and decision. 11 it does not apply torecorn-
mmdation, 1 ask the Tribunal to Say inits judgment, ancl to belp 1s
because we shall bc guidcd by this in future,Enwhat, If aq~thing, It
does apply, If that view that it applies to reçommmdation AS welJ
asto rlecis~unIscot-smt,the effectof the obligation aisi- under the
ResoLutionof the 9th April is exactiy the Çme, inmy submission, asif both the United Kingdom and the Governrnent of Albania were
either partiesto the OptionalClause or tiad enterediato aspecid agree-
ment-tlie bettercase perhaps hing Partia to the Optional CIause-
andTheUnited Kingdom nhEididialLthatritrcouldtdo,Contliat vim; loyally
to impiement the rcsolutiori and tliedecisian of the SeczirjtyCounriE.
The Government of Altriania,onthe othw hmd, whflst profashg lip-
service tothe prin~ples of theUnited Nations, made no movçrtvl~atever
in the matter. '\Ve say Ivedid al1 that rvewuld do, anci that rvas
cnough, to give this Coristthejurisdictionto irnplemen tthe resolntian
of the Swn~ity Couacil,

[.P~iblisifti~ei~fMawh rst, 7948 g?tcvt1oo4z.]

Mayit plmse the Court. 1 nùrv corneto the second le= ofthe tripod
on tvhich we base oiir positionand indmling with this and tlie tbird
le;: I shnll he deding rvith rnntters to which rny Imed friend,
MT, Beckctt, will also rder cowring certain other aspects of them.
The semnd lcg of the argument is, of course, rvithout pmjudice
to the fullargument tuhich T addrcssed to the Court on the eflect of
Article 25. 1 am going tosubmit now, without yre~udjce tamgr are-
ment, t liat Artide 25 appljes generailÿ to aildecisjons orecomrncnd-
ations, the alternative vieiv, which is basedto sorne extent un
convenienc that while Article 25 ma]? not apply to dl semmrnerida-
tions which the Secilrity Goancilcm make, itdoes apply to same, anrl
in particularto those which dealwith the methads of settling disputes
whicli are likeIyto endanger thepmce, Also,ai course,to thase which
ded witli mattérs i~nàer Lhap'cer VTZof the Cl-iarternon-cornplilince
with which may result inmforcemerit action, 1want to confinemyself
[or the moment to those reccimmendations tvhich refer ta mtthods of
settling disputes; in0th tvorclsto certain of the recornrnrzndations
which cm be made under Cliqter VI.
This constructirin, which is, as the Court will appseciate, a more
Iimited construction of Article25 than the one for whicl-i1contendcd
this rnorning, follows to some extcnt from the proposition, which I
made this morning,that the testofobligation içnot whether the action
of the Smurity Çonncil is describedas a decision or as a recornmend-
ation, but that you inust look at the acti~alresolution and see irom
the article, under which action has becntaken,and frorn the intentions
of the Seçuritp Council, wliether tlsey intendcd that particularewlu-
tion taattractthéprovisions of Article25. If the scherne QIChapter IrI
of the Chartex is ta be effective, andof coum you tirill construthe
whole Charter as far asyciu cm 50 astu make it effective, it is necessary,
in my subrnission, to @vti obligatory force at ieastto certain of the
recommendations mhich can be made under tliat chapter.
1 dr~v attention thismorning to the Frrstarticles of the Charter
establishing the obligation on a11 Membms of the United Nafions to
çettle disputes by peaccfuI means and to fulfitheir obligations in
regard to that in good faith. Chapter V1 is,in my submission, redy
an expansion ofthat general obfigation whiclimposes certainimpezafive
duties an the Security Cnuncil ta see that those general obligations
are carriedout. Ifyou look at tlie scheme of Lhapter Vl as a wfialc, But that is dy cineof the thlngs whichthe Security Council mav
do tindwArticle 37 (2). The other course ivhich the Security Conncil
mzy plirsueis tadecide whether totake action under Article 36. The
words of the paragaph are :

".,,it sbaU decidc whetber to take action under Article 36 or
to recommend suchterms of setthement asitmay consider approp-
riate'',
'Article36 is,of murse, the one which Ive have ben discussing in
cornexion witk the previoils argument whkh pvidas that the Secirr-
ity Corncil may recommend procedures or metliods of settlement.
That rrctimmendation I am saying Is obligatoy, and of coursethat
isa very differentkind of recommendation. It ison2 thing to recarn-
mend "terms of settkrnent",that isto say, to seektoimpose the actual
political solution and to make that binding on the parties, but it isa
very different thingto recommend the methods l>ywhich a settlemerit
is to be rea,chhed.We say that w11iktin the former case there is no
obligatron,whilst the Security Counçil is not tintitledfsay what the
terms ofa çettlement are to be, it is entitleto sayIro~vthe tcrm of
settlement arc to ba arrivecl at. Xtiientitled to say that "instead of
going to war about this dispute wI-Jchyau have scifar not succeeded
in settIing,you mst pursue one methad or .anotherH-the judicial
rnethod or sornethiînof that kind. Once itis concede dhat Article25
is intended to apply to Chapter VI, and that there is nothing apart
from recommcndatlon to which it canapply inChapter VI, ifis,in
rny subrnission,very difficulto rmist the conclusion that of aU the
recomrnenrl~tions in Chapter TI this musfibe the çl~s to which it
must have. been intended to apply.
Supposing it were othenvïse and thatth& powerof recommendation
der Asticle3G were mmely persuasive. 'i'k Security Cowicil con-
siders the dispute and makes its recommendation-purely persuasive
recommeildation. Ifit does that, and only that-and if that is al1
it cando-it eitrectkss than tlie otlieprovisions of the Charter have
already secured, Secause underArticle 33, ocit to mention Artides T
and 2, the parties are already under anobligation to seek a solution
of their dispute by pursiring such means.. Ex J~typolh~s ihey have
mission to the Gonrt is concernecisdunewhich atthaticstage codd only
be carried out by a joint referenceby means of a speciai agreement.
Tbat king sù, surely the interventionof the Securîtv Chuncil, which,
as you will rernember, under a preceding article,24 (11 i, has been
authorized tu takeon behalf of the rnernbersinosder to ensure prompt
andeffective action, nust be intended to advance rnattersbeyonci the
stagctvhich they have already reached inconsequençeof the provision
, of Article 33. Article 33 obliged the parties to sseekamongst other
peamfcilmeam of setthnent a jiidicial means. If the Resolution of
the Security Council is no more than persuasive, it reaUy takes the
matter no further than the Charterhas already taken it under fhat
,sirticle. Tlie onlway in rvhichthe SectirityCouficil can advance
the matter further isto substitute for that general obiigation mder
Article 33a particularand individual obligationon each of the parties
tosubmitthe case tothe Coiirt, Just contempIate the practicalalter-
native. Contemplate th very case. Inthis fieltheSecurity Goundisneceççarilydealhg withdisputes the continuance -owhichisendan-
genng the peace, That is the whole th_heoryd bas& of itsrjght to
intervene. Take a case like tlie prcscntone,in which ships 01.war
are mined, witli hemy losç of life,That is exactly thEnidof incident
dich in thepast wouid have ledat leastto anaval demonstration, and
quite poçsiblyto a punitive war. Corfu ? Was there indeed not suc11
atMernbers of tI~cfUnited1Nations wn hardlylx e'tpected to submit
to outrages of this kirid unless the Security Çauncil iinveste ds,it
was in my submissi0,nciearlythe intention to investit,wifh adqnate
and effective powers. The only way you tan give it effective palvers
is to stiytRatthis uver of recommendingpeaceful methods of settle-
ment is a powr w Rich iniposeçan obligation on those to whom the
recommendationç are addressed to pursue that peacefulmethod.
That is al1 tllatpropose to say onthat secondleg of the a.rpment,
As tliCourt wiU appreciatt,it isa more restrict apeùlication ofthe
Article as tlleory that 1advanced to the Court this rnofing.
I mme nowto the thitil 1%a€ the tripod, and this alsoXshdl dm1
with vcry Gridy ; the matter will be expanded hy mp lectmcclfriend.
The thirçlsubmission içthata resolutionmder ArticIe36 ofthe Charter,
evenif Etdoes net impose any obligation on the parties, attsaçts the
provisions of Article 36 (1) of the Statute-
Article36 (1) of theStatuteof the Court,as the Courtwill rernernber,
provides that the jurisdiction of theCourt cornpises allcases .yuhich
the parties refeta ianclal1matters speciallprovided for inthe Charter
of the United Nations os in treatiesand conventions in force. That
was a nervprovisiocto the extent that it sefertoallmattws speciauy
provided for inthe Charter of the United Nations, The=-\vas nothing
of th& kkin in the Statuteof the old Court. To the extelit thatitis
a new provision, ilmust lx açsumed that the new words mean hme-
thing. Ln the Year Book of the Court, 1 notice that at page 108 it
is sardthat"casesintsociucedby applicationwdl mainly relaietomatters
speciallyprovided for in the Cliarteror in treaties and conventionsin
force". That seems, if Imay sa37so with rcspect,a very just appre-
ciation of this provision of Article 36 of the Statute. That is what
other rnatterayal,mattershspecidlydprovidedeforuiv the Charteraofgthe
United Nations.
The manifest objéct of that article to givc the Cou~ta jurisdiction
ilotdependentupon adherene tritheOptional Clause and not depend-
ent upn tlie signature ofa spetiai agreement. Whether A special
agreement shonld be entered into or not loiiowinga resoiutionof the
SecixrityCourtciliike this ianotherpoint. There would jn any event
be no need toprovide for thatcase speciaUy in Article36, becadsethe
jhdiction under anyçpeçialagreements is already covered : itwas
covered under the Statutesof the old [.O&, and it iscovered by the
initialwo~dsof ArticIe36 (TE These addifianal words, which were
not thqht Iietsesçarto covw spwial agreements der the Statutp.
of the old Court, are not necessarg to deal with them naiv ;they are
clea-y tleding withothm cases, new cases, casesof a kind tvhicIr are
sl~eciallyprovided for in theCharter of the United Nations.
What special provision is thme in the Charter of the United Nations
to whicli Article 36of the Statute can-lx referring? Th- must be~presumablÿsomespeeial provision. Ttis anticipatedInthe
that inmt ef pur cases are going tocorne from it, and that may well
be hue, as the 5ectirity hitncil pdual1.y develeps its functicins for
maintaining peaoe in the worId. The only provision inthe Çhartm
to which Article 36 of the Statut eodd passibly be referring isthis
~er~: provision,thispowel-of the SecnriS; Couilcil under Article 36 'io
recommend the partïes togo to the Col~rt, So faras çonterns canten-
tious business-and thiç is dealing ody with coritentious business-
there is no ather provision whatevcr in tlie Charter wkiclicould on
anv view give jurisdiction tu thc Court. Unles, therefore, y011are
to say that there ic;noprovision in the Charta ~vhichcanb~ve
jiirisdictioto the Court, and that these words are perfectly rneaning-
less dend lettercj,the ccnclnçion inevitably follows that Article 36of
the Charter is the provision to wliicliArticle36 {I)of the Statute is
in Iact locrkin.
Whg shoi~lf this particular provision of'the Statute he regaided
as a cornpletedead letter ? It seern tsIink up directlywith Article36
b) of the Charter, and the joint effect of thetiiw articlesArticle36
of the Statute and Article 36 01 the Charter,seems to be this: once
there is a resoliitionby the Secusity Cotmcii recomending reference
ta the Court, ancl once that resolution Iras ken acted Ltpon by one
of the parties, the Court ha9 jiwisrliction.
1 am noi lie* putting itsohigh as tu say-and eliisisthe distinction
between this leg of the argument md the other two Legs-tliat once
tlie resdution of theSecurityCuuncil is passed, theCourt at once has
a compulsoq juridiction. 1 am saying, under this part of the arp-
ment, that oncc tlie resolutioizothe Sg~urity'Counçil fiasbeen rtçted
on by one oftIieparties, thCoilrt iInvestedwitll cornpletejurisdiction.
I-Eis really ratheras if bath of thepartieshadadhered tothe Optional
Clause COLthe purposes of tlie rnatterrefmed by tlieSecuri t yiincil.
Aiter all,istllat a very surprising wnclusion ? Under kticlt 24
of the Çl-iarter, theS~cunty Colincil, inmaking rewimmendations in
regard to the matter, liasacteclon behdf of the Membersal theUnited
Nations. inclilding the Memberswho are parties to thedispute. That
recommending thTecourseltovthenCourt it has intlfactweat~rldea.kind of
ad hw aadherence tu the Optional Clauseby bath of the p&ies onwhose
behalf, arnongst others,it has beenacting for the purposa of the par-
tictila~dispute ?
If, as 1 say, Artide 36 of the Statut ienat to be linked up with
ATticle36 of the Charter in that -+vajrthen this part of Article 36
is whol'iyinopmtive, so tliat kere again I crave Lnaid the principiyle
of efiectivenessand 1 cl~im it in aid inregard tq Article36 (1)of the
Statute as wejl,as in regard ta Article 36 of the Chartes. You can
only make Article 36 (1) of the -Çt.atute effectivby linking it up
wi thsome provision inthe Charter ofthe United Nations, and the only
provision with wliiçhyou can link it irpisthe provision in Article 36
of the çI.iart.te1 crave it in aid also ofthe Charter. Ttie only way
in which you carn enahle the Semrity Cauncil to ensurp erompt and
effcetive actioisby conclading, atleas that a resolutionofthe Securitg
Conncil undet Article 36 of the Charter does produce the result, that
one oi the partie san then go to tlieCourt, In thiscase the United
Kingdom, bÿ the application w11ich itmade, implemented the action May it please the Cou~t. As the Court knows, our case restsupon
Iwo main groiinds. The fi& is based on the Albanialn etter to the
Court of the 2nd July, andonr arguments on thEs letterhave been
made in our xvriften Observation7ofthe 20th Jaouary,and my leader,
the Attorney-General, l-iasdevcloped further our arguments on this
point. The sec~nd bais ofonr case for the jurisdictionof theCourt -
arc the gr0'1~1çZshch were set fo-th in oar written application of
May 1st. l%e Attorney-General has already dealtwiththis matter in
- hiçoral argument, but tlierhave been no written plcadhgs on it,and
thatis why 1 am going to atternptto go inta itin stilfurther detail.
If the Court findsit ilecessatto pronounce on thisaspect of thecase,
it willbe giviï~ga deciçionO£ tli ecry greatestimportance, becauçe jt.
is aa interpretation of the Chwter. It ~vill,of course, be strictly
necessa ror fheCourt to give a decisionon our second argument only
if our ht argument is l-iddto be il1founded :nevertheless,in view of
the verypt impertance of any interpreta t iohe Charter, it do&
seem to usmost desirable thatwe should giveevey possible %sistance
tn the Court by way of argument. Moreaver, my learrled hiend
Professor VochoC.has describeciour argument on the Charter, befove
fiheard the Attorney-General, as an &dificcfahdasx; anclme think it
edifice isarealuone.inI shallattemptlnotvrtokadd aefewnmore brickstto
thoçe which the Attorney-Gencrd haç already laid.
We were reproached at the beginnihg for being rnther cmeial civer
this partof ourcase. We do not intend to be so. The fullstatemcnt
of our argrlrnenf on the second point is necessdly somewhat long
andcomplic~ted. Wé have ts consider the constructioof the Charter
asa whole. We havc to referfulIyto the jurisprudence ofthe Perma-
nent Coi~rt with regard to thc interpretatianof instruments. And,
sinceùur opponents have gone hto the fidd of the preparatow ryork
at San Francisco, we also,subject to our contention that theprepar-
atory work should not be taken Lritoconsideration, follow tl~em into
that field.
,4s the Courtkoaws, having justhcardit from the Attorney-General,
we prwnt oiu sul-imissiothat the Corut has urisdictionunder
the Charter in fhe form of three argluaents whic h are independent
and alternative. 1 will,with yaur petmission, say what the .three
arguments are. The first is that the Go%-enment of Aibania,
having açce ted for the pqw of the praent dispute al1 the obliga-
tions oa r ernber ofthe United Nations, is obligedtoaçcept the ?uns-
diction ofthe Court by reason of the secornmendation of the Securitp
Council,since recornmendati~ns under Chapter VI of the Charter are decisianswhich Members of the United Haticinsare obliged to accept
and carry out unrlerktide $3 of the Charter. That is oar bt
agument.
Our second argument is tliç. EVFRifit shadd be hdd that
-4rticle25 of the Charter does not apply to ail recomendations
unrler Ghaptcr VI, some re~omrnendation$~ beay ade under Wiat
Chapter to which Article 25 does apply, and in grirticularthose
which relate ta yti&ieodsaasopposed to ,kms of settlement. The
recommcndation ofthe 5cusity Council that the Parties should refer
the present dispute to the Cotii-eis a recornmendation of this kind.
Tliat isour second arg1~111ent.
Our thircxpmcnt is thatthe Coud, as the prulcipjajudicialorgan
ofthe United Nations, Ilas juriçdiction by virtue oArticle36 11 )f
itsStatute over the present disptcas being a matter speçiallyprovided
forin the Cliclrterof tUnited Nations, assoon as therecomrnendation
01 the Security Cound Iiad been acted upnn by any of tliParties tu
whom ié had been directed, and of course thst Remlution has been
acted upon by the Goverment of the United Kingdom,
The Attorney-Generd .ta sealt fdy with our arenient No, I,and
1 do not intend todevetep that any fnrtl~e;butin the murse of doing
so, and as part of that argument, he sefe~rd to certain rulesof the
interpretat ofitnaties, and 1 wish to begin by. discussinsome of
these rules and referrinto the. jurispnid~ncof the Permanent Court
in regard to them. 1 am glad to know-not that 1 ddoiiktd itfor a
minute-that nieare atonewith Caunsel for Albaniainaur acceptame
of t11ejiirisprudence of the Permanent Court.
Thc firçtmie of interpretation, in supportof &ch X am gohg ta
cite somecases, is Irerule tliiitreaties mustbe interpret ietheir
in thertmt.driThe context oflethe provisions mustnBe consirlercd, and
their meming muçt be ascertained in the Iight of the gellerd purpose
of the treaty.
'The firstcasewhich 1wi~h tomention in this connexion isth& 01
the Wzmbldo~, tvhich is inSeries A.,No.x, and the particular passage
wLch J.shall want to quote will be found on page 22 of the report-
In the Winzbltdofi case, the Permanent Court Ga.? calleclupon to
interpr etticlc 380of the Tredy of Vedtles, which rovided that
the Kiel Canal and its apprriaclies should be maintainedreeand open
to vesse13oocommerce and oi war of dl nations atpeaw with Getrnany
on tem af@ect equaliéy. A disputehaving arisen between Gerrnany
on tlione hancl and the G~vernntents of Great hitain, France, Itdy
andJapan on the other hmd with regard to th proper constmctioii
of Article 380, the matter was submitted tcithe Court for decision,
Zt was argued on behdf of Gcrrnany that, invirtue ~f hr*sovertsignty
over theKiel Canal, she%va s titlecland indeed bound, to take such
measures ta preservc lierneutrality assht thought fitand that the
proviçiom ofthe Treaty of Versailies mnst be read subject to tlk
right.
The Court held that thme was no pund for interpreting the provi-
sions ofArticle 380 otherwise thanin theirnatuml and ordinary sense.
, Itsaid :
"The Court considers that the tms ci frticle380 are cab
grnicaland give riseto no doubt. 3tfollows that the Canal has ceascd to be an interna1 and national navigable waterway, the
use of trhichby the vessds ofStates other thantlie riparian$tate
an internationaltowaterway intendedthat toaprovide dnder tratyrne
gua-ranteeeasim accessto the 23dtic fo...al1nations of thewarld.
Under its nerv r&gime, the Hicl Gand must be open, en a 4ooting
of equality, tù al1vesçels, witliomaking any distinction between
\var vcsselsmcl vesselsof commerce, but onone expreçs condition,
~~mcly, thxt khese vessels mnst bdong to nations at peace with
Gemany.' "

The Court then pointed out that if the conditions ofaccessto the
Canal rt:re tobe modificd iil thevent ofa ~onffictbetween twcr Powers
~maining at Pace with Germany, the Treaty would not have failed
'to sayso : and later in its judgrnent theCourtrcfused toadopt the
so-calIedrestrictiveintetpretation such as was maintalned on belialf
.ofthe Germai1 Govwnment l>ecauseitwouldbe çontrary to "the plain
ternis of the article", That second quotation isfrom page 24;
Trlrningjust fora moment to aur own case,if Articl25 ofthe Charta
was to 'Glimitcd todecisioasof the SecurityCouacil under Chapter IqI,
asOur apponents contend, Isay, adopting the mrds of tliePermanent
Caiirt, that tlie Chartertvould have said so.
Thenext casewliich '1shouldliketocite isanadvimryopiniongiven
in rgzl regarding cert;limatters a~ising out of the action of Poland
That caseguis No. rrinxSeriesvB.,and pthempassagehwhiclie1sshallquote
wili be forlndat page 37. One of the points at issue in the case-àt
seems a srna11point-ms lvhethw Potand could only have letta boxes
insidetliebuildings owhether she could have them outsidethc huiidings
in the sireet as ~vell. At page 37 the Court said thk :

'TtwiUbe seen that there ino trace of any provision mnfining
the operation of tlie Poli& postal authoriti tes the inside ofits
postal building, :rilepostal senticelvliich Voland is entitled to
establisIrinthe port of Dmzig must "beintq>reted in itsordinary
sense so as to include the normal functions of a postal service
as regards the c~llectionanddistribution af postal matter outside
the past-offiw.'.'
Therc is notany trace in the Charter of any provisioncutting down
Articlc25. Elsewhere indiis pustbox casethe Çoitrtmade the follow-
ing irnprsrtan pronouncement :
"It hs beetr urgcd an tiehalf of Danzig that Foland's postal
rights inDanzig constitute a amt Iriderogation of tlie postal
monnpoly of Danzig, and thatthe grant must be strictlp construed
in faveur of Uanzig. In tlie opinion of the Coitrt, the rulesas
ko a strict or liberal construction of treaty stipulations can be
applied only in cases tithereordinary methoch lsainterpretation
have failed. It isa cardinal principlof interpretationthat itvords
inust 1~ interpreted intlie sensewkich they wot~ldnormally have
it iheircontext, unles sucb intcrpretat wiond lead tu ~vmething
unreasonableor absurd." (PA3.)

1shor~ld lilceto tucn now to Aclvisory Opinion Mo. 2,tvlilchrelates
to the rompetenccof the InternationalLahoiir Organizktion and which 100 STATEMENT BY BW, BECKETT (u.K. ) 1UX 48
turnecl-onthe 'pointmhether a@cuIture w& induded within the sccipe
" ofthe nctivit i ethe International Labour Organization. That 1s
Series B., Nos. 2 and 3, and the page fiom which I sliallprincipalfy
want to quote ispage 23. In that case the Courf sain this:

"In consideringthc questionbeforethe Courtiiponthelanguage
of the Treaty, it is sbvious that tireTreaty mu~t be read as a
whole, and tliatitsrneaning is notta be dete-rmined merely u~~ort
particularplirases' hich, ifdetacl~ed fmm the cont~xt, may be
interpretedin more-than one sense."
The Court, l~avingsaid that, prmeededto consider the meanuil; of
the word "industry" as used in the English and French textç of the
Trcaty, and itconsidered in thiticonnexion the dictionary memjngsa
Having loaked atthe terct hm thispoint uf view it said:
"But the conte~t istlic finatest, and inthe preçent indante
the Cciutt rnust consider the in which these words are
found and flicsense in which they are employed in Part XII1
ofthe Treaty of Versailles."

Xeading PartXII1 as a,whole,the Courtlldd thai ttthe~~asnodoubt
that agricultural labour waç included urithin theccrmpetenceof the
Organizat ion.
Thepoint tliere was ~vhetherthe word indus^ c"t-esedagriculture.
If you look at rhe dictionary, yu may find that "industry" jsvery
ofteil used in a sense ivhich does not wver agriculture, andindeed
. just occasionally incrintradistinc tionwith it ; neverheless, in this
case the Court, takingthe niatterin itsçaritextand reading Part XII1
of the Treaty of Versaillesas awhole, reached the conclusion ~vliichit
Articleizjlin its contextand touinterpmtait in its contextandnin the
light of thewI-ialescope and purposeof Che Charter as a whole.
Tliere are twocases which 1 wiil merey mentian asagain corihrming
the rule of interp~etationwliich C am now submitting, and witl-iout
going lnto tlieir factand without making any qucitations €tom them,
The firsof these isAdvis~cy Opinion No, 12, relatingtr,tlie frontier
behveen Iraq and Turkey, SeriesB., No. 12. The second isthe Clior~ow
Factorjt case,uthich is SeriesA, Nn. g, 1 wiIl alço mention, again
without bothering to go thraugh the detailed facts of the case, the
a . advisory opinion givenin1932 (SerieA./B., No. 50) conerning aecrther
I.L.O. question, about the ernployment of women at night.
1 now wish tadeal ai alittle greatelength with anather mse, which
isanadvisory opinion given in1923, Seriw 13.,No.7, and my quotation
principdy corna [rom page Y7. Ti~atopinion relatesto tlie intetpret-
ation ofArticle 4,paragtaph r,of the Treaty ofspxgrbetsveentlie Prin-
cipalAUied and AssociateclPotverson the onc hand and Poland on the
ottierhand, iinder wliichit was maintained that certainpmnns wha
were fomerly German nationals had acquired Poliçh nationality,
cantray to the contention of the Polish Goverr~rnexct,wliich held that
thse persons mntinued to possèssGemm nationality and ÇZid nat
acquire Polis11nationality, with the result that in Foland they tvere
esposed to thetreatment laiddown forpesons of non-Polish nationaliv
and in articuko afGerman nationality. The question [or decision
by the 8ourt was whether Article 4 of this Treaty referredsolely ta provides ttiat in carrying out its duties, the Secutity Council
actç on behdf of Mersihem of the United Nations. Mormver,
Artide 25 expressly provided that 'tlic Members of the Wnited-
Xations agree ta accept and cary out the decislonsof the Sccu~ity
Council in accordance with the present Charter'.
The record at San Francisco also clannstrr~ttes tliat thipara-
graph applied to al1the decisions of the Seciirity Cauncil, As -
indicatead l-iove, the& was a proposa1 in Cornmittee IIfjr, to
limit this aldigation salelto those decisions of the Coixncunder-
taken pumuant ta the specificponrersennrncsated in Chapters V1,
WI, VITI and XII of the Charter. This amciidment \vas putto
a vote in the Carnrnittee and rejected. Tbe rejection of ths
mendment is clear evidence tl-iat tlie obligation of the Members
to carry out tlie decisions of thSecurity Gouncil ~ippliesquallv
to decisiam made undm Article 24 and to the decisions made
under the grant of spedc powers."

That shows that inJannary 5947 the Assistant Sccrctary-Gerieral
\var saying in the Security Council that tbisparagmphapplied to a11
the decisions of the Security Lotincil, and then proceedecl to give a
cornmentary onfiemeetings of the Cornmittee at San Francisco ivhich
isthe same in essenceas tliat~vhichyou havehcard from the Attorney-
General.
So fac from oiirhating irivented this theoq~, and so fa from this.
tlreosy even I-iavingbeen inventcd hy somebody d= aatthe tirne of
the Corfu case, you hear this theory clearly statcd hy Mr. Sobolcv,
relating ta a diffetent aflaian roth January 1947.
1 nonf wish to pass on to mother rule of inte~pretationon wliith
we have relied,and ta refcr the Court to a fe~v caseson that point.
This is the rule of intcrprctation: ai res mgis valent qt#n.$zmat,
andthe hrst case1 wml: to mention here is one whichThave mention&
already inconnexion with another rnleof interprethtion. ItiSAd~isory
Opinion No. z, on the q~iestionas to whether the activitiesof the
I.L.O. estend to agriculture. 1 am çiting thiscase and shdl show
from thc quotation ~vhidi 1wJI read in a minute that the Court based
its opinion in a great rneasure on. the grv~ind that ittvould give an
interpretat tithe relevant provisiano. fPart XII1 ofthe Treaty of
Versaifles wtiichwould enabk tlie Internation4 Labour Organization
to perform a function rvhiçhit appared it hacl beensetupto perfom.
And fhis is ~vliatthCotirt saidon page24 of the téport, in SeriesB.,
No, 2. It says:
"AsPart XII1 expiessly declaxe, the design ofthe Lontracting
Paz-kis wwas to establish a flergta~ad labour avganixnla'oa.This
initselfstrongly militatesagainst the argument that a,gricdture,
tvhicii is, lseyondal1 question, the most ancient and the greateçt
indus/ inthe world, employing more thm half of the world's
wage-earnas, is ta be mnsidered as left oirtsidc the scope ofthe
Int emdtional Labour Organization becanse it is not expresslp
ntcntioned by name. "

Now in another Advhry Opinion-it isNo. 6, dven in rgz3-the
Permanent Court was repested to give an opinion on whlether the atti-
tude adopted by the Pûlish Governmcnt towards anumbcr ofcolonists tvhowere formerly German nationafs, but ivho, at the material tirne,
were damided in Polish luritory previously- bdonging to Gmmy,
and had açqiiird Polish nationalitp, was in cdnformity tvith ilsinter-
national obligartions. ln coconsideringtliis question, the Caurt was
callediipon tointcrpr het Rlinorities Treaty bettveen Polmd and the
Aiiied md Assoçiated Potversvühich\vassigned atVersailleson28th June,
1919.This Treaty had for its objed the acceptance by .Polarid of
certain principleszvhichwereintendcd toprotcct theintm-estsoi inhal-
itantsof Poland whn difiered from the niajoritÿof the population in
race, language or religion-
It mas the contention of the GcrmanGovernent that by a law
enacted inPoland on 14th Jdy, rgzo, and by various acts inpursuance
ofthis law, the Poliçh Government had violated theprovisions of the
Minoritles Treaty. The matter was iccordingly brought beforc the
Council of the League of Nations,but the .Polish Governmmt ohjected
thattlie Corincilhad no powerinthe matter hecause the Polish adion
had been taken in the cxercise of rights corderredupun her by the
Treaty of Versailles aiidthat the interpretati oof ntheTretltv of
,Verçailles was not a matter for the Çound. The Corrncil therefore
requesteclthe Permanent Court ttogive an dvisciry opinion on this
point asme11as on the point whelher the Polish Government had acted
in çoaformity with its internationd oblig~tions.
Ztis inconnexioniviththe former point, that isto say, whether the
Countil of the bague of Mations was çornl~etent in the matter, that
the Court said :
"The Court isunable to çhxe thisvierv. Thc main objet of
the Minorities Treaty is to asstirerespect for tlierights of the
minorities and to prevent discrimination against them by any act
wliatsoe~r of the Polish Statc. It does not mntter whether the
rigtitsthe infractionni lvliicis dleged are tleriverfrrim a legis-
lative, judicialor ndministntive act, or frcrm an international
engagement. If the Criuncilceased to b~ competent whenever
the srrbjeçt before iinvolveclthe interpretatlùn ofsuch an inter-
national engagement, the Minorities TreatywoaIdto agreat extent
be depriveclof value." (P. 25.)
The Eastwords are particularly relevant-"If the Fomcii ceased
to be çonipetent whenever the sabject before it involved the inter-
prctation of such aninternational engagement, the Minorities Treaty
would to a geat extenl be dcprived of value'" that k ta aecept the
Polish Governrnent's contention would be depriving the Minorities
Treaty of the pater pad ofits value. Tht u~ls one af the grounds
why the Court rcjected that interprebtion.
Tiirning to an aspect of our particular case about which there hxs
aow been much argument, the Counsel forthe Albania n overnrnent
hac admitted that his intc~pretation depriveof any value at al1certain
wmds which were introduced as an amcndment into Article 36 (1)of
the Statute of the Court. Further, 1 think the Attorney-Generd has
demonstrated that our opporient's interpretati renders ArticIe 2;
of the Charter completely otiose, Therefore, following the piiriciple
adopted in the case\+hich I have justçited, theCourt shonld not adupt
an interpretatw ihich deprives of value such important provisions
first inthe Statuteof the Courtand secondly in the Charter. I must trouble the Court with two ar three shortercitatiaris. The
Advisory Opinion No, wz, relatingto the frotitiebehveen Turkey and
Iraq, Series B.,NU. 12; which 1 wkh principally to cite,'ias follows,
In that casethe Courttvas primarilyconcerned with the question ivhether
a decision taken by the Council of the League of Nations in vit-tueof
Article 3, .paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Lausanne had a binding
character gs an arbitral award, or whether it was merely a ecom-
mendation or simply a rnediation. Alçowhether inany event the votes
of the parties to thedispute shoull be counted in taka the Council's
decision. On thesetwo pulnts theCourt applied the principleofinter-
pretation that ail treaties must be construed in a manner to render
them effective. Kt pointed out that tlieintention of the parties in
signing Article 3, paragraph z, of the Tceaty of Lafisanne "waç by
means of recourseto the Councilto ensurea definiivemd final soIution
of the disputewhich might arisebetween them, namel, the final deter-
mination of the froatier".
IVith regard to the question whether the parties Iiad the right to
vote, the Court said :
"Frm a practicd standpoint, to requïrethat the representativw
of the parties should accept the Corincil'sdecisionwoidd be tan-
tamount to giving thein a rig11ofveto enabling them to prevent
any decision being reached ; thiswould hardly be in coniormitv
with the intention rnanifested in Artide; 3, patagraph 2, of the
Treaty a£ Lausanne," [P. jz.)

One more case I have to quote isJudgment No. 8, the Chorxfiw
Factory, ScriesA., 30. 9,page 25. In tbat jdgmeni the Court was
dealingwitl-lthecontentionof thePolishGovernmentthattheCourt ,
had no juridiction for dealing with the question of compensation in
respect ofthe violationof certainprovisions of the Convention regarding
Upper Siiesia, concluded at Geneva in rgzz between Gemany and
Poland. The Polish arpent vas that Article a3of tthatCrrnventiori,
which gave the Co~irt jurisdicticiover differences of opinion, resulting
from the iiiterpretation of tlieÇonveiztion which might arise bet~veen
the Germm Governent ancl the Polish Govcmmc~t, did not crin-
template clifferencesofopinion regardirig reparations çlaitnefor viola-
- niopriaciplepof international law thatonthe breach of an engagement\vas
invo1r.e~ an obIigation to make reparation in an adequate fornz and
that there was no neccssiQ to saÿ in the Convention tbat ilifferences
zelatimg to reparationswem comprehcnded in Article 32. It observed
in thiç connexion, that is, the interpretatlon of Article 23:

"An hterpretation which would codine the Court simply
to recording that the Convention hl ben incorrectly applied
or that it had not heen applied, cvithout being able to lay
doiatnthe conditions for the re-establishment of the treaty rights
afiected, would be contrary to what would, +n'ma facie,be the
riatwal objectofthe clausc ; for ajurisdiction of tlrkhd, htead
ofsettling a disptlteonce and for all, worlldleaire-openthe p~ssi-
bitikytyofurther disputes:' If ifplease the .Court, 1 want, with your permission,to begin this
mtirning by. referring ro~ some more cases in the jurisprudence
of the Permanent Colfrt in rcgarcl.toanothw rule of intmpretstinn
whjch we regard to be xelevant and important in this case.
Thertrleto whicli nlyrernarks are nnw addressed isthe mle that the
preparatory work must notbe used in theinterpretation ofthe treaty
tdere the textis dear and can be ascerfained by applying other niles
of interpretation(such asthat wliich I have already rnenfioned, that
the treaty must be interpretcd according to tlie natiiral and ordinary
meaning of the words used,taking thern in the corrtextof the instnr-
ment as awhole) afterapplying that suie,and al50 therule zbres magis
valeni. Tt isonlr aftw tlieCourt Iiasfaild,af'cerapplying thoserules
of inkerpretatiorilo spell out the meanin that it is permissibleto
have recourse to preparato r yrk atau. " ;is soinetirnes yermissible
to have recciurseto the prepnratory work leading np to a treaty. The
deciskons of the Permanwit Court shoiv, I~owever,that no rule wds
better e&ublislied iits jurisprudence than the tulc th& preparatory
work cannot be used in the interpretation ofa treaty when the mem-
ing of the text can otherrvisebe ascertained.
The extracts tvhich 1 am about to give you from one ofthe
cases decided in the Permanent Cortrt show how the ride rvhich 1
am non7 cçontendingfor \vas repeatedlg applied by tliat Court.
Imq-Tilrkishcafrontier,accasewXsIiave alrendy menhnede cuin connexion
witli the rule ~t YESmanis 'JQIGII~.ndceri,that case about the Iraq
frontier contains initsel? autlioritfor alitiiree oi the nilawhich 1
am suhinitting to you.
May L begin bp just remindina ycru that in the Iraq frontierinse
the Cotrrtwas aslred for an advisory opinion upon the mmning of
Article 3, paragapli 2,of tlieTreaty of Lausanne, and inparticular
inrelationto the rôleof theCoiincilof the League nf Wations in a dis-
pute ks to the frontierbetween Turkey and Iraq. Tlie Court,in the
first instance, appiieitselta the p~oblem of interpretingthe article
as itstood. The Court said-this iç Advisory Opinion No. rz, and.
the passage which 1 am reading is to be found on p,qe rg :-

=certai Conrri the worciingoof,tliis clauswsPiatthe intention of.
the Contrgcting Parti= was ;subseque~itly,irnayconsider iviiether
-and if so,towhat extent-factors atlier thm the wording uf the
Treaty nust be taken into scmunt for this puyose. The Court
isof opinion thatin signjng Article3,paragrapfi 2, of the Treaty
of Lausanne, the intention othe Parties$vas,by means of recnurse
to the Council, toinsure a definitive and binding solutionof the
dispute whiclimight ark between thern,namely, the fina leter-
minatron ofthe frontier."

Tlie Court then proceede td examine the logical ;angrammatical
meanhg of the article,analyshg each ab-paragraphancl reaching the
condusion tliafits purpose \+-asfoprovide successive stagesby xvhich
theimntier rnightIse defetmined, culrninating, If need beinthe adju-
8 k06 51AT3ZMENT BY MT. BEÇKETT (u.K. ) 2 III48
dication of any dispute on the matter by the Councilof the League.
It a1so examined furtherothcr articl oesthe Treaty of Lalisanne in
order to seewhether anylight was Wown upon ffiesmpe of ArZicle3
by thcise ather artides. The representativeof the United Kingdom
inthat case had argued befcire the Court that the tnre rneaning of
Asticle 3was, as a matter oflaw, to be gatherd from its actud terms
aIone, and that consideration of the riqotiatianç Ieading up to the
treaty was inadmissible. Now,the Court upheld this contention in
the following passage :

"Sincethe Lourt is of opinion that Articlis ini,tsesufficiently
dear to enable the nature of the 'decisionta be reached' b the
Council under the terrns of that artide to be determinez the
question does not arisewlietherconsideratioof die work Ki prepar-
ation of the Treaty ...wauld dso lead to the concZusiorisset
OUI above.''(P. 22.)
Tlie Tnrkish Agent had bmd the argument on the preparatory
work,and the next littlpassage 1 am going toread is what the Court
salrlwitlregard to that Turkishargnrnent, It is contained on page 23,
and the Court said :
"But assuming that a study of the pmparatory work ....edt5
the concltiçion thatArticle 3 should be interpretd as though it.
had been adopted suhject to the condition thatthe Councilcodd
not arrive at my solutiontvi'choutthe consent ofthe Parties, the
action ofthe Corincil wodd, in effectbe reducd fa simple media-
tian. NOXV this condusion, wliichwould elirninatc the possibility
ofa definite decision capable, inecessary, ofreplacing agreement
bet\veen the Parties, tvould be incompatible wiai the tms of
Article 3, the interpretatianofwhich-as indicated, bath from a
grammatical and a logicd point of view as well as from that .of
the rhle assignecl to that articlein the l'eace Treaty-has been
set out above."

valeat prevailovwheàny-thing whicli pou cantget from tlie preparatory
work. That is the conclusion ta be drawnfrom the Court" opinion
in the Traq frontier case.
The next case to tvfiicI wish to =fer ;alittlmore shwrtly isthe
case concerning the European Commission of the Danube. It is a
case with whic71I happen to be rather Iamiliar because 1 was in it.
. Pt was a disputt: between the United Kingdom, France and Ttaly on
one side, md Roumaniaon the other, andit relatedto the powers of
the European Commir;sionof the Danube between Galatz and Braila,
anclthe argument mainly turned on the rneaning of Article 6of the
Definitive Statuteof the Danube, an instrument which had followed
Article349 of the Treaty of Versailles. Article 6 stated that the
authosity ofthe Commission extends "under the same conditions as
before and ~vithoittany modification of its existinglimits'" and the
Court had to decicle on the scope to be given to these words.
The Court then poirrted out tliat was tseasonable to suppase that
'thematter shouldbe settled on tlibasis ofthe positionasit\vasbefore
the ontbreak ofhostilitiein rgrq,seeing that tliis waone of the lead-
ing principlesofthe provisions of the Treaty of Vmsaiiies concerniigthe Danube. Zhey theteforereached the conclusion thnt the wotds
"under the same conditions asbefore", etc.,in Article 6refared to
the conditions which existed in factbdare the war irithe contestml
eçtor, arid that their effectwas to maintain and canfim those con-
ditions,
Then these corne asEtfiepassage tvhich1vrrisl~to citetextually. It
is Adviçory Opinion No. IL++md the sentenceivhicl1 am ahout tocite
is found at gage 26. The observation ofthe Coud is as follorvs:

"'Beforeentering qon the andysis of the contentions of the
itliasjmttsdevelopedeas to the purporterofthehDefinitivewStatute
isbased solely on tlie Ianpage employed inthe Stahte and on
the historicafacts upn ~vhidi icrests,witljout any reference ta
preliminarydiçci_tssionsordrafts. The Court adheres to the rule
appliedin itsprevioitsdecisions thatthere is na occasionto have
regard to the protacols ofthe conferrnceat which a convention
was rrqptiatecl inorder to cmstrue a t~xt tvhiçh issufficiently
clear in itself."

Then it on to say tht in fact it had lookedat the preparatorg
work and it only ledto the samc conclusion.
I shaiirefer rather:shortlytù one or two more cases. The cffect
\vil1Ireto show thatthis ruleabont the use of preparato wsork,which
I am cmtending for, hacl becorne the settled jurisprudence of the
Permanent Court. It had, 1 tl~inkif 1 may use a French word-
I hope not inconectly-becorne doct~d, It is ose' of the princi-
ples which the Permanent Court applied and repeatecl. over and
over again. I will just mention one or two wcirds about the Lotm
occurs onpepage 16. g,TheriCourt said:o, where the following sentence

"Thc Coirrt nust recdl in this connexion what it has said in
some of itçpreoedin jgdgments andopinionn samely, that there
is no occasion tohave regard topreparatorywork ifthe text of a
convention issafficiently cleainitself-"
Agaiq ifone takesthe Scrbinnbans case,Judgmmt No. rq, Series A.,
No. 20,one finds the followingsentence on page 30,where the Court
says this:

"As the bonds thenkselves are nut amambiporis,"
-the Courthad to constnle certai bnnds under ~vhfch the loanwas
issued-

"there is no occasionfor referenceto the preliminary documents.
But ifthesc axeexamined, it rvill appethat they tend to confirm
the agreement for gold payments."
Again,in the Memel case,$e& A-/B.,Nos. 47-49, you>vil2fuidthe
folloiving sentenceat page a49 ;

"As regards the ,zrgumenfs bmisedon the histoq of the text,
theCourt must fmt of all point outhat, asitkas constaiitlyheld,
preparator work cannot be adduced to interpret a t& whiçh
1s. in itself, sufficienclear." Then the Court proceedecl to considerargumentsbased uponthe
history of the tex?, but hdd tht there was nothmg in that history
inconsistentwith the construction it had adopted.
1think, Mr.President, or atany rate, 1hope, that 1 have given you
dcient sitiiztionto support wllat 1have said, that tliis rule about
preparatory work was one of the best established pieces of doctrine
of the Permanent hart.
\trhen T hegan yesterdayevening, 1 mention& that tve had three
alternative arguments on this part of our case. I dso saidthat the
At tom y-General had, 1 thought, dedt exhaustivtly with the first
argument,and inthat connexion it was only pecesçiny for meto develop
and give authority for the rdes of interprekation which had becrn
mention& as part of that argment-
Inoiv ~ish to turn to our second argument, and on that 1 wish to
add sornethilig more to what rny leader, thc Attorney-General, has
already said. Al1 these three arguments, of coursc, are separate ancl
alternative. The .firstargummt, as you wiii rerriemT~er,wns that
Article 25 covers al1 the decisions of the Secutity Council, inçluding
its recommendatians- Our second argument is that Article 25 must
be hterpreted 50 as to inclnde at least mme of the reconzmendatiom
made by the Security Corncil linder Chapters VI and VII, and that
the recommendation which it bas made in thls Corfu case isone of
those which are coverecl by Article23.
ln prti~~lar, 1 mbmit that the recommndations which mùst Fie.
trealeclas binding decisions are those appertaining tn the ptriver,and
jndeed the rluty, of the Security C~uncil to presewe international
pexe and secu~ity, which, because of the circumstancs of the case,
their zlrgency, and the peremptory cl~araçter of the recommend at'on
of the Çecurity Corincil, indicaie this is their abject. AU this, it is
gerledly agreed, applia to the recommenclations unch Chapter VII,
but tlie same, 1 submit, is alçotrtre oftliose secammendations of the
Seciirity Counctl under Chapter VI which name a particular procedtlre
or rnethod of settlernent and which are directlandurgently concerned
with the preservatinn of peace, 1x1particufar, 1 sqgest that the
distinction betwen deciçions whi& an binding and recornrnendations
which are not-if, contrary toal1that \ruhave saidonoirr first argument,
sucha distinction can he made nt all-is not an absolute one, and that
there are cases envisaged by the Charterinwhich a tecornmendation
mp be bincling on the parties,and the dispute now belore the Court
involves a case of Ehisdescription.
In the firçtplace, to put itat thc Iovest, itis clear th& thwe
is no rigid disthction in the Charter between deciçions and recom-
mendations. Tnevital-i13a, grmt many of the argr~mmts which the
Attorney-Gèneral has used in support of our argument 30. r artalso
applicable tathe case whiçh 1am making here in support of our argu-
ment No. 2, and t:\vis1to spare the Court,as far aspossible, any repe-
tition; tllereforein support of what 1 have just said, I will merely
recallta yourmlnds, without repeating what the Attorney- Grnerd
said,Article 18 (2)ofthe Chaster, withregard tatlreGeneral Asembly,
which, j70u will remember, begins by using the mrd "decisions" and
inmediately aftmards wferç to "recornme~idations" as being included
~rnderclecisions. I should like also to rernind prr inthis connexion
of what the Attorney-General said with regard to Artide a7 (33,theprovision about voting b the Security Coiincil, htobody doubts that
that applies to voting for recommend;rtionr,, but the rvord "decisions"
is the one whidi isused. 1 should like to remind yoi~,again, ~f hmv
the AttorneyGeneml demonstrated tliati~niler Chapter VI, rvhichis
rnentianed in A~tide 27 (31,the Council only rnakesremmmendahons
in the finalstage of dcaling with ases before it.
Irvould ask ~rouagain to interprte ht ttrorddec ci si onn"Art+ 25
dealhg mith al1intheipowcrs offitlie Security Cuuncil, andeto inteqxet
it in itscontest irnrnediately preceding Article 27, where undoubtea2j
the worcl "dsisicns" is uçed as covering recommendations. In brief,
T submit -that, ç~ntray to the \riwliich atfirst sighmay be suggested
,by the words tliernselves,itis necessary to djçeasa di the outset ~ny
corrclnsionsbascd on the thmry that in theCharter a decision isbind-
ing and a remmmm&dtion is not.
Iwodd remind the Court of the principle& TES magis uaht, and 1
would again recall to you that the Attorney-Gcnerai demonstrateci
that on our opponmts' contention tlierare some new words inAttide 36
(1) of theStatute tvhich have do opration at alZ. Purther, on their
contention, Article25 applies onlyto Cilapter VII, and that means that
Article 25 itself becoines entirelyrithse.
This s~orid alternative arpment which I am presentid nom not,
as 1have said, involvthe propsitioa that every recomrnendation under
Chapter VI has the binding forceof a decision. In particular, am not
contendhg in this part of ciut argument ithat recommendations as
to tlietennç of settlcmant have this effect.The argument tvhjch 1am
rnakingnn1v iincitinconsistentwith the view that the Security Council,
acting under ChapterVI, functions priniarily a5 a conciliator and
poççessesno dictatorial powers with regard to the terms of settlement,
As I Ilopeta dernonstrate now, there is in thepreparatary workof
the Conference of San Frmcim-if, contrarÿ to my subrnissions,
that work is to be takeninto consideration-sorhe authority for the
distinction berneen recommended me'ihodsa£ settIement and recorn-
mended tems of settlement. 1 thinIr,ta be frank, thrat the second
arpment which1 am now rnakingis an <argument tvhichwe put ortrard
Iiaving ~garçl ta tliepreparatory work, and in view of tlie possibility
that the Court, ir ipiteof Our submiçsionthat it should nnt bc looked
at, shdd i~evertheless think it proper to take account of. This is
an alternative subrnission. If yau ignore the preparatory rvork, 1
think, hlr.Presidmt. tliatgrouwill pmtohablyprefer oirrargument No, I.
1 wish now ta tum to the preparatnry mmk, md what 1 am now
referring to isa meeting of the San Francisco Cornrnittce IiI/z..It
isthe seventh Meeting, heicl on rph May, and you \vil1fincl the pas-
sages which I am abolitto read in Volume XII at page 47. There is
a heading "Amendmen t proposed by the spunso~ing governments",
~nd just ahve that you\vil1 find thelieadhg "13aragrapl 4i of Chap-
ter VIII, Section A. This is confusing, but that paragraplt4 is wlrat
now chmesponds to Article37 (2) of the existing Charter. The pas-
sagehbegins witlz the follotvingsentence :
"It was poioted out that the term 'decision'appeared to be used
in slightlvdifferent-senses in differentparts of the Dumbarton
Oaks ~riposals, and it was suggested tIiatthis matter rnight
be tefewed to the proposed sub-cornmittee on drafting, " I Zhen miss out a passae;ewtiich.1 do not think is materid, but 1
ivish to read this :
"The delegate of I3elgium reqnested interpretat fromn the
$pornoringgovernmentsof the legal effecof the worrl.'recommend'
asused inparagraph4."

That isto Say,Article 37 (2)ofthe existingCbarter.
"The delegaie of the United States expresse tie view that
the secornmendation of a settlement undm paragraph 4 wasnot
obligato~ unless the dispute inztol\reda threat to the peace, as
envisaged under Chapter VIXI, Section B, paragraph 1;"'

In other words, under Chapter VI1 ofthe existing Chader. The
delepte of the United States \as expressingthe view that the wom-
meridationof a settlementunder paragxapb qwas nùt ohligatory unless
the case \vasone that carne under Chapter VIL He contimed :
"It was only if thefaddre ka settle a disputeor to carry out a
recommendation of the Secmity Counci4.constitutcd a threat
to the peace tiiatthe Security Council codd 'take any meaçures
necessary [orthe maintenance of international Faceand security',
and then it mus* act 'inaccordance with the purpoçes and prin-
ciplesof the Organizatian'."

Hotvever, it appears that the. Belgian dclegate was not satisfied,
hecanse nrenow have rhcading "Belgian amendment toChapter VIIL,
Section A, paragraph g", and this iswhat itsays ;
"The delegateof Belgiam stated thatif, asappeared to be .the
case.the pavirerof the Secmity Cauncil to 'rccommend' involvecl
thepossibilitythat a Member of the Organlzàtionrnightbc obliged
Zo abandon a rightgranted to it by positiveinternational law as
an essentialright of statehood, the delegate af Belgium wished
formally to present itsamendment to the Cornmittee, The pur-
pose ofthe amendment was, in casea party triadispute considered
that a recommendation of the Security Corncil infringccl onIts
essential rightstn allow a State to request an advisory opinion
onthe question by the InternationalCourt of Justice....St was
not inany sense the pnrposeofthis amendment to lirnithe legit-
owess of the Security Counclt. It tvould, l~owev~r, be
desirabc to strengthen the juridicalbas&of the decisionsof the
Security Council."
Naw, what was the delegate of Belgiuin saying? All liis remarks
relate entirel to the owcr of khe Coirnd to recommerld tem of
settlement. fie was afraid that unless his amendmat was adapted,
the CouncdwouldIiavcpower to reçommcnd with biriding forcesuch
andsuch provisions which would deprivethe State ofrights lvliichunder
interriarionalJaw it previously assessed. Re said tliat he wished
, not to Limitti~c plvers of the Becütity Carincilbut to be sure that,
they were acting upon a proper juridial bais, and thereforeif a
State thaught that a propsed recommendation for termsof settlement
infringed its rights, it çhoube entitledto get the Council to request
an advisory oyinion of the International Courtof Jmtice. That was STATE~IENT RY MX, BECKETT (u.K.) - 2 IZ~48 ITI
the Belgian delegate's point, and 1 want to emphaçize thaf, because
it isthe key to al1 thatfollows.
I continue with the record:
"The ç2elegateof the U.S.S.R. expressed tlieopidion that the
Belgian amendment should not be adopted. He felt thnt the
ÇecilritCouncilshould receive the fullconfidence of theMemberç
of tlieOrganization.'"

1 now miss out a 1itt.k.
"The delegaéeof the United States ernphsîzed the impmtruice
ofthe requirernent that tlieactionthe SecnrityCorncil in dealiiig
with adispute invalving nthreat ta thepeace be taken 'inaccord-
ance with the parposes and principles of the 0t.ganir,ation,..
On the tvhole he didnot consider the acceptance ofthe 13elgian
amenclment adviçable."

îhen we have the delegate ofFrance :
"The delegaie of Tirame ... srlpprted the viems expresseil by
other delegates asto the advisabilityof clarifyingthe rneaning
of the rvords 'decisions'and 'recammendations' in paragrap 4h.
He pointe6 out that in practiçeand partictilarlfor a smaU State,
thedifference betwen the political authoritof a secornmendation
and the legal force of a clecision might not tsegreat."
We notv to a Zater meeting. Nothing was settIed there, and
we pas to the ninth Meeting onarst May, ivhich you will find in
Volume XII at page 65, We begin dth the delegate of the United
Ringdom discussing the 13elgianamendment :
"'I npenipg the discussion,thédelegate of theUnited Kingdam
stated hethudght the adoption of the Belgian amendment wauld
beprejudicial tothesuccess ofthe Organizrition. The amendment
would, in his opinion,resuItin the dmision by the International
Court ofJnsticeof political questions inaddition to legal questions.
The performance of this function by the Court, he felt, would
setiousljrnpair thesucceççof its rale asa judicial boclFarther,
the procedure psoposedwould cause delay, ata time Whenprompt
action by the Security Council was most desirable ....FinaIly,
he consiclereditnecessary that the Couacil possess thetnis tnd
confidtmce of al1 States."
Then we have the delepte of Wgiurn again:
1"
The delegate of Belgium requsted a more precise mswer to
l his reviously posed question asto wbether the term 'recammnd'
inP hapter VIII, Section-4,entailecobligations forStates,parties
toa dispute,or whether itmeant only that the Councilwasoffering
advice which might or might not be aceepted."
If1 my hmc break offfrom the reâding and comment, the delepte
-6f Befgitrmhad begiln by açkkg a question about paragraph 4 of
Chapter VIE, Section A ; that ito say,a question abiit Article 37(2)
ofour existing Charter. He had never liadan answes, and I submit
thatUi the passage which I have jnst xead he wss repeating the same
Lquestion. Y ouwiu see, ho~vever, that his questionas recprdedintheMinutes, js noçv awider one than itwaç belore, becausr:hisquestion,
as itappears in thiiispassaof the Minutes, is whethcr thtem "recm-
mend" in Chapter VIII. Section A, entdecl obligation,and so on,
and the words "paragraph 4", which were inhk origind question,
have been left out, Now, I think-and 1 shail give some fusther
reasons in supprirt later-that that is a pint where the Minutes are
probably not quite accurate, and Vi fact the BeIgian delcgate açked
hem the srne yuestion which he had asked beforc and to whiçh he
had never had an mswer. T stigges'tlrahe was pmingthe question
whetherthe term "reçomrnend" in ChapterVIII, ÇectionA, paragrapll4,
entailed obligations-the same question thal:he bad asked beforc.
It is after tliat question thanie get the statement of the delegate
of the United States onwhich my learned friend on the other side hxs
placed gteat ernpl~asis.I-Ie tefersto it as the "assnmnce''. Nossr,
this iswhat the delegate of the United States çaid: =

theTviervlosathe delegareof the UnitedxpKingdorn."eernent witli

You how what those vim were. The delegate of the United
Kingdorn thought that the Belgian praposd tl~at a State should have
the rightto ask for an advisory opinion would involve the Cmrt in
deciding a nurnber ofplitical questions,aidthat it ivould ako involve
delay. When the delegate tif tIie United Stateexpresçed agreement
with tbtviews of the delegateof the United Kingdom, lie was exptes-
sing agreement rvith those two things, He then went on to say :
",..andsaid he bad intended to make it clear thatin Section A
no csmpulsian or enforcement \vasentrisagecl".

1subrnit that the delegate of the United States was ans~vering the
question which the delcgate of Belgium had raked. The question
which the delegate 01 B lgivrn had saised related to paragrztph 4 of
Chap ter VIII, Section A,orin othcr wcirdstoArticle 37(2)of our axist-
ing Charter. The ddcgate of 13elgium Ilad raiscd a question with
regard tr>the coipulsory nature ofterms 6f settlement,and eilenthen
giumanhad never questioned oatal1nand had nwm suggested that itwasel-
undesirable that decisifins ofthe Security Ccrilncilrmornrnending
methnds of çettlement shauld not be obligatory,
As 1have said,I think rliayou must read the wardç of tliaassurance
in their context, and not have regardonlyto the words ofthe 1lntrtes
which are thework of the Secreta~yof the Cornmittee, and no doubt
prtssed,witliwhnt care 1do not how, by the deleptes towhom they
tvere sent, If we look at trnvadx @Ffiaradoirasand try to interpret
them, rirareentitiedto have sume rulesof interpretatioq evefor them,
sothat the rvords inti-iMinutesaust be interpretedUi theircontext.
Then the delegate ofthe United States said this :

"Henated tliat: had earEer e~pressedoppositionto the second
sentence of the Belgian amendment tu paragraph 3, which
concemecl this point."
1 Iiave not besn able to'mderstand quite what that wïtmce means,
but asfar as1 know it inot relevant. Tlxn there followsthe delegate
of Belgiurn : "The delegatea£ Edgiurn stated that since it naw WVP~clearly
unclerstcmd that a recommendatinn made by the Council under
Section A of Chapter VI11 did not possess obligatoty effect, hc
wwaçeawepted byhdrthe Chairman." amendmenit. The withdraival

Againyou noticethe cveryhmad words "Section A clrChaptcrVIII",
but again 1 submit to yon tlrat ithe contest that means*paragraph 4
of Section A of Chapter WII, which was the only tking wliich had
bem troubling the Belgian delegate. t think that the passage rvl~ich
1am norvgoing to rad will confirm that,because we have a Littlelater
a report bp the rapporteur ofCornmittee ILL/z which waç approved
33y thé Cornmittee an 16th June. That isfoimd in Voltrrne XI1 at
page 162, and rads rrs follows:

"Article 6 corresponds ta former paragraph 4 as amended by
the proposa1ofthe sponsoring govemments adopted by the Com-
mittee, "
"Article6" iisthe .number of some drafting rommittee's text,

"As the resultof this amendment, tlre Security oun ni m ly,
in the cases envisagecl, remmmend tenns of settlement as well
as procedures and methods of adjisstment. In the course of
discussion onarrimenciment ofleced by the cidegalion ofBelgiurn,
thedelegates of the United Kingdom and the United States-gave
possessede noxobligatorg; efiect for the Parties."eçurity Clnuncil

Tt says "gave assurance #ad suc$ a recornmendation of the Security
Council possessd no obligatory eff ect fo~ the parties". I must read
tlie pievious sentence,ta which that relates. It is: 'tAs tlleresdt of
this amendment, the Securlty Council may, in the cases envhged,
recornmend Eerms of settlamerit as ~vellas procedures and methods
of adjustment." 1 tliinli that onpoint a€ gramrnar the words "such
rireçomrneridation" take us back to the wodç "recamrnend terms of
settlernentJ'.There, I think, tl~at report of the rapporteur brings
back tlieassurance ta its proper place again and rnakes it clear tliat
in the passage above, wliich 1 read and criticixedthe delqate of the
United States was referringtothe questionwhich tlie delegatof Xelgium
had &ed and tvhich waç always troiibhg him, that is, the power of
the Council to recommend terrns of settlement.
Thereis just one çmalEfusther comment which I shonld liketo Makb
on the report of tlie rapporteurmhicli has jrist heen read. 1 do aot
ttiinkthat it isof very great:importance, but I thii~kit as well that
it should be made cicar. In the repwt of the rapporteur, at the end,
it says: "The delegates ofthe United Kingdam and tlie United States
gave amrance tliatsuch a recornrnendation oi the kurity Councd
passesseil no obligatary efkt for the parties." As a rrïattecof fact,
it loUowç from the prwious passages xvl-~içI have read that that is
mong in this. respectthat the delegak of the United Kingdom gave
no such assurance atall. It\vas ~tatedbjr the delegateof the United
States-he began bis statement in that tvay-that he agreed with
the United Kingdom delegate onthe ttvo thingç that the Uni terKing-
dom cleiegate hacisaid,wl-iichwre that the Relgian proposai torequirc an advisory opinion of the Criort in thosecasesrÿo~~ lossibly involve
the Court in political questions and wauldinvolvedday. That iswhat
the United Kingdom had saicl,and the United Stntes apeed with that.
As farasthe Minutes show, tlic delegate oftheUnited Kingdom had
na part inthat assurance lvhichtheddegatc of the United States gave,
anclit looksas though the seport of therapporteur isslighlfyinaccurate
an tliat point. I da nat make much aï that point, liowever,because
no doubt the rapporteur'.;report tvassubmitted to the Cornmittee
for correction, and the ddegrite of the United Kingdum eitl-ier did
nut notice it ordid not want to correct it;I donot haw wlscli.
1 hâve hoped to show tl~at thase discussions in Cornmittee IXI/q
givc a basis forthe distinction betwveerecommending modes of settle-
ment ad seeornrnendingterms of settlement. I Iiatrelioped to show
tl-iat that distinctiornns right though those discizssicins,and that
the assurance of the United States delegate rmlly relates turecorn-
inendations as regardsternis of settlement. if 1 have been successful
in that, it canbe saicLthat thesepassages framthe prepaatory work,
il EIieyare admissible at au, are rather %aifit ou argument No. 1,
one wh~ch dI am endeavouringatltotpTesentrto'pu now.o, 2,which istlie
This distinctionktween the tcrmç of wttlement and the methods
of çettlement fin& supporf: also inthe wosdingofArticle 37 of the
Charter. Tlut grticle saystkat if the Security Couneil deems that
the continuance ofthe dispute is in fact likely tendanger the main-
tenance of interi~ational peaceand semrity, it shall decide tvhether
to takeaction nnder Article 36 or tosecornend such Lems ofsettle-
ment as it may consider appropriate. The language there used
emphaçizes nut only the elernent of action and decision inherent in
the applicationofArticle 36, but alsathe distinction betwzen theterms
and the methods of settlement, The provision migl.it guitc as well
have been worded inthisway : "The SecurityCwncil shall either take
action by recomrnendimg modes of settlement or recommend terms of
settlement." That is what if means.
We çubtnit that situations may arke rvherethe Security Cauncil
may make a recommendation 'under Cliapter YI as to the mthod
of sattltlementwhich, in view of the gravity of the situation and
the possibili'cO£ the use of non-peacefd mthods, it may desire to
make binding, anclthat ifsuc11asituationarisesandtlie Securie Coiincil
.judges it neceçsaq, in the interests of internationalpeace, to rnake
suçh a tecommendatioa, khat recommendatirin is binding.
That itwas the intention of the Security Coirncitomalce a binhg
reCommendatian in tlie presentcase appears,we think ,oth from the
terms of the rerornrnenùation which it made md from the speeches of
the members of the SecurityCouncii thernselves,both in Apd and in
July. Sir Hnrtley Shawcross read thosepassagE to you, aiid I inerely
wkh to recall them to pur attention. Inci~~umçfan~es sucli those
which gave rke to the present dispute, there is everyreason ~hy a
recomendation of the Secnsity Council rcferring to the method of
scttlernentskauld be binding.
TZie dispute arose out of circumçtances in wlzich an outrage was
men,itan outrage ~vhich,earightly oriwrongly,dewehshavcmacharacterized
before the SecurityComciE as a crime again$ hiimanity; The circum-stances were every bit as gave as those which, inthe p&, have led
States to instantaneous meames of self-redres, and the Security
Councilrecogriiaed the excepticinalgravity of the case brought beforc
it by adopting a valid rccommendation without any dissenting vo+
The peremptory terms of the secornmendation of tlic Çouncilivhich
instruct ~ed Parties immiediatelytciçuhrnit the disputtto the Court
tatiffeclto the urgency ancl seriousnesç ofthis matter. We do not
hold that it is contraryto the generalscheme of the Charter toadmit
the binding forcc ofrecornrnendations made by the Secnrity Counçil
utider Cltapter VI with regard to methods of settlement. It is not
cbntray, we say, to admit the power ofthe Secwitg Counçil to bring
about a judicinl praiiouncementin a matter of disputeclZssuc sven
agninst the miilof one ofthe parties tathe dispute. On the contrary,
you findin Article96 of the Charter thatthere is such apwer veçted
in bath the Security Covncil md in the General Assembly, and this
is anadvancc \hich the Charter inthis respectmarks onthe Covenant
of the League of Nations. Under Article 96 of the Charter, either
ofthese organs rnay bring about a judicialclarification ofthdisrputed
isscreeven agajnst the wilof one or both parties tothe dispuk, since
either ofthese orgammay request the International Court to give an
advisory opinion on any legal question. No unanimity is mquired
for the request. It may be made segardless of the ~pposing vote of a
party to the dispute, even if thaparty is a permanent mernberof the
Secunty Gouncil.
Thetefore, I may conchde rny coiitentions for our argumentnumber
tppa as follows: (1) recommendations of the Semrity Lpuricil under .
Article 36 of the Charter bcaring upon methods and procedures tobe
adopted hy the partiemzybe binding upon them by virtne oArticle25 ;
(2) this appliesin particularto recommendaticins and disputes conski-
tuting a menace to international peace and security; (3) a critir:d
interpretationoi the Charterleads to the conclusion that the bincling
fnsce ,and decision uridcrArticle2j of the Charter ernbraces at leaçt
some of the mommendations under Chzpter VI of the Charter.
Well, Mr. Presiderit,that concludes rny arpent on Our second
psht. With Ymir permission 1 shaU nmv interpolate something which
1 shodd have said before. 1 should logically have said it wl~enI was
talking about the use of preparator tyrk and its admissibility. I
tvlsh tarefer theCourt ta an order which the Permanent Court made
in the caseconcemiag the International Comnission of the River Oder.
This Order \vilbe found inSeriesA., No. 23,at page41, and the whale
content of the mattw is &ar from reading four short paragraphsof
the Order itself.
Paland onr thesother, and this Is what thetsOrder tsajrs: hand ad

"Wheteas, in their Çaunter-Mernoriai, the Six Governments
requestthe Court to rule that thepassages ofthe Polish ~lernorial
mntaining referencea bo the rec~rds of the preyaratorÿ work oi
the Treaty of Versailles and quotations itom these records me
to be disregarrle; as,in their oralobservations,they have asked
theCourt to rule that no attention is 50bepaid tothese passages
or to certain passages in the Polish Counter-Mernorial;
Whereas, -in his oial observations and sabmiçsions, the Agent
forthe PoFishGovcrnrrient has stated that lie deferto "thewjçhes 116 STATEMENT BY- Mr. BECKETT (17.~~1 - 2 III48
of the'Six Govemmerits to the effecfthatno accountshaU be taken
of the passages inquestion' ancl that he 'does not insistupon'
making use of the passagesin Iiiçdefence,adding howevet thnt
'the PolishGovernment reserves the nght inthe argument on the
mecitç to mail itselfof referencesto or citations from'the afnre-
said prepaatary wbrk 5n so far as it has already been made
public'''

1wish tomphaslze that the PoJishAgent n7as stiEIwisliinto rmewe
the rigtito mdce use of thcsepassages fram the preparatory warlt of
tlieIgarisConference in sofar as they had ben made public. 1 now
go onto the next paragraphof the Court Order, whicli stateasfullows :
"Whereas three of the Parties çonmed in the present case
did mot take pae in the work of the Conference which repxed
the Treaty of Versailles; as,accordinglÿ,the record 01t 1is work
cannot be used to determine,in so Faras they are wncerned, the
import of the Treaty ; as this consideration applies ivitli eqzial
force in regard to the passage previously puhlished frem this
remrd and to the passages wl-iichhavebeen reproduced for the
firsttime in the~vrit.tedocuments relating ta the presentcase."

Inthat reCit helCourt is sayingthat itdoesnot make any differcnce
whether the records have been pilMishec1or not. It cuntinties :
I'1;5There an,any particular case,no açcount can be takenof
widence tvhich inot admissiMa inrespect ofcertainof tliParties
to tliatcase; wltereas,in the present case, the oniy pqaratcrry
mrk in question isthat performed 2?ythe Cornnlissionon Ports",

and so forth.
Inthat Order the CoUrttuled th& the preparatory'workof a conf&-
ence, whether priblisheclor nat piiblished~vould neverbe admissible
against ariy party to the instrument tliathad not pmticipnted in the
conference ~vhich drew it np. Therefore, on the,principle of that
Order the Minutes af San Francisco axe not available againsta gxeat
fnany Menlbcrs of theUnited Nations. Tl-iereare agreritnumber of
Mernhers of tlie United Nations now who did not participate in San
Francisco a;tail. Accclrdingta that Order,thnse Minutes ofSan Fran-
cisco cannot be usal ap~inst them at dl. Coirld it beçaid that:the
conclusionwhich the Court reachec ;n the interpretaixon of the Charter
-a conclusion whicli is going tabe aukhoritative for dl Nçmks-is
before the Courtmeat the time liappcnedheto haveobeen representedrtats

toeputaupon the Charter to differ a~cordingtito whetlier,for instance,
Srveden is a party tn the caseor tvhether itis the United Kingdom 7
'
of tlieUnited, Bations equally,gif those records of $an Franciscosarc

not evidence against soom ppatlitehe, can now notbe evidence against
gether., and therefo~, on tliat gmurid,they ninst be excludeclalte

That is a furthersupport ta the vietv rt'hichwas expressecivery
we11 in an articleinthe Americdz ~OUWI~ of I~termdio~tlaLaw by
Professor Quincy FVright, to which the Attorney-Gencralmade some referencein bis arguments. Pou wil?rernemberthat Professor Quincy
Wright is saylng that it is doubtful,illiieeundesicable, itomake use
ofthe preparatory tvork to intmpret an instriirnenttvhicliisin the
nature ola gcnmal statute. Zwill rmd anotfier passage from Professor -
QuincvWright,tirhich is differentftum that wliichthe Attorney-Generai
read.- Ttis once more in tlieA>rael.8cmJo0tbr?~oLf I%ztentata'o~daw, ,
Volume 23, and tlie passage wliicli am quoting cornes at thetop of
page rer, This il;what he says :

"The generd and permanent objects aimedat by law-making tteaties,
themrnplicated procedme by wliich they are made, and the interna1
law effeçt often attributeto them, ailsuggest an andogr to statutes,
and the propritity ormrt tainterpretativematerials wliich dlStates
can be pre~iimed to have accepted inadvance, wliicliwiU asstrre uni-
fomity of application and wliiclwillpermit of adnptatiorito changing
conditions. lCelianceon preparatoq work or natitional riiles of inter-
pretation ~voultprobably resultin appIicntionscontrary tothe intent
ofsome of the parties,would cmtainly interfme with the generaIitj7,
uniormi@and permanence of the ins'irument's applicabiliand tvod d
militate against effective administration othe instrnment by courts
and offiualsin the various coiintries."
TIrisarticl was rvritteninqrg, but in those sentenci esenzbodied
the argument which I have just bcen putting to pu znd supyorted
by tlie grcaauthority of the Oder case,tvhicli, incidentally, Yrofesçar
Quincy Wriglit muld nof have hacl before him when he ~vrote that
article.He says that when you are interpreting a statemtnt, you
must oniy make use of materialswhich al1States can be presurned to
have acceptedinadvance. Yoti rnt.istorimalzeuse rifmaterialwhich
~vill açwreunifomity of application,and'that is exacUvnzy argument.
The Sm Franciscn records are not admissible at all against many
Members 01 the United Nations. Ifynu admit thm, you arc basing
yourself onmaterials whcl-r not aU Stxtes can be presurned tohave
acceyted inadvance, You arebasing yoursdf on materid which r<dl
not assure unifcirmity of application.
That, Kr. Presiclcnt,is a furtherargument which I wish to make
an the preparatory wmk.

May it please theCourt. 1 notrrwi& to turn to ourthird argument,
Under this arguinentwe submit that the Court, as a judicial organof
theUnited Nations, isvalidly ilivested with jurisdiction icaniormity
with Articlc 36 of the Statute, once either parQ to a dispute befo~e
the Secirrity Gouncilhas acted upona rewmmendation of the Coilnçil,
made under Article 36 of the Chuter; to refer the diçpute tri the
Court. hny such recommendation, wen if not directly ùindiiig
upon the parties, haci definite legd effects, It is,1 submit; rather
like an Optional Claus signature, hy bath pcvties to a dispute of
better.eit isras if theaSecuritytsGouncil ~csolution haildtheersame

Article 92 aofçthe Charter, which btmakes your Court the Apaprincipal juWal organ of the United Nations, a provisionwhich initsdf has
sorne weight inthis connexion,our casein fhis third argument rests
upon the ~rords "dl matters specially provided fciin the Charter" in
Article36 (1)of the Statute, and on Article 36 of the Charter, and in
- particular paragrapb3. Our opponents invite you to hold that this
addition toArticle36 of the Statutehad no effcctatdl, but this ignores
the fandamental principle of interpretationut 7e.rnzagisuaienl..
I have already cited to you a nurnber of cases of the Permanent
Court wheze this princlple has been laid dubvri .s the fundamental
principle ofhterpretation, and where the Permanent Court has @ven
very wide ~Tfect to this prinçiple. I rnentioned amongst others the
Chon8m Factory se and the Iraq frontiw case. Intlre Iraq frontier
case the Permanent Court insisteclon the Coirncil of theLeagriebeing
able to act effectivdy to settle thedispute. The Secun9 Council
under the Charterwould not be a veryeflectivebody tu settlea dispute
if these resolutiom directing modes of settlement were not bincling,
and if even a recommendation tliat tlie parties should goto the Court
prddced no lepl efiect.
Tn my second argument I made a distinctionhetween methods of
settlcment on the one hasid and tems ofsettlement on the othet. In
the Iraq frontiercase the Gouncilof the League of Nations had, asthe
Court held, polver to pmcribe the settlement. Tb, however, f
submit is notinany way çontrary tothe distinction which 1have made
between modes of setflement and terms of settlement, because if you
lmlc at mliat the Corincil of the Leaguebad todo in the Iraq frontier
case, you wiIl fincl that it iaquestion of drawing a completelynew
frontierbetwmn territoriesboth of which before the fiist WorldWar
were part of one empire, namely the Ottoman Empire. ThereIoie,
it qvasan essentially political acand not a tking, 1 imagine, which
ahCoart coald very well be asked to do,
IveIl, the Court in theIraqfrontier cm adopted a conclusionhased
onthe principle ztt.rwmagis vdetxt, and 1 subrnitthat in tbiscase yon
innyour Statute rinlestherewkino other cwrsêopenctttatyou*e But there
isanorher courseopen 50you, nmely, my oneof the threà alternative
marses which we have submitted to you. 3ly present argument,
that is ourthird point, lemes Articl25of the Charter aside anclproceeds
as follows, Ifou have in Article 36 (1) of the Statirtecertau-i words
refertingto the Charter, you then bok at the Charter and you find
one provision and one provision only, that is to say,Article 36, para-
grayh 3, which isrelevant ;and having fond ityou can then gve a
perfectly reasonable interprekation to your Statute by regardmga
resolution ofthe SeclirityCouncil under Article 36 (3)of the Charter
'& ~iving the Court jurisdictian Ui the same manner asif the parties
"hd signed a specialagreement referri ngthe Court the dispirte ~vhicfi
\vas before the Seçtrrity Council,
On what ground do our oppnents ask you to refrain from adopting
this intcrprctatiori~vhich 1 submit is cleatly indiçated by al1 the
rttleswith regard to the intqretation of treaties? ThQ askyou
to do so on ,a passage in the Minutes ofthe 5an Francisco Confer-
ence, aiid 1 would, therefore,subjeçt of course to dl out reservations
about preparatoir vyork,refer you tu this passage. It ïs 3.statement
by a rapporteur of Cornmittee III/ajBat its12th Meeting anJune rqth, . 5TATEMENT BY MK. BECKETT (v.K.) - 2 ITi48) II9
andit ap ears inVolme rz ofthe SanFrancisco Records,at page 108.
Perhapç Phad better iead uptc itby beginningjnst a little earliand
çalling attention to the Rlinutes of the 11thMeeting, on May zgth,
vrhich you find in the same volume on page 97. These gou will find
the follo~vin:

"The ddegatc of the United States presented the follnwing
motion :
CliapterVIII. Section A, ofalanguage specifically ailthorkaing the
Secutity Councilto recornmend to the parties refereincof jltsti-
cicrble disputeto the International Court of Justice-'"

Shen lowcr down yau find:
"Dm'swfi: on a motion by the delepte of Bolivia,the Corn-
mittee, by a vote of 23 to O; voted to saspend consicleration of
the motion of the delegatc of the United States,and of thc first
sentence of paragraplr 6, Section A, Chapter VIII, until Com-
mittee lV/r had rcached a decisionon the question of.obIig;ttcisy
jurisiction."
That is followedby the deïegate ofthe United Statesstating that,
in hi5opinion, it7uaspossibleta adopt the motion without inany way
prejudicing the settlemcnt of the problem of comp~tlsaryjuriscliction.
Then the story is taken up at the 12th Meeting on June r4tb, at
page 108, and here you find the follawmgpissage. ft btgins
"Article 5", which is a litiiepuzzling. Tt isa drafting cornmittee
numbec and it \vasequivaient to wllat was paagraph 6 of Chap
ter VI11 A, and to what is36 (3) inthe present Charter. Tt states :
"The mpportmr of Cornmittee IIIlzrB mphasized that this
artide definitely di$not involve the principle of compulsory
ji~risdicticnoç did it permit the Council to refer any justiciable
disputetr,the Court. TheCouncil itselflrad nosuch right wder
this article.The Council merely was rerninded that, asa general
rule, justiciable disputes shaunormdly be referredto the Court.
The Councii was not authorizd tuinsistthat the partiest-osuch
a dispute miist refer itothe Court, This provisio was entirely
compatiblewith Article 36 of the Statutuof tI-ieCourtas adcipted
inCornmittee IV/r."
Now let me franMy admit thatthe sentence "Tlie Canncil was nut
authorized to insist tIiat tpasties ta such a disputemu& referit to
the Court", mupled wEth the words that it "did nut involvathe prin-
cipleof compulsory jurisdiction",stateçaview whichis opposedto that
for whiçh 1am now contending ;but at ameeting of another Couunitter?,
that is,Cornmittee W\I of the main Conferenceon June 6th, which
we findat pa e 283of,Voltme 13 of thefiGautes, youfind exacty the
oppsite çonc fusion. Kere 1want toread from CornmitteeIVp, which
commences "Article 36 of tlrc Statute" a,d continues:
"The Cornmittee considerd the roposals ybmitted by the
.ddegations of Iran and France. T le Frcnch ddegate proposed
that thewords 'in the Chtuterof theUriitedNations or' be ddeted
inparagaph Cr) of Article 36, since the Charter did not appear
l to confer jririsdiçtion in ancase. However, ancithe-rview \vas expressed that pacqmph 6 of Chapter VI11 A of the Charter
related toçornpulsoryreferences of casesto theÇenrt by the Secur-
ity Council, It \vas therefore apd that the sl~ould be no
deletion."'

There isCornitte TV/r, the Cornmittee which was chargecl%<th
the dtawing ti of your Statute: mld because of the view expresscd
that paragrapf 6 of CiiapterVI11 A-and that mems thc existing
Article36 {3]-related tr>compuh'lry relerence of casesto thc Coirrt
by the Security Çouncil,the proposal ol theFrench delegate that tl-iose
wotds sliould be struck out ofyour Statute,was rejected, Therefore,
thrise words were only leftin becme of the view that thtre was in
Article36 (3)a possibllityofctsmpulçùry referenceuf casesto tliCourt
Iiy tliSecrlrityConricil. Itis truc tliatthe rapporteurofCornmittee
IIXlz-and 1 aow go back to the otIier passagewl-iich1 was reading
ta you-ends up as follows :
"This provision\vas cntirely compatible 1VithArticle 36 of the
' . Statuteof theCourtasadoptedinCommitteel\~/~." (Vol.12,
p. 108.)

1 have tried vcry hatd to understand wbat he rneant. Fitst of ail,
what dues hemean by "this provision" 7 The provision he is talking
about is what iç now 36 (J)so the sentence isthat 36 (3)'"isenkirely
compatible tvithArticle 36 of the Statute of theCourt asadoptecl in
Cornmittee 1VII".
with CornmitteeaIV,ebemuse, oftcoiirseZhosetwod things arcaconsistent.
But ~hat about the words in pour Statute referringto the Charter of
the United Natioils,iT36 (3) only hacl tlie effewhichthe rapportair
said? In theearlier partaf tliis reportlilias heen expressingaview
that theydid not cover the cornpulsorysend'ingof casesby the Security
Council to the Court. At any rate the rapportetir of Carnmit'ceeIf1,Je
does not help at al1 toexplain horv tlisse words shoi~ld be left in ynur
Statute if36/3does not mean what Cornmittee IVlr dd it mat. He
leavw that entirelyin the air.
The view of Cornmittee 1Vl1 is jwtasrnuch in favourof rny argument
as the view ofCornmittee II B is infavaurofthe argument of my oppo-
nents, sowe have here tIieconflicting viewsof twri different commit-
tees.both expressed at a Iate stage of theSan Francisco Confwence,
and itison tliebasisof sucha mnflict of preparatosyrvork thatyoir are
asked b our o ponents tosay thalsome words in,pur Statute which
ivere dYiberatYy left inaftet.al1thediscussions, and which werethem-
selva one of tliefew innuvations as çoqared with the Statitteof the
previous Court, have no meaning at all. As Hie Corirt knolvs, tve in
the United Kingdom are not greatlg infavour of the useof prepratoy
work for the purposes ofinterpreting instruments ;but I admit that
there isperfeçtlygood authoritÿ for uusinpmparatoy wark in ricase
wlieretl-itreatytobe interpteted containtwo praviçionswhich appear
to conflict, and thereis no other source of interpretxtion by which
.the conffict can bresolved.
Whar is the position Izere3 Herc our opponcntç a5k j7au on'the
b=i% of prcpmtcrry mork, wl~ichis itself 'contrdictory, to inferpret
provisions of theCharter and the Statute inwhidl the isno confiict at xZ1and the meaning of rilhich is othertvkda, and then to adopt
on interpretatianwhiçh is direcilycontrary to the rde ut res =gis
urcted,and to make a dead letter of certain wards in your Statute.
L humbly suàrriit that tliat isan absolutereversal ofal1 des of inter-
pretatiorz,
My Ieamed frimd Pmiesmr VochoE vent a vent deal of his oral
argumentin demonstratingthat the words "the parti='-'at the begin:
ning of Article36 (r)in theStatute, mean both parties. He at-ahlishecl
this by going baçk to thepreparatory work inrgrg of tlie Sfat~~tocif
tlie Pemanei~t Court, and he talked about meetings afthe First Genwd
Asscrnbl of the League ofNations and earliermeetings of thejudges
of the B emanent Court. May 1 admit at once tbat I tliink he has
iully established Shatpoint;but it was one wliich 1,atany rate,would
not have rquired suçhresearclitomake me acceptit. He then ~inted
Charter, and heçlagainsasayso"the'parties" mustinhere have the osmehe
meming asin Article36 (1)ofthe Cl~arter,and thereforeit means "bot11
parties". May 1 say xgain that I agrec witli,Iiir1tliere,It is part '
of eiircase thaf the Resoliition ofthe Security Gouncil required both
the United Kingdom and Albanis to refer this case to the Gotrrt.
But,. of course, Professor VochoC iskyhg Eo establish somethiog
more, He is tying' tosead the Resolntion of April as if icontaineCf
the word "jaintif"' He was trying to establish that the words "by
the parties in accwclanccwith the Statut ef theCourt"mmeantthat
they must concludc a special agreement. Here, of course, we do not
agree, and we liave two ansivers. First, there Is notkininthe Statute
of the Court which requires spcçialagreement in mch a case, and our
argtzment isthat the Rcsolution ofthe Security Council takeçthe place
of a çpecial agreemenl, Futther, I think we have demanstrated that
under your Statute and the Killesof the Court it is possiblin such a
case to start proceedings befare this Court by written ~~pZcation.
T shall not argue ihat further ;amongst otlier thhgs tlieAttomey-
General referred tcrri.sentence inthe Court's YeclrbooR.
In this connexion Professor Iirochd referred to anotlier Jlittlë bit
of preparrttorywork which I s'lia1also quote. It isthe 4th Mmting
of Cornittee III12 on June xgth, and it cornes at page 137of
VoJurneX11. This is the passage :
"The Sec~tary, after readingkhe articleJ'-'me article" means
for present parposes Article 36 (3) ofthe Charter-"noted that
the sub-committee, onthe motion of the delegate of Nonvay, had
' added the words 'by the partiea sfter theword 'referred'."

Then, der a short omksion, tve have the following ;
"The su-cornmittee had .accepted the addition of the. ~vords
'by the parties-in ordertomake it perfectly cleatthat theSecnritg
Counctl had no right or dnty to refer justiciabledisputes to the
Lntemational Court of Jwtice."

%fia cornes the decision:
"The Carnittee, by a vote of 22 to 2, adopted Article 5"'-as
1 it was then cded-%th no change other than the addition of
the words %y the parties' after theword 'rcferred'."

' 9 Now, what I undmtand the view of the sub-codttee tobe in
this passagei~this, that the Çecurity Couficicarinot itself seizthe '
Court in-acontentim case, It cannot proceed as it can tvhm it is
aquestionof an advisory opinion,seizingthe Court sirnplyby itsown
molution ; in orderthat the Court should beseized in a contentious
case,it isnecesçary that the Secunty 'CounciYs re$01utioashouldbe
acted upon hg. ove of the parties,and that is not merely consistent
with,but infact istheargumentwhich I am putting befort you now.
To surn up our position on this part of our case, 1 Say that
my present submission inthe fint place isfdly consistent with
the views of the Permanent Court about ut res maps vaieçrt, In
fa&, in a substanti selse the submksiori ~vhichJ am mkking to
you about Artiçle 36 (3) of the Charter and Article 36 (1)of yous
Statutd eots not goso far assorne of the deckions of the Permanent
Court inivh4chit held itself entittodgiveankxtensive,interpretation
ofthe dauses of the treatyia order te render effectivethe purposes
ofthe treatyas a whoEe,as disthpushed fsom the wordsactually used,
Therefcirejust to suniap my argument finallyon this partof the
case,it isas follows:
(a)The recommendationof the SecurityÇound ofthe 9th Apd 1947
was a valid recommendation tlnderArticle 36 of the Chaiter.
(b)That recommendation establisheda basis for the juri~diction
iithe Court under Article 36 (1)ofthe Statut ei,the ground that
thisk a matter special provided for in the Charta of the United
the Court isthe judicia1organdofhthe UnitedrNations. of the Charter
'
theparties, and it is sùfficiiftthe caseIsphroughtbcfore the Court
inune of the ways inwhich cases csanbe brought beforethe Court
under Article 40 ofthe Statute.
O (d)The Governmnt of the United Kingdom,by acting on the
~eco~vdaf-ion of the Secarity Çouncil, did validly estnblish the
~urisdicttopf the Court over the present dispute.
1 have nearly hished. men the tnnslator lias traflslatethis
portionof my address to you, rny addresswiU be concluded. I wish
before1 finishto referyou to yet onemore passage of the Minutes of ,
San Francisco. 1 do so becauseitjs here that the meaning of the word
"recommendation"is principdly discussed. If the Court finds that
neverthclessit does not get very much guidance from that passage,
Iwould oniy sa that itisnot:part of OUTcase that thetvavizzcxprkpa-
ratoireof San 8mncisco arevery hdpful.for thepllrposes ofthe inter-
pretatibn af theCharter; bnt I do not wish to neglect thiiispasage,
and we do not wish itta bethought thatthere is anythingithe travaux
prkflarutoi~fiofrvhichwe are afraid. The passage xvhichT wish to
refeïyou to now cornes from the meeting of Conmittee IIII3, the
8th Meeting, held on May 16th, Volume XII, at page 334. At that
, meeting, pu will finclthe following:
"Thedelegate from Nmay asked for an expimation of the
meaningof the words ...'rnakerecommendations otdecide upùn
the rneasuresnmessaryYin paragraph I iiSectionB, Chapter VIlE."

- Section B, Chapter VITI ,srvhat U nm Chapter VIT. The actual
paragraph z is no longer in the 'Charter.; "Rb first impressiowas that the measures to which refmce
was made were measiires to be taken only by the partiesto th8
dispute. He- asked if the Security &uncilas recomrnendations
autoniatically impiied sanctions. He swggested that, whenever
the Council take action whereby theuse of forcewas not intended,
the Gounci1 should specificallyrefer to its mamendation as
friendly advice.
The delegatefromBelgiumthoughtthat the mïd 'recommend-
ations' shordd be either deleted from paragraph2"-paragraph z
is the presentArticle 39-"or that a more suitabw loerd be sub
stihited. The Chairnian proposed a sn~all sub-cornmittee."
JVe shdl End thmughout these meetings the delegate of Bdgium
worrJting out what is the rneanin of the ward "r~ommendatioris".
Then itwas referredtoa little sub-cornmittee consistofgtlie dclegates
ofBelgium, Greece and theUnited Rhgdom, and then we get the next
meeting, which iistheqth, heId on, 25th May. Ttis atpage 37~~ and
it begins:

"TheNwrwegiandelegate reitexated his previous objections to
the wording of pamgraph 2 of Section B, Chapter VIVTII,"
That isthepresent ArticTegg. Yauwillrememberthat whathewantd
was bat wwheneverthe Security Council recommencled something
which did notrequîre the use offorce, it shouldescribeit as"friendly
advice''.
"TheBelgian ddegate ..,asked the rapporteur toconsider the
ciifficultiesin interpretatioriraiby the use of thewrd 'remrn-
mendations' inboth Section A and paragmph z ofSection B.'"

The rest of what the delegate of Belgium says -isnot relevantto this
point.
'"SlieCzechodovakian delegate pointed out the confusion in
terminology throughout the Dumbarton Oaks Prsposals in whicli
thete are so many different wordings of the varying degrees of
aggression. He asked ,tm ,that thetvordingof 'recomnizendaions'
in paragrapli2 of Section B,ChapterVTII, be clarifiedsothat it
'amicable' recomniendations.' 'her or not it referrd onIy ta

Then the matter cames up again atthe next meeting, the qth, and
that isat page 360 of the volume. We have m item lreaded "Discus-
sion of enforcement pwers of Security Council, Chapter VIII,
Section H", and it seadç :
"ln response to que&ions, the following clarificationwere
made of tliechange.,..
2. The word 'recommendations', as it appeared inpdragraphs I
and z of the motion, carried a diffmt meaning from the ivord
as used inCl~apter VIII, Section A,"
That is saying that "'rcsommendation" means one thing inChapterVI
and another thing inÇhapter VTI. A littlelater on we find this:

"The delegnte from Eklgium dthdrew the text for liis sub-
cornmittee in favous 02the Chine* motion, with these trvoprovi-
sions : (1 that mp rmrnmendatirsn made under %Etion B shodcl
conform with the definition of 'rmmrnendations' as used in
Section A..."

That is just the opporjite; the nieiiriin.of "recommendations" in
ÇI~aptersVI ad VfI isto beexactly the same. The restof tlrChinese
motion is not relevant to thiç.
The Chinese motion was acloptd, and than tve have the report of
the rapporteur ot Cornmittee IIII3 on what is nnw Chapter VII, and
that cnmes at page 507ofVolume XIL Somcof that is,1 think, rele-
vant. I will begin reading at tliebeginning :
"The newpmgraph I which ~eproclnçesin effwt thtcprovisions
of theformerpwdgraph 2 ofthe Dumbarton Oaks Proposaisleaves
to the Security Coirncilthe task of deten-nining the existenceof
an^'th~;eato the peace, breactl of thpmcc. or actof aggreçsion.
According to the circumstances,the SeciiritGouncil should make
recommendations and dccide upon the enforcement measmes to
be taken zs set fcrth inthis Chapter.'.'

Thm WC corneto this:
"Xt cvouId nevcrthelessbe contrary tu the opinion generaüy
e'rpressedtvithin thc Comniittee to imagine that the very great
Iatit~~dethus letto the Councilshould retard itaction or dirninish.
its effectiveness. Tliijs what ljenator Rolin, the Belgian repre-
sentative, deçired to etnpliasizeby withdratving in the nanie ol
the draftirig sb-cornittee the drdt propoçed by that sub-corn-
mittce."
1 have read to yau the draft whichhe withdmv ;I did so jusC now.

"Therefore, according to his repuest,it was decided that the
fiav text should be interpreted in accordance rvith the =ope of
the fortowing abçervations, the inclusfon of which inthe report
was unanirnnusly approved hy the Crimittee.
1 In using the \lord 'rmmmendatinnç' in Section 3, ai;
already foiincl inpardgraph 5, Section. A, the Cornittee has
intended to show that the action ofthe Council so fas as it relates
to the peaceful setthmieo nfa dispute orto situationsgiving fise
conçjclerdtasfgqvemedbrbycthe:provisians contaifid in SectionA."e

As 1 understand Wat, the Coniniitteecame down in favour ofthe
vkav that a recomrnendatitionin ChapterVI1 and a recornrnendatieii
in Chapter VI have the samaforce. -Wehave go2 established fmm that
passage whicli 1 have read that tlierecommendations in the twa
chapters have tllc same force, but ive are not very muchfur-er on
the ATinutesinansweringthe delegatesof BeTgium and Nonvay ,beause
1 cannat flnd anything inthe Minutes xvhich expessly sayswhat force
they have,
To resurneoiir views onal1this question ofpreparabq wbrk, fiet
of au you have my point bsed OR the Oder case. Tl-iepreparatory
work is .excluded dtogether,b~caust thwe arebmany Members of the
United Nations who were not at San Fsancisca, and it doesnot matter
from that point of view whether the minutes are publisl~ed or not. STATEMEXT BY MT, BECKETT (V-K,) - 2 Uf 48 =5

Secondly, yotihave Mqt point that preparatory work niust not lx
med in the interpretation 01:the treatrvhere themeaningof the text
tan be çlearly itsce~tainbyapplying other rulesthat ista ssy an the
naturalrneaning ofthe wordsused Ln theircontest,and from the rule
wf719smqis valcat.
Now, Mr. %sident, we say that the textofthe Charter,if you read
.it by itself, iclex and harmonieus, We take leave to doubt that
if thetextstood alone the would réallylx anp l-iesitation about its
interpretatiunexcept perhaps an initial hesitation whichanses from
the mere use of the wnrd *"reçomrnendations"inChapter VI and
"decisions"in Article 25,but that hesitationis quicklyresojivedwhen
you sead Article25 in its cantextand see, 'andyou soon rio seethat
the Charter usesthe words "recommendation" and "decision" dmoçt '
interchangeabljr.1 do not want to sep& the argument, but yod-
remember Article18 (3)and Article 27 (31,
In spite of thatyou are asked on the basis ofthe prepuatory work
toput a corzstmctionon the Chartes ivlnichisdifferenfsom rrhatthe
words n~tilsalFy mean, andis çomptctcly confrary to the rde 4r.res
magts vdeaf, because it reduces to ineffectivenessons pmvision of
your Statuta and Article zs of the Charter.
1corne ko mgrthird point. Lemhg al1tl~esepurekylegalarguments
asiclcare the records of the San Francisco Conference very good
rerords to assisi you in the intepretation of theCharter? Do they
appear,from what you have heard of thcm now, to be ~cords that
aie going to solve yourdifficulticor triiit not hr:the casethat they
wi!l raise famore points and doubts tlim they willbe ableto iolv ?e
However, supposing youwish ta refer to thsrn,what isihc effectof
thosc records on the present case? 1 will tske them in iodr parts,
IVT~have frrstthoseMiniites kvhich aresetout by our opponents in
theirAnnex6, Those Minuteswerc dealtwith tiytheAttoxney Gcneral,
and I submit that he shotwd yotl thatthose Minutes \wre altogether
in orlrfavaur. You rernernber the point. The Belgians propusct do
add atthc end ofArticle 25 furthm wods which mewt that decisiuns
of the Securit Couriciwese binding ifthey were takenin accorclance
with Chapter VI or ChapterVII. My learned friend, ProfesmrVochoE,
in his argument, made a slight slip, because in parofhis arpment
ha had not seen that Chapter VI11of Dmbarton Oaks covered botk
Lhapter VI and Chapter VI1 ofthc Charter. The Belgian amendment
to add inArticle 25 " taken under Chapters VI and VI 1" was scjeçted,
but it ms rejectc-h&,zitseif \vastoo narrow, 'netbecause it \vastoo
mde. That is one passage ofthe Minutes whiçh 1ve thinkis totdly
in ous favour,
Then thriristh second goup ofMinutes, and that isthe fist group
rvirhwMcb 1 &ait thismo-, in connexionwith the second argument
ofthe United Kingdom an this part ofthe case. So faras those Minutes
are concerned, while admitting that theirgeneral tendency iç against
onr argument No. I,1:saythat it iin no way in coriflict&th .oiirargii-
rneritsNos. 2 or 3.
The third part conskts of those two passages rehting to rvhatis
now Article 36 (3) ofthe Charter, and Article 36 (1)of your Statute.
Lhere, as you know, the= are t~vodifferentMinutes, completely con-
tradiçtmy, and as far as1 cm see they cornpfetely cancel out. . Wy, thereare the Minuteswhich1have jusr tead toyou inordw
to see what light theythrewon the rnmnlngof thewoîd "recommend-
aiion". Al1 that 1think thal we gotout of thatwas that "rccommend-
ation" has the same meaning in Chapter VI and in Chapter VIT.
As far asthat goes that is in oiifavaur tao, because ifyou do not
hold that Articlez~ covers any.recommendationç, you areweakening
Chapter VI1 as well as Chapter VI.
Ihave endeavoured to show tht the Minutes ofSan Francisco are'
thearguments of our opponents. Why, therefore,tdoywermakefsoomuchf
fuss about them? Wcll, if theCourt willlcrokat the jnrispmdence
of the old Court and the cases before the old Court, i.t wiil find,
I think, that the United Kingdom ha3 taken wlth regard to prepar-
abry work an absolutely consistent attitudein,I thhk 1 am right in
saylng, every case which we have beed in. We have always been
againstthe useof preparatory work by the Cod fur theinterpiretation
of fxeatieç.We have taken that line incases where, by the opinion
oc jvdgment of the Court, the preparatory work was entirely in
orrsfavour. Why diriwe do that ? I thinkthat there aretwo main
xeasons.
Firstof au,possiblgwe are duenced by our own nationd practice
as regards anr own legislation, where, a1 ex@ the Court knows,
yoilmay never refer ta debates in-Parliamentand to statements by
Ministersto interpret anAct of Parliament, The Acts of Parliament
have to beintetpreted inaccordanw cith thar own language, and al1
the iest is excldded. Perhaps we are partiallyinfluenced by thkt
because we have fomid that tù be a satisfactp asaçtiw rvithregard
to the interpretatioof Acts of Parliament.
1 think, however, that we have another Teason, and that is opr
experienceas delegrtteand as participators in internationalconfer-
ences, and the manner inwhich at suc11 conferencesthe minuter; are
drawn up and dealt ~vith. I am now referring toa matter which is
within tke experience of members of the Coust as much or more thân
it is withimy om. Tke kst thir~gabout internationalconferences
as a de-and itcertainlyapplied to San3Francis soJ1 am tdd-
isthe exttaordinary pressure of work and the pressure on the time
of tIiepeople attenclingthe conference. In thoçe circamslmces, a
sectetar ofa cornmittee draws ap a sort of rbsuméminutes, trying
togetthemainpoints of the discussion. Ofcourse, these San'Francisco
Minates are not fullminutes of everything that \vassaid ;they are
the effortof theseçreta royresume the nain pointsof the dlsciissim.
That, of course,is a frightfully difficult thita do,
Youawdo get:achancetasna ruleofeobjecthgetouthe minutesaandagetting
thm correctedifyoudo mottL& that they me accrlratebut in prac-
'tlceitis by no means alwrtyçthe case tliadelegates anddelegatlons
hd the timeto give this aumrnaryrecordof idiscussioinsacornmittee
the attention dhichthey would giveto itif they thought that these
summq records afterwards were going tobe of vitalimportance for
the interpretationof the ultimate text. I think tliat itwiUhe the
experienceof nearlya11of us thatthe minate- seldom get thatamount
ofattention, And what a diffimltthing it Is tomake a surnmary
record! One my iilwtra-athat rather grxphidly by sliowing what happens
sometllnes to minutes whi. aresimply a stenographic record of what
the speaker said. Row often does itocciltthen that the word 'bot'',
or some other würd. isIeftoat, making the çense ofwhat the speaker
said mmpletely differcnt fmm what he in fact did say, andhuw easy .
it iç if you do notreadthe record which is sent tu you with extreme
care tamiss the fact that "'not"is leftout. Bow easy itis,therefore,
to leavefor etmity a record of yow having saidsomething wmpletely
opposite to that which you did say.
That concludes rny address to the Court,and1 reç-ctfuliy thank
the Cottrt for its attention. Aprés avoir entenduI'exposA qui a kt4fait parlkutre Partieje tiens
h VOUS remercier de me donner l'occasion de prendre de noirveau la
parole pour tirer leconclusionsde notre these, notamment en ce qui
concerne l'exception préliminaire,et pour développer un peu plus
longuement certaines idées que nous croyonsutiles. LM.le profsseur
VochoE,conseil du Gouvernement albanais, dssire fail'analysenéces-
saire,mais pourma p.xrt, je femi quelques remargues génbralespour
réciseren mgme temps l'attitude de mon Gouvernement. Je n'ai pas
flintentiondeparlerlonyement, &tant donne le caractkr de laréplique
telqu'ila &tgdéfinipar M. le Président lors de la dernièreseancet je
ne mentionnerai cesquelques pin s que brièvment.
Dans mon premier discours,ainsique dans toute notre plaidoirie,
nousavonspr6sentC à Ia Courla thkae.de lanécessitéd'un compromis
parce que, camme nous l'avons dit, lecompromis est le seul instniment
valable pom saisir laCour dans lecas présent,
M. Ie représentab ntitannique,au début:de son exposé, a exprimé.
IYd& qu'il étaitprêt,pour sapart, à accepterle compromis. C'étaitun
symptbme favwahle que l'aiitrePartie considhe comme utilel'établis-
serpent de ce compromis,c'est-à-dired'un accord.qui tiendraitcompte
de nos droits et de nos intkêts.
Réalisertechniquement le compromis,c'étaits'assurerlétemps neces-
saire à cetterfalisittion pour que Ies Parties puissent nkocicrNous
noasinspirons des meiileures intentions possibleet il serait peut-être
superflude ma part de répéter encore une fois devant laCour combien
dkiretrx estle Go~verriment albanais de se conformeraux recomman-
dations d-clConseil de Sécurité.
Dans ces conditions, il nous aurait meme paru legiqiide proposer
d'un commun accord la Cour de bien vouloir clorle débatp ,uisque
la dixussion sur larequêteet l'exception n'ailrait pl4th nécessaim.
Toutefois, poirrne pas laisser subsistes le moindre ndentendu sur
nn point quelconque,en prenant contact avecl'autr Peartienous avons
renvoyerdlesdbbatstheun mois, délainécessairpouraque les néqociations
arrivent à un compromis surla dEfiriitiondu diffbrend et en n~tifrer ,
ensuite a la Caur le xéçultat.
C'étaitlà 'ne proposition raisonnable. En effet i,s'agit icd'une
affaireentrehtats,et,en dépitdes meilleures intentionilestimpossiblt
d'6tablir un compromis uniquement par des conversations tdéphû-
niques. De notre cijté,nous ferions toutce qui est en notre pouvoir
pour arriverà un accord c.de cettefaçon les qu~stionsqni se débattent
ici auraient pris fin. Maheureusement, je dois regretterque l'autre
Partie n'aitpas étédisposée kdonner suiteA notre proposition.C'est
pourqnoi en attendant nous%mm= bien abiigésde continuerles débats. En effet,de nombrew~ points ont ététouches pu l'autre Partie, quin'a
pas rnariquk ,aut endeveloppant lepoint de vue juridique,d'examiner
aussi I'attude duGouvernement albanais.àl'&ad de larecommanda-
tion ch Conseil de Sé&t& et les motifs qui ont poussé I'Mbanie h
répondre &la Cour lez jdet ainsi qu'a dEposeuneexçeptiou prélimi-
naire plus tard. Peut-êtreCS remarques politiquesétaienteilesnéces-
sairespour combler un vide danslathésebritannique engenérd et pour
'soutenir Ix requête en particulier,
En ce qui conceme la requgte,commenous l'avons déclarkdans notre
prerriierpIaidoycr,nous maintenons et:nous affinrionavec force que
cette requete est Inadmissible et non valable, C'et un proçddé qui
confirme.l'attitude constante du Gouvernement bsitanniqae en vue de
forcer l'Albanie i se soumettre h sa facon de voir, et quand nous
répondons, on prétend m&me nous refuser lesarguments que nom
dé~irons fairevaloir devantla Cour.
Le Gouvernement brit&miqut s'eslance dans une voie qui aboutit
et quidoit aboutirclansqne irnpasge,ànotre avis ;ia lancéunerequête
en prktendant lafonder SUTtrois articlesde laCharte rn nom citmt
ainsidirectemeni:devant la Couret quand,de pIein droit,nous soulevons
maintenant une kceptioe contre celte requete im&guli+re,on nous
déclare tout simplementqu'unepareille analyse nh acre d'importance,
quec'est une discnssianacadémique inutile equ'iln'est doncnul besoin
d'en parler,
M. le ço~iI du Gouvernement britannique a mêmedéclaré queplus
il houtait notre pIaidoyerplus iletaitétonnéde la longirear du dkbat.
Le Gouvernement britannique n'a certainement pas pense ainsi le
r3 mai demicr, quand il @sentaitsa requete en prktendtuit précisément
devant.ela Cour.s dispositions dlaCharte que nous avons cld analyser
D'un cbtk donc, on ~r6tend soutenir me th& basce 5nr la Charte,
et de l'autrFins'étonne eton quaMe d'inutile drevenir Auneanalyse
de ces dispositions.Un tel taisonnement nous para3t bien étrange,
d'autant plu$ que I'exposhbritannique, dans sa 'plas grande partie, a
&te consacré acette mêmeanalyse. 11est évident que la responsabilité
d'fin tel débat- qui, noas nelenionspas, a une très grandeimportance
- incombe au Couvernement britannique, qui, désirantétayer une
requ&te, s'esr&ré h des dispositions qni necomspondcnt nullement,
B notre avis,Ala r6alitdes choses.Pour notre part,notls étionsobligés
de relevercette interprétation erronéede laCharte-d eations Unies.
Le désir du Gouvernement britannique de s'opposer danstous les cas
aux droits et au points de vuc de L'Albaniel'a cngagc!clansune voie
qui va A l'encontre des auxquels ia sousrrit.Il s'agiZhd'une
questionde predige : il falait sauverprestigede laxequ&te,bien qukn
nous ait affirmériepas tenir compte du prestige dans cette affaire.
En parlant de la recommandation duConseil de Secaritéqui,d'après
le Gorrvernementbritannique, entraînerait force obligatoire, l'autre
- Partie a prêtéau Cornil ses propres intentions, se.ropres vues pou:
pouvoir setrouverainsienbonne compagnie, ainsique l'a diM. leconseil
britannique ;maisJeConseildc Sécurité n'apasdon116 une interprétation
quelconque sur lar6solutio-: sides opinionsont étkexprimées dans un
sensglénérd e,llene peuvent pas constituer unargument juridique dans
Jeplan sur lequel nous discutons aujourd'hui le probléme, Les Etats sont libres.de chaiiger d'ideesd'attitude, mais l'inter-
prétation authentique de la Charte estcelle qui luia &t& donnée au
moment de son élaboration.Nous croyons exprimer le point de vue
de la grande majoritédes gtats qui ont pxticipé A l'élaborationde la
Charte en d6çlarantdevant la Courque lesrecommandations du Conseil
de SéçuritG n'ont nullement uncaractére obligatoireellesn'ont nulle-
mmt force ex6cutoire. Mairitenir la thkse contraire,c'est deformer
dkIib6rémezitle sensdes buts et des principesde cette Charte.On sait
que des recommandations ont éti émisespar Ic Conseilde Sécuritéou
par l'Assemblée des Nations Unies ; c'est dans le sens de notre thése
que ces recommandations ont été faites.Mais qnand il s'agit d'une
,recommandation, came toutesles autresrecommandationsen ggnéral,
qui se rapporte à l'Albanie,leGouvernement britannique n'a attandu
que quelques jours pour semethe enaction. En dépassant leslimites
et le casactk reecette recommandation, il a agi sivite qu'ila violé
son sens et son contenu dans lebut de créer dans le monde l'opinion
pue 1'Aibanie setrouve toujours iinplipée dans desdiff6rends d'ordre
intel-national. 4 '
Dans le débak actuel,si habileet si intelligente quesoitl'intqré-
tation de la requêtb eritannique,elle riepeut nous convaincre. M. le
conseii du Gouvernement britannique se t~orupe si,pour trouver un

appiii, ise retrmche derrière le Conseilde Sécurité : celui- nc'ipas
enteirdu direquoique ce soitm faveur de l'interprétatiobritanniqile.
Nous cr~yonç que ln respon~abilit6dke teIIeinterprétation incombe
uniquement an Gouvernemen tritannique, quia entreprisIdune tgckie
-I -ingrate qu'il ne peutpas ct ne doit pas dussir.
Quant l'iinterpdtation de l'artic25 et au cwact5ee des mom-
mandations di1 Conseil de Sknritk, nous maintenons Je point de vue
équivoque aet sanspamhiguité,Agissant ainsi,enous esommes conscients
de rester fidéfeçà la Charte des Nations Unies.
En écoutantl'exposédel'autre Patie, op a vu que plusieu~ç hypo-
&&.es étaient exprimées pour valider la repuete du 13 mai, donnant
alnsi l'impresçion de cliercherdesappuis partout :d'aborclau Conseil
de S4curitél qui auraitdonné à la recommandation nn caractèreahli-
gatoire, puis Al'inteyrétatmn de la Charte en génbl, et enfin par la
lettre duz juillet qm,en cas de besoin, amit validé la requbte. Nous
maintenons la tllèseque nil'un ni l'autrenepeut Ctreinvoqud Al'appui
d'un acteirLeglil siesreffejuridique et nul.Hous avonsd'ailleurs
Iargemerit exposé notre point de vue A ce sujet.
Parlant der;discussions du Conseil de Securitb dans sa shnce du
g avril,M. le conseil britanniqua cité&galementune déclaration du
reprilsentantdc l'Albanie,M. Hysni Kapo, la considhrant corne une
n exclamation a,provoquée par ce que le9membres du Conscil avaient
dit au sujetde Xa résolutionque Ie Conseilde Sécuritédevait prendre.
11 n'y a rien icid'une rexclamation n.
L'attitridede M. Hysni Kapo étaitcondquente de bout en bout :
ildéfendait tnergiquemen ton pays et demandait ler~jet catégorique
de toute sequête où le nom de l'Albanie aurait étimentiosin&.-l avait
d'ailleurs nettement déclaré, dèsle début de son premier discours,
que,danscette affaire, lebut du Gouvernementbritannique Ptaitde
a nier tous les droitsincantcstables del'Albanie au sein des NationsUnies de,l'isoledu monde exthieur enI'accusant de menacerla paix
et la séctrritn.
Quand M. Kapo s'oppusa Ciutnvote afirrnatim faveu re Ia recom-
mandation, ilne le faisait pas parque l'Albanie serait ce fait atrto-
matiquement forde de paraitridevant la Cour, mais bien parce ,
en tant que représenta dntson pa~, il pensaique lXlbanie, conYot-
rnhent à sapolitique, devraiadopter,bienquelibrement, une attitude
positiveà i'êgardde la recommandation du Conseil, malgr& son inno-
cence.
Pour contredire notrthèse surl'exception,on a euitemrrrsen outre
à certains documents qui n'ont fien A faire avec lecas prisent.
M. le mnseii du Gouvernement britannique a fait des commentaires
et a meme lucertainsdocuments hzedenso. Je vexa parlerdes procès-
verbaux du Cornitedes Nouveaiix Membres.
Toute la disçussiciqui a eu lieuau seinde ce Comité serapportait
a l'admission de l'Albanie dans l'Organisation deNations Unies, et,
naturellement, notre position était discutée.On a parlé de ce que
lwbanie avait fait dla recommandation duConseil de Sécuritéeton
a même préparéun projet de lettre destin&B notre Gouvernement.
IIn'y a aucundoute queJe Gouvernement britannique n'&ait pasétran-
ger a tout ccqu'on discutai2.Le point sodevé n'était d'ailleuqu'un
prétexte inspiré par le Gouvernement britannique, qui s'estopposé
s~~stCmatiqcrttirnnt constamment à notre admission C1l'Organisation
des Natitms Unies,Cette attitude n'a d'ailleurs pas &téprise à la suite
dii difiErendactuel,mais date de bienlongtemps auparavant: il s"est
opposé à notre admission depuis 1946.11 nljfavaitpas, à cemoment,
de diffbend, ily avaitpurement etsimplementle ferme dCsir duGou-
vernement britannique de ne pas voir lxbanie entrerdans l'Organi-
sation des Nations Unies.
avait fait delarecommandationrs,du Conseil&taitun obstaclepuremente
fictif : suite dedébats du Cornit6l'a dérnontr6La Coura,d'ailleurs,
devant les yeuxles procés-verbxnx de cette discussion le24 juillet,
le Comitére~wait le télégrammedu Greffierde la Cour qui luinoti-
fiait ldépôt de notre lettre. Dqu'ilsenprirent connaisance, certains
membres du CornitF,sidésireux parailleurs de vair l'Albanieapphquer
Ia recommandation du Conseil, soulevèrent d'autres objections,parce
qu'on trouve toujours quelquechosei direet le Gouvernement hritan-
nique n'est nullement étranger ;Icette attitude.
Une autreopinion a6té emiseau seinde ce Cemit4 : puisqul'Albanie
&ait impliquge dans un différeridd'ordrInternational,eue n'étaitpas
encorequalifiéepou1 être admise. Maissi taus leÉtats impliquésdms
un différendd'ordr ieternational nonencore tranché nepouvaient pas ,
fairepartie del'OrganisationdesNatians Unies,l'Angleterrene demit-
ellepas, eile aussi, quitteI'Org-isation des Nations Unies ? Dans
une telle hypothSse, nombre dlEtats ne seraient pas Membres des
NationsUnies, et on ne voitpas comment l'Organisation des Nations
Unies pourraitsurvivre.
J'ai tenu A m'étendre un peu pluslanguement snr ce sujetparceque
le representmt britandque, en mrnmentarrt les procks-verbaux, a
lui-meme donnéune certaine importance à cettedisciission.Idésirait,
en effet, atteinddeux buts :d'unepart ildésiraittrouverun argument
dans le caractèreobligatoire de la recnmmandatian du Conseil de 1"Atbanieau sein du Cornited'admissionides h'ciuv~urcMembres.t sur
L'Albanien'es ptasMembre de 1'Qrganisatiodes NationsUnies, mais,
sans en faire partie, elle femment atfachde à cette organisation.
A la suite des chscuçsiondu Conseil dè Sécurité,clls'esttrouvee, le
g avril~947,devantune recornri~andation qu'ellea ncceptd etqu'elle
dkire suivre, corifornément au sens et au contenu de cette recom-
mandation.
Il aétéditaussique,parnotre réponse du 2 juillenous avons vodu
donner l'impressionde nous comporter rkgulibrernent. Une telleinsi-
nuation aurait puEtreomise dans I'eqoçd du représent aritannique,
parce qu'ellene correspondnullement à la réalitéIl a expliqué cela
par cequ'ila appdé I'arrilére-plan de l'excepti moni,il n'y
arien de semblabledans notre attitudeetdans nos activitesS'ilexiste
uncarrière-pe&e politi ue quelconque, c'cstbien celleciu Gouverne-
ment britannique, pour4equel les petits prs doivent avoir moins'de:
droits, plus de devoirsetsurtout une prfchsposition se s~umett~?a
savolont& SiI'on n'agipas selonsesdésirs,onn'est plus unktatconve-
nable,on n'agit plus correctement, Mais .nous avons la ç~rnscience
tranquille,notre attitudeet notre politique ne sont pafonction dece
qui est ageable ou dksagréableau Gouvernement britannique, nola
agissonsen fonctionde nos droitsetde nos devoirs,enconformité avec
le but des Nations Unies, en vue de la paix et de l'ententeentre les
peuples.
Conformément A l'interp&tationde la Charteet surtoutau caractère
juridique de la recommandation dn Conseil de Sécurité ,ous avions
transmis la letîzdu z juilletetpar la suiteafinde rbdiser IFréserves
les plus expressen,ousavons deposé,dans le délailéganotre exception.
Dans son cxposé, le représentantbritannique a repris ce qiiiavait
été ditdans les Observations du zo janvierau sujetdu dépot dknotre
exception en ern$lojfant lterme d'abusde ,procédure.Or, nous wons
agi ici ttonfsrmérnent h la ratique de la Çom, confornément A nos
droits réservésw la Jettm fu 2 juilletetsurtout ausens de I'artkl62
du Règlement, qui prévoit laptoc6dure h suivre dans ce cas,ct c'est
dans le dClail&il que nous avons déposéEkxception. 11n'y a donc eu
ni chmgment d'attitudeniabus dc pruwdure: notre position L?.&te
clairedés le début,comme elle l'est encore.aujourd'hu iile faitde
déposerune exception dans le daai légai prévudans l'article 6% du
Rkglcmentest considird cornrnbn abus de procédurecet aftiden'aurait
plils desens,au moins pour le Gouvernement britannique. .Maisce qui
inquiéte ce Gouvmnement, ce n'est pas le faique nous ayons deposé
Ilneexceptiondansle délai légal,c'est le fait qnous l'ayons dCposée.
Le &ritable abus de procgdure dam tout ce procès si,abus d g a,c'est
la requête britannique.
Dans la première dédaration devant la Çoùr, j'aidit que notre posi-
tion était la seuleà adopter A la suite dela requttebritannique. Le
repr4sent anta~mique, pa.rIantde notre lettrdu z juillet, lçansi-
dérée comme l'objet principade son expose, bien qu'iln'en aitpas
padk plusquenous. Nousavons déjhanalysé cettelettrenousavoiis
dejà dit ce que nous entendions fairesavoir par cetteleth, et nous
['avons interpret comeme il estde notre droit.
unJacte unilatérd d'unuEtat souverain.Dans'leacasqoù le sensdercette lettrene serait clair,lesexpiicatiosurlespointsobscu* nepeu\.mt
etre exciusivement iournicsque par leGouilernement albanais,qui est
le seul habiliAinterprt see rctesCe n'estdonc pas Je Gouverncmmt
britanniqu qeui peut fournir cettinteirpr&tation.a situation serait
naturellement tout autre s'ils'agissa dactes bilatéraux 011miilti-
latéraux pour lesquelsl'interpréta incomnba wx parties.
Donc, pour ne pas laiss 'rmbre dk doute sur les intentiondu
Gouvernementalban& expriméesdans cette lettre, nous eferons (le
noaiveaul'analy s~jeurd'l~ui.
Apr&sle r3 mai, nous étionsenprisenced'une rquete qui prétendait
consid&r comme etablie la juridiction obLigatniire de la Cour.Un
ntat d6sireux de donner suiteAlarecommandation du Conseilde Sécu-
rit6 demit bien réflcchiAl'attitiidqu'idevait adopter.Le Gouverne-
ment alhamis étaitenti&remeni librd'agirmais iletaitprofondhent
dkireux d'agir dus le sens de la recommandation du Conseil.La
requete était pour lui Enattcnduet constituaiun fait accompladressé
a la Cotir luiilatt5rdement et arbitrairement. Nous avilaspossibilité
d'ignorer purement et simplement lx requkte,de ne pas répondre à la
Cour, de ne paS nommer d'agent. Mais une telle attitude n'était pas
wmpatihle avec le but quc nous poursuivions.C'eût étéignorer le
Conseil de S6curité, ignorer Ihuutciritéde laCour internationale de
Justice :le Gouvernement n'a pas voulu le faire parce qu'est ferme-
ment attaché # ces institutions.
11 y avait encore uneautre voie:d'accepterla jddiction de laCour
pument: et simplement et se soumettre à la proddure irrtgtiliére
Lntrridaitpar la requêtebritannique.C'étaitaccepter l'irr6gularit6 qui
nous était impode sansfairevaloir devantcetteHaute Cour lesmoyens
1dgaux et les droitqui &taientà notre chposition en vertu du Statut
et du R+gg.lement.
justifiéetonte,cettecoristrnction de articles de la Chartequiaa été
exposéedans les débats actuels,
Dans ces conditions- etjc croisque laCour sera campletement de
notre avis-, il nenous resta qut'unevoie par hquelle nousprivions
nous pr&nter ici enacceptant fajuridiction de Cour, mais apr& avoir
,r6scnrvledroit decontesterla méthode employéepar le Gouvernement
britannique.
Accepter donc de seprésenter devant la Corn sansque ce gestenous
liât les mains pourdemander que la procédure soit régulihe,,confor-
1 mement' au contenu ct au caractère des recommandations du briseil
de SÉcuntL, confomémend au Statut et conf~mérnent, au droit en
géneral,telle était l'intention delettrdu 2juillet par 1aqucUenous
avons expressément declaréque, malgré l'irrégularit6 de la re &te
britannique, nous étions pr&tsA nous préyenter devant laCour .elle
est l'interpsetatiounique que leGouvernementalbanais danrie 5 Ia
lettre du2juilbt. Alafinde cettelettre, nous avonajout6,dans lesens
leplus naturel. que i'acceptationde la juridictio~ldeCour ne devait
pas constituer un précédent pour l'avenir.
II est exact que cette lettrea étébien étudl6e ;on a mZme fait
remarquer ici, 5 deurcprkes,non sans tfrtonnemenett regrseabIc-t-il,
que cettelettre aétésoigneusement rédig4:éOn. semblait meme curieux
de savoir qui l'avait rMigk, On a regrettCqn'ilne telllettreait étC
établiepar nooscomme si nousn'avions pas le droitd'étudierledroit'internatibnal,de nous intéresserh son développement et enfin d'avoir
nos juristes,Rien d'étrange dans tout cda, rien d'&tonnant, riende
curieux. Sicette lettrefaitbeaucoup de peine etsi elleestdésgréable
au Gouvernement britannique,c'està lui qu'enrevient la sesp~nsabilité.
Nous ne voulons pas savoir qui a r4dig4la requéte britannique, nous
nous bornonsà constater seulemest que cette requéte estabsolument
Urecyable et nulle pour que laCour puisse Stre çaiçie de I'affaiC'est
pourquoi, dans notre th&se,nous demandons le rejet de cetterequete
pour que laCour, confornément larésolution du Conseil de SécuritPi,
puise etre saisiepar l'instrument valablequ'est le compromis, Main-
tenir Iecontraire,ce seraitjustifienotre attitudesi nous avionsignoré
la requête britanniqueou si nous nous Ctiûnssoumis à des irrégularités
judiciaires.
Monsieur le Président, nous croyonsavoir expod clairement notre
position,et nouspensons que lavoi euenous avons adoptie estla senle
juste, raisonnable,et conforme AIa mission que cetteHaute Cour est
appelée 3iremplir :Contribuer aumaintien des seiations internationales
conform~rnent au droit et la justice,
Monsieurle Président,Messieurs les Juges, j'ai airisi teminé mon
dernierdiscours,et jevous priedebienvoploir donner L parole a0 conseil
du Gouvernement albana~ç, M. le professeurVochoC. [Shce ptc61iqsa dm 5 mars 93, ~ki~.]

~onsieuf le Présidentlfasieurs de 3a Cour,

Grh à la bienveillantdkision prise parLa Cour fors de ldernihre
séance, nous présentons ailjourd'hirune s6plique pour définir notre
position à Eqprrddes arguments produits au cours des débats oraux
contre l'exceptionph1iminaire soulevke par lGouvernementalbanais.
Ces arguments ont deux bascs principdes :
En premier lieu, noséminents adversairesse skclmimt de h kttre
du Gouvernement albanais du2 juillet et proposent fornelementà la
Cour de baser srirellsad6cidon à i'kgard de notreexception prélimi-
naire.
En second liefi,et subsidiairement,nos adversaies maintiennent
leursarguments déjk ptésent4sdansla requae du 13mai, etserkclament
notamment, eu &rd 2 l'articl36(1)daStatut de Ia Cour,de certaines
dispositions de IaCharte des Nations Unies.
Ayant pour Tadernikm fois lehaut privil&ge deparler aunom du
deuxrnarguments hritanniqucs quea je vienspdpindiqaer,nous croyonss
utile de fixerunefois encorle pivot autot-trduquelles deuarguments
doivent tourner, Cepivot est constituépar !aquestion de savoir si la
requêtebritannique du 13 mai dernier répond ou non aux conditions
h4es parle Statutet ;Règlementde laCour pourintroduire unerequête
devant cettejaridiction,
C'estI'enjen- le seul enjeu- decm debats préliminaires.
Pour examiner c~mmeat ce problème a 6té élucidé9 la suite-des
débats oraux qui sedéroulèrent dam façon si abondante devant la
Cour, je porteraitout d'abord mon attention vers I'atgument britan-
niqile pt4serit4 comme subsidiaire.
11 nous semble que ce point a &.tbien éclaifcpas nos dbbats,Nos
theses se sont dvidemment développ$esen sens contraire; mais le
problème, l'a Issuea,nous semble bien d&fini.
Soils l'angledes arguments britanniques, la mquete poarrait étre
conçidérkcomme validepourl'une ou l'autrdes deuxraisonssuivantes,
peut-êtrememe pour Ies deuxensemble :
L) La requete seraitrecevableYU sa nature juridique.
Les Observations britanniques du zo janvier ontdit que la rquCte
peut 6tre employéecomme moyen formel deporter Irafia irvant la
Courpromiscne, etdans le casde la juridictionvolontairetdans celui
de la juridiction obligatoire.
2) La deuxikme base de lareqdte seraits'il y avait vraimentdans
l'affairprésente,le.cride lajuridiction obligatoispécialementprévu
dans la Charte des Nations Unies [artick 36(1)du 5tatut.de la Cour).
Dans cecas, la requêteserait anssi valable. Or, qu'cst-ceqaeles débatsoraux devant la Couront apporté en ce
qui concerne ces deux argumentstendant valider la requEte?
En ce qui concerne, tout d'abord, lanature de la requête,je me
permets d'indiquerque nos adversairesnkontpas abord6 ce point dans
leur plaidoiriIls n'enont pas ditun mat, Ni Letri% hanmable procii-
reur duRoyxme-Uni, ni M.l'agent du Goi1mernent britannique n'ont
réagicontre notredémonstmtion tendant k prouverque lesObservations
du Gouvcmement britannique, dia.20 janvier dernier,ont manifest4
évidemment itneopinion erronée,en affirmantque Larequête peut &tre
emp1oyi.epromiscu et ,ans lecasdelajmidictionvolontaire, facnltativc,
et dans celuide la juridiction obligatoirNE adversairesn'ont pas
répondu k cettepartie de nalx thèse.Et je'me permets doncdc tirer
denos debats la conclusionquela requête estbien lemayen unilatkral
qui,au sens de l'article40paragraplieI, du Statut, peutFtre employé
pour porter l'affairdevant la Cour,seulement dans le cas de lajuri-
diction obligatoire.
S'ilenest ainsiet &aa+dom4 que lesobservations oralesprésentdes
devant laCourn'ont pas contest4 cepoint dc vue, il mt tout naturel
que nos eminents adversairesaient fourni un&fort d'autan ptlus @md
pour soirtenirque la.Cour a bien demnt elle, dans l'affaie prksente,
un ms de juridictionobligatoirec'est-kdke un casspécidement prévu
dansh Charte des Nations Unies. Ainsi,nos adversaiïes sontrevenus
hTa thtse souteniiedans letir requêtdu 13 mai dernier.II convientde
reconnaitreque, en le laisant,ilsont tenu Icw promsse figura* an
paragraphe xz de leurs Observationsdu 20 janvier,Pendant deux jours
et demi, le trk h~n~rable procureur gériéraldu Royaume-Un it
M. l'agentdu Gouvernement britannique se sont dbpmsks pour nous
faire coinprendreles motifs allégupar la requetedu 13 mai a l'appui
de la prétenduedispositiansur laquele se baserait cette requete.
Qu" nous soit permis de dire que nous avons siiivleurs plai-
. doirieavec tout l'intCrêtque leur thèse sirsciteet dont la valeur
a &térehausste pw la rnanibr~ maintes fois brillante, dont ledeux
orateurs l'ont soutenue.
D'autre p<art,ilfaut remarquer que la tkhe que s'imposèrent nos
éminents adversaires etait sans doitte dificilNous avons déjk fait
observer, au comrnencenient de notre expos4 jeudi dernier après-midi,
qumon chercheraiten vain ami lesarticles dela Chartpour y trouver
un u cas spécialment prkvu iiselon les termesadle 'articl36 II )u
Statatde laCour, Dans toute laCharte il n'y a aucune ailusion spéciale,
j"entends expresse, cet égard.II incombait.donc nos eminents adver-
sairesde construire eux-mêmes crun cas spécialenient.prévudans la
Charte des Nations Unies a
Comment y parvenir ? C'Staitun dessein hardi.
Nous pouvons bien dire aujourd'hu apds avoir suivi ava le plus
vifintéfkt leur argumentation,querroé sminentsadversairesn'ont pas
eu, eux-m&mcs.le courage d'allejusqui'auIiout Eie~eur.mns~uctim,
Bs sont efforc6de convaincre la Cour que leje0 combhC de certains
articlede la Charte; notamment de ceux compris dans le chapitre VI,
avecl'aticle2j, produisaitI'eet voulu,c'est-à-direobligeailes Parties
àallerdevant laCour. Mais Icinos adversairessesant arrêtés,M.l'agent
du Gouvernement dit Royaume-Uni a attaché une importance parti-
culihriàla questionde savoircequi sepasse quand.leConsePLde Sécurité
~recommande ii- c'est-à-dire d'aprèluiy ordonne D- aux parties d'allerdeva~iIaCour.Est-ceque 3aCorn se:trouveainsi saisisommes-.
nous en prémce d'un acas spécialement.:pt4m daris laCharte n.?
Foint du tout. D'apres M. l'agent du Gouvernement britannique
!ni-même,il faut -encore uelespartiespramerit l'initiativetagissent,,
Bien entendu, selonlui,i suffitquel'une ou l'autredes parties pIenne
l'initiat ivaesce qni importe pour noas, c'estque, dkpr&s lathèse
britannique, le résultapeut Gtredéfini de la façonsuivante; la Cour
n'estpas encoresaisiepar la recommandation du Conseil, mêmesi une
teUe recdmmandation est tout ;ifait obligatoirepour les parties.
' Il nous semble hien. que s'il eestainsi,la questionposée par nous
resteentihre, h savoirest-cequeoe sont ledmx pxties qui - s'étant
préalablementmises d'accord - doivent saisir lCour, ou bien est-ce
que l'une ou l'autrepartiepeut porter seule l'are devant laCour3
Nous n'wons pas liésita consacrer laséancede vendredi après-midi
5 cettequestion, pour essayerde prouver que ce terme u les partiefi
signifie n&cessairerrlent,sens de l'article 36, paragraphe 3,de la
Charte, l'actioncommune des deiix part-ies.
Or, ilnous semble bien que cetteproposition, quenous nous sommes
permisdeplacer souslesyeux de laCour, a &tée,lleaussi,laîsskintacte
etNous pouvonstédonc dire: mêmeoisiparele jeurniraculenxde quelques
&rticlede la Cliarte parvenait envisagerquelque chose.tesserni>lant
à 130bXigatiopur lespartiesd'der devant lahw, rien neréglerait
encore ln qnestionde savoir sicc sant lesdeux parties ensemble qui
doivent soumettre leur affaireCLla Çaur,
Ainsi, lathésebritannique, mhe pouss6e jusqu'à lrextrême limite
des cons6,quenceshypothétiques qu'ellecomporte,n'a pas ébranlé cet
&lémen tapitalde notre these, akmant que, conform&ment àla Mso-
lution du Conseil de Sécuritédu 9 avril dernier, les partiesdoivent
ensemblc porter l'affa ievant laCour,
Si nous pouvons considérerque notrethese n'a pasétéatteinte pds
I'arpinentation de nos adversaires, cette situationmus pcnnet de
nous dispenser de sirivreen d6tailles arguments ti&s par eux de la
Charte A lkpui de la thèse de la prétenduejuricliction obligatoire.
II s'agit des articles 36,b},du ciiapike VI de la Chaste.3CiTotsou-
vefionstrès intkressand'analyser toute cetteargumentation en détail.
En toute modestie, mais d'une façon trèsferme, nous pmons qu'il
nous serait passibled'indiquer comment des erreursse sont gIisçt5eç
dans cette wgumcntation et pourquoi, mal@& les grands et sincères
effork d8~logds.la tliese britanniquene résistpas à 1 9 ~ ~ .
Noas rcsisterons bien entcndu à cette tentation.Nous ne voulons
pas encourirla xesesponsabili:'abuse de labienveillance de laCour,
qui nous a d4jA accordé, à nous et nos adversaires, tmt de. jours,
Nous nous limiteronsseulement à quelques réflexionscritiques conces-
.nant çestahs aspects généraux de la thèse britannique.
Notre première observation serapporte a l'artic 25ede la Charte.
Le trbs lionorableprocureur généraldu eÿaurne-Uni etM. l'agent
de son Gouvernement sesontpos& la questionde savoirceqtl'iresterait
de l'article25 sicet article nerenfermait pas pour Ics 1Liembresdes
Nations Uniesl'obligat ionsuivre lesrecommandations du Conseil
de Sécurite,notammentcelles faites clansIe cadre du chapitreVI de
laCharte. M. l'agentdu Gouvmernent britanniquea essasrd'appliquer
ici la régfqui recommande d'interpré ctaqrue dispoçtionjuridique
IOdetelle fapn qu'iIenr6sulteles conséquences vouIues etqu'ellene
devienne pas st6rila Pow que l'articl25 produiseses effets,il serait,
selon lui, nkessaire quela décisiondu Conseil de SCcwité au sens de
cet artide, embrasse aussi lesrecomandations du chapitre VI de

laCharte. -
Or, nousdésironf saireremarquer qu'unetklle conception del'articla5
de 1s Charte méconnait singuiiérement le caracté r eminant de la
Charte. .
Quelle estla dispositionIaplus importantequela Charte nit appo&&e
au monde ? Il nesaurait faire de doutque c'estte grand pouvoir donné
au Conseil de Sdcutitd pur empêcher toute atteinte,toute menace &
lapaix, toute agression, Le chapitscVI1donne au Conseilde S&urité
leç pouvoirs etmayens de stippfimer toutes voies defait dans les rap- '
ports internationaux. Les natinns perment continue^ d'avoir des dif6-
rends ; ces diffbrendspeuvent êtregraves et mêmemenacer la paix
et la sécuritk internationales,mais un point est certain: d'aprk la
Charte, personne ne;doit plus recourirà la force, Siun tel faiou une
teilernenxctceurvienlt e,Conseil dcSCcuritda le devoirdeveiller surle
maintien ciu Kz~g's +eizceLe chapitreVI1 arme le Conseil de$écurit&
d'une façon appmprih, CES pouvoirsduConseilsont ceux que, srrivant
Inarti cd,ee làCharte, lesMemhres des Nations Unies lui ontd&légues
comme gardien cornpitent du maintien de la paix- Et lesdécisionsd~r
Conseil de Sécurité, prises sous ce chapike VXI, sont celles que les
Membres des Nations Unies sesont indiscutablement oblbligbsn vertu
del'article 25, iireconnaîtrecomme obIigatoircs et de pleidroit pour
chacun d'eux. Nous ne sonirnes paslesseuls A voir,dans cette combi-
important de la Cliarte.vec l'articl25 de la Charte,le résatat leplus

Notrc ndcuxiémeobservation, B dI'bgard de la th&et.britanriique,telle
qu'clle a kt6 ps6smtCe, concerne encore l'arkicl25 de laCharte, mais
h un autre point de vue,
Noai avons tout à l'heurefait taloir contrenos hinents admaires
la port&e considbrnblede cetarticlepar rapportaa chapitre VIf. Main-
tenant, nous croyons nkessaire de nous opposer à la tentative du
Gouvernement da IZoyaume-Uni, par son inerprktation des termes
n.déçkion 1)etu recommandation 11de vmloir éhrgir lespouvoirs du
Conseil de Sécuritéau del& de toute mesure,
Nous pansons que leç Nations Unis ont déj3.donneau Conseil de
Sgcuritédes pouvoirsctinsidérabEesen luiconfiant,à luiexclusivement,
la tâched'empgchertoutes voies defait danslesrapportsinternationaux.
Il seraif exorbitantet inimaginable que les Nations Unies aient donné
au Conseilde Sécurité lepouvoir d'agir impérieusemend tans desaffaires
internationales autres qucellesconcernant lemaifitiende l'ordrecontre
les voiesde fait.Non, riende semblablen'a été décidé5 San-Francisco,
et personne n'y a songe, Pour autant' qu'on ait envisagh une telle
contingence, ans'estarrêté?illhypothSseopposéee ,t ona cherche 5obte-
nir des apaisements et des gmnties contre l'abusde pouvoirduConseil
de Sécurité s'ilvoulait se saisird'autresnatibres que celles prévues
au chapitre et dans quelques dispositions précises éparses dans
divers chapitres. Tel était le sens de tous les amendements belge,
canadien,norvégien,australien et autres. C'estdans cd ordre d'ide& quenous avons essayé d'attirer lhttention
de la Courau commencementde notre e os&,surlefait invraisemblable
que les Nations Unies auraient dotéle? onseilde Sécuritédu pouvoir
de lem ordomer d'aller devantlaCam enmati&e de différendjwj-
diques.
Avant de quitter définitivement cettepartie de nos d&b'nats, vais
me permettre de toucher encore tr&sbrièvement Ja question des '
travaux prkparatoires de la Charte.
Le très honorable procureur ghnéraldu Royaume-Uni ahsi que
M:l'agent du Gouvernement britannique demandent à laCour de ne
pas tenu compte des travaux pr4paratoires de lCharte ayanteu lieu
A la Conférence cleSm-Francisco e.tqui édaircissent les asticles la
Charte citésLa raisonUivoquée parMM. lesreprésentantsbritanniqnes
snrton tstqu'il s'a@, dans la Charte, d'un traitémultilatéral,
Il estvrai que l'opiniondonnéesur lesarticlesde laCharte anjoirr-
d'huipar b Courdans lhffair présentepourrait toucheraux int6rets
des 2ta.t~qui nesont pas présentset pent-btre genelaCour elle-mgme
dans l'awnù.
Toutefois, nom avons l'l~onizcude dire que nousnous opposons 5
cette demande du Gaiiverncrment britanniquetendant à faire aiminer
les travaux préparatoiresdela Charte de Laco~tidPIrationparla Cour.
En ce qdi concernela nisbn principalede cette demande de nos
adversaires tir& du fait qu'is'agit,en I'occ~rrenced'un acte multi-
latéra lo,usnous-r&éans aux articles59 et 63 du Statut, L'arrèt ne
resout que l'affaiprésente ct sesconsidérantsnesont pas obligatoires
m$me pur les parties en litigeD'autre part, taus les ilTernbrcdes
Nations Unies ont étéavisésde I'affai presentepar M. le Greficrde
lés&ousi letravaux pr4paratoites a'entrdentspar;entEgne deaimmpte.re
DDadeurs,d'une fapn générale,nous pions laCour de bienvouloi~
prendre en considgration,Cl'4gard detoute cette questiondes travaux
prhpamtoises,l'enseignem donnt2sur ce point,d&jà depuis plusieurs
années, par Sémînent tituIaire de la chaire de droit international
Cambridge,le professeur Lauterpacht, que noirsavons l'honneuret le
plaisir de saluici-Leprofesçeu~Ia~terpacht, selon sohabitude,d'une
fason trrh sûre ecomme taujours stimulante, a expliquél'usage que
la Gnz permanente a fait des travaux preparatokes. L'impressioque
laissc l1eqos&rleces questions parle professeur Lauterpaçhtest bien
quhprhs une certaine période n'hkitation, la Cour pcmanente a fait
un usage syst&matiqueet constan des travauxpr@aratoires. Le texte
aurait pu &tsetrouvi par laCour permanente clair; iln'en valait
que mieux dc le confirmerenrecourant aux travaux préparatoires.Et,
commel'a faitremarquer le professeurLauterpacht, aussi lemembres
ricnationalitbritanniquede h Cour avaient recoursh cettemethocle
dans leurs opinions disçidtes.

Paon avonsindiqa6au commencementde notre exposhd'aujourd'hui
que le principaargument contre notre exceptionpréliminaireest tir&
par nosadversairesde la lettrdi1Gouvernement albanais du2 juillet.
Dans la derniere partie de notre expos&nousnousoccuperons da
cettethèse dirigtse enpremielieu contre notre exception. La question pour nous est de voircornent, sous l'anglede cetafgu-,
ment, se pose la qi-testiode l'imecevabititde la requgte britannique.
-Or, on dit, A cetégard,que la,lettredu Gouvernement ahanais du
z juiLletauraitvalidé la requéted'une certaine manikre.
Dltine façon gknPralejeme permets de dirc qu'aprèsnos impressions,
et Ala diffkrencede ce qui se passait avecles arguments britanniques
s'appuyant susleri&ides de laCharte, lesquestions que pose la lettre
du 2 juille1947 n'ont pasht1-5rop élucidkesniéclaircies.parLesdébats.
C'est l'argument principal de nos adversaires contre notre exception.
Cependant, ilnous sernbIequ'ilsneSont pas jusqu'kpresent approfondi
et qu'ilsont laisskpas mal de questionsdam l'ombre.
Sous cette reserve, nous crojtons pouvoirdiscemer dans l'argumen-
tation de nos adversaires, ece qui concernela lettre du2 juikt, deux
sortesde raisons pussibles:
1 1) lalethe du 2 juillet auraidéji,par son texte, par certaines de
ses phrases, élirnin4 lquestion de validité,de la recevabilitéde la
reqnkte. Iln'est plus possibleaujourd'h auiGou~ernement albanais
de revenir sur ce texte;
2) l'autre saison dirigdecvntre'notre exception seraitA peu prCs
celle-c;le Gouvernement albanais a accept éans sale*@ du 2 juillet .
dernier, lajuridiction dela Cour pour l'affai reesente; ilestdonc
oiseux de revenir surla question dela rc-quétcomme rnoven de parter
• l'affadirevantlaCour.L'affaire adt&postee devant IaCour, peu importe
. comment eIle l'a été.Et sil'on revenait sur cette question,ce serait
pour contester lacompétence de la Cour.
En cequi concerne la premièreraison prétendue, tiréede lalettre du
z juille- ainsi qilcnom croyons le discerner dans les parolesqu'ont
pranonc&t-snos hirients ridverstrir-, nousallons examiner k notre
tour letexte de cettelettre pour voir plus exactement si elle aurait
validéla requ8te du 13 mai airsi elle seseraitprononcEcdans un tel
seLe.trés honorable procu~ut génkrddu Roq-a~~me-Uni a déjA lu Lui-
. mgme devant laCour cette lettre preçqnetoutentière.En nous y réfé-
rant, nousferonsobserver tout d'abord qu'ellecontientccntout quatre
paragraphes.Les trois premiersconstituent cequel'on purrait appeler
l'expo" des motifs, les consid6ran.t~Le dernia contient
la décisionprise, Tellest I'dconor gnie éralde la lettre.
Les trois premiers paragraphes qui contiennent ce que j'appeiie le3
considerantsanalysent et discutent na seulpoint, quicst çeIui-c: rien
rr'autorisleGoilvernemen t du Ro5raume-Un i Mner le Couw~nemen t
albanais dansl'affairprésen tevant la Cour,pas me procédure unila-
t&alc,la requr&teL.es considérantsserédamelit à cetégardvigoureuse-
ment du droit envigueu entre lesnations,du Statut de la Corn, de la
Charte. Le Gouirerncment albanais se croiten droitde considérerque
la Cour ni& pas valablement saisiede l'affaire dutoi~t.
On croittrouveren un conditionnel employé clansla demiém phrase
du.paragraphe 3 de la lettre quirésume cesconsid,érmts, une portée '
partict~liére,cne xeconnaiçsancedela de la partdu Gouverne-
ment albanais.11n'et]est rien.Lesmots ((sefait en rlroiiietc.,dtla
plnase cnquestionindiquent seulementque le Guvmement albanais
serait en droit mEme de .ne pas rdpondre a la xquéte britannique.
Mais,pour Ic Gouvernement albanais, il ne suffisaipas, au mois de
juin dernier,.d'exercerune critique:il dev,aitprendre une attitude. Laqueil? ?Elleest indiquéedarislcsniesures prisesparleGouvernement
albanais an quatrikme paragraphe de la lettre.
Ces mesures sont au nombre dequatre: 1")le Gauvernement albanais
.d&clare accepterla Résolution du Conseil du 9 avril ; a") il declare

prGt a seprésenterdevant la Cour, en se réservant, en mème temps,
d'attaquerdevant la Cour la façondont le G~uvernement britannique
l'asaisie enapplicatiodela recommandation du 9avrd et l'intqtbta-
tionbritannique de l'articl2 j de laChar tc;3").il prononceunesorte
de clawula sdvato-riapourl'avenir ; 4")enfin, inommeson agent prés
laCour, commele Réglernent de IaCorn leprescrit.
Voila ce que conticnt lalettre du 2 juillet.
Et alors,on vient affirmericque quelquepart dans cetexte le Gou-
vernement albanais se serait-prononcé en faveur de larequête britan-
nique.
Avant de voir d'unpeuplus pr2ss'il enestvraimentairisi,nous nous
permettons de faireremarquer que, s'ien &tait ainsi, l&le jhuépar
cette lettre duz juillet serait vraiment curieux.Quiconque litcette
lettrese rend aisément compte que leGouvernement albanaisn'esp tas
content du proGd6 appliqué contre lui,gii'il proteste. S'se déclden
aller devantla Courmalgrk cc qrlse passe, il lait les réservesplus
expresses pour dired'avancq eu'ilva attaquer jus-tement ceprocddé1
Et cettelettrequi confient toutesces protest~tions serait prdcisément
le seul instrumentqui, cnfin dc compte, sauve ceprocédc i.ntrelequel
le Gouvernement albanais seprononce et qu'il veut attaquer, A la
remière oçcasioridevant la Cour ! S'il en&ait vraiment ainsi, cette
Pettre auraitmcounl une maichance singdiPre. Son intention, touti
faitclaire,est rise défendrecontre lareqaete, contrele prcicéd61iniIa-
t6rd dont on use contre lui.Deux pages entières sur trois dlalettre
sont remplies de protestations decetordre, et cesmit justement cette
lettre- et cettelettre seule- qui sauvqût Ia requête!
Nous allons voir, par noiis-m$mes,s'ilst vralmcn porjsiblde tirer
de telles cons6qnencesde cettelettre.
En premier lien, le Gouvernement albanais acccpte pleinment,
gavril dernier. Nous ç~oyonçpottvoirpasser rapidement surScettepartie
de la lettre, car ne nous semble pas possiblede d6duire quoique ce
soitde cette dklmtion tiefaveur de la reqtikteclu13 maiLa décIara-
tion oblige exmttw le Gouvernement albanais A exkuter larecomman-
dation du Conseil deSécurité du g avril. C'est uneprornse, un pacizm
dc co.i~~mhcndq oui peut.se rddiser seulemen-t: dansl'avenir et dont
1'accomplissenent exige 1"accor et le ,concours du Gouvernement
britannique, Cette promesse pour le futur ne peut pas valideri$so
facto latequete du 13 mai 1947.
2) Cette promesse mise A part,la raqudtedu rj mai, transmise ail
Gouvernementalbana iar le Grefierde laCour,a posé devant ce Gou-
vernement des questions qu'il a fallurésouelreimmédiatement.
A cetaégar jd, 'adéjà dit, cleuxvoiesen principeétaient ouvertes,
an mois de jtiin dernier,dcvant le Gouvernement albanais :ignorer
camplétement la requkte et sa transmission qui luien avait été faite
par laCour, oualler devant Ea Cour en seréservant d'attaquer et de
faire jugerpar ellele procédé irréguliepue représentela requêteD , e
ces deux voies,le Gotrvernement albanais a choisi la dernihre, Assurhnent - toujoursensuivantle texte clair de la lete -, le.
Gouvernement, en faisant ce choix, étaitbiendécidé b-ne pas passer
l'eponge surlaregukte. La lettredu 2 juilletle dien termes on ne
peut plusnets ;elleformuleàcet égardn lesréserveslespluseqr-J 1).
Elle définitl'objet deces réserves.
Y a-t-il une contradictioentrela déclaratioexprimée daes devant
la Cour et la condition qu'on y ajoute qu'un certah point p&cis de
l'affas iere attaquk ?
Nous sommes persuades que les deux choses vont certainement
ensemble. On vent aller devanlt a Cotir- on a pour cela certaines
raisons padiculiéres-, mais en mhe temps on déclare& la COEU ce
qui paraît inadmissible et ce qui est d'avanc rkrvé.
Nou concluons donc, en ce qui concerne ce passage important de
la lettredu z jnilletqu'ilseraitvraiment contradictoire TLltddl'ete
considérerla requ&tcmme validéeparune déclarationde volonthqui
se réserve justement de l'attaquer comme nulle etnon avenue,
3) Dans la plirse mivante, leGouvernement albanais désirsouligner
que son acceptation de la juridiction la Cour ne peut pas constitiier
un précédent pour l'avenir. Cette phse suit immédiatement celle
contenant les thserve; mais ilne s'agit ici d'unpoint immédizque la
lettredu z juilleSLété daas l'obligatioderégler..Le Gouvernement
albanais entend se pr6munir confre le précéden que, le cas échéant,
pourrait constituet sonattitude et dont on pourrait seréclamer dans
l'avenir.
Avant de nous prononcm sur la portéejuridiquede cettepwe de
la lettre,je veux faireobserver qu"i1arrive souvent que les Etats,
surtout les gtats puissants, irivoqiieuneattitude prisepar l'autre
bat, dans le @usé,commeunptécklcntdont ilsseréclament si cela
leur paraltopportun.Dans la vie internation oanleontre quelqiiefois
une certaine bonne volo?tEpour l'affaired&tcmink, et,lelendemain,
les autres arrivent et disent : MPouquoi voulez-vous nous traiter
diffkrcmment, nom, aujourd'hui 7 a Dam m tel ordre d'idées, le
Gouvernement albanaisserend compte qu'en se decidant àallerdevant
etCnoiiavenue,ilpourrarput-êtreêfournirhdd'autresktatç,dam l'avenir,
l'occasion de lui demander de procéder pareillement vis-&-visd'eitx
s'il yalieu.La lettr du 2 juillet tendse prémunircontre unepareille
position dans l'avenit.
Si nous vcitrlioçonsidércrces prhccupations de la lettreduz juillet
aupoint de vue [Eudroit,nouspodrrions dire :rtSije me dkide agir,
de ina propre volonté,d'me façon, dans une affairedéterminée,jerie
suis pas obligede prodder de lamémemaniéredans le futur. 1iMais,
considérantEs vie internationalecomme elle se déroule.nous savons
bien ce que parler veut dire. C'esbeau,muvent, ainvoquer undroit.
En vue detelles préoccupations,lalettrdu 2 juilletdit, dans la phrase
que j'aicitée:(4Que quide droitprenne note que, si j'agisaujot~rd'hiii
comme je 1~fais,jene veax nullement que quiconque, dans ,l'avenir,
se reclame de mon attitude d'aujourd' humime d'm précédent. n
C'es tout, Rien d'autre, ànotre avis,ne ressortde cettephrase de la
lettredu 2 juilleCette phrasene concerne pasclutout l'affaireprésente,
elle détermine l'attitude futme du Gouvernement albanais pour des
cas clvi peuvent se présenter dans l'avenir. fien non pl- dans cettephme, nh trait CtIarequgte du 13mai.
Rien qui enlèvequoi que cesoit aux remes formul6es dans Irphrase
précédente.
4) La phrase du dernier paragraphe contient nomination de l'agent
albanais.
J'en ai tcnmint avec la lecturede la lettrediiz juillet.
Je résumetoute cette analyse endisant que vraiment, ?tnotre;avis,
rien ne peut justifiel'opinioque cettelettre auraitacçept6larequEte
du r3 mai. Nous avons disséqué toutes lesphrases l'uneaprès Yaiitre.
Leur texte necontient pas mêmel'ombre d'une auusion Aune volonte
quelconqm du Gouvernement albanais d'accepter la requgte.
Par contre, desréservesexpresses y sont faites qui prozrvenque la
requGte n'cd pas acceptée.S'6conomie général ee 1%lett-rc,socontexte,
ses phrases et les mots montrent bien l'intentionde ses auteurs de
demander le rejetde la requetecomme une pi& nnk et non avenue.

Monsienr le.PrésidentM , asieurs de la Cam,

Au commencementde notre exposé d!'aujourd' consacré ..l'ap-
ment pincipaf que le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni croit pouvoir
tirer de lalettre duzjuilletnom avons dit quJàpart certaip nsssages
tÏrEsdu texte, nos hinen ts adversaires emploientencoreun argamen t
d'une autre sorte,et le sens de ce demieme argument semble être le
suivant :si le Gonvemementalbanais a acceptépar salettre du 2 juiliet
la juridictiode laCourpour l'affaire présente, il ne lui apparplust
reviendraitsureson acceptation.de la juridictiondeelaCotir,cebquiine
lui estpas permis.
Nous nous permettons de faire remarquer que ce sontssiirtmt la
Observations britanniquesdu zo janvier qui font entrevoircetteargu-
mentation en &vers endro'its.C'estainsique les Observations disent :
rcla question que soulève l'exception prhlimin airedu Gotrvernemmt
albailaisestcellede savoir silaCour estcompétente n (paragraphe 8 .
des Observations). a 11 nbppartiezlt plus au Gouvernement albanais
de rouvrir la question de la compétence s (paragraphe 9, lit. i, des
Observations).Etc,
D'autre part, nous nouspermettonsde faire remarquer qu'au mars
des débats oraux cet aspect des wments du Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni n'a pas étéexaminéde plirs prespar rios hinents adver-
sairesEn génhral,ilnoussemble qne toute cetteargumentation préscqte
un aspect assez fuyant, incertainet que lesdkhats oraux,à notre avis,
n'en ont pas suflisamment éclair4le sens.
En abordant encore ala findenotre exposécettesorte d'a~gumentation
britannique, nous croyons devoir attirerl'attention de la Coursur le
raisonnement suivant ;il cstbienévident que tout plaideur citédevant
un tribunalde son pays estdans sondroit s'iluse aux finsde sadefense
de tous lesmoyens quelui offre laproceddre, tant ece qyi concernele .
fond de l'affairequkence qui conceme d'autresobjections,En ce qui
concernecertains de ces moyens, ildoit, bienentendu, examiner quand
et comment: il peut les employer. Il pourra, par exemple, soulever &aines exceptions à son profif sedement ifili~a'weZiiisMais c'est -
tout. Petsonnc ne pourrait jamais direA un plaidearcitédevant im
tribunal: (et maintenant, puisquevous comparaissezici,vous nepouvez -
pus employer d'autresmoyensque ceux tiresdu fmd de l'affairn.
S'il enest ainsi, nous noaspermetton. de demander si cet état de
choses estchangé quand ils'agit d'un Etat devant la Cour ? Il nous
sentble bien encore une foisque poser laquestion c'estlar6soudre. .
Pour le Gouvernement albanais,puisque c'estlegouvernement d'un
Etat, iln'existe pasde P~o~tssnwmg. ce Gùuvemementne peut der
devant la Cour que par un acte de sa volanté faitexpresA cette fin.
M& comment une telleacceptation de juridictiodevrait-eueentraîner
ipsofado, pour ~Ét'dt qui entreprend cetacte volontam, Ja firnitation
de ses moyens de défense,de son statut pmcédural aind que celuiqui
. est diterminéparle Statut etle Réglernentdela Cour? S'il en devait
'etre ainsi, un teCtatde choses, piutdt surprenant,devrait r&sdter au
moins S'un texte assezprkis. Mals,bienentendu,untel texte n'existe
'Pa.
D'ailleurs,comment cela serait-it possibl? Si je me decide à aller
devant la Courpour pouvoir discutermon point de.vue, combattre
les prktentionsde mon adversaire, soulevertoutes lesexceptions préli-
minaires,ilfaut bien qn'auparavant je paraissepur ainsi direphysi-
quen~ent, devant k Cour. La lettre du 2 juillet n'a rien fait dkutre
que<l'exprimer cetétatde choses.Elle dit :jeveux allerdevant laCour
pom me défendre.Pour unplaideurdevant un tribunal national, une ,
telledkclaration serait parfaitement inutile et sermême =.risdoute
arrogante,car 11 va de soi que le plplaideuestobligé de se présenter
devant lefxtribdna,tpersonne ne l~demmdes'ilveutourtonenaccepter .
la juridictioMaisen cequiconcerne rin Étatc'estautrcchme. Surtout
's"i1s'agit d'ua tktqai auparavant doitaccomplirquelques actespour
ester en justice.
Nous nous pmettom de présenter encore cettequestiond'une autre
façon. Nous nous demandons comment un Etat devrait s'y preiidro
alorsqu'iln'est pasobliged'allerdevant laCoar clans me affairdéter-
minée etqui pourtant vent y aller pousfaireIa Cour juge de cette
affair? SiROUS comprenons bien nos éminents adversaites- mais nous
État nempourrait aller devant laCour que pourle fonditsde ïWaire.el
Nous disons donc qii'iauraitfallu que le Gouvernement albanais
renonce expressément5 son droit de produisedevant la Cour tom les
moyens de defense pour qdil ne puisse dorénavan ftire usagede la,
procédure delaCour dms totite son ampleur,dans toutessesdispositions.
Or, in'y a paseu de renonciationpareilk delapartdu Gouvernement
alhanais.Bien ad contraire,le Gouvernement albanais a, par sa lettre
du 2 jaillet,fart Teréserves lesplus expresses.
Nos dernières paroleseront pour essayer de serrer encore d'un
plusgrés Zaportéejuridiquedm réservesfaites par lalettredu 2 juiet-
Nous croyons pouvoir qualifiernos réserves cleconditions apposees
à l'acteprincipal que constitue la déclaration dl&trepret à pardtre
devcsrila Cam,
Les conditions dependent, par dgfinition, dr&v&errie tn Zuturs et
incertains.De tels kvknerneritspeuvent dépendre d'un pur hasard;
au d'un &&nementqu'il est anpouvoirdes-parties de faire arriver ou
Zemp4cher ; etenfin,ily ales conditionsmixtes, w La condition mixte estdie g~i dépend lafais de la volont6 d'une desparties contrac-
tantes etde lavolontéd'untiers. m
Nous croyonspouvoir ranger dans les conditionsmixtesles réserver;
du z juilletEn effet,pour que ces r&erves, pour -que ces conditions
s'accomplissent,ilfaut qu'interviennent notre volont&celledii Gouver-
nement albanais et la volonte dh tiers, savoila volontéde laCour.
II fautqu'intervie notrevolont4. Nousnom sommes réservé cette
possibilitd.Mais nous nattions pas obligesde lafaire valoir. Ainsi, la
réalisation decetteréservc,de cettecondition dépend pour nne part
de notrevolonté. D'autre part,nous ne sommes pas maîtres tout seuls
de la condition ;nous avons dCfér éadéclsion, snrcette condition, ala
Cour.Pour que la condition soiremplie,ilfautque laCour, partie tierce
à .lacondition,la fasse jouer Si laCour nele faisaitpas, la condition
ne seraitpas remplie. . .
Ainsi, le concours de deux volontés se manifestant da le miérne
sensest nécessaire pour que nos rkserye sroduisent l'effevoulu.
Encore une question, ladernière.Qml serait l'effet dla rhlisatiùn
de no5 rséservek,enos conditions7 Ceteffet semit celui de toucondi-
tion résoliltoire,lktejuridiqne entreprissous certaines condLtionsest
- cassé, tombe ex ~MW.
Cet étatde choses produiraitcertainseffetspar rapport à la&ur et
par rapport ail demandeur.
En ce qui concernela Cour, s'inods e& permisde dire notiepensh
i cetegard, ilnoirssemble que la réalisationdnotre conditionvapriver
la procédure, engagGe dans l'affaire prCsentedevant IaCorn, d'un
élément important et nécessairepour son mouvenient. La pièce qui,
suivant le Statut de la Cour, est seule susceptiblede porter l'ahire
dire du rouage important grke auquellacllepeuteseaderouler.Enuratten-
dant un rouagemeillew non entache de nullitéla procédures'arrêtera.
L'affaireest pour le moment terminée,
Cen'est pasce ds~iltat quenous avions envue'en prkentant l'excep-
tion pr6liminaire.Silkxeerçicede 4a jwidicfion de 4a Cour se trouve
pour Ie moment paralys6 et artet6parce qua larequgte a été trouvée
nulle etnonavenue, cen'estpas notre faute, je mepermeb dele dire.
Nousn'y pouvonsrien sile Gouvernement britannique a tentéde saisir
la Conr sur lahase d'une disposition prétendueinexistante ;sur des
motifs non valables ; sans aucun accord préalableavec nous, par un
procAd4 unhtéml contraire la recommandation da Conseilde Skc'curité
du 9 avril dernier qui a invite lesdeux Parties a procdderensemble
devant la Coiir, le seul procédé qui, en l'espece,est * conforme au
Statut de la Coirr1.
Nous ne sommes pas responsablesde ces procédk.
D'autre part, si nous nevoulons pas validerces procédé s, noilsne
voiilons pas 1s ratifier en jetantA J~QSadversaires cette planche de -
çalut dont nous avons parlé,c'est bicn que nous sommes dans notre
droit : q74ismo"re ~titw,wminem IŒdd.Nous ne voulons dans cette
affaireque precéderi% due pmcess O/ law.
Telle estla situationdans laquellese tronvera la Cour A la suitede
l'accomplissement de notre condition.
Dans quelle position se trouvera Iapartie demanderesse ? .
A cetégard, ilet çllqzlele.Gouvernement britannique pourra tou-
jours revcnir sur l'affairet toujom devant la Cour. Il n'aura pascons~~nnm séridroit d'action contre nousinotreexception estaccepte
par la Cour, mais il faudra que,prochainement et dorenavant ilévite
de négligertka dzar!roces of lm dans l'espèce,
Pratiqliement,nousrevenons knotre volont& de porter cetteasie
devant la Co-tid'accor dvec le Gouvernement britannique par le
compromis-
Notre exception & du vimx type classique.Attaquant b requete
irrecevable, euese range bien dam la caLQorie des exceptions dila-
toires bienconnues et appIiquks d&jà dans le droitromain. Voici ce
que dit le grand maitre clu droromain qu'étaitle professeuBucidand
concernantune telle exceptio:tcThey were dilatoria in the sense that
jhreat: othem ~vould causethe plainkiftowithclraw proceedin before
Eifico~~latio, witha view to renewedaction later witbouthe defect.3
Monsieurle Presïdent, Messieursde la Cour.j'en ai terminé.Je prie
laCOI.K d"ac¢ep tr encore une fois mes trh respectueuxremerci-ents
pmr la bieiiveillance avec laqueleUe a bien voulu rn16couter. 7.-REJOINDER BY SIR HARTIiEY SHAWCROSS

(COUNSEL mR THE GOVERXMEXT OP THE- UNITED KINGDOR~)
AT TEE PUBLIC SITTING OP X4RCR 5th, ~948, AFTERNOON

May Itplease the Court.
1 shall endeavour, likemy fnend, Profmr VochoC, ta be brief.
I'recognize fhat mere repetition of arpents does not as a rde add
vmy grtatly to tri& weight, 1 do not propose to folIow the Agent
for the Governent of.Aihnnia into thedctailsO, if he rd allow'me
to say sowithout offence,liisomecvhat poIiticaspeech,muchofwhich
no doubt was intendecl for anaudience many liuhdredsof milesaway,
and Bxdly expected to influencethe decision ofthis Court. I am
profoundly conscious of thefact that whatever may be the position
elsemhere, in this Tribunal abuse does not pasç for argument, and
rnisrepresentatiodoes not take the place otacts. 1 hope that always,
liowever strong political feelinmay be about &putes which corne
befose thisCourt for investigation-and sometirne the politicalfeeling
about tliem wiU ofcourse be strongasitmay be hesewe shallpreserve
in this Court the detached, cab, objectiveatmosphmeof a Court of
Justice, asthis Coutt is.
But while 1 shali notattmpt to fdlorsindetail the address of the
Agent forthe Government of Albania-in detailor ininvective-there
arOn Saturdayterlastinkaddressing thisCourt, atmtheebeginning of the
caseof the United Kingdom, I s&d tbat ifthe Government ofAlhia
meant to bc taken senously tvhen itsuggested that itwas anxious to
comply with the recornmëndatioris of the Security Council and that
it wanted to cornebefore this Tribunal, thatit was $vilhg to enter
into aspecialagreernerltthe Governmentof the United Kingdom were
ready for theirpart, hereand now, to enterinto asimple specialagree-
ment on the linesof the twenty w thirty words which 1 ventu~ed to
suggest to the Court atthat the. I did not mcike that suggestion
becaiise ofanylack cif,confidenccin the groiinds upon which wa say
that the ]misdiction of theCourt is basedin tbiscase, but simply in
ordm ta enable the Goveynent of Albania t~ do that which it
professes to be anxious to do. That \vas on the moming of 1st
Saturday. Five days went by in corn Ietedence, and during three
of them the Court was not sitting. TPherewas, thcmfore, an ample
ctpportunity io make me of telegraphic communication, which no
doabt exists between here and Belgrade and Tirana. Last night,
for thehrst tirnethe Agent for the Governrnent of Albaniaapproached
us ~5th the suggestionthat the Courtshould be askedto adjourn for
one month, without any fdrther argument, Ln order to see tvhether
the Government of Aibania would Wee that a special agreement
coiild be arrived at. Thete was no undertaking whatever that the
Government of AIbania would enter into a specialagreement; no
gu-antee tliat after afirrtlier delathisCourt 1vou1d not be required
again to resurnediscussion ofthis matter at the point tvhere it wonld have Jeft off. ve thought ifwas quite intolerablethai th& Kigh
Tribunal should be made to wait uponsuch vague and uncertain con-
tingencies, and we thought aka that if was really quite intolerable
that this grave matter should be submitted any further tù theditatory
tactics which have hitherto been pursued.
Imust remhd the Court af thedates. It vas on zznd Octoh 1946
that, somehow, by sarneane, murder was done to fortlour British
sailors,and that mime against hnmanity, as every one wi1lagree it
was, ha5 stilLnot been bsc~ughthome to itsperpetratorç, whoeverthcy
may be. It NXS in December 1946 that we addressed a note to the
.Governent of Mbanizt, and it was in January xg47.that we put the
matter before the Secdrity CounciL It wczs in ApIil 1947 that the
Çemrity Gouncil resolvedand recomrnended that this matter shciuld
be refemd immediately to the Court, That was in1947, and now we
are well into 1948. We cannot bt; arties to any procedule which
may delay fiiftherthe investigationa?this matter. Nor do we regard
this matter as one at dl snitable for pretracted negotiations. I -
venhred to iridicate onSaturday the simple farm of words that, in
my submission, would suace for a specialagreement to referthe case
.to the Court. Ml that is needed is a bare agreement ta refer the
dispute, as fomulated and defined in the Rwlution of the Security
Corncil of 9th Apri1,ta the Court. Anything fiirther and beyondthat
must eit3ierrestrict the powersothe Court in dealing with the dispute
or be more suqAusage, Five days should have been quite ample to
enable Albania to decide:iipon itsanswerto.the simple suggestion, if,
indeed, it everhad the dighteçt dsirc to coine beforethis Court atall.
Out positionin regard to the matter remains exactlg sç itwas when
1 announced it on Saturday* We are ready to enter into a special
agreement, but we cannot delay or impede the proceedings of the
dedarationst which haveitheen amade by tthesGovernmentf tof Albaniat
tht it wished ta conform ta the ResoEution of the Security Gouncil
andthat it desired thismatter tocorne before the Court-although it
haç so f,zr been un'acccptable, still reniainoptn, If at ariy tirne
'before the decisien of thisCourt isannounced, the Government of
Albania approache rs and desiresto enter into a special agreement
so that,notwithstanding the decision, whateverit may be,this matter
'carvoluntatily corne befvre the Court, we shall he prcpared to dcal
withthe matter on t1~ basisof the offe1made ; bat we arenot prepared
to be parties to any further dclay.
Then the Agent fw the Government of &barna saidthat I had corn-
plainedof the length ofthe whichwe had devoted ta eur discussion
here. 1 made no such cornplaint, If, asmay tvtllbe the case, the
real desire ofthe Government of Aibania is to elude the jurisdiction
of the Court, then Tagm that the question of the cornpetence of the
Court and asto the compirlsorgpowers af the Security Councilin con-
nexion with the cornpetence ofthe Courf, are mattcrs of the utmost
importance and of the greates dtfficulty-ones wfüch certainlymerit
the mmt cirrefuconsideration and diççus~ion. The matter isacademic
if,and ody if, the realdesireof the Govetnment of AIbantn Is what
theyaçk the Courf to believe is theirdesire, namely, to invest this
Court with jurisdictiontutry this dispute. Ifthat rverethe realdesire
of the Government of Albania, theri,,of coune,it would be very eaçy to accompZishit eitlieby vduritay subrniss ionthe Cod orby
speciat agreement, leaving thiç dficult and important question alto-
gether on one side. It \vas nn that view of the rnatter,and onIyon
thatview, that I saidthat we were takinu gp a great deal oftiméxvith
the discussion of sometliing mhich might be academic. If, however,
that is not,as itappears;the desire, thenthe probierns,far fmm being
academic, iue realanclconcreteories,andonesof far-reachingimportance.
. Finaliy, the Agent €or the Government of Albaniasaîd that the
question as to whethes or not Albania had submitted to the jlirisdic-
tion of the Courtwas raised by the United Kingdom at those meetings
of the Secu1-t7 Council inJulp of 1947 only as a pretext tooppose the
Aibanian app2'cationfor membetship. The Agent for the Goverment
of Albania said tliatin spite ofthe telegram which was teceived hm
the Registnr of the Court, indicsiingthe attitt~de which the Govern-
ment of Albmia had taken up, the United Kingdom voted against
its application for rnembership as,indeed, it had votd against itin
1946 when,-aceording to them, therewa no .dispute. That 15wholly
incnrrect. The United Ringdom Government did not raise this point
before the SecurityCorncil at this time atail. Itwas raised by other
States, wliicli,in raisingIt, pointed artt: interms that it\vas only
one of a numk of matters m~hich might help the Security Çouncil to
decidci,whether or not the Grivemment ofAlbania was a peace-leving
goverriment. able and prepared to fiilfiitsobligationsto the United
Nations, Nor,of course,was the qdestion,asthe Agentfor tliGovem-
ment of Albania seemed tn sugged, wflether or not Albanra' r~as a
part$ to adispute. That was not the ground onwhich it was suggested
tliat Altania rnight not qualify for membership. The ground was
that Albania, lieiria pdy ta a dispute, \vasnot preparedta comply
by pcacefirl rnmns.tioThat twasStherirnatter into which tlieaSecuritye
Cwncil was enquii-ingat tkat time, Nor was it,1 am bouoù ta Say,
altogether correct for the Agent for the Goverment of Albania ts
say that when we opposed theadmission of theircountry in1946there .
\vas no dispute. I sha1Jhot go into the groundsifor our position in
that or other comections, but you will seefrom the pJeadings inthis
case that in May 1946. before the question ofadmiççion tothe United
Nations liad been decided, British ships had already*hem fired iipon
in the Coxftz Channet. That is one of the rnatterç whicti no doubt
- carried some weight,
My only reason for referringto theproceedings of 'the Security
CoirncilinJuly 1947 at aU ws to link the proceedings at thase meetings
witlithe proceedings inApril144.7, and to show, forwbat itwas tvosth,
if itwas worth anything at all,what was the coinnion understanding
of the Members of the Semrity Gouncil as to the Rmlution which
theq'pasrsed on the.gtA hpril. Their undcrstmding of the effect af
that Resolutionor itsintention is,fcourse,not binding upon ths Court.
It is dways pssible that the opinions which were expressed ai the
Security Coucil by dl tEiosewho took part in the discussio~rnay
llavc ben wrong, and that it \vasgiven only to the Governineni: of
Albanis-to see thetrue lightinregar to this matter. However, that
isperhaps a question nut to be settled hy the@si dikt of the Agent
ofthe Governmentof Albania, bùt one to be decided bj: the Tribunal'
in the ligtlofal1the relevantmaterias atwhichit is entitled to look.conceded,on recomendittions under botli çhapters. If it does not
operate on these, on what does it aperate?
Now it: tnaywd be true-it. tvodd be unfortunate, X think, but it
rnay well hetme-and thif;Court will have to arrive at a decision in
regard tait-that the powers of the Se~urity Gouncil are not asstrcng
as ha5 hitherko ben believed to be the case,both by the Mernbers
of theCouncil and by the other Membersof the United Nations. Ure
had tliought tkat in Article25 we had madea mal, an effectivestep
fornard £rom the oId days of the League of Nations, for the League
coulcl da no mare than pass persuasivercsolutions; we had thought
that by the provisionsof Article25 the ii5ernber;f the United Nations
had agreed inadvance to accep the decisions of the Security Counçil
-clecisions or recommendatians, whatever form they took. It may
turn out-and this in rny~espectfrzsubrriissionIs the orilymnclusion
to whicli the Court can arriveif itftnds in favour of the Governrnent
ofAlbmia in this cm-it maytirm out that Article 25 has donenothing
of thelrindand that thmeis nothing inthe Charter to wliich thatarticle
cm really apply. It rnay turn out that the ùnly obligatory pswcrs
that ariseciutofthe Charter-and, it itrue, thesewould in thmseives
mark astepfumard frorn ttidap of the Lague-are those which are
to be foiind unda the spccificarticles of ChapteVII. It ma37be that
that is where the reaiol~ligatiorlies,and that tiiatis where the step
fomd \vas taken, and that that was the only step fomrd tliat\vas
taken. That is a speçifiobligation inseerd toenforcement mertsiites
whenyriu get to a situation whcrc the Face has actually beea broken.
Bnt itwas the generally accepted view-and it stilJ has been until
this case arose-a generaily *wcepted view-that Artide 25 had some
gencral effect,and that all the Mernbers of tlie United Nations had
undcrtahn speclficobligationsunder it-gencral obligations-appiying
'not only ChapterVIT, to wliich the Article does nnt specifically or
garticularlyrelate,but to dl tlie decisionsof the Count51 in whatever
paNow, spaking oftertpreparatory work kads me to a comment, not
about Profemr Lauterpacl-itt,he qliotaiion of whose vietvs I knew my
learned frfriewaulcl be quite unable to resist-biit aboilta misunder-
standing which appearç $0 have arisen in-themlnd of rny learned friend,
and I hepe not inthe mincl of any one dse-about something said by
Mr. Beckett in the corirse of hi5 argument. Mr, Beckett laid great
stresson the importanceof unif~rrnityin tlie interpretation of the
Charter,andlie used that argument as agrovnd for rejectingarnethod
of interpretationwhich, whilst it is availnblin those cases where the
partiesto the Iitigation were alçopatties to tlie preparatory work, is
not available-or rnay not bbeavailable-wluzre thatwas not the case,
Professor Vocho? then referred, in his reply to that argument, to
Articleggof the Statute ofthe Court. Biit ri£course that isa tcitally
differentpoint. It is quitc truethat undei Article 59of the Statute,
the decisionsrofthéCourt are binding onlg upon the actua1 .parties
to the caseinwhich the dedsion kvasgiven ; but thisis not a question
of the legalbinding force of a pasticul dearision. This is a question
of the desirability ohavingsame kind ofuniformitgr in the canstruc-
tion which jrou place on the sarrlearticlesoi the same treaty. 1s it
dly to be suggested diat it is convenient, thatit is juclicial, titt
is even possible,to give one mnstruction to a partictilararticlof theCharter in the casewhere the partiesto the litigation werealsa parties
to the preparatoly work, and togive another construction to the same
articlesof thesame CE-iarterna case whese the partiesto theJitigation
tvere not partiesto the preparatory woïk, and so, consequently, wllere
preparatory mork cannot he loaired at?
You WU, of course,have to consider,in rny wspectful subission,
vq carefdy what is the real nature of tliisrule ahout looking at
preparatory m-ork incases where the partiesor me ofthe partiesbefore
the Coud niasnot also a party to the prepamtory work. 1 am not
gohg to go into detail on that argument again. There içartthority
in the jurisprudence of the old Court ahut. the matter. But ifthe
true view iç-as It appears to be irom the urisprudence of the;Court-
thai preparatory work can only be looked~at in the case of llitigation
beheen States whiclr were parties to the preparatory work-thal,
in my sabmission, is a very strong argument for rejkcting a reference
to prepmtory work altogether,in cases where you are deating with
Statesawhich tooktino part whateveracandehadnothing whatcverby tondo
with the preparatoryworkon which it is sought torely* Xiat was
the point ofthe argumentthat my learned friend, Mr, Beckett, put:
before th6 Tribunal,andreally,if 1rnay say so with respect,Article 59
of the Statute of the Court has na more to do with that argument
than "the fiowess that bloom in the sprhgm*-
Mr. President,pmparato~ work or no, itisin my submissio? impos-
sible in tkçcaseto escape the condusion: 6rstl~r,that it!vasintended
by fhose who took part in the preparatow ryrk and who frarned and
signed thisCharter-that it\vasintended that Article 25 sl~oultlapply
to hoth CIiapter VI and VI1 ; secandly, thataçcording to the Ietter
ofthe Charter itclearlydoes so apply ;thirdly, that it cannetoperate
on anythg unless itoperates on recammendations in Chapter VI.
Mr. President : I saidthat itmight be tme-that itrniglitbe tiue-
that Article 23 mas without comprilsory cfiect. That would of cuurse
be amost astonishing and most regrettable conclusian. My subrnission
is that iths effect. The Court will corniderthe Charter so as togire
effectto itif ican,and tu fmther the manifestintention of the Charter
as a tvhole.
Wow,1 corne to apoint.on which Professor VvchoCperhaps did les3
than justice to inspite of the-car end comtesy whicli has dislin-
throughout.1rnReSsaidsthat we hadhanotedealt with the subrnissioii that
a plications were only proper-[applications to the Court, 1 rnean,
oP course] one case,riamely where there was a cornpulsory jurisdic-
rion-a compalsoryjuridiction hewuse of adherence to the Optional
Cla~~er Well,1dealt \vit1that expresdy, and the Courtrnayremember
that owingto an emr in the translation1 dealt m1th it twice. The
Ti-ibunal wiii finit-I am not going torepeat it to you-I jnst note
the place where it occitrs-theTribunal \vil1finclthatmatter discnssed
in the shorthand note of the thrd day, page 55, and in tbe short-
hand note of thc fourth day, pagc 76 and folloxvhgpages. And the
Court may rmall that I said tlrerewere in fact not one case only,
as Professor VochoChad sugestcd, where it was proger to pmceed
by my of application, but no less than fIve . fthose five cases,1
subrnitted that there was one, for which 1 suggested thzt Article 32 of the Rules ofCo& had made specificprovisionafter the matterhad
been deliberately debated and discussed by thejirdges inx936, by the
iricldsioof those wrrrds M the Rule to the effecthat the exact luris-
dictional basis relied upon by tlieapplication ueed not be stated in
the applicationits~lf if iwerenot possibleto date it, I saggested
that inconsepuence of that, ad by virtueof that,one of thefive cases
in tvliiçhit was properto prmed by application,was the case ~vhere
an applicationorigindly bba in form was cured by a subscquent volun-
tary acceptanc oethe jurisdiction-what 1 ventureclto cal1the "life-
Zine" article.
Atid sa 1 corneto what my Iearned friendsaid aboutthàt argarnent
-the letter of2ndJuly Iast year. The Agent of the Governent of
Albania, if1understood him rightlyin theFrench of liioriginaladdress,
said that the Government of Albania was alcae-alone-entitl tod
interpretthe meaniilg and intentio ofitsom letter. IVeIl,that may
be gond political doctrine isome places,but Ihardiy expect it would
be follnwed in thisCourt. It isfar this Court tointerpret from the
words that were vsed what was thedfect and intention ofthat letter.
Now, what $vas it7 In the detailcd and sis which Professor Vachot
made of the letter the= were two sigi cant omissions. There was
no reference at a1by Professor Voçhot to the thirdparagraph of para-
grapli 3, Well mw, why was that? Was it agah a goad advocate
glossing over a point to whkh he knowsthere isno answer ? Wllat
does the third paragrap'h of paragraph 3 say ?
"In these circumstances" (they recited thegroimdsof theirobjec-
tion-grounds on which there may or may not have ben any sub-
stantial ~veight)-and they go on :
'Tn thesecircumstance, the Albanian Governent muid lie mithin
its rights in holding thathe Government of the United ICingdom\vas
not entitled tobring the casebefore the Court by unilateral applica-
tion, tvithodtfird concluding a specialagreement with the Albanian
Government."
\lreU now, what do thex words mean if theyaie nnt introductoty
to and explanatory of the words whicli follow in paragraph 4 ?
This is the first omissio;ycsu cxtnnot,in my respecth slbmission,
, disregard those words. If you do not disregard fien?, if youattaeh
to thm the rneartlnwhich tbey ordinady bar, they clearb indicate
that althtiugh-the Governnient of Albania would l-iave been eiltitled
tn relyon itsabjection if %thad fhought it politically'expedilisotto
,do, ilone the less the Governrnent of Albania, anxitosgive evidence
of its devotion to the principlesof friendly collaboration and pacîfic
settlemmt of disputes, is not goingto take that point.
Then one carnesto Article 4, paragraph 4, of the letter, And in
that paragraph-unias jsI ,greatly mistaken-Professor Vochoi.,
inclting the last sentmce of the penultimate pasagraph about the
question of a premdent for the fiiture,glossed over, if hedid not
en tir eo^, it, thwods "ifsacceptan ce the Court's jurisdiction".
Now, those seem significanwords-som meanhg must be given to
them-and 1 wggest to tlieCourt that the only possibIe me,mingto
.be given to those words is-that the Goverment of Albania is there
and then acceptkig tlie jtrisdict ofone Court without creating
any-preced eortthe future. What the Government of Albania could
II May 1just ansider very shortlythe effectofthe Order made by this .
Court-I have referred to the matter already-on the 3rst July. It
is seout in paragraph7of out submiççions of the 19thJaniiary ofthis
year. Thecourt willrememhr that under Article 35 (2)of theStahte
of the Court,it iprovidedthat the conditions ünder which the Court
shdl beopen ta aState which isrroa pa.tjrto thStatut sedlbesuchas
maybe laid dom by the SecurityÇauncil,and on the15th October, 1946
(youwiil find it intheYearfic-ici,age 106) ,n tliergth October, 1946,
the SecutityCouncil did,by a vaiid remIutian,la)d?own the conditions
that theCourt \vastobe open to thoseStatesivhichpreviousEy deposited
with the Co~rt a declaration nnder which they accepted the Court's
jurisdictim and agreedto lx bund, etc. There wereother conditions,
but 1 am onlyconcerned with thisone-the one which provides that
only fhose States ivhich previously'depositeda declaration that they,
accepted the jrrrisdiction the Comt co~ildfind thedoors ofthe Court
open to them.
Then to corne to Article36 ofthe Rulesaf tbis Court. Article36 of
the Rtileç oCourtspecifres that adament mntainingamonet other
matters the evidence as to that declarationhaving been deposited
-having been deposited ormntaining thedelaration-must be depos-
ited with the Registrar of tliis Court.That isone of tlie conditions
precedent to the doms ofthe Court being open at allto a Statewhi&
is nota paty to the Statuta
Now, on the 3rd. Julythe Court,after mnsdtation with the Agents,
made anOrder ivhich stated in tems that theletterof the 2nd July
constituted tlie document specified bArticle36 ofthe Ruhesof Court ;
, namdy, the declarationaccepting the jurisdiction of the Court.
The Government of Albania knew full wey that its letter of the
and July had been regarded by the Court asan açceptmce of ittsjnris-
Council,aththat timefasaneaçcqtancet ofdthe Court's jurisdiction.he
Government of Albania nçiw seek to say that dl that was a false
impressionof the rneaning oithe letter, but the GovernmentofAIbania
knewquite well at that tinie fhat thawas the iniprcssionwhi~hbad
been derivedby the Court from theletterwhich was held by the Security
ÇounciP and which was held by her opponents in these proceedings.
Why was it,does the Conrt suppose,that she allowed six rnonths
to go by before she pdtted herself tosay that that impressionwas
\vliolly misfaken and ivholly ~LS? -1 askthis Court to saytlzatthis
attempt ta go backnoiv upon the position which wn~ taken up at
that tirne-a position which,if they did not htmd it by the tems of
t11eir letter of 2nd Julywas at least one rvhich for reasonsgood or
bad, they were very content to acqniesccinat that tirne-4~something
which constitutes a grave abuse of the procedure of this Tribunal.

Mr.President, Ihave mme ta the end of what I desire fosayto the
Tribunal, and rny msponsibility inthe matter is over. The reqmns-
ibility othe Tribunal.isvery great. I wonder if1 may just add this :
you may think it impertinent-I hop it is not-perhaps it is, but if
it is willyou put it down tarny inqerience and quit me of any
intention to offend.
1 çpoke 1xt Thursday whm in those impressive proceedings.this
Courtopenedits first session-lspùkeofthe detachmen tandpro tetian156 REJoINDER-BY $Tl2RARTtEY SHAW~OS (u.K. ) 5 III48

which this Court enjoys from political considerations.Now it k
said-and one canot &ut one's qes ta it-that thiçisa caw mhich
has political implications, which makes its decision diicult. And
certainly idoes concern adispute betcveen-acountryof Eastern Europe
and acountry 01the \\Test,And-certainiy no ûnerepts itrriotethan
we do--we cannot shut our eÿeçta the fact tllat thetek a dangerously
increasing tendency ta divide Europe intct~vo camps, ol the East
and of the \FJeçt.But I Iike to think-1 like tothink-that thereis
sornething which içcriimtnen tu both of these camps, if camps there
rniistbe,something which issharedat least amongst the osdinary mm-
mon people of di the European countries. And that is a beIief that
we dl have in thefundamental ideas ofJaw and justice. There can be
RD barriersand,no divisions inregard to that. And whatever the
result of this case-wliether it goes against the Governent of,the
United Kingdom,or whether itgoes againsi the Government ofAlhania
-this Cotrrtmust remain alandmarkand aEghthouse amidst the mach-
emuç tides ancl the shifting politicasands ofEurope. My country
hopes to çucceed in this case. Of course IVEdo, \?Te aresubmitting
that we are right,
But-you may think this insincese,but believeme it inot-1 would
far sooner that my country failed inthis casethan that an7 political
consideration whatever should enter into the -matterbecause this hap
pns to be a dispute between an Eastern Europcan country and a
-wlietherofit is for the Governentr~f the UnitedtKingdom,cinorfor the
Govanmen t ofAlbania-the manner in wllich yougive may keepdive
onc of tIiose larnps ofhopeandfaifh in Europe so 'many of which have
gcine or~t.LISTE DES DOCUMENTS D~POSES PAR LES PARTIES
EN FEVRIER19-48

LIST OF DOCUMENTSPILW 7BYTFIE PARTIES
IN EBRUARY 1948.

DOCWlllENTS FiLED BY THE AGENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM

Letter to the Xegiçtrar of theCourt (20thFebruary,1948).

An~exes:

Extract from statement by Mt. Sobo~ev, Assistant Seuetzry-Gen-1, at
the Winety-Firat hS&ing of the Smritp Coiincil.(Semi& Cmmcil, O@ciab
RecovrlsSeconiI ITearINO, 3, pp. 44-45.)
Extract fmm Siimmarp Record of the Sixteenth Meeting ofthe Security
Cauncil Ç~mmit-b un the Admission of New Xember3, zist JnIy,197
[SIC32/SR, re).
Idem, Seventeenth BTeet-ing,-3rdJnIy, 1947 (SIC. 2lSR. 17).

Idc~, Eighteenth Meeting, 28thJirly. r947 (SIC. 2[SR, 18).

Leme au Greffier dc la hir (24février~948).

Extraits de lapub1ic;ttioriUoctcmmls de ia .Co~pr#ncedts Mafaoms att%es

starb'Organi,saUo~iiIr~vnnrimaleSan-Pramisco IHS (~ihotolrthographie des
documents originaux); ces documents ont été Mit& en callaboratioravec
la Library of Cowgresspar !aLr~iledh-iclzonsI~afarn~lhClvgarsisati194s~
Londtes/h'ew-York. (Vol.XI. pp.388, 399.)
Extraitde la publication :Xe#adbdOçde Chile, -winisls~ida Ia EE;rtee:
Chale y!a Coîs#,wenciade San Francisco.Santiago, %rCDXl,V. (P. 45.)
E-~Tait de la publication: Acles de la P~emaévc AssembléeS , ea~esbs
Comzissirnes,Gmévc, 1920. Pvocis-vsr6m+xdes se'rznc#sdla TroisirSmaCmt-
neissim (Coitv pmrz?tmke de J?$S~ZCinil~~î~ataaffi).qttiime sbt~e, 8 décem.
b75 1920, (P.300.)

Extrait de Ia pnMication: Saci&ti&s h7atians, Actes t la Bai&
AssmbMs, Shce dusÇom~nraissmma1, , Genéve. rgza.(P. 5x1,)
Extrait dela publication ! Copsr~anmle dtiJti~tici~te~uta~de. SdAe D,
Actes ef,Doczime?afs~.e.?aliI'Ovga7aisatim &ilrCossr, AdcZe7zdaCEIG 2.
Ravisiondis Règtemmt. (P. 176.1

Extrait de la publication: Aeodbwi~. de Drasi iahvmbimak, Recitxit des
Cserrs1032, 1"tome 39 de la Collection. (Pp. t3r, ~16.) .
ExCrnit:de lapublication :Coiarfimniamnte de J~sltceP~fevnatioltaActe*
$1 Uocmts retalifu'1'Organisa lilanCow. T~aisik~taddendum aekno2,
PrP$aratio# du IiLgImnt d~ II nzms1936, Leyde, ~936. (Pp.69.137, 845.)PROCÉDURE ORALE (suite) -
B, - SEARTCE PUBLIQUE

$me au Palaide lPaix,La fiye,
la 2murs rg@,

ORAL PROCEEDINGS (cont.) PROCES-VERBAL DE LA SEAN'ÇE
TENUE LE 25 MARS 1948

PY~BIB :~S .GUERRER O~,ésidenl;f.BASDE~ANT V;ce- réside&;
Miii.ALVARE lZ,BELA,HACK~YJO WRIXIAR,SRISORIGI C, VISÇCKER,
sir AR~D MCNA~,M. KLAESTAU B, DAWP IAC~L~ M,M, XK~LOV,
READ. HSU 110A,ZEVED ug,es;M, D-KxKE ~ug,adhoc ;M. RAMBRO,
GvegGe r N. BECKETT, qcmt- du .G~adziernmv d4mRoynttme-U4$i;
M. KA~EMANYLLT ,gmt ditGo~v~mem~i ddeta R&p.plCaLpa'gte nirs
dPALba&e;MM. le professeur Voc~oF, le professeuLAPEMN. ~omei~s
d~ Gou.zler"ize?a~atrmis.

Le PR$SLUEN oTm,t 1'audienm,annonce pixelaCourse réunitpour
le pmnoncP. de I'arret qu'elva rendre sui-l'exceptiopr8fiminaire,
soulevée par leGouvernement albanais,dans l'aftaire dDétroit de
Corfou,qu'a introduite lGauvernemeotdu Royaume-Uni de Grande-
Bretagne etd'Irlande dNord contrele Gouvernement delaRépublique
populaire d'Albanie.
Les agentsdes deux Partiesontét6 dfiment prévenusconform&raent
à l'article 58 Statut,qu'a seraironne lectnrede l'arrau cours de
laprésenteséance publique. Ces agents soqprésentsà l'audienceet
l'expéditioofficieldel'arrétvientde leur&treremise.
La Courayant décidé,conformément A l'article39 dStatut, quece
serale tede français qui fera foi, le Prhident kcturede cetexte*
et prie le GREFFIERde donner lecturedu dispositif de l'ardans le
texte anglais-
Cette lecture achevéeie PRÉSTDSN sig& que M. lejuge Damer.
déciarant ne pauvoiserallier Ai'et rendupas laCour etsepr6vaIant
du droit que Luiconfkre I'mti57du Statut,a joinà l'arrê'exposéde
son opinion individuelleRIM.lesjugesBasdevan t, ALvârez, iniarski,
ZorZic, De Vissçher,Rndawi Pacha et Krylov, tout en se déclarant
d'accordsur le dispositont jointl'exposéde leur opinion individuelle
sur certains motifdel'arrkt5
Le Présidentdemande A.M. Basdevafit,,Vice-President,s'désire
donner lecturede l'opinionindividuelle signGluiet parlesmembres
.dela Courdont lesnoms viennent d7&trindiqués.

i Vingt-ckiqui4mt shnce LaCour,
{nadeventeGj. $esAw#ls,Avis 'ist.tdta#ihOrùwmrancesr948ppnr5-30
a Voir id,mpp.33-45.'
" P 8 ,1 3I-32, Le Vrce-P&srsr~m, ayantrépondu affi'rmativemetdonne lecture
de ceteopinionindividuelle.
Le PRÉSIDEK demande àa. le jngifiama s'ildésirequailsoitdonné
lectur eeson opinion individnelle.-

M. DAX~R répondaffrnnativement etlecture:esdonnéede l'opinion
de M. Daxner.
la PaEsm~m ilonnela ple I 17agent"doGorimement albanais,
qnil'ademandée.
M. KAKREMAN YUT prononce les prola reprodnites en annexe1.
LePR&~EN dTonnelaparol& l'agentduGouvernementduRoyaume-
Uni.

LePR~SEDEN signalequelaCour prend acteavecsatisfactiodela
concTosim du compromis qne les agentsdes Partieviennent de lui
notifier.
A la dlenu3.en.sdesFadies debienvonIoirapr&sI'audience,sréunir

Le Présidenptrononcela cIdtnrede l'addience.

L'audienceestlevéeh 17h. 43,

Le Greffierdela Cour,
(Sigdj E. HA~RQ.

1Voirp. 162.
a n 163. The Vxce-P~~srri~m replieinthe gffirrnatlveandproceedeto read
tlris separaopinion.

The PRESIDEN then asked ~ud~eDaxner ifhe wkhed toread his
, separate opinion.
JudgeDAXNER lxtvirirepIiedinthe agirmativhis opinioms rad.

The Pnllsrn~~1-alledonthe Agentforthe AlbanianGovernment,wha
had asked permission to speak.
M. KARREMA YNUT kade the staternent reproducedintheannexk.

ThePRESTDE Nded onthe Agentfor theGovernment of theUnited
Kingdom.
Mr.BECKETm Tadethe daternent reproducedinthe anna*.
The PRESDENT saidthat theÇomt notefi withsatisfaction the con-
clusion ofthe specialagreement rvkich theParties'Agents had just
notified.
He requestedtheAgents to be good enough tameet in Room3 after
the hearing,

The Presidentdeclaredthe hearingsclod.

The Court rosea2 5.45p.m.

1 Setp.162.
= 1,,, 163. ANNEXESAU PROC~S-VERBAL
EXFOSES ORAUX DU 25 M-ARSrg48

' (EXCEPTION PREL~AIRE~

ANNEXES TO THE 1MiNUTE
ORALSTATERIENTS OF TrlkItGH25th, 1948

(PREmmY OBJECTfON)

1.- EXPOSE DE M. KAFIREMAN YLLI

Mansieur lePrésident, 31essieude IaCour, . 1

Peut-6tren'est-ii paconforme Ala pratique, auxusagesde IaCour,
qu'un agent prenne laparde immédiatement aprèsle pronond &iln
tion delaCouriétantdonnk qu'ils'agit:d'un fait dl'importancedansen-
la pr6çente affairem6rîte d'&irise enconsid6ration.
La Cour voudrabien sesouvenirque j'aioutenu devant ellque,dans
Tw circonstancede laprésenteaffaireun compromis s'imposait, sur
leque1devait se fondertoute la procddure. ,4ucoursdes séancw du
26fkmier et du 5 mam, clesd6clarations ont ét4faites lesPartieau
sujetde cecompromis. Je neveux pas revenirmaintenantsur cesdéda-
rationsmais jementionne simplement que ht. l'&gentdu Gouverncment
hritant~ique avait exprimé l'avis que le ,compromis devait êtresigne
jmrnédiatement, dorsque,de notre part,notre seule objectétaitque
le &lai proposénans paraisaitropcourt ;me prolongation dce délai
futrelusée.Maismalgr6le peu fietemps qui restait 5 notre disposition,
nous avons faittousnos effortet, lerg mars,nous avons propos4 au
Gouvernement brifannique unp~ojet d'accor d.la suitd'un échange
de vues,nous avonssigné aujourd'hu ài, idile compromis.J'ail'hon-
neur de portermaintenantk lconnaissance delaCour letextesurlequel
nous noussommes misd'accorc; je vadonner lecturedel'uniqueexem-
plairedu textefrancais.
(M. Kalireman YYidonnelecture du texte du compromis'.)
Tel estle texteducompromisqnej % l'honneurdeporterà la coma$
mnce de la Cour avec 1sdemande quiy estincluse.
M. l'agentdu C~ouvernemen tritannique donnera llectndu texte
anglais,
Ainsique jei'ai dit plusieursfoleGouvernementalbanais atenu
respecterladkision clGrinseide Sécuritéd,ug avrilrg47,en vertude
laquelleleprésent compromis est soumis à la Cour internstionaide
Justice. . .

39-0ilvd.IIJp. 28, 2.-STATEMENT BY Mr: BECKETT

May it please the Court. 1 wish in the fast place to çonfirm the
statement made by my frfend the Albanian Agent thxt at 12 ci'clock y
to-clawe sigi~ea special agreement. 1will,with yonr per-mission,read
the English text of this special agreement ; both tex& are of equal
rtuthority.
(Mr.Beckett then 4 the EngIis'htextl.)
Mr.President, at theend the specialagreement requests tlie Courtto
give suc11directionsas itthinks fifor the fiitiiprocecitirein thicase,
afterconsultation with the Agentsof the Parties.I am, Mr. President,at
The Hague atthe rnornent,and J ought to leave it to-morrowrnorning ;
. 1 believc rny frlend, the Albanian Agent,isinmuch the smè position.
1 do not know whethcr the Cnurt willrvislito take advantage of tiw
presence here at this timeto cansnlt us irnmeiliatelwith regrud tothis
pracedure, bnt if that shauldIrethe course desired1am of courseat the
disposition of the Court.
Mr. President,as the Court iviilt~rnember,while uTe dmys thotsght
thatwe were entitlecltotaliethe course that we did in stwtlng tlieçe
p~oceedings by unilatci-alappllcatian-and it is,of course, a natural
satisfactionto us that the C.ourthas held a'lmostunanimoiisly that we
were so entitled-while we always thùught we Wren entitied takke that
course, we çaidthat xvedid not mind ~vhetlietlieCourt decided thiscase
on the basis of a unilatecd application, or un the 'nasisof a special
agreement. Al1that we desiredwaç that the Court shùuld bein aposition
to give a decisianon the rneritswith the mininimm of delay,TVe çaid at
the very end, through the rnouffiof tlieAttorney-General, that we
remahed willing to signa specialagreement with Albania right up to
the time when the Court might ddever its judpent, 1t was ho or the
days ago,actually, Ithink, onthe zzlid, when the appro~cckwhicli my
fxiendthe Albanian Agent has mentioned actually reached us at tJ~e
Foreign Office;and this nlorning the Albanian Agent and myself were
able to ngree upon the text alid we signed it atrniddzy to-day. The
original signet! capies, in English and French, tvill be filed witli the-
Regisbp, and the hfembers ofthe Court have before themroneoed copies
inbboth languages. Of cciursewe delibercltelgsigneclthat agreement
before the Court gave its jiiclgmenand wken vveneither ofus hadany
8idea of what form the judgmcnt wodd talre.
Itis, Mr. President,aconçidemble satisfatti~n tas to scethk prùof
of the shcerityof thedesireof our opponents, theAibanian Government,
that thfs mattei sliouldLedecided-the merits of tllis question-sliould
bedecidedby the Court, 1 thinkperhaps, too, ttiatthe Cod wiU fin8
eqtralsatisfactionattitisfurther proofof therespe ctnwhich thisCourt
is heEdand the athchment of two desputingParties to the propermethad
of settlinglegd disputesand to the rule olaw.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I respectfully thank the Court:for a '
judgment which wi11 be a most valuable addition to international
1 jurisprudence.

1 See Vol.II,p, 28.