SÉANCES PUBLIQUES
EXPOSÉS ORAUX
PUBLIC SITTINGS
fielal iJz3)e~cPILIIICT,M Hcrgzte,
ou I;ebrzsarv~8th. :l.~slzrtd c~njotkJtine27th aad 28fh,
njtd Ji11y T9.50Ihe Puesidet:W.Basdevmlt, 9residi~zg
ORAL STATEMENTSA. -- PKOCÈS-VERBAUX DES SÉANCES ''ENUES
LES n8 FEVRIER 1,; 2 ET 30MARS 1950
(PREMIEREPHASE)
I'rbcr,ts dgulernent:
M. Ivan K t<iixoSecretairegkrikrriladjointre-eyrSsenttidulecrétairc
gknéraldcs Nations Uiiies, .2ssistéde
31. Hsum-Tstir-L nrni,re de la Divisioil des c~uestionjuricliqiies
g6iii.raleau Secrétariat des Xatioiis Liiics.
Les refi~ssntnnlsriesGuzcrerteerne~isuicw~fs:
Royaurrie-Cini: 51,G, G. I~r~zmau~rc ~. M. G.,dcu~i?mii conceiller
jiiridiqiie aForeign Office.
l?tnt;-~nis d'r\rilbrique : I'honoraHenjamin Y.COKEY, assisté CIC
Le PRtsrni;.~.~.oiivmn t I'audierice, aiirioique IriÇoiirse rérinit
pour cntcndrc Ics exp~k. orails qiii seront prbsentésda:is I'afiaire
visarit certainest~iicstiridc proctdure reIativesP l'it~rprktatinridt:s
trait& de pais qiiioritkt&conclus rirTecla Uuigarie, laHongiic ct la
Roirnianie.
Par une rGsolution,dat6e drr 22 octobre 1949, 1':ZssemhléegCri6ralt:
des Nations Uiiies a dkcicidektfernamler Ala Coiirunavis corisultalif a
cc -sujei. Lc PrCsident prie Ic GI<F:I;FIIdeIdoilner lecture de cette
r6solution.
A lasuite de cette lecturele P-'RÉs~I>I.I+ppelleque larcquttc poirr
avis a lait l'objetdes tiotificationd'usage.
Etant donné qii'cllc loucIiaiB l'interprétütiortie certains traitas.
elle aet& ,onfoi?iikment à l'articl66 du Statut, commu~iiqii&e ritous
ICS GOUVCSIICII~d ~II~Stats admis à cstcr dcvaiitIa Cour, signat:iir~
desdits traitesqui étaicrijuges susçeptililes, palaCour, de donn~r dps
renseigii~ineiisiir Iquestion. A.-MINUTES OF THE SI?"rINC;S HELD ON
FEBRGARY 28th, MARCH [sr, 2nd AND ph, 1930
(FIHST PHASE)
Przseiit : i'residejtf ihsiiev~s-r; t'ire-Presitleiil Gt:r-:a~eo JzirEgzs
ALV.ARE X ~-\C;I<~~O~ \:.''~,RSKI, Zo~ltlC, LIEVISSCHE~ S~ir.;\irsn~~
;~IcNALR , LAESTAD, I~.%I>;P !\IHA. K~vr.ov, l? ts~ijHSC 310 ,~ZIIEI)O ;
Kegi'slrnr H-\>IRRO.
Rko prese~~t:
>Ir. 1van I<iiri~o,hssislaiit Sccrctary e-iCrd, rcpreseritirigt1ic
Sccrctary-Gerieral (if tIicGriited Bations, ass~sted by
Air. 1ISUAN-Ts1 u-Lrc, hlember of the Gerieral T-egalUi\!isioiiat tlie
Secretariat of the Cjnitcd Xntioris.
l'kere$resenfa!itiesO/ the/oiiulazc~iigoentrnenls :
Iinited Kingdoni : air. G. C. ~:ITZH;\UHICE, C.hi.G., Second I,egiaI ,
Ad\~iser of llie l'orcigriOfticc.
Unitcd States ofAmericrr : the lionourable HerijarniiiV. COHE?;,
assistcd by
>Ir. Eric ÇTEIS, of the United States Dcparttnent of Çtate, Adviser.
'Tlic PRESIDEK Teçl:ired thc sit-tiiiupcn, aiid silid tliat tlicCoiirt
Iiad met to Iicnr the oralst;itcriiciitliatwouId Licsubrnitted in thecase
tvhiîtt rnisedccrtiiir~iroccdrirril irestioiis relating trie iiitcr~~retntion
of l'>eaçeTrenries witli I3iilgariri, I-iiingary nrid Korriaiiin.
IJya Kesoliltioiidated Octobcr zzritl, rgqg,the Generni Assetnhly of
the IJnitcd Xntioris had decided to rcqirestihcCourt to givc arindvisory
opiriioton this subjcct. He nsked tlic12EGISTR-+R to rcad the rcsolution
iri question.
-4ficr the t.esIiüd becn rcad, the ~'~~F.~IDEXohservetl that tlierequest
for an advisory opiiiioii I~adbecn riotificirtlfie ctistornary mritirier.
As it\sas concernccl with the iriterpretation ofcertairitreatiec,it Iirid
beeii comniunicated, as prcscribcd in Article65 of the Statule, to ailthe
Go\-errirriets ofStatescn titlecItoappair lieforetlie Coiirt,sign;itorics
of the said treaties, which vre coiiiidercdby tlicCourt AS 1ikcIyto be
able to furnisli inforriiatiouii tlic r.luestion.
--
Si~itlinwtingor t!ii:oiirl. Eii oiitre, par application <IeI'ai-ticle63, paragrayihe piernicr, et dc
l'ai-ticl68 du C;t:~t~ide la Coiir, IcsGni~rcrriemciits dc ln 13iilgürie,de
la Hoiigrie et dc 1:iRoiirnüriie,~ignataires drs traitts dont il s'agit, orit
reçu co~tiniuniaitioride la rcquetc dc I'hsse~riblécgiéni.ralc; ilsurit 6te
avi5i.sqnc la Cour serait tlispcisti~i rec~vnirde IPIITpart 1111CX~OS;L cr't
sitr Icsquestions A clIe sniimiscr pour avis.
T,e délai de la 'pr-uci.diirécrite :iA&, par ii~itordiii~n;ii-idntk du
7 nc3vcnibr.c 1349, fixb ;iu rb janvier 1g;u.
I,a Coiir nieçii,(luSccr&taire géri&rriillesKcitioiis i:riiel;,ednciimcii-
iatiori tr;; çornyiIPte.
Elle ü reçu. en oiltre, par ordrc clc dates. des ob~ervatioris kcritet:
érnaii:i!it de3 Gouveriicrtierits suivants : Etats-llriis dbAniCriqii~,
Roj-zurneLT tii,IiA~iublic~upeopulaire ilpRiilgari~,KCpiihliqiicsoviéliiliic
socialiste d'l!krairic, Ijriiun dcs R6pubiiques ?ocirilistessoviéticlries,
XPpiibliqire snçiüliste soviétique de Hidoriisie, KCprihlicliicj'iopulairc
rourriairic,I?&piihIiqiiet.cliPcoçlo\:acpe, Aiistr:ilic, REyublir~~ipopulitire
iiotigrtiise.
1.aI;oiira décidCde teriir,àyrirtirciuz:!fk\:i.iec'?et-5-da irij!iirrl'Iiiii,
des airdic~ices ai c~i11-sdesqiiells seraierit etitcndus rlcscxposEsorniis.
Le Seci-étairc gbticral dcs Xatioris [:nies s'est fait reprksenter par
hl. Inn Eicrno, Secrbtriire génbral adjoitii clia r,nEdii Départci~iciii
jrtr-idique,qui préseiite iinexpos oeral.
Ides Iltais-Lriis d'11rnZriqucct le Kopuin~-Uni orit fait s:~\,oirqii'iin
e'ipciaioral serait yr6sentd en leur iiom. T.,crcprc'çentaritsdésign6s dails
cctic affaireoiit été :
Poiir Ic Koyaurne-U~ii de Graride-Bretagne et <I'Irl;intldti Xord,
hi. G.G. ITitzniaurice, C. M. G.,dcusièrne conseiller j~iridique au lYoreigti
Office ;pour les fitats-Urii5 d'>i~n&ri<liiIe',honoi.ahle Henjatnin V. Coli~ii.
Le P~éqi~iei~ consfate la ~~~SCIICC devant la Courdu reprtisentaritcfu
$~crCtai gre ncralclesNatioiis Ilnies et dc ceux de Eta ts susmentioririCs.
II annonce qu'il donnera criprunier lit3113 parole ri31.Iierno, repi-&sen-
tant di1 Sccrétair-egénér :es Nations Criies. etc~istiite ailicpréscntatils
des Étals-~nis d7Arneriilueet du ICoyaunie-Ulii.
YI.Ivan KEHNO S,cs?taire g&riéra [i<Ijoii-\trorir,ric1'ex~itisrepro-
duit en anIiesc l.
11 terrninc cet espos$..
Le PR~STIIE ~Tlriotlcque In Cour entendra l'eskir>sk(le hl. le lieiiréd
sentant clcs États-unis, le mercredi I<!TIriars5 ro li.30.
1.e I'rkitlent tie la (:nui-,
(Signé] Rasritiv~x~r'.
Lc Greffier de la Cour,
{stgtli) E. HAMHHO.
\:\:~pp. ?qU-,-jG, Iilorcovct.,ris prescribed by tlicfirst paragraph of Article 63, aiid
hy :\rticlc GSof tlie Cottrt's Stiitutc, tlic Go\-errirriciirsf I3iilgnria,
Huiigary :incl Romaniri, sigrintories of the said tre:ities, lind reccived
notihcatioii oi tlie rctlitest of the CicneraI Assiscrnbty .liey han bccn
iiifomcd tliattlicCoiirt wotild be \r-illirito r.eceiversriitcri stntcments
Irorii therri onthe questiuris referrerlto it for opinion.
January rGili,rgso , as appointed for t.he cspiry of the tirnc-Iiiiiit
hy aii Orclercfatcd Xoie~rrber 7th, 1949.
l'tie Cotirt h:~d receivecl a complete set of documents on tlierriritter
frotri thr: Sccrctar.~~-Gciiei-aoIf ttic United S t'0:1s.
Tt had also rrccei\.ed ivritten statwiciits irorn tlie Go\,erritrrcntstif
the following States iiiorder of data : United Srares of Anieric~i,Uriitcd
Iiitigclorn, People'sliepublic oi l3irIgaria. Ukraitiian Soviet Sociafist
Iicpiii~lic, Uiiioii of Soviet Çocialist Reptiblics, 14yelciussia1iSoimici
Socinlist Kcpu bric, People'sKepiitilic ut Romani:i, C;i.echrislol::Kclitb-
lic, Aiistrdin, People's iiepiiblic of Hung3ry.
Tlic Court hüd deciricd tahalrl public çiltiiigs fortIic licnriiiof oral
statemenfs begiriniiigon thal da?, Febrriary ~Stli.
l'lie Secret;try-Gcricralof tlie Uriitcd Xatimis W:LS beiilg represciited
by$Ir. Ivan Kerno, :lssiçtant S~cretary-Gciicral tricltargr:nf tIit! 1,cgal
L)epartrrieiitoftlie United Sa tioiis, who woultl present;iroralstatemeiit.
'I'hcUnitcd States of .==mericaand tiitUnitcd liiiigdom Iiad giiveii
ricjticoftheir intention to subinit oral stateiricnts.'The rcpreçeiit:tivcs
cIesignated to prcsctit thcm wcrc :
For the U~titcdKingdoni ofGreat Erirnin and Xorthern irclniid :
Mt.. G. G. I~ittrnziurice, .hi. C., kurid Lcgal Rd~iscr of the IFctrcip
OFfice ; for tiie Unitcd St-atcsol :Zmeric;t : tlie Honour;itile Bcnjami~i
1', .oheii.
Itic Prr:sidcnt notecl that the representriti of.tcs aforcsnid Striies
were present in Coiirt, as ïvcll au tIic rcpresentati~~e of tlie Secretary-
GCIIG'T o~f~the U~iitccl Xations.
Hc said that lie ~~ouldhrst cal1on Mr. licriio. represcntin~the Seçrcl-
arp-GeneraI of the United Nations, and theri on the represeritati\?esof
the Unitcil Kingdom arid the Lnited States.
hlr. 1v:iKEI~K O ssistantSecrctary-Gericr:iI, tlicnniiide tlic statenieiit
r.cproduced in the Anrics 1.
tle curiclttded lijs statcmerii.
The P~itssrues~r sait1 that thc Coirrtwould liear tlicstntcmeiit of tlie
Uiiited St;ttcs repr.csentati\-cor1 \\'edncçday, ilarc11 rst, ai 10.30 a.111. Prêse~it s [t'r>irdeusrPrriekance.~
Le.Y~Ésrn~x rt,uuvrarit Ias&arice, rloni-ila ~i:iroleau rcprCsc;cnlarit
des Etak-Utiis d'ArnPricjue.
L'honorable I3erij.1rrtii . Corr~x prkseiite l'expos: reproduit en
anneY? >.
(l.'audiericeirterrompue à 13 Iicu~.cse,st rcyriici rb Iiitures.)
Le PHÉSIDE'IcT iotincla parole i 31.BcrijiirriiV. Corrtrs.qui poirrsuit
et termine soi> expcisb
LcPR~SIDEX aTnoncc que 13 Cour sc réuiiirale 2 inars, ro II.30,
pourentendre I'e'cpos6cIe 31. Ic KeprCsent.ant dn Ko ynurne-l;tii.
QU~ZTRI~~IF,SEANCE PUBLIQljB "2 rrr50, 10 li. 30)
Y&sexts : [Voir c1cur;iCrneséance.!
Lc PR& SIDEKT. ciuvrarii I'audicnce, doiine 13parole nu reprkentiint
tjirKoyatime-Uni.
31.G. G. ~~t~zuacrzrc~ prkente l'espost?reproduit erianneye '.
(L'autiienctt, ititerrornyi:L r3 heitres,est reprisc A rh hriiirns.j
T.e~'irIisl~~s7 donne lapar-olcà 31.C. G. I:~T~~IA~JR IluEr,eprend et
terrriinc son expose *.
I,c Paiçr~~sr rcrncrcic le reprCsenta-ntdrr secrétui-r gG;t&ral des
Naiions t'nies, les rcprtsentant~ des Etats-Lriis ci'AmCrique et di1
Royaume-fini des esposés oraiis faits par eux dcvanr la Cour.
Le Présitientprorionce la cliitiire des débats riraus.
I.'audiericecst IevEr:i TS11..,j.
(';ig72#b3#~8s.J
. ..
1'l'i-eiaihsP;i~ic(le iaCditir.
':Voir pp. '"57-2 76,
3 ,, ,> 2y(j-,3-z
QuatcirziCrnr s0:~riççIai[:oiir
i Voir pp. ~5iG312.
" v X 31'1-3:SO. THIRD I->UBI,ICSI'iTISG (1 Ir150, ro. 30 am.)
P~esent : [Seesccond si tting.]
Tlic PRESTD~N opcricd thc Iicaring and called tipon tlie rcprcsentativc
of the ,Lriitcd States of .4rnerica.
Tlie Horiourable Kenj:iniiii 17.COH t s licgiirilitst:itiiment rt:~irodi~ccd
in the t\~~ncx 2.
(The heari~ig ims adjo~irrictllron~ I p.m. iii~ti4 p-m.)
TIte I'HES~I~I~ cSIled upon Xlr.V.Co~ir.:~,~vh coritinucd iindconcludcd
his stalcrncni n.
The P1i~sir)r ST atinouiiced that the Court rvoulclrneet oii XIarcIizricl,
~[)j(i,at 10-30 :i.in.to hcar tlic çtaterrient of tlte repre~iitatil-e of llle
Unitcd Kingdom.
The Court rose at G.13 p-m.
(Sigrtniirrcs.,l
FOURTT-1PC'IILIC SI'I'I'INC; .1(2 rrr50, 10.30 ri.?=.)
Pres~~tl: [Sce second sitting.]
Tlie PRESIDEX IPCIICC~ ti~e1teaririai~d calIed uiion tliereprcse~ at ive
of the Uriited Kingdom.
>Ir.G. G. Fr~~.z.r!~~rh ;egrc~ the staicrncritrcproducerlin tlietinnes j.
TIie PRESIDEST called upori hlr.G. Ci. ~'ITZ\T.+GRI(;E,who continucd
2nd concludeci his statement 8.
Tiie I'RESII)I.:K tThanlied tfiereyiresen tative ofthe Secretary-Gcrienil
of the Unitcd Kations and the reprrtsentrttii.cs ol the Uriited States of
Ainerica ancl of tlic Uiiitcrl K itigilorn forIiaving ~irtseiitetl thzir orfil
statciiients..
Skie prcsideiit decliiretl tIiew;il proceedings clogd.
Tlie Court rose :it6-43 p.ni.
(.5igrzalzire).
Tlijrtrcnthrnectin~ id the Coitrt.
a Se, pp. 257-276.
a ,, ., 276-295.
4 FnuctccritliIfcctingof thc Loiirt
4 Scc pp. 296-312.
., ,, 311-330. Prt;sarits: les rncmlire'; de Is Cniirnientiorinésau prn& i\:crbalde Ia
tleusitmc xciince ; IF: (irefier ; les reyrésertiants des I;oti\.ernerneri ts
s!iii!nnts: Cniicidlt: 3. Exc. hl. P. Dcrw~, iirntiissadcur B La Haye :
/:'fats-t'iaisrt'xlmérzqtr:eS. Esc. 31. 5.CH~IPIK ri,mt)as~adeur I,a l-tr~>--F:;
Hoyrz~rnc-Utiz: M. 1.P. G.4~t(.4~, conseiller d'arnlwsswle 3 La Ha!?.
1,c Pnksiur.:~~, ounarit l'audicricc: aniiojice quc la Cour Fe r6iitiit
polir pronoi1ct.rl'avis qui lui a étirdemaride, par 1'AsseiiihlCc çkiiCriile
CIPS Yatjnlls C'II~C 1,r certain~~ qiiestinns de procCditrc rehtiives i
I'irilcrprCtaliondes triiiti's de priis cliii uiit dti:concIus avec 1:~ l<iilgaric,
ia Horigrie et la Koiiinanie.
il prie le GREFFIER de donner lcctiire di7 la prirtic de Ia rPsolutio'n
du 22 uciubrc rc>. . )iiest foi-niulbela tlemaridi:d'avis.
Cette IcctirrcI:iite, le PRÉSI~ENT iayltclke que, coriforméiiicnt5 I'arti-
clc 67 du Statut, le 5~rktaire gtjriér:idles Sations I!nir:sct les ~.cy-ir,Gsçri-
t;irit~ cies Etlits c1i11otir pris pan "11" dhais oraux clarisla prksente
auairc, savoir. : le liriyiume-L'iii de Gr-aride-14ret:ipne pt tl'Irlande dii
Xcirtl ~t les c::tats-Unis il';lniériqirc,ni12~i qiic Icsrcpr-kt~:irir ts cles
XI~nihirsclesXatioris Uiiies et des ;ititres litats intér~~sé ont Stédiirrient.
prcvcntis.
La Leur a rlEcidt, coiiforiiiérnenti I'articIe 39 dc suristatu 1,cluc c'cs~
le tcstc imn~aiç ite I'aviç qui fera foi.
Ide Prkcidentdoiiiir:lectiii-ede ce titste'.
i\prEs hi, Le KE~:I'~EH donne lecture eii ariglak du dispositif de l'a\+.
I-e YRESIUES .I-nale qiie M. Azei-edri, 1tige, toirt en soiiscrivarit i
l'avis Tjp la Cour, s'est pri:\,alu dii droit que lui coiifSrc I'article j7du
Statut et a joitit aiidit avis I*PS~OS& de soli opinion itidi\-idirellt.
MIM. XViniarski, Z-orici6 et Kslol-, juges, corisidi.riiritque la Coiir tirirait
da ç'abçtcnir cl'&nlettrcuri rivis eii I'espficeet se pr&valari t di1 ciroi?tlue
leur co~ifkreI'articli: 57 du Stntiit, ont joint aiidit avis Irs ~spnsbs dc
Icirr opinion dissidcrlic
1.e PrAsideni arilioncc que Alhi. :2zeved o. It'iriiürski,Z.oriEi6et li rylov
Iriioiit fait sa~ruirqu'ils ric di:siraicritpris donner lecriire ù l'iiirdierlce
de Ieurç opinions tlissidentes.
II prorionce in clbtiire de l'audience.
1,'aiidi~ncc:est Icvcc .4ru h. 35.
L'iiigL-scpticmc sciniiclr la CIIX.
3 Voir piib1ic;itions bcCr)ur. Rccrrc:rdw .4rue'l~/ici:iuiis!ts'taet C>rrlc~ajirrn~es
]$,y! op. t;j-;2s,
3 11ft~12pp. 79-SS.
4 H . u %--O; gSrol Pr 105-113. i'rescit: the mcmbci-sof the Coirrt rncniioned iritlicminutes of the
second sitting : ttie Regislrar : the reprcçcntntives of the followirig
Govertimcrits: Cnr~utin: H. E. >Ir.P. DVPFYA , mtia~~ado rt Tllc IIaguc ;
C'itidedKingdom : 3lr. I.1).GAKHA X;,urls~llorof tlicTJritisIErnf~dssy
at The Hagtic : Cxifcrl .<talc:oj Arnrvicrr: ET .. Sfr. S.CHAIJIS .,mhas-
sados at The Hague.
T1ie 1~rir:sr~cs~declared the sitling opcii and nniioiiiiced thnt the
Court Iiad assemblecl to dcIiver tIieupiniort tirhich it hac!ken rcqitcsted
to gi\,ehy tlieGencral Assemblyof the United Naiions on certain proce-
du al ma tcers concernin ghe irtterpretatian of I'cace Trcatics signcd
with Hulgüria, Hiingriry arid Romania.
He rec~uested the Rri~rsrti.-\~to r~adthe part ofthe Resolutioti of
October nziid, 1949,containing the requesstfor an opiriiori.
\Vticri tlietext Iiarlbeen rcad, the PRESIIIEKo Tbsei.i-~(Ithat, utldcr
-article h7 of lhc Stütute, the Secrctary-Gencial of tlie Lnited Xations
and thc representativcs oftlie States wliich tool; part in tiie oralprocetid-
ings in this casc, nnrnely the United Kitigrloniof C;re:it Hritairi a11c1
'\'orTheri?Ireland niid tlicUiiited Stiitcs olr\rncri~!,ri:also the 1-cpresent-
ativcs of tlir: 3lcrnbcrs of tlic United Kations a~irlof ihcotiier. Çta tes
conceriiecl,bad bccri duly notificd of tliesitting.
Tlie Court hntl decided that the I..rericfitest ofthc opiitiorisliould be
üuthori ta tivc.
The I'residerit ~xoceecled to read that tesi ?.
hftcr Iic had read ihc tcst, the K+:(:Is-~IIArta~l the oper-ati1.cclause
of the opinion iilI3nglish.
The I'HF~S~II~ staTect that Jutlge ilzcvcdo, nlthough iriagreemerit
with tlic opinion of tlicCourt, hacl ai.ailed Iiimsclf of tlieright conferrecl
on liim by Article 57 ot the Statiite and h:id :ipliciidcd Iii scparatc
opiiiion =. iltlgesWi~iiiirski,%orieiC 2nd I<rylo\-, whu corisiclered tlia t
the Court shoultl have nbstniiwd from giving aii opiiiioriiii tliis case,
availirig ttie~riscl~~ ~ f ttierigh t coiifcrrcd ni1 tliern by :\r~ticle 57 of
-he .Sta tute, hxcI :ippended tlieir tljsseritir!g opiriioi~to the Court-s
Wpiriiori.
-!liePresirlen t ndded tIirit Jiidges AZe\:edn, \\;iriiiirskZoritic arid
Krylov Iiadirifornierlhini tliat tlicydid riot\vis11to read their.disscriiing
opinions at the sittirig.
The Yresideri t dectrired the sitring cIowd.
TIicCourt rosc nt 4.35 p.rii.
-. -.---
Tirclil\--~ci.nnrnwt in~ rd thc Court.
"ec ~rkrt's pub!icnliniisIlsplirfoiJiirigit~eii..ldt;iso»pi?iiunsarid Urders
rqjci,~9, 6.5-73.
Iit.iipp, 79-SS.
., , ., S9.97. 98-tu.;and lo,j-r1.3- ANNEXES ALrPROCÈS-VERBAUX
EXPOS~S ORhGX OE ~fif'R1ElI-MARS 1950
(PHEMIÈRE PHASE)
ANNEXES TI3 THE MIKUTES
OHAL S'CATEMEXTSOF FHBRUi'IK1'-M ARÇH 19jo
(FIHST PHASE)
1. EX1'OSG DE 31. IVAK S: KERKO
.I J.AS~XCE PUULIQCE nc 2s I:~YI<~E~ IghjO,~i.vi.~h'
3lonsietir lPrésident, Mcssieurs les 3lembrcs rie I;iCour,
Urie fois de plus, j'ai le grand Iiorirteurde poiivoir repréçeiiterle
Secretaire gériéral riesNations Unies devaril le pIus Iiaut tribunal
du rnonde. Mcs sentiments sont d'niltnnt plus profonds cluc je puis
Ie fairca In stiite d'uite Açsemtilkegenéraledes Satioiis Unies qui a
tproirvS le besoin de demander 5 la Cour troisavis çoiisultatifs et 5
un rnornetit oh, eri outre, p1usicui.s ahiresconteiitieues se troirveiit
derant ln Cour. Airisi, les dispositiooç de Charte des Kations Unics
qui prévoyaient que la Cour serait l'orgaiie judiciairpri~icipal dc
la noüveHc Organisation, et que I'lisxrnbl~r. gênEr:ilc ponvair Iiii
demander des avis consiiltatiissur toiitcç clucstioiis juridiques, surit
devenues une rPalité actuelleet vivante.Jc crois clu'ori pcise rkjotiir
siric&rement et protoridérncnt de cette Cvolirtioitendant 1iiine large
utilisationde la brat~clie judiciairede I'Orgaiiisation cri.& i Sari-
Francisco.
Avec votre approbation, XIoi~àeurle I'rSçident,jc rric permets cle
pr4sentc cet expose oral en coriforrnitéde l'article 66(tu Statut de
la Cour.
Les discussionsqui ontcu lieii aucours dirprintempser de l'aiitornne
de I'annEe 1949 , I'Assernblét:génitraleet qiiiont ribouti R cette
demande d'avis coiisuliaif,se soril coiiccr~trccsclans In Cornrnisstoii
plitiilue spécialede 1'.4sscrnblkgénPrrtleet,en outre, dans quelq~res
séancesdir I3ureau ct de I'AsssrribIéeléniPrecllc-merne. Les procts-
verhaus dc tolites ces skirices figuredarisle dossier que leS~rétairc
gtnérai a fait parvenir à Ia Cour.
A props des procès-verbaux, je voudrais, eii passant, lairc une
remarque, que je me siiis déjh prmis dc presentcr j.la Cour dans
des affairespréc4dcr ts. 1.eBurcau ct laCommission politiquespéciale
de I'tlsscinMPegénérale ont serileincnl des coinptes rctidiis anaIytiques.
Cetia-cisc trotivent daris le doxsier prkscrihé laCour. Le Secrétariat
posslde, eIiouti-c, des procbs-verhaus soit stCnograpi~ii.s, soitsiirdisqi~es ; ces prods-verbaiix iie sorit pas officiels,eri cc scris qu'ils
n'orit Lténi revus riicorrigks par la dklégationsreçpcctivcs. Llsdunnent
cependant irn tableau exact de ce qiii a été tlffectivemeiitdit au cours
dei çEances. Si la Cour le désire, ces procès-verbaux stEriograytiiques
ou sur di,struesso~it 5 sridisnosiiion.
Je vicns donc dc mentionner que les proccs-verbauxdes disciissioris,
devarit la Cornmissiuripolitique spéciale, le Bureau et l'Aswrnhl4e
pl&iii&re s,ontrelativemeiit peir nombreux ct privent Etre consulté;
sans trop de dificirlCs. IIrieme sembledonc pas nécessaire de procéder
2 une analyse détailltc de tous les débais. Cepcridarit, il pourra &tre
de quelque utilité tle prbseriter un court rtsiinié objectif ayant trait
à certains aspects saill:iritde la disrirssion. En tel r6surné pourra,
air moins je I'espEre, aider cluelqriepeii la Cour h comprendre plciric-
ment les intentions et les désirsde l'Xççcrnb14egénlralc.
[,es questions qui iiciiiuccupent ont &té transrrikes ;ila Cnur confor-
mernent ails dispositions d'une RQoliition adopt& pir 1'Assetnbléc
gént5rale Ic22 octobre r(iqg (dossier,cbcrnise 13, texte dc la résolutiori).
I.':i-;wrnLilége&ri&raIc a adoptP cette rPso1ution aprk avoir esamiiii!
A sa Qiiatrii.ii~Scssion ordinaire irn point cill'ordre dii joiirintitulé:
((Respect desdroits dc I'liommeet des Ebertésfondameritales en I<ulgarie,
en Hongrie et en Knurriüiiie. iOn se rappellctracependant que l'examen
de cette qriestioiifaisdi suite à I'esamcri par I'i~ssernhlccg4n&rale,lors
de laclciixiérnepartie de sa Troiçièrnc Session d,'iinequestiori ürialogue
coricerriaritla I3uigar ciela Horigrie.
Trois scmaincs avant I'oi~r,ertric e Iadcrisiémepartie di:la Troisi&rrie
Scsiun dc I'rZsscrribIégéetiCralecc fut la dségation de la Bolivie qui,
la prernih, avait pl-opse, le ih mars 1q49, d'inscrire i l'ordre dti joiir
une qiicstiuriintitulée :((Etilde du proccs contre Ic cardinal Iiongrois
Mirirlszenty,en i-etarionavec les articlespremier, paragraphe 3, et 5.5,
alinGac, de la Charte. a Lc 19mars 19:1g, la d&l&gation de I'llustraIie.
(IF:SOII chtt!,:ivait proposé tyinscrire à l'ordre du jour iine qiiestiori
aiialoguc intitu tCc: n Respcct dcs IibertEs ct droits fondanicntarix de
I'iiornrneeriIJuIgririeet criliorigrie,et notarnrneritquestiort(les 1iherti.s
religieiisesct civiqiicstellcqii'~l1es'est posCe,en particirl aie'r,casion
des pr~&s qui orit eu lieu r~ccrnrrie~~ctritretics dignitairesde 1'I:gliw B
(dossier,chcmise 2, <tcxtiments A;ti2o et h;Sz~).
Aprks avoir exürni116, Ies G ci 7 avril 1949, Ie point de savoir si les
questiuris prfcitiiedevaierit Gtre inscritecà l'ordredu jourde 1'AssemhIt;e
générdc,le Riii-caude 1'Assernhl& a.dcciclLdc rccommnrider 5,I'AssernblCc
gén'rale de corritiirieen une scuie, les deux questions et d'inscrire :sori
ordre di1 joiiriin point intitulP :crQiiestion di1 respect, en Riilgaritiet
cn Hongrie: clc;droits de I'l~omrncet dcs libcrtk fond;tmentales cu 6gar.d
aux diçpositioris dc la Cliarte et des l'raités de paix, ct, notanixnent,
questiori ilesIibertPs rcliyieuses et civiques, telle qu'clles'estposk, en
pnrticirlier,à l'occasiondes pmds qriiont eri lieu récemment contre des
dignitaires ccclésiastiqnes. iiEc Hurcait 3 Ggalernent recommandédc
rerivoyer la questinri airisi1ibellPeh la Cnmniisiori pulitique spPciale
(dossier, cliei~iisI, comptes 1-endiisdu Bureau, 5Xineet jgI[1eséances ;
chcniise 2, rapport dirBiireait, dociinieiitAi829). L'Assembl~cgéri4ralc
a examiris lesrecomrnaridritiori se son 13ureauEL,Ie 12 avril 1949. etle
les a adoptdcs par 3~ vois co17tre 7et 20 abstciitions (dossier,chemise r,
coriiptes reridus des 18ync ci 130me searices pléniCrcs). 248 EXFOSB DE hi. KERYO (NATIOYS UKIES) - 23 11
Lü Cu~nrriissionpolitiqiie spCciala, aitisisaisit:de la questiori, l'a
&battue au coirrs de xs trente-qiiatrii:rnk quai-ante et iinièrriestIüriccs
qui se sont tenues du 19 au 22 avril 1949 [dossier,chemise 3, comptes
reridus tltla C;on-iniissiopu1iliqticsptciak). Aviirid'eiitrirn~rIes rl6bats
sur Ic:fond di1 prvtilCrrie,la Corrirriiz;~ri litique sp6ciala aclopti!une
r6solutioii prt-'sciilpar lndPI4g:itiniiaristralieniie, irivitarit les Gouver-
ncnients de la JJulgariect dc la Hongric 5 envoyer iin mprisentant qui
participerait, saris droit cic vote, aux discussions {dossier, chemise 1,
docunient X/.AC. 23;jo ; ctiemiçe 3, comptes rendus clc t Cornmission
poiitiqne spEciaIe,34N"shane), 1.e G@ii\-erneiilent cie la Ilulçzirict
celui de la IIorigrie ontripondu qu'ik ne ~wuvaicritaccepter cette iiivi-
ütion, tlisnnt qiieIcs Nntioris I!riies ri'avaierit pconipGtenccen cette
maticrc (dossier,cIiernise q, doctirnentsAjAC: .$.jS et AIAL. 24;j7j.
11yaril terriiiiié I'esanien dela qu~tion, la Commission rmlrtique
sp6ciülca deçid4, le22 avriI19~1i fc recornmandtr 5 l'hss~.rnhlk g<nC.ra!e
d'adopter uri projet de r:çolution qui avait étéprirnitivcinerit pr4scritC
par la EoIivic. Le vote de la Çoirimissioipoiitique çp&ci;ile;tdonni. Ics
rtsultats suivanrs : 34 voix coritre Get riabstenrions (dossici-, clicrnise ',
comptes rcndirs de la Curritr~issio4,:~e séritice).
1,'aMairecst vcnue ensiiite à I'rlsscrnlJc'plhni+rc, les 29 et 30 avril
1949 .dlc-cia adopte Icprojetdi:r'csolitiori pr4~iitcpar la C.onirniçsit?n
politiqtie spCcialc par 34 voix contre 6 et g ahsteritioris (dossier, clie-
niise5, coniplcs rendiis des ZOT~C, 2021nc et 203me séances plkili6re;~
cIieri:is6, texte de la r&soliitiori).
11y a ~!eur;aspects dc ceite dist:uçsion diprintemps dc 1949, PTOPOS
desqriels je voirdr;iis prksenter qtielqiies cornmeri taires.
r) Dais la C~rnii~isçioii olitiquc spkcialc, iiripartic cotisidbrablf,
sinun pripondkanto. daï <r~lit>i'iïiiolitoiichiit ai1 luiid rnhe ilrs
prcihlknies soii1e.vi.s. Les accusatinris siiiva1% iielks la Uulgarie et
laHongrÎt: aiiraicnt commis certains actes cri victationde la Clinrte ct
dcs 'l'raitbs de iiai'c orit &tésoutcrriies et amplifiéavec beaucoup (le
vigireiir par certainesrlklk3ations.Ces accirsatioiis ont étPcat6prique-
ment niéespar la Bulgaric daris sori lé14grrtnirnrli9 avril 1g4q adrcs;
aiiSeci-&taireg&iiérad les Xlitions Unies, ct par In Hongrie dans sot)
tdégrarrirrdieu4 avril 1949 adreçs6 au PrGsident de I'iisscrr giltilraclc
(doshsierchemise 4, documents A:S3z ci Cori'.T, A~S;,I). !illeont ét6
' aiissirEfirt&esavec tine égale vigueur par ccr.iairicsdP1eptioiisIlans sa
R6w;olutioridolitéc Ic 30 avril19491 ,'Ass;qemblE ge1iCralc exprimé 6le
profond souci que lui inspirent les gra~~çaccussiions portéescontre Ic
Griituerncrrieritde laEulgaric et celui de la Bongie toudiüiit la suy
pression des rlrnits dcI'liurnme et des libertésfondarnentales dans ces
pays 3. Mais I'Assernblées'estxbst eniie de passer un jirgement ilel-
conqiio ou d'anirei d'une iiiai~iCrcquelwiique dans le fond nifnie 8c la
controverse. 'rnris les projets de r6solirtion pi-2scntks dans cet ordre
d'idées frrrentrctirés par letlrsauteurs. fautc dc soutien sufisant, ou
rejetes par laConimission politique spéciale.II cri fut ainsi, notamment :
a) dii prcniicr et du dcuxiPnic projets de ~6.~1utioride Cuba, qui
tendaierit icondairiricr l'attitude de la Hiilgarie et dela Hongrie et à
. instituer irne c~rnrni~jion d'enrluètc {dossier, clicrnise4, documents
AIAC. 24i4S ci Corr. r, AjiIC. 24/.jS/Kev. 2) ;
b) du projet de rkolutiori de l'Australie estimant que, k 5 prmiére
we, ilest ktabli,que des restrictions ont éti:apportées aux droits del'homme et aux libertés fondamentales en Bulgarie et eri Hongrie H ci
tendant A créer iinecomrnissior~ d'ktude (a'biddocument AjAC. 24/52] ;
c) de l'arnenderricntdu Chili,tendant à condamner les actes commis
par Ia Bulgarie et laHongrie (ih-id.,documeiit A!AC. 24,i'53);
d) de l'arncridenien! de la Colombie et du Custa-Rica, tendant a
décider de srirsenir à touteproddure d'admission, ailsein dcs Nations
[;nies, de la Bulgarie ct dla Eiorigric(ibi(f.,dociirnentAjAC.z4!54 ;)et
G) enfiilde I'amen<lernentde I'AitstraIie etde Ciiha ne rriairitcriarit
des projei-s antérieiirsde ces <ll'l&gati~n ~UC l'idked'une conlrnission
d'étude (ibi,d docurrieriiAiAC. 24/5$1).+
Je rPpZte donc que 1'Assernbli.c:generale, h la secontle partic dc sa,
Troki+riic Scssio:, n'a pissC aucuri jrigetriti sur la sirbstance des
acctica:ioris. Elles'cst lirnitke& ~irenrlrer!ote,cravec satiçiactioti,qite
des mcsurcs ont été prises par plitsiai Eitts signataires dcs Traites
dc paixavec 1%Bulgarie cl la IIorigrie~ia expriiire al'espoir quc deç
mesures serorii rliligcnimcnt appliqiibes. selorles traitk, cn vue d'a_?-
surer If:respect des droits de l'homme et des IibertCsiondamentales 3
et a attirb 11de toute urgericc I'atteiitiondu Gouvernerne~it de Ia Bul-
garie et de celui de la Hongrie, sur leurs obligations prkvues par Ies
Traités {lepaix, et notamnient srir celle dc coopkrer au rGglciiient de
toutes ces questions II.
1.a fin de 1ü TroisiCrr~eSesion de I'AssciiililCe cst donc niart~u&
uniquelncnt, inais expressément, par iin appel iirxentaux Etats iiitkrcs-
st5 tl'appliquer Ieç procCdures prkvucs par les Traitb de paix.
2) r1 y a 11"" autre partie de In discussion du pririternpç de 1949
qu'il est intdrcssant de passer en revtie. ta Conr pairrra riotcr que
I'i~~scriptionmémc de la qtiestion h l'ordredu jour dc l'hssernblte a
donné lieu à uiidébat.d, evant le Bureau et devant l'Assemhl&e plénifire,
d'une arnpieur et cl'~rriardeurcunçidérak>lcE ç.n effet,ccrtairie délé-
gations orit refus dé'admettre, dès le dkbitr er toiltau lontj des déli-
héritions, une ctirrip6tence c~ircIcoriquc de I'llsciiiblée geiiérale de
s'occir~r di1 prohl&rne. C.ettemFme these Eut la base dc la reporise
ricgaiivcdc la Ruigarie et dela Kon rÏe à l'invitation d1'A~semblet :e
venir prendreirait aux disci!isioiisk la Cuisniissian politique sp"Mk.
Les principaux argiimeiits pr.onunces en faveur de ce point cle viie
peuvent se résiirrtcb.sihvernentde la façon siiivatite :
Par le paragraphe 7 de l'article 2 dc la Chartc, les ;rriicurs<leIa
C11art.eont votiIu interdire toute intervention datiç des affaires qui
rclcvcn t cssentiellcment de la coinpCtence nationale d'un Etat. Ides
dispositions g6iitr:ilcçdc la Cliürie curiccrnant les droits de l'homme
et les libertés fondamentales ne peuvent pas prévdoir contre I'irttcr-
dictioricxpresc du paragraplie 7 de 1':irticIe2. Le cnrüct+re obliga-
toire de ces dispositions g&néralcs,concernant les droits de I'liomme
et les Iibertés fund:irnc.ntales, est d'ailleurs extrêmement doutcux,
~nCmcabsfraction faite de leirr relation avec l'article 2. En autre,
pur les Eiats rion membres aucurie obligation ne sairi-ait décotiler
des dispxitionr de la Cliartt:relativesà ce clornairieLa seule stipulation
de la CIiarte qrie 1'011pE~tinterpréterconirne imposarit tine certaine
obligation à uri Etat non merribrc de ltOrgaiiisationdes Xations Unies
Ctait l'article2, paragrqhe 5, auxtermes duqr~el l'Organisaticlri fait
eri sortt: que Ics Etats qui rie sont pas membres des l'latioiis Unies
agisent conformément 3 ces princips daris In mesure nécessaire au
maintien de la paix et dc la sEcirrit6 internationales r. Puisc~uc cc EXPOÇG HE 41. KEKSO (~d~lt>';= VKIES) -28 Ir j0
250
pr6tendu différeridriernet tail pas crcause lcmaintien de la paix et de la
séciiriiéinlerriatianaIes,cette dispoçitinn dt~paragrapl~c6 dc I'article 2
ne s'appIicluriipas. Enfin, d'aprb l'articleIoj de la Charte, toutes les
questions concernarit les Traités de pix- sont en dehors dc la com-
ykrcricc des Nations Unies. Mhe s'ily avait violütion des Trait&
rle pix, c'est la procédure prérrue par ces trait& coticcrnant lcur
iritcrpr&lalioiiet leirr ex6ciitiori qui devrait êtrc appliquke exclusi-
vement.
Far contre, Ies dEIC.grttion sui se soi~t pronoiickc; CIIfaveur dc la
çompC.tence de 1':2çsembl6c génkralcont fait ressortir totit d'abord
que 1':lssciiiMkc généraleavait la corripétencede dkterrniner sa propre
cornpCtence. Or, I'article IO dc !a ÇIiartc est cstr~mtmeiit géiibral ;
il confhre i l'AsçcrribiEcgériPmlcle droit de discuter toiitcsqucstioris
ou affaires+rentrarit dans le cadre de la Charte iiLc problérriesoulcvG
rriet eri jeu les droits dc I'borniric ci Ics libcrtts fonrlarnentales ; les
articles et les dispusitioris de la CIiarte qui mentionnent te rcspect
des droits clc l'homme et des lihertis foiidaincntales sont siriombreux
et si cxplicitcs qiie l'on ne saurait nier que toute question mettant
erijeuces grarirls princi es rentre daiiç le cadre de InCharte.ne toute
évidence, les Xairoris eriies devraient être en mesurc:d'ititcrvenir
en cas dc violation des dmits de I'homrne ; sinon les dispositions prcci-
IGes seraient sans portée.En dehors dc la Charte elle-méme,le respect
des droits de I'horrirncet dcs Iibertk fonclanientales cst pr4vu spficia-
lement et cxprcsçérneiit dans les Traités de paix. De ce fait, toute la
qitcstiori a ctbrtaiiiernentrevetu un crzractere iiiternational et a cesré
d'appartenir essentielbment a la conipét-ence nationale. En cc qui
concerne 1i.sTraitésde pais, il faut cn outre faire ressortir qir'on ne
saurait en üuciirt cas les irivuquer contre la cornpétcnccdcs Nations
Unies si et eritant quece tte cornpktence existait dkj5. Eri effet,corifor-
rriérrierii I'artidc 103de la Chartc : 11Eri cas de conflit entre lm
ohligatioiis des hlernbresdes;\;ritions Ili-iien vcrtu de la présc~ttc
C1iar.t~cf leurs obligaiions en vertu dc tout auti+caccordi~iterriation;il,
les premihres prSvaudront. n Entin, pniir rkftirer I'argurrieritque dcs
fitats non nicmbres ne sniiraient Etre litspar les ohligrttionr?tie la
Cliartc, I'atterilion a été artiréc sur .le teste de I'article 5j c) de la
Charte, d'npr2s lcquci iI Graitdi1tievoir ties Satiniis Uiiics de favoriser
a Ic respect uriit-er et effcctif dcs droits dc I'liomnie et dm libertés
fontlanieiitalespour tous, sans distinction de race, dc wsc, de larigui:
oii de religion I)Ainsi les Kations Iiriies avaient l'obligation d'assurer
le respect ii~iir-e rtseflectif des droits de l'liomrne et drs libertk
fo~~darncriiaiçs tant par Ics Ctats Uerrilires que par les Etats non
rncmlms.
1.3!:oiir tonnait le rGçultatde toutes ces disciissioris. Je rappelle q11c
la questiori fut iiiçcriteA I'ordrcdu jour de I'A.;sernblCeg611t:rnlepar
30 vuix coritre 7 cl 20 abstcritioris et que lrCsolutionreconirnand6c par
la (:oininisçion politicluespéciale a reçri l'approbation cte 1'Asserrililee
gCiirl.ralpar 34 voix contre 6 arec rj abstctit-ions.
.jeviens mnintcnarit ;ii~xdt1ib;r;ttionsrie 1:iQi1at~it;rnSees5ion ordi-
iiaiiede I't4ssemblé eénérale. Kotoi~scoinmc iiilruductinn que, quanti la
qiiestiori fut reprisaiimois de septerribre~qqg, 1'AsscnibIC cvait devant eilcic volumineux échangc dc iiotcsentre [esRtnts-Kriis d'Ani4riilireet
le Itoyaurrie fini d'uiie part, 1a fiulgarie. la Hongrie et la Kouiiianie
d'autre part. La Cour trouvera Ir?teste cle cette corrcsponclance daiis
la cheriiise du dossier et daris ses addenda. La Lorir tiendra certaiiienieiit
à.Ctirdier iiiiniitieuserrierit toucette corresporidance. car Ir5 ~~oiriirlc
vues trCs divergents clu'ellereIPve ennt à Iahase rridiricdc Ia d6cision de
I'AssernblCe dc dernariclri-uii avis consultiltif.
[,'ordre du jour provisoire de In Quatriéme Session de l'As~cinbl6e
conteiiait, conformi.ment 5 ln RC-soltirion (lu 30 avril rg./q, uri puiiit
irititulé::Respect des clrvitsde I'hornnicet des libertés foridame~tales
en Rulgarie et eri Horigrie. n Ln mois üvant l'oiit-ertirrclc cctte
Qua1rii.m~Scssion, Ie Goi~vcriicmetit de Ib.c\ustralia propos6 d'exairiiiicr
la rntirriequestioii encc qui coriccrriela Roumanie (dosqier,clieiiiise 0,
dociimeiit Ajq4Ei). Sur la r~oinrn;intlatiori du Bureaii, I';issctnblcc
g-eriéraica de'cidc,le 22 septembre 1949 ,'inscrire i rioriordre du jour
rm serxlpint combine: N Respect des droits de I'hommc ct des libcrt6s
fo~idamcniaIcs en E;nIgaric, cn Hongrie et en liourriariica.et de le
renvoyer à riouveau, pour erarrien cl rapport. A la ('Rmtnis$ion
politiqiic spCcinle(dossier, clicmise g, documerit 1t!g89 ; clietiiiscS,
compte reritiu de la 224m" skiice planicrc). Cette Commisçinn a
cwamiriF la qucstiori ail coitrs de neuf séancesdu 4 au 13 cictobr~
ry44 (dossier, clierrtisIO, comptes rendus de la (:omniissiorr politique
spiciale, pe 5 1pr: S@~I)CCSA ).U début de ses d6lihi~ratiriris,la Com-
rniçsioria dPcidéd'inviter lc Gouvernement de Iü Iioürnanie i erivog-er
un reprFse~itürit pour participer, saris droit de vnte, i la discrissian.
Lc Gctu\.crriicmcn de la Rouniariic a rejet& cette iiivifation, estimant
que Ia disçussio~i de la qriestiori par I'i\sscmblée constitiiait a une
ingerence cians ses affaires intérieirres (dossier, cheiiiise sv, compte
retidu dc ln 7Ilisi.ance de la Commission : ctierriisc rr,dociririetii :Z/AC:.
31!1..4.
La disciissiaii :IIIsein de la (:ommissiori politiqiitl sp6ciaIc de la
Quülrikrnc Sessionde 1'AssmlilCetrtirchaitde nouveau, riaisavec rrioinç
d'interisitt;et rrioiris d'ampleur, au Iunil des acciisritions dii.igPfrscette
fois-cilion seirlemerit coritrIn Rrilgarie et laliongrie,mais encore contre
la Koumaiiie. La qiiestiori de Ia compCtence ries Satioiis IJriies a CttS
également soulevée.Mais dans rts deux doinaines Ics arguments avancés
d'un côI6 et de l'aiitre furcntdans les gran<ks lignes de la rnCrrictiature
que ceux erripIoyCs au cours de Iri'1'roisii.mcSession. Aus~i ne crois-je
pas n6cesçaire d'y reveriir.
Ccpcndani, Ia pliisgrande partic de la discussion dc la QirritriCrne
Session avait trait aux dificultés qui sesont manifesi;tdes rlarisb corres-
onda da dipilmcatiqi~e des Etats intPrrss6s coricernant la procfdiire
prévue iirins les l'raités de pais etsuriapplicabilité, Ciontrairement .ila
Tr~isi~tne Session, air r.oursdc Inqirelleles d4Iégations ont prcscnté lin
aLsez grarid ~iorriiirdc projets dc rcçolution de tendance et de conicnii
variés, I;iQuatriririeSessioii n'a vu surgir qu'un seul projet de hase, et
cela dèsles premiersjotirsdcla discussion dev;mtlaCorrrmissioriplitique
spEciale.Ce.fut Ieprojet cornmiin des délti.gationsde la Rolivie,du Canada
ct de; ktats-~nis d'hii~driquc. IItendait, on le mit, ris'acli-csserlaCour
yoirr un avis co~isultatifsur les quatre questions qui suni müi~itcnant
dnv:int VOUS (dos.iier,cllcmise II, dwirnicnt A,'A(:. 31jT,1 Kerr. ij.
Ceux dts ~ricrnbresde la Commission politique spécialc qui étaient
fai,orables 5 ce projet de rksolutiuri ont afirmé qu'en applicatioit de 252 EXPOS~ DE ni. KEKYO (NATIONS C'SIEÇ) - 28 11 50
la r6soIution adopttc par ia~isscrnbldcgirikaie au printemps rie 1949,
ccrtaincs Puissances alliéeset associees avaient pris cies mesures pour
mettre en oeuvre la procCdurcp :rcvue par les Ti-aitésde paix pour lc
r$lement des diffhrends. Le refus des Gnrivernenrcrtts de la Bulgarie,
de la Hongric ~t <lela Roumanie de participer a cette firuc+idure cnnsti-
tuait une noui:cllc violation des trait& aimi ue de ia r6miution
de L'AsrembIé e&n&iale.En ~Iéclnrant qii'ilsconsi%&raient avoir rempli
Ieç obligations que leur imyiosaiei~tIc5 traités et en niant I'exi:~tencc
dc tout diffkerid qu'exige I'application dcs dispoçitioris de ces traités,
3s cherchaient à cluder toute accusation de violaiinri. Le refus des
trois Goiivernernents soulevait des problèmes juridiques d'une im-
portaricccxirkrne. Dans I'intbrêtdu droii international, il Ptaiindispen-
szibIe de trnnchcr ces prvbICmes. L'L\sst.mhlée gfidralc dcvxÎt, en
cnriskqirerice, demander un avis consultatif à la Cour iiiternationale
de jusi icc sur les quesi-ions juridiques relatives a I'applicahiliréct
à la mise en auvre des procéduresprévues daris les traitk.
I'ar contre. d'autres représentants ont dklarh que la Bulgarie, la
Boiigric cl la Roirmanie n'étaient pas coupables de violation dcs
Traités de paix. Eri effet, d'après ces délégationsil n'cxiçtait aucun
iidiifërend ii,puisqri'iln'y avait pas de a partiesD. I)e l'avis de ces
repr&serit;iritslesTraitEs dc pais prévoyaient qu'iii~edespariics au
difikrend serait Ia Bulgarie, la Hoiigie oli la Rouiriariie, c'est-à-dire
la partie vaiiicue, et-que I'autrc partic serait formée par les trois
C;oirvernements des Etats-linis d'hrnkriqiie, du Ropurrie-Uni et de
I'Union sovi6iiqile.Or, dans Ir!cas prQcnt, il n'existe pas de situation
clece getire.En cffct,iln'existe qu'iiricpartie - la Rirlgaric,laHongric
et la Roumanie - celle-ci n'estpasconvaincut: qu'il y ait difECrend.
De l'aut-rc cbté, iln'y a pas partie au sens des trüitts,car ilnes'agit
que du Koyaumc-Uni et dcs Etais-Enis ;ilrie s'agit donc quc dc deux
g~irr~ern~rn~ntset non pas rie trois. 1-a qiiesrio~iesl tout h fait claire
et il n'y a pas lieu de s'adreswr 5 la Coirr.
En rbpolise A ce dernier argument, ori a affirrnk qii'iln'ktait pas
nécessaire que Ics trois Puissa~icesparviennent à un accord prkalable
. sur I'existcnct d'iiirliffbreniiarantde pozivoirâyy)liquer les proc6drirfts
brEvues par Ies traitts. Si un accord prkalaMc &tait nécessaire, ilri'?
aurait aucune raisori de stipuler dans lt>straitésquc les qucstiuris
doivent être soumises aux trois chpic de missiori, puisque ces chefs
dc rniççiori =raient d6jA saisisdc I'afiairc. Ilti'était pas doiiteirsque
les procednres prévues par les tnitésétaient appIicablps à tout difiLrcnd
s'devant entre I'une qiielconqire Cles Piii~sarict:~aIliiejet a5soci0es
et les fitais ex-ennemis.
Alors que la plupart des dk14gations &taient rlisposi.cs, cri principe,
a soumettre à Pa Cour interiiationale de Justice, en lapriant (ledonner
un avis consultatif, ccrtaincs qucdions jriridiques,plusieursdélégaitons
ont élevkdes objections en CF:qui concern es qucstiar~s 111 et it'.
La dbl.1Ega~ion aiistralienne a présentéun amendement ni1 projet
cornmiin de résolutiori, prvposarit de supprimer ces deux questioris
et de prkoir 1ü création d'une cornmi.ision spkci:ile qui serait nornrnk
par 1'1lsserrililitegSnéraIe et que Ic Sccretairc gkr16ralconvoquerait
immkliaternenl si la Cour rkpundiiit par la négaiivc A l'nnc des deux
prernihr~ quc~tions, ou si, dans Ic cas d'une re~ionse nffirinativc: aux
deus questions, Ics trois Gouverrierne~its iritbressés n'avsicrit pas
désigné leurs rcprCscritaritsaux commissions prévues par iej traitesdans les trente jours de la date oii la Cour aiirait rendu son avis.
1,'arnendernent australienproposait enor~tre de dutiricrpour instruciions
à la commiçsion sgcialc fornicr dc faire rapport à I'AsçemblCe
ghnéralc lors de sa CinquiGmf: Session, sur la question di1respect des
droits de I'llurrime et de5 libertés fnndarnentalcs. La Commission
spkiale a cependarit rcpousué l'amendement australien {dossier.
cherniçc Ir, docalnent A/AC. 3r;L.z). Lc progr de rksnlutioriprésent4
en commun par la Bolivie, IcCanda et les I'!tats-Vriiet incorporant
uri airicridernentproposC par 1e Brésil, le Liban et les Pays-Bas, a
étkadcipt6 par la Commission par 41 voix contre 5 et 9 abstciitions
(dossier, chemise Ir, document A/A(:. 31!:L.3; chernisc xo, compte
rcndu de la 15% sE~I~cc)1.~'A~serriblkgecnérale de sori coté a adupté
Ie projet dc rbsoliitionde la Ccirnrnission pditiquc spéciale par 47 voix
contre 5 et 7 abstentions {dossier, cliemise 12, cornptcs rciidus dt~
23pe ct 233n~e sCai~ces pKniPrcs).
Cettr:Résdutiori du 22 oclobrc 1949 s'abstient de riouveau de passcr
uri jugement qiielconclue otide touciicr d'une aiitremani&rt. ari fond
iiierne du yrollbnie. En dehors de la recluete pour un avis consiiliatif,
clIc SCboine A maintenir la questiori A l'ordre dri jourde ta Cimluié~ne
Iiesçioriordinaire. Elle affiriuc e à nouveau I'iritdrer qiie l'Asmnblée
ltnrte aux grttvcs accrisation~ portées contre la Unlgaric, la Norigric!t??
!a Rorimanie et lesouci croissaritque ces accusatioris lui inspireriiict
u déclareforrn~llernent que te refus, de la partdes <;nuvernernerits de
la Hirlgarie, dc la Hongrie et de la Rniimanie, de cuoperer mix efforts
quc I',lsseinbléegPnE~il,ildéplnie pour étudier ces graves accir=rjoris
relatives au respect des riroits dtI'hornme el des lihcrtk fondamentales.
jrrstifie le svuci qu'inspire à 1'AswmMeegéntrale Ia situation qui rbgiiç! .
A cet égard en Uulgarie. en Horigricet en Roirmanie ii.
Avant de ddCciderquoi que ce soit sur sonattiti~rie et son actiokveri-
iuelles ultEriciircsl'Assemblée gkngralledkire cuntiaitre l'avisconsultatif
dc la Cour. C'est i vous mainteriant dc voiispencher sur les di&ullCs
reiiconlr.éeset de dire votre opinion.Les problbmes dont vous etes saisis
sont Ioin d'cire simples, mais c'est prkciskmerit cn prkvision des cas les
plilsdificiles que La Charte et IcStatut ont crkk uricCoiiccorn iusk de
~nagidrats poskd aiitirnescience et uneexpérience exceptionrie\les.
Ayant passéen reviie les délib6rrtiuris deI'Ass~inbl&e gbnérale, je
voiidrais rnainteriant faire q~clqucs commentaires au sujet de l'cnre-
gistrerncnt au Secrétariat des Nations Uriies des Traités de paix dorit
nniis nousuccupns.
On sait que l'enrcgistrcment des traitks et accords internafionaiix
est rCgipar les dispositionsde I'article102 dc IaCharte. Pür sa ï<Qolutiori
ri"97 (Ij, en date du rq dkcmbre 1946, 1'Assernbl4e génkrale a adopté
Uri(iRQlement destiné A rriettreerapplication I'articl102 de la Charte
des NütiorisUriies n.IdaCour trouvera le texte complet de cei?t!glement
dans le Ke-+c ilesTraitis publiépar le Secrétai-iat,,rolume1, pages XXI
et siiirpantesJe crois utiledc citeren ce mornent les artideç suivants
de cc Rkgiement :
s AriacCe +~epplitw- I.?'out trait6OU accord international, quelle
qu'en soitsa forrne et sous quclque appellation qu'il soit d6srgné, Pour coriclure, 3Ionsieiile I'rksideritje voudrais faire I'ohservation
que voici :
La Courrecoiinaitra que dans cette question le Sectetaire gérikral
des Nations U~iies occupe uneposition trt:; spCcia1e.Aux termes dcs
Traités de paix,il peut étre invité 5 dCsigner le troisiCnit membre
d'uric cornrriissioitL'csscriccrnerne de ccttc.proc&dure est d'assurer
que la di.sig~ialiojtdutroisikme rnernlirc soitfaite sans que le moindre
soupçoii de partialité soitpsible. T..eSecretairegenérai ne peut donc
preridre position riisur lc forid de i'affaircsur les questiorisstiurnises
à laCoirr. Eri exprimant un avis qrielcorique,i! risquernitd'inflticricer
1'0 iniorides I'arries concernan sori impartialité.
8n suit natuicllcnieii~que, d'api-CSla Charte. lcSccrkiaire géiiCral
est 5 In tête de l'un des oi-grines principaux des Natioiis Unies. Or,
1'Asscrnbi& e;nCrale des Nations Uriicsa dEcidi-d'iuscrirc ccttquestion
5 son ordre du jour et de l'y maintenir. Ur: longues discussions orit
eii lieu pendant les dcux dcrriikrcs c~ssinns. Pour clarifier. certains
aspects juridiques du problème, 1'A.sscml-iIFgcéri6raIcdemande main-
tenant I'avis de I'orgaiie jiidiciiiirprincipa de I'Orpznisati Coeti.
avis est soilicit6 pour la raisoiieiitrcaiitres, qiie ltAssemblEa cstirne
qu'il importait uque le Secretaire général dispose d'un avis auioris6
concernant l'kendiie des pou~oirç :lue Iiiiconférent les Trait& d~:
pais N. hiis ccs caridifioris, est évident guc le Swréiairc génkal ne
pourra définir son attitude qu'i la IumiErcdc l'avis de la Cour, et cri
connaissarir pleinement lesviles de L'Assemb1i.e.
Telles sont lesraisoiis, IIonsicur Ic: 15r&sideiiqui ont condirit Ie
Secrktaire gbnCral L rne iIemantIer de lirriiter-I'eqxisque je fais cn
son nom A une pr&se.ntation des faits. Je 1-oudrais ajouterquc je me
tiens à la rlispositioidc la Cour polir triilrensclgncnicnts çupplk-
nietitaircs dontclic pourrait avoir b~oin. 2. SThSEhlENT BY &Ir- RENJlllvllK IV, COHEX
(REPKKSEXTATIVE OF THE U'JI'i'EI) S~i'A'l'!CSOF AMERICA)
rVT THE PUBLIC, SITTING OF II1:ZRCIIS~, 1950
hiaÿit plexe the Cuurl :
Tite Vnit~rl States has an several occasintis suhmittecl writteri state-
meiits to tliis Court. But tliis ia the firtirnethat the United Stat~s has
rriadc an oral statemcnt. 1t is a great honourandprivilcgc for rrito bc
the iirstrcpresent;itive of my courltry to addreçs this distinguisfied
international tribunal, the principal jiidicial orgaol the Unitrd Nations.
Iri the matter now before tFie Court, thc Generzil AxserriW~ of the
Cnited Nativrij, liy its Kcs~liition nf October 22, 1949,. has rct]iiested
ari advisory opinion from this Court or1four qiieçtions xrising uridcbflic
recent Peacc Treatics with Biilgaria, Hungüry and Riimanka. Only two
of thcse questiorisarc ti-~be considcred af the present hcariiig.
Hefore submitting to you the views of tlie Uiiitcd States of America
or1 thc twu qriestioiis1 stiallded with somc prelirni~ixry ~riiitteof
irnwrtürice. 1 shall first rcvicw briefly the relevant prnreedings in tlie
second part of Iie'fhird Sesion and iiithe Fourth Scssioii of rhc GeneraI
Asscrnbly, so thrit itwillh~ clwr just wliy the As5ernlilyconsidercd it
nccessary to requeçt the Court's advice on thex questions. T shall then
revicw briefly the prciceedings wbich Iiave bccn instittcd iirider the
Trestics by thc Uiiited States and certüiri otlier partiesto trieTreaties,
as tlieseyrocccdings nlsn 1lat.ian irnprtant bearing on tiie Assembiy'ç
qucçtionç. Then T siiali deal with tfiprelirninarycluestiurl of jurisdiction
and the propricty ofthis Coiirt exercising irs jurisdictionin the.preseril
mattci.
1. Prucéeiiin~s of th C;~int:raASS~JIL~!~
Shortly hefore tlieopenirig of tiicsccoiid part oftiie 'l'hird Çcusionof
the Getieral hssemhiy in New York in April, 1949, HoIiria requesled
that the followirig item be placed on the ngentla : "Study of the kgal
procecdings against Cardinal hlindszerity of Hiingary iri relatiorito
Article 1, paragraph 3, aiid :lrticl55, parilgrapti {c),of thc Charter."
[A/$?o.)
A feu, days later Australia proposed tIiai an additional item sliould
be put on the ageiida reading as followç : “Observance of fiiridamental
freedvrns and hirrnan rights in HuIgaria and Hnngary, iriclutiirithe
qi~eçtion of religious aridcivil liberty in special relation to recent tria15
of Chutch leaders'' (A!Pzr.)
The Gerieral Comrnittec rccommend~l tlie conçcilidnticiof tlieiwo
proposed items iritoo~ic ~igerida itcm reding : "Havitig regard to the256 ST:\TEEIEKT UY Mr. C~HEK (c.s..~.)- I 111 50
proi~isioiisof tlieCliarter alid of the PenceTrcalics, i11eclriestionof tfie
oli~rvai~ce in Bulgnrin aridHungaryof liurnan rights arid furidnmental
freedorrisincluding (pestions of rcligioitsaridcivil libertics with special
r~ference to receiittrialsof Cllurcli leaders."The Asçembly acceptccl tIiis
recorntrieridntion aiid referretl the itcm in llle forrn suggested to tlie
-JI hoc Polit ical Cominittee. {Uficial i:acouds of tirc TI!-irdSession Oj
the Gtiisrd z4ssen!l>Jy ,ari Il, Plenary i\icetings, p.~g?)
1 sliallntit revie~ttin detail thc debalcs iri the (;encra1 Cornmittee,
the .A3 hoc Political Corrirnitteeai-id thc plcr~ary seisions of the
Asscrribly. Tshall ~iot tfiscrrsshercl the basis in fact for trie profouiid
concern and iridignntioii cxyressed in thost: deba tes concerning thc
trials of Cardiria1 3Iind~zerity and Bishop Ordass arid the suppressiori
of ilunian rights arid freedorns in the former enemy couiitries roncerricd.
RtitI shal try tti surririiarizas fairly as an iiiterested advocale rriay,
tlic prirtcipalpo5ition.s which ivcrt clc~iresst.d i~ithe course oofthe dehaie
as to the coiiipctence and aiithority of the hssembly to deal with
this siibjcci. As jntcrisepolitical feetiiigsand reactior~s mcrc irivoived
lcgal ariti~inliticalargirments wcre rtot always ctearly tlifferentiated
by the participarils.
Thc Ad Iznr: Political I:ornrnitrcc itivited Uulgaria arid Ilurigary to
~wticjpiie in the rliscizsioris iviiiiout the right tn vote but they did
nnt ncccpt tlie irivitaliori. (Ufjicitrl Ri:r:uu[s the ï'l~irdSassiow, O!
fhc GeinerczE-4sserinL1.i'l,'artTI, rld hic Polirir Caomrriiltee, 1). 65;
AjAC.24!57 ; AfiC.i4!5S,) Siieir cornrniinicatini?s to the Assembly
indicaied that they considered the mat tcrs inclutlerl in the agenda
iterri as esclusivcly within ~hcir own interna1 juiisdiction and thnt
they viewcd the inclri~iori (ifthe it~tiion flic agerida as an illcgal
intcrvcrition in thcir interna1 aMairs. Tlieir cornrnirnicatior~s further
yointed out that liey were iiotITernhers ofthe Uriitcd Xatioiis. The
Hungariari communication drew aticntiort to tlie fact that tlie I'e:ise
Traaty provided rispeciai prorediire for settliiigdisputcs rclaling to
its application. Riilgaria spccirically alleged tliat religions freedom
iri Uulgarin is full? gtiaraniced. (i1!83 )2.
The Soviet Uiiion aricl otlier Easterii Europcaricountr'ics dcfetidcd
thc positiori taken hy Rulgaria arid Hung:irv. They conteridcd thnt
tIie matter-s cornplairicd of w7ere cscluaively witliiri the ddrnesiic
jurisdictiorrof I3ulgarjriürid Hungary atid rvcrc!beyorid thc comyctcriçc
of thc ii~5isernhIyby reaçori of Articlc z, piaragraph 7. Tfiey rririiritairietl
tiiat there was iri facctno basis for the charçts that Iiuinaii rights and
firndameittril fi-eedorns ~veisIwitig suppresseti in these couritries ürid
t1iey assert izd that thchargcs were politically motivatcd. Thev fixrther
contendcd iliütif thcre were any iriolations ul trie Iiirrrirights clauscç
of tlic Peace Treaties, they dioiild bc deüIt witki in nccord;irice witli
tfie procedurcs laid dowri iri the I'eace Trearies ihernselves. (For
esample, statemen t-s of the Heprcsenlalives of the V.S.S.K., OFwirr/
Reords of thz Tl~irdSessiort of the Gcrzcrtd Asst:n~bJy P,art TI, I'lcnary
Meetings, pp. 22-24 ; statements of the Kcpreseritativc of Polririrl,
ibiii.GerieraI (..orririlittee, pp. IQ-13.)
The great majvrity nf States wliich expresscd thcir vieit-siti thr!
dehate ~verc of the vpiriion tiiat tl~eagenda iterri was clcal-ly witliiri
tlie cornpetence of the Asjcnibly urider .i\rticle10 and Ar-tide 14 of
tIie Charicr. STATBYENT BY Mr. COHEN (u.s..~.)- I III jO 2%
TI) their view trie Inatters to he discusseri were within the scope
of tiie Charter, arid tlieciiargcs ivliich had bcen rn:lcltreflected a
situation likely tu inzpair the cesel-al2c:~lfizvand fi-ienrlly rclatioris
iitrioiig nations. Hnmaii rights werc not oiily exprcjsiy mentiuncd
in tlie Preaniblc but the prornr~tiun arid ericoui-agcrn~.i-i tf humari
rights and fiiiidnrnerilal Irwdoms wcre inclirded arriorig tlie Prrr)~ses
of fhe U.nited X(diujs.5in Article I, paragraph 3. of the Charter. IJ~idcr-
~\rticlc55 it becarne thc dtity nf the Cnited Kations toproiiiotc univcrsnl
respect for, and observarice of, Iiiirnarr.ightsarid fundanienta1 freedoms
for al[, witfiout distinction as 10 race, ses, Innguage or religion.
Article jj did not Iin~itthe iiitzresof the Uriitcd Nations to the pro- .
motion of tIiese riglits in Xleiiiher countries. Articlc 55 envisa@ the
promotioii of wii7b~rs.zrcspcct for and observanceof tiiesc rigti tç and
freedurris fur rrlk~iiticle jti pledgccl al1 lllcmbers to take jvirii and
separate iiction irt CO-operation witli the orgariiznt ion for the acliieve-
rnent of the purposes oI il'irticlc55. Arriclc 60 expressly placrid tlie
respnnsibility fur tiic discharge of the furictioiisof the United Natitiris
undcr Articles 55 and 56 IIItlie C;eiieinl AssemhIy.
Article IO esprrssly arithorizerl thc Geiicral AsscrriliIy to ïlixiiss
any cluestiorisor ariyrniitterswitfiirithe scupc ofthe Charter. Articlc rq
cxpresslÿ aiitl-iorizethc Asscrnbly to recoiiimerid mcasurcs for the
perdceful adjusti~iciitof any situatiori regardlcss of origin wliicli il
decrns IikeIy to impair the gerieral welfare or friendly relations nmorig
riaiiuns, incliicling situationrcsnlting from a virilnliori01 tlic provisions
of the C:Iiürter settiilgforth the I-li~rpnsesn?d Yri~ccifiEesof fhe Glrifr!d
Nali/ms. Article rq was not limited to situations aficctirig Memher
States. Tlie dccp i~idigriatioriarou4 rfiroughout the ir.orlby reports
of the siippre~5ion of hilinan rights and funtiarncntal freedoms in
13ulsiria and Hiingüry clcarly sIiowed that the sitüatioii was one
rvhich wns likely to impair the generril xvelhre rrld friendly relatioris
anions nations.
The States rvhicii stlpportrti the cnrnpe:ciice uf thc Assernbly took
tIie position that. .4rticle 2, par,?grapli7,w11ichprovides ttiat nothing
cniitüined iritiicC1iartt:5liciulcautliurizc theUrli!cd Kations trintcrve~rii:
in matters w\.tiicIiare esseritinll\vitfiin the domest ic jirrisdictionof ariy
Sraie, did noi, forvarioiis reasons, prec111deconideration of the agenda
itern. ArtlcIc 2, paragrapii 7, \vas not intendecl to riulliiy tlie Iiuman
rightç clailses of tlie Charter. The inatters to he consider~d iwre not
cssentially rvithiii tlic domestic jiirisrlictiori of States becaiise they
iiivo1vccI iriternationnl obltgations. Lcrtaitily 2s bctwcc~i the parties
mnt ters ivilichIlad bccorne the sutijcç01txprcss Pcace l'reaty obligritions
corild not Liecunsidcred as essentially ofdomestic coticern. The vierv was
cxprcsscd tIi,zt the Charter proviçions themselves regardiiig I~urnairiiglits
and furidarneritaIfrcetloms made il irnpossililc to consider de1ibcr.at.e.
percistent, systcnil~tic nid flagra~~t violations of Iiiirnan rixhts and
Ircedoms essentially withiti the dorn~stic jiirisdictionol States. 'The
vieiv \vas also advaiiced Iliaf il tvas riot in aiiy ci!ent an iritcrvcntinn,
trithin the meariirigtifArticle 2,pnragrapIi 7, for the Assernhly to tliscuss
a situation regarding tlie obçervancr: of hasic hrirnati rigiits aîfecting
fricridly relations arnung riatiuris. Xwr was-il an interventiori for the
.4s~mhly tv esyrcss a.wïshor Iiope thüt a certain procediire rnight br
fuliowed which might bc hclpful to compose diifersricesand bring abolit
agreernerit arid conktructive set tlerrierii. Iritervcrition wasconsidercd 2tk STATE~~~ENT BY 11r. COIIEK (G.s.A.) - i III ju
somctiting mure thana mere suggestion without threat of sanctiorior
coercinn. L may relcr, ior esüniple, ta the staterneriistiy tlieRepresen-
tativcs of rtustralia.(O lcialRecords ofth Tljivd5essio.n ofth G~laeruE
rfsscn~bly, Part II, f erieral Cornmittee, pp. 13-17), Ciiile fibid.,
pp.r7-~gj,Paiiama (ihid., pp.20-ZT), Bolivia (ihid .p. 23-26), Chiiia
(ibid.,pp.32-34), Cirbn (0ficia.I?tcorihof the ï'hi~Sessio??of dliCee~crd
Assernhlp, l'art II, Ad hoc PoliticalCornmittee, yp. 7&79), Kelginrn
(ibid pp . 96-97), United Kingclom (ibid.. p.$31, Sew Zcalnnd {z'liid.,
pp. zor-103 C),ririda(iid.,p. 103)) El Salvador (iliid.yp. 124-125)~
T.ehaiion(ibirl.111).36-13), Uruguay (ibid PIcnary Meetings, pp.23-27)
-a~tdof ille United States (Oflciui!I<ei)t?cordsfhe?'hir Sdessauiaufike
Gencral Assern&!y, Part II, IYenarg Veetings, pp. II-r3, Z~O-Z~Z arid
ibid.,iiirIcl/tocPolitical Cornrr!jtlcc, pp. 88-96}.
The xope of Article 2, ~iarn~rnph 7,was dcbated in the same session
of theGcncralAsvernhlyin conncsion witii the question of the tscatrricrit
of I~idiütisiriSoiith Rfrica arid tiieCourt may also find it kclpful to
çorisidersome af the staternerits made.inthe cniirscof t1iridebate. Imap
refer,for cxampIrh, to the statctnenthg.thc Rcprcsentative of the liriitcd
States (ofiïciaiRtcoriis O/ /lac7'hirii SGSS~U ofLIhe !.elzer.n.dsse~8tiIy,
Part. I1. FirstCo:nrriittee, pp. 293-29j5T should ais0 referto the state-
ment of thc R~presentative of India who aitached geat iniportaiiçc tu
Professor Lrrutcrpachi's carcfully-reasoned interprelaiiori (Tiie In ter-
iintional Law A~sociation, i<+ort nj the Iioriy-Second Coxjerence ni
Praçne, Scpternh~r 1-5, 1917.pp. 13-22,al y. 13)of mhat conatitutes
"iritervention within the rnerining of paraplph 7 of Article 2". The
Iiidian Represcr,tritive quoted the follorviristatemeiit inadt:hy Prof.
I,autcrpaclll at rlreforty-sccond Corifercriceof the Internatioria1Law
:issociation at Prague iriSeptemlier, 194-7 :
"The vicw hrisbeen ~$<dely expresscd tliatthe effecfof that clause
is to rcduce to a mininrurrior to renrleraltogctlicr-riugatory the
prot~"tion ol human rights ni1the p?rt oi the(;niteclNations. There
ir no warrant for such a pessirriistiirilcryretationof the Chartcr.
The Charrt:~ does riot riutliorizeinterventioTlrivrneansthat ittio~+
not airthorize crirnpiilsiveIe$aprocesscson the part ofthe Organiz-
ation. It dots no? autl torizt: pereni~itcidcnia~idç,accompanird
hy cnforc~men tor thrent of erifoi-ccmcntiricafe of iinn-coin pliance,
for ti~isif the nccepted meaning of 'iritervention'But iirticie 2,
paragraph 7,ducs not yrcvcrtt the Gweral Assernbly or the Economic
and Sririnl Coitricil from disciissing and irivesrigating Rtuat-ions
arising frvm cornplaints of violatiorisof hurnan rights. It dots riot
preclude rigcricrai reçornniendation arldreswd rri l$Jembers of the
Uiiited Natioris at large and coverii~gthe suiutject niatterof the
cornplaint,. Xeither dnes it riiln out a specific recommcndation
addrcsscd ta theStatc dircctlycoriccrricd iiriddramingits attention
to'tliepro~iriety of briiigirigabouü situationiricorilorrriitywith the
obligatioiisof tlie ChzirterNone of these mcasures constitute iiitcr-
vcrition. XOIK of thcrri arrioiirits tolepl compulriori." (Oficial
Hectlrds 01 Ihe Third Session of the Genertil Assembiy, Part 11,
PIennry !i!t'etjngsp. 433.3
Professor 1.aiitcrpacht iri Iiis recenSeventh Editiori of Opperilieirn, '
International Lw, Vol. 1 (Lotigman, Green and Co,, 1,td. Londuri,
xqqS),gives considcration to ~Iie prublems raiscd by Article 2, parri-262 ST:ilTEIlEXT BY sri-.COHES (U.S.A.) - I III 5Ci
to dcny tiic applicability of tlieTreaty provisions :in4 refiised to co-
operate in the scttlernent of thc charges iiiaccurclaricc !viIItIie pro-
cediires providcd in the Trca~ies.
'rtie question agdiri came befoi-ethc ;isçcmbly when it rccoriverier!iri
Septcrnlier rqjg. A ustraliaretlucqted that tlic ubscrvanct!nf fiindanicntal
freetion~sand hrirriiir iiglits in Riimaiiiaako be indticlcd iritfieconsider-
atjcin of thiç yuesriori. TIic Cerieral Comrnitt-ee recornrnenrlerl, aiid the
AssernbIy 1-oted, to iriclude Kui-lianiawiili Bulgaria ancl Ilungrirp iritiie
iteni oiitlic agctida and the item was ngaiii rrferred to the -4'8 Iaoc
I'oliticnI I:ommittw. Kirmania ivas irivited to participate iri thp. discus-
siotiwitkout die riglit tu vote but failerlto do so for resons siniilas to
tiiose previoiisly given by Hnlgaria and 1-lirngary. (:\!AC. 3liSIC. 7,
p. 6 ; A/AC. ~TII,.4.)
rltusr~lia again usgcd tIiiittlie h~seiiihly shoiild appoint a cornmittee
lu iricluire inrotlie f;icts and rcpori io the Asscnibly. Hut tlie great
rnajority ol tltc St3t.r.ç çtill felt that the chni-gcs should iiiorr! appro-
priateIy bc çoriçidercd iriacçurdance with the prncednrcs Iaid dowi'riiii
ilic 1'c;ice Treatics. Sirice the Gor~crnrnciits ol Uiilgaria, Ilungary :irid
i<urn:inia toak the position rhat there wert: no disputes which tIiey were
obligated Losertie iiriderthe I'eace Trenti~s, Bolivia, rhc 'L'nitcdStatcs
arid Canada joiiie<l in a pi-oposal that iiriadvisory opiriianshould be
ohtaincd from the IiiternaiioiialCourt of Jiistice on the lcgal .oestioiis
involved. This joirit proposal forined the Liasiç of tllc .4d hoc 't.orrimit-
tee's r~comtnentlntion to thc Asserriblywhich was ;tdnpted bÿ the
Asscmbly by a votc of 47to .jwith 7 abstentioris.(Res. 1l'i:ro43.)
'I'liervording of the resoliition is imvirtant arid I shnll read it :
" Wfzmeas tlic Unitecl Xatioi~~, pirrsuarit to lZrticie 55 of the
Charter, shall promote iiniversal respect for, and obsfrrvance of,
humail rigIitsand furidarnerita freedoms foral1\vit liout distiriclion
as tn race, ses, langriage or rcligiuri,
I,Vhxre~ztslic Gcncral Asscmhly, at tlie scco~id part ofits tliir<l
reguiar sessiori, consitlered thc qucstiuii (if tiic observance iii
Uulgaria. arid Hiingnry of IiuniaririçIitsand furlclarnenta reedorns.
TVl8evc:a he General Asscrnbly, oii 30 ApriI 1949, adopted
T<tsolutiori272 (111 c)oncernintg lik q~rcstion iriwiiich it expressed
itsrieep conceri] at tlic gtavc accusatirriis made ngainst tlie
I;or,ernnicritsof Riilgaria and Ilungary regarding tlir: siipprcssioii
of tiuiiiariiiglitsaiid furidariientnl freedonis in tl-iosecourttries;
riotcd with satisf;iction that stcps Iiad ken takcri 11.syeveral
States signatories to the Treaties of kace with Riilgarin anrl
Ritngary regardirig tlicse riçcusatioi~s;expressed i-hc Iiopc Lhat
nteasurcs ivoiild be diligeritly applied, iriaccordance \vitfi the
Treaties, in ardcr to ensure. respect for liuiiia~iri& tj anri fnn -
daincntal freedoms ; and rriost urgently drew the attetitiori of
tlic Gvvernmcnts of Uul~arin aiid I-Eurigary to tlicirobligritions
under the Pwce 'Ywaties, iiicludiiig tIieobligation to cn-rilierate
iritlitlscttlemeiit of tlic question,
I,I=herecttlie Gc~icrül Assernhly has rcsolved to COI~~C~ also
. at ilie Foiirtfi Kegular Session tbc questioii uf tlie observance iri
Rurnania of human rigb ts ancl fundailicntal f recidorn;, sr,ir~~~'ir uu Mr. COHEN (U.S.A.) - T III50 263
Wheressccrtaiiiof [lie Allied and Associated Powers signatortes
to the ï'reaties of Peacc wiih Riilpria, Hiingary and Rurnariia
have charged the Govcrrimcntsof ihosc countrics wit Iiviolations
ol tIicTrcatics of Pcace ancl Ilive called upon thuse Governmcn ts
to take remedid rneasures,
14'herensthe Govcrrirnents of Bulgaria, MungiiIy and- Rumania
have rejcctcd tlie cliarge~of Trenty violatioi-iç,
ITl~trcasthe Govcrnmentç of tlieAllied and Associated Powcrs
concerned Iiave sought unsiicccssfnllv to refer fhr question oi
Treatv violatioiis to tlie Iieads ol >lissiori iri Sofia, Riidapest
ürid $uclinrtst, iripursiranceofcertain provision in the Trcaties
of l'cnce,
Ilfhweas the Governrnents of these Allied aiid Associated Pnwers
have caIled upon the Goverrirnents ol Bulgüria, ILungarg. aiid
Kiirnaiiia to join in appointing Comiiiisiolis pursuant to the
pr.uvisions of thc 1-cspective 'I'reatieof Pexe for the settlemerit
of disputes coricerriingthe interpreration or exmiition of these
Trentie;,
Wl~zreas the Gc~vernrnciits of Rulgaria, Huiigary and liurnania
Iiave rcfuscd to appoint their represeritativcs to the 'l'reaty Com-
missions, maintainmg that they ware under no legal obligation
tn rln w,
IVkereus tl~c'Sccretary-GeneraI of the United Xatioris iç
authorized hy the Treaties of Peace, iipon reqireçt by eitlier ~iarty
to a dispiitc, torippoint the tkiird rncrntier oia ?'ru ty Comi~iissioii
if tlie panics failiu agree ripon the appoi~ltment of the third
inember.
1,Fhereasit iç important Eor the Secretary-Gerieratta lie advised
aiithnritatively c:oncerniilg thc %ope of his aut hority urider the
Srcaties of Peace,
7%~GeiteraiAssembly,
r. Expresses iitscoritiriuirigintcresi irialrd itsincccascdconcern
at, the grave accusations made ag:iinst I<ulgana, Hirngary arid
Kiiinani:~ :
z.Records its opinivri that thc refusal of the Governments of
Bulgarin, Huiigary ririt1Rumania to co-operate iri its efforts to
esxrriiiie ilic grave charges with regard ta' the ohservarice ol
liiiinnn rights and firridaniciitaifrcedonis justificç thk concern of
the Gcricral :Isscrrilily about the state oi nttairs prevailing iil
Riilgaria, Hungary and Rumania in this rcspect :
3. Dt'cidesto si1bmit the fo1lolvingtluestivrij lo IlicIrilernational
Court of Justice lur an advisory opii~ioi~:
'1. Do ilic tliplornatic exchanges betsveen Uulgariü, H1ingat.y
and Kumania, un tlie one hnnd, and certain Altied and Associatetl
Pnïvers signatorirç to titç Trcatics of Pcacc, uti the other,
conccrning tlie iniplcrnentatiori ofArticle 2 ofthe 'i'rcatiewitli
TJulgariaand Ilungary and Article 3 of the 'heaty rvith Kurnania,
disçIose disputes subject ru the provisions for the settlcmerit
ofdisputes contained in Arricle 36 of the Treaiy of Peüce rvith
25ofthcir pmp1t.c;.Tli~y solemnly :intl kriuiviriglundertorik t1iis oliligaiion
in tlie kacc Treaties sigricd al Paris on February 10, 1947.
Article 2 of the Ti-eaty witli Uulgaria rcads :
"BuIgarka sliall iakc al1 mcasiires iieressary ro secirre to all
persons urider 13ulc~rriarjiiirisdictiori , without distirict ioiias to
racc, sex, Iarigiiagcut.religion, tl-ienjoyment of hirmnnrigIits riricl
{if tlie iundamental frecdoms, incIiiding freedoni of expre;rioii>
of Press and ptil>lica tion, of religious irwrsl~ip,of politicai upiniuii
riricof public rrieetirig."
1t-iclez nf the Treaty with Hirngiiry rea(1ç :
"1. Hungai-y shail talie ;ilmerisures ricccsçnry to securc tu al1
persoris under Hurigariaii jiir~isdictioii,ivithout distinctioti as to
race, sex, langiiagc or religion, the erijoyrrieriof hiirn:inrigIitsarid
oi tlic lundarnerital frccdoiris, iticluding freedurn of expression, of
Press and publication. of religii>uçworçhip, of ~xiliti çaiiiiori
aiid of public rneetirig.
2. Hirngar?; furtheviindertakrs that the laws iiiforcc iiiHungiry
siiall nut, cither iri tlicir curitosiirthcir npplicatiori, discriminate
or el]tail ariy discrimination bet\vi'eeii crsotis of Hungariari riation-
ality on the groiind of their race,ses. 1anpi:ige or rdigirin. wlitttlier
iri refcrerice to tlieir persuris, yropcrty, busiries, professional or
financial iiitcresis, statiis, politicnl or civil rights or iinj* other
rriatter."
Article 3 of the Treaty witIt l<urnaiiiacontains provisioiis ident ical
with thnse of Article z in the Tie:ity witIi Hurigiirÿ.
Duriiig the negvliiiliiig stag-cssomcof tllcfom~erenerny States (1tal?:
2nd Kurnrirtia)suggested tIiat tJiey shoiild riul be required to acccpt
iiirther or nfher obligations tliati those arcepted hy the Mciiihers of the
Criited Xatioris in tlie C1i;irter.(Sec Duc. No. ?8jGJ iri I'aris Pcacc
I:onference, Liepurliiii:~of 5irrfz i>ichlica 28z68~tpp. ZOO-'01 ; L)oc.
CP(Geri.) 3. iAad.,p. 706.) Riit this sirggestion was nor acccptcd. All the
former Axis satellite States sigried the Trcatics with the Iirirriirigliis
clauacs T have qriolud. TIie Trcatics carnc into eflcct on September r5,
1947.
I tiirririow to the dispirtes .ArticltisTlie 'i'rcatiesnfI'eiice providc
clear and definite ~iroccdura for tlic wttlcrnent of disputcs arkiiig
urider tlic Trcaties : Article 36 ol tiic Treaiy ui I'eace wirii Hiilgar-ia,
which is tIie s:imc as Article 40 of the Trmty ,of Pcace with Hirngat,y
arid :lrlicle 33 uf die Treaty ui Pcace witli Riimarriri, reads :
"1. Bsccpt whtre antitlier procetlure is specific:illy providecl
iinder niry ariiclc of the ptcscnt Treaty, any disputc concerning
the iriterpretatiori or cxcctition of tlie Tr~aty, whicii is riot çettled
by direct diplornatic negutiüt iuris,sliall bc referreci tci the i1ircc
Heads of 31issioiacting iinder .ltrticle35 i3q of ihc Trcaty of I'eace
with Hurlgary, 37 of the Treaty ot T'eact: witii J<urtia~iia!esce: t
tliat iritiiis case the Heatls of XIissioriwjll riut he restricted but/ie
tirne-limit providcd in tliat article, .4i1y-sircli distciriot resolved
by tl-~ernivitiiiti period of two rnonths sliall, urtless ttie pnrtics 10 tliii dispute rriuiriallyagrcc iipoiinnotlier rricans of setclerricrii,
fiereferrcd nt the reqire=f of eitlicrparty to the dispute toa Carri-
mission co~iiposcd cif o~ic r.eprcsciltriti\of cach partp and a third
i~icmbcr selected t>v mutual agreement of tlie twu parties fron~
natioriülsui a third country. Sliould tllc two parties fa11 to Zigree
witliin n periorl of one niuritiiupunthe :q>poi~itiiicno tl tiicthird
rneiribcr,tlic! Secretnry-General of llic Enited Kations may Lie
reqiiested by citlicr pari y to make the ttppoiriti~ient.
*.
2. 1liedccision of the iiiajority oi tiicmrinbers of tlw r.nrnrnis-
sion shnll he die decisici11ol IIic Cornrniçsioii, altç1iallLicacccpied
by ttie pastics as driinrtive ancl hiridiiig."
TIie Court wiIl iiotetiiat the ~irticlesrsliich1have jirst cluoted referta
other articles rcgarding thc gcneral siipervisioriof the esecuiioli of the
Treaties Iiy the Ilends of IXplonlatic Missiunsof the United Kirigdom,
Soviet Cnion aririCniteti States in Sotia, Uudapcst alid Buchareet.
These articles ccnsed to be npplir~ble ori March r j, rgdq, excepi as
provideci iii tliedispi~ks articles jnst quutccl. 1 sliall discitss tlte scope
of tliis csceptiori Iater in my stiitcmciit.
1:omer Secrctary nf -5tatc Hyrnes, who bad bcen t1ie chief Lriited
Siaies delepte irititcricgotiatiorisof the Treiities,in testifyin6 befnre
the IlriitcdStates Senate Conirnittee oriForeign Kelatioris in the Iicar-
ings on ttie ratificati olnflic Peace Treaties. stated regai-ding tliesc
dispiites clairses :
"If sccmed ta us desirable tIiat ti-caties cotistitiiteüs far as
possible a seitlemeiit of al1 qiiestions arising out of the war arid
tliat mcthnds he providetl whicli woiild enable disputes arising in
regard tu tIicmierpi4ctation or executioti of the treaty provisroris
to he speedily rcçolvcd \Vc encountered some difficultÿ-1 wr'iuld
sa- WC eiirountered great difficiilt-in reaclii~igagreement nn a
procedure for settliiig diçpi~trs,but riIurmula \vasu1iiin;itelyiound
srhich 1 believe will furriisii a satisfactciry basis for the ultirnate
resolritioiiof tlios~clucst~ons\vlijclicarinot he resolvcd bg~bilateral
ticgotiation." {IIcarings beforc. the Corrirriikicc on I'orcign liela-
lioris,U.S, Senate, 30th Corigrtss, Mai-ch-May, 1917, p. 9,)
Shc laiigiinge of tticdisputes articlcs isclex. 'l'iieywere nut intendcd
to be olitiuriatprovisions ;tl-ieywere deleliberatclyformulaled to provide
an efkctive and obligatory pruccdiirtt for the dcfinitive settirment of
tiispritcsarising under the 'rrenties.
3. Urie! o~rlliiiof proceedixgs zr?ider ChePeace I'reritids
In) Everits prccedinrg atification by the United Statcs
Long before the effective date of the Treatics of Peacc, whtn the
Uulgarian, Hirngnrian and Hurnariian Governments werc subject to
the armistice rdgirnes, titc United States foiiiid it necejsary on the
basis of the Yalta decisions to rriakc diplnmatic rcpreçentations with
regard Lo the actio~isof these Goverrirncnts in curtailirig the irccdoms
of their people.
\Vheo tliese 'rreati came bcfore the U~iilcd States Senate, therc
was sorric uestion ivhether tliey sliould be rütificd becausc of the
cozitinuiivgidillire of therc Guvernrnents to respect tltc hurnaiirights265 STATEMEXT I3S Jlr.COIIES (U.S.A.) - -. I 11150
of their peoplcs. Forrner Secretxr oy Statc Uyrnes urged ratification
on the grourid that the Tteaties rvouId reiidcr thcsc corintries ffully
responsible for their actioris, rrrnulirnpmc ail internatioiial oblipütion
on them to assiire tlie maintenance of Iiiirnanrights, arrd \voulrlgive
other States the nght to see thaf this international ubligatio wnas
observed . efore thc Sc11ate Corninitrcc or1 Foreign Relations Iie
deçlared :
"Orily thrriirgh the conclusion of n dcfitiitivc peace can the
es-enemy Statu rcsume their sovereiçri rights and thei-cby acçept
fil11responsibility for ilieir owri acts in t.he future, ariotlier im-
port aritstep toiinrclthc rcstorstion of çtnhlc cutiditic~ris(Hearings
beiore the C-ornrni tcc on 170reigriRclatioris, U.S. Senate, Varch-
hy, 19.47,P. 4.)
Othcr benefits grantcd to the peoptc of tlic ex-eneniy Statcç
assure the mairiteriarice of their basic human rightç and furida-
rneiital freedoms. Thesc cIauçes conztitute an international obli-
gation and assiire other Stntes thc right to sec:to it fhat they
are mairiiairicd. In the prcparalion of these guaraiitees we aIso
tmk precautions to prevcnt the reernergetlce of iderititiabLpi-ewar
and rvartirne antidemocraiic elenicnts arid the reernergence of
prexvar Fascism. iIo Iimitations upon the dcrnocrritic iredom
and developmci-it of the pcopIe are containcd in the treatics."
(rbid., p. 6.)
On the baçis of thiç declaratiori the fnIlorving escllange took placc
inthe Cornmittee on Forcigri Kelations of IIic L'nited Stntes bctwceri
Seriaior Vrriith and Sccretürp I3yrnes :
-
Scnator SS~[-I-H "31r. Secrctary, from niystudy of tfieBalkari
situation ovpr tlie ycais 1 have conie 10 the conclusion that we
al1 have, that rriariy of niir world wars have I3ee11 origiriritediri
those areas. That has becn due, as 1 see it, to two things. Urie
is the denial of basic human rights and furidaniental frtwlorns
in those compctirig countries, to the arbi ira? typcs of dictator-
ships we have seen therc, arid that sort of dificulty.
1was interested to çee in yoirrrcport, 011page 6,this expression :
'Other benefits granted to the people of the CS-crierny States
assiire'-arid t emphnsizc the ivorri 'assure'-'the mainienatice
of tbeir h=Îc hiiman rights and futidnmental freedoms. ?'Ii~e
claiises constitute an iitet'natio~ialobligation, arid assure other
States the right to sec tu it that thcy are rtirrin~ained.'
1 tiiinl; that is so profounrlly importarit in the light of the
areawith wliicli nre are dealing tiiüt 1 wonld be iriterested iii
jiist a Iittle further claboraiion from yoti as to jiist how tiiat
assurance ij to be Lirought about."
Mr, H~-RNES .Tt lias the same rtssur;iricc that every otlicr
provision in these Trcaties has. You wiI1recall tllat we placed
great importance upon it, aiid as fat h:ick as YaIta we rlndertook
to have tlie three Powcrs agree as to tlicse freedoms. Tliis is
different. The ex-cncmy State itsclf haç soIemnIy ohligated itself
in fhis agreenierit to acsurc tlie fundamental freedoms. It i:: endorsed 11ythe United Nations signing these Trcatis. Tt is the
strongcsl assurance thtit T can thirik of."
Senator SMITH. am eiitirelyin :iccord witli it. 1 arrglad to
Iiear yniir ernpliasis upuri the importance of tIiat fcatrrre,becaiise
thcre we are going to have our future trouble, if we have aiiy,
from tlte diçaffectionsarnong those pcoples themselves."
Mr. B~~RNE S. agree." (ihiit.,p. 14.)
(b) Everits since the cnnling into effecl of the Pe~ce Srcaties
Since ~Iiccomii~g into eficct of thePcace TI-caties,tiicCnitecl States
lias bwn irnpelled to point out rtpeatedly ttic continired failurc of the
Govcrrimentç of Rulgiria, Hungary and Kumariia to conform their
policies to LIicirnewly-as~urnerl interriritionaobligations. Since Iiiesl:
efi'urtapro~ed urrwccessftrl the United States has invoked the forma1
procedures pmvided Liy triel'eace Trenti~s to otttaiil redress.
As a first stcp, in jts notes of April 2, 1949, the Governrne~ttof
t1tcCiiited States proceedcd forrnally ta cliargc the Governrnents of
Hiilgaria, Kutigary ;intl Rtimania rvitli systematic aiid deiibcrate
violation= of tlic respective clauses of LIicPeace Treatics obli~aiirig
tlicm to secure to tlieir peuples the enjoyrncn of hiinian riglits and
fundamen tal freedoms. TIic Uriitcd States Corerrlrricnt set forth hy
way of i1lustratiorlspecific charges of siich violatioris and requestcd
tllat 1-emetlialJneasurershe takcn by the thrce Govemmerits.
The United States afirrricrltliatpeoplcs in the tt11.ccoiiritri~ ïvrre
depril-ed of tlicir hatic human ngtits iiiciuding-the riglitto lifcand
liberty, freedorr~of politicalopinion, expression. Press arid publicüt ion,
pu tilicmeeting alid rcligious rvorihip. The Uriilcrl States allcged th:tt
rliepenples ofthcse couittries had hmii dcprivcd of these rightç tliroirgh
govcrnrnental actiori siich as arbitrq ürrstç, perver~ion of judicial
proces5(cg. trial of Maniu iriKumüriial,destructiori ol opposition parties
{as in the casc of the liquirlatio~iof tlicNationaI Agrririan IJniorisnd
, ocialist Party in Kulgnria), arbitrary irseof plicc pwer and cui-itrol of
private opinion, iiiisuscol rhe coiitrnlof printirigcutablishmeiits and
distribution of ricwsyrint,deriialof right of piililmeeting to al1 except
i:omrnirriis~ froir~, obstructiuri ol rcligioiismectinss, :iod mercive
nieawres against Ciiiirches and <;hurckileaders (as, Tor- cxaniplc, the
IiicasrirPsdirectrd agsinst I'rotestnnt denorriirlaitons inUulgaria, trials
of Cardina Mlindszenty and I3isltupOrdass in Huiigary).
The Governrrients of Rirlgaria,Hungar?; and Rrirnrinia iritlicir replies
ilelivcrcd in April1949 rcjected the UtiitetStatecs harges. l'liey affirnzed
t hat thcy Iiad fillly complied witii tlic Peace l'reakics, assertirig that
iinder the Peace Treaties lhey were obligated to ralce rricasirresagairisf
Farcist activities aridsug-gtsting tlint it wüsagainst sr~ch measures Lhai
the United Stateswasprotesting. They also intiicated that they considerecl
the action of the United States in rnaking the charges to constitutft an
uriwarrnnted iritcrlerence in tlieir domestic affairs.
On 31 May. 1~9, tlreUnited Siates rook note ofthe denia! oi the threc
C;overnrricnts that thev fiad viobated tiie Treatiesüridof their failrireto
furnish the requcstcd ;nfoi-rriation as to rcrncdid rneasurcs whicIi they
werc prcpared to adopt. At tlic same tirne the United St:ites iiiforriicd
them that iri its view n dispute hütl arisen concerning t!icinterpretationaiid cxcculioriof the respectiveTreaties ofPe;~cc wliicI1iiiIlirccGoverri-
rnents hatl showri riudisposition to 'oiti in sertling by direct diplornatic
iicgotintioiir.<:onaeqiiently, tlic Jnited ~tiitcs inmkod rhe l'reaiy
Articles providing for the çcttlernent of such disputes by the Heatls of
L)iplomritic Nision of the United Kiiigdoin, Soviet Union and Ciiited
States in Sofia, 13iidapestaiid BrrcIiarésl.
'TlieUnited Statcs ChieEsof Missiori in the the capitals rttqiieçtcd
their Soviet nrid British coll~agnrs to mcct with them tn coiisi<l~r tlic
dispt~tes.The Ministers of the Unitcd Kirigdoiricsprcssed thrir iiiilIirigriess
Lo corriplywith this request. The Soviet Go\-ernmenr, howevei., declirlcd,
in ,znote of r rJune, r ()gr)to aiithorizt' ilreprcsentativcs to discuss tlte
mattcr. 11 eiipressctl ihc vicw that the thrw iorrner erierrry countr-ies
were strict-lfulfillirig their obligatiotis u~ithe Peacc Trcatics andt hat
the rncasurcs coniplained of not orilÿ ciidnot viobic, Lut were directerl
toivard the fulfilrrierit of, the P~ace Trearies. Iroreover, the Soviet
Go\-ernmcnt clairn~l, Ehcsciricasurcs were ~viiliinthc domcstic compe- ,
tcrice oi these countries as sovereign States.
In an eîfort tn persuadc the Soviet lir~iurito rcconsic-Icits refitsalllie
United States poiriied out, in a fürther iinfe to 11ic U.S.S.K. datetl
June 3t>, 1949, tl~atthe exiçtcncc ofdisputes hetweeli the Uiiited Statcs
and the thrcc foriner cncnly Goverrirnents cannot bc qucstioriccl sirice
the Lnited Slates lias ch~irged them with violaticinsof Peace Treatics
and they have replied asscrting Iliat tiieiractions do riot constitiitc sircli
violalioris. The United States further pointed out tItütthe fulfiirnent
of international treaty obligations cnnnot be considered apurelydomestic
affair. In a reply dated July 19, IW~, the Soviet finion rcfuscd fo
rriodify itspsitiori.
On 27 July, r949, Hiilgariaaddressecl anote ta the United States setting
forth the provisioris iri ttie UulgariünCoristituiion dcçigncd to guarüritee
the ob%rvatice of tlie obligag,?tioia~rsisoiit of tlie liurnan rights clatise
of the Peacc Tr~aty. The Biilgarian Govcrnment restated its ~~ielsthat
the rneasurescotriplaincd of iri t1ie 1;riitedStates noies wcrc takeri iri
esecut ion of othcr I'enceTrcaty provisions. It asçerted thaf the rocecd-
ings iri tlie Bulgarian courts aridadrninirtraa tgcricies cou1s riut be
rriade srihject of the I'~T~cT Pr~ary prcfcedures and denietl that an):
dispute csisied.
\tTIierimore ihaii trvo rnonths Jiad eiapsed aiid ~licdispules rernninetl
utiresoivcd by tlieHeads of Hissinti.the Unitcd States foiiiidit neccssary
10 irivoke the addiLiorta1Peace Treat y procedurc for llic cst:ililislirnent
of Treaty Commissions tu sctilc thc clkputes. On I Aiigiist,rW9. tlie
Uriitcd Stütm rccjucçted Bulgari:i, Hurigary aiid Rurnatiia tujoiiiiritii
it irinarning tliesc Cornrni~5ions. The thref: Goverrirrierits rejected this
reqiicst in thcir notcs datcd 26 Augusl, I Septernher aiid 2 Septembcr,
rgqg, respectiveiy, in which they reaffirrned tlieir previous positions.
On rg Scpienih~r, rrtq9, the United States addressed furthcr ilotes
to the Governmcnts of IIiirigary, Bulgüria and Rnn-iania iri isfiiclt it
restated itçvicrvs ori tlie disputed isiies en~pliüsizirigthat the 'Treaty
provisioiis rcgarding th~ elirnination of T'ascist activitics caniiot bc
iitilized as3 cloak for thc dciiiai uf lurtdürriental freedoms spccified i11
tlie 1tum:inrigfits clausesof the Ti-enties.The Eriited State~ Iiovernnient.
fnrthcr arinoirr~cpd that it woiild have rwoiirsi: to ail appruprialc
rncasurcs for securirig thc curripliarice by the [lisce Go\,errirrieritswitli-12 5TA.TElIEXT BI' Mr. COIIES (c.s.,~.)- T III 50
Article 36 of the Statute ol [lie Interniitional Court of justice
prov idcs :
"'I'ht:jririsdirion of the Court conipriscs al1 cases wfiich the
part ics rcicr to it and uCI nzaffEÿs s+eciully +roviJd jor ivi 11~2
Charf~ ~/ the United Nntioi:s or intre:ities andconvcntjonsinforce."
hrticlp 6.5of tlic Statutc of ilte Tntcrnatioriül Court statcs :
" I. Tlie Court ntay givcan advkory opi~iior iit ariyIegalquestion
at iI~cscquest of whütever hrrclyrnay ticauthorized bÿ or iraccordance
ivith ttie Charter of the Cnited Natiaiis to make such ;ireqiiest."
TIic Charter and the Slatutc ai the Coitrt are lhus cxplicit it? cori-
ferring jtirisciictionon the Coirrt lo give an adrpisoryopinion at tl-tf:
reqnest of the General Awinlily on any legal question. The prnvisioris
of the Charter arirl Slalutc contairi no lirnitatiaris oii the Catirt's
juri5cIirton to rcridcr ail arlvisory opiniori uri ariy Iegal qiiestion at
the request of the =\~sernhly.
For the ~nakiiig of suc11reyirest by tlie Asçcrrtbly tlic Cliartcr ürid
the Statiitc of :l~is Court require ricitiieirrianimity nor iic corisent
of States wliicli niay he speciallyconcwne<l. 'l'hercquesl ol the Assenihl y
for an advisoi-y opiiiioiiiiithis ca* ivaç made in a rcsolution supportcd
bu rntirc thari ttvo tliirciçof tlie 31crnliers present and voting.
Undcr the (:ovenant of the Learigiie the question sras never aiithori-
tatively dctci~rriiricclivlie1iitar irrianirrious vote \t'as necessary tu
reqwst art advisor? opinion or whether the votes of States parties
to a rlisliute shoiilhe corintcd. 13111tiriderthe Chartcr it is clear that
a unariinious vote isriot recluired in the rlsscrrilily. 80Mcnibcr Stalc,
and ceriainly no non-memher State, has the rislit to veto tIierequest
of tkc As;cmbly for an advisor? opinioii.
An advisiirv opiriiun does not lirivc t1ic biriding Iorce ol a luclgrnerit
and slioulti not be confiised 15-itha rieclsioii the Court in acontentious
proccccliiig ïshich hinds the parties. An advisory ctkiiriinnis url.iatit
purports tu bc, advice anil giiidancc whicfi the Coirrt ir autiiorizeri
to givc under the Charter arid the St-atiite. Even the pal-fiesto a
dispule cnncerrring ~vfrictlhe Court givcs ;in advisary opiriio~t arc
not bouiid Liy tiie opinion givcn arid tlicre is no inherctit i-casort in
principic why tlieir consent to tlic giving of the npiriiori sliould he
required. {Hudson,I'cvmnneril Coztri of jr~sfic~, 1933, $3 47 j, 479.)
-IritItisinjtancc the Advisory Opinion içsuuglit toa.;c;isflic tlssernlily
in the performance of itç Cl-rarterfunctions. Of course the Ilpinion
may, and we fiope itwill, hc of use and valire to the States çpwlnlly
conccr~ied as ~wll as lo the Assernhiy biit it can orily persuadc and
caririot coercc tlieir judgrnent.
(nj Effect of lack of mnsent by an interestecl State to Coiirt's
jurisdictioii
It isthe visiv ol my Goveriinicrit, accordinglty h,at 'Iic coriserit
of the Gover~ments of Hirlgaria,Huiigzm-y and Rumania jsnot reqaired
to enable tlie Coiir-tto $vr: ~ii advisory upiriiuriinreporisc to the
rcquest of ilie Gerieral Ass~rnbly irithese proceedings. Il istrue tliat
inihe rase of Th,:Stattt~ O! Eastmn Cnvetin{Advisory Opinion,July 23,
1g2.3,Serics R, Nu. 5, pp. 7-29) tliePcrrriarieritCourt of Justicc refuscd
to give rtradvisory opinion a t the recluest ofthe Council ofthe League
giring anions othcr rcxoris lor its rnfüsal thc uiiwiilinpcss of one SI.,YI.E.\IE'I'TBY 317.COHE'I (u.s.;\.) - 1 III 50
273
of the States priricipalty coriccrnccito coitrcnt tn its jurisdictioti. Rut
in that case the. Cotiiicil rcqucstçtl tlir,opinion of tIicPerii~arient Loiirt
ori t1:crricrits of a dispirte hetween 'Finland and Iiussia, the latter
nut tticn a riicntber of the Leagile, as to the efiect on the airtanomu
of Eastern (:arelia vf a Dcclaratiori aririescd to the Treaty, signcd
Octobcr 11, T920. The principa ilçiie was lvhetlier the 1Iecl;ir;itiort
wtis intended by the arrics to hf: a treaty ubiigatioii or only a drclii-
rntian on the 1:;lrt uY Rtisçia dcc1:uatory oI aii exicring citiiafion,nti
issuc mhicb thc Lourt 5tatetI cuiild not he rletenriirirttiyariexnrr~iziaiioii
of tlic Treaty and lkc!aration biit reqrrjred an investigatioii irito
facts wfiicIt 'ivoriid Iiavc bxn estrenicly: dificult to ascertain ivitho~it
thc-,consent and co-olieratior~ of TZrissia.
Ilierc iverc,rnoreo\.cr, rogent reasoils,;.ithe Permanent Court stated,
\\--hichrentlreci it very iriçxycclicnt for the (Court, in that case, to exer-
cisc its jurisdiction. TIie Perrnatient (:oilrt,Iiowever. seerris to Iiavç
siiggestecl that a dispute Lict~vcen a Ilerribcr arid a non-nienibcr cor~ld
~iot bt: submittcd to Che: Coiincil for solution irnder Article 17 of the
I:oveiiatit ivitlinut the coriseritof [lie nori-rnerribcrStatc. Ititlie words
of th coiirt :
"According to this article. iri tht cvcn t of a dispiite bettveen
a îvlemb~sof tfie 1-eague arida State wliich isrioi a nicmbcr of rlic
l.eague, trie Statc nut a memlwr of tlic Leagile shalI ht?invit-ed to
acccpt the obligations of riientbersbip in the I.wgiie 101tl-icpur-pose
of suc11 dispirte, and, if this invitation is iiccepte<i, trieprovisioris
of :\rticlcs 12 to 16 incliisir,e shall bc applied with such rnoditica-
tions as may be ricccssary by the Couricil.'' jlhiii., ki. 27.)
The autfiurity of tlie Council to i2eqiiestari advisary opinion frnni the
Coiirtw~ containecl in Article 1.4of the Coveriarit.Tl~c Court apparciitly
concliideci tli~t Article rq tlierefurc could not be irtvoked iri a cüsc
irivoivirig the r~icritsof a frictrinidispute 1)etwe~n a Mernher and non-
inemher witltout tlie latter's consetit. As Ki~ssiahad not gil-cn its con-
scrit,the Coiirt stated t.h:it if(iuri(itirnyiossiMe to give itsopitiioriiiia
dispiite of this c\iarriclcr-. udges \tleiss, N yliolrn, de Rtistamante and
Altaiiiirâ declnred that they wcre "unahle to sliüre tiic vic\i.sof tlic
rriajority of the Cotirt as in the irnpssibility of giving an atlvkory
opiiiiaii rin the Eusterri Cürclia tiquesticiri". (ICid., p. 29.)
;Ilter tlie Court had acted, the Lcague Coiincil in notirig tlic vicws
of the Coiirt entered tlie Eollowingt:diietiriIIiçiriiriutcof itsprocedine.
irldicating its unwill~ngticss tn accept mithoiit qunlificntion the views of
the. Court in sofar as 1Iicy >vct.cbased on lack of jiiïisdiciioii :
"Thc Corincil feels sure tliat the opinion exprejsed liy tlie Coiii-t
iii coiiiiexicni with tlie procedurcdescribcd by .irticleI 7 of tlte
Coiw-iarit coiild iiot esrlutle the po~ibility of resurt hy thc Councii
to any actiori, iricliiditia icqiiest for üriadvisory opiniori froni t1ie
Court, in a matter in w9iicliü State non-merriber of tlie Lcaguc and,
unwilling to givt? information, is involved, if the circirrristances
sIioulri rriakesricliactictrinecessriry to cnaùlt: the t:oilncil to fulfil
ils fuiictions irnder tIie C.overtant of the 1.eague iriilic irttcrcstsof
pe:ice." (Leragrdeoj Fiilions Joswgaul, 1923, pp 1337. 1502 .}
:i conçider;ible arnount of juristir. writing lias beeri crilical of the
Ensfzrph Careliagacxc in scifar as the refusal of the Court was basedon STATEJIEXT Xi' air. CVHES (U.S.A.) - T III 50 275
ever in the Charter of the United hrations wfiich can bc coristrilerl to
limit the authority of the Security Couticil,the Açsembly, or LhcCourt
itiailxiviçorp opinion, to consider tlispiites or situatiori~ nfiecting rion-
rricmhersor 10 rnake sricii coniiclerntiori dcpeiiderit irpon the consent
of non-menibers. (See Articlps 32-37 of the C11:irtcr regartjing 1Iic
Cuuncil's authority ;:2rticlcs IO, 11 arid 1.jregnrditn lic hsemhiy's
airthoriry, and Article 96 1-cgarding tfic Coirrt'saulliority.)
The provisions of tlieCharicr dcfine lllc coiiditions uncler w1iich a
tioii-memher State, prirry to a tiispute, rnny hring :idispute beforc i-hc
Sccurity Council or tht: Gcricral :lsseriibly and uncler ivhich a non-
n~ernber may piirticipnte indiscussion of rlie Scct~rity Cou~icilrelating
10 a disputc to whicli it is3 part? (Article 32 aiid Artide 35). I3ut dit:
accepianco cr non-acceptance ui sriclicondirioris docs riot affect the
right of the Criunci[ to deaI with the dispute. Inde4 tiic situation hcre,
ivliilinvolving a dispiite bet~veen cefiairi States, wrc; not hrought to
the Assembljr as n dispute but as a situütioii concernirig tlic humaii
rights provisionsof the Cliarterand Pence 'TreatieaaritiriffectingEriendiy
rc,lations bciwccn iiatio~is. ?'lie sirtiatiori \+,as first brotight to the
Ascicrnbly'sattc~itiotihy Eolivia which'did riot claim tu be a pnrty to
an? dispute.
3Ioreiivcrthcrcis a sigriiftcanr differencc in the wortlitiyof tIieStatutc
of the Perrnaneiit Court and the wording of tticStatiite of tiiisCourt as
regards their respective jurisdictions. 'Ihe difierence in the statutcç of
the txvo Courtsis cven more important tlisn thc,difference hetiveeri tlic
Cltartcrand the Covenant. 'rhis diffcrencc itsclf ivoiild lead to a different
conclusioti in this case frorn that reaclicd intlie EusteriaCordiata case.
Article 36 of the Statute of the Perrnancrit Court provided :
"The iurisdiction of the Cuurt comprises al1 cascs wliich the
rirtrticsrefer to itaiid al1 matterci special[-y~iruvittedfor iritrcatirs
aiid coi~vcntions in furcc."
.Irticlc 36 of tiie Statutc of tlijjCoiirt provides :
"Tlie jirrjçdictiorof tiieCoiirt cornyiriscsal1 cases which the
parties refer to if xridaH ?~zltnftspszciaILy$rnvid~d /or ii~tJteCkarfcr
O/ fhe b'riil etlioiisor ititrcat~cs iiridcoiirrciitionin force."
Tfierc was nt)article in the origiririStatute ofthe Perrriaricnt (:oirrt
xi-lrichspc.cificalIy atitlivrizcd the Ikmancnt Court to give advisory
opiiiions It is lrue rti:itArticle r4 O[ tficCovennnt pravidedthat
tlte Permanent Court ni:iy give ari advisoro ypinion iipoiiany disputc
IDE-qustion refcrred to it by the Cuiincii or by tlic Xsseinbly. Krit
:lrticIe 14 oE thc Corrc~iatitrcqiiirerl tlieCouncil to suhriiit plarislor
the estxblishmeiit of tlic l'ermarierit C:ourt, :iiid tlie Statute of tlie
1)crmanent Coiirt \vas subjcct to seprtratc r:iti%catiori; the jurisdictinii
of the Pcrrn;iricrit Court Liad therefnrc to be derivecl fram its orvn
Statute. rtrticle 3h of thc I'errnaricnt Court's Statute dit1 iiot reftir
to the Coverinnt as sirdi ;is a soiii-ceof ji~risdictitinArtide 36 of tlic!
I'errriartentCourt's Statute tiieretorc iricorlwratcd Artick: rq of th
t:ov~narii orily iiiso far as it cotilti be regiirdecaga nintter "spccinlly
providecl for i~i trcaties a~id conveiitinns in forcc". Cunsequently tlie
I'errnarient Coirrt recop~ized the Covcnarit oril):as it rvould recognize
aiiy otltct trenty and con\.ention in force hliiwwri tlta pnrlies.276 ST.A.TEHENT RY Xr. COLIEX (U.S.A.) - I III j~>
Rrit urider Article 92 of the Chartcr, tliisI;oiirf is t1ie principal
judicial organ ofthe United Sations arid its Sbtule "forrns an intcgral
part of the Ctiartcr", Article gh of the Charter airthoriziiigtlicGen~ral
Xsserriblÿ and the Security Council to request the Court to givc an
advisory opiriion on any IcgüI questjo11constitiites a matter "syecially
provideid or in the CIiarter of the United Saiioriç" witliiri tlie rneariing
of Article 36 of tlie Statirteof this Coirrt. l,lorenv~r, tiifirst paragrapli
of Article 65 of the Statute of the prcsciit Cuirrt spccifit-alIyprovides
thnt "f/te Coutrtwtny gi7z rrsadrisory opiprion (PIntqi iegal qnreslionni
Ille rtyrrbsl of ïchrilnlbody ma>> .Be r~tdh~â~2d Gyor Ma raccordn+~c 7i'ith
tlteCharter tlis tJ'1~il~dxdinas fornnk,:s?tch n rdgrrest".No coiii-
parable prak'rapIi \vas irithe Statritc of tIie Permanent Court.
The Statirtc of the rcscnt Court clearly recogriizes the Cliaricr
as slich as an indepxiLrit soisce of jlirisdictioiiin addi~iuii to the
jurisdict ioiiconferred by ordirlary treaties art4 conventions wliicii
are biiidirigvnly on the parties thereto.
The C,harier is sornethitig morc ilia~i amerc Lrcaty or converition
between fhrj partic thercto. II isthe constitiit ifoti e internatio~ial
coirirnuriity.As this C,ourtstatd in its :ldvisory Opinion of April II,
rwu, coriceriiing Kepara tioi~s for Injuries sirffered in the Scrvicc of
thc United Nations: "Fifty State5. reprcsenting the vari rriajority
ol tlicrriernbplr of tlie international cutrirriuriityh, ad the po~et, in
conformity witIi international larv, to bring iritu being an eiitity
porsessing objective intcrriation;il pfirsoiiality,and not i~iertly per-
soriality recogriized by them alcinc." (P. 155.)
Tlie Char-tcr of thc United Xütions, of u~liich this (:oiit't istlie
principal judicial orgari, confers jtii-idclictirupon this Couri to give
ririadvisory opiriion on ariy lcgal qucsliori at the reqiicstof tlie General
Asiemhly. That jirrixlicion is riot conditioncd iipon the consent of
States çyeciaI1y curicerrieil, he tliq klernbers or iioii-rncrribcr sf tlii:
United Xations.
AIT.Presidcnt arid Mernhe~s of the Court,
Tiittiis inorriingscssiori 1shawed that,undcrthe Chartcr ofthc United
Nations atid tli etatirtcof tliis Court, the jiirisdictioof thisCoui-tto
give an advisory opinion at the reqiics:sof tlicGenernl Assembly isriot
coriditioried on tlie cunsent of States ipccially conccrricd, lie they
IrIenihersoi- non-rne~nbers of tiic United Satio~iç.
fb! Thc csceyiticin of dornestic jrrrisdiction.
1 sliall riuwshow tiiat t1iere is noIack of jurisdictinn in this Court,
asallegcd by Rulgrir-iaHungary arid Runiania on the grourid that the
consideratiori of the qiiestions subriiitted \vo~ild coristitute an inter-
vention in nintters wliich arc csentiallp witliiii rhe doine,s!icjucisdic-
tion, coritrriryto Article 2, paragral>h 7, of tlieChartcr;
In reviewing trie proceedings in tIicAsucmblp, 1 inditaied the varioirs
grounds relicd upan to si~staintlie cornpetence ol tlie Genernl Asscrnlily
to consider the agcnda item relating to tbc!observance uf Iiurria~rigkits
irgulgaria, Hiiiigary and Ruinania tiavirigregard to tliprovisions of the
Charter, ancl the I'eace Trca~ics. (Slteun, pp. 3-6.) But T xlço pointcd
out tliaiiritaking actiori ihe.4ss~rnblq'confincd itself toexprcssir:g the STATEIIEYT RY JIr. COITEX (U.S.A.) - I III jO
277
Iiopc that the parties to the I'eace Trcat ics wi1Itake m-ures inaccord-
ance with tltcsc Ticatics in order lu ensure respect for hiirnaiirights
and fundamen ta1 freedorns.TIie Assembly carefnily refrairied at tliis
stage ifrom taking action indejx~idently of the procedures tinder the
Pence Trentics. II is difhctilt io undersfand how it possibIy can bc
niairitaine4 that ericouraging tite parties tn a trenty to cxercisc tlicir
riglits or to fiiIfitheir oh1ignti01,iusndcrtlic trcaty can bedeernedan
intervention inniattcrs rvhicli areessentially withii~doirtesticjurisdiction.
Rut the AsscrnbIy lias iiot reqricsted the Court in atlvije it as to its,
tlie rtssernbly's, own cornpetencc iri ttic ficld of hiiman rights. ?'he
Assembly fias onty reclucstedrhe Court's opinion risto the rights and
ohIigatioiiç of parties tu tlic Pence 'Treaties to apply thc procedures
prot'idctl bp the 'Treaties for the set tlernent of difi'erencc~icgardiri;:the
observaiice ci the ternis ofthe TI-eaties.Observiiig tiic spiritof Article çj
of theCharter tticAsçcrnblyhaç not sniight to tr:insfer to this Court the
adjustrnerit of difkrciices which tiic parties Jiavcagiecd underthe Peace
Treatities tocntrust io other tribunzlls, thzitis,the 'I'rcatÿ Commissions.
It is important to note that th3 questioi~ssiibmitted by th tlssernbl y
donui require the Court to decidc ariy dispuic or to crinsider the rnerits,
validity or sufficicncy of the clairns rvhicliform the hasis ofany disputc.
The Court is açked otiI~7to advise ~vhettierdisputcs clo exist iinder the
Peace l'renti~ :iii<rvtictherthe dispiites .ArticIesof those I'caccTfeatleS
obligatc the parties to seitle suc11 disputcs itiaccordance witIi tIic pre
visions of the Treatic5. In no eveiltcari an opiriiorrof this Court advising
as to the inere existericc of dispirtes cconccrning the Trcaties and the
:ipplicabiIityof the disptite :Irticlcsto tlic dispiitcs be regrirded asan
interventinii irtrriatcrs solely or essentially within ttiedomestic juris-
diction of sovereigri States. ï'lie argument, valid or invnlid, ttint cIairns
which form the hasis of the disputts caniiot be recognizb eccausc their
rccogriitiort\vcliilconstitute an iritcrvention in rnatters sçdely ur essen-
tially mithiil tiiedoincstic j tirisdictionof snvttreign srates ha nothing
to do with the questions nddresscd tu 1Iiis Court. That argument, if it
lias rnerit,bccamcs rclcvant o~ily at ü stage wiicii tlie validity of the
cbirns formiiig tIiet3;isiof tliedispntes is tn he determincd. Tlic dcter-
mination of tlie vzilidity of ~CII claim, inclriding thcir tlisposit oron
juridictiorinI grounds or on the rncrits, is ior iIicTmaty Comniission~;.
Tlie principlc tli:iati irtcrnalirinnl trihiinal sucli ari'Trenty Conimis-
sion has, in tlie ahsence of contraru. agwcrncnt, niithority to clctcrriiiiie
ifsowri jurisdictioii,nt Iençtin the first tnsfama, lia; Iongheen rccognizetl
iziinternationalIaw and rrictice.
Thc Permnrierit Court o l'Iriterriaiorialjustice in tç Advisory Opinion
of August 28, rgzS, or]thc IrifcrfiretaliurO/lhe Crcco- lirrkislr Aarcenaznt
O/ Di:ce~fitrer,1926 (AdvisoryOpinion No. r 6,August 28, 1923s, eries R,
Xo. 16, pp. 4-29, at p. zo), statetl :
'I
....it is dcnr-having regard arnorigst other things IV the
pril~aple thaf ,3s 2 geiieral riile, any hnd y posws~itigjuristlictiona1
potvers 11x5 ?theright iiitlie firsplacc itsclfto dcterrninethe extent
of itç jurisdiction-tliat questions affecting tfieextcnt of the juris-
diction of tlie 1-IixcdCornrnissionmust be set tlecl by tltc Coiii~nission
itçelf rtittiout action by any othcr body being riecessary".
Hy Admiltislralive Decision II, the Mised Claims Cornrnissioti,
Unitccl States and Gemany, established rinder the Agrcerncnt of
August ro, 1922, ruled : SSATEMEII'T BY Mr. COHEN (U.S.A.) -- I III 50
279
parties rnatters expressly covered by international treatieç canrtot be
considcred rnatters csscntialiy of dorncçiicjuilçdiction and concern.
States iritheexerciseoftheir sovercignrights may enter iritointcrnational
engagements. States are Livuritlto carry out their internat ionalengage-
ments. By bccoming parties to treatieç States usnnlly iirtdertke inter-
nat ional obligations which lirnitIiejr oliern-issovcreigri right todecide
for themselves whnt tlicywilt or wi11riotdo.That is ilie normalpurposc
and effect uE a trcrily. States which eentcrinto solernn international
trcatics ta secure hurnrinrights and fundamental frecrloms ta persons
within thcir jiirisdictioncünnot escape their obligations orlthe grouiid
that siich rnatters are ci~eiitialIyof doniestic conccrn.
?'liesprinciples have been consistcn flyrriaintained by tlie Peri-i~aiieiit
Court of Interiiatjonal.?~istice.
111 ï'ke S.S. "IVitnhlcdora" casc (Scrjes A, Ko. I, Aiignst r7, 1923,
pp. 6-47') Gcrmaiy h4 sougbt ta lirnit itobligations unkt thc Trcsty
ofVersailles to keep the Kiel Canal open lo vcsscls of corrirnerce3rd
\var of af1 nations at peace \vit11Gcrniany. Ilnder a neiitraljty order
Gecmany Itad closed tlie canal to a British sIiipunder French diarter
cürryirig munitions to Ifanxig ior transhiprnent to E'oktridwheri Polaiid
and liiirsia were nt war. Gerrriüriycorttended that it Iiad tlie soverei n
righr io du tliisirioi<lïito protecr its netitral n tyimes ul \v\.itTfe
Cuiiri in rejecting thiç contention of Gerrnany stnted :
"TIic Cuurt dcclines to seek in the concliision of ariyTreaty t>y
which a Stnte undcrtakes to pcrforrri or relrain irom perforrning
a partictilaracr an abando~imerit of itsçor~ereignty.Ko doubt any
converitiori creütirig an obligation of thk kind places .sareçti-ictiori
uyon the exerciçe of the sovercigririgiits of tliStnte, in tht sense
that itrequires tliem to Ix esercised in a certain way. Eut the right
of entering intu intcriiatioiiaengagements is an attribute of State
sovereigntÿ" (ihd., p. 25).
In itshdvisory Opinion of I'ebrrrary 7,rr)sj, onthe iX::lrlrrnldOecrees
isstrcd 2'7sTzrnis ad d,Ioroccu(Frenclz Zo~bej mi hlot.eniber 8,qzr.
{Series l3,Ko. j, Febriiary 7, 1923, [)p7.-32]t,he Courtconsidercd the
qriestion whether the dispute bctxeen Pr:tncc and Great 13ritnin,as ta
tIie appiicaliuti of these decrees to British suhjects, iiivolvet~ uridcr
international law rrtritterssnlely of domestic jilrisdictioriGrent i3rit:iiri
contendcd that the applicntiotiof the decreesio British subjects invoIved
questions of trcaty obligations. Ttie Court'sariswer was tliattticdisputc
did riot inlrolve maiterç soIely of domestic jurisdiçtion. In its Opinion,
tlic Cvuri stated :
"For the piirposeof the present opinion, it isenough to obsccve
thar it may rveilhappen that, in a matter which, Iikc ttiatofnation-
ality, isriot, in principle, regukated hy international law, thc right
of a State to use itsdiscretion is, ncverthcless, restrictedby obliga-
tions which it may have uiidertali~~ owards otlierStates. In srich
a case, jur.isdictionwhich, ir~principle, belongs sulely tu the State,
is limited by rules of international law. Artic!e 15, paragrapli 8,
then ccases to apply as regards thuse States which are entitted
to irivokc such rules, and the dispi~teas ta the qtrcstion whether
a Stritc:has or tins not the right to take certain measures becorncs
inthse circumstariccs a dispute of ari iriternationalcliüracter and
2s STATERIENT RY Mr. COIIEY (U.S.A.) - I 111 50
Coiirt niaterials siificiciitto enalilc it to arrive at any judicial
coricliisiorupon thc question of fact : ?t'+rat did the parties agree
to ? 'TheCourt does not say that thcre is ail absolute ririe~iiattlie
rqüest for an advisory opinion rnay not irivalve some enquiry as
to facts, but, undw rirdinary circ~imstances, it isceclairilcspcdierit
tliat the facts upon wl-iiclithe opiriioriothe Conrt is tiesired shnuld
iiolbe COR~~OVC~SY, and it should not be Ieftto the Court itseif
to ascertain what they arc." (Series R. h'o. 5, su@n, p. 28.)
Xone of the cogenf reasons whidi the Coirrt feIfrcnderetlit inexpedirnt
for itin thc Euslent Careiia?~ cw,e to exercise itsjurisdictionispresentin
the instant case. The Court'stask in answcririg thc questioris submitted
in the present prncecdingis a very limited orle. It doesnet require any
weighirigordctcrrninationof the merits ofthe disprircs or any inr:estiga-
fion into the facts. The essential facts'upon whicli LIicopiriiciriof trie
Court is dcsired arc nat in coritroversy. Thc qucstians can readity he
ansu~crcdby ttic Court or1 the hasis of the Peace Treatics and the
iindisputed diplornatic exchanges submitted to the Court.
TiteCotirt iscallediipn ouIy to adviçe whcther, in simpleandpractical
understanding, the uiidisputed diplornatic eschanges disclose Bwtn fide
disputes about the intwpretation and enecutioii of the Pence Trcaties
and whether the disputes Articles ofthe Peace Treaties obligate the
parties to scttlc these disputes nccordiiig tn the pro ce dur^^ set forth
inthe disputes Articles. It was not the iiitention of the Assernlily at
tliistime to impose npon the Court the burdenof considering the merits
of particular claims, dcfcnses, orcnunter-claims. The:jurisdiction of tlie
Court to reply to TIIF q:uestions subn~ittcdto it is clcarand there isno
reüson which rnakesthe cvcrciseof the Court'sunqucstioned jurisdictioii
jnexpedient or improper!
I now invite thc atlctitioii of the Co~irt to the spccific questions
subrriitted bp the Assemhly. Uridcr tiieCencraI AssemhIy Resolution
nf Octobcr 22, r949, the Court is requested at tliistime to ansiiyerunly
qucstioris 1arid II.The resuiolutioiontern Iates thatquestions Ilf and IV
set forth therein shall be answcrcd Ialcr \y tl-icCourt ifreplies to ques-
tiens 1 and II are in the afirrnative and if the (;ovcrnmcnts concerticd,
noiwithstandi theg Cniirt'sopinioii, continue fo failto appoint their
reprewritatives to the Treaty Commisçions. Under the circnrnstanccs
the I;ovcrnrncntof the Knited States limits its oralstateiiictitat tliis
hcari~ig to questions I and II. STATEMEY U-r Mr. COIIES (U.S.A.) - I III jO 283
1>0 TIIE:Iili'I.OY ATIC EXIlASGES IIETWIII.:HI:L'.IRIAH , USGARY AXl)
RG>I.INI.~ , S TITE OSE HASI), .ASDCERTAIN :%~l.~llANI) ASSOCIATED
PO\VERS SIGNATORIES .I.THE T~<E!L'~.~ OF ~AcE, ON 'TBE WHEX,
COKCERKI KG '1.H1iYPLEMESTATIOK 01:AICI'ICL 2OF THE TKEA.I-IE WSI'SH
RULGARIA ASl> H~XGARI' AKD ARTICLE3 OP 'THE 'FREATY WITH
I<LII:;ZIA,I)ISCLOSE DISPI:TES 511HjPSC-I''FCf THE PROt'lÇIOSSFOI< TIIE
SI.I"TLE31EKT O[; I>ISIbIJTESCONTAINED IN I!I~TICI35:OF THE TREATE O F
PE;~CE \SfITH ~cLc~\J<I~,ARTICI.I4;0 OF THE '~REATY Ut; PI~AC $'I'TH
Hr:'ic,n~i, .+Si.~\RTICLE3s OF THE TKEXI-\ .F PEACE !%'.t'IiI;XASI.\?
This qiiestiorrriay,for corivcriiciice, i.considered in thrcc parts :
{a) iViiatis adispiite ? (b) What ia dispiite"concerning the i~iterpreta-
tion or cxeciitioriol tlie 'I'reatyivithin ttie~rieariingcfthe dispiites
Articlesui the Peace Trearics' (c)Do the diplornatic exciiangcs tiisclosc
a clis~ute coriçeriiingthe intcrprztntion or ewcution of the Pcace
ï'reatles?
(a) IYliaf isrcJisputc?
The wnrd "tlispi~ic"is nüt a tcchnicatworti.It lias nooccuItmeaning.
Tliurc is ndispute wiicncver pcop1i:diflcr asto their rigiitor dutics.If
partiescannot agrce on~viiat they may do or may nnt do ororiwiiat thcy
miist do or niiistriot do,thcy are in dispute. Tlierncrits ofthe dispute
have riuthii~to do with the existericcof a dispute.
When States intlieir rrctics provided procedures for tliescttlcment
01 disputes,the Perma~ietitCourt ofInternational Justicerightlyasumcd
thar tiicy iiiterided that those procedures slioulbe iisedto scttlethcir
diçpiites.'l'hePermanent Courtwiseiy refrairicdfrom ititerprctinthe
conditions to the crriploymerit of such prncetiures iria nraiincr wkich
would uririecessarily delziy or ohstruct 1Iicir eniployment. It wiscly
cschewed tlie schoolman's qucstion: When doesa dispute whether there
isa dispiite hecome ri dispute! II has coiisictentlytreatcda dispute as
to wlietlicr there is a dispiras a disputc.
In the Maz~onn~ndis P(il~sliîteCo~lcessio~~case Uud,gment No. 2
(Jurisdictinnj, August 30, 1924,Scries.4,.No. 2, pp. 6-93) the Mandate
for Paiesti nrovided tiiütifanydis~julc whatever çhould ririshetwecn
the Mandatory arid another 3Tetnberof the Leaguc ofNations relatiilg
tu the interpretatitinor applicatioriof the provisions ol tlieMaridate,
suçh dispute, if it cannot hesettledbv ne otiation, shall bc çubrnittcd
to the I'errnaneiit Court of Justice.'fhe treek Goveinment supported
the Illavroriimatis concessioandcoritcnded tliathe HritisliGoverriment
had failed tu givc ifulland proper recogniiior~.Ttiere hadbwn negntia-
tions hetween the British.Govcrnnieni and hlavroi~iniatishirno settle-
nicnt had hwn reacIied.The GreckGovcrnmeiit supportcd Mavrorrirnatis
clairnsfor the purpose of securinga s~ilirriissionto thPerrnarientCourt
but did not atteinpt to ncgolialc a settlement ivith theRririshGovern-
merit. The Coiirt gave rio signitica~icto the argirnwt Lliatthe Greek
GovcrrirrrcritIiad supporred the hlavrorririiatisc=e only to wurc a
jrr<lgmentfrom the Pemaiicnt Courtand that thereuTas no real tfispufc
between the two Statcs. Nor did the Pernianerit Court give any signifi-
cance to the fact that the Greck Goverilment dici riot on itsowr~
resprinsibiity atternptnenter into devikd ncgotiatioiiswith the British STATBUEXT Bf Mr. COHES {~:.s.A.)- I 11150
284
Govcrnrnent to narrow the içstieçor tu seek a compromiseT . liCoiirt
rtated :
"A displiteis a disagrecment on a puint of law or fact, a coiiflict
of legalvicws orof interestu hetween irw persoris.Tbc liresent suit
hetweeri Uritain and Grcccr possesscs thcse characteristics ....
(P. 11.1
Scgotiations doriot of necessity always ppresupposea more or les3
Icrtgthÿscricsuf riutesordesparches ; itmay suficc tlia t adiscussion
should have been cornrricriccd, and the discussion may have been
short ;this rvibe thecase ifadeadlwk is reached oriffinallya point
is reachcd at which ont! of the parties definitcly declares himsclf
unable, or refuses,to giic way, and tficreun therefo~e be no d~ubt
that the dispute cannot be settled hy diplornatic ncgotiatiori...
{P. 13.1
Nevcrtiicless, in applying this nile CtI~atorily disputes which
cannothe settled by ricgoiiation çbould be broirght befori: the
Court], the Cuurt cannot disregard, amongst otIier considerarioiis,
the views of the States concerned, who are in the hest position ta
judge as to poIiticalmasons which mny prevcnt the scttlernentof a
givcn dispute by diplornatic ncgoiiation." (P. 15.)
In the Case corzcerwit~Gg cLYC~ G~~rJan?~Inferest.?iw Polish ù'pprr
Silesia (Judgiiient No. 6 (Jtirisdiction), Arrgust 25, 192j, Series A,
No. G, pp. 4-41) lie Permanent Court had to cur~sidcr whether itIiad
jurisdiction under the tieneva Coriveritionof 1922 tietween Palaiid aiid
Germany which providcd that "should d-ifferencesoJ @$inionrcspecting
t!i~ cnnstructioriarid ;ippIication of Articles 6 to22 arise hetween the
Gcrrniin aiid Polish Govcrriments, tIiey shall be srrhrnittcd to the
Pemaneiit Caiirt of I~iterriationaJustice" (ibid., pGj.
The Permanctit Court migh treadily have said that tliere was a cleür
"diflcrcriceof opinion" betwcci~ tlie liariieç givirig it jiirisdictioii and
ihat irw~xsnot neccssaryto determirie wfietiier thatdifferenccarnountcd
to a dispute. But the Çaiirt\vas apparentlÿ aiisious tu moid infwcrtces
bcirig tirau*ritliait wauld Le more emctirig in a disprltc C:~SC,It ob-
viously wishttd io avoitl Iiavii-rgfrncspunargilrncntsLirought toit as to
the clislirictiori betrwen dispute aiid s differçricofopinion. Tt plainly
rtnted thai either a diffcrerice of opinioior a diçpirtecouid bc created
bu the unilateralaction of a party artd that the Cuurt çould not "allow
itscl ffbe harnpred by a riiere tfefect of form,the rernoval of wiiicli
depencls solely nri tlie partycoiiccrncd" (ibiJ p..1,4).In its judgmsrit,
the Court said :
"Xow ü rlifferencof opinion dues exist as soon aç rjnc of the
(;ovcrrimcriis conr:eriiedpoints out that ilic attitude arlriptedhy
[lienther contlictswitliits ciwn views. Icven if iindcr\rticlc23, thc
existericeof a definite dispiite wcr-necesçary, tiiis condition could
at ariy tiiribe fulfilled b uiiilatcral acliurr un the pzrt of the
applicant Party. And il~cZourt eatilioiallow itsîlf tube Iiarnprred
by a nierc.defcct inform, the rcrnaval of which deperid.; soIe.lyuri
the party cnncerncd." (ibid.,p. 14.)
At a iatcrstagc irithe same ~nattcr (Jridgmcni No. 11,Interpret ,t'ion '
ofJudgrrients Xoç. 7 and 8 (The CIiorz6w Pactory), Ilecember 16,1927, ST~TEYEST nY hlr. I;OIIEK ~L.s.A.) - -i III 50
285
Series .A;No. 13, pp. 4-27) the question mise whcther :ireqiiest by
Citrniariy fui an interprctatiuri of the L~u1.t'~Jiidgments Kas. 7 and S.
could be grüiited ililder :ZrlicIeGo of the Stülutc of the Court, iviiicli
proviiled that "'iiIl~cexlentof rlispulc as to the meaning or xopç ofthe
adgnieril. thc C:ourt sliallcurist-riieitori tlie reqii?st of any puty''.
khe Court tïtcd thai "in vieii.01the wording ul ~hrarticle, ihc Court
considcrs thar it caririutrcqi~irethnt the dispute shnuldIiave rnnnifestetl
itself iria forma1 way ; accordiiig t.o tiieCourt's view, ii. should hf:
suff~cicritif tlic rwn (;o\rerrirnerithave in fact shorvn tliemçelves as
holdiiig opposittt r-ieivsin1-egard to the rncanii~gor çcope of a judgrnent
of the Court" (p. II).
Ceriainly everi thc Hirlg;irian, Hurigarian ancl Rumanian Goverri-
rnents, werc thcy reprewritcd hcre, would firidit difficult toden3 tthat
thcir \:jevisof tlicir treritÿohligatiuris are quitc sliarply o~pused to
thow uf the Iinited States and other siçnatorie~.
(h) EV/d is ladaspitte"covser~i~ag lklrr d4vfiretdiorior e.~aczttiol;jilae
1recily"wifhi~t dherrscnrrlrgof Ikrdisp~ks .d?fdcJ~s fikhePmre Y'v~aties?
The disputes:Articles of Ille Peace Treaf ies rvcrc interidedto provide
the proccdiirtt for the settlenicritof "any dispute coriceriiingthe inter-
pretatinn or execution of thc 'I'reaty",escept where anutlier procedirre
is speciiically provided under anÿ article of thc Trr;tty. Thcre is notiiirig
iiithe disputcs Articles wltich indicates an interit toexcludefrani them
the settlement of aiiy dispute of any Lypc or ciiriracterarisingunder thr:
Treiitics except disputes as to certaiii cconotnic clüuscs for ~1iicIiii
sornerviiat difirenpt rwdure waç spccifically provicled.'There was no
interition to Ieave any gaps intlie tlispt~tcsprocedures proviriedin tIie
Treaties.
Iiidealing ivitli the disputes Articles involveclirithe Chora&d c~isc10
ivliich1 Iiave already rcfetréd,the Perniaiient Court stated (.Judperit
Sa. S, CRSC Cotzr~rni~g fke I.'ncl<irut CI~orzdm (Clairrilur Indemnity )
(Jurisdiction),July 26, r927. Series A, So. g, pp. 4-44, at pp. 21-25) :
"For the interprctatirin of Article 23, accolint rrit~sbe takeii iint
onIy of Iiistorical devcloprrient of arbitraiion treaties, as well as
the terniiriology of such treaties, and of the grnrnmaticrrl arid
logical nieai~ingof the wordç iisetl,tint alço and rnorc cspecially of
the fuiiciion whidi, irithe intention of tlic coi~tractirigparties, is
10 bc artrihuted tu thisprovision. Tite Geneva Corivcritinn ~irovides
numeruils rncanç of redress Iciseciirethe observation ol its clauscs
aiid itdoes so inways varying açcordintg a rhe subjects deait witli
utider di5ererit Iiéads, pairs or ~ulidiviçiorisof the (:onventioir.
Article 23 contains provisiuris of this kind in so far as cciriccrns
Articles 6 to 22 which iorm the greater portion ofIlead TI1 of the
First par^.
The &jeci of these rncthods ofrcdresç- ziridtbat of Article 23
iri particubi--5eerris to tic to avert the ~wsihility that, in cotise-
qiienceof the existence ofapcrsistcnt differcnccof apiriion hetwccn
the contrrictiiig partics as tu the irilcrprctatit~ror application of
the Cti~ivcntioii, the intereslu, rcspt:t for ivhich it is dcsigiied to
cnsrire, may hc cornprumisecl.~'
In this snme casc the Perrnaiient Court also szid (pp. :(!-?I) : "The Court, by Judgtnenfs Xrros . and 7,bas recognized tliat
ditfercncesrdating ta the application of Articles 4 to 22 include
~iot oiitytriose relating ta the question whether the appIicatiorl
of a particuiar clause tia or has not bcen correct, but also those
karing iipon the applicabilityof thcse articles, thais to Say,irpon
any act or uinksisioncreatinga situation contrary to those articles."
At an carlier stage in the s.irnecarieUndgrnent 30. G, stfpru, August
zj, 192j, Seriesri, py. 4-4r) the r'ermaricritCourt also retused to make
ariy technicaldistinction betiveen the use of thc expression "interpret-
ation ancl applicai ion" and ille expression "iiiterpretatioiur applic-
ation''.'The i:ourt stated that the word a?nd(d) "in bottiordinary and
legal Iiirigiiiigcmny, according to circtinistances, etliiaI1yhave an
alternative and ciimniative rncaning"(p. 14). In our opii~ionthe snme
may equnlly bc sait1of the word "or" w-hichis used in the dispiilcs
Articles of the I'eacc '1.renties.
In 'I%e :ITct;j~orrtwaais~rztsnbrrrCoxmssio~nscase (Judgment Xo. 5
(hlerits), 3larcli26, 1925, Series A. pp. tj-5). the I'ermaiicnt Court
suggestcd t11;tt"app1ication"-isa wider, more eIastic and lcssrigid term
thari "execirtion" (p. 48) althougli it aIso statcd tliat exec~rtion{vas a
form ofapplication(p. 37). Ttrnay be doiibted,howevcr, whett~etordina-
rily anp niatcriiil or hard-and-fasi distinctioitcan be drawii betwccrl
the rvord "applicatiori"and theword "execution".
It has ben said that : "Iiitcrpretaiioii, the process of deterrnining
the meaniiig of a text,may be distinguishedfrom application,the proçess
of detcrrniyingthe consequences ofa test with reference to a givcn
sittiation"and that "a dispute as to the application of a provision wili
arrnostinvariabry involve some question as to its interpreit ona"t(Hud-
son. Permane~rl Cmrrt oj Indar?tatior~l justice, 1920-1942 19143)
pp, 640-641).
Inits lite~alas rvellaç its ordiriarymeaning the word "cxecution"
refers to the carrying out, fultilment or performance of a treaty,cori-
tract or oblig:itiorThcreiore, any dispute asto tlierneaniiiç ofa treaty
provisiorr or action recjuired to 1-letakcn or mit to be takcrt uritlera
trcrity rvoiild clearly he a dispute ,concerning the interpretation or
cxeciitiotiof the trcatv.
(c) Do Ikc riiplontnlic exchan~~sdisdusca "di~pult:co?iccr~siatkc snfer-
#ret~ilio~DY cxecitiim O/ the I'euci: fieu-" xi/lii?r th8 ~nca~hi?t~/tltg
dispn~fes Ariic!B
It requires only ü superficialreading of the diplornatic eschanges to
see that thc vie\\-sattitudes and positiniistaken by the Unitcd States
and otiier signai-oricto the Pcacc Trcarics are difiercnt, opposedand iri
direct cnriflict witthosc oi tliees-enemy Statea snd ~liatrheseoppoçed
and clashirig views, aititudes and positions coiicern the iiitcrpretation
andcsecution of flie Treaty provisions, tbat is, the rncaning of those
provisioiisand thc ~>crlomance of thox provisions. The cschariges
plairily bristlc rsitconftict. SIiere is scarceIya puiriton rvhich they
show any meeting of the mi~rds. The eschanges clearly revea1 numcrws
coiiflicton issues of factand law.
Tt isdifficultrationaIlgrto aIi3wrerthc cornpIetcly irrationalassertion
of the t1irt.eGovernriients that no dis iifc exists. Tf tliat realIy is
thcirpoçitioti,the unqrialified denial al'that positiori by the Unitcd S'rAlEhiEh-T RY Mr. COHEN (u.s..~.) - T III50
287
States aridothcr signatories u-onld crute a displite. 'Iilie tlireGuvtrn-
ineiils mean to sa!?iliat ihcy cansidttr thc claiins of the United States
and other sigiiatories wholly withuut merit, thüt only indicatcs how
far-reaching tlic diffcrcnces arc.
Everi if we assiirne tiiat trie Courtcoultf properly relusc to regard as
disputes cornpletely frir~olousclaims put iorward in hnd kiitliforpurposes
liaving no Icgitimrite relatiurito ihc Trcaties, the claitris hcri:advniiced
hy the II~iitcd Statcs nrid other sigriat-riries caxinot Lie su r-cgardcd.
Indecd the General Asserriblylias exprtsscd t liehope that the parties
ta the Treatiesw1orild invok~thedisputes provisions to securecornpliance
with the hurnan riglits clauses. Obvioiisly claimç nf deep concern to
tIiewlioic iritcrriatinnalcornrnuriity.a concern exprcssccl by 47 XIcrnber
States wliicti supportcd the Ascembly rrwliition ,cannot Iie wavcd aside
as irivoloiisrir lackirig irigood faitli.
As 1 iridicalcd csrlier,this Court is riotcalled to pas upori the rncrits
of xny (lispute but o~ily to determirie wlicthcr a clispirte exists. If is
not ncccsçary he~e to rwasi tIicdiplornatic excliangcs into technical
pleadings arid lo expatiatc on each and every issue. Eut coriçuntrating
on the principal coritliciç rcvcalcd in ihc diploiiiatic eschanges it is
obvious thrit siibstantial disputes euist.
In its ~iotcs, thc United Stntcs
(1) charged rhat the (;ovenirngnt~ of Uu1griri:t. IIungary and
Kiiniania have denicd tu their peoples rhe exercise nf Iiurriarirights
aridfiiiiclarncntalfreedoms guarri~iteedin the liu~rian rights ilrticles
of the Peüce 'I'realies in violatinii of thcir obligations urider those
articles ;
(2) ciiargccl spccificallythe deriial of the rigiitsol lilc, liberty,
fredorn of expression, fress and yublicatioii, rdigious worship,
political opinion and public rricciing wfiicii rights are iriclirdediri
the liurnari riglilsArticlcs ;
(3) sct forth by way of illustratioii syiecific acis violating the
human rigiits arid fundamcntal freedon~sguarznteed by the Treatics
and chaiged that the tiirec Guvcrnmerits wcre rcçponsihle for tiiese
ücts ;
(4,) fiirtlier crtlbupon tlie three Governn-ients to take remedial
rtieasurcs to carry niit their oliligat,iorlunder the 'Yreaties.
(1) deiiied that thep l~id dcprived tlieirpeuples of tlie exercise
of liurriürriglits aiid firndamental frt:cdnnisgiraranteed irtlic Iiurnan
i-ightsArticles of tlie Trcaiicç iii violatiorof their obligations urider
tiiosc Treatics ancl asserted tliat hurnan rights and fundameiital
freedorris arc luily obsci-ved in tlieiicoiintries :
- (2) d:nied that there was any irilririgcr~icnt in tlieir countries
of the riglits oflife, Iiherty, pvliticaopinion, freedorriof espression,
1'resasnci puliIicatiuri,religiousworship, political opiiiion anri ~iulilic .
~rieelinp,as gilaranteed in the hunian rights Articles ;
(3) deriied 111at the acts cnmpIaiiicd of wei-e in violatio~i of the
Peacr:Treaties and assertcd that mariy of iIiem were taken in execit-
tiori ofoillcr Peacc Trea tÿ Articlesubligating the tIireeGuvcriirncnts
riat to permit the existence of organizations iiaviiigas their aim
thc dcnial ta tlie people oftheir demwratic rigIits;286 STATE~IEST BY Mr. COHES (U.S.A.) - I III jo
(4) dcnicd thal they were obligated to take rctncdial rnclsores
t.ocarry out their ohIigatioiis uiider the 'I'rtriti;s
(5) asscrtcd tliüt tliecharges of the United States relrittdto
~natters e:;seritiallwithin their domcstic jurisdictiori uiirleinter-
national law and iiaragrapii 7of Article 2 of the Charter, aiid that
tiic ciiarges cunstituteri ;in linwarrantcd interfcrcnce witIi thcic
rights as sovereign States.
To tlicse replies the IiriitecStates rcjoiiictl ttiatit mairitairieciits
charges and stated hy wxy uf rcplicatiori:
(f] tliat the :icts co111pIait1of~were tlot required atid cauld riot
be ~ustificd utidcr ririyof the 'rreaty provisioiis ;
(3) that the charges made by Ihc triiteclStates tlid nritrdatc
to rnatters esscriiia litiin tIieir domestic jiirisdiction under
iiitcrriritionlaw and Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter, atid
did not constitute an unwatrariied i~iterference witii their rights
as sovcreig~iStates and tiiat,on the coritrary, the cliargcs reiaring
as tiiey did to trcaty obligations were matters not essentially of
doniestic curiccrri.
Tt is clear frorn thk abbreviated statenicnt of tIic pririciyal issues
draivrr from the dinlomatic cuclianr"ç th31 the esclian~es disclose dis-
putes colicctiiilig tl;c iriterpretat~onesecirtio~~of ttic Trcatici;siibject
to the provisions for scttleinciicontniiicd in the disputes Articleç.
ARE THE GOVERNMEN OTS I~GLG:IRIA, HCXGARY nKD Ruw.ih-[A
ORLIGATED 'Y0 G.SKK'iOUT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ARTICLES REFERRED
,i-OiK ~C'ESTIOK 1,INCLUDING THE PROVISIOKS FOIi TkitlAI'POIKT%lE.V.I.
OF THEIR REPRESENTATIVES THE TREATY CO.\~.~~ISSI ONS
Iiiinforrni~igitieCourt of Our viewç on the first qiicçtiosubrnittcdby
the General Asseinbly1 have alrcady endeavoured toshort.that disputes
conccrning the intcrpretation or execution of thc Pcacc Trcaties csist
wliiclirirgerierallysuhject to the provisions forthe scttlernent cf dii;putcs
contained in the displites~\rticles.
The second qiicstioii iwhether theGovernrneilts of Bulgaria,IIiirigarp
and Rumania are obligated to carry out the proviçionç of the articles
referred to iii the firsqucstior~ ricluding the provisions for the appoint-
ment of their reyrcsentativeç to the l'reaty Cr)mmissions. Tlie first
qucstion refcrs not only to the disputes Articles but alço tu the hurnaii
rights Articles.
- The human righis Articles are ctearly and espressly iorniulatcd as
uliligatiorisupon the three States concerned. Thc articles provide that
the three States shdl take nllricccmry rricrisure to secure to al1 persoris
iinder thair jurkdiction the crijoymcnt of hriman rights and fundainenta1
frccdorris .ritrie case of the 'I'renties witkFiungary and Rurnariia, thc
I~umanrights Articles alsa provide that encti of these States "1-idrlimer
u~iderfnkes tliai lfielaws in force ,...shalliiot,eitlicriiitIicicoriicnt or
iri tlieir apiilicaiiodisciimiiiateor en taii discrimiriatiun"betiveentl-icit.
nationals on grouiids spccifically and generd1y en~imernted. STASEMENT BY Mi. COHEX (U.S.A.) - I III jO 29I
meet, but categorically rejected ttie charees made by tlicUrlited States
arrd other signataries. Tt is obviously inimatcrial why the Heads of
>fissionfriiledto remIl-e the disputes, whettier becausethey ucre unahle
to do so or kcausc thcy kiiledto act altogethcr. Tlic detcrniiriirigInct
js that the disputes were not resulved liy tlie IIeads ofMission witiiin
trvo months aftcr rcfcrr nolthem.
4. The fourth condition precederit to a rcferralof the rlisputcs tothc
Treaty ~:onirnissionç is that the parties dn not niutuajly agiee iipon
:iriotIier means of sett lement.'I'Iirecord beiorc the Coiirt .shows that
iio prnpal was made or consideration giïen by the parties fo otiier
means of settlement.
j, Finallp, it isa rtcceççarycondition that one of tlic par-iicsr~quest
th; referra ofthe dis titesto the Corn~nissions,The Court will obset~e
that in its riolcs ofIr ugust rwg ta the ihree Govcinrncnts the United
States Government expressIy rerlucsted that the disputes Le referred
tothe Treaty Commissions.
tjndcr the disputes Artictcs tlic Comniissions arc COMPOSC~ of ont:
rcpreseritittive ofeach Party 3rd a ftiird mcmber wlected hy mutual
agreement of the two parties,and sliould the trvo prirtieç failto agrec
within a pcriotl of o~tc moiith the Secretar Cy;eneralof the L'riited
Xations iiiay be requested by cither part y to iiiakethe nppoiritrneiit.
?'lie IlriitedStates Governmerit Iias advised tlie three Go\*ernments
chat it has desigriatcd Professor Edwin 1). 1)ickirisorto serve as its
reprcx~cntative on eadi of the Cornrnksions, and ret!üested tiiern to
desigiiate tlicirrcprescntativcs and to enter iritoconsu!tations throrigli
the Lnited States hliriisterin the respective cnpitals with nview to the
appoiritrnent of the third mernber.
AI1the conditions requiredby the dispiites Articles to givc a party
to a disputa the right to request 1itsreiererrce ta Treaty Commission,
have heen met.
It has accordingb leycome fhc duty and obligztion af each of the
tbree Governments to appoint their reprewritat ives on the Comniis
sions and to take such nther stcps as niay be necessary to enable the
Cnmrnicsions to be constitutcd and to function 3s contemlilnted unrier
the disputes Artides.
The wording of the disputes ArticIcs isclear.Tie wording evidences
tiie interition that the rnechanism yrovided in tlie Treatim for tfic
solution of dispu tes should be obligator ryot optioria, nriclsIiotiId
citsurc tfic final aiid detinitivc sctlleincriiof ciifferences. The Paris
Peace Confereiice iii the suinmer of1946 recornmcnded that dispiites
not settled by the Heads of Mission should be referred to tlie Tiiter-
national Court of Justice. The Paris Pace Çonfercncc rcjcctcd a
Sovict proposal rnerely to leave the scttlcrncnt ni disputes to tlie
Heads of Mission ading in concert. (Paris i'eacc Corifcrcricc, 1946.
Sclecled Documenis, Iiepartm~it of Stute Prtbiicaiion zSSS: Nrimaninn
Trcaby, Draft Artide 36, Gni ted Kingdom-Uni ted States proposal,
at p. Gjj7 IJ-S.S.R. proposal nt p. 678, Rcport of the Political andTer-
ritorial Coi~imission for Rumania. C.P. (Plen.} Doc. 15 at p. 733,
Vote in PIenary Session at y.Sr9 ;Rjdgririan Trcalv, Draft Article 34,
United Icingdom-Uni ted Staies proposa1 at p. 863, U.S.S.R. proposal
at p. 864, Rcport of tlie I'oIitical and Territori:iCommission for Riii-
garia, C.P. (Plen.) DOC. 22 at pp. qo7-910, vote iri l'lennry Session
at p. ~6 ; Hnitgnri~i~i 7renty, Draft Article 3j, Lnited Kingdont-Cnii-ed States proposal al p. Ioqr, G.S.S.R. proposa1 aip. 1042, Report
of the Polit icalancl Territorial Cornrnissiorftur Huiigary, C.P. (PLES)
Boc. 27 nt pyi, 1116-II 17, Vote inPIcnary Session ai 1).r195. I'he
Council of Furcjgii hiinisters accepted Ille Peace Conference rcconr-
mendation except tliat tlieCommission was substiiutetl for the Court.
The language of tlie disputes Arficles dcclariiig ?lotthat a dispute
muy be refcrred tn a (:nrnrnission but tfiat nlzydispute shult!C:ercferred
to a Cornmiçsion clcarly impoçcs a binding obligation ori the parties
to thc Treatim. ?'lie disputes Xrticlcç provide aiid wei-e intended to
provide the means by wl~ichdiipi~t es hhetween the yürtiess liall be
resolved "unIr-ss",iri tlie lariguagc of the articles"the parties to t.he
dispute rnutually agi-ee iipon ailother means of scttlerrierit". 'Lliirs
by the langiiaçeof the Trcaties the consent by both parties isreqiiired
iriordcr lo utilizrother rne:ins of settlement. In ahsencc of that comrnori
consent the parties are obligaiccl to erriploy tlic l'reaty Cornniissinn.
Sirice tliedispi~tes AI-ticles irrere clesiflerito providi: a rvoskatlc,
efiective anci ohligatory procediire for tliexttlernen t of the disputes,
the failure of a parly tu takc tiicsicps rieceïsiiryto enahle the Com-
mission 10furiction woiild May and make more dificul1 ihc carryirig
out of the clear purposes of tlic Trcaty jiithis respect. If such failirre
wcrc iiotrcçardcd as ribreach of obligation, it rvouId enablc one party
by ils oivn arbjtmr~, and unilateral action to hinder if ~ioidcfcat tiic
crtrryingout of the clirpufes .4rticles. Isuch an Ïnterpretatiori of tliese
articles were acceplcd, it woukdgo far to rcnder t11medisputes Articles
pwp~çelcçs and illumry. If the procetiure provi<Iedfor thc settlemetit
of disputes \vert! to bi:only opiional and suhject to nuIlification by
the iinilnteral whirn oi a Statc violatirigtIic Trcaty, there uroiild have
bcen no point in including it in the -1-rereüty.
When tlie Court cornes io consider the third arid fourth qircstio~is
subrnitted by the Asserribiy it will have to corisider whether a party
113s iii fact the fiorüer to bl~k and defeat the application ol tliesc
Treaty proviçio :ns hat WC riow maintain isthat certainly n parts
dot3 riot Iiavc Lhe legirl right to do so.
ln the view oftlic Unitcd States, thcsc Trcaties of Pei~ceare to Lie
coristrued in suc11a way as to be rneariirigfularid \vorkahl.hlI.n this
light, e:icb c:mtracting Fowcr h,x an ohIigation irigood faith to do
tlial wiiich is necessas to make tlie disputes rnacfiinery rvork. Each
State partÿ to a Trcrity of Pcace is eqiially boundtu give a ~rasoriablc
int~rpretatioti aiid a reasoriritilecfiect to ttic disputes Articles xs to
aiiv otlicr article of the Trtiaty.
In the ulords of tIlc Swiss zrbitrntor (Cl~nrlesEdouard Lardy iii
the Islatid of Timor Case), "Corivcritions betrvee~i States, Iike those
tictwecri individiials, niiglit to he iiiterpreted 'rritl~hsin the srnse in
ri-liicIititecari have çorne effect than inthe sensc in wliich they caii
produce iione.' :'{Arbitral Award, Jone 2j, 1914.tliidcr ttic Loiivcntion
of ApriI 3, 1913, Lietn~eerithe Sctlicrlaridsarid Portiiy:iI, Sr:ott, Hague
t:vurt fiepurtç (rgrti),p. 355, at p. 38.1-j
As \vas statedby thc Arncrtcariaiid Rritisl~ r.lniiiis 'l'ribunalcçtablished
urider the C;onveriiio~iof :2ugust IS, 1910, iiithe Cuyrlyn I~dictirs Crfsc,
"Xothinp is belter seltlcd, as a canon of iriterprctü:ioriiii:il1
sÿsterrisof law, than that aclausemusr be interprctcd 50 as togive it
mminiiingrnthcr tliansoas to deprive itof rii~iljrig\Ye 2r.criotaskcd to clivasc bctmeeii possible nicanirigs. i\:e arc riskcclto reject rhc
apparent rneaning aiid to hold that the provision has no rncatiing.
Tliis yc caiiiiot <la." (AaterPcnn a& Hritish Arhilraliow, Report
o! Fred K. I'i'idscji,Agcnt and Coiinse1 forthe United States, \Vash-
irigton, Goverririien t I'rintirig Offic(1926}, p. 322.)
Sitnilar principkcs of treiity co~iatructiciri linvcbcen statecl hy the
I'ermnnent Court of Intcriiationnl ,]irsliceTii ?'fieS.S. "k~'i?nbkfdu?b"
case (.lucigrnent 30. I, I\U~USI 17, 1923, Series -4,Ko. T, pp. 24-15) the
I,'crrii;iiieCuirrt stited tliat cvc~i wlicre ü restriclir=c iriterpretation oi
:i treaty \vas. admissible, thr: Court nlust "stop at the point where the
so-called rcçt.iictiiliriterpretatiotiwould bc coritriiry to tIic plairiterms
of the article arid \voiiltideçtruy whi~t lias heeii clearly gr:intedl'.
ln its:Idviory Opiiiiun iriregard to thc PolishPosfulServiceitaDanzig,
(:ldvisory Opiiiion Xo. 11, May 16, 1925 , eries 13,No. II, pp. 6-45, at
pp, 39-40), the Permanent Coi~rtsaid :
"It i~ a cardinal principIe of interpretatiori tiiat rvords must bc
iriterpreted iiitlie sc~~sewhich thcy ivould norrnallyhave in their
coritest, urilcss such intcrpretütiori would Icad tu sometiiing
unrerisonableor absurd.In the present case, the construction which
the Cotirt has placzd on the various trcfity stipiilationsis ~ioto12ly
reasonabIe, but is also s~rp~mrtet iy refercricéto the various articlcs
takeii by thcnisclvcs arid iiitheir relation une to anothcr."
Ir]coii~iesiori wiiliilicCase uJthe FYCE %OYS 0) WPer Savuy a?ld fkc
i>istrict ofGex (Ortler, Aiigirst 19, rqx, Series A, No. 22, yp. j-51, al
p. rg) tlic I'erniaiientCourt stated :
"....ircase of tiouht, the dituses oi ü special agrecnient by ivliich
iidispute is reicrrcd to trie Court rnuçt, ifit does riotinvolve doing
violence to their terrris, tir cotistrtlediiirimaniier eiiabliiigthe
cliiuses tIit.rriselvto h:ive appropriatc effects".
IIIits Advisory Opinion So. 12, SuvcrriLcr sr,1925. iiivolving the
iriterpretritionof Arta'& 3. paragra$h -3.oJ Ihc Trenfv of Lazisn.iwiciii
relatioii to tlie FrWier bdiriiem Tzrrkcy rind irrrq fScrics I3, Wo. 12,
pp. (;-3s) thc Pcrrnarieiit Cuiirt refirsed to coiistrue a tiispuies article
in ü ivny ~vliich~ould render it reiati~cly ineffective even thouçh the
Iziigirage of tlie article {sas much les clear thari the [;inpage of thc
rlispu~csArticles Iiere irii-olvd. The 1,ausanncTrenty provided that in
cvent of no agreement being rençiiedrvitliin nine nionths bctweeii 'Yurkey
arid Iraq ori the fronticr separaring thnse two cauntries, "the dispulc
sIi;iILie reicrrcd to tlie Council ofthc 1,caguc of 3:ttioris".Tlie Court
w:is nsketl to sriy whcthcr the cieciçionto be takeii by tlie Couricil was
to be ";iri iirbitrülaward, a recommendatiori or n siinplc rnediation"
(ibid :.1,. 7). Tirrkey had in:iintairietl in the Coriricil tiiat a defiraitive
settlcirieriof tlieI~.oiiticcould not he made witliout its consent. Tlic
Coiirt Foiind"ltotii from :igrammatical aricllogicnlpiiit of view as ivell
:is froiri tliat of tlic roassigncrito t1iat :irticIein the lJ:tect'rreaty"
(iti: p? .3) thnt "the iriteniioriol thc partics was, by rneans of rccourse
to tlie Councrl, tu itisur-cclefir~itiünd bindiiig solutioti al tlie disputt! STATEAIEST UY MT. COHEN (U.S.A.) - I III 50
294
~vhich might nriw betiveen them" (ibidp ..,19).In that case theCoiirt
had toinfer from tlie gclieraIcontextofthe disputes ArticIe that iRas
the inteiitioii ofthe parties that thCouncil was toliavc the authority
to make a dcr~tiitixend binding decision.In the disputesArticlesof the
Peace Treaties it is eltpressly provided that thc dccisionsof the Treaty
Cornmisçiorisshall he definitive andbinding.
Treaty provisio or thesettlerne ofdisputes sarong Slatcs arc tiot
unlike arbitratioragreetncritanioiigindividuals.Althougliçorrrecountries
including the UniteclStateshave found difficul~y intlicabsence of legis-
lation to givc full effecfto, or adeqriate redress for,tribereadi of an
agreement to arbitrale, judicialciecisiorisof nationacourts as weiI as
riatiorialegislatioii revaadefinitetrendnot only torvardsrnoreco~nplete
legalrecognition ofan agrccrncnt to arbitrate but towards more efIective
Iegd redress for tlie breacli of suc11r\grt:cmctiIn Rd Cross Liiier.
Ailentic Frtd Co. [(rgz3) 264 U.S. 109, üt p.123). justicc Hrandcis,
speaking for fhc United Sfaieç Supreme (:oirrt, declaredthat "the
substantive right created by aIi ügrcciricnt tu submit disputes to
arbitration is recognited as a perfect obligatioi". (Sec Bcrkmr'lz *.
Arhb and fioulfier(rgz~}, 230 N.Y. 25r, r3o N.E. 285, opiniorr by
Cardozo recogriizi titg;iStiitutcwhich providecl for specific enforce-
rncnt of arbitrationmas bea plied to anarhitratiortagreement conduded
prior to the Statute ; :WCFulluzighv. Cli~ch-!Pfi lctbcfticfiott Co.
(C.C.AS-r 931) 711:{2)17 denying relief on a coritracl aynrty rcfusing
to arbitrate. See alsoGilbcrt V. Bf$r?~sii~eetal, (1931) 255 ';.Y .48,
374 S.K. 706.)
TI~ Preat majorif yof couiitries nnw reçogriizeby stritiitor judiciat
decisiori abiridiriariagrecrncrittoarbitrate and most of these including
Hungary, Rumania and the Soviet Union provide çomc iorni of specific
relief (relief ftintara)for the breach of siich agreement. (See Cmn-
*nercinl Arbiiraiion ad fhe Law ÉItroughd tlz~ World, summary of
the comniercia1 arbitrritionlafiof43 States issucd by the International
Headquarters of the Intcrrin onalCharnberof Commerce(r 9491, Verlag
fuer Kecht nnd Gesellscha Aft., Basel.See also ProlocoloitArkilratiow
Chiaes, sigr~ed at Gcneva, Septcmkr 24, T923,Leagzreof Nations
TreaIy Serres, Vol.27 {1924) ,p 158-160.)
The recognition of the obIigation to carry ouf agrccd procedures
for the scttlcmcnt of disputes iri theinternational field is evcn morc
important than suchrecogriitiori. iritlie domestic field. For in the
intcrnatiorial ficld there is nas,there is in the domesticficld,rccvurse
to aiiy court of gentriz1 juriçdictiofor the Iegd and defirtitivsettle-
rncntç of diçputcs.
Wlien ilie parties toa trcatyIinve providcdmeans for the definitive
and binding settlernent of their disputesit isthe function of the law
to give Icgal effectto tlieir agreement hy recqnizing tlieiobligntiori
to setlle tlicidisputes in nccordaiicc ït'ithfheir ngreenlcnt. Treilty
provisions, and particularly provisi~ns for the definitive settlcment
of disputes. should not be constrried in aIlow the partics iirisuspected
avenues of cscapc and cvasion. Sniolderin agnd rrnreçoIved disputes
anlong Stat~s are too Ijkelÿto creat eeriousaridchrorticdistiirhanc<is
of intcrnationa1 relations and eventiially enchanger Iieace. ST;iTEMEh'T BY >Ir. COHEY (u.s.~.) - 1 III50
Tri conclusion the United States rcsycctfuliy subrnitsthat this Court
should answer the first aridsec?nd questiunç subrnittcd to it for an
advisory opinion in the affirmative.This Court's affirmative responsc
tu these questions çubmitted to tiie Gcncral Asscmbly m-i11ive rneaning
to the determiriaiiuri cxpressed iritliePrcamble of the Charter hy
the peoples ofthe United Nations "to estahlish coriditions uridewhich
Justiceandrespcct for the obligations arising from treaties and other
soiircesd internatiorialIaw be maintairied". A'rTHE PUBLIC SITTIXG OF MdRCII 2~d, 1950
MC. Prcçident and hlc~nbers of thc Court,
Sf\iyGovcrrirrientIiad hoped an the Iiresent occasion to be repi.eseiited
by one of the 1-aiv Oficers of flieCrown, on ac-cotiriof tlicirripux-larice
tvhich ive attach ro trierrraitersriow ticforetiie Court. I!nfortunately,
recent po1iticü civents in my country, so near iridate, liave rendercd
this iriipo~<ible.A!1 trie rriurc,thcrcforc, Iiave rw becri glüd oi iiie
presericcIiere of tlie diçtiriguislicKeprcscr~tativeof the UiiitetiStates,
rny learneti frierid IlIr. Beiijmiiin Cnlien. 'fiecase ofhk Goieernnient
aridof my Governrnent is furidamerttallyIltc saine, both ns to the fncts
and as to tIie Irirïbut he lias becn able to prescrit LIialca;c witiiari
airthority fo wliictiI coüld rictprcteiid.
Ilis1-irk~encehere also marks the first oc~üsi~ri 011u'hich the IiriiterT
States II- beeri 1-cpresented at one of the public sittings of the Court,
and I thjiik 1 am rigbi jiisayirig tbat ihc çamc nppljes tu the puhljc
sittings of the Tseitnatient Coiirt of Internxtioiial Jiistice.This, we
linoir;has bwn duc to circurristancesaiid iieverto üriyIrickofsypathy
with the u1oi.koftlic Court. It iserisyfor us, whose capitals are neqr the
seai of the Court, to attend the public sitting ; itis another matter to
take an aeroplniicacross the Atlantic in mid-winier, as hIr. Colicrlias
had tn do. Scvertheless, the Court is a world Court, and it isvery
irriportaritthat itspublic sittings sfiouId be attcnded by reprcscnt-
aiivcs froni ovcmris. For these reasons rny Chvernmcntur.clcomesthe
presence of the United States Representative, aiid WC hopc that th&
wilI be oiily the first of rnariy occasioris wlic]liscoirntry wi11 he repre-
çerited iri thisic~y.
Now, 51r. President, in tiie written statmeiit which the United
Kingdom Co\rernrn~rit has already had tlie honour to sutirriito the
Coiirt, the views ol rny Govcrrirncrit uri acli of the fniir qiiestionq
addresçed to the Coirrt by the GeneraI Assenibly ol tlie Uriitcd Saliuris
have been setforth, and 1 slirillnottake up the time of the Court with
rep1:tition. The factuüdletriils \vert.also givein w fxr as thep concertied
niy Goveriimenr, and al1 the remainiil:: facts have bbcetfiulIy dcalt with
in flie able statrnicnts macle on the prescntoccasion hy the Keprfien t-
ativc of thc Secretary-General and by the Iiepresentative of the United
Stüts. In the pr'cseiioral statcniciit,tIicrcforc,Tshall deaI rr-itcertiiiri
more general aspects of tlic subjcct, with sortiIcgal fonsiderations and
witli thc objections lo trie jurisriictinn of theCoiirt whicti have ben
advanccd by or on behalf ofthe Governmei~ts ofBulgaria, IIuiigary
and liounirinia. As I shall not, in niyprcsci~tsiatement, nttempt any
systernatic espositioii af the facts, or of the procedura1steps wliidihave bccn takeri irithe courreof this affair,the Court will,I am sure,
tiguod er~ough to regard my present rernarks as supplenientary tu and
not ns in any way çirprserling the ivritteri statemenl presented on
hclialf ol Iriy Govlirriment. If Iani cornpIlerl to travel uver snrnewhat
tiie same groiind as has been so ndrnirably covcrcclby the distinguished
Rrpresetitative oi the Uiiited Statm, 1sIial1 at an)rate try tcido so in,
as ~t ivere, i~tiifiereiiveliicle, and p~rhaps sometimes fmm a diffcrcnt
directioii.
The objecli~its or1 jurisclictiorial grouritis prit forlvahyl the thrce
es-enemy Goveriiiiiciit~ hi-id sirpprt in tIic corrirriiiiiicatiorto the
Court ma& on bchdf of the Goveriinierits of the Soviet Union, The
Ukrairiinriand Eyelorussari Republics, and (:zecliosIovakin. mie gencral
cliaracter of the staternents made is such, hlr. President, as to make it
riesirablefor nie to rccnll the riatureof the pr&ent proceedings, aiid to
dcfirie tlie psitioii of the United Kiiigdoni Govcrnnient in relatiori to
tlien-i. Part ai the casc putfctrivai-d Onbelialfol llic [hi-cc:Goverrirnents
consists iti what çecrn'7to he an atternpt to crcate 3 certain prcjudice
agairist rriy Covcrnnicrit arid ilic Goverriment of ttic United States
(if 1may venti~re on tfiis point tospak for that Governmeiit) I-iypre-
tending that it wx principaliy our riva Govcrrirrierttswhicli caused this
matter to be referred tu tiic Gvrieriil.4swnlbly of thc United Nations,
arid tliat tlie present proceedings consist of a sort of litigati boetivccn
the (;overtrnment of tIie IlniteclIiiingdomand tficGovernment of the
United States ori tlicone Iianrl,and tlic the former cricrriyCovern-
mcnts ori the otlter. Iwould reicr inparirticula o the obi;ervatiorisiiiadc
on behalf of tlie Govcrnment of Hungary, which arc recorded towards
tIic end of page 92 of tIlc volrrr~icL)istriIiution 5(+13 cvritaining the
writteri staternenis sirbrnitted in the present procccdings.
Xow, Vr. l'rcsident, it isiiot necessar for mc to rd1 the Couri thlit
thc prescritpmcwdings do ~iotcorisi~tof a litigation halween the ~nvern-
ment ofthe Unitccl King!om or aiiy othcr goverrirriciitand thc tliree
ex-ciic~ny Ciovernments. I hesc proceedings do not conskt of litigatim
at all. They consisr of a recluest to the (:oi~rt, not froni th? Ltiitcd
Kiti~dom Gover~rirricrilo ,r fruni ariÿ otliergovcrrirncnt, but Irorritrie
Gcncral Assernblg~ of the Uriited Katioris, for an advisory opinio o hf:
renrierftdto the Asçcrnbly itself.Now, it is uitc truc thnt one ofthe
qirestioi~s riiicii thAssei~ibiyis askirig the 2uurt is\i.Itçlhci a dispute
esists bettveen the Government of the 1,-niterlIcingdorn (amongst other
goveinmerits) and tlicfhl-ceformer enerny Govcrnmcrits; and itis qtiitc
friiethar (Iic Covernmcn t ol t11cUriilcd Kirigdom itself mairitairistiiat
thcre issuch a dispute, whereas the three Goveriiments deny it. 13iit,
itithe preçeiit proceedings, thc Govecnnicnt of the l;iiitedKingdoni k
iiot appearing in its cayacity as one of the protago~iists iri the dispute
wiiicii it allegcto cxist. Tt is appearing simply as oiieof the JTemhers
af the Utiited Katiuriç,and in accordance with tlie provisions of Article66
of trie Statute of the Court, u-Iiich exifts in order tu criable Statc? to
give the Loiirt tbeirvicws when ai3ad\-iwry opinion irom it is requested.
1 skaII expiain in n niomr~it the rcasonç wliich hiive decidcd rriyGoverri-
rrienttn avail irseIfof the facititiesafforded by Article Mi.
The procccdiiigs Lrforc tlic r\sscrnbly wcre i~titiatcd by thc Govcrn-
nicnts of AustraIia and Uolivia as a suhtaritive matter of Iiiirnan rights totlii~:irweedings bcforc the Court. A reccnt writer, Schwarzcnberger,
{ l?tiertuitionLaw, Vol. I, 11. 4841, has poiiited out that "such a
description would be very rnislcaùing" atid has pointed out that it
iç ;'more correct to describe such States as go'ovcrnmc tn concernecl"
or "intereçlccl goveriiments", as w% içdoneby the Permanent Court
O[ ItiteriiationalJiiçtice in its advisory opinion on the ir'reuttnetaO/
Volish Notio~aEsin L)Lirazi(Series AIR, Nu'pi pp.27, 35) .chlvarzen-
berger, wliom I rluote on account of tIic a~ititude ofliis stateinents
iri rnany of ifiesc co~incsions, gne5 an tn give ivhat is iinc~rrestioriably
the correct vierv of the positiori of suchStates bcfore the Cotrrt for
purposes of an ridvisory opinion. Such States, he says :
I I
arc erninently withirt the c:itegory t,frhose rvho are likelyto
be ableto frirnish inforrriation on thequcstiori forming the abject
of thc adviwry opinion".
This principle hns received express recognition frorn the Permanent
Court of fritcrriational Justice; for instanca in the Yù~kish-irrry
Frur~tiercase (Series 13,N" 12, p. 8), the Court statcd that the noti-
fications made to certain Governrncrits n-cre:
''bx5ed ori the priticiple laiddoii~n in the Kules of Court, iri
accordance with wIiich a (iiesion referrccftu tlicCourt for advisory
opinion is rominunieatçd tu guuernmcnts iikely (O LIE ahle io
sirpply inforrnatiotiitiregard to il".
It iç thcrcfore cIear that, however iri tercsted my Gorrernment niay
bc, and is,inthe outcome ofthe prcsent procccding before the Coiirt,
b~xause of its hearing on tIie dispute betweeri it arid thc three ex-
enernv Governinent.~, it isno+ as a litigafitor prty tbat ive are now
appearing, bui sirnply as an "interested" Government, and onc ivhich
is able to furnish the Court with certain necessary itiforniatiott. Indeed,
aç the onlyGovcrnmcnt which can furni511auihoritütive information
about the steps wliicli \vcourseives have taken to try to ciirise the
Ycacc Treaty procedure ro be implernentcd, the Uiiited Kingdom
Guvernment wottId be failing in its duiy as a .%lember of the United
Sations, arid in courtesy and respect to the Court, if itdid i~otalipear
in order to give the Court al1 possible ,information aricI the benefit
of any argurrients wliicii might nssist the Coirrt. These obr;crvations
fiave a cert:iiri hearirig on tlie applicationto the I?rescritcasc of tlie
prii!cipIcof the Easierg~ Curelia case, to ~~~11ic1lisliall corne later.
Inaddit ion to tlieseconsiderations, the UriitedKingdom Govcrnrrient
is iritcreitfe roi anotlier and more general standpoint. IC'ecorisidcr
that this r-equest for an advisory opinion raises twu or LIireeissrres
of coiisidcrribIcçignificance for the future of international law and
of the legai relations betweeii Stats, issrrestransccnding in importance
the particular points relatirig to the applicationof the Pcace Treaties.
Thc attitude takcn up by the former erieitiy Governments, and in
particuiar their contention that because, according to their assertion,
no dispute esistç at ali, thereis notiii~igto arhitrate about, tiik attitude
and contetition go lo theroot of the utility of cver iiicluding arbitration
clauses, or clanses for the judicial settleme~if of dis utes, in treaties
and other iiitcriiationnlagreernerits.11s the Court wil P bc awnre, there
arc dozciis, it inight riot he too rniich to say hrrndr-edso ,ftreaties
and other international ngrecincnts wfiicti provide that disputescoiiccrnirig titcir interprctation or erecution sliall bc rcfcrred to sorne
forrn of arbitra tiori or judicial settlerncnt. These provisions have
always been intcrided to have ohligalory force, and to lead to a definite
andfirial scttIement, by arbitration or jiidicialdccisiori, in the eveiit
of a dispirtearising wliicli could iiot be rcsolvc<lbyriny ot lierrneaiis.
If, howcvcr, it ispossible, and riotliing lessTCSU~~S frorii tllargiinietits
01 the ex-enemy Govcrrirnents, to defcat this plain inteiition by the
simple proccss of denyiiig rhat nriy diçpirte at al1 csists, Iiorvevcr
manifest it rnay be tlint it cloes, thest. datires cease to Iiavc aiiy
ubligatury force and wiII iiot br, wortli itic pper thcy :rre \si-itten
on,considercd as binding obligations. 'I'Iiis theirie1 5liaII rlevclop
fiirtlitrat a Iater stage iii rriyargiimetit.
Aliied to thiç qucstio~iof gencral irriportiiricfor thc fiitiitof intel--
national r~claiiurisi,s theprliaps siibsidiary, hiitnonc LIicless in~porarit,
qucsiiorrof Iiorvfara gouerrirnenthoiiiid by ailarbjtrül chuse in :itreaty
cari,ex-en if itdocs riotgo so far as to deny tlie existence ol a dispiitc.
neverthcIcss frustrnte ttic \vIiole intentioriof tlie arbitra provisio by
reiusirrgto carry out sorne esseiitial step iritlie procedure, sricli as the
nominarion of itsrnernheroii tlie arbitral cornmisriorior tribuiial : ailcl
whctlicr, irisuch ait evcnt, itis ne\-ertliclesspossible for trieotlier yarty
or parties ttutbc treaty, hy s~ich iiriilateraaction as is opctito tliem aiid
otherwisc in general coii[orrrtity with tlit:coritcrnplatetl proccdurc. tu
sct iip ;ttrihiitialfrniriwhicli rtdecisiortori tlie pniiitsiiidispiite ain hr:
obtnincd.
A iiirtlier gencral c[uestion rnised by ttiis case, of the tltrnost
iinpvrtrtnce in tlicfield of intertiatioriül relatioiis, is tliaoi tlie scopc
of the doctrines of doincstic jurisdiction and iiatiorinl stivereigtitas
escludi~ig int,ei~iatiorial settlernciii or adjutlicntioii. Tlic issue Iierr!
involvecl iswiiether thesc yrinciplcs have any apyi1ic:ttionin the cnsc
of nlallcrs \zxhich,liowc~cr ri~rrch slicy rriiglitutlierivisebe rniittcrsof
dorncçliç jurisdictiuii or iiiternat sovcreignty, aretlie subjcct uf sorne
clause ina trcaty or internatiorial agreeinent : forif the argutneiit of tlic
threc cx-eriemv Govcrriinents iscorrect, il rvillfullo~vx 1sçhallhope to
~Iiow, that itwould hencefoi4t1i be u-seles to iiiscrtiriany trraty a provi-
sion ori ariytliing whicii woiilcl othcrrviçebelorigto the realm of tlomcstic
jurisdiction or iiiteril;isovereignty. I sIittnlso Iiope tosliow the r:itiier
startling coiiquences in the ~iormal trenty relations betrveen States
which tvoultl result fro~n nn acceptance oit hat doctrine.
Hrirring t1iirscsplained thc tnotives wtiicii iiave led rny Guvcr.rirriento
intcrverie in this czsc, 1 will riow defer firrtlier consider:itioti of thosc
pirits iititil 1li;ivc clealwtitli theprelirniiiary objectioiis to tlie Court's
jurisdictio~iraiseclin thewriitcriçtxternetltsof tllr:thi'cex-e~tcr~iy(;ovci.ii-
mcnts and alsn in tlie statenicnts of the Soviet Union, HyeIo-l<riçsia,
the Lkrainc nrld LzechosIovakiii. Oi the various ohjec.tioiis to the
conipcterice of tlie Court to give an advisory opi~iio~ii~i tItisc:isewliicti
have ben rnadc, wIne nierit seriouç considerati annd wiI1rcccii-e itso
far as rny Goryernment is allc to give it ; hut others, I rnust obserl-e.
appcar to vergc ori the frivoloris. Xevci.tIiclcss, I feel obliged to say
sornething ribout them, and 1 thirik tlie Court i-oilIc1pr.oli;ibIiviçh me
to do su. There is, for instance, tlie xturiisliing argtiinent advaiiccd in the
-rr.i-ittstatemeirt of the Riilgarian Gavernmerit iIiat, sincetlie Pe:ice
Treaties pruvidc thcir ou-ri procedilrc for the settlemcnt of djsplltts,
this ncccsçarily exclu de^ thc cornpetence of the iieneral :Isserritily
oE tiic:UriileclNations ülid of iiic Court. Tf this is tiie Riilgiirinn ciew,
then why lia:: the Utilparian <;overrirricril pcrsisteiitIy refuscd to ,it
ihc Pcacc?Treaty prorcdurc into operation ? Havirig refuset1to do t1iis,
rlespite long arid carricst soliciti ciiitficpart of the otlicr intcrested
Govcrniricnts, I siihrnii, hlr. Presideiit, that tlie Bu1g;iri:iriGoverninent
cannot Lie iicard to advarice trie coritciitiun thatthe Asçetihly 2nd the
Court are incornpetent bccnirse the I'eace'l'rcaticsprovide a pi-occdure
for sctlliridisputes-a prwcdtirc ivliich, hnmever, tliEidgarian Goverri-
ment have refused to npernte. Alterriativcly, if they clen- the applic-
abi1i1y of the Treaty ~iruçcdirrc,thcy can~iot oi)-ject to tlit:AsserriliIy
obtainiiig the opinioriof the Cnurt astu tli eurrcctnrss {ritliis vicïv. The
Assembly I-iasfi~lly recognixed tlie relevarice a~id priiirity otlie l'cace
Trcütics aiid tlir: Peace Treiily proccdirre ;but becausr:thet'iree ex -
enerny (;overiirrieritsrefuwil tu vperatc thisprocedilrc, and co~itei>de<l
that it was not applicable bccauçe no dispute existecl, rliehssenihl, was
obligecl for itsowii purposes to relcr IIic iilattcr tothe Coi~rt for a IeaaI
opinron an tlie point. 1 do not think 1 ~iecd Iingcr ariy longcr un thi5
particu tar contentio~i advanced hy the Rulgariari Governrrient.
Allied to tIic Eorcgoing coriteritioris oiicadvai~ceïl by the Hungariliri
Go\-ernment, that neither the United Katioris nor tlieCourt was en-
trusted by tliePeace Treaties with a~y powers of control respectitn he
irnplementntion of tlie Pzace Treatles. Iliisis quite triic, but also, r
submit, quitc irrelcvarit, bccauçc it shoiild be clear and I feel surcit
wi1I he clear to tlic Court, that the United Nati6iis is riot pirrporting
.orattcmpting directlv io enforce ihe 1'eace 'Treiities as sucli. 'lUnited
Xatinns Iiaç ~iot had referretl to itariy qucstioircoiiccrnitig the at:tuai
irnplcmentatiori of the Pcacc Treaties thernselves. 1iIi:is, iri itgciieral
capacity as ari iritcrriationnl orgariization coi~cttrnetlwith pexe arid
seciirity, and with the gnrid relations betwecri Stato ririrvliich pkace
and seciirity oftm depcrid, arid as being concerried geiieraliy witli the
ohçerv:int:t:of tl~useIturniinrights, respect for whicb isoftcn a condit iori
uigood iriicrr~at ional rebatioris-tlie AsseiiiI>ly has, in these cüpacitics,
had referred to it tlie situation creatcd by certain allcgcd dcpartures
,[rom tlie basic pri~iciples of Iiurnüri rigiitsaid tn 11;ivetakpn piace iri
the thi-ee ex-enerny coilntries. So Far frurri tryiiigto e~iforce rhe I>eace
Treaties, the Assernbly,as I pointed out, szispcrided its owri nctioii, in
order that tlic Pcace Treaty rnachincrp rnight he put into operation Iiy
il18pa~ties ft>Ihe PLUCE 7~rca!it~ hc~mc!~,~:~T.he Assr:ii~blyeverituall y
decidcd to rcfer thc mat ter to the Conrt becari.~, uriril it coultl Liccome
pnisessed ol ari ar~tlioritatii-opiriiorias to aliether thc Pence Treat y
procedure w;ts applicable or not, inthe face of the detiiaIs of the ex-
enemy Govt;.riinii.iitthat it rvas applicable, the Asçernbly \vas uiiabie
to dctcrrnineits nwii futurc courseof action. At tli eiçk ofsorricrcpcti-
tiori, I havecmphasizcdthesc facts oiicc more because nt tlieir relcvai~cc
fo another and mrich more .wriouj ubjcction 10 the C'oiirt'jriiiçdictiori,
based on the priricipleof the II'asbvn Carelin cax, which I sliail d~al
witli later, Thiis, even ndrnitfing for present purposes the currcctness
of tlrcRirngai-iai~ argument tliar nejther rlie 1Jnitt.d Nation, iicirtlie STATEIIENT RY Ur. FITZMAURICE (li.~.) - 2 III jO
302
Court ha aünydirect power to enforce the provisions of the Yeace
Treaties assiich, it stiremairis the position that this inot in the lcast
what tlte Uriited Sations or the Court is trying to do, aridtlierefore it
can form no valid objectioii to the jurisdictiorrof the Court,
EqualIy irrelevant is the further Hirn arian suggcstiorithat certain
of the Great FOWETS haviitg, in ruppose8 defiance of their obiig.ztions
under tkc Pace 'l'reaties, friistratHungnry's adinissioa tu rriember-
ship of the IJnf ed Nations, it follows tliat the Uriited Kations are
not entitIed todeal witb any nrattcrjridkpute regarding tlim Treaties.
In parcntiiesis w-e may paiise here, Mr. Presidcnt, to riotc that, for
the purposes of this particular argument, the 1-lirngririanGovernment
repared tu adrnit that there does exist a dispute incortricxiori.
isi71 tIie Pws Treaties, altliough elsewherc arid ai utlier rimes it
has strenuoudy dcnjcd that any such dispute existç. Iveniiire to draw
atterition to this fact, buse the inconsistency invoivcd appears
rcpeatedly througho~it the arguments of the former erierny Goverrnnients
and their supporters, %-ho nre only too ready to invokc thc Pcace
Treafis when itsuits them to do so in order ta deny the status and
cornpetence of the Unitcd Nations and its orgaris, but who are at the
same time quile uriui1ling to CO-operate in the procedrire Iaid dowrt
by the vcry 'J'reatieçwhose prirnacy they invoke. Revertirig to the
Hungarian argument under discussion, it is riot,of courFe, the case
that any of the Great Powers have vioIated an obligation undcr tlie
Peace 'L'reatiesto vote in favour of the admission of the ex-enerny
couritries to the United Nations. for the simple reason that na siich
obligatioilexists or is containeci in the Peace 'Treaties. The qucstioti
of adrnissiori Io the United Nations isnot even refcrrcd to in any
opcrativfi clalrse of tlie Peace ?'rcatiesbut rnerely in the I'reamhle,
and cven tlicre only for the purpose ofmaking it clear tliat trie yrior
concIusion ofa ireaty of peacc, and the cessation of a state of war
hetween the former elierny countries arid the rat of the worId, rvaç
an obvious and indispnsable recontliiionof adniissioiito the Lnited
Nations. Hut, as thc Court wi I know. the establishment of conditions
in which an apy1ic:ttion can be supporteci, isobvioiidy quitc a different
thing from an trndertaking tiiatit wiI1 be supporteci, and no such
undertaking was cvcr givert,nor could it be, since the conditions of
membership of the United Nations are Iaid dorrrnin the Charter and
must be fultîItedbefore any ncrv members cari be adrnitted.
1 u111 now tiirn to certain othcr objections to the E'hirt's jiiris-
diction put fortsard by or on behalf of the ex-enemies, which arc of
a more solid chruacter. Without specifying thern al1 in defailorquotjng
frum partictilar staterncnts,it seeins that tIiese cihjectinns cahroadly
begroupcdinto tb-omain categories. There is one catcgory of objection
which says (chieflyon the pourid that the rnattersinvorvedare rnatters
of doinestic jurisdiction falling under Artide 2, parrigraph7, of the
Charter) that thc Unitcd Kations is riotcompetent to deal it-itthis
siihject; tliatthe Assemhly ms accordingly tiotcompeterii to car~sider
it ;that the AssembIy was accordingly riot cornpetent to requ~st an
:idvisory opinion fturn Lhc Court ;and thüt the Courtis irconscqucnce
not compctent to give an opiriion. This objection aIso attributes a
directincornpetence to the Court as such, as being itself aiiorgan of STAT%ME'.I'TUY MT. FI'I.ZS1AURICE (u.K.) - 2 III ju 303
[lieUnited Nations, aridthereiore itscli bwnd by ,4rtir:l2,paragr* 7,
of the Cliarter. Thus, the allegcd objections tu the cornpetencc of tlie
Courtfoilndeti ori Article2, ~inragr.itp71iarc hoth direct and derivative :
tliercis a dircct ohjectiori based on the fact that the Court is one of
the nrgans of thc Uriitcd Xatioris ilself, and there are oljcctiun.; derivecl
frorri the siipposeri iricornpeterice of tllc rissernbly whicti retliiested
tliea<Ir:isoropinion. ,41these objections 1hupc to refute iiidrrccourse.
TIiere alço seerns io Lc a sugg:,ueçtion-onwhich I shall riot Iinger,
iiowevcr-tliilt the Aswmbl y is incornpetcrit oit anoti-irground, apart
from tlie qircstionof Article 2, paragi-aph 7. ltsccms to hf:suggcstcd
that the Asserrilily is incornpdtcnton thesale grourid that tIte ttirce
cs-ciicmy States are not menibers ul tlic Uiiited Nations. Tn this it
scems io rrie tliat rhere is a very short aartdcomplete rinswcr. The
Asscrnbly is certüinly conilieteritto consider any t~ue~tiori, otherwisc
mithiii tlirscope of thc Charter, üffccting its o7an klernbers, aiid n
great iiurnbcr of ot-her States are hotli partics to the I'eace TI-caties
and Hemhers ol tllcUnited Nations. Eqtinlly tliere an bc iio question
-alid I shalI corne to that Inter-of tlic cornpetence of tlieAssetnhly
to consider in a general ïvay qu~tions ofhuman rights.
T1ii.i hriiigsrrie to the other niain cat~gory of otijccfions to tlie
curiipAciice of the Court, i~nrnely thrtt liascclin one form or niinther,
on the fact that the tliree ex-enemy coi~ntries are not parfics to the
Statute of the Court,arid have iiot consented, eitlier geritlra lrlÿ
ad laoc, to liicexcrcise hp thc Court of any jurisdiction iri the present
case. These latter objections purport partlÿ to be bascd on certai~i
pruvisiorisof the Statute ai-idof the Court's Rules of I'rncedure ; hiit
they are müirily fouiided ori,and indeed 1 tltink tlicydraw tiicirchief
iritcrcstand sirstenaiice from, the vieiv takcn by the PerrrtancntCourt
of International Justice iiithe Easlm~ Carelia case, wliei-ftlicCourt
dcclined to give an advisory upiriion to the T,ea,gue of Nations or1
grourids wliiclihad a partial similaritp to tiiusc riou- advanced by, or
or1 behaIf of. ttic es-enerriy Govcriiments.
Of these two mairr çatcgoriesofobjecrions in the exerciscof the Court's
jurisdictiori-iian~eIy,on the onehanrl, tltvsc founded on the view tth:ii
the United Rations jtseif iiricompetcnt, because the matier is allcgcd
to he essentially Urie of domestic 'urisdictioiiand, or1 tltcothcr, the
objections founded oriwhat I wi d for conveiiience cal1 the "Easl8rra
Cureliaprinciple"-1 propose to deal first with the latter, because the).
seem to rnc to be riot oiil~ the moçt important ofthr argrimcnts put
forwnrdhy, oron belialfof,tiie tlireecs-ciiemytiovernmeiits, but yerIiaps
tlie only ones woi-thy ofthe name ofargument. which they have put
fnrnürtf in Lfiiscasc. The doctrine of the Esteni Carclincxse,however,
is one which 1 tiii~ik the Court wuuld have been bound to takc irito
consideration iii the prescricase, even ifit Iiadnot been reicrred to by
nny of tfie corrtiris p;lrticipating itithes? prubccdings.
Sow, the (;ourt witl recollecttliat in the East~n Curelin case-if 1
müy just go qtiickly over the facts the l'innkh Goveriinient hrought
before the Coüricilofthe Txaguc of Nations certairi questions in dispute
bctrvccn itself ancliusia concerrii~igtlic interpretationalid application
of the 'l'reaty of Dorpat, aiid an anciIlztryDedaration, relative to the
çtatus of Eastern Cnrelia nsan autonomous territory ol the Russian
Ikderaliori borclci-ingon Finland. Kussin coritcndcclthat tlie matters
concerned werc questions Iiclonging to the interna jurirdictio~iof thebe "the priricipal judicial urgan of tlict'tiitéd Xations", xvhileArticIe I
of the Court's owri Statute saysthat the Court is "e~tahlishcd bu ihe
Cliarter of the United Satioris as the priricipal juclicialorgnn of the
United Satioris". Tlius, the Ci~i~rt is ttite~itity to which thc Uriited
Nations aiid itscor~i;titut.rorpins arccnlitlcd to look forIegal advicc.
In ttieesercise of itsfunctions. the United Nations h+as to deal with
disputes bctmeen, or situaiions nffecting, States not al1 of thnm neces-
çarilv or akay-5 hlcmberv af the Tinitcd Sations. Thnt isrecognizcd
exp&çly or hy inipLication iri several pi-ouisions of the Cliarter, such as,
Article 2, yaragraph h, and ~trticles-II, 13. 14, 32, 33, 3rd 55,and
others. In order to do tiii?;, and-uçirig the language of Lhe very first
operative paragmph of the Chari-cr (rirticle r, yaragrap h) -in order
tn do it "iri corilorrnity with theprinciplcs of justice and international
law". thc Enited Nations and itsvzrious organs must fieable to tiirn
to ttic Court for advisory cipiniotis. siibject,thcrcfor-e,to the irihei-ent
rigiit ofthe Coiirt as a cour;, and therefore as independent, and as the
higlicst ii-iterii;itional tribunal in the. wnrld, ro declirie toanivopinion
iiia case where the Coiirt itselfcoiisidercd that il it-oiild hewrong for
it to <Io50, 1respectfully sillirriit, subject tthnse reservatioris,thai tlie
Coiirt liiiunqirestionnhly ü right, and (within tlie same lirnits) an
obligation, to give ail opinion if it 'poçsihty caii.
1 have niade tliesc rernarksabout the sta:us and position of the
Court, bccausc ~Iiisis a mattcr of cardirialimyortancc on tiic qucstiori
of the Court's cornpetence. In the preseilt case, as it haypens, 1 do
not rieed to rely on this poirit in the formal sense ccatise, :is I hop
to derrioristrie, the circtimçtarices of this czqe cari bc distiriguislied
froni those of the Eastmn t,'areiia case in several respt-cts which T
sl!alI presetitly indicaie. Iltit1 must rriakcit: clcar that, in pointing
10 [liese distinctio~iç1 am iiot foi a ~riutrictiladmittiiig that, even if
thcy did not esist, thc Court would have grounds, in the circiimstaiices
wltich noïv regidaie its statu5 and position, for declining to give an
atlvisory opinion in tItiscase. IYltatever itwas righr for thc Fcrmanent
Coiirt ta do, the po~itiot?ol the present Corirt to-drry is, 1.subniit,
differcnt.
In actual fact, the Permanent Court itselflias,in rrsubsec~iient case,
that of the Frotstierbslween Trnq (xndTrirky (Scries R, Ko. 121,limita1
the scopc of the Eastern Cnrdzu ~irinciple, and altitouçh the circnm-
stanctn; were considered to he othenvise analogons to those of the
Badem Careiiu case, the Pcrniaricrit Court nevcrthclcss dccidcd to
give ari opinion, becairsethe question was one affecting tItecornpetence
of trie Ixagiie Council itself(Series E, No. 2, p.164) .s 1 shalI show
presently, tliis isalsotrue of the prcseritcrise in relation to tlic con>-
peterjce ofthe AssembIy, a point whicfi is incIecd specificaily raised
tiy the thrcc: fonner enerny Gcivcrnrricrits themselvcs. In the Tzsvkish-
Iraq Froniier case, 'riirkey wu;asnot at that datc ü rncrnber of the
T-cague. She was not rcpresented hefore fhc Court and, ~vhile not
actually coniesling tlieC:ourtlsjurisdictiuri, ~ent a telegrarii, wliich
is reproduced in the opinion of the Court, indicating in th: cleared
tcrrns hcr vicw tliat the Court oug1'1iiriotto excrcise jurisdictioii.
;VevertIi~less,the Court did su. STATEbIERT III'>Ir. FITZSIAIIRICE (u.K.) - 2 III 50
307
Hearing in mind the foregoing generiil considerations as to the
statu5 of the Court and its coiiipetence to give ail advisory opiriion,
I slialnlow attciiiptsome analysis of the reasorls for thc Pcmüneiit
Ca~irt'sviews in the Basterri &relia case. The Court gave .edtatseerned
io iiie to Iiave beeri its realrcasons in the following pnssage. WIicn 1
say "rcal reasons", 1 mean the actual rourids 011 wtiich the hurt
consirierd that tiussia's non-consent arid :ion-participritionprevented
thc Coiirt in tlie circiinistanccs from giving an opinion. 'l'hepassage
inquestion, wliicii is taken frorn pages23-29 of the rccord, isas follows :
"The Coirrt k aware of the fact that it is not requcsted to
dccide a dispute, but to gve an advijory opiriion.This circurn-
stance, however, does not essentiillly rnodify the nbove conçider-
arions. The question put to the Court is rio1 oiic of abstract
Inw, bid concentsdirectly the mit& +oi~itof the coirtroucrsybetween
Fifdand and Ri4ssia. and crtr tdy bc decided by a?i aavatigcitio?~
info the facts iinderiying the case. Ansivering the cluestion wouid
bes~rtistatialtyequt~alentlo decidiftçIksdispde betweclz th6 $üriies.
TlicCourt,beinga Court of Justice, çannot,everi ingiving advisory
- opinions, depart from fk~ essedial rules gtriding their activa'tos
u Cotir€."
In reading tlic foregniiigpassage, 1 1iar.ecnipha~i~ed certaiii plirases
(itaiicizcclwliich ,wrn to nie to indicaie titc csscntial grounds on
wtiicli the Court corisidered thiit, iri tiicparticuiar circurnstances of
the Easlmsf Cardia case, thc Kirssiün non-conseiit anci noii-parti-
cipaiion siiould preverit if frorri delivering ari opinion. The firstof
these \vs iliat if ihc Court gave :in opiriionit ivouldiricffcctbe decid-
ing the siihstance of the issue between Fiiiland and Russia. Norv,
Mr. I'r~~dent, Iam particularlyaiixioirs,in w1iat 1 am saying now, not
to irnplythat this tvould infact Iilivebccn, or ratlier, would noie-Le
a sufficicnt round in itself fodeclining IO give an opinion. That can
be lait fur %turc consideiatioii if and when ir arises. The puiiit is,
it does not arise now. Itdm not ririsein the present proccedings at
all, becanse the questions refcrrcd to the Court in these particular
proceedings do riot in any way coricern the suhrta~itivc quetionç
ai içaie bctrvccrithe parties, i.c. the altegert violatioiis ofIiuman rip"hts
by Bukaria, Hurigary and Houmariiü, cotitrary to ccrtairi provis~ons
of the Peace 'Treaties. ?'liCourt is not crtllediilinito pronounce on
iIiose &ues, but to.give an opinion on aiiotitcr point, namely, ivhctIier
those issues thernsclvesshould lie referrcdto the kace 'l'r~~ty :Irhitr;il
Commissions, this opinion beiiig reqriirerlby t lie GeneraI AssernbIy
of the 1Jnitt.dXations in order to enable itto dcterrnirtc its o\r7ncoin-
petencc and future action and praccdrrrc. The giving of an opinion
on this prelirninary cluestion mil1 not in xtiy way settIe or prejudge
the mniri issues. Iiirill not thereforcin anv scnsc-to use the Ianguage
ernpIoyed iri 1hc Eastertt Careh casc-"be sulistantiallyequivalerrt
to decidiiig the disputc betwc-een the parties". On the contrary, that
dispiite willstill reniain rbe decided by wliatevtr incans are Irereafter
foutid to bc Iegitimate, appropriatc and possible. Ai1 that the Court
will be doirig,by givitig its opiriion iri the riresentprocccdings, zvill
he not to settle the main issue, hirt tn indicate wkiether or not the
partics are undcr an oMigntiori to re5ot.tto a spccifieclprocedurc for
çettlirigthat issuc.30ti 5TXrEME'rT Bk' hIr. FITZMAUIIICE. (u.x.) - 2 111 50
-4 point wliicti shoulcl beeinphnsizcd iiithis conr~cxioriis that the
riip.1fact that a ieqiiest for ari advisory opiriion reiates to somethiirg
wfiich is irtdisputc bctu-LT~I two States is not in itself a grourid for
declining juriidiction. 'l'he Peimancrit Coiirt gave advisory opiiiioris
in, to iise afigure of sprirtcii,litccaly dozeiiol such cases. One cniinent
airtltority ui-the work of the Yerniancrit Court. and a fornicr judgt.
of tfie Court, welI known 1 think tci members of tiic Court, Judge
Hudson, gues m far <as to say (7'hc Pcrnm~ic~~C t owri of rridernnliond
Jzssiice, 1920-194p 2.,495) tiiat, in abroad sen=,
"cricl if thc retluests for an advisory opiiiion .... Iis relatrd
to a dispute .... iria niitilhcrof iristaiiccs tIic questions liararisen
as difierciiccs bctwcert States, so tliat ther~:was a clisp~ite inthe
iinrrorvcrsense of the rerrn 35 it isirsed in Xrtidc $3 of the 1936
Rulcs".
Yi1fnct, aç the Court \y111kiiow, ilrticlcç $2 ürid $3 oi the Rulcs of
Pruceclirreof ~hc Court clearly recogn izcthe cornperencc oftht: Court to
give ari aclvisory opinion, even IliougIi tllc issue relates to a diçpilte
bctweeri two Statcs. These rules make actuaI provijiutifor [lie (:&se,and,
althongh, for some rcasun 1 I-ia\,criot becn abito f;itIioin, thcy arc citltd
by t1ie ex-eiiemy Go\-crriniert t as supporting their conterition ihüt tlic
Court lacks jurisdiction, their langiiagc is,irifacl, difficrilt to r~coiicile
witk the vicw tliat riciri-rriernhetsh iC tlie United Xatioi-ts ard non-
consent in the reference to tbc court in arig way prcclucles the I:ourt
frorn givitig the drsired opiniori. If ariythirig, tiiese ICuIes irnply tlie
cantrary. 'l'hey csprcssiy coritemplate tlie çaçe where (T qriutc Lorn
Rule S2) 'rthcrequest for :in arlvisoi-yopinion relatesto a le@ questivri
rrdibnliy#ei~dP~t-hgetween two or niore Statcs". Yuu cuulcl Iiardly have
it pur niore sttoriglp tliürtkiat. Hui tbrse IKules (82 and $3) do ~iot iri
ariv way preclude tlie Court from giving ail advisory O iniori in such a
case. All that they cin jsro siiggcstthrit, in this type o /case, the Coirrt
~voulct "bc giiidcd by thc .... rules rvhich apply incontentioirs caics, ro
the estent to wkiicii it i-ecognizcs tiiern to be applicable". 'Tliey alsu
yrovidc (Rule 33) thai, irisucli cases, Article jr of the Sratiite çhall
appIy, i.e. iritcrested govttrnrnetits iiot Iiax-iriri judgc ol tlieir own
nationality on the Coirrt iriay bc per~riitted to dioose one ; biit in tiie
prescrit case the ex-erierny (;ox:ernrncnts liave not clrctccl to apply for
this facilit?. and on tlic contrary deriy the jurisdiction of the Court
cntirely. For tlic rest, the Coiirt iinder its rules onIy has 10 lw guided
by the rtiles applicable iiicnntc~iiiuiis castis"iothe exie.+bft.wlaicI1it
rt:copaiz~s flic^^ioho~~PpIP'c~~tlS lc''t.hC.oririis riot ohliged,irithe case
uf advisory opiriions, to applp the riilc which prcsails iricortteritiouç
rases that the partic msusi, eillier radhocor bp soiriegerieralcieclnration,
have acceptcd fhe jurisdiction of the Couri, which içapyareiitly what
the ex-cnctiiy Goverri tnents arc coiiteriding.On tlic coritrar17,tlie Criurt
is entiilcd to hold tliai it is quite sufficieiit for thStates which might
be iritcrestetto bc giverlan opportiinity of iritervenirigtiiiderArticle6G
of the Statiite. It will he secn tliercforc that tlic wholc argurrieritof ttic
es-eiiemics hzcd on, thc ariiilogp ofcontent ious procedure breaks doivn
üiid is erroncous. Tlie Permanent Liiiirt gavethe T.cagiic Coiiricilrriany
atlvisory opinions in cases rclating to qilest,ioiis aiissiicbetween Iwo
States. one or both of u~hiclihad riutiicceprcdthc conipdsory jurisdictiori
of the Coiirt,andivhicii orilyappeared belore tlieCourt. if t-beyajipcared "Tt is iiriihregret that the Court, the Kusçian Governrnent
Iiavirig rciused tiieir concurrence, finds itself unablc to piirçucthe
iiix-estigationwhich, as the terms of the Councii's Resdution had
fomsfiridowed,would require the consent and CO-opcratiotoif bot11
parties."
1-his suggestç tIiat the position in thc Easkrn Cnrelia casc )vas not
mcrely that the Court wouid not give an opinion, but that it üctuaI1y
coirid not do so. (It may evenbe rvrong to talk of thePermanent Court
havine "declined" to gve an opinion. or Iiaving concluded that it had
nojurisdiction. It~ COIIC~US~O~I1,suggest, !vasrathcr tliatit rcFasrriatcri-
aIly impossible for itto give an opinion in the circurnstancH esotv)
it is cicar that no suchdifiiculty exi~ts in the present case. The Court
alreadp lias ailttierelevantinformation.No furthcr fncts or investiga-
tions are iicccssarp.StiIIless is tlie esamination of witnesses required.
Tlicquestions put to the Court are prlreiylepl : inorder to answerthem
the Court onIy needs the texts oftbc rclcvant iristrurncritsarid the
doc~irnents. 'l'heviews and argumentsofthe three ex-enernyGovrrn-
rnegits arc fully csposcd in the correspondence with which the Court
Iiaç ülreaùy beenfurnislied, arid in thcir own conirnuriicatioris tu tlie
Court. Althougii, as the Perniaiicnt Court poirittd out in the Casl~ni
Careliacase, the Court,beiiig a Court of Justice, must, even in giving
what is tcchriicallyoiily an opinion, actin a judicial niai-incr,the Court
in the present case has al1 the data arid Iiasgone through al1the pro-
ccsscs iicccssary to fulfil tliirequirrnient. Here again, 1 am mwcly
distiriguisIiinthe present case from tlic Euslerlt Carelictcase, arid 1
must not he taken to irnplythat the non-appearmce ofan interested
party bcfore the Court, even if thisgives rise to ctrtaiiidifFicuItiesof a
practiçal order, if;initselfa grourid for dccliriirigto give an advisory
opinion. Even iiicontentious cases.we findin Article 53 of the Coiirt's
Statute Iliatif orleor the parties fails toappcaror to dcfend its case,
the other mav cal1 an the Court to decide in frivour ofthe claim. The
Cotirt rniist,of course, inaccorrlance -<th paragraph 2of that Aiiicle,
satisfy itsclltliat tltc dairnis foiinded in fact and in lais.Stiil,
this Article does show that non-rippearance isnot anv.formal bar to
adjudicatiori,stiI1Iess,ofcourse, to the giving of anadvisor! opiriion or1
the part of the Court.
Finally, 3-Ir.Presirlei~t, soCar as tlie I<caslerfaL.t,iireliacase is con-.
ccrned, there was a furtherconsideration which seems to me to have
Iiad rnucii to do with the Court'sattitude, eiten if itwas perhays riur
esprcsscd in ;tctuaI ternis. In the Ensterti Cnvelirt casc, the I:oirrt
seerris to tinve fclt that the advisory opiiiioii was bcing rcquested ~ioi
so rnucli for the pur~ioses of the Council of thc League, xs sucdi, as
for the express pui-pose of procuring or trying to procure a settlernent
of a direct dispute between Finland and Russia. Thc imprcssioiirvhicit
* T myseif get from reading the decision in trie Eaîtsrri Carclia case
is this, that thc Court felt the Council of the T.engue had, in ,eff~ct,
as it ivcrc,delcgated to the Court the doing of sornelhing whicli tIic
CounciI wnuld not nr couId not do foritsel it,other rvords, tiie settling
of a disputc betwccn two States ; and that the opinion was reqtiested
rnaitily for thüt purpose, rathcr than for the yurposcs of thc Council
ifself.It seerns to me that the Court, tliougIi itsaid nothing about
iliri cxprejs tenns, i~ripliedtlint çudi was the position, bccaiisc at3x2 STSlLEhlEXT BY >Ir. FITZIIAURICE (u.K. ) 2 III 50
by the Perrnatient Court in the Capka~zdaris-MobEoflAgreewnl case
[Series AIB, NO. 45, p. 871 , here the Court took the i~iewthat States
interested in a rettuestforan advisoryopinionmay not, byciitcrirtginto
ait agreement for the purlxise, procrrre an extcnsiorrofthe advisory
rocedurc beyond tiie limitsofthe requcst as Emrned by the reqiiesting
6w~~ir~tio~. It riradecidsd, inoilier ivords, thii thCourt niust adiieie
to the iictiiaternis of tIic request, an<Ithat even if allthe interested
States wcrc agreedin imnting someextcnsioriof the request, and fortlie
Court lo go into ndditiona1 mattcrs, tlie Court must not acccdc tu ,uch
a request. In othcr rvords, the CourtstressedIlte pcsitionthritthe opiniori
1s seq~icstedby and given to the Organizatiort, üiid not givetito ariy
iridividualStates.
Stressniust aIsobe laidoitthe prirnary objcct and furictioriof advisory
opinions,narnelyof facilitating the ivorof the requesting Or anizatiori.
Inspeakin gfthe partplay4 bythe üclvisory opinionsof thc 5 errnanent
(:orirt in promoting tlie u-ork of the I.eagiie, Judge Hudson (op. cil.,
p. ~23)~ siid riiis:
"'l'his isnot merely because a request for an advisor) up'i!ion
may bc a nicaiisof güining tirne orof shiftirig the tiieritofdiscus-
sion in an acute situation ;tIic Court's opinion Inay clarify difticult
quststioiias to the Couricil'scornpetenceor it müy disliuse of legnl
questions wliich çonrlition progres on the settlernent ot ~oliti~l
issucs."
I carriestlsubrnit to the Court that this fast phrase cxactly applics to
thecircumstaiices of tlic prcserttcaw and afEnrds rhc çtrorigestgrounds
for the exerciçe of thc jurisdiction to give an aduisory opinion, bearing
in mirid alsu the status and position of the Court as an orgaii oi tlie
Uiiited Xntioiiç, and its principaljiidicinorgarint that, a posiiioristiich
the Permanent Court waç never in vis-A-vis the Lengue. Just ri^itcoiild
ncver bc contendeci that the Court should decline jurisdictiori iii a
contcn tious iitigation betwmn two States merely hecairse the cvcniiial
judgment given bÿ tlie Court rnigfit involve the interprctritioriof a
claiiçein the organic iristrument of an iiiternationalOrganization,thus
indirectly afiecting thc Orgatiizatiuri,u crlually,in riniiple, siiou!dan
advisory opinion not be rrfured to an interilatioi~alBrganlr.tiornnereiy
because the opiriiorrelates to an issue bctweeii States not al1of them
rricrnbcrsof the Organizatioii,tliüs iridirectly affecting thoseState. As
ure in Icngland say, rvhai issaiiceforthe goose, issauce iur-the gander !
31r.Yresident, T dealt this rnotriing witlithe principleof the Embrs
Carelin case and its varioiisirnpficütionç.Tnow turn to the otlier main
category ofobjccfion, to the C:oiirtjuriçdictioriadvanced by the former
enerrip C;overi~menisand tlieir supliortersThis objection is stated in
tlifferentways, but iri essence it is that tlic biiited Kations itself is
incornycteitt to consider this mat ter,Iargely on account ofArt icIez,
pangraph 7, of the Charter, wiiich precludes intervention in rriatters
essentiaI1yof domestic jurisdiction,and it is allegedthat tlie suhstatire
qucstioris liereinvrilvcd fa11 within tliat category Çonscqucriity, itis
siid that no organ of the United Nations is compctent. The Court, STATEMEKT BY arr. FI?.Z>lilUHIi:E(~J.K.)- 2 III 50
314
ofhuman rights arisingilriderthe Pcace ï'reaties are iifact esscrltinlly
matters of dornestic jurisrliction; but, ofcourse, 1 will çay çornetliirig
about tliat. Article z,paragraph j, of tticCliartersays that the United
Nations is iiot aut1iorized"to irifervenein matters whichare csscntially
within ttie domeçtic jiiristiictioof any Sfate". T1ie Court is not on
the present occasiori beirig askcd io give any yneral interpretation
of this praviaioti,arid 1 shall riotattempt to do so ntyself.1 s11:ilnot,
for iristarice,go inio such qtiestians as the mcaning of the word
Ir'
intervene", or ask whether the consideration of a matter by the -
Assembly, or.ari espressioriof an opinion bv tlie Court, would amoutit
to "iritervention" t'y the lliiired Sations or any organ of tlic United
Nations. On tlic present occasiori I espres no vicws on these points.
Equally I sliall only refer to, withoirt seeking to druw any Final con-
clusiuri from, the fact that questior~ of lirirnan rights, apart from
affectitig good relations belwven States, aiid ultimatcly, ihereiotc.
internalional peace and sectirity, are Io-day the suhject of dctriiled
provisions in importalit iiternational instrunients. Therc arc, Iiowever,
two poi1it.sflint 1 uF:iritu ~nrike. In the first place, it sccms to rric
impossible to coritend that the United Natioiis I:;is riot a legitiiriate
iritcrcst inquestioiis ofhirman rigiiis or that thrse qucst ioris arein
any way foreign to its iunctiurisüs the griardianof iriteriiativnalpcace
and security. Indeed, tliecoiitrnruis specifically reçt~gnizedt>yArt-icl55
of the Cliarter, whicli providcs that the United Kations is, arriongst
uilicr things, to proniote "uiiivcrsal respect for. and observnrice of,
human rights", nridis tu do tiiis "rvith a vicrto tiie creation of con-
ditions of stahility nrid rvell-heing, -icIaPcire ?teczssnry !or ficacc(111
and /ricdly rclulior~snrirorig~rrifions".The uords ifalicizcd seern ta
me directly to relate the question of human rights to the functioris
of thc Uiiited Natioiis in the preservafio~i .md promotion of inter-
natiorial Face and security, aiid tiiercfore, I suhrnif that qucçiions
of that order cannot possibly lie outside the scopc of the United
Natio~is, whcther ornot they relate to matters ordinarily of domcstic
jurisdiction.
Secondty, sincc iri the present case thcsc tluestioriof human riglitç
arise tindcr a specific clause in n treaty-tliat is to say iinder the
Pcacc Treaties-there is ÏnvoIr~ctla much narrn\17t?r but abo a rniich
more definiie question, narneiv what isrneatit 1iy rlie word "rnntlers"
{in the Frenclitext "riflair~s")in Article 2,parapaph 7, of thc Ctiarter.
If 1 mny rend the provision rigiiin, it say: "Thc Uiiitetl X:itions is
~iot authorizcd to i~itervcrtriri matiers whicli arc esseritiaw liihin
the dorncçtic jurisdictioiof any State." 1VIl:ldtoes tliiworrl "matlcrs"
mcan ? 1 suhrnit tiiat wheri the "rnatter" involved iç a question of
treaty observarice-thnt iç, wc-here tlic itrirriediiite issue osirbjcct-
matter of ihe ~iroceeclingjis a point of trerity i~lterpretatiai~ or1i
ucstion wliether or not therc has bccri a breacli of a trcat-then
II "matter" ir iIie irraiy itrlf ïncl ciiniiot, cx ,r<rlzrra,ùc oinalter
msetltially within the dornestic jtirisdictiuri of any State". Such
questioris are, on the contrary, cssentially and inhercntly rnatters
of international jurisdiction, because ofthe vcr'y nature of a treaty,
whicii isan interriationaliristmment. A treaty cari never be a mattcr
essentinlly of the domestic jurisdiction or interna1 smvereigiity of one
of the parties alorie.itsel afgroiind for rcfusiriga rerluest fram the r2sjernbly of the Vriited
Xations for an advisory opinion.
1 riow corne to the actiial qucstiorirvIiiçIlrüve bccn put ta ttieCourt.
The two main arguments uwd by the ex-enemy Go\-ernments thro~ighout
this alfairIiavc tieen, firstthnt tl~erei~no dispute at al1and 11icrcforc
nothing übou twhichto arbitratc uriderthe I'eaceTrcatics ; nridsecondlu,
that even iftIiercisa dispute, iisabout somethirigwhicltfallsexcliisively
wilhiri IItedomestir,jirrisdiction or internriisol-crcigrty oftlic States
concerned aiid is tliereiore not justicinhle nnder the disputes .irticle
of thc Treatics. ln trying to britigthcsc qirestions hefoic the I)eace
Trcaty Arbitral Commissions, niyGovernrnent and ihc othcr Goveni-
ments invoIved are accused ofseeking toint-ervene in the interna1 affairs
of the es-enerny countriesand to subjcct tlicm to some siippoçed lorm
of iriteniationaIsuhservience. Kow, I have already dran'liatteritiori tv
ttie extraordinüriy nconsistency and contradictoriness of çome of the
arguments ernployed by thcsc couritriesor1 the question of whctlicr
ttiere Irn dispt~ieor rrot, and 1 want to srlhrnittliat,diatever they
may now purprt to say, théy havc in fact long sincc admitted the
existenc ofea dispurc a~id are juridicaIIyhriirndby thisadmission, and,
as wc say inEngland. estopped or precludedfront contradicting it.1
arri not going to takc up ttietirne of the iloiirtby going tiirangh the
corre~ponder~ce, \vit11ivhich the Coiirt isdoitbtlti,~ farnili~~, iiit Ras
pointed out in the writtciist;itorrierof trie United Kingdom (I rclcr iri
particular to paragrapti g un pngcç 52 and 53 of ciocurnent Uistrihiition
soir3 arid tcithe iirst footnoteor1 page 53) tiiat in ccrtaiiiof thci~iotcs
the I;ovcriitncritsconcerned hnd actirall put forwartl iirgurnents
regarding the siibstariceof the charges Ina2e'agninst thcin of viotating
thc Iiurrianrightsprovisions of the Peüce Treatits. 1~oulcldraw nttcrition
to tlie factthat one of tliese Governments, nantely tlie Hungarian, did
thiç nof only iithe originaIcorrcsporide~ice,Liit again in itsIarer note
ai Octoher 27th Iaçt, wliich isreproduced in A~ir~ex II A ofthe Ijnited
Kingdom wri t[cristaternent. The Hungarian Governn~ent there embnrked
on a çubstantiiqediscussionof Articles 2 and 4 (Le-the liurnan rights :iiicI
ariti-fascistarticles)of the Hungarian Peace Treaty. Sirnilar aliusinns
to thc subsstaritivequestions involved are contziined inthe openiiigpart
of the Hungiirian Gover~nmerit'sown cornrni~nicatioii to the Court dated
January r3th, KgjO, \i.biclwiIIbe foiind oti page q? of dociimci~t Dis-
tribution 3o:rg.
Again, the Kouirinnian Goverrirrientin its vcry Iatest riote, that of
IPebruary~oth, 1950, which hns, 1 think, just heeii coinrni~nicriteto
the Court, s:il-.s(ititlicsecond prirrigrüph) tliat itrcjccts tlie Eriited
Kingdom cIi.niarc1ie "as contrnry to the Trcaty of l'eace and to the
rulesof internation21 Iaw". Iriotlierwords, the ICo~irnania ~ioverriiiiei
itseIf says thcre iça dispute. If you reject other ~ieopies' déinarches
and say tlicsc are contrary toa treaty, SOU arc disprrtiiithe corrcclncss
of their views or statcmcnts, .are you not, and there isa dispute aboiit
the treaty.
In fact, throu hout the correspondenceit will be seen that, inter-
Iarded hetwccti t7ic dcriiüls that any dispute cxists, thei-earc passages
in which ihe three Covernments address tliernselvesto the substrirrce
of the cllarges made against tiierri, eithederiyirigtbe facts aIIeged,'The settiernent of disputcs is provided for in an articlewhicli piaces no
limitation on the rratureorcharacter ofthe partics to the dispute beyond
tlieohvious general limitation of Iaw t1iat they miist br:prirties trithe
rclcvant Trcaties. Rlembers of the Unitcd Xaiions al1 over thc worId
3re 1~;~rtieso thesc Treaties. Eaçli one ~f them lias an individual right
to rt?qtiirthe observance of the Trenty clanscs. All are severally inter-
ested, for iiiitarice, inthe dtie observance by thc ex-enemy Govcr~i-
ments oi thc rnilitaiy clnrisesol the Trenties. Agnin. every prirty to the
Treatics iias separate econoinic and Cinaricin 1iglitsaridobligatioris in
regard to the cs-encmies tirider tlieTreaties. Ailu disputes ori these or
othcr subjccls ~vviiIdLH: i11~Iivid11dIisj)~lt~The Trcaties 1-ccognize the
spccial position of the thrcc major allicd Covcrrtrrieiitsin that an).
riispiitesareto bc rcferrcr!to tiieiHcads ofAliçsi innthe first1il:iceRiit
this prcsupposestliat these three Governrncn~s caiiriotjoi~itlycoiistiiute
rfieyarty to the disfutc, ljec;iiisn yarty toa dipute caliiiut resolve it
by referriiigit to Iiimself. I3ut an i?tdir?idit~lisputc betwten a given
allicdSiaie a~idone of the ex-encmies is to hc referrcd to thc aIlicclI-Icads
of XIission,and if not rcsolvc bdy tiiern witliin two nioritiis,is,at the
reqtlestof cither p:trly to the dispirtc,to bc rcferrcd to a coiniiiission
cci~nyosed as prnvided in trie 'l'reaty.
.
I relerred eiirlieto the far-rcacliingconsequerices in the inicr~iatiurial
spIiere mhich the attitude of tlieex-eiiemy Governtnents on tlirrliicstioii
of the esisteiice oi a dispute rvouId Lie iiable io have unlcçs. aç iny
ilovenimerit ho wcl, tlieCourt declares itto lx without any juçtilication
or valirlit?~iol \iiiiles<is nt stake than tlic wliolcfuture oEnrbitrntion,
hccaiise of the grorindson wliicli tl~ese Goveïnments liavc cIiosc~ito
base thpir objections t ~~ould beiindei-standablcif the)., ai-giied that
soilie stcy irithe prncerliire haclIieeii oiriitted orriotpropcrly c;rr.ricd
out, and that tlieymm-econsequent1 y not obligcd to agree to a refcreixe
to tlie Pcacc Treaty CornrnissioiisSucharirirgurrieri ~vottld,in oiirvicw,
11oihe correct in the piesent case. LSirtiftlie facts couldticcstübIisiied,
it ~v-voulhde a ~xrfeçity prolier ground on whicti a country othenvise
obliged io go to nrbitmtion could legitirrirttelyrefuse ta do so 13~1,
esceptfor the estraorciinary conteritioiof ihc Hurigarian Cnveriinicrit,
to mhidi I sliiilcorne Inter, that tlic: Uniteci Kirigdornirrasat fault iii
notappoititirig its contmis~ioiicrlast hrigri=t (altiiough tlic IItingnrinri
Gcivernrnent then and at al1 times faild or refused to appoint its
own co~;rriissiorier}e ,scept for coriteritioiisof tfie kitid wliicli it is
difficult to take seriously, the tiiree C;overnmeiits do tiot say that nny
essential st.elin thc proceclure hnç hccn ornittccl.'i'liey da riat, for
instarice, coriterid tfiat therc have ùcen no diplorriatic ncgotiatioiisas
çoritemplntedby the disputes Articles ofthe Pcrice Treaties. 'They do
not contcnd that sucli negntiatioiis have bccn irisiifficiettily tricd. Tlicy
do riotderiy that tlie matrer was rcferred, ziçstjpulated by the relevarit
provisions, to thc Heads of Xlix~ionof the major allied I'owers in the
es-enemy capitds CaIthough the Hcads of AIissioricould nof deal wjth
il because of the refirsal of tIieSoviet representa tive to yarticipate).
They sirnplysay thai there is notiiing toarhitrate about. 1t is ohvioirs
that, on this basis, arbitral clauses iritreaties are usclcçç, considered
as binding nhligations, sincetfrey can ix eevded at any time h
which, cven iritlie face of the plairiest factç,js prepaicd b aiidly to terrns deriyirigthe charge, prskts in the course complained of,
or fails to take anp rernedial rneasiir-".
Perlirips that is more in the nature of a dcscriytiori than a defiiiition.
At any rate, we suggest that itdos fit hc circurnsiances of tlic present
case very aptly, becarisethe Uriitcd Kirigdom says tfiatit has certain
rights uridcr the Peace Treaties, rights to the observance of the
provisions regarding Iiumnn rights, and that the ercnemy Governments
have corresponding obIigaiiom. TIie Ijrrited Kingdoni alleggeswrongful
conduct ori thcir parr witIt reference to those obligations. They deny
botti tlie obligation and the wroti ful conduct, but thcir deriial is
riot accepted by the UriitecIKing 3orn, \+-i~iciholds to itsoriginal
allcgatiuris. Thnt istlieposition, and ifit does iiotcrinstitutpn dispute,
thcn, Mr. 13rcàitlent I,hai-dly know rvhai dm.
Ihe i'eace 'Trcaticsrequirc tiiat thedispute should bc above eitlier
the inicrpretation or the esecution of the r~levarit treaties. In our
viaw t11ere is n dispute about hoth,but 1slirill riotlinger on that point,
hecnuse it isaclquately dcalt with in paragraphs 12 and 13of the
United Kirigdom writleri statement. Moreover, the point is one wliicti
u~is very fully dealt with ycstcrday Ly Ille Representatire of the
Governmeiit of the Unitcd States, and the psitiori of the United
States iritliis rnatter is really preriscly the samc as ouis, aiid iIie
~iatureof tliechargeswhich thcy inakc and ilie pointsof intcrpretütion
and execution \vhid~ arisc arc furid:~rnentallythe sarne in the case
of hotli our Govei-nmerits. I kiieve that if the Court finds that a
dispiitc exists in thisrnatter,it willnot have inucIi difficultÿin Iioldiiig
tiiat it is a dispute abolit either the infcrpretation oi cxccution of
the l'cace Trcatics, or hth. Tiiere is, indeed, in the circurnstaiices,
i~otIiing else it cnulù really he about.
Once it içestablistifitIiat tlieris a dispute about tlic i~ttcrpretatiori
or e~ecution of the relevarit irerity,the only rernairiing requirements
bcforc the psitiori isreaclied in which the parties are ~irideran obli-
gation to nppoiiir their cornniissioners,and otherwisc tci co-operate
iiisetting up the trcnty corninissions, are that the dispute shouid not
Iiave Iieen settled by diplomat ic ncgotiatiuris and shoultl not Iirive
been resolved by reference to tite United States, Uiiiteti Kinydom,
atid Soviet Heatls of RIksion inthe PX-en~my capital concerncd. In
paragraphs 17 to 19of the Unitcrl Kiiigdorri ~v~-ittestatcnieiit.tliere
;ire cnrefullj:dctailcd titcstepç arid procews whicli have been gone
tliratigh in these respects, and the rcxons why we thiiik thcy Iiiive
riow leù tn n position iriwhicli tlic tiirclfvrrner ericmy Governments
are leplly bouricl tinclcr thc '1're:itto appoint thcir coiiimiçsioiier.
1 diall iiot say more about those niatteis here. Nor tlo I neetl to do
mort: than refcr to pnragrapli 14 UI t11c United Iii~igdorn rvritten
çtaternciit iriorder to derrionstrate that ihi3 is riot a case foi- whicIi
the T'eacc ?'reaties provide any iiieaiiof wttlcrnen t other ttiniithal
spc,.ficd in the gerieral disputes Article of tlie Tr~cztias.
1licrc isorle observation in paragrapti19 of our ivrittcri statement,
iiorsever, to wliich 1 must rtfer liere. .Asamendecl by a suh,requeiit
corrigeridum,it was stated in paragrapli rg ol Ourrvritten rtatcrnerit
that. in notes dated 5th Jan tia1.Iasi,the LiriitcdLingdorriC.ii.:ernment STATEMEh"i. UY Sir.FITMAUIIICE (u.K.) - 2 III 50 331
had inforrncd thc tlirce Igrmcr enerny Govcrnrncnts of the appointmelit
of Mr. F. Elwin Jones, K.C., hi.P., as thc Uriitcci ICingdoni corri-
rnissioner,and it was adderi tliat thcsc Governi~ients had beeii forrrially
reqiiestetl iri the sarric note to appoirit fticirown commiçsioners aiid
to consult with the Uiiited Kingdom Goveriirnent as ta the appuiriirrient
of tlie third comniissioner, but Iliritno rcply had been received to
thjs comnitinimtion. 'IlicCoiirt 41 be airiarc tbat. sinc~ this \vas
writ lcn, aod since the ïvritten statcrnenr of the Lnited Kirigdorri wra.s
depmiiteciwitii the Court, replies have Licerircccivcd from two of the
Govcrnrnents concerned, iiarriely the Hunaarian and Roumanian
Governrneril%, I!IC tests of which have bccn cornmiinicated to the
Secretary-General of the Lrriied Xütions, and, su 1 uiidersinnd, bv
Iiim to the Coirrt, anci fcirrn part of the dosiier Iicforc the Coiirt.
will Le ohscrvcd that thc Hrrrigarian rcply, dated rhth Jariuary last,
repeats the fnmilinr argumer: ts :ihout there beirig no dispute hecniise
it ismanifest t hat the Hungariaii Government has scrupulously obsfirved
the Trcaly, and abotit the prcçcnt procccdin gsing an utterript to
intzrfere in Hurigarian interna1 affairs. But it also contains a neur
featurc to whicli 1 should Iike to dmw tlie atieritioi~of the Court,
sinceit coristitutcs a vcry ood esample of the attitirde nrid riature
of the arguments adopteci 8 v the former erieriiie~ in this cxe. 'I'he
featurc to rvlijch 1 referis tiiC ntteitiptto accuse the United Kingdom
Goverrirncrit of soirlc defnirlt or impropritty, first iri riot Iiaving
noniinatetl its comrnissioricr I:cJr>retIiisniattcr was referred to the
C0ur.t hy the Assernbly, and sccondly in izow rio~iiinatingits r.om-
missioriw rtffer tiic mattcr Iias bcczi referrcd to thti Court. It k iiot
dificrilt to see that both tficse üccusittioris cüririoi sirnultaneously be
~vcllfounded. ivliich iii:isugge~t rTerys;trnrigl!:that iicithci(ifrh~:rnis.
As regards trie first, thc Huri~arian Governrnent apyiareritiy charges
the Gnited Kii~gdnm (;or-erjirrieiit with some att erriptto mislead rlie
Assernbiy arid, througli it, the Court, by hauing compl;iined ttiattfie
Hiingariari Gov~irnnient hacl failcd to appoint its conirnissioner, i+-lt.licri
tlic IlriittdKitigdoiri Go\-erninerii Iiad siniilarly fliiletl to dSO. 1-fed
silrrthat the Court will regard the Hurigariiiri urijcctiuns on tliis point
as king corn pl et c l^.fnirnderl.Itrr:ilbe *en frorn the mrrespondericc
that. as far back as lasL A ugust, tlie lli~itcd Kitigdnin (;overrirrient
foriiiallÿ rcqiicstcd the thne ex-eiit?micst o jniii withitiri sciting iip thc:
Trcaty cornn~issions, to ~shicli r,eqricst they 1-eceived a catcqoriçül
refusri!iririuteswbicli atrivcd xt about tlie eiicl oAi~gust ;iribcginning
of Çeptember, ;irefusai tvhicltwas couplecl witli a rcpetitirin of a11 the
usual arguments abotir the nori-cxistcnce of n dispute, aiid tlie rnanifcst
carrectness of tlie cx-cricmy C;ü\.erri~rienis'actions. 7(1y (;overrirnent
- couic1theii have appointecl its cmrnniissiorier,but ilsa~vlittlr:ilse attiiat
stase iiigning to the trouble aiid possible espense iif takinq this step in
the face of tlie coniplctc ai-iddeiiriitcrefusa1 of the three koverrirncnts
to tnke any correspnding sEcp, or ot.hewwis tu co-operate in stting
up the 'Treniy corrimissions. Irideed, it could hc maintaineci tfiat rhis
refnml nnthe part tifthe fvrrncr ~nernies\vould have released rny (ioverrl-
riicnt frorn anv furtlier obligation to try anrl irnplerrierit iiic Peiicc
Treaty procedure for the setilement ol disputes, hnd 1r.ewislied to he
rcleased> and that it left us fi-ee to seek redrcss by any other means
availahle lo us.Tlic suggcstiori that the Unireci Kingdom mas ~ioisincere
in its contentions as to the juridir.aIpt>sitiuriarid was oriIyinteresied inthe political or propagaiida aspects is, tfierefore, dcrnonstrablyfalsc.
On siibscpiicri lreffectioii,liort-ever,311..Prcsiclcrji,w-efelt rhat it would
he better, even if itprovcd only to Lie a formiility, to noniiiiate our
coirirriissioner iri order that, ir-Iienthis mritter carne bcfore tlic Court
we coiild sliow that, for our part, WC had dorie everythin;. yo~sihle
to oprate th? Trcnty proc-dure a~id to camy ont our nwri obliga-
tions T ail1urrable. to sec hoi: an?; of this cari posibIy have rnisled
the .4sscn-ibly, wliich had 311 trie facts arid correspoi~dcnce hefoi-e it ;
or Iiu\r~rhe riorriiri;ition ooiir cornrnissiniicr iioiv cari be inconipatible
rvith tlic hswmbly's clccisiorito rcqucst die Court to advise wliether
the 'Treaty procediire is applicable or not, althoiigli ihat iswhai seerns
to be coriterirlerlhy tlie ITiingarian Govcr-rirrierit. The :ippoiritment of
our çorrirnissiorici-.wliicli was eifricteIastJariiiar-y, iii ~way prcjudgcs
the issue before tlie t:oiirt, nor does ir affect or worsen thc position of
the thrce es-eiiemy Govertinicrlts If thc Court sfioulcl decide tliat the
Trcat y procedureis rioliipplir:thlein tliepreserltcase. tio Itarni irhatevcr
wit\ li:ivebeert rionebu the appointnicnt of ihc \;ilited Kingdorrt cornmis-
sioiicr csccpt in so frisastliat gentlerrian Iiimself or the V~iitect K ingdoi-ri
(;oi..crrirritnrriay have been pit tu unnecessac- troiiblc or eapcnse,
wliich ir.ilIbe entirel? n Ltiitetl Kingdom afiair. ?'lie i~ominatiori uitfie
Uni ter1lCingc!onicorrirniçsioricr is wliolly curisistett wi tli tlie view tha t
my Govcriinierit lias alw:iys rakcn of the Srcaty pusitiori (subjcct cif
CCIIIISFto ciirrection by tlicCourt). and itis ab~ntlniitl!; clcar tliiit, had
WC riut rnaclc.ttiisr:cirriinitinn last January, wr shniild rio\\:hbc;iccuscd
ofJiavirig niirsdves EaiI~1to take n step rcquircd hy the I'eace TrcaCies,
althoiigh tIie es-eneiny Goi~crrirrieiitssirnuI~arieourlg-conterid tiiat these
Trcaticsare iiiapplicable. Now tlint we Ii:ive takeii this step, dcspitc iiic
fact thal tlie es-enemy artitiidc really released us fmni nny obligation
to da sa,it is nietdy curriplaiiied hy iiie Hungarinn Guvcriiinent that we
slioiild have dorie it sis rnonths ago. aiid th2t it is iricorrect to do it rioiv,
in i~icw oolthe refcrcncc of the lriattcr lo lhe Court, althuugii, agiiin,
rhc jurisr1ictio;iol ilieCourt in derii ~vitlitl:eniatter at iilis~çimulranc-
otisly, challei~ged hy the cx-crierriy Govcs~irner ts. I I~aveselclorn,>-Ir.I're-
sider 11,cori-ic across such a tangle of iiicoiisistit alid cuntrailictor-y
argriments, and Tcaii otily s~iggestthat Ilicsc Co\-ernmei?rç miist ùe very
liard yui to it ta ritidcueri a plaiisible esplrination for tIieir atrittidc.
1sliould now like to corne hack ro tlie siihjectof dotricuiicjurisdiction,
Liecaiise,ris tlie Court will realisc, that rnattcr arise':not oiilp wirli refer-
ence tiiArticle 2, pnragrapli 7, of thc C.liarter, as a point nf corripetence ;
it also avisesoiithc substüritive issue ui wlietlier the presen t riispilte falIs
rt:ithiri the scope of the dispiites Articles of tlié Péricc'fi-catics. Tlic
former erierny(;ovzriiiiictits çay tliatitdoes riot, becailse it is a matter
affect ing thcir interria1 sovereigniy arid jurisdict ion. Ilierefnrt! tiot
jusliçiribleat ail, aiid therefore, n'it ü.matter for arbitratioi-i under Clic
Perice Trcat ies. Pausing there, Nr, Presidetit, surely the correct vie*'
is that, as the Rcprcscriiative of the UriiteriStates said yeste.rday, x
corilention siic1ias tliis isessentialIy iil the nature of ari objcctiori tc,
tfie jurisdition of the contcrnpIatecl arbitral Lritiurialur com~nission, and
thereforc, prinzu facir:,a ~rintter to bc decidrtl aç a preliminary issiie hy
tliatvery tributial or comrnissioii its~lf. Snch isthe usuril intcrriatiorial
procediire ivhere objections to the jrrrisdict ioii are raised. 1 subrnit thnt "The Govmrirrieni of Xicaragiia is wrong in cziiling this an
inadmissible'intcrvcntioi>',iilasrriuclias pressing for the f ulfilrnent
of cngzigerrieritsuridertaken by treaty on the part of ÿ. forcigii
State is ilnt to he classified as iiitermcddling witli rhc interna1
riHairsof tl-iaState...,"
'The sarne point is siirnrnediip by Schivarzenliergcr (wb .il.,p. 56)
in his discusiuri ol 1Iiisrnaiter a fullows :
"Thus, eveii a matter mliicii, in principle, is in the clornestic
çplierc, bccomcs a questioii of iriterrii~tioriallawif, by treaty Er
otherwise, a Statc has limitcd itj fr&om ofaction with regard
to 0th States.''
That iç prcciwiy wiiat ive conicnd the foimer enemy coiintries lia\-e
donc l-iy thhiiman rights claiisesof thc Pcace Treaties which thcy have
entered intu.
nui no\\?& ,fr, I'resident,T t11inktliai, as 1 said iii çonne~;iur i ith
Article 2. par;lgt4ayl7i,of tlieCharter, the point Iiere invo1i:ed isreally
of aticven deeper cliarxter. Tt goes heyond the pcrhaps rathcr obvious
fact tliat what inight norrnrilly be n.niatteorf pirrelydornestic coiicern,
ceasesto be a rnatter of pureIy ciorriesticconcern whcn itbccornes the
subjwt nf a twaty provision. The issue, as 1 saiti, is re;illy one which
aifccts tlie veryconception of the term "matter". As 1 said carlier,wlien
you spak ofa "inatter" being oiic of dornestic jurisdictioriyon Iiave
to ask yourself, what rriatter? iVt.hatisthe "rnattcr" invol\-cd ?Cleüriy,
ii ishat is in iss~ieisa ireaty provisivrl, and ihe qlicstiua is one of rlie
interpretation or appiicatioti of tliat provision, and there is a dispiitc
conccrnin tgat provision, the "mnttcr", or al ariy rate Llie iirimedi:ite
rniitter, is that treary provisiori. its applicabiI irtnon-applicability
and so furti-i, and tl-iisisorrictiiitiwhich can 11e17erhe a mattér of
dnni~stic juriçdiction intrie s.en.seof nut beiiig justiiiable,sincc treaty
provisioris are. of their ver): nattire, justiciablebeirig iriter1iatioriint
characie ;arid clauses iria lrerity, ivhatevtrrthcy mav be ahoui, an&
eveti i1tliey concern sornethiw nhgich.but iorils i~iclusiuirlllic treaty,
would otliarwisc he oiiepiirely of the dornestic juridiction of trie parties,
kcome ipso f~cro somciitirig wiiicli concerns the States parties io the
trcafy, and therefore ipso frtcfoof iriterriatiorial concerri arid jürisrlic-
tion.Tiihrief, itisriot rncrelytliatwiiat \vas of piii-elydunicsticcoriccrri
ccascs so to he : pu are renlIy dcalirig rilitfi ari dtogetfier different
category cii"inattcr". You arc dcnlitig with a trenty clairse, and if. is
that clairse as such witicfiis tfie "niattcr"for this purpose, irrcspective,
1 sugpt, of the nature or content of the clause,
iiqiialiylacking iri ariy juridical validity k the parailcl argumcrit
of the es-enemy Governments that tlie atternpttcibrin# tiiese qucstinns
ol hunian t-ights beforc ihc Pcace Treaty cclnlmissioris cnristitutcs a
violation ut tlicirsovcreigrity and an atternp to interfeir nctlieir
interna1 afiairç.'I'Iiepsition here is just the same LS iritliat of the
quesitinn oi domestic jurisdictiori. 'I'hescissucs of hurnan riçhts are
the sul-ijcct ofclanses in the Peace 'l'rer~tihy which the es-eiierny
Governmctits iiiidcrtakc, accordirig tii tlir:irsiial formiila, to sccurc
to a11 persons under thcir jurisdiction, without distiiiction as to race,
ses, language or religion, the enjnyrncnt of hurnari rigkils arid of the326 STATEMENT BY >Ir. FITZMAURfCE (u.K.) - 2 III jO
Hungariari riote to the United ICingdomof Octriber 27th last, thüt
mÿ, Governmeiit had sought to contend thrit "by assurniilg certain
obligations thruriglt tliesigiiature of the Trcaty of Pcace, Hungary
lias ticcumc a Citate witli lirriited sovcrcigiitp". Of coursc, WC do riot
contend that, hiit only that Hungary, 1iy cntering intothe 'Trerity,
rcstr-iclcd Iicrfreedorn of actioii to the cxtent vrovidcd in tlie TreatvJ, .
as riocs cvery co~int~, incIudirig rny owri, ivliicii enters irito a trcaty.
You caniiot 110t hnter iiito a treaty and yet remaiii corn~iletely free
of its obligatimis. Shus, it is abundantlv clear, MT. Presidei~t, thnt n
plea d national sovereignty isriot an answcr to a diarge of breaking
a treaty obligation, and that correspundirigly the cisertion of a treaty
righ t does not cuii~titute ait interference u~ithsovereiçnty, even thoirgh
it rclalcs to tiie Lcrrilury or nationals of tiii: dcfcridant State.
This bririgs irieto a furtiieraspect of tlicrriatter, ori wiiicl1origlit to
touch for the slikc of cornpletcncss. Jt is iiot dircctlyraiscd by the ex-
enerny Govcrnrnents, but it isI ihirik iniplicit intiieir aititudc.1rcfer
to the fact thzitiiitaking rip these questions of hiiinan rights urider tlie
Pcace Trerities, rriyGovcrnnlent may appear to be takirigiip a C:LW on
hehnlf of--or to he e~teiirlin~ diplorilalicprotection tu-sulijects of the
cx-eiieniy Govcriirricril cuticcrncd. Brodly spcaking, it is riridoiibtetlly
a gerieral rulc of internatiorial ian. tfiata govcrnrncrat ivhich irirecvenes
rin befiiilfol aii individual as such, rriay du so oiily if Liiciricli\,icluallias
the natiortaiity of the iiitervening gnverrinie~it, arid içnnt :iriational of
the goceriimeiit againçt wiiorn the complaiiit is made. Evittiin this rule
there isa riurriherof exceptions, as tkicCourt itself otiserk-cd, ariitidccd
established lrist ycar in its ndvisory opinion respecting Initsries lo
i:.-~d :t:riis'otiscrvniiis. Ri~tiii any event, tiiis riile lias no appiicatiuri
10 cliccirciiiiisiariceoi tlic prcscnt case. Tlie(~ovcrrinicntof the Lnited
KingiIurn is not intwvening ori liebalf of ariy Uulgariari, Ilurigarian or
Roiimatiiaii national as siicli,or pven fpfrcificallyoithelialf of any indiui-
dual. It is intervcrii~ig,or scekitig to intcrvetie, prirriarily in order to
risert its o~viirightç, and itil;establishcd tliat a goverrirricnt alway s 11x5
international coriipetenre to intervene in the assertion of its OU-rilcgd
riglit.~,urhetkr arisiiigundcr ge-ileralinternatioiial Inw or bu reason of a
treaty prot~isiori,everi if tlissue isonc wliicliaffectsor relates to persons
or cl:issesof persons hnvingt1ienaticinality vf tIie defentlant govcr,rirriciit.
Irittic presp-nt casc thc Govcrntricntof the Uriitcd Kiiigcloni seel<ç the
fulfjlrncritoirartl iself of uI>ligntiorie~prccslyundert akcrrby a claiise
iii atrenty to which hnth the Cniterl Kingduln and the es-eriemies rire
parties. ni-idtlic obscr.i-anccof wliich the Unitcd Kingdom as n parry is
jndisitlually cntitled to retluire frrim the ex-cnen-iies. lt is riutevcn the
case that thp corriplaints of the Uriited liingdarrt are al1directed against
tlicaçtiialtrratrnent of yürtiçuli irdiviclualsor clr~ssesof iiidividuals of
es-enerny riationalitv. AIanyof the colnplainis relate to rneasirres of a
qiritf:geiieral charact~rwhich appear to my Goveriimeiit tobe coriirary
tu the Iiuinan rigiits clauses of thc Pcace 'Treaties. In al1 tliis,there is
riothing iiew, nor is tliere anyttiirig riewin tlie irleaof corriplaints made
under ritreiity oii hehalf of persons in arioL1~c.crountry not nütiorials of
the iiltervenin Stnte. The minorities clauses of the Peace Treaties ofthe
19~4 war, to w7iidi tiic hiiman rights claiis~sof t1ipresenr Peace Treaties
arc iri soiric sençe succesors, gavc riscto riurneruus cxarriplesof siich
compIaints, and were the sirbject of constririt international adjiidicarionbefore the Permanent Court and other tribunals, such as tbc Mixed
ArbitralTribunals cstalilislied by tlie Peacc Treatics of the 1914 war.
Itis obvious, Mr. Gresideni,that the position 1arn contending for iri
regard to the xsertioon f treaty rights k not only jirridicnllyincvitable,
but is alsoa nec~àsity of i~iternational life, unles treaticsarc to lose al1
obligatoiy characier aricl conipiilsivc ellect. 1 want ta illustratetliis1iy
rcfcrcncc to sonic coricrctc esamples. Tt is \i.clkriowri,kir. Prcsidcriî,
that iiotoiilydo rriaticrswhich would athcicrwisctic rnatters of iritcrtial
sovcrcignly or domest icjurisdictiori oiterilonn tlie suhject ni Lrezity
provisions, but that a great rriariyLrcütiesare made for this express
purlinse, i.efor the express purpose of reyil,?ting hetweeii States rnxtters
which are not covered hg any proviaion of genpral iiir~rnatiorialiaw, and
in regard to wliich tiiosc States coiild othcrwise do eractIy as tticy
leased. Tlicrearenot only scores, cven hundreds, oftrcaties of tliikind,
Eut it WOU,, ..t ,e omrste~irlg ,lie tu ., thai the bu,, O,
international agrccrncntç, particirlarlbilatcral ones,are of tliiscliaracter.
Yet, if the argument of tl-rces-cnemy Governrnents is correci, tbese
treatiec.are in practicewholly deb-nidof anv real hiridin force. Take, for
instance, thc a11riusltiriivcrsnl"estalAish tneiitciauscsf, iri conimcrcial
treatie ltsiçlvc-ellnow th:it, apcirtfrvm treaty and so far as ceneriil
internarional law is coricerned, States are entitlcd to admit or refuse
adniission to fnreigners 3s they please, and, if they do admit them, tn
permit or i~otpcrmit thcm to wrk, carry on businc~ses, ctc. Si~bjecict
pcrliaps to =nie kind of gerieral obligation not to discrirniriate bctween
different countries, States arc, apart Irvrn treaty, entitled to do what tliey
plcase abouttliese mat ters.It is pi-qj~~iy to regulatc tlic rvayin rvhich
diffcreritStates will exercisc thcir rights rcgardirig tiiese matters tiiat
estahlichrnent clairs~s iiconlmercial treaties are inciuded, and of course
tlieobvious intctitioiiofsuçh incliisiois that the parties sIiouMsacrifice
sonic of tIicir liberfyofaction. and shouId Iicriccforfhticboiind towards
each nther to contlirct thernsclves irtriccordüri\vit1the treatp piovisiuns.
iriterriütioiialIaw, eiwy Statebfias sovcrcignty ovcr the airiispriceabovcI
its territory. Apart frnm trenty, it içornplctcly free to allow or iiot allow
flights by foreip aircraft, to permit or not permit foreign nirlines to
opcratc to or via itç tcrritory. 011 the othcr kand, there exist Jiternlly
scores of civil aviation agrecrricnts bctivccri slates or grvups of Slatcs,
by \'hich they grant to cach other in their respective territoriesriglits
of eritry, trarisitand flight, aiidthe opcration of civil air liritz,.Thesc
treaties are entered into for riootii~r purpose tfiürto create international
rights 011 the oilesicle,and international obligations on the other, in
rcgardro rriattcrç wliichivouldotlierwise be ïvholly witliin the interna1
corn petence and domesr icjirrisriit-tion and wilt each of t.he iridiviciual
SLatcs. Yct, il (Iic ürgurnerit of the es-cnemy countrics is correct, thesc
rights 2nd obligations have no niorc than a papcrcsisterica ; for,as soori
as tht-qnast.ion aiises whetfier the treaty provisions have hceri duly
carricd out, any 01 tiic parties can say that, sincc civii aviation is
inherently a inatter of interrial sovereigrityand dorneçiic jurisdictiori,
no qucsrionconcerning the interpretatinn or application of thc trenty
cari lieiritcrriiitiorialjusticiable,aiid thcrefore iriyraclicc iItc parties
can reall yo exactIy as they likc about it.
29 T have given thcçc t\ïrrex:imples of tistablisliment claiiser iricom-
niercia trcaties, ürid ol treaties cunccrninc givil aviatiuri, because
thq- are siriking and riniversnl, One çould rnyltipl?; cxarnples, but
it isiintiecessary to tal;e up tlie time of tlie Court tridoirig so. Ii tfie
argument of the thrcc es-enemy (;overnmentç is ~cncralizccl, it çeerns
to coine to tliis,tIiririo lrcaty provision can, in tlie Iüst rewrt, have
any biridirig effect, or at any rate be er~forccahlf:hy any method of
international settlernerit which, spart from its incliision in the frcaty,
would bc a matter of iriterrialsovcrcigrity nr dnrnestic jurisdictiori
accortling to iritcrriationallaw, and woirld riot bc covcrcd by ang7
gcneral rrile 01 iriternatiorial LawBut, of course, if sometliing ir already
covcrcd bu a general rule ofiriternatiorial lav, itis riot ~isirxllynecpsçary
to make a treaty ahoiit it. It ispreciscly ihose ihirigs ~rliicharc nut.
so covered, iiiose things ivhich inicrnatioirnl law Ieaves to the will
ol iridividual St:ites, tliat Iiave to for~n thesubject of a treaty if thv
are to becomc thc subjtct of der~nitc intcrnatinn rigfits 3rd obliga-
tions. This is tliewitule, indeed orie ~riightsay the sole, object ofthese
treaties. It is fherefore a coniradictioii iri terrns toSay that çornetliing-
wliicii Iias to bc cmhdied in ri trcaty because it caririut utiienviw
ùccomc the subject of international rigiits aiid obligatioris, 2nd is
emhndied in the trca!y for ihat very ptirpose, is nevertlielesssuniet1iirig
which is iloi actuakly binriing, because it concerns interna1 sox,ercignt.y-
or dorriestic jurisdiction, aiid which cannot t1ieretore Le tiic subject
of inrernatioi~l wttieriicrrt or adjudicatiort except hj? the espress or
tacit coriseri:of th? States caiicerned. Siidi aiiargumcrit rcduccs thé
great majority of bilateral treaties to rnere gcntlcrneti's agreenipnts,
fiarcil?;everi that : it icailrcdiices thern to rnere uriilaterri1exprcssicitis-
of intentioii whidi the partics \vil1adherc ioas a working arrangerrierit
so long as it suits tliern botfi to do so,Iiiii which cither can depart
frorri at ririy time without the othcr having any rigiit to cotriplairi,
or ariy rrieans of ~ircicuritiga ~ettleriien~of thc matter on the inter-
riatiorial plurie. Astlie Periiianent Courtsaid in the very iirst adviçory
opinion it evcr gavc, ilic ~l'oi?riii.atr'ottks ,Vi>iI~evinn~i1s-tnrlrcrs'
fl~J2gcLi eSerieç 13, No. 1, p. 201, ü treaty cngagc-cmei-iits iiot "a mere
rriurül obligürioii". Tt "constitiites ati obligation by which, in law,
the parties to tlic Trcats are bourid to orle aiiother". r find thlit xgairr
Schwarzcnber-ger (O$. cid., p.j8)puts the cswritial poirit niost aptly :
"InLcrnniionaI relations", 1-i~sqs, "in a relatively Iiiglii~itegrattd
worlti socicty iwutd be at a staridstiil if the wvereign States
of thc world liad no means ofarriving al undcrstaridings rcgurdaiy
mlfzrs willia'iiihzirt:~-ciwsin$oirzt.sllç copz!rihpart from rules UT
ciistoniary law, growirigorily irnperceptibiyovcr prolongcd periods,
i~nlerrardtiosbrt,n?~sdiorc src the mzam by ze!lzicsuch aùjiatnie??.fs
rarerachicct'd."
Again he says (p. 185)
"~nterriatiorial trerities are the rneaiibp which States rstzdertaka
obligatioris..,"
Ti~cexairiples T have given illustratethcse principles very effectively
and shoiiy the cliaus CU wliicii internationa rllations woulcl Le reduced
if the vicivspiit forwai-clby the ex-erict~iyGovernments were to prevail-
Procès-verbaux des séances publiques tenues au Palais de la Paix, La Haye, les 28 février, 1er, 2 et 30 mars 1950 sous la présidence de M. Basdevant, président