COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUçTICE
INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE
PAIX CONCLUS AVEC LA BULGARIE,
LA HONGRIE ET LA ROUMANIE
AVIS C0';SULTATDES30 MARSET 18JUII.T,1950PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS
INTERPRETATION OF PEACE
TREATIES WITH BULGARIA,
HUNGARY AND ROMANIA
ADVISORY OPIXOF IlAl30tANIJULY18th1950 TABLE DES MATIÈRES - CONTENTS
PREMIÈRE PARTIE. - REQUETE
POUR AVIS CONSULTATIF ET PIECES
DE LA PROCÉDURE ÉCRITE
PART 1.-REQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION
AND DOCUMENTS OF THE WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS
SECTION A. - REQUETE POUK AVIS CONSULTATIF
SECTION A.-KEQUEST FOR ADVISORY OPINION Pages
1. - Lettre du Secrétairegénéraldes Nations Unies au Président
de la Cour (31x 49). - Letter lrom the Secretary-General 8
ofthe United Nations tothe President of the Court (3149)
II.- Résolution adoptéepar l'Assembléegénéraledes Nations
Unies le22 octobre 1949.- Resolution adopted by the Gen-
eral Assembly of the United Nations on Octoberzznd, 1949 IO
SECTIOK B. - DOCUAIENTS TRANSMIS
SECTION B.-DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED
...
1. - Bordereau des documents soumis à la Cour. - List of
dociiments submitted to the Court. , . . . . . . . 13
II.- Documents transmis par le Secrétairegénéraldes Nations
Unies :correspondance diplomatique concernant le respect
dei droits de l'homme en Bulgarie, Hongrie et Roumanie
(chemise 7).- Documents transmitted by the Secretary-
General of the United Nations :eschanges of diplomatic
correspondence relating to the observance of human rights
in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romnnia (Folder 7) :
Lettre du représentant des Etats-Unis d'Amériqueau
Secrétaire général des Nations Unies (zoIX 49). avec
annexes. - Letter from tlie Representative of the United
States of America to the Secrctary-General of the United
. Nations (zo ~x49),. with annexes . , , . . . . . . zo
Lettre du représentant du Royaume-Uni au Secrétaire
généraldes Nations Unies (19 IX 49). avec annexes. -
Letter from the Representative of tlie United Kingdom to
the SecretaryGeneral of the Unitecl Nations (IX49).with
annexes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Lettre du représentant du Royaume-Uni au Secrétaire.
. général,desNationsUnies (19xi qg), avecannexe. - Letter
35from the Representative of the United Kingdom to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations (19 XI49). with
annex ...............
Lettre du représentant du Royaume-Uni au Secrétaire
généraldes Nations Unies (6I go), avec annexes.- Letter
from the Representative of the United Kingdom to the
Secretary-General of the United Nations (6 I 50). with
annexes ....................
Note du représentant du Canada au Secrétaire généradles
Nations Unies (6I50). avec annexes. - Note from the
United Nations o(6CI50), with annexesta.......rai of the
Lettre du représentant des États-Unis d'Amérique au
Secrétaire généradles Xations Unies (6I 50). avec annexes.
America to the tSecretaq-Generale oof the United Nationsf
(6 I50). with annexes ............. III
Letter from the Representative of Canada to thesecret-
ary-General of the United Nations (17 II50). with annex . 115
Letter from the Representative of the United Kingdom
ta the Secretary-General of the United Nations (17II50).
with annex ................
Letter from the Representative of the United States of
America to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
(17 II50), with annexes ............
Letter from the Representative ofthe United Kingdom to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations (20II go),
with annex ..............
Lettre du représentant du Canada au Secrétairegénéral
des Nations Unies (29IV50). avec annexes. - Letter from
the Representative of Canada to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations (zg IVgo),with annexes ......
Lettre du représentant du Royaume-Uni au Secrétaire
généraldes Nations Unies (28IV go), avec annexes. -
Letter from the Representative of the United Kingdom to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations (28IV go),
with annexes. ............
Lettre du représentant des États-Unis d'Amérique au
Secrétaire générai des Nations Unies (28IV go), avec
annexes. - Letter from the Representative of the United
Nationsof(28IVc50). with annexesy-.........f the United
SECTION C. - EXPOSÉS ÉCRITS
SECTION C.-WRITTEN STATEhlENTS
Premièrephase - First phase
Written statement suhmitted by the Government of the
United States of America ........... CONTENTS
I
a. - Written statement of the Government of the United
Kingdom ...............
3. - Télégrammedu ministre des Affaires étrangèresde la Répu-
blique populaire de Bulgarie au Président de la Cour (reçu
14 1 50). .................
4. - Télégrammedu ministie des Affaires étrangeresde la Répu-
blique soviétiquesocialiste d'Ukraine à la Cour (15 I50). -
Telegram from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic to the Court (15 I $0) .
5. - Letter from the Chargé d'Affairesai. of the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics in the Netherlands to the Registrar
(14 150). ..................
6. - Télégrammedu ministre des ~ffaire; étrangèresdelaRépu-
blique socialiste soviétiquede Biélomssie à la Cour (15 150).
- Telegram from the Minister for Foreign Affairs of the
Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic to thecourt (15 I50)
7. - Lettre du chargéd'affaires B.i.de la Républiquepopulaire
de Roumanie aux Pays-Bas au Président de la Cour
(16 Igo) .................
8. - Lettre de l'envoyé extraordinaire et ministre plénipoten-
tiaire de la République tchécoslovaque aux Pays-Bas au
Greffier (16I$0) ...........
g. - Written statement presented by the Australian Govern-
ment. ..................
IO. - Lettre du ministre des Affaires étran~èresde la République
populaire hongroise au Greffier (13 I 50) ......
Deuxième phase - Second phase
tions III and IV of the Request for advisory opinionca on.....-
213
DEUXIÈME PARTIE. - SÉANCES PUBLIQUES
ET EXPOSÉS ORAUX
PART II.-PUBLIC SITTINGS AND ORAL STATEMENTS
A. - Procès-verbaux (premièrephase). - Minutes (firstphase) :
28 II $0 (m.) .. 242 2 III$0 (m.) .... 244
1 III ( ) , . . 244 n n D (a.-m. -aft.) . 244
xi » » (a.-m.- aft.) 244 30 11 n ( n " ) . 245
ANNEXES AUXPROCÈS-VERBAUX(PREMIÈRE PHASE)
(FIRSTPHASE)
ANNEXESTO THE MINUTES
1. - Exposéde M. Ivan S. Kerno (Nations Unies), 28 II 50 (m.)
246 Pages
2. - Statement by MI. Benjamin V. Cohen (United States of
America) :
Sitting of I II50 (m.) ............
.......... (aft.) ........... 257
276
3. - Statement by Mt. Fitzmaurice (United Kingdom) :
Sitting of 2 IIjo (m.) ...... 296
.......... ait ........... 312
B. - I'roc&s-verbaux (deuxième phase). - Minutes (second
phase) :
27 VI 50 (m.) . 332 28 VI jo (m.) .... 334
r D (a.-m.- aft.) 333 18 VIIB ( a ) .... 334
ANNEXESAUX PROCÈS-VERBAUX (DEUXIÈME PHASE)
ANNEXESTO THE MINUTES(SECONDPHASE)
I. - Exposéde hl. Ivan S. Kerno (Nations Unies),27 VI 50 (m.) .
335
2. - Statement hy Rlr.Benjamin V. Cohen (United States of
America) :
Sitting of 27 YI 50 (m.) ........... 338
,, ,, ,, ,, ,, (aft.) ....... 348
3. - Statement by llr. Fitzmaurice (United Kingdom) :
Sitting of 27 VI 50 (aft.) .......... 362
, , 28 , , . (m.) ........... 366
TROISIÈME PARTIE. - CORRESPONDANCE
PART III.-CORRESPONDENCE
I. The Secretary-General ofthe United Nations to the President of
the Court (31 x 49). [See $p. 8-9.1
2. Le Greffierau ministre des Affaires étrangèresd'Afghanistan
(7x49). .................. 382
3. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangèresde Bulgarie
(7x149). ................. 382
4. The Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
(7x149... .................. -8-
j. The Registrar to the Chargéd'Affaires a.;.of Australia at The
Hague (7 XI49) ............... 383
6. The Secretary ofExtemalAffairs of New Zealand to theRegis-
trar (24 XI 49) ................. 384
7. The Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Depart-
ment ofthe United Nations to the Registrar (2j SI 49) ... 384
8. L'ambassade de Belgique à La Haye au Greffier (9 XII 49) .
. 385
9. Le Greffierà l'ambassadeur de Belgique à La Haye (13 XII 49). 385 Pages
IO. The Deputy-Minister to the Govemment of Pakistan to the
Registrar (19XII 41)) .............. 386
II. The Ernhassy of the United Kingdom at The Hague to the
Registrar (6 I 50)................ 386
12. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangkres~I'Afghanistan
(9150) ................... 387
13. The Ambassador of Canada at The Hague to the Registrar
(101 50). . ; ................ 357
14. The Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom to the
Regiitrar (IIr$0) ............ 387
15. The Embassy of the United Statesof America at The Hague
to the Registry (13 I $0) ............. 388
Annen to No. 15: The Secretary of State of the United States
of America to the Registrar [zrndated] ........ 388
16. Le ministre des Affaires étrangères de Hongrie au Greffier
(13 I $0). [Voir pp. 210-~12.1
17. Le ministre des Affaires étrangèresde Bulgarie au Présidentde
la Cour (reçu le 14 I50) (télégr.)[.Voirpp. 196-197.1
18. The Chargé d'Affaire3 a.;. of the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics at The Hague to the Registrar (14 150) [See p. 199.1
19. Le ministre des Affaires étrangèresde la République soviétique
socialiste d'ukraiiie à la Cour (rj I50) (télégr.). [Voirp. 198.1
20. Le ministre des Affaires étrangèresde la République socialiste
soviétiquede Biélorussie à laCour (15 I50) (lélégr. ).oirp. 201.1
21. Le chargé d'affaires a.i d.e Roumanie à La Haye au Président
de la Cour (16I jo). [Voir $9. 202-203.1
22. The Australian Legation at The Hague to the Registry
(16 I 50) ................... 389
23. Le ministre de ~chécoslova<luie àLa Haye au Greffier(16 I50).
[Voir p. 204.1
24. The Chargéd'Affairesof the Australian Legation at The Hague
to the Registrar (16 I 50) ............ 390
25. The Registry to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
(19 I 50) (telegr.)................ 390
26. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangèresd'Afghanistan
(201 -.). .............. 3-.
27. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères de Hongrie
(201 50) ................ 391
28. The Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
(20 1 50) ..............
39'
29. The Secretary-General of the United Nations to the President
of the Court (23 I50) ............... 392
30. Le ministère des Affaires étrangères de France au Greffier
(25 1 50) ..................... 392 Pages
31. The Ag~nt of the Government of the United Kingdom to the
Registrar (26 I 50) ............... 393
32. Tlie Registrar to the Agent of the Government of the United
Kingdom (31r 50) ............... 393
33. Le représentant du Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies au
Greffier (31r 50) .............. 395
34. Le Greffier au ministre des Affairesétrangères d'Afghanistan
(11150) ................... 395
35. Le secrétariat des Relations extérieures du Honduras au
Greffier (z rr50) ................ 396
36. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères de France
(31150) ................... 396
37. Le ministre des Affaires étrangères de Hongrie au Greffier
.8115~. ................... 397
38. 1.e secrétaire d'État des Relations extérieures de Haïti au
Greffier (8 rr50) ................
39. L'ambassade de Belgique La Haye au Greffe (IO I50) ...
40. The Ambassador of the United States of America at The
Hague to the Registrar (IO II50) ..........
41. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealtli Rela-
tions of Pakistan to the Registrar (IO II50) ......
42. Le secrétaired'État pour les Relations extérieures de la Répu-
blique dominicaine au Greffier (14 II50) .......
43. Tlie Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Depart-
ment of the United Nations to the Registrar (21II 50). ...
44. The Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Ilepart-
ment of the United Nations to the Registrar (zr II 50) ....
45. The liegistrar to the representative of the Secretary-General
of the United Nations (25 II50) ..........
46. Le Greffier au représentant du Secrétaire généraldes Sations
Unies .-5 ri-.0) ................
47. The Ambassador of the United States of America at The Hague
to the Kegistrar (2 II-.) ............ 401
48. The ~e~is&ar to the Representative of the United States of
America (13 Ir150) ............... 401
49. The Registrar to the Secretnry-General of the United Nations
(27III 50) (telegr.) ............... 401
50. The Ambassador of the United Kingdom at The Hague to the
Registrar (zg IIIp) .............. 401
51. Le Greffier au Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies (30iir 50) 402
52. Le Greffier au ministre des Affairesétrangères d'Afghanistan
(30111 50) .................. 402
53. The Registrar to the Minister for External Affairs of Australia
(30rrr50) (lelegr.) ............... 402 Pages
54. Le ministère des Affaires ktrangères de Bulgarie au Greffier
(28 IV50) ................. . 403
55. The Acting Secretary-General of the United Nations to the
President of the Court (I v 50) (telegr......... 403
56. President of the Courten(1v 50) ...........Nations to the
404
57. The Deputy-Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations (5v 50) (telegr.).............. 404
58. The Deputy-Registrar to the Chargéd'Affairesa.;. ofAustralia
at The Hague (5v 50). ............. 404
59. The Deputy-Registrar to the Secretary-General of the United
Nations (9v go) ................ 405
60. Le Greffier adjoint au ministre des Affaires étrangeres de
Bulgarie (9v 50) ................. 405
61. The General Counsel and Principal Director of the Legal
Department of the United Nations to the Registrar (16 v $0) 405
62. The Minister of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations
of Pakistan to the Registrar (24v 50) ......... 406
63. Registrar (26v 50)Can...............e to the Deputy- 406
64. The Chargéd'Affaires a.i.of Australia at The Hague to the
Registrar (31v $0) ............... 406
65. The Ambassador of the United States ofAmerica at The Hague
to the Registrar (2 VI50) ..... 407
Annex to No. 65: The Department of State of the United
States ofAmerica to the Registrar (26v 50) ...... 407
66. The Registrar to the Secretary of State of the United States
of America (5 VI50). .............. 408
67. The Registrar to the Amhassador of the United States of
America at The Hague (5 VI $0) .......... 408
68. The,Registrar to t................eral of the United Nations
(7VI 50) (telegr.) 408
69. The Registrar to the Assistant Secretary-General in charge of-
the Legal Department of the United Nations (7 VI 50) ... 408
70. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères de Bulgarie
(7VI 50) (télégr.)................ 409
71. The Registrar to the Chargéd'Affairesa.i. of Australia at The
Hague (7 VI $0) ................ 409
72. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangèresde Bulgarie
(9VI $0) (idlégr.)...... :,.......... 4O9
73. The Registrar to the chargé#Aifaires a.i. of Australia at The
Hague (9 VI 50) ................. 409
74. Le Greffier au ministre des Affairesétrangèresd'Afghanistan
(gvrgo) ................... 410 Pages
75. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs of India to the Registrar
(received 12 vi 50) (telegr.) .............. 410
76. The Ambassador of the United States ofAmerica at The Hague
to the Registrar (12 VI go) ........... 411
77. The llinistry of External Affairs of New Zealand to the
Registry (13 VIgo) ............... 4"
78. Le Greffe à l'ambassade de Belgique à La Haye (15 VI $0). . 411
79. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangéresdes Pays-Bas
(16 VI 50) .................. 412
80. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères de France
(16 VI 50) .................. 412
81. The >fiiiister of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations
of Pakistan to the Registrar (18vr 50) ........ 412
82. The Agent of the Government of the United Kingdom to the
Registrar (20 VIgo) (telegr.)............ 413
83. The Registrar to the Agent of the Government of the United
Kingdom (21 VI50) ............... 413
84. The Ambassador of the United Kingdom at The Hague to the
Registrar (22 VIgo) ............... 413
85. Le Greffier au ministre des Affaires étrangères des Pays-Bas
(23~150) .................. 4'4
86. America (24arVIogo)e ...............of the United States of 414
87. The Registrar to the representative of the Secretary-Gerieral
of the United Nations (24 VI go) . . . . 414
88. The General Counsel and Principal Director of the Legal
Department of the United Nations to the Registrar (26 VI 50) 415
89. The General Counsel and Principal Director of the Legal
Department of the United Nations to the Registrar (29 VI 50) 416
go. The Registrar to the General Counsel and Principal Director of
the Legal Department of the United Xations (1 VII50) ... 416
91. The Registrar to the General Counsel and Principal Director of
the Legal Department of the United Nations (17vrr 50) ... 416
gz. Le Greffierau SecrétairegénéraldesNations Unies (18vrr 50) . 417
93. The Registrar to the Chargé d'Affairesa.i. of Australia at The
Hague (18 VII50) .............. 4'7
94. Le Greffier au ministre des Affairesétrangères d'Afghanistan
(24~11j0) .................. 4'7 '31
SECTION C. - EXPOSÉS ÉCRITS
SECTION C.-WRITTEN STATEMENTS
PREMIÈRE PHASE
FIRST PHASE
1. WRITTEN STATEMENT SUBMITTED Bi! THE
GOVERNhlENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNDER ARTICLE 66 OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT
AND THE ORDER OF THE COURT
DATED DECEJTBER' 7. 1949
-
1. PRELIAI~NARY
A. Initial Resoltltion of the Gelieral Assenzbly
The Gerieral Assembly of the United Nations, by its Resolutiori
approred Aprïl30, 1949 ,efcrred to the fact that one of the pur-
poses of the United Nations is the promotion and encouragement
of respect for human rights and fundamental frcedoms for all, and
to the fact that the Governments of Bulgaria and Hungary had
been accused, before the General Assemhly, of acts contrary to
the purposes of the United Nations and to their ob1igatio.n~under
the Treaties of Peace to ensure to al1persons within their respective
jurisdictions the enjoyment of human rights and fundamontal
freedoms, and expressed deep concern atse "grave accusations".
It \vas noted therein, "with satisfaction", that steps had been
taken by several States signatories to the Treaties of Peace with
Bulga~ia and Hungary regarding these accusations and exprcssed
the hope that measures would be diligently applied, in accordance
with the Treaties, iii order to ensure respect for human rights
and fuiidamenta1 freedoms. The General Assembly by the Reso-
lution further most urgently drew the attention of the Governments
of Bulgaria and Hungary to their obligations uuder the Treaties
of Peace, including their obligation to CO-operatein the settlement
of these questions;antl decicled to retain the question on the
agenda of the Fourth Session of the General Assembly. (Resolution
272 (III), April 301949.)
B. The "huinan-righls" Articles of fhe Treaties of Peace
Article2 of the Trcaty of Peace with Bulgaria reads:
"Bulgariasliall take al1 measures necessary to secure to al1
persons under Uulgnrian jurisdiction, without distinction as to
'Shoiilhe~overibcr[;Volt li). Iha IfeEisIrnr.]I32 \VRITTEX STATEIIEST OF THE. U.S.A.
race, ses, language or religion, the eiijoymeiit of huinan rights
aiid of the fundamental frecdoms, including freedom of expression,
of press and publication, of rcligious worship, of political opinion
and of public meeting."
Article z of tlie Treaty of Peace with Hungary reads :
"1. Hungary shall take al1 measures necessary to secure to al1
persons under Hungarian jurisdiction, without distinction as to
race, sex, laiiguage or religion, the enjoyment of human rights
and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression,
of press and publication, of religious worship. of political opinion
and of public meeting.
2. Hungary further nndertakes that tlie laivs in force in Hungary
shall not, either in their content or in their application, discriminate
or entai1 any discrimination between persons of Hungarian nation-
ality un the ground of their race, sex, language or religion, whether
in reference to tlieir persons, property, business, professional or
iinancial interests, status, political or civil rights or any other
matter."
Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace with Rumania contains pro-
visions identical with those of Article z of the Treaty with Hun-
gary '.
C. The "disfiutes" Articles of the Treaties of Peace
.4rticle 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria (Article 40 of
the Treaty of Peace with Hungary and Article 38 of the Treaty
of Peace with Rumania) reads :
"1. Except where another procedure is specifically provided
nnder any article of the present Treaty, any dispute concerning
the interpretation or execution of the Treaty. which is not settled
by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall be referred to the Three
Heads of Mission acting under Article 35 [39 in the Treaty of
Peace with Hungary, 37 in the Treaty of Peace with RumaniaP],
'On June 21, igq6, the Economic and Social Council of the Unitcd Nations
had adopted a Krsolution containing the following paragraph :
"Pending the adoption of an international bill of rights. thc general prin-
ciplr shall be accepted that international treaties involving basic human
rights, including to the fullest extent practicable treaties of peacï, shall
cunform to the fundamental standards relative to such rights set forth in the
Charter." (Rssol~ilionsadopted by the Second Session of the Economic and
Social Coi<fzcilJournal So. 20, July 13, 1946, p. 521.)
Article 35 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria (Article 39 of the Treaty oi
Peacr with Hungary, Article 37 of the Treaty of Pracç with Rumania) reads :
"i. For a period not to rrcecd eighteeri months from the comingintoforce
ofthe present Ifeaty, the Heacls of the Diplomatic .\lissions in Sofia [Budapest,
Buchmest] of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdan and the United Statcs
of -4merica. acting in concert, will represent the Allied and Associated Powers
in draling mith the Bulgarian Govcrnment in al1 matterç concerning the
execution and interpretation of the present Treaty.
2. The Three Heads of .\lission !vil1 give the Bulgaiian [Huiigariaii, Ku-
manian] Governmçnt such guidance, technieal advice and clarification as \\ï<ITï'ES ST.4TE.\IEST 01' TIIE U.S..4. 133
except that iiitliis case the Heacls of Alissionmil1not be restricted
by the time-limit provided in that article. t\ny such dispute iiot
resolved by tliem within a period of two months shall, unless the
parties to the dispute mutually agree upon another means of
settlement, bc rcferred at the request of either party to the dispute
to a Commission composed of one representative of each party
and a tliird inember selected by mutual agreement of the two
parties froni nationals of a third country. Shoiild the t1i.o parties
fail to agrec \vitliiri a period of one month upon the appointment
of the third meinber, the Secretary-General of the United Xations
may be requested by either party to make the appointment.
2. The decision of the majority of the members of the Coni-
mission sliall be the decision of the Commission, and shall be
accepted by the parties as definitive and binding."
11. Quris~~o~s BEFORE THE COURT
A. Resol~ltionof the GerzerulAssernbly requestingndvisory opiniolz
By a Rcsolutioi~ approved Octoher 22, 1949, the General
Assembly, at its Fourth Session, rcferredtoitsResolutionof April30,
1949, disciisscd ri~zle,whercin the attention of the Governmcnts
of Bulgaria and Hungary were drawn to their obligations under
the Trcaties of Peace, including the obligation to co-operate iii
the settleinent of the ~[iiestiori; pointed out that certain Allied and
Associated Po\\rers Parties to the Treaties of Peace had charged
Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania with violations thercof and had
called upon the Governments of those countries to take remedial
measures ;stated that those Governments had rejected the charges
made ;stated that thc Governments of the Allied and Associated
Po\vers concerned had soiight unsuccessfully to refer the question
of Treaty \,iolatioiis to the Heads of Nissions in Sofia, Budapest
and Bucharest, iii pursuance of provisions of the Treaties ; and
stated that thosc Governments had called upon the Go\~ernments
of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania to join in appointing Commis-
sions pursuant to the provisions of the Treaties but that the).
refused to appoint their representatives.
Finally, the General Assembly by its Resolution of October 22
expressed continuing interest in, and increased concem at, the
grave accusations made against Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania ;
recorded its opinion that thc refusal of those Governmcnts to co-
operate in its efforts to examine the grave charges with regard to
the observancc of homan rights and fundamental freedoms justi-
fied the concern of the Gencral Assembly about the state of affairs
prevailing in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, and stated that
-- - ~-
may he necessary to enslircthe rapid and efiicient execution of the present
Treaty both in letter and in spirit.
3. The Buigarian [Hungarian, Humanian] Governmrnt shallafford the
said Threc Hcadç of .\lissial1 necessnry information and any assistance
~hich thçy may require in the fulfilment of the taçks devolring an them
under the prcsent Trcuty." \YRI'STEK STATE31ENT OF THE U.S.A. I35
of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania will fail, within
the stipulated period, to name their representatives to the Treaty
Commissions.
Accordingly, the Governmcnt of the United States of America
limits this statement to a consideration of its position with respect
to questions 1 and II of the General Assembly's Resolution.
C. fllerits of dispz~teor suficiency of charges not before the Cozlrt
It is the view of the Government of the United States that the
substantive aspects of any dispute as to the interpretation and
execution of the Treaties of Peace, between the Parties thereto,
are by the express terms of thosc Treaties within the jurisdiction
of, and to be decided by, the respective Commissions envisaged
by theTreaties. The Parties to the Treaties have agreed to use
the procedures expressly provided in the Treaties for the settlement
of disputes "concerning the interpretation or execution" of the
Treaties. The Resolution of the General Assernbly of October zz,
7949, does not cal1 upon the Court to pass upon the merits of the
dispute or the sufficiency of the complaints or answers. Rather,
bythe Resolution the Court is requested to give an advisory opinion
on (1) whether the diplomatic exchanges between Rulgaria, Hun-
gary, and Rumania, on the one hand, and certain Allied and
Associatcd Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace, on the
other, concerning the human-rights provisions of the respective
Treaties "disclose disputes subject to the provisions for scttlement
of disputes" contained in the respective Treaties; and, in the
event the answer to question (1) is in the affirmative, (2) whether
the Governmcnts of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Rumania are obligated
to carry out those articles of the respective Treaties, including
the provisions for the appointment of their representatives to the
Treaty Comniissions.
Inasmuch as the Court's replies to the questions before it iinder
the Resolutim do not include the merits or any investigation into
the facts, the difficultieswhich deterred the Court from giving an
advisory opinion on the Statzls of Eastern Carelia are not here
present. (Advisory Opinion, July 23, 1923, Series B., No. 5.) In
that instance the Council of the League of Nations had, on April 21,
1923, by Resolution, requested the Permanent Court of Inter-
national Justice to give an advisory opinion on a question involving
the merits of a dispute between Finland and Russia (not then a
member of the League of Nations) as to the effect oii the autonomy
of Eastern Carelii of a Declaration annesed to the Treaty of
Dorpat, signed October qth, 1920. In declining to pass upon this
substantive question. thc Court stated :
" ....The question whether Finland and Russia contracted
on the terms of the Declaration as to the nature ofthe autonomy
of Eastern Carelia isreally one of factTo answer it would involve
the duty of ascertaining what evidence might throw light upon13~ \\'KITTEK STATE>lIiST OF THE U.S..A.
the conteiitions whicli have been put forward oii tliis subject
of sucli witnesses as might be necessary. The Court woulù, oftendance
course, be ata very great disadvantage in such an inquiry, owing
to the fact that Kussia refuses to take part in it. It appedrs now
to be very douhtful whether there would be available to the
Court materials sufficient to enahle it to arrive at any judicial
conclusion upon the qucstion of fact: What did the parties agree
to? The Court does not say that there is an absolute rule that
the request for an advisory opinion may not involve some inquiry
as to facts, but, under ordinary circumstaiices, it is certainly
espedieiit tliat the facts upon which the opinion of the Court is
desired should not he in controversy, and it should not be left
to the Court itself to ascertain what they are.
...Tlie question put to the Court is not one of abstrdct law,
but concerns directly the main point of the controversy between
Finland and Russia, and can only be decided by an investigation
into the factsunderlying tlie case. Answering the question would
be substantially equivalent to decidiiig tlie dispute between the
pÿrties." (Ibid. zS-29.)
Xot only is the Court not asked to pass on the merits of the
dispute or the triith of the charges made, but it is also not asked
to determine mhcther the charges made, if established, would be
sufficient to justify a Treaty Commission in finding a violation of
the Treaty. All the Court is asked to determine is whether the
diplomatic negotiations disclose a dispute which may properly
be brought before a Treaty Commission. It is for the Commission
to determine the sufficiency of the charges made and ivhat, if any,
further consideration they merit.
D. Diplomntic erchatzges between the Gouernnzent of the United
States and the Guvernme~zts uf Bulgaria, Hungary and Rz~mania
disclose importa?ztand sz~bstantialdispz~tes
On September 20, 1949, the United States Representative to
the United Nations transmitted to the Secretary-General of the
Unitcd Xations copies of the notes transmitted through the diplo-
matic channel between the Government of the United States,
as onc of the Allied and Associated Powers party to the Treaties
of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rnmania, and the Govern-
ments of those countries. In its notes, the Government of the
United States charged those Governments with violations of the
"human-rights" Articles of the respective Treaties of Peace and
invoked the "disputes" Articles of these Treaties. (U.N. Doc.
A/9Sj, Septemberq, 1949: Doc. A/gRj!Corr. I, September 27,1949.)
The Secretary-General was requested by the Gcneral Assembly
in its Resolution of October 22, 1949, referred to above, to make
available to the International Court of Justice the relevant exchan-
ges of diplomatic correspondence and the records of the General
Assembly proceedings on this question. \VRITTES ST:\TE\IEST OF THE U.S.A. l37
On April 2, 1949, the Legatioii of the Iinited States iii Sofia,
acting under instruction of the Governmeiit of the Unitcd States,
as a Part!! to the Treaty of I'eace, presented a note to the Bulgarian
Foreign Office formally charging the Governmciit of Bulgaria
with having repeatcdly violated Article 2 of the Treaty of Pcace,
quoted nnte, by "privative ineasures and oppressive acts" (Iloc.
Alg85. Annex 1, 1). 24*) ; callccl upon the Bulgnrian Government
to adopt prompt rcmcdial measures in respect of the violations ;
and requested that Go\~criiment to specify the steps it \vas preparecl
to take in implementing fnlly the terms of Article 2. As illus-
trative of the violations by the Bulgarian Govcrnmciit of the rights
assured under Article 2 of the Treaty, there \vas pointed out in
the note of the United States the fact that-
[I.] "Through the esercise of police po\ver the Bulgarian
Government has deprived large numbers of its citizens of their
basic hurnari riglits, assured to them under tlie Treaty of Peace.
These de~rivations have been manifested bv arbitrarv arrests,
systematic perversioii of the judicial process: and the i,rolonged
detention in prisons and camps, without public trial, of pcrsons
whose vicws -are opposcd to ihose of thc régime."
[z.! "Similarly, the 13ulgarianGo\zernmeiit has denicd to persons
living under its jurisdiction, as individuals and as orgariize<lgroups
iiicluding democrntic political parties, the fundamental freedoms
of political opinion and of public meeting. It has dissolved the
Xational Agrarian Union, tlie Bulgarian Socialist Party and other
groups, and has imprisoncd many of tlieir Icaders. \\'ith the
Treaty of I'eace barely iii effect and in the face of world opinion,
the Bulgarian Governmeiit ordered the executioii of Xikola Petkov,
Xational Agrarian Union leader, who dared to express <lemocratic
political opinion v;liich did not correspond to tliose of the Uul-
garian Government. I'roceedings were instituted agairist those
deputies who did not agree with its policies, with tlie result that
no vestige of parliiirneiitary opposition now remains, an illustration
of the effective denial of freedom of political opinion iii Bulgaria."
[3.]"By restrictions on the press and on otlier p~iblications,
the Bulgarian Governmeiit lias dcnied to persons iinder its juris-
diction the freedom of expression guaranteed to tliem under the
Treaty of Peace. 13y laws, administrative acts, and tlie use of
force and iiitimidation on the part of its officials, the Bulgarian
Governrnent has made it impossible for individual citizens opeiily
to express views not in conformity to those officially prescribed.
Freedorn of the press does not exist in Bulgaria."
[4.]"By legislation, by the acts of its officials. and by 'trials'
of religious leaders, tlie Bulgarian Government has acted in con-
- travention of the express provisions of the Treaty of Peace in
3 At the timr ofthe delivery of the notof XpriI2, 1949,the BulgnriaiGovern-
ment mas informeclin ivriting that thc Canadian Governmcnt. tvhilç not in a
position to make representationbasecl on the Treatyof Pcaçe,hnd reqiieste<l that
the Biilgarian Government be informecl of the idcntity of Cnnn<linri vicws with
those ofthe United States. (Cnnn<l.îis not a parttothe 7'rc:rty.)
* l'hcsc pages rcfcr t<>thc ~~rïsciit voliiine. WRITTEN S'TATEIIEXT OF THE U.S.A.
13~
respect of freedom of worship. Recent measures directed against
the Protestant denominations in Bulgaria, for example, are clearly
incompatible with the Bulgarian Government's obligation to
secure freedom of religious worship to al1 persons under its juris-
diction."
In the note the United States charged Bulgaria not only with
full responsibility for acts committed "since the effective date of
the Treaty of Peace which are in contravention of Article z" of
the Treaty, but also with "failure to redress the consequences of
acts committed prior to that date which have continued to pre-
judice the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental
freedoms".
It was pointed out in the note that the United States had
previously drawn the attention of the Bulgarian authoritics on
appropriate occasions toits iîagraiit conduct iii violation of Article z
of the Treatv. but that the BulearianuGovernment had failed to
modify its &nduct.
On April 2, 1949 he Legation of the Ijnited States in Budapest,
actine under instructions of the Government of the United States.
as a Party to the Treaty of Peace, presented a note to the ~unl
garian Foreign OfficeS formally charging the Governme~it of
Hungary with having "deliherately and systematically" violated
Article z of the Treaty of Peace, quoted ante, by denying to the
Hungarian people by "privative measures and oppressive acts"
the rights and freedoms assured under the Article. (Doc. A/985,
Annex 2, p. 26.) The Government of the United States,in the note,
called upon the Hungarian Government to adopt prompt remedial
measures in respect of the violations and requested the Huiigarian
Government to specify the steps which it was prepared to take
in implementing fully the terms of Article z. In illustration cf the
violations by the Hungarian Government of the rights assured
under Article z of the Treaty, there was pointed out in the note
of the United States the fact that-
[I.] " ....Through arhitrary exercise of police power and
perversion of judicial process, the Hungarian Government and its
agencies have violated the rights of citizens, as free men, to life
and liberty."
[z.]" ....Denial of freedom of political opinion is complete
in Hungary. Democratic political parties which held substantial
mandates from tlic people have been tlirough the Government's
initiative successively purged, silenced in Parliament, fragmentized
and dissolved. To enforce rigid political conformity the Hungarian
Government and the Communist Party which coritrols it have
established a vast and insidious network of police and other
.Atthe tirne of the dalivofythe noteofi\pri2, 1949.brcauçe of theahsencc
of directdiplornaticrelationsbetween Canada and Hungary. the Hungarian
Governinent waç informed in writing that the Canadian Government had requested
the Governmrnt of the United States to inform the HungarianGovernmrnt that
it aççociated itçelf with the contents of the United States note. l\'H1711.iSST.4TEZIEST OF THE U.S.A. '39
agents who observe, report on, and seek to controt the private
opinions, associations aiid activities oi its citizcns."
[S.] "The Huiignrian Government, despite the provisioiis of
the Treaty of I'eace, has circumscribed freedom of espressioii.
Freedom of press and publication does not esist. Basic decrees
pertaining to the press nre restrictive in character and are so
iiiterpreted in prnctice. Xo substantive criticism of the Govern-
ment of the Communist Party is permitted. Government control
of printing establishments and of the distribution of newsprint
has been esercised to deny freedom of expression to individuals
or groups whose political opinions are at variance witli those
of the Governmeiit. In the field of reporting, absence of formal
censorship has not obscured the record of the Hungarian Govern-
ment in excludiiig or espelling foreign correspondents who have
written despatches critical of the regime or in intimidating local
correspondents iiito writing only what is acceptable or favorable
to the régime."
[4.] "Freedom of public meeting on political matters lias been
regularly deniecl to al1 escept Communist groups aiid tlieir colla-
borators. In the case of religious meetings, on various occasions
attendance nt such gatheriiigs has been obstructed aiid the prin-
cipals subjected to linrassrnerit. The Hungarian Governnient,
moreover, has pursued policies detrimental to freedom of religious
worship."
[j]" .... It lias souglit by coercive measures to undermine tlie
influence of the Churches and of religious leaders and to restrict
theirlegitimatc functions. Dy arbitrary and unjustified proceedings
against religious leaders on fabricated grounds, as in tlie cases
of Cardinal >Iindszenty and Lutheran Bishop Ordass, the Hun-
garian Government lias attempted to force the stibmission of
independent Churcli leaders and to bring about tlieir replacement
with collaborators subservient to the Communist Partv and its
program. Such nieasures constitute violations of the fteedom of
religious worship guaranteed by the Treaty of Peace."
In the note the IJnited States charged Hungary not only with
fullresponsibility for actscommitted "since the effective date of the
Treaty of Peace which arc in contravention of Article z", but also
with failure to redress the coiisequences of acts committed prior
to that date "\\,hich have continued to prejudicc" the enjoyment
of humari rights aiitl fuiidameiital freedoms.
It\\-as pointed out iii the note that previously the United States
had dramn the attention of the Hungarian autborities on approp-
riate occasions to Hungary's flagrant conduct in violation of
Article z of the Treatv but that the Hun~arian-Government had
failed to modiiy .its onduct.
Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace between the Allied and Associated
Powers and Rumania, which entered into force on Se~tember 1.5,
1947, contains provisioiis applicable to Rumania idintical wifh
those contained in Article z of the Treatv of Pcace between the
Allicd and Associated Powers and ~uliaria, and quoted ante.74'3 \{'KITTEK STATEBIEST OF THE U.S..4.
On April 2, 1949, the Legation of the United States in Bucharest,
acting under instruction of the Government of the United States,
as a Party to the Treaty of Peace, presented a note to the Rumanian
Foreign Office formally charging the Government of Rumania
with having repeatedly violated Article 3 of the Treaty of Peace
by "deliberately and systematically" denying to the Rumanian
people, "by means of privative measures and oppressive acts",
the rights and freedoms assured to them under Article 3. (Doc.
A/gSj, Annex 3, p. 28.) As illustrative of Rumaiiian violations
of Article 3, it was pointed out in the note that-
[I;! "In violation of freedom of political opinion assured by
the lreaty of Peace, the Rumanian Govcrnment and the minority
Communist Party which controls it disrupted, silenced and out-
lawed democratic political parties and deprived democratic leaders
of their liberty. To this end, the Kumanian Government employed
methods of intimidation and perversions of tlie judicial process.
Thc inequities of these actions, as exemplified by the 'trial' and
condemnation to life imprisonment of Iuliu Maniu, President of
the Xational Pensant Party, and other leaders were recited by
the Uiiited States Government in the Legation's note No. 61 of
2 February 1948. Moreover, large numbcrs of Rumanian citizens
have been seized and held for long,periods witliout public trial."
[z.] "By laws, decrees and administrative measures as well as
by cxtra-legal acts of organizations affiliated with the Govern-
ment and the Communist Party, the Rumaniari Government bas
stifled al1 expression of political opinion at variance with its own.
Freedom of press and publication, guaranteed by the Trcaty of
Peace, does not exist in Rumania. No substantive criticism of
the Govcrnment is permitted. The Rumanian Government has
taken control of printing establishments and has suppressed al1
publications which are not responsive to its direction or wliich
do not serve the purposes of the Communist Party."
[3.]"Despite the express provision of the Treaty of I'eace,
only Communist and Communist-approved organizations are able
in practice to hold public meetings. In view of the threat of forcible
intervention and reprisals by the Government or by the Com-
munist Party, other groups have not attempted to hold such
meetings."
[4.] "The Rumanian Government has likewise abridged freedom
of religions \vorship, guaranteed under Article 3 of the Treaty
of Peace, by legislation and by other measures which effectively
deny such freedom. It has assumed extensive control over the
practice of religion, including the application of political tests,
which is incompatible with freedom of worship. These powers have
been used in at least one instance to destroy by Government decree
a major religious body and to transfer its property to thestate."
--
"At the time of the deliveof thc noteofApril2, ~gqg,becaiise of the absence
of directdi~lomatic relatioiibeti~ceii Canada and Rumania. the Kumanian
Government >vasiiiforrned in writiiig that the CanCiovernrnenthad rcquested
the Goveriiii~enof tliUnited States to inform tlie Kumaniaii Gouçrnmenthat it
as~ociated itsclf ivith the contents of the United States note. WRITTEN STATEIIEST OF THE U.S.A. 14'
Here again the Government of the United States charged
Rumania not only with full responsibility for acts committed
"since the effective date of the Treaty of Peace whicb are in con-
travention of Article 3, but also for its failure to redress the conse-
quences of acts committed prior to that date nhich have continued
to prejiidice the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental
freedoms". It was added that the United States, "mindful of its
rcsponsibilities under the Treaty of Peace, has drawn attention
on appropriate occasions to the flagrant conduct of the Rumaniaii
authorities in this regard" but that the 12umaiiian Government
had failed to modify its conduct in conformity witli the Treaty
stipulations.
Finally, as in the other notes referred to above, thc Governmeiit
of the United States called upon the Rumaniaii Government to
adopt prompt remedial measures in respect of the violations
referred to, and requested that Governmeiit to specify the steps
which it \'as prepared to take in implementing fully the terms
of Article 3.
The reply of the Bulgarian Government, of April 21, 1949,
stated that "The Governnient of the People's Republic of Bulgaria
has always carried out and \vil1carry out in a most conscientious
manner the clauses of the Peace Treaty." (Doc. A/gSg, Annex 5,
p. 32.) It was stated in the communication that even before the
entry of the Treaty of Peace into force, the Biilgarian Government
had undertaken "al1 measures dependent on it (its will) for the
guaranteeing of the fundamental civil libertiesas well as the
political rights of Bulgarian citizens, withont distinction of race,
nationality, sex or creed". Reference was made in the Bulgarian
note (a) to the Govcrnrnent's convocation on the basis of universal,
secret, equal and direct suffrage, of a Grand National Assembly
nhich elaborated a Constitution consecrating and guaraiitecing
the rights aiid freedoms referred to in Article z of the Treaty of
Peacc ;as also (b) to the measures taken by the Government of
Bulgaria for the liquidation of the Fascist régime. Iii the reply
surprise was expressed that the Government of the United States
had evoked facts "going back to the Armistice period". As to the
facts aiid acts of the Bulgarian Government, "sucli as trials, etc.",
which took place after the entry into force of the Treaty of Peace,
the Bulgarian reply stated :
"...The Bulgarian Government having takeii al1 measures to
ensure compliance with al1 the political clauses of the Peace
Treaty, and notably after Bulgaria had been granted the most
democratic Constitution in the world, and the people had been
guaranteed legal power to exercise and defend its rights and
freedom, the Bulgarian Government, as govemrnent of a sovereign
State, cannot agree to permit to other States the appreciation
of its acts, for whichit islely responsibleto the National Assem-
17142 WRITTEK STATE~IENT OF THE U.S.A.
bly. This Government can even less aaee to suffer the cnticism
of foreign Powers, in so far as the activities of Bulgarian courts
are concerned, being in existence by virtue of the Constitution
and functioning in public in accordance with the most modern
and most democratic laws.
The Bulgarian Government will repel every attempt at inter-
ference in the domestic affairs of Bulgaria and will consider as
an unfriendly act any attempt to force it to accept treatment as
a State whose interna1 acts would be suhject ta judgment hy
foreign Powers."
The reply of the Bulgarian Government referred to the note of
the Government of the United States as "unfounded", and as
regards the "essence of the accusations", stated that it "rejects
them energetically". It \vas added :
" .... Under the regime of people's democracy in Bulgaria, the
toiiing masses of towns and villages. which constitute the immense
majority of the nation, enjoy not only on paper but also in fact
al1fundamental political rights and freedoms of man. Restrictions
on the exercise of the freedom of meeting or of association, of
the freedom of speech or of press, do not exist and are not applied
in Bulgaria excepting in the cases provided by the law against
infringers and in the interest itself of public security, maintenance
of order and public morals of the people."
The reply, dated April 8, 1949, of the Hungarian Government
to the note of April z from the Government of the United States,
stated :
" ....It is well known that concerning the free enjoyment of
human rights the Republic of Hungary, well beforetheconclusion
of the Treaty of Peace, abolished.all discriminatioiis as to race,
sex, language and religion which existed under the Horthy régime.
Thus, the Govemment of Hungary has fully complied with the
provisions of the Treaty of Peace." (Doc. A/g85, Annex 4. p. 30.)
The Government of Hungary called attention to Article 4 of the
Treaty of Peace concerning the dissolution of organizations, not
only Fascist but others "which have as their aim denial to the
people of their democratic rights", andstated thatit wasproceeding
in the sense of these provisions of the Treaty of Peace "when
dissolving the organizations and parties aiming at the restoration
of the old Fascist régime and when summoning to Court those who
pursue an activity to overthrow the democratic Republic".
Besides stating that Hungary "emphaticaily rejects" the note
of the United States, the reply stated :
"The Government of Hungary declares once more that Hungary
has fulfilled, fulfills and will fulfill ail obligations embodiedin
the Treaty of Peace. At the same time, the Government of Hun-
gary emphatically protests the tendency of the Government of
the United States to use the stipulations of the Treaty of Peace WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. I43
as a pretext for illegitimate interference in the domestic affairs
of the sovereign Hungarian State and for supporting the reac-
tionary and Fascist forcesopposedto the Government of Hungary."
The reply of the'Runianian Government of April 18, 1949, to
the note of April z from the Government of the United States,
stated that the April z note was sirnilar to "former notes" in
which "certain affirmations were made by the Governmerit of the
United States with referencc to violation hy the Rumanian Govern-
ment of the provisions of Article 3 of the Peace Treaty".
(Doc. A/g85, Annex 6, p. 34.) The reply of Rumania stated that the
note of April 2 "does not correspond to reality and ...repeats the
inventions of the slanderous press of the imperialist monopolists".
In an effort to demonstrate that the laws of Rumania "in fact
guarantee the application of the provisions of Article 3of the Peace
Treaty", it was stated in the reply :
"In the Rumanian I'eople'sRepublic the exercise of the fund-
amentalfreedoms, freedom of assembly, of demonstrations, of the
press and of speech are guaranteed by the Constitution, and these
are assured by making available to those who work printing
facilities, supplies of paper and meeting places.
Discrimination because of nationality or race is punishable
by law.
Religious organizations enjoy freedom of worship and are given
the places and means necessary for the exercise of their religion."
Thc Rumanian Government declared in the note that the United
States was transgressing the Treaty of Peace by trying to prevent
the application of Article 5 which, as described in the reply, "pro-
vides that the Rumanian Government will not permit the existence
and activities of any organizations of a Fascist type and which have
as their aim denial to the people of their democratic rights".
Finally, it was stated in the reply that-
"In consequence, thc Government of the Rumanian People's
Republic declares that it cannot accept the attempt of the United
States Government to interfere in the interna1 affairs of Rumania
and it rejects the note of the Govemment of the United States."
In view of thc fact that the Bulgarian, Hungarian and Rumanian
Governments denied that they had violated the provisions of the
Treaties of Peace, and indicated their unlvillingness to adopt the
requested remedial measures in execution of the Treaties, the
Government of the United States informed each of the three
Governments (by notes delivered by the American Legations in
Sofia, Budapest and Bucharest on May 31, 1949). that in its view
that Govemment had "not given a satisfactory reply to the specific
charges set forth in the Legation's note" [of April 2, 19491. In
the notes, the Government of the United States alluded to the
fact that the replies contained allegations against the UnitedI44 WRITTEK STr\TEllEST OF THE U.S.A.
States "~rhich are demonstrahly false aiid irrelevant to the matter
ai hand", and iiiformed the Governments addressed that-
"The United States Government accordingly considers that a
dispute has arisen concerning the interpretation and execution
of the Treaty of Peace which the .... Government has shown no
dispositioii to joini settling by direct diplomatic negotiations."
(Doc. .4/gSj, Annexes 7, S and g, pp. 36, 37 and 38.)
Further, in the notes of Afay 31, the Government of the United
States inroked the relevant Articles of the Treaties of Peace provid-
ing for the settlemeiit of disputes hy the Heads of Diplomatic
filissions of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and the United
States in the three capitals (Article6 of the Treatp with Bulgaria,
Article do of theTreatv with Hunea-v.,.iid Article ?-of the Treatr
with ~imania).
On RIay 31, 1949, the Chiefs of Alission of the United States in
Sofia, Budapest and Bucharest, iiiformed their Soviet and British
collea~ues in those ca~itals that "a disuute exists" betwcen the
United States and the'coiintry to which they were accredited, and
inquired when the particular Head of Mission would be prepared
to meet with his colleagues to "consider the dispute in question".
(Doc. A/gS5, Annexes IO, II, rz, 13, 14 and 15, pp. 39-49.) The
Rfinisters of the United Kingdom in the three capitals expressed
their millingness to meet at any time mutually agreeable. (Doc.
A1985,Annexes 16, 17and 18, pp. 50-51.) A note of the U.S.S.R.,
dated June II, 1949. referred to a note of the Acting Secretary
of State to the Soviet Ambassador in IVashington dated RIay 31,
1949. as"xvell as .... the notes of the missions of the U.S.A. in Bul-
garia, Hungarp, and Rumania, delirered on the same day ta the
Ambassadors of the U.S.S.R., in the aforementioned countries",
and stated that the U.S.S.K. considered that it was evident from
the replies of the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania
that those Governments were '.strictly fulfilling the obligations
undertaken by them under the peace treaties, including the obliga-
tions haviiig to do with the security of human rights and the funda-
mental freedoms" ; that the measures of those Governments con-
cerning which the Governmeiit of the United States expressed dissatis-
faction in the notes of April z, 1949, "not only are not a violation
of the Peace Treaties, but on the contrarp, are directed toward
the fulfilment of the Peace Treaties ~vhich obligate the said
countries to combat organizations of the Fascist type and other
orgaiiizations 'which have as their aim denial to the people of
their democratic rights' " ;and that it \vas "self-evident that such
measures .... are fully usithin the domestic cornpetence of these
countries as sovereign States". It was concluded in the note
of June II that the Soviet Government "does not see any ground
for convening the Three Heads of the Diplomatic Missions". (Doc.
AIg85. Annex 19, p. 53.) \VRITTES ST.ATE>lEST OF THE U.S.A. I45
By a net? of Jiinc 30,1949, the Government of the United States
requested the Soviet Government to reconsider its decision, pointing
oiit that : "The Soviet Government ...has associated itself with
the position of the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary aiid Ruinania
in denying that the Treaties have been violatcd. This interpre-
tation is disputed by the United States and by othcr signatories
of the Trcaties of Pcace." (Iloc. A/g85, Anncx 20, p. 54.) The
reply of the U.S.S.K. of July 19, 1945,to the request for reconsider-
ation of the matter, statcd that that Government did not see any
basis for a relrie\v of its position. (Doc. 1\/985,Aii21, p. 55-56.)
On July 27, 1949, the Government of Bulgaria addressed a note
to the Government of the United States setting forth its view that
the settlement procedures provided for in Article 36 of the Treaty
of Peace with Bulgaria were not applicable, and citing certain
Bulgarian constitutional provisions as being "in full accordance
with the Treaty of Peace", referring to Article 4 of the Treaty
regarding the dissolution of "al1 organizations of a Fascist type on
Bulgarian territory". The note further stated that "the 'varioiis
proceedings before Bulgarian coiirts, the acts of administrative
ageiicies and others in varioiis cases cannot be made a subject of
discussion in conncction with the execiition of the Peace Treaty
since, from the point of view of international law, the text and
spirit of the Treaty as well as the exact provisions of Article 2
of the United Nations Charter, such a discussion would constitute
an inadmissible interference in the interna1 affairs of Our country
and would be an infriiigement of its sovereignty". (Doc. A/985,
Annex 22, p. 58.)
Tivo months having elapsed since the Heads of Mission in the
three capitals were requested to meet for the purpose, and no
meeting having taken place and the dispute remaining unresolved,
the Government of the United States found it neccssary to invoke
the additional Peace Treaty procedure for the settlement of dis-
putes. This procedure envisages the establishment (under each
Treaty of Peace) of Commissions composed in each case of one
representative of cach party and a third member selccted by
mutual agreement of the two parties from nationals of a third
country. It provides that should the two parties fail to agree
within a period of one month upon the appointment of the third
member, the Secretary-General of the United Nations niay he
requested by either party to make the appointment. It further
provides that the decision of the Commission is to be accepted
as "definitive and binding".
In notes delivered on August 1, 1949, to the Governments of
Hungary, Bulgaria, and Rumania, the Government of the United
States requested that the disputes be referred to Commissions
constituted in accordance with the respective Articles of the
Treaties of Peace and asked the several Governments to join in
naming the Commissions. (Doc. A/585, Annexes 23, 24 and 25,146 WRITTEX STATEhIEST OF THE U.S.A.
pp. 58-61.) The Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania
rejected the request in their notes dated September 1,August 26,
and September 2, rqqq, respectively.-.Doc. A/..s- Annexes 26,
27 and-28, pp. 61-64.).
On Sentember 10,. I, ,,.the ~ovemment of the United States
addresse4 further notes to the Governments of 13ulg&ia, Hungary
and Rumania, stating that the Government of the United States
considered that the Government addressed had no grounds for
declaring unilaterally that a dispute over the execution of the
"human-rights" Article "does not exist". The position was taken
that the fact of the existence of a dispute as to each of the several
Treaties wasself-evident ; that refusal to comply with the "disputes"
Articles constituted a serious new breach of Treaty obligations ;
that the defense put fonvard with respect to obligations to suppress
Fascist organizations was a "flimsy pretext that will not stand
examination in the light of the systematic suppression of human
rights and freedoms" ; that those Governments were not the sole
arbiterÇ of their execution of their obligations under the Treaties ;
that as to the defense that the sovereignty of the State addressed
was impugned, "it is manifest that .... sovereignty is limited by ....
clear international obligations" ; and that the invocation by the
United States of specific treaty procedures for the settlement of a
dispute "can in no sense be regarded as unwarranted intervention
in the internal affairs" of the Government addressed. It \vas con-
cluded in the notes that the recalcitrant attitude of the Govem-
ments in the matter could in no way affect the determination of the
Govemment of the United Statesto have recourse to al1appropriate
measures for secuiing compliance with the obligations of the
human-rights provisions of the Treaties of Peace, as also of the
"disputes" provisions. (Doc.A/985,Annexes 2g,30 and 31,pp. 65-.69)
Subsequently, on October 27, the Government of Hungary, in a
further communication to the Govemment of the United States,
took the position that it "was minutely observing the stipulations
contained in Article 2 of the Peace Treaty" ;that "compliance
with the stipulations of Article 4 is a condition sine qua rion of
guaranteeing to al1 peoples and to the Hungarian people among
them, the rights defined by Article 2 of the Treaty" ; that the
Govemments of the United States and the United Kingdom had
on several occasions infringed the stipulations of the Treaties of
Peace ;that Hungary was astonished that the Govemment of the
United States expressed the opinion that by assuming certain
obligations through the signature of the Treaty of Peace, Hungary
had become "a State with limited sovereignty" ; and finally that
the note of September 19 was to be construed as a new attempt of
"unlawful interference with the internal affairs of Hungary".
(A copy of the communication is attached.)
On January 5, 1949, the Government of the United States, by
notes delivered to the Govemments of Bulgaria, Hungary and WRITTEN STATEbIENT OF THE U.S.A.
I47
Rumania, announced that it had named Professor Edwin D.
Dickinson as the Representative of the Govemment of the United
States on each of the three Commissions to be established uuder
the Treaties of Peace, and requested the Govemments addressed
to designate their representatives forthwith and to enter into
consultation immediately with the Govemment of the United
States with a view.to the appointment of the third members of the
Commissions as stipulated in the "disputes" Articles of the Treaties
of Peace. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was so
informed. (Copies of the communications are attached.)
E. Specific dis$zstes concerningthe "interpretation or executiofr"of
the Treaties of Peace aredisclosed in the diplomatic excha?lges
It is obvious that the diplomatic exchanges between the Govern-
ment of the United States, on the one hand, and the Governments
of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, on the other, disclose that
disputes exist between the Government of the United Statcs and
the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania as to the
interpretation and execution of the respective Treaties of Peace.
Included among these disputes regarding the interpretation or
execntion of the Treaties, not settled by direct negotiation, are
disputes as to-
1. Whether the Govemments of Bulgaria, Hungaryand Rumania
are, or are not, complying with the human-rights provisions of the
respective Treaties of Peace :
(a) Specifically, and as illustrative only, ha the Government of
Bulgaria, or has it not, violated the human-nghts provisions of the
Treaty of Peace between that Government and the Allied and
Associated Powers by making arbitrary arrests ; systematically
perverting the judicial processes ;detaining in prisons and camps,
without public trials and for prolonged periods, persons opposed
to the existing regime in Bulgaria ;denying freedom of political
opinion and of public meeting ; dissolving the National Agrarian
Union, the Bulgarian Sociaiist Party and other groups, and impri-
sonment of many of their leaders ; executing Xikola Petkov,
National Agrarian Union leader, for expressing democratic political
opinions which did not correspond to those ofthe Bulgarian Govern-
ment ; proceeding against deputies disagreeing with Governmental
policies ;denying freedom of expression by restrictions on the press
and other publications, by laws, administrative acts, and the use
of force and intimidation on the part of officiaisof the Government ;
proscrihing freedom of the press; preventing freedom of worship,
by legislation, by acts of officials. by so-called trials of religious
leaders, and by measuresdirected against Protestant denominations
in Bulgaria.
(b)Further, and as illustrative only, has the Government of
Hungary, or has it not, violated the Treaty of Peace between that148 \'RITTEX STATEMEKT OF THE U.S.A.
Government and the Allied and Associated Powers by violating the
rights of citizens to life and liberty through the arhitrary exercise
of police power and perversion of the judicial processes ; denying
freedom of opinion through suppressing, dissolving and purging
democratic political parties ; suppressing freedom of opinion,
expression and of association through an insidious network of police
and other agents who observe, report on, and seek to control private
opinion, association and activity of citizens ; eliminating freedom
of the press, publication and expression through restrictive decrees,
control of printing establishments and distribution of newsprint ;
denying freedom of assembly on political matters to al1 except
Communist groups and their collahorators ; denying freedom of
religious worship and practice, including the harassment and
obstruction of religious gatherings ; proceeding in an arbitrary and
unjustified manner against religious leaders on fahricated grounds,
as in the cases of Cardinal Mindzenty and Lutheran Bishop Ordass ;
and replacing religious leaders with suhservient collaborators.
(c) And further, and as illustrative only, has the Government
of Rumania, or has it not, violated the Treaty of Peace between
that Government and the Allied and Associated Powers by denying
freedom of opinion in disrupting, silencing and outlawing other
than Communist-controlled political parties and depriving demo-
cratic leaders of their liberty ; ta this end, employing methods of
intimidation and perversions of the judicial process as in the case
of the so-called "trial" and condemnation to life imprisonment of
Iuliu Maniu, President of the National Peasant Party, and other
leaders ; seizing and holding Rumanian citizens for long periods
of time without public trial ; stifling freedom of expression of
political opinion at variance with that of the Government, by laas,
decrees and administrative measures, as well as by extra-legal acts
or organizations affiliated with the Government and the Commu-
nist Party ; eliminating freedom of the press and of publication,
including the taking of control of al1 printing establishments and
the suppression of al1publications not responsible to the direction
of, or which do not serve the purposes of, the Communist Party ;
eliminating freedom of assemhly and of association, save for
Communist and Communist-approved organizations, by forcible
interventions or threat thereof ; abridging freedom of religious
worship, by legislation and other measures, by assuming extensive
control over the practice of religion, including the application of
political tests, incompatible with freedom of worship, and, in at
least one instance, by destroying by Government decree a major
religious body and transferring its property to the State.
z. Whether some of the violations complained of took place
only prior to the effective date of the Peace Treaties, or whether
they have occurred subsequently to that date. .WRIiTEX STATEJIEKT OF THE U.S.A. I49
3. Whether the allegatioiis of the Govemments of Bulgaria,
Hungary and Kumania in defcnse that what is complained of
by the United States is, or is not, in fact a duty of the accused
Governments under a proper interpretation of other provisions of
the Treaties of Peace relating, iiiteralin, to the suppression of
Fascist organizatioiis.
4. \Irhether the States accused of violating the Peace Treaties
can determine unilaterally the nature and estent of their obligations
under the homan-rights provisions of the several Treaties of Peace,
or whether this question is properly to be resolved by the Treaty
procedures.
5. Whether the States accused of violating the Peace Treaties
can determine uiiilaterally the nature and estent of their obli-
gations iinder the provisions referred to in paragraph 3, stlprc~,
relating generally to the suppression of Fascist organizations, or
whcther this question is properly to be resolved by the Treaty
procedures.
6. IVhether, as allegecl by Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania in
defense, the matters of which they are accused are domestic
matters solely of concern to them, or whether these matters have
become by reasoii of the stipulations of the Treaties of Peace
matters appropriate for determination under the "disputes"
provisions of the several Treaties of Peace and have ceased to be
solely of domestic concem.
F. Proito~&ncemeittb sy the Pertitanent Court on the szlbject of
"disputes"
The "disputes" referred to in the respective Articles of the
Treaties of Peace, and as to which provision is made for their resolu-
tioii. arc dr:scribctlin rhe .iei,r.ral~r<:a';<II<liq,uiccoiicerning
the iritcrr~rer.~tioiior excciitioii of the 'I'recirv.\iliich ii riot jcttled
bv direct diplornatic ne~otiations". This lanrua~e is exceedinalv
b;oad in sc&e. - - - - -
The Permanent Court of International Justice dealt with the
question of what constitutes a dispute on a number of occasions.
In1924 the Government of Greecefiled an application subrnitting
to the Permanent Court of International Justice a case arising out
of the alleged refusal on the part of the Government of Palesti~ie,
and also on the part of the British Government as Mandatory, to
recognize to their full extent certain rights acquired bM. Mavrom-
matis, a Greek subject, uncler contracts and agreements concliided
by him with Ottoman authorities in regard to concessions for
certain public works to be construeted in Palestine.
Article 26 of the British Mandate for Palestine contained the
following provision :Is0 WRITTEN STATERIENT OF THE U.S.A.
"The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should
arise between the Mandatory and another hfember of the League
of Na.tions relating to the interpretation or the application of
by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of settled
International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant
of the League of Nations."
The British Government filed objection to the Court's jurisdic-
tion and requested the dismissal of the proceedings.
In its Judgment on the jurisdiction, the Court .considered,
inter alia, two questions: "Does the matter before the Court
constitute a dispute between the Mandatory and another Member
of the League of Nations ?" and "1s it a dispute which cannot be
settled by negotiation ?" (The Mavrommatis Palestine Conces-
sions, Judgment No. 2, Series A., No. 2, August 30, 1924, p. II.)
In so doing, the Court defined a "dispute" in the following manner :
"A dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a confiict
of legal views or of interests between two persons." Ibid.
Itconcluded that "The present suit between Great Britain and
Greece certainly possesses these characteristics." Ibid.
Article 26 of the Mandate Agreement, it will be noted, referred
to "any dispute whatever ...relating to the interpretation or the
application of the provisions of the Mandate ...if it cannot be
settled by negotiation", and thus set up a stricter test for deter-
mining the Court's jurisdiction, as it \vas necessary to show that
the dispute conld not be settled by negotiation, than the pertinent
Articles of the Treaties of Peace for determining the jurisdiction
of the Treaty Commissions which refer to "any dispute concerning
the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled
by direct diplomatic negotiations".
The Court, in holding that the dispute could not be settled by
negotiation, however, significantly stated :
"The second condition hy which this Article defines and limits
the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court in questions arising out
of the interpretation and application of the hfandate, isthat the
dis$ute cannot be settled Eiy necotiation. It has been contended
that this condition is not fulfilled in the present c;and leaving
out of account the correspondence previous to 1924 hetween
Mavrommatis or his solicitors and the British Government,
emphasis has been laid on the very small number and hrevity
of the subseqnent communications exchanged between the two
Governments, which communications appear to be irreconcilable
with the idea of negotiations properly so called. The true value
of this objection will readily be seen if it he remembered that
the question of the importance and chances of success of diplomatic
necessity always presuppose a more or less lengthyatseries of notes
and despatches ; it may suffice that a discussion should have WRIïTEN STATEhIENT OF THE U.S.A. I5'
been commenced, and this discussion may have been very short ;
this will be the case if a deadlock is reached, or if finally a point
is reached at which one of the parties definitely declares himself
doubt that thedispute cannotbesettledby diplornaticnegotiation...."
(Ibid. 13.)
In 1925 the ~erman Government filed an application with the
Permanent Court of International Justice submitting a suit against
Poland concerning certain German interests in Polish Upper
Silesia and relating particularly to the expropriation of a nitrate
factory at Chorz6w and to the anuounced intention of the Polish
Government to expropriate certain large agricultural estates.
Poland raised an objection to the Court's jiirisdiction. Article 23
of the German-Polish Convention concerning Upper Silesia, con-
cluded at Geneva in 1922, on which the Court's jurisdiction was
alleged by Germany to be hased, provided :
"r. Should differences of opinion respecting the constmction
and application of Articles 6 to 22 arise between the German
and l'olish Governments, they shall be submitted to the Per-
manent Court of International Justice."
In sustaining the jurisdiction of the Court, the Court differen-
tiated between a "difference of opinion" and a "dispute", as
follows :
"Now a difference of opinion does cxist as soon as one of the
Governments concerned points out that the attitude adopted by
the other conflicts with its ownviews. Even if, under Article 23,
the existence of a definite dispute iverc necesqry, tliis condition
could at any time be fulfilled by mcans of unilateral action on
the part of the applicant Party. And the Court cannot allow
itself to be hampered by a mere defect of form, the removal of
which depends solely on the Party concerned." (GermanInterests
in Polish Upper Silesia and The Eactory at Chorzdw,Judgment
No. 6 (Jurisdiction), August 25, 1925, Series A., No. 6, p. 14.)
Note that the Coiirt felt that the reqiiirement of the existence of
a dispiite would be met even by rneans of unilateral action on the
part of one Party.
The Court next considered the importance, if any, to be attached
to the conjunctive "and" between the words "construction" and
"application" in Article 23, and concluded that this was imrnatenal
in this case as both construction and application of the Convention
tvcre involved. The Government of the United States calls attention
to the fact that the instant "disputes" Articles describe the dispute
to be resolvcd by theTreaty procedures as "any dispute concerning
the intcrpretation or execution" of the Trcatics. Here, as in the
Chorzdw Factory case, the dispute involves differences with regard
to both the "interpretation" and the "execution" of the several
Treaties.I52 WRITTEY STATEhlENT OF THE U.S.A
Poland contended that differences with regard to reparations
did not fa11 within the scope of Article 23, paragraph 1, of the
Geneva Convention just quoted. In rejecting this contention in
ensuing proceedings in this case in 1927, the Court said :
"The Court, by Judgments Nos. 6 and 7 [(Merits), May 25,
1926, Series A., No. 71,has recognized that differences relating to
the application of Articles 6 to 22 include not only those relating
has or has not been correct, but also those bearing upon these
applicability of these articles, that is to Say, upon any act or
omission creatine a situation contrarv to the said articles...."
(German 1tzteres7silz Polish Upfier ~;lesia and The Factory at
Chorzdze*T,udcment No. S (Turisdiction), Tulv 26, 1qz7, Series A.,
xo. g, pp. 20-21.) .- -.
The Court added :
".... Article 23, paragraph 1, which constitutes a typical arbi-
tration clause ...contemplates al1 differences of opinion resulting
from the interpretation and application of a certain number of
articles ofa convention. In using the expression 'differences of
opinion resulting from the interpretation and application', the
subject ofgsuch differences as their source, and this would justify
the inclusion of differences relating to reparations amongst those
concerning the application, even if the notion of the application
of a convention did not cover reparations for possible violation."
(Ibid. 24.)
Still later the German Government filed a request for an inter-
pretation of the Court's Judgrnents Nos. 7 and 8 in the Chorzdw
case. Article 60 of the Statute of the Court provided :
"The judgment is final and without appeal. In the event of
dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court
shallconstrue it upon the request of any Party."
The Court accordingly had occasion to determine whether or not
there existed a "dispute" as to the meaning or scope of the judg-
rnents within the meaning of Article 60. In holding that a dispute
need not be manifested in a forma1 wayso long as the Governments
had in fact shown that they held opposite views andthat a dispute
existed as to each of the judgmeuts, the Court said :
"
the Court thinks it advisable to define the meaning which should
be given to the terms 'dispute' and 'meaning or scope of the
judgment', as employed in Article 60 of the Statute.
In so far as concerns the word 'dispute', the Court observes
that, according to the tenor of Article 60 of the Statute. the
manifestation of the existence of the dispute in a specific manner,
as for instance by diplomatic negotiations, is not required. It
would no doubt he desirable that a State should not proceed to WRITTEX STATEMEXT OF THE U.S.A. I53
before the Court without having previously, within reasonable
limits, endeavoured to make it quite clear that a difierence of
views is in question which has not been capable of being otlierwise
overcome. But in view of the mording of the Article, the Court
considers that it cannot require that the dispute should have
manifested itself in a formal way ;according to the Court's view,
it should be suiiîcient if the tu70Governments have in fact shown
themselves as holding opposite views in regard to the meaning
or scope of a judgment of the Court. THe Court in this respect
recalls thefact that in its Judgment No.6 (relating to the objection
to the jurisdiction raised by Poland in regard to the application
made by the German Government under Article 23 of the Geneva
Convention concerning Upper Silesia), it expressed the opinion
that, the article in question not requiring preliminary diplomatic
negotiations as a condition precedent, recourse could be had to
the Court as soon as one of the Parties considered that there
was a difference of opinion arising out of the interpretation and
application ofArticles 6 t22 of the Convention." (GermanInterests
in.Polish Upper Silesia and The Faciory al ChorzUw,Judgment
No. II (Interpretation), December 16, 1927, Series A., No. 13,
pp. 10-11.)
G. Once adispute is disclosedto exist betweenthe Parties concerning
the interpretation or execution O/ the Treaties O/ Peace, it is for
the Treaty Commission fo determine ils jzwisdiction and az~thority
to deal with it, including the sz6ficiciencyO/ the charges made to
warrant the assumption of iz~risdictionand the e8ect of matters
alleged in defense upon its jzcrisdiction
In harmony with the view taken at the outset (par. II C ante)
of this Witten Statement, that the rnerits of the dispute or the
sufficiency of the charges or answers are not before the Court, the
Government of the United States is of the further view that it
is for the Treaty Commission to be established to determine, at
least in the first instance, its jurisdiction and authority to deal
with the dispute, includi~ig the sufficiency of the charges made to
warrant the assumption of jurisdictio~i and the effect of matters
alleged in defense upon its jurisdiction.
Whether the dispute, for example, relates to matters solely
within the cornpetence, domestic jurisdiction, or spvereign control
of Bulgaria, Hungary or Rumania, is a question properly to be
decided by the Commissions under the Treaties of Peace.
It will be. for the countries mak'ing the allegatiou to make it
before the appropriate tribunal-a Commission envisaged under
the Treaties of Peace. Such Commissions, as other international
tribunals, will possess the inhereiit pou7er to pass upon their onn
jurisdiction. This is in conformity with well-accepted international
law and practice. (See, for example, Ralston, Law and Procedure
of International. Tribunals (1926). Secs. 53 and 54.)'54 WRITTEN STATEDIENT OF THE U.S.A.
The yrinciple that an international tribunal is vested with
authority to determine its own jurisdiction is recognized by
Article 36, paragraph 6, of the Statute of the Court, which pro-
vides :
"ln the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has juris-
diction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court."
The Permanent Court of International Justice, in its advisory
opinion in the Interpretation O/ the Greco-Tz~rkish Agreement of
December 1, 1926, stated :
"....it is clear-having regard amongst other things ,to the
principle that, as a generalrule, any body possessingjurisdictional
powers has the right in the first place itself to determine the
extent of its jurisdiction-that questions affecting the extent of
the jurisdiction of the Rfixed Commission must be settled by the
Commission itself without action by any other body being neces-
sary". (Advisory Opinion No. 16, August 28, 1928, Series B.,
No. 16, p. 20.)
By Administrative Decision II, the blixed Claims Commission,
United States and Germany, establishcd under the Agreement of
August IO, 1922, ruled:
" ...at the threshnld of the consideration of each claim is
presented the question of jurisdiction, which obviously the Com-
mission must determine preliiuinarily to fixing the amount of
Germany's financial obligations, if any, in each case.
When the allegations in a petition or memorial presented by
the United States bri~iga claim within the terms of the Treaty,
the jurisdiction of the Commission attaches. If these allegations
are controverted in whole or in part by Germany, the issue thus
made must be decided by the Commission. Should the Commis-
sion so decide such issue that the claim does not fall within the
terms of the Treaty, it will be dismissed for lack of jurisdictio....
The Commission's task is to apply the terms of the Treaty of
Berlin to each case presented, decide those which it holds are
within its jurisdiction, and dismiss al1 others." (Decisions and
Opinions (1gz5-1926),6-7.)
The Anglo-American Tribunal established under the Special
Agreement of August 18, 1910, between the United States and
Great Britain, had before it the Rio Grande Irrigation and Land
Company, Limited, case submitted by Great Britain. The Arnerican
Agent filed a motion for dismissal on the ground of lack of British
interest in the claim, and of several alleged breaches of the rules
of procedure in the presentation of the case. The British Agent
argued in reply that a preliminary motion of this character was
not contemplated or provided for by the rules or any of the
instruments controlling the Tribunal, and that if such a motion
were provided for in the rules the prescribed procedure had not
been followed. The Tribunal held on this point : WRITTEN STATEUEXT OF THE U.S.A. I55
"To these arguments there is, in the opinion of the Tnbunal,
one conclusive answer. IVhatever be the proper construction
of the instruments controlling the Tribunal or of the Kules of
Procedure, there is inherent in this and every legal Tribunal a
power, and indeed a duty, to entertain, and, in proper cases to
raise for themselves, preliminary points going to their jurisdiction
to entertain the claim. Such a power is inseparnble from and
indispensable to the proper conduct of business. This principle
has beeu laid down and approved as applicable to international
Arbitral Tribunals. (See Ralston's International Arbitral Law
and Procedtrre,pp. 21 et seq.) In our opinion, this power can only
be taken away by a provision framed for that express purpose.
There is no such provision here. On the contrary, by Article 73
of Chapter III of the Hague Convention, 1907, which, by virtue
of Article 4 of the Treaty creating this Commission, is applicable
to the proceedings of this Commission, it is declared :
'The Tribunal is authorized to declare its competence in inter-
preting the com$romis as well as the other acts and documents
which may be invoked, and in applying the principles of law.' "
(Agent's Report (1926). 332. 342.)
Although the defense that the dispute relates to a matter solely
within the sovereign control of Bulgaria, Hungary or Rumania,
is a question to be decided by the Commissions under the Treaties
of Peace, the Government of the United States desires to make
it clear that by becoming Party to the Treaties of Peace, the
Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania accepted res-
trictions on their sovereign rights to the extent indicated in the
Treaties.
It should be perfectly clear to the Govemments of Bulgaria,
Hungary and Rumania that by becoming party to a treaty under
which a State undertakes obligations to another State or States,
the sovereign rights of the State are altered precisely to the degree
that it, by its own sovereign act in becoming party to the treaty,
has undertaken to do or not to do what it othenvise would have
the sovereign right not to do or to do, as the case may be. Surely,
the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania are not so
naive as to believe that the Court will take senously the contention
that, although a State may have undertaken treaty obligations
with respect to the assurance of human rights and fundamental
freedoms in that country, it cannot be expected or required to
perform the obligations specified for the reason tbat to do so
would result in the impairment of its sovereign right otherwise
to do as it pleased regarding the matters now covered by treaty.
By becoming party to a treaty a State frequently undertakes
obligations which impair its otherwise sovereign right to decide
for itself what it .will or will not do in certain situations covered
by the treaty. This is well settled treaty law.
On several occasions the Permanent Court of International
Justice spoke forth on the subject.156 WRITTE'I STATE3IENT OF THE U.S.A.
Article 380 of the Treaty of Versailles, June 28, 1919, provided :
"The Kiel canal and its approaches shall be maintained free
and open to the vessels of commerce and of war of al1 nations
at peace ivith Germany on terms of entire equality."
The Permanent Court of International Justice, in its initial
Judgment on the merits, August 17, 1923, held that Article 380
forbade Germany's applying to the Kiel canal a neutrality order
mhich would close the canal to a British vesse1 under Frcnch
charter carrying munitions to Danzig for trans-shipment to Poland,
during a war between Poland and Russia. In so doing the Court
held that in becoming party to the Treaty of Versailles, Germany
had to the extent provided in Article 380, at least, circumscrihed
her rights of sovereignty. The Court, in its opinion, stated :
"The Court cmsiders that the terms of Article 380 are cate-
gorical and give rise to no doubt. It follows that the canal has
ceased to be an interna1 and national navigable waterway, the
use of which by the vessels of States other than the riparian
State is left entirely to the discretion of that State, and that it
has become an international waterway intended to provide under
treaty guarantee easier access to the Baltic for the benefit of al1
nations of the world. Under its new régime, the Kiel canal must
be open, on a footing of equality, to al1 vessels. without making
any distinction between war vessels and vessels of commerce,
but on one express condition, namely, that these vessels must
belong to nations at peace with Germany.
........................
....The Court declines to see in the conclusion of any treaty
by which a State undertakes to perform or refraiti from performing
a particular act an abandonment of its sovereignty. No doubt
any convention creating an obligation of this kind places a
restriction upon the exercise of the sovereign rights of the State,
way. But the right of entering into international engagementsin
is an attribute of State sovereignty." [The S.S.Wimbledon, Judg-
ment No. I (Merits), August 17,1923, Series A., No.1, pp. 22,25,)
In 1921 decrees were issued by the Bey of Tunis, by His Sheree-
fian Majesty, and by the President of the French Republic, which
had the effect of converting certain British subjects in Tunis and
i\Iorocco (French zone) into French citizens, with the consequence
that the French Government began to enforce against them a
liability for service in the French army. The British Government
protested to the French Government against the application of
the decrees to British nationals, and suggested that the matter he
referred to the Permanent Court of International Justice or to
arbitration. Neither suggestion was accepted by the French Govertl-
ment. When the British Government announced its intention to
place the matter on the agenda of the Council of the League of WRITTEX STATE~IENT OF THE U.S.A. 157
Nations, the French Government contended that under Arti-
cleI j'(8) of the Covenant of the League of Nations, dealing with
matters "\vhich by international law ....[are] solely within the
domestic jurisdiction" of a party to the dispute, the Council \vas
incompetent to deal with it. When the matter came before the
Council, October z,1922, the British Representative explained
that friendly conversations had taken place, as a result of which
it wasproposed thatthe Permanent Court be asked for an advisory
opinion as to the nature of the dispute. Accordingly, the following
question \vas put to the Court:
"Whether the dispute between France and Great Britain as
to the Nationality Decrees issued in Tunis and ilforocco (French
zone) on November 8th, 1921, and their application ta British
subjects, is or is not, by international law, solely a matter of
domestic jurisdiction (Article 15, paragraph 8, of the Covenant)."
On February 7, 1923, the Permanent Court gave the opinion
that the dispute was not by international law solely a matter of
domestic jurisdiction. (Nationality Decrees isstred in Tzcnis and
Morocco (French Zone) on November 8, rgzr, Advisory Opinion,
Series B., No. 4.)In giving its opinion, the Court stated :
ttiat it may well happen that, in a matter which, like that oferve
nationality,is not, in principle. regulated by international law,
the right of a Stateta use its discretion is nevertheless restricted
by obligations which it may, have undertaken towards other
States. In such a case, jurisdictioii wtiich, in principle, belongs
solely to the State, is limited by rules of international law.
Article 15, paragraph 8, then ceases to apply as regards those
States which are entitled to invoke such rules, and the dispute
as to the question whether a State has or has not the right to
take certain measures becomes in these circumstances a dispute
of an international character and falls oiitside the scope of the
exception contained in this paragraph ...." (Ibid.24.)
In 1924, the Council of the League of Nations, at the instance
of the Mixed Commission for the exchange of Greek and Turkish
populations, requested an advisory opinion from the Permanent
Court of International Justice on the question of the meaning and
scope to be attributed to the word "established" in Article 2 of
the Convention of Lausanne of January 30, 1923, regarding the
exchange of Greek and Turkish populations. The Convention,
after having laid down in Article I the general principle of -the
exchange of Turkish nationals of Greek orthodox religion estab-
lished in Turkey and Greek nationals of Moslem religion estab-
lished in Greece, proceeded in Article z to withdraw from this
exchange, on the one hand, Greek inhabitants of Constantinople
and, on the other, llIoslem inhabitants of Western Thrace. Turkey.
basing her argument on "sovereign rights", maintained that the
18 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A. '59
engagemelits is an attribute of State sovereignty'. In the present
case, moreover, the obligations of the contracting States are
absolutely equal and reciprocal. It is therefore impossible to
admit that a convention which creates obligations of this kind,
construed according to its natural meaning, infringes the sover-
eign rights of the High Contracting Parties.
Having thus made it clear that the Convention does not refer
to national laws, the Court does not feel it to be necessary to
consider nrhether an], particular provisions of the Turkish laws
of 1902 and 1914 are or are not contrary to the Convention.
The Turkish delegation lias maintained, again basing its argu-
ments on sovereign rights, that it should be for the municipal
courts to decide, if need be, whether a person is established or
not within the meaning of Articlez. But as has been said, national
sovereignty is not affected by the Convention in question. Now
tliis Convention, in Article 12, confers upon the Mixed Com-
mission 'full power to take the measures necessitated by the
execution of the present Convention and to decide al1 questions
to which this Convention may give rise'...."(Exchanfe oJ Greek
and Turkish populations, Advisory Opinions, No. IO,February 21,
192j, Series B., No. IO, pp. 17-18, 20-21, 21-22.)
III. OBLIGATION TO APPOINT REPRESENTATIVES TO COMMISSIOXS
The second question before the Court concerns the obligation
of the Parties to the Treaties to carry out the provisions of the
Treaty articles referred to in the first question before the Court,
including the provisions for the appointment of their represen-
tatives to the Treaty Commissions.
The "disputes" Articles, as previously stated, provide that,
except where anotber procedure is specifically provided under
the Treaty, "any dispute" concerning "the interpretation or exe-
cution" of the Treaty, which is not settled by direct diplomatic
negotiations, "shall be referred to the Three Heads of Mission".
It is further provided by the Articles that "Any such dispute
not resolved by them within a period of two months shall", unless
another means of settlement is agreed upon, be referred at the
request of either Party to the dispute to a Commission composed
of one representative of each Party and a third memher selected
by mutual agreement of the two Parties from nationals ofa third
country. Provision is then made for requesting the Secretary-
General of the United Nations to make the appointment of the
third member, in the event that the two Parties fail withiii a
period of one month to agrec upon the third member.
Generally speaking, there can be no doubt as to the duty of
the Parties thereto to comply with their treaty obligations. The
legal duty to observe the provisions of a treaty freely entered into
has heen recognized in international law from time immemorial.
The "disputes" Articles of the Treaties in no way differ from
other articles of the Treaties of Peace in binding the Parties160 WRITTEN STATEllENT OF THE U.S.A.
thereto to carry out the obligations arising therefrom. These
Articles outline the procedures which the Parties have agreed to
employ for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation
or execution of Treaty provisions. They provide that if a dispute
cannot be resolved by certain stated procedures it shall be referred
to a Treaty Commission whose decision shall he accepted by the
Parties as definitive and binding. Each of the conditions required
by the "disputes" Articles as a condition for the mandatory
reference of a dispute to a Treaty Commission is present in the
instant situation, as is disclosed by the diplomatic exchanges
between the Parties (discussed ante). The conditioiis are :
(a) That there is no other procedure for the settlement gf the
dispute spccifically provided under the Treaty. Clearly no other
procedure is provided in the Treaty for the type of a dispute here
under consideration.
(b)That there exists a dispute. It has been established ante
that a dispute or disputes exist. The words "any dispute", which
appear in the Articles, are of the broadest sort.
(c) That the "dispute" concerns the "interpretation or execution
of the Treaty". It has been shown ante that the dispute or disputes
do concern the interpretation or execution of the Treaty.
(d) That the dispute has not been settled by direct diplomatic
negotiations. As the diplomatic exchanges disclose, although an
effort has been made by the United States and other Allied Govern-
ments to ohtain a solution of the disputes through diplomatic
channels, the Governments of Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania
unfortunately have rejected such efforts.
(e) That the dispute was referred to the Three Heads of Mission
and \vas not settled by them within a period of two months. As
has been shown ante, the dispute was referred to the Three Heads
of hlissions, but the Soviet Government refused to authorize its
Ambassadors to act.
(f )hat the Parties did not mutually agree upon another means
of settlement. The diplomatic exchanges reveal that no proposa1
was made or consideration given by the Parties to other means
of settlement.
(g) That a request he made by either Party to the dispute for
a referral to a Treaty Commission. As pointed out ante, such
requests \i7eremade by the United States and other Allied Govern-
ments.
The language of the "disputes" Articles declaring not that a
dispute may be referred to a Commission but that any dispute
shall be referred to a Commission under stated conditions clearly
imposes a hinding obligation on the Parties to the Treaties.
The "disputes" Articles.clearly provide, and were intended to
provide, the means by which disputes between the Parties shall
be resolved "unless", in the language of the Articles, "the Parties162 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A,
In the Wimbledon case, the Permanent Court of International
Justice stated that even where a restrictive interpretation of a
treaty was admissible, the Court must "stop at the point where
the so-called restrictive interpretation would be contrary to the
plain terms of the article and u-ould destroy what has heen clearly
granted". (Judgment Ro. I (Merits), August 17, 1923, Series A.,
NO. 1, pp. 24-25.)
In its advisory opinion in regard to the Polish Postal Servicein
Danzig, the Permanent Court of International Justice took the
position that
be interpreted in therisense which they would normally have inst
their context, unless such interpretation would lead to something
unreasonable or absurd. In the present case, the construction
which the Court has placed on the various treaty stipulations is
not only reasonable, but is also supported by reference to the
various articles taken by themselves and in their relation one
to another." (Advisory Opinion No. II, May 16, 1925.Series B.,
No. 18. pp. 39-40.)
In connection with the Case of the Free Zones of Upper Savoy
alid the District of Gex, the Permanent Court stated :
"in case of doubt, the clauses of a special agreement by which
a dispute is referred to the Court must. if it does not involve
doing violence to their terms, be construed in a manner enabling
the clauses themselves to have appropriate effects". (Order,
August 19, rgzg, Series A., No. 22, p. 13.)
In dctermining the extent of the jurisdiction conferred upon the
Oder River Commission by the Treaty of Versailles, the Permanent
Court of International Justice stated that it must go back to the
principles governing international fluvial law in general and
consider what position was adopted by the Treaty of Versailles in
regard to those principles.It concluded that theTreaty of Versailles
adopted the principle of internationalization, "that is to Say, the
free use of the river for al1 States, riparian or not". In taking a
reasonable interpretation of the treaty, the Court concluded :
"Article 332grants freedom of navigation on waterways declared
international in the previous article to al1 Powers on a footing
not arbitrary, if the freedom stopped short at the last politicalif
frontier." (Territorialjurisdictionof the International Commission
ofthehiver Oder, Judgmeut No. 16,September 10,1929,Series A.,
NO. 23, pp. 26, 28.)
In a concurring opinion concerning the Azcstro-GcrrrzalCz zcsfoms
Régime, Judge Anzilotti, in considering Article 88 of the Treaty
of Saint-Germain, said : WRITïEN STATEBIEST OF THE U.S.A. 1~3
"(b) It is a fundamental rule of interpretation that words must
be given the ordinary meaning which they hear in their context
unless such an interpretation leads to unreasonable or absurd
results." (AdvisoryOpinion No. 20, September j, 1931,Senes A./B.,
No. 41, p. 60.)
The Swiss Arhitrator (Charles Edouard Lardy), iri his decision
in the dispute between the Netherlands and Portugal iii the Island
of Timor case, involving the interpretation of treaties, stated:
"...Conventions between States, like those between individuals,
ought to be interpreted 'rather in thc sense in whicli they can
have some effect than in the sense in whicli they can produce
none.'" (Decision,June 25. 19x4, under the Convention of April 3,
19x3, Scott, Hague Court Reeorts (1g16)355, 384.)
And the American and British Claims Tribunal established under
the Convention of August 18, 1910, to cite yet another example,
held in the Cnyuga Indium casethat-
"....A'othing is better settled, as a canon of interpretation in
ali systems of law, than that a clause must be so interpreted as
to give it meaning rather than so as to deprive it of meaning.
We are not asked to choose between possible meanings. JVe are
asked to reject the apparent meaning and to hold that the provision
has no meaning. This we cannot do." (Age~cl'sRefiort (1926)
203, 307. 322-1
IV. Coxc~uslo~
(1) The Government of the United States is of the view that the
diplomatic exchanges between the United States, on the one hand,
and the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, on the
other, concerning the implementation of Article z of the Treaties
of Peace with Bulgaria and Hungary and Article 3 of the Treaty
of Peace with Rumania, disclose disputes subject to the provisions
for the settlement of disputes contained in Article 36 of the Treaty
withBulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary,and Article 38
of the Treaty with Rumania.
(II) The Government of the United States is of the further view
that the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania are
obligated to proceed under the provisioiis for the settlement of
disputes contained in the respective Treaties of Peace, including
the obligation to appoint represeiitati\~esto the Commissions
envisaged in the Treaties.If% \VRIïTZK STATEMENT OF THE U.5.A
Attachments :
Note from United States Representative to the United Nations
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, January 6, 1950,
enclosing-
1.-Hungarian note of October 27, 1949, to United States ;
%-United States note of January 5, 1950, to Bulgaria ;
3.-United States note of January 5, 1950, to Hungary ;
4.-United States note of January 5, 1950, to Rumania. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE U.S.A.
ATTACHMENTS
January 6, rgjo.
Excellency :
1 have the honor to refer to my note UN-2748 of September 20, 1949,
forwarding to you copies of certain diplomatic correspondence relevant
to the question of observance of huma11rights in Bulgaria, Hungary and
Rumania. (General Assembly Resolutions of April 30, 1949 (272 (III)),
and October 22, 1949 (A/1043).)
On October 27, 1949,subsequent to the date of my letter, the Govern-
ment of Hungary addressed a further note to the Government of the
United States (Annex 1). On January 5, 1950, the Government of the
United States directed notes to the Govemments of Bulgaria, Hungary
and Rumania (Annexes 2, 3 and 4).
1 am enclosing copies of these notes with a request that you be kind
enough to transmit copies of the notes to al1Members of the United
Nations and also to the International Court of Justice in connection
with the General Assembly Resolution of October 22, 1949 (A/1043).
Accept, Excellency, the renewed assurances of my highest considera-
tion.
(Signed) WARREN R. AUSTIN,
United States Representative to the United Nations.
Enclosures :
Annex 1.-Hungarian note of October 27, 1949, to U.S.
Annex 2.-U.S. note of January 5, 1950. to Bulgaria.
Annex 3.-U.S. note of January 5, ryjo, to Hungary.
Annex 4,-US.-note of January 5, rgjo, to Rumania.
His Excellency Trygve Lie,
Secretary-General of the United Nations,
Lake Success, New York.
Annex I
HUNGARIAN NOTE TO THE UNITED STATES
(27 OCTOBER 1949)
(Original test in English.)
The Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairspresents its compliments
to the Legation of the United States of America and,.with reference
to the Legation's note No. 592, dated September 19, 1949, has the
honor to impart as follows :166 WRI~TEK STATEAIENT OF THE U.S.A.
The Hungarian Government regrets to state tliat the Government
of the United States deemed it ovvort. . to renew the accusations.
depri\.eilcilal1 rcnl hasiî ivh~tsoever. aiid r~jcctc.<lmost cmpliaticnlly
by rhc Hungxrian (;uveriinii~nr un scvcral ucc;isioii~-iiut\i1t11standing
tlintilicIliiri+!nrinC~vcrririiéi~Itiadclcarly esplicntcd ailcliiiido~iblfiilly
proieil II11siiote> St)i.2G72 nii(Iiii,f,/1~)4tliiiit\vas rniiiiitely ohserv-
IIIX[tic sril)ul;itions cont:iin~d in :\rti2lof tlic I'eace Trenrv.
The Hungarian Government once again rejects most cafegorically
that tendentious and false interpretation of tlie Peace Treaty by which
the Government of the United States tries to contrast the stipulations
of Articles 2 and 4 of the Treaty. The Hungarian Government does not
see any contradiction between the observing of the stipulations contained
in Article z of the Peace Treaty and the fight against Fascist and
pro Fascist elements prescribed by Article 4 of the same Treaty. On the
contrary, a consequent compliance ivith the stipulations of Article 4 isa
condition sine qua non of guaranteeing to al1peoples and to the Hunga-
rian people among them, the rights defined by Article 2 of tlie Treaty.
It has resulted clearly from the documents of the trials against
hlindszenty and his accomplices and, recently, against Laszlo Rajk and
his accomplices, that the persons convicted for their antidemocratic
activity were guilty of a conspiracy aiming at the reverse of the present
democratic regime, and to annihilate tlie liberties acquired by the
people. and to establish a Fascist regime of oppression, worse than any
other previous regime of the kind. Accordingly, the Hungarian Govern-
with its stipulations when inflicting a blow upon the vile eneniies ofnce
liberty and democracy, who have degenerated to espionage and mur-
derous attcmpts. If the Governments of the United States and the
United Kingdom accuse the Hungarian Government, tliis can have but
one reason, i.e., the ruling circles of these countries are hostile to the
independence and development of the people's democracies and, as it
was proved by the aforementioned trials. support, in Hungary too, the
most desperate enemies of democracy, directing them by tlieir own
network of spies, as well as by Tito and his clique, attaclied to their
service.
As a matter of fact, the Hungarian Governinent has repeatedly
stated that precisely these Governments have on several occasions
infringed the stipulations of the Peace Treaty relating to Hungary,
when unlawfuliy denying the restitution of Hungarian property found
in their respective zones of occupation, when refusing the extradition
of the Hungarian war-criminals escaped into their territory, when
supporting tliese war-criminals in their antidemocratic activity and
when even rendering possible the organization and equipment of military
formations of Hungarian Fascists on the territory occupied by them.
Furthermore, the Hungarian Government States with astonisliment
that, in addition to the accusations already known and repeatedly
refuted, the Government of the United States expresses the opinion-
\\.hich is quite new and in no way compatible with the rules and spirit
of iiiternational law-that, by assuming certain obligations through the
signature of the Treaty of Peace, Hungary h~. become a State with
limited sovereignty.
\Vhen signing the Peace Treaty, Hungary \\.as not, nor is she at
present, inclined to surrender her sovereignty-on the contrary, she WRITTEN STATEMEKT OF THE U.S.A. 167
will ~lcfcr~ihlrr in~le~.vrl~l~:~~i,IIII~I,IIrd <IL~IIUC~~ .IvCrlui)~rr~~rit
nnniiisr III!. inilrri.,lisin~eifcr~~nce. 'i'l~cHut~g,~rta~r(;uv<.rr~ii~c~!t
<ùnsi<tcrstlicarbitr.rrv ii.tcirircratrcftli: Pt:ac~'frcmtvI>vrlir~G~v,!rii-
ment of the United States'an attempt to claim a right fo constantly
interfere with Hungary's internal affairs, ignoring the independence of
the Hungarian State.
The Hungarian Government categorically rejects, moreover, the
wholly fictitious calumny of the Government of the United States,
alleging that the present Hungarian regiine be merely "the totalitarian
~ule of a minority". It is a notorious fact that at the general elections
on the 15th of hlay of 1949 the Hungarian people manifested their will
in the most democratic way-by general and secret ballot-and decided
to support by 95.5 percent of their votes the policy carried on by the
present Hungarian Government. In view of this, the fact that the
Government of the United States allegesin a diplornatic note the present
Hungarian Government as being "the rule of a minority", cannot be
regarded by the Hungarian Government but asan evil-minded propagan-
distic manoeuvre, based upon the denial of true facts.
In consideration of the above said, the Hungarian Government
rejectsmost categorically the note No. 592 of the Legation of the United
States, as a new attempt of unlawful interference with the internal
affûirs of Hungary.
tunity to renew to the Legation of the United States of America thethis oppor-
expression of its high consideration.
Annex z
UNITED STATES NOTE TO BULGARIA
(5 JANUARY 1950)
[Original text in English]
to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Bulgaria and hasthe honor to refer
to the Legation's note of August 1, 1949, asking the Bulgarian Govern-
ment to join the United States Government in naming a Commission,in
accordance with Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace, to settle the dispute
which has arisen over the interpretation and execution of Article z of
the Treaty. Reference is also made to the Ministry's note of September 1,
1949, and to the.Legation's note of September 19, 1949, on the same
subject.
The Legation has the honor to inform the Ministry that the United
States Government has desigtiated hlr. Edwin D. Dickinson as its
representative on the proposed Commissioii. It is requested that the
Bulgarian Government designate its representative forthwith and enter
into consultation immediately with tlie United States Government
throngh the American Minister in Sofia, with a view to the appointment
of the third member of the Commission as stipulated in Article 36 of
the Peace Treaty.168 WRIïTER STATEXENT OF THE U.S.A.
Annex 3
UNITED STATES NOTE TO HUNGARY
(j JANUARY 1950)
[Original text in English]
The Legation of the United States of America presents its compliments
to the Ministry of ForeignAffairs of Hungary and has the honor to refer
to the Legation's note of August1, 1949, asking the Hungarian Govern-
ment to join the UnitedStates Government in naming a Commission,
in accordance with Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace, to settle the dispute
which has arisen over the interpretation and execution of Article 2 of
the Treaty. Reference is also made to the Ministry's note ofuguçt 26,
1949, to the Legation's note of September 19, 1949, and the Ministry's
note of October 27, 1949, on the same subject.
The Legation has the honor to inform the Ministry that the United
States Government has designated Mr. Edwin D. Dickinson as its
representative on the proposed Commission. It is requested that the
Hungarian Government designate its representative forthwith and enter
into consultation immediately with the United States Government
through the American Minister in Budapest, with a view to the appoint-
ment of the third member of the Commission as stipulated in Article 40
of the Peace Treaty. .
Annex 4
UNITED STATES NOTE TO RUMANIA
(5 JANUARY 1950)
[Original text in English]
The Legation of the United States of America presents its compliments
to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Rumania andhas the honor to refer
to the Legation's note of August 1, 1949, asking the Rumanian Govern-
ment ta join the United States Government in naming a Commission,
in accordance with Article38 of the Treaty of Peace, tosettlethe dispute
which has arisen over the interpretation and execution of Article 3 of
the Treaty. Reference is also made to the Ministry's note of September
1949, and to the Legation's note of September 19, 1949, on the saine
subject.
The Legation has the honor to inform the hlinistry that the United
States Government has designated Mr. Edwin D. Dickinson as its
representative on the proposed Commission. It is requested that the
Rumanian Government designate its representative forthwith and enter
into consultation immediately with the United States Government
through the American Minister in Bucharest,with a view to the appoint-
ment of the third member of the Commission as stipulated in Article 38
of the Peace Treaty.2. IVRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED KINGDOM
1.The Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania
al1 contain certain provisions which have corne to be known (and
will herein be called) the Human Rights articles of the Treaties.
These are, in the first place Article z of the Treaties with Bulgaria
and Hungary, and Article 3 of the Treaty with Roumania, which
have the following common text :-
"Bulgaria/Hungary/Roumania shall take al1measures necessary
to secure to al1 persons under Bulgarian/Hungarian/Roumanian
jurisdiction, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,
the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms,
including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of reli-
gious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting.''
Secondly, the Hungarian and Roumanian Treaties contain in
addition the following clause (Article z of the Hungarian Treaty
and Article 3 of the Roumanian Treaty) :-
"Hungary/Roumania further undertakes that the laws in force
in Hungary/Roumania shall not, either in their,content or in their
application, discriminate or entai1 any discrimination between
persons of Hungarian/Roumanian nationality on the ground of
their race, sex, language or religion, whether in reference to their
status, political or civil rights or any other matter."interests,
In the opinion of the Government of the United Kingdom, a
dispute concerning the interpretation and execution of the above
quoted provisions has arisen between it and the Governments of
Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania respectively (hereinafterreferred
to as "the three Governments"), which should be settled by
means of the procedure specified in the relevant disputes articles
of the Peace Treaties. For reasons of convenience, these articles
are cited, and their common text is quoted, at a later stage of the
present written Statement, the fivefollo\ving paragraphs of which
set out the history of the matter up to the present date.
z. Before the beginning of the second part of the Third Session
of the General Assembly of the United Nations in April, 1949,
requests were made by the Governments of Australia and Bolivia
for the inclusion in the agenda of the Assembly of items concerning=?O WRI'TTEN STATEMEXT OF THE UNITED KINGDOXI
the trials of Church leaders in Bulgaria and Hungary which had
recently taken place in those countries. When these requests came
before the General Committee of the Assembly, it was decided
to amalgamate them in a single item to read as follows :-
"Having regard to the provisions of the Charter and of the
PeaceTreaties, the question ofobservancein Bulgaria and Hungary
of human rights and fundamental freedoms including questions of
religious and civil liberties with special reference to recent trials
of Church leaders."
The inclusion of this item in the agenda was opposed by the
representative of the Soviet Union, mainly on the ground that
the trials were the domestic concern of the countries concerned,
and that the General .4ssemhly was not competent to discuss
them in view of Article z, paragraph 7, of the Charter, which
provides that nothing in the Charter "shall aiithorize the United
Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the
domestic jurisdiction of any State". It should be noted, holvever,
in view of what subsequently occarred, that the Soviet opposition
was also based on the ground that, if there was a dispute concerning
any alleged violations of the Peace Treaties, the procediire laid
down in those Treaties for the settlement of disputes should be
followed, and that the Assembly \vas not the proper authority
for securing the execution of the Peace Treaties. Thus at this
stage, and in order to oppose the inclusion of the item in the
Assembly's agenda, the Government of the Soviet Union was
ready and anxious to make appeal to the provisions of the Treaties
for the settlement of disputes : yet when, at a later stage, it was
asked to CO-operatein the application of this same procedure, it
refused to do so.
3. In point of fact, the Governments of the United Kingdom
andthe United States had already taken the opening steps towards
setting the Treaty procedure in motion hy addressing notes dated
April znd, 1949, to the Governments of Bulgaria. Hungary and
Roumania, alleging a numher of violations of the Human Rights
articles of the Peace Treaties, and calling upon those Governments
to adopt prompt remedial measures. It is not necessary for present
purposes to detail these charges :suffice it to say that they related
to a number of measures and actions, legislative, judicial and
administrative, taken in the countries concerned, which the
Governments of the United Kingdom and'United States considered
to be contrary to the Human Rights provisions of the Peace
Treaties. In their replies of April 7th, rgth, and zrst, respectively,
the three Governments contested the correctness and validity of
these charges, and also the legal grounds on which they were
based.
4.The General Committee of the Assembly duly decided to
include the Australian/Bolivian item in the agenda, and it was \\'RITTEN STATEIlEST OF THE USITED KlSGDOaI I7'
subsequently discussed in the ad hoc Political Committee of the
Assembly, wherc it was again argued by the representative of
the Soviet Union (the Governments of Bulgaria and Hungary
(as non-Member States) havingbeen invited to attend and having
refused) that the Assembly was not competerit to go into the
matter. The ultimatc result was that upoii being informed that
the Governments of the United Kingdom aiid the United States
had already invoked the Peace Treaties, the Assembly decided,
by its Kesolution No. z-jz (III) of April 3oth, 1949 (the test of
mhich is given iii Annex 1 to the present Statement), to await
the result of this action, in the meantime retaining the matter
on the agenda for further consideration at the next (Fourth)
Session of the Assembly.
j. Foiiouing on this, the Governments of the United Kingdom
and United States engaged in an cxchange of diplomatic cor-
respondence with the three Governments concerned, and also
with the Governmcnt of the Soviet Union, with a vie\\,to procuring
the settlement of the dispute in the manncr provided by the
Peace Treaties. This correspondence has alrcady heen commu-
nicated to the Court, but, for convenience of rcference, that
relating to thc Unitcd Kingdom (General Assembly document
A/ggo of September 27th, 1949) is attached as Annex II to the
present Statement l.For the moment, it is sufficient to Say,
generally, that the three Governments, and also the Government
of the Soviet Union, while disputing the charges, refused to co-
operate in the application of those articles of the Peace Treaties
mhich provided for the settlement of disputes, denying that there
was, in fact, any dispute, and also reiterating that the matter
\iras one of purely domestic concern, and could not therefore be
the subject of international settlement.
6.Thc Govcrnmcnts of the United Kingdom and United States
accordingly informed the Secretary-General of the United Rations
of the abortive rcsult of their efforts to set in niotion the procedure
contemplated by the Peace Treaties, and this information was
duly communicated to the General Assembly iii the course of
its recent (Fourth) Session. In consequence, and having regard
to the position maintained by the Governments of Bulgaria,
Hungary and Roumania, and by the Government of the Soviet
Union, that there \vas no dispute, and that the provisions of the
Peace Treaties for the settlement of disputes were not applicable,
the Assembly decided by its Resolution dated Octoher zznd,
1949 (the full text of which is given in Annex 111 hereto), to
request an advisory opinion from the Court on the following
questions :
1This document did not include the Hungarian note of October 27th. 194%
which was not received until later, and w\vasthe only reply made by any
of the three Governrnents to the United Kingdom notes of Scptember(seeh
paragraph19 below). This Nungarian note is accordingly attached as Annex II A. WRITTEN STATEJIENT OF THE UNITED KlNGDOhI I73
reference will be made to these alleged violations except in so
far as may be necessary for purposes of clarification.
8. The first question addressed to the Court is whether the
diploiii;iric oscliaiigcs \\hich h;i\.e taken place c~ncerning rhe
ininl~ ~~iitatioii of the Hum:iii Ki~litinrticlcs of the Pca~c~ ~r<::itizi
discloçe disputes (Le. international disputes) which are subject to
the provisions of the Peace Treaties for the settlement of disputes.
This question has therefore two elemcnts, namcly, is there an
international dispute, and, if there is one, is it a dispute to which
the provisions of the Peace Treaties providing for the settlement
of disputes apply ?
g. The three Govemments, and the Government of the Soviet
Union, deny that there is any dispute, on grounds which, in so
far as they are disclosed in the diplomatic exchange of corre-
spondence, are inadmissible and, indeed, almost fri\~olous.In the
opinion of the United Kingdom Government, it is manifest on
the face of the correspondence and of the discussions which have
taken place in the General Assembly, that a dispute exists. Indeed,
the very fact that one party denies that there is a dispute, while
the other asserts there is, shows the existence of a difference of
opinion-and hence of a dispute-as to the meaning and effect
of the Treaty. While it may be difficult to give a precise legal
definition of a dispute, the existence of which is really more a
question offact than of law, the Government of the United Kingdom
considers that for present purposes a dispute may be said to arise
\vhenever one government charges aiiother government with
violation of a treaty or general rule of international law, and the
other government either denies the charge, or the facts or the
correctness of the legal rule or treaty iiiterpretation on which it
is based ; or else, while not in terms denying the charge, persists
in the course complained of, or fails to take any remedial measures.
In the present case al1 these elements seem to be present. The
Government of the United Kingdom has alleged specific violations
of the Human Rights articles of the Peace Treaties by which the
countries concemed are bound, and the observance of which the
Government of the United Kingdom is entitled under the Peace
Treaties to require. It will be seen that in the opening part of the
diplomatic exchanges (see. for instance, the Hungarian note of
l'reatiçs concerning the settlerofdisputes. but also. inci<lcntally. to the Peace
Trçaty articles concerning Hurnan Rights. though solely by wayof description
of thc subject on ivhich the diplornatic exchanges had tnken pIncthe opinion
to relate only to the settlernent of disputes articles, and the Court is not called
upon tu go into the question of the allcged violations of human rights.
19 '74 WRITTEN STATEbIENT OF THE UXITED KINGDObl
Apnl, 7th, the Roumanian note of Apnl ~gth, and the Bulganan
note of April zrst, 1949). the three Govemments discussed the
actual substance of the charges made against them, either denying
them, or justifying the measures or actions coucerned, and making
countercharges 1.It \vas only at a later stage that it occurred to
these Governments to deny that there \vas any dispute at al1 (see
for instance the Bulgarian note of July 27th, and the Hungarian
note of August 26th). They therefore tacitly admitted that a
dispute on a substantive issue under the Peace Treaties had arisen.
In addition to denying the substantive correctness of the charges
made against them, they also denied the correctness of the United
Kingdom's interpretation of the Peace Treaties, on the basis of
which the charges were made. Furthermore, by their very invo-
cation of the exception of domestic jurisdiction as being applicable
in the present case, when the Government of the United Kingdom
denies tliat it has any application in view of the existence of a
specific provision in an international agreement, these Govern-
ments have admitted, have indeed themselves created a dispute.
They have further (although this point is not at the moment
actually in issue) failed to discontinue the actions complained of,
or to take any steps of a remedial character 2.
IO. For al1 these reasons, it seems clear to the Government of
the United Kingdom that a dispute must exist, and, so far as
the Goverriment of the United Kingdom is concerned, a dispute
undoubtedly does exist. It is obvious that if it were open to
parties to a treaty, in reply to alleged ~iolations of the treaty,
to cause a dispute not to exist by the simple process of denying
its existence, means \vould nex7erbe wanting to defeat the intention
of the treaty ; and it \vould be iiseless to include in treaties
' The Hungarian Government again twk up the substance of the matter in
their note of October 27th. 1949 (see Annex IIA). in which they once more denied
or sought to justify the acts of which they were accused, and made countercharges.
' Some assistance as to the circumstances in which a dispute can he çaid to
exist is to be dcrived from pronouncements of the Permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice.In the nlauromaialis case (Series A.,No. 2, pp. Ir, 13). a dispute
was said to bc "a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views
or of inteiests hetwçcn two persons". and the Court refused to lay down any rulo
as to the extent of the previous diplomatic exchanges to be required bctwecn
the purticç-a point of some importance on the question (if it should be raised)
of whether the previous diplomatic exchanges in the present case were adequvtc
to establish the cvistcnce of a disputeInthe case of theGerman Znfevesls in Ufiper
Silesia(Series A..No. 6,pl>.'4 and 22).in discussing when a "difference of opinion"
could be said to have ùeçn established, the Court held that "even if ....the
existence ofa derinite disputewere necessary. this condition could at any time be
fulfilled by mrans of unilateral action on the part of the applicant party".and a
difference of opiniaii was said to ex"as soon as one of theGovernments concerned
points out that the attitude adapted by the ather conflicts mith its own vieivs".
In the Chorrdw Fliclory caae(SeriesA., So. 13,p. IO), the Court said that "the
manifestation al the existence of u dispute in a special rnanner, as for instance
by diplomatie negotiations, is not required". WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KISGDOhl '75
provisions for the settlement of disputes, for in these circumstances
such provisions could never have any binding character, since
they could only be operated with the consent of the very party
against whom the charges of violation were made. In fact, the
mere process of denying that a dispute exists is itself constitutive
of one, if the other party alleges that there is a dispute arising
out of charges of treaty violations, which are either denied,
persisted in, or left unremedied. It is only by begging the question
at issue that the conclusion can be arrived at that no dispute
exists. It is, moreover, precisely by these means that the three
Governments concerned reach this position. This is xvell exempli-
fied in the Hungarian note to the United Kingdom of August 26th.
1949, which contains the following passage referring to the setting
up of a Commission (as is required by the Peace Treaties for the
final settlement of disputes) :
"Further .... paragraph(SC.article) 40 stipulates that the Com-
mission be delegated (SC.appointed) only in case of a 'dispute'
concerningthe interpretation and carryingout of the Peace Treaty.
There can be no question however about such a 'dispute'because-
as it can clearl be seen in the enumerated notes of the Hungarian
Ministry of &reign Affairs-the Hungarian Government has
exactly fnlfilled its obligations assumed in the Peace Treaty."
The above argument amounts to this, that because the Hun-
garian Government, in reply to charges of violating the Peace
, Treaty, denies that it has violated the Treaty and says that it
has, in fact, exactly complied with it, therefore there is no dispute
as to whether it has violated the Treaty or not. The palpable
absurdity of this argument is manifest, seeing that the very
question at issue is whether the Treaty is being carried out or
not, and that it obvioudy cannot be disposed of by the simple
process of denying the charge. The moment that the Hungarian
Government and the other Governments coucerned, in reply to
charges of Treaty violation, state that in fact they are complying
with the Treaty, a dispute necessarily arises, because the respective
parties are taking up opposed attitudes on one and the same
issue. That which causes a dispute to come into existence cannot
simultaneously cause it to go out of existence ;yet this is what
the Hungarian Government is suggesting. By saying that they
are fulfilling the Treaty when the Government of the United
Kingdom says they are not, they are themselves either admitting
the existence of a dispute or bringing one into existence. It is
not possible, therefore, that this dispute should fail to have any
existence because the Hungarian Government say they are com-
plying with the Treaty. The process is, again, one which (if it
were valid) ivould necessarily make nonsense of al1 provisions
in treaties for the settlement of disputes. These provisions are
included on purpose to deal with cases in which one part17 saps
that the other party is not carrying out the treaty, but the other176 WXITTEN STATEIIIENT OF THE UNITED KIA'GDOM
party says that it is. If, therefore, the other party could cause
a dispute not to exist merely by saying that the treaty was in
fact being carried out, the articles for the settlement of disputes
would he useless, since no dispute could ever arise.
III
II. Nor is there any greater substance in the argument (put
fonvard in almost al1 of the notes of the three Governments,
and by the Soviet Union) that the dispute, if it exists, is not
international in character, Le., that the matter does not come
under the Peace Treaties because it is essentially one of domestic
concern and jurisdiction. This again is an argument in a circle.
The question urhether such a matter falls within the terms of
the relevant treaty is a mixed question of fact and of the legal
interpretation of the treaty itself. matter which would otherwise
be, or in certain of its aspects is, one of domestic jurisdiction
and concern, nevertheless (if, in fact, it is the subject of a treaty
provision) necessarily, and in consequence of that alone, hecomes
a subject of international rights and obligations. The moment
anything is a subject of international rights and obligations, it
ceases to be of purely domestic concern : it becomes a matter of
international concern because it concerns the other party or
parties to the treaty. To say that a matter does not fa11under
a treaty because it is one of domestic concern or jurisdiction, is
to reverse the correct order of reasoning, for the initial question
is not whether the matter is of domestic concern, but whether,
on the language and wording of the treaty, it falls under or is
dealt with by, or is a suhject of the treaty. If it is, then ipso
facto it ceases to be of pureiy domestic concern. In otber words,
it is not because something is of domestic concern that it does
not fa11under the treaty, it is hecause it falls under the treaty
that it is not of domestic concern, or no longer purely so. This
position was clearly established by the advisory opinion of the
Permanent Court of International Justice in the case of The
T~mis and Morocco Nationality Decrees (Publications of the
Court, SeriesB., No. 4), in which the Court stated (at p. 24 of
the opinion) with reference to questions of nationality, that,
although these were in principle matters solely within the domestic
jurisdiction of the State concerned, that State might have restricted
its freedom of action in the matter by treaty obligations, in which
case, so far as the compatibility of the State's nationality law
with its treaty obligations was concerned, the matter was no
longer solely within its domestic jurisdiction, and the dispute
became one of the interpretation of treaty provisions, in respect
of which the exception in favour of matters of domestic juris-
diction did not apply. In the opinion of the United Kingdom17~ WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
AU these articles are similar in their form and substance, and they
read as follows :
"1. Except where another procedure is specifically provided
under any article of the present Treaty, any dispute concerning
the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which isnot settled
by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall be referred to the Three
Heads of Mission acting unàer Article 37, except that in this case
theHeadsof Missionwillnot be restrictedby the time-limitprovided
in that Article. Any such dispute not resolved by them within a
period of two months shall, unless the parties to the dispute
mutually agree upon another means ofsettlement, bereferred at the
request of either party to the dispute to a Commission composed
of one representative of each party and a third member selected
by mutual agreement of the two parties from the nationals of a
third country. Should the two parties fail to agree within a period
of one month upon the appointment of the third member, the
Secretary-General of the United Nations may he requested by
either party to make the appointment.
2.The decision ofthe majority of the members of the Commission
shall be the decision of the Commission, and shall be accepted by
the parties as definitive and hinding."
It will bc seen from the opening phrases of this provision that
any dispute i+sofacto falls under it provided(a) that it is a dispute
"concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty", and
(b) that it is not a dispute the settlement of which is specifically
made subject to a different procedure under any other article of
the Treaty. The present dispute, which relates to charges of violat-
ing the Human Rights provisions of the Treaties, as quoted in
paragraph I of the present written Statement, is necessarily a
dispute "concerning the interpretation or execution" of the Treaty.
The Govemment of the United Kingdom is alieging a series of
actions in violation of these provisions, on the part of the three
Governments concerned. If the three Governments are, in fact,
committing these actions, or have committed them, then they
are nbt, in the United Kingdom view, executing the Treaty, or
have broken it, because they are not respecting or have already
failed to respect the human rights provided for. To use the language
of these provisions, far from taking "al1 measures necessary to
secure to al1 persons under their jurisdiction the enjoyment of
human rights and of the fundamental freedoms", the Govern-
ments concemed are in fact denying these rights to the persons
who should receive them. In so far as the three Governmcnts do
not admit that they have committed or are committing these
actions or, alternatively,Say that they have executed or are duly
executing the clauses concerned, then there is necessarily a dispute
as to whether the Treaty has been in this respect or is being
executed. There is in fact a dispute concerning the execution of
the Treaty. WRITTEN STATEMEST OF THE UNITED KINGDOhl I79
13.There is also a dispute concerning the interpretation of the
Treaty. This would necessarily arise from the fact alone that the
three Governments have pleaded the principle of domestic juris-
diction as taking the matter out of the scope of the Treaty, whereas
the Government of the United Kingdom argues the converse,
that on its correct interpretation the Treaty is clearly applicable,
and takes the matters concerned out of the sphere of domestic
jurisdiction. It will be seen also that the argument of the three
Governments to the effect that the Human Riglits provisions are
being fulfilled is based on a different conception of the meaning
of those provisions from that held by the United Kingdom Govern-
ment. The three Governments (see for instance the Hungarian
and Roumanian notes of April 7th and ~gth, the Bulgarian notes
of July 27th and September rst, and the Roumanian note of
September 2nd) consider that these provisions must be read
subject to another provision of the Peace Treaties, namely, Article4
of the Treaties with Hungary and Bulgaria, and Article 5 of
the Treaty with Roumania. These have a common text reading
as follows :
"Hungary/Bulgaria/Roumania, which in accordance with the
Armistice Agreement has taken ineasuresfor dissolvingal1organiz-
ations of a Fascist type on Roumanian territory whether political,
military or para-military, as well as other organizations conducting
propaganda hostile to the Soviet Union or to any of the otlier
United Nations, shall not permit in future the existenceand activity
of organizations of that nature which have as their aim denial to
the people of their democratic rights."
It willbe seen from the correspondence that the three Govern-
ments argue, either that they are only obliged to carry out the
Human Rights articles in respect of non-ITascistpersons and organ-
izations, or alternatively, that they were justified in the actions
which are the siibject of the charges now made against them,
because these actions were for the purpose of carrying out the
provision quoted immediately above, i.e., for the purpose of car-
rying out their treaty obligation ~iot to permit the existence or
activities of organizations of a Fascist type or other similarorgan-
izations having as their aim denial to the people of their demo-
cratic rights. There is here involved a clear difference of opinion
between the respective parties as to the meaning, effect and inter-
relation of these different provisions, as well as of such specific
terms as "Fascist" and "denial of democratic rights". Manifestly,
therefore, there is a dispute about the interpretation as well as
about the execution of the Treaties.
14. It is equally clear that this dispute is not one for which
some other method of settlement is provided by another article
of the Treaties. In each of the three Treaties another mode of
settlement is provided in connexion with certain of the economic180 WRITTEN STATEAIEKT OF THE UNITED KINGDOhI
clauses (see Article 31 of the Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 35 of
the Treaty with Hungary, and Article 32 of the Treaty \vith
Roumania) ; but these articles specifically enumerate the clauscs
to which they apply. Thus, Article 31 of the Biilgarian Treaty
says : "Any disputes which may arise in connexion with Arti-
cles 22 and 23 and Annexes IV, V and VI of the present Treaty,
shall be referred to a Conciliation Commission, composed", etc.,
and it is the same mutatis mutandis in the other Treaties. The
Roumanian Treaty in addition contains a special article (Article 33)
providing for the settlement of disputes "ruhich may arise in con-
nexion with the prices paid by the Roumanian Government for
goods delivered by this Government on account of reparation ....".
These are the only other Articles of the Peace Treaties concerned
which provide a method for the settlement of disputes different
from that contemplated hy the general disputes provisions quoted
in paragraph rz above. It is clear that the present dispute does
not fa11under any of these other Articles. It arises in regard to
provisions (Articles 2-5 of the Treaties) which are not amongst
those listed or contemplated by these other Articles, provisions
which figure in that part of the respective Treaties headed "Polit-
ical Clauses", whereas the other Articles for the settlement of
disputes relate wholly to provisions figuring in that part of the
Treaties headed "Reparation and Restitution" or "Economic
Clauses". Indeed, these other Articles for the settlement of disputes
are themselves part of the economic claiises and are clearly applic-
able only to the provisions of that nature enumerated in them.
15. For a11these reasons, it is submitted that the second element
of the first question must also be answered in the affirmative,
i.e., that the dispute discloscd by the diplonlatic exchange is one
which is subject to the general provision for the settlement of
disputes quoted in paragraph 12 above.
16. The next question put to the Court, i.e., that numbered II,
is whether the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania
are legallyhound to carry out the provisions of the general disputes
Article of the Treaties, "including the provision for the appoint-
ment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions". The
United Kingdom Government submits that once it is established
that a dispute falling under the Article concerned erists, there
can be no doubt that the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and
lioumania are legally bound to carry out the provisions of that
Article. It was inserted in the Peace Treaties for the express
purpose of enabling disputes of the present kind to be settled.
It has no other purpose, and if the Governments concerned are WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE USITED KIXGDOM 181
not bound to carry out its provisions when a dispute of the cliar-
acter contemplated by it arises, the Article would have no meaning
or object. It must be assumed that the parties, by inserting this
Article, and by subsequently signing and ratifying the Treaty
containing it, intended that any disputes contemplated by it
should be settled by the procedure provided in it. Unless this
assumption is made, the Article has no purpose since it is always
open to parties to go to arbitration volzcntarilyand a treaty clause
is only required where arbitration is to be compulsory. Therefore
the legal obligation of the Govemments concerned to carry out
this provision follo~vsas an inescapable conclusion from the mere
fact that the Article figures in the relevant Treaty.
17.The answer to the specific question whether these Govern-
ments are legally bound to carry out the provisions of the general
disputes Article for the appointment of their representatives to
the Treaty Commissions, naturally depends on whether the
procedure contemplated by the Article has duly been gone through,
and has reached a stage at which the appointment of Commis-
sioners is requisite. The Govemment of the United Kingdom
submits that this stage has been reached. In this connexion, it
has itself endeavoured to carry out with the utmost exactitude
the procedure provided for in the Article. This contemplates
that when a dispute arises, an attempt should first be made to
settle it by direct diplomatic negotiations. As the exchange of .
correspondence shows, this is what the Government of the United
Kingdom did. It addressed the three notes dated April znd, 1949,
to the three Governments concerned, setting out the general
nature of the charges made, the facts on which they were based,
and citing the relevant Articles of the Treaties. The three Govern-
ments, in their notes of April 7th, 19th and zrst, 1949,alldenied
these charges and also the legal basis on which they were put
fonvard. Thus the dispute was not settled by direct diplomatic
negotiations (and the citations contained in the footnote to
paragraph 9 above, show that the Government of the United
Kingdom was in no way bound to engage in prolonged or further
diplomatic exchanges). Next, the disputes Article provides that,
in the event of such non-settlement, the dispute is to be referred
to the Three Heads of Mission in the capital concemed, Le., the
United Kingdom, United States and Soviet Diplornatic Repre-
sentatives. Accordingly, the Government of the United Kingdom
effected such a reference by notes dated the 31st May, 1949,
addressed to the Representatives in the capitals concerned of
the Govemments of the United States and U.S.S.R., asking them
to state at an early date when they would be prepared to meet
with the United Kingdom Representative in order to take cog-
nizance of the dispute in the manner prescribed by the Peace
Treaty. (Onthe same date, the Govemment of the United Kingdorn
informed the three ex-enemy Govemments that, in the United182 WRITIEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
Kingdom vicw, a dispute had arisen which was being referred
to the Heads of Mission.) The United States Representative in
each case expressed willingness to attend the meeting. The Soviet
Representative did not reply, but a reply was sent through the
Soviet Embassy in London by the note dated June ~zth, 1949.
This note rejected the idea of consideration by the Heads of
Mission, advancing arguments similar to those put fonvard on
behalf of the three ex-enemy Govemments, namely in effect,
that there was nothing to discuss, because it was obvious that
the three Governments were carrying out their Treaty obligations
and that, in any case, the matter fell complctely within the
domestic jurisdiction of those Governments. The United Kingdom
reply to this communication, contesting these arguments, is
contained in the note dated 30th June, 1949. Of the three ex-
enemy Governments, only the Bulgarian Government replied to
the United Kingdom note of 31st May. In this reply, dated
27th July, they again justified their actions, denied that there
was any dispute or any ground for invoking the disputes Articles.
18. Accordingly, by 30th July, 1949 (Le., two months after
the date of the notes referring theatter to the Heads of illission),
a situation had arisen which was precisely that contemplated by
the second sentence of the general disputes Article quoted in
paragraph 12 above, i.e., the dispute had not been resolved by
the Three Heads of Mission within the prescribed period of iwo
months. The dispute had not been resolved by them for the
simple reason that it had never been considered by them jointly,
because the Soviet Representative refused to do so. The Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom does not read the relevant provision
as relating solely to cases in which the Heads of Mission have
made some attempt to resolve the dispute, but have failed to do
so within the period specified. The provision in question relates
to a simple situation of fact ; it says: "Any such dispute not
resolved by them within a period of two months ...."The only
question is therefore-was the dispute in fact resolved by the
Heads of Mission ? If not, then it is irrelevant why, and it does
not matter whether, it was because they were unable to do so,
or because, owing to the refusa1 of one of them to participate,
they were never able jointly to consider the matter al all. The
same reasoning applies to the phrase in the preceding sentence
to the effect that a dispute not settled by direct diplomatic
negotiations "shall be referred to the Heads of Mission", and to
any contention that the dispute was never in fact "referred
to them. The United Kingdom Government considers that this
reference was definitively effected by means of the note which
their Representative in each of the thiee capitals concerned
addressed for the purpose to his United States and Soviet col-
leagues. It is immaterial that the Three Heads of Mission did WRITTES STATEMEST OF THE USITED KIKGDOZI I53
not, as a body, consilierthe dispute, or go into it. It was certainly
referred to them. They did not consider it because one of them
refused to do so. It accordingly became a dispute not resolved
by them within the specified period.
19. This situation haviiig been reached, the relevant provisions
of the disputes Article are quite clear. They say that, in these
events, the dispute "shall, unless the parties to the dispute
mutually agree upon another means of settlement, be referred
at the requestof either party to the dispute to a Commission com-
posed of....". The parties did not, in fact, mutually agree upon
any other means of settlement. It is again simply a question of
the existence of a fact, Le., non-agreement on any other means
of settlement. The reasons for such non-agreement do not affect
the fact, and it is immaterial that they sprang, on the one side,
from a denial there was any dispute to be settled '. Accordingly,
the matter became automatically referable to the contemplated
Commission on the sole request of the Government of the United
Kingdom as the other party concerned. This request the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom duly and in terms made in the
notes to thethree Governments each dated 1st August, 1949.
These Governments al1 replied (notes of 26th August and 1st
and 2nd Septcmber) reiterating their previous arguments and
specifically refusing to participate in the setting-up of any Com-
mission. To this the Government of the United Kingdom replied
by identical notes dated 19th Septemher, 1949, stating that it
was unable to accept the reasons advanced by the three Govern-
ments for refusing to comply with the Treaty provisions and
procedure, and reserving al1its rights. Subsequently, the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom appointed Mr. F. Elwyn Jones,
K.C., 3I.P.. as their Commissioner on each of the three Commissions
concerned. The three Governments were informed of this in
identical notes delivered on January 5th. 1950, in which they
were also formally requestcd to appoint their own Commissioners
and to consult with the United Kingdom Government as to the
appointment of the third Commissioner. The text of these notes
is given in Annex IV hereto. No reply to them has been received.
It will thus be seen tliat the Government of the United Kingdom
has taken al1 the steps open to il under the Treaties.
zo. As regards the obligation of the parties to appoint their
Commissioner (when this stage has been reached). the Treaty
position is that the Commission contemplated by the relevant
Article is to be composed of "one representative of each party
1The more particularly of couif the Court holds. in answer to question 1
(and it is only on that assumption that questionatdl). that theexistence
of a dispute is established.'84 \VRITTES STATEZIEST OF THE USITED KISGD03I
and a third member selected by mutual agreement of the two
parties from nationals of a third country". It is submitted that
a provision to the effect that, upon the request of one of the parties,
a dispute is to be referred to a Commission composed in this way,
must automatically entail an obligation on each of the parties
to appoint or be ready to appoint its representative on the Com-
mission : othenvise the ~>ro\lisionin question has iio force or
meaning. It would he idle to provide that a dispute shall, at the
request of either party, bc rcferred to a Comrnissiori of this char-
acter if there were no obligation upon the parties to appoint tlieir
Commissioners, for in that case there could not corne into being
any Commission to which to refer the dispute. An inherent and
absolute contradiction \vould be invol\,ed between an obligation
to refer a matter to a Commission composed of Commissioners
appointed by each party and a third neutral Commissioner, and
the absence of any obligation on the parties to appoint their
Commissioners. It is submitted therefore that, from the moment
at which thére arises under this Article a right for one party to
have the matter referred to a Commission, there simultaiieously
arises, as a necessary complement, an obligation on the other
party to CO-operate in the setting-up of the Commission, and,
when called upon, to appoint its repres'entative on the Commission.
21. \Vhereas the first and second questions put to the Court
relate to the past, and to the obligations of the Governments of
Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania under the general disputes
.4rticle of the Peace Treaties, the third and fourth questions have
reference to the position which will arise in future if the= three
Govemments persist in their present course of refusing to CO-operate
in operating the Treaty procedure (assuming the Court holds that
they are under a legal obligation to do so) ; and these questions
raise the issue of what steps, if any, can be takeii by the other
parties to the Treaty to put the Treaty procedure into effect in
the absence of such CO-operation.These questions arise from the
fact that the Treaty makes no provision for what is to happen
in the event of such a default. In this tliere is nothing iinusual,
since most treaties containing provisions for arbitration tacitly
assume that, should a dispute arise, the arbitral procedure will
duly be resorted to. The Govemment of the United Kingdom is,
ho\vever, so far as its o\vn standpoint goes, less concerned than
in the case of the first two questions to urge any particular con-
clusion as to the third and fourth questions, because it considers
that the object of these latter questions is mainly to put the
General Assembly in a position to determine its o\i7nfuture pro-
cedure in this matter. If these questions are both answered in the WRITïEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM 1%
affirmative, the Assembly may consider that it ought to defer
any further action or consideration, at least until the processes
contemplated by thesc questions have been gone through :should,
however, the answer to both or either be in the negative, it will
be clear that no further steps are open to the complainant parties
under the Peace Treaties as such.
22. On the assumption that the Court advises, in answer to
the first two questions, that the three ex-enemy Governments
are under an obligation to appoint representatives to the Treaty
Commissions ; and if they have still failed to do so within thirty
days after the delivery of this opinion, the third question asks
whether the Secretary-General of the United Xations would be
competent to appoint the third member of each Commission upon
the request of the other party to the dispute. The Government
of the United Kingdom considers that this question should be
answered in the affirmative. The only element of doubt arises on
a purely literal construction of the wording of the general disputes
Article. The difficulty arisesbecause the Article, after providing
for a Commission composed of one representative of each party,
then goes on to provide for a "third" member who is to be appointed
by the Secretary-General upon the request of either party, if the
two parties are themselves unable mutually to agree upon this
third member. It may be argued, therefore, that the mention of
a third member implies the previous existence of the other two
members. But the term can equally be regarded as being merely
a convenient way of describing a particular member of the Com-
mission whose appointment is to be effected by a different proce-
dure from that provided for the appointment of the other two
members, i.e., as meaning neutral or additional rather than "third
in the temporal sense. Admittedly, the fact that the third member
is to be selected in the first place "by mutual agreement of the
two parties from nationals of a third country" seems primarily
to contemplate a situation in which the two parties have already
appointed their national Commissioners. Thus it can be argued
that the question of the appointment of a third Commissioner
by means of this mutual agreement can only arise after the two
national Commissioners have been appointed, and that the same
must therefore apply to any appointment by the Secretary-General
of the United Nations, in the event of failure to agree. This argu-
ment would be much stronger if the appointment of the third
member had to be made in the first instance by mutual agreement
between the two natioiial Commissioners as individuals, but the
Article does not say this ;it says the appointment is to be effected
by mutual agreement of the two fiarties, Le., of the two Govern-
ments. Now it is obvious that if one of the parties has refused
even to appoint its ow~inational Commissioner, there can be no
question of its agreeing on the designation of the neutral member
of the Commission. In brief, there is a situation in which the186 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
party concerned has refused or failed to appoint its own national
Commissioner, and has equally in effect refused, or at any rate
failed to agree upon, the appointment of the neutral Commissioner.
Consequently, the situation contemplated by the final sentence
of the paragraph (i.e., "should the two parties fail to agree within
a period of one month upon the appointment of the third member")
would be literally that which would then exist, that is to Say the
two parties would. not in fact have agreed upon the appointment
of the third member, using the term "third member" in the sense
indicated above as a convenient form of description of the con-
templated neutral member of the Commission.
23. lt should be noticed in the foregoing connexion that
although the natural thing, if the Treaty machinery were being
operated properly, would doubtless be for the partics to begin
by appointing their own Commissioners, and then to go on to
appoint the neutral Commissioner, there is nothing in the Article
which positively requires that the national Commissioners should
be designated first in point of time. On the wording of the Article,
it would theorelically be open to the parties to begin by agreeing
upon the contemplated third member of the Commission, and
only after such agreement to proceed to the designation of their
national Commissio~ers : one can indeed imagine circnmstances
in which they might prefer to do this. Similarly, there is nothing
in the urording of the Article (and should the parties fail to agree
upon the appointment of the neutral Commissioner) to prevent
the Secretary-General from being at once requested to make the
appointment, and for the national Commissioners only to be
appointed at a later stage ; and again, circumstances are con-
ceivable in which this might be done of set purpose. If therefore
this process could be carried out even though no national Commis-
sioners had as yet been appointed, then a fortioriit could be carried.
out if one such Commissioner had been appointed but not the
other. These considerations seem to support the view that the
term "third Commissioner" is a piece of description, and does
not have the result of making it a condition precedent of his.
appointment that the two national Commissioners should already
have been designated.
24. Unless the provision concerned is read in the above sense,
it would almays be open to any party to a dispute under the
Treaty to stultify the Treaty procedure by his own action. In
other words, although the relevant Article clearly contemplates
an appointment by the Secretary-General, upon the request of^
either party, if the parties cannot agree upon a third Commis-
sioner within a period of one month from the date of the request
for reference to a Commission, it would always be open to one
of the parties to prolong the contemplated period of one month
indefinitely by simply delaying (even without absolutely refusing) WRITTEN STATElllENT OF THE UNITED KINGDO11 187
the appointment of its own national Commissioner. This could
easily occur ; Le., one of the parties, without refusing, might
delay his appointment. If such appointment is a condition prece-
dent of the appointment of the third member, but is rlelayed
beyond the month, the intention of the Article, namely that the
appointment should be made by the Secretary-General if the
parties cannot agree within that period, would be defeated.
25. There remains the fourth question put to the Court,
assuming that the third question is answered in the affirmative,
Le., \vould a Commission composed of the representative of one
party only, together with a member appointed by the Secretary-
General, constitute a Commission within the meaning of the
Treaty, competent to give a final and binding decision? It does
not. of course, follow from the fact that the Secretary-General
can properly be requested to nominate, and could validly nominate,
the third member of the Commission before one or both of the
national Commissioners have been appointed, that a competent
Commission can exist in the total absence of one of the national
Commissioners. Ordinarily, if the third member were appointed
first, either by agreement between the parties or upon request
by the Secretary-General and in advance of the appointment of
either or both of the national Commissioners, in the manner and
for the reasons which have been suggested above, this would only
be anticipatory of these other appoiiitments, and the Commission
would not come into existence and would not function until
these other appointments had been made. The question now at
issiie, however, is mhether this still remains the case where one
of the parties has appointed its Commissioner, aiid the absence of
the other Commissioner is due to the wilful refusa1 or default
of the other party to appoint him. It must be recogniied that
prima facie the Treaty contemplates a Commission composed
of three members, and although failure or refusa1 to appoint
its Commissioner would constitute a violation of the Treaty on
the part of the Government concemed, it wvoiildnot follow from
that alone that the other two members could constitute by them-
selves a coinpetent Commission and could give a valid and binding
decision. The essence of a Commission of this kind is that the
third or neutral member holds the balance between the two
national Commissioners. It may be said that the third Com-
missioner can scarcely carry out properly the functions which he
is intended to perform if he is not assisted by the national Com-
missioners of bath sides. Not only, in the circumstances now
postulated, would the national Commissioner of one of the parties
be absent, but in addition itmust be assumed that, having refused188 \SrRITTEN STATEUENT OF THE UNITED KINGD031
or failed to appoint its Commissioner, the Government concerned
would equally be unwilling to suhmit any evidence to a Com-
mission composed of the other two members. Thus the Commission
would have difficulty in functioning in the manner presumably
contemplated by the Treaty. There is also the consideration that
the second paragraph of the relevant Article on the settlement
of disputes, as quoted in paragraph 12 above, says :"The decision
of the majority of the members of the Commission shall be the
decision of the Commission, and shall be accepted by the parties
as definitive and binding." The very idea of a majority, however,
contemplates a Commission consisting of not less than three
members. If there is a two-member Commission, they either
disagree or they are unanimous : the question of a majority in
the strict sense cannot arise. Further, if the two members disagree,
there can be no decision at â11 ;yet the Treaty procedure seems
to have been intended to ensnre that a final decision would be
reached in al1 circumstances.
26. The United Xingdom Government have thought it preferable
to state explicitly the difficulties which may exist in the way of
giving an affirmative answer to the fourth question put to the
Court. But a different point of view can also be maintained. For
instance, the primary object of the provision about majority
decisions being binding was to make it clear that the three Com-
missioners did not have to be unanimous and that the views of
any two of them would suffice. This provision was not, as such,
directed against the possibility of a Commission of less than two
members functioning. It is suggested, moreover, that had a Com-
mission of three members been duly constituted, but one of the
parties had subsequently withdrawn its Commissioner, the other
two could nevertheless have continued to function and render
any decision upon which they were able to agree. It is true that
in that case there would have been an initially valid constitution
of the Commission, by the appointment of the contemplated
three members. Nevertheless. if such a Commissiou can go on
functioning and render valid decisions despite the withdrawal
of one of its members by his Government, this suggests that a
party cannot, byits own unilateral action, defeat the clear intention
of the Treaty, and prevent the Treaty procedure for the settlement
of disputes from functioning, so far as such functioning remains
a material possibility in the absence of the CO-operation of the
party concerned. If this is true of a position in which one of the
parties witlidraws its Commissioner, it would seem to apply
equally to the case where that party refuses or persistently fails
to appoint its Commissioner l.
' On the question of the rightaogovernrnentto withdraaits consent to a
wastnat obliged to give such consent, but had in fact dane sa), it haç been stated,=go WRITTEN STATEhlENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
29. The point may be clearer on the basis of an application of
the pnnciple of estoppel. If a Commission composed of only two
members-a national member of one party and the third member
appointed by the Secretary-General-meets and gives a decision,
it is the function of the party ivhich considers that decision to
be invalid to put forward the necessary challenge. In the present
case, the only party which would have the necessary.locus standi
to do this would be the other party to the dispute. But in fact
the other party to the dispute could only make this challenge
by pleading its own wrongful action in not appointing its national
Commissioner.
In fact, the basis of its challenge would be its own failure to
appoint its Commissioner. It is submitted, however, that a plea
of invalidity based solely on the default of the party making the
plea cannot be good or effective. In bnef, the party concerned is
estopped or in'capacitated from challenging the validity of the
decision, because it cannot do so except by pleading its own
wrong. In that case the decision would remain unchallenged in
law and therefore binding. This argument would have especial
force in the circumstances now contemplated, i.e., that the Court
has advised that the three Governments are under a legal obli-
gation to appoint their Commissioners, but that they have still
failed or refused to do so. Can they then be heard to Say (or can'
anyone be heard to Say on their behalf) that because they have
(wrongfully) not appointed their Commissioner, therefove the
Commission is incompetent, or non-existent as such, and cannot
properly function ? If not, there is no basis on which the validity
of the decision can be challenged, and it stands.
30. The principle of estoppel has found application in certain
of the pronouncements of the Permanent Court of International
Justice delivered on questions bearing a close analogy to those
here at issue. For instance, in the Ckorzow Factory case (Series A.,
No. 9, p. 31). it was held that one of the parties was estopped
from pleading the Court's lack of jurisdiction on the ground that
".it is....a principle generally accepted in the jurisprudence of
international arbitration, as well as by municipal Courts, that
one party cannot avail himself of the fact that the other has not
before it, the Court was thus compelled to admit the best evidence available
of variouç facts and documents. upon which Lena [i.e.Lena Goldfields
Company] was unablc to produce primary evidence by reasan of the dacu-
men* or witnesses being in Russia and not available at the trial. The Court
finds as a fact upon the evidence, thatwasirendered necessary by the
difficulty in which the Company found iiself of getting either documents or
persons out of Russia for the purposes of the trial."
It is submitted that this passage is of particular interest and significance in
the present connexion. where the circumstances and thedifficulties as to evidence
are of a precisely similar order,and spring from just the same kicauses
as in the Lena case. WRITTEN STATEDIENT OF THE USITED KINGDO31 =gr
fuifiiled some obligation, or has not had recourse to some means
of redress, if the former party has, by some illegal act, prevented
the latter from fulfilling the obligation in question, or from having
recourse to the tribunal which would have been open to him".
This suggests that if, in the present case, the Governments of
Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania have, by refusing to CO-operate
in the setting-up of the appropriate Treaty Commission, severally
prevented the other Parties concerned from having recourse to
the tribunal which would otherwise have been open to them (Le.,
a Commission constituted as contemplated by the relevant pro-
vision of the Treaty), they are estopped from complaining if.those
Parties have recourse to such process as is available to them for
obtaining a finding on the merits of the dispute, and cannot
question the compctence of a tribunal necessarily constituted
without the CO-operation of the three ex-enemy Governments,
though othenvise, in accordance with the proccdure laid down
by the Treaty. Equally in point is the well-known principle that
a government cannot plcad failure to adopt the necessary interna1
measures of implemcntation, as a justification for not carrying
out an international trcaty obligation-a principlc given full
effect to by the Permanent Court in the case of theDanzig Kailway
Oficials(Series B., No. 15, pp. 26-27). By analogy, it woiild seem
that a party to a treaty cannot plead (or put foward arguments
involving a plea of) its own failure to operate the treaty produre
for the settlement of disputes, as a ground for contesting the
validity of action by the other parties to the treaty, taken with
a view tooperating that procedure to such extent as is practicable
in the circumstances, and being in ail other respects in accordance
with the relevant treaty provisions.
31.The argument of the United Kingdom under this head can,
in fact, be reduced to an application of the well-known principle
of treaty interpretation-ut res magis valeat quam ?ereat, Le.,
that treaty provisions must be deemed to have been intended
to possess force and content, and must, thcrefore, in general,
be so interpreted and applied as to give them adequate meaning
and effect, and avoid their purpose being nullified. It has several
times been pointed out in the course of the present written State-
ment, that .if the contentions of the three ex-enemy Governments
were accepted, it would mean that the PeaceTreaty provisions
for the settlement of disputes would be operable only at the
option of each of the Parties concemed, instead of constituting.
as they were clearly intended to do, an obligatory process for
the settlement of disputes. If a Party to the Treaty, charged
with breaches of it giving rise to a dispute which has not been
settled by diplomatic negotiations, or through the Three Heads
of Mission, can, by refusing to appoint his representative on the
Treaty Commission, or to participate in the appointment of the
third Commissioner, prevent the Commission from functioning,192 WRITTEN STATEMEKT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
and thus prevent the dispute from being settled, then it is clear
that the Treaty procedure for the settlement of disputes, obviously
intended to be binding and compulsory on the Parties. can, in
fact, in the last resort, only be operated witb the consent, express
or tacit, and given ad hoc in each case, of the very Party against
wlium the charges of breach of treaty are made. Such a result
would fail to give the relevant provision its intended meaning
and effect, or, indeed, any real meaning or effect at all, because
it is in any case always open to parties to a treaty to have
voluntary recourse to arbitration in order to settle disputes arising
under it : and unless a provision for arbitration or judicial set-
tlement is compulsory, there is no object in including it. Con-
sequently, on the basis of the principle nt res magis valeat quam
9ereat. the above-mentioned result ought to be avoided if it is
possible to do so by any fair and reasonable interpretation of
the provision concerned which does not do violence to its clear
wording. In paragraphs 26-28 above, reasons have been given
for thinking that an affirmative answer to the fourth question
put to the Court would not be inconsistent with the language
of the general disputes Article of the Peace Treaties. Therefore,
in the application of the principles just discussed, the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdom submits that the fourth question
put to the Court should also be answered in the affirmative '.
In making this submission, the Government of the United King-
dom is not suggesting anythi~ig which the practice of the United
Kingdom itself does not recognize. Section 6 of the United King-
dom Arbitration Act, 1889, expressly provides that wbere there
is an agreement to arbitrate, and one party makes default in
appointing his arbitrator, the other party may, after serving
a prescribed notice, appoint his own arbitrator to act as sole
arbitrator, and that such arbitrator's award shall thereupon be
binding on both parties as if the arbitrator had been appointed
by consent. A similar rule applies where the agreement provides
for a reference to three arbitrators (see Halsbury's Laws of Eng-
land, Vol. I, pp. 646 and 647).
(Signed) G. G. FITZMAURICE,
Agent for the Government
of the United Kingdom.
January 11th. 1950.
The doctrine ofutres magis valeat quapereat, asapplied in decisions and
opinions of the Permanent Court of InternationalJustice, was exhaustively
discussed in the course of thoralargument presented hy the Government of
the United Kingdom during the hearingof the preliminary poinofjurisdiction
in the Corfu case, February-March,1948.and will be found on pp. 90-97of the
Record (Distr.241).to which the Governmentofthe United ICingdom hegs leave
to refer for the purposes of the present case also. WRITTEN STATEDIENT OF THE UKITED KINGDOM I93
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS AT ITS zo3rd PLENARY
MEETING ON APRIL 30th. 1949
272(III). Observance in Bulga~ia and Hungary of human
rights and fundamental freedoms
[Not reproduced.]
Annex Il
LETTER FROiîI THE UNITED KINGWhl REPRESENTATIVE
TO THE UNITED NATIONS (19 SEPTEMBER 1949)
UNITEDNATIONS GENERAI. ASSEMBLY General.
Fourth Session. A/990.
Item 27 of the agenda. 27 September, ,949.
[hTotreproduced.]
Annex II A
HUXGARIAN "NOTE VERBALE" TO THE UNITED KINGDOM
(OCTOBER z7th, 1949)
The Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs presents its compliments
to the British Legation and, with reference to the Legation's note
No. 475of the 19th Septemher, 1949,has the honour toimpart asfollows:
The Hungarian Government regrets tostate that the Government of the
United Kingdom deemed it opportune to renew the accusations, deprived
of al1 real basis whatsoever, and rejected most categorically by the
Hungarian Government-notwithstanding that the Hungarian Govern-
ment on several occasions had clearly explicated in its notes Nos. 2671
and 7795/1949. and undouhtfnlly proved that they were minutely
observing the stipulations contained in Article z of the Peace T-aty.
The Hungarian Government once again rejects most categorically
that tendentious andfalse interpretation of the Peace Treaty, by which
the British Government try to contrast the stipulations contained
respectively in Articl2sand 4 of the Treaty. The Hungarian Govern-
ment does not see any contradiction between the observing of the stipul-'94 \\'RITTEX STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOJI
ations of Article 2 of the Treaty and the fight against Fascist and pro-
Fascist elements prescribed by Article 4 of the same Treaty. On the
contrary, a consequent compliance with the stipulations of Article 4 is
a condition sine qua non of guaranteeing to al1 peoples, and to the
Hungarian people among them, the rights defined by Article z of the
Treaty.
It bas resnlted clearlv from tlie documents of the trials aeains~ " ~ ~ ~
\lindszcnr!. niid Iii:icc~rii~~licc;:iii,ceiitly. :ignin't L1szli1R;i]k:iricll'ii
;iccunil>liccs,tlint tlie tierson5coiivirlzd iur ttieir antidcmocrntic acrivitv
were gÜilty of a conspiracy aiming at the reverse of the present derno-
cratic regime, and to annihilate the liberties acquired by the people,
and to establish a Fascist régimeof oppression, worse than any other
previous regime of the kind. Accordingly, the Hungarian Government,
far from infringing the Peace Treaty, acts explicitly in compliance with
its stipulations when inflictina a blow uDon the vile enemies of libertv
and democracy who have degenerated' to espionage and murderois
attempts. If the Governments of the United Kingdom and of the United
States accuse the Hunaar-an Govemment. this cin have but one reason.
1.t:.tlitrulii~gcircles uf ttizsc counrries nrc Iiostilz to the iiiilel)rn<lcnce
aii<ldcvclupintntof tlie ~it:ul,lv,l~niocraciesniid. :asit \cas provrcl by
tilt! :~f~~ret~icnt~~~tr:l~,lsui>~oit,IIIIli111e:irvIOO.tlle i1105t~Ic~si>~~r:itc
enemies of democracy, direc{iig them by thei; owu'iietwork of s$es, as
well as by Tito and his clique, attached to their service.
As a matter of fact, the Hungarian Government has repeatedly
stated that precisely these Governments have, on several occasions.
infriuged the stipulations of the Peace Treaty relating to Hungary,
when unlawfully denying the restitution of Hungarian property found
in their respective zones of occupation, when refusing the extradition
of the Hungarian war-criminals escaped into their territory, when
supporting these war-criminals in their antidemocratic activity and
when even rendering possible the organization and equipment of military
formations of Hungarian Fascists on the territory occupied by them.
Furthermore, the Hungarian Government states with astonishment
that, in addition to the accusations already known and repeatedly
refuted, the Government of the United Kingdom expresses the
opinion-which isquite new and in no way compatible witli the rules
and spirit of international law-that, by assuming certain obligations
through the signature of the Treaty of Peace, Hungary bas become a
State with limited sovereignty.
When signing the Peace Treaty, Hungary was not, nor is she at
present, inclined to surrender her sovereignty-on the contrary, she
will defend her independence and unhampered democratic development
against any imperialist interference. The Hungarian Government con-
sideys the arbitras. interpretation of the Peace Treaty by the British
Government an attempt to claim a right to constantly interfere with
Statery's interna1 affairs, ignonng the independence of the Hungarian
The Hunaarian Government cateeoricallv reiects,~~~,eo~~~~~~-e~-. ~---
wholly fictitrous calumny of the ~ritich ~ov~rnment, alleging that the
present Hungarian re~ime be merelv "the mle of a minoritv". It is a
notorious facï that at Ihe general elëctions on the 15th May of 1949the
Hungarian people manifested their wiil in the most democratic way-
by general and secret ballot-and decided to support by 95.5% of WRITïEK STATEMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM I95
their votes the policy carried on by the present Hungarian Government.
In view of this, the fact that the British Government allegesaidiplo-
matic note the present Hungarian Government as being "the rule of a
minority", cannot be regarded by the Hungarian Government but an
evil-minded p.op..andistic manoeuvre, based upon the denial of true
facts.
In consideration of the above said, the Hungarian Government rejects
most categorically the note No. 475 of the British Legation, as a new
attempt of unlawful interference with the interna1 affairs of Hungary.
The Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs avails itself of this oppor-
tunity to renew to the British Legation the expression of its high con-
sideration.
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL HSSENBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS AT ITS 23jth PLENARY
MEETING ON OCTOBER zznd, 1949
[i\'oreproduced.]
Annex IV
TEXT OF IDENTICAL NOTES FROM THE GOVERNhlENT
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM TO THE GOVERNRIENTS OF
BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND ROMANIA DELIVERED ON
JANUARY sth, 1950
His Bntannic Majesty's Legation present their compliments to the
Bulgarian 1 Ministry of Foreign Affairs and with reference to their
note No. 410 of 1st August, 1949, regarding reference to a Commission
as laid down in Article 36'of the Peace Treaty with Bulgana of their
dispute with the Bulgarian Government over the interpretation of
Article 2 of the Treaty have the honour to inform the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom
have appointed Mi. F. Elwyn Jones, K.C., M.P., as their representative
on the proposed Commission. It is accordingly requested that the
Bulgarian Government may appoint their representative forthwith and
at the same time enter into consultation with His Majesty's Govern-
ment in the UnitedKingdom with' a view to the appointment of a
third member as stipulated in the Peace Treaty.
2. His Britannic Majesty's Legation take this opportunity to renew
to the Bulganan Rfinistry of Foreign Affairs the assurance of their
high consideration.
' Texts of notes to Hungarian and Romanian Governments mutatis mr<tarr?is. 3.TÉLÉGRAMME ÉMANANT DU MINISTRE
DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
POPULAIRE DE BULGARIE ET ADRESSÉ
AU PRÉSIDENT DE LA COUR
Reçu le 14 janvier 1950
Monsieur le Président,
Me référant à lettre numéro gorg que Greffier de la Cour
m'adressa en date sept novembre ~gqgau sujet Résolution vingt-
deux octobre 1949 par laquelle Assemblée généraleNations Unies
demanda à la Cour avis consultatif sur interprétation certains
articles Traité de paix avec Bulgarie, ai honneur vous faire savoir
que Gouvernement bulgare, considérant que cette procédure est
dénuéetout fondement juridique et estimant par conséquent
inutile aborder le fond des questions poséesdevant Cour, désire
porter à sa connaissance à titre information ce qui suit au sujet
régularitécette procédure.
Assemblée généraleNations Unies en violation stipulations
expresses article deux paragraphe sept et article cinquante-cinq
de Charte s'occupa questions qui relèvent essentiellement de
compétence nationale de l'État bulgare. De même,et toujours en
violation de Charte et du Traité paix avec Bulgarie, elle aborda
examen de l'article trente-six susdit traité en décidant demander
à Cour internationale Justice avis consultatif sur ces questions,
bien que ledit article Traité paix prévoit sa propre procédure
et exclut par là compétence tant de l'AssembléegénéraleNations
Unies que de Cour internationale Justice.
Cela ne constitue que nouvelle phase de tentative certains
pays de s'immiscer dans affaires intérieures de Bulgarie- plus
spécialement dans ses fonctions législatives judiciaires et adminis-
tratives - immixtion à laquelle Gouvernement de République
populaire Bulgarie s'oppose de manière la plus énergique.
Incompétence de l'Assemblée générale Nations Unies dans
toute cette tentative d'immixtion entraîne incompétence de Cour
internationale Justice de s'occuper problème qui lui est posé,bien
que ce dernier soit déguisésous forme demande avis consultatif.
En second lieu Gouvernement bulgare estime que Cour ne
saurait émettre avis consultatif demandé sans porter grave atteinte
au principe bien établi en droit international, proclamépar Statut
de la Cour et observépar jurisprudence constante, à savoir principe
selon lequel toute procédure judiciaire dans un cas déterminé,
portant sur question juridique pendante entre deux parties, exige
application règles du contentieux (article soixante-huStatut et TÉLÉGRAMME DU GOUVERNEMENT BULGARE (141 50) 197
articles quatre-vingt-deuet quatre-vingt-troisRèglement) et
par conséquent n'est opérante qu'à condition que consentement
préalable de toutes les parties en cause soit acquis.
Bulgarie n'est pas membre Nations Unies. Elle n'est pas soumise
obligations découlant de Charte et Statut en ce qui concerne avis
consultatifs. Elle n'a pas accepté et n'accepte pas juridiction de
Cour. Celle-ci est donc incompétente émettre avis consultatif
demandé par Assemblée généraleNations Unies.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé VLADIMIR POPOTOMOV,
Ministre Affaires étrangères
République populaire Bulgarie. 4. TÉLÉGRAMME DU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES
ÉTRANGERES DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE SOVIÉTIQUE
SOCIALISTE D'UKRAINE A LA COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE, LA HAYE
15 janvier 1950 (reçu le 16 janvier).
[Traduction faife par le Greffe]
Kiev.
En réponse à vos lettres n-9021 et 9022 du 7 novembre 1949,
au nom du Goiivernement de la République soviétique socialiste
d'Ukraine, j'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance ce qui
suit: comme l'a déclaréla délégationde la République sovié-
tique socialiste d'Ukraine au cours de la 4meSession de 1'Assem-
blée généralec,elle-cin'a pas le droit d'examiner la question relative
an respect des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales en
Hongrie, en Bulgarie et en Roumanie, car ceci est contraire au
paragraphe 7de I'article z de la Charte de l'organisation des Nations
Unies, et il semble qp'il y ait là une ingérencegrossière dans les
affaires intérieures d'Etats souverains ; en conséquence,I'Assemblée
générale n'estpas fondéeà demander un avis consultatif à la Cour
internationale surcette questton, qui relève exclusivement de la
compétence nationale desdits Etats. Pour ces motifs, le Gouverne-
ment de la République soviétique socialiste d'Ukraine estime que
la Cour internationale n'a pas le droit et ne possèdepas de base lui
permettant d'examiner cette question sans le consentement effectif
à un tel examen des Gouvernements hongrois, bulgare et roumain.
(Signé)RIANUILSKI. 4. TELEGRAM FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGN
AFFAIRS OF THE UKRAINIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST '
REPUBLIC TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE, THE HAGUE
January 15th. 1950 (received ~anuary 16th).
[Translation by the Registry]
Kiev.
In reply to your letters Nos. 9021 and 9022 of Novemher 7th,
1949, on behalf of the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic, 1 have the honour to inform you of the following :as the
delegation of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic stated during
the IVth Session of the General Assembly, the Assembly does not
have the right to examine the question relating to human rights
and fundamental freedoms in Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania,
for this is contrary to Articl2,paragraph 7,of the Charter of the
United hiations, and it seems that this constitutes gross inter-
ference in the domestic matters of sovereign States ; consequeiitly,
the General Assembly is not entitled to request of the International
Court an advisory opinion on this question, which is exclnsively
~vithin the domestic jurisdiction of the said States. For these
reasons the Government of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic
considers the International Court does not have the right and
possesses no basis ailowing it to deal with this question without the
effective consent of the Hungarian, Bulgarian and Rumanian
Governments to such examination.5. LETTER FROM THE CHARGË D'AFFAIRES A.I. OF
THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS IN THE
NETHERLANDS TO THE REGISTRAR OF THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Unoficial translation. The Hague, January 14,1950.
Dear Mr. E. Hambro,
Being charged by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the U.S.S.R.,
1 have the honour, in reply to the letters Nos. 9021, 9022, of
November 7th, 1949, to communicate that, as it had already been
declared by the Soviet Delegation at the Fourth Session of the
General Assembly of the United Nations, the General Assembly, in
virtue of the p. 7, Article z of the Charter of the Organization,
is not competent to examine the question of "Maintenance of
human rights and fundamental freedoms in Bulgaria, Hungary,
and Romania", as concerning solely to the intern competence of
these States, and, consequently, the General Assembly is not
competent ta request the International Court of Justice for an
advisory opinion on this question. On the same grounds the
International Court of Justice equally is not competent ta examine
this question without accordance of the Governments of the directly
interested States.
With respect,
(Signed) M. VETROV,
Chargéd'affaires a.i. of the U.S.S.R.
in the Netherlands. 6. TÉLÉGRAMME DU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES
ÉTRANGÈRES DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE SOCIALISTE
SOVIÉTIQUE DE BIÉLORUSSIE A LA COUR
INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE, LA HAYE
[Traduction faite fiar le Grege]
15 janvier 1950 (reçu le 16 janvier).
Minsk.
En réponse à vos lettres 9021-gozz du 7 novembre 1949 par
délégationdu Gouvernement de la République socialiste soviétique
de Biélorussie,j'ai l'honneur de porter à votre connaissance que,
commel'a déjàdéclaréladélégationdela Républiquesocialiste sovié-
tique de Biélorussie,lors de la 4meSession de l'Assembléegénérale
des Nations Unies, la question relative au respect des droits de
l'homme et des libertés essentielles en Bulgarie, en Hongrie et en
Roumanie relève exclusivement de la compétence intérieure de
ces États et partant l'Assembléegénérale,en vertu du paragra7he
de l'article z de la Charte des Nations Unies, n'est pas compétente
pour examiner cette questio;en conséquence, elle n'apas compé-
tence pour demander un avis consultatif à la Cour internationale
de Justice sur ce point pour leses motifs, et en outre, en l'ab-
sence du consentement à l'examen de cette question des Gouver-
nements des États directement intéressés,la Cour internationale
n'est pas non plus compétente pour en connaître.
(Signé) KISELEV.6. TELEGRAM FROM THE MINISTER FOR FOREIGR
AFFAIRS OF THE BYELORUSSIAN SOVIET SOCIALIST
REPUBLIC TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE, THE HAGUE
[Translation by the Registry]
January x$h, 1950 (received January 16th).
Minsk.
In reply to your letters Nos. 9021-gozz of November 7th. 1949,
on behalf of the Government of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist
Republic, 1 have the honour to inform you that, as the delegation
of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic already stated during
the IVth Session of the General Assembly of the United Nations,
the question relating to the observance in Bulgaria, Hungary and
Rumania of human rights and fundamental freedoms is exclusively
within the domestic jurisdiction of these States and therefore the
General Assembly, under Article z, paragrap7,of the Charter,
is not competent to consider this question;consequently. the
Assembly is not competent to request an advisory opinion of the
International Court of Justice on this question for the same reasons,
and furthermore, in the absence of consent, by the Governments
of the States which are directly interesthat this question be
examined, the International Court is not competent to consider it. 7. LETTRE DU CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES A. 1.DE LA
RÉPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE ROUMAINE AUX PAYS-BAS
.AU PRÉSIDENT DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE JUSTICE
No 12 La Haye, le 16 janvier 1950
Monsieur le Président,
En réponse à l'adresse no 9019 du 7 novembre 1949 de la Cour
internationale de Justice, j'ai l'honneur de vous transmettre de
la part du Gouvernement de la République populaire roumaine ce
qui suit:
Par sa communication faite le 7 octobre 1949 au Secrétaire
généraldes Nations Unies, le Gouvernement roumain a montré
qu'il considère que la discussion au sein de la commission politique
spécialed'un point appelé eobservations des droits de i'homme et
des droits et libertés fondamentales dans la République populaire
roumaine 1est entièrement dépourvue de fondement et constitue
une immixtion dans les affaires intérieures de la Roumanie.
Le Gouvernement de la République populaire roumaine a re-
poussécette tentative d'immixtion et a protesté contre le fait que
l'Assembléegénérale desNations Unies s'est laisséeentraîner dans
des actions contraires aux stipulations catégoriques de la Charte.
Le Gouvernement roumain considère que la Résolution de
l'Assembléedes Nations Unies du 22 octobre 1949, par laquelle est
demandé un avis consultatif à la Cour internationale de Justice,
ainsi que la procédure engagéedevant cette Cour représentent une
continuation de ces ingérences dans les affaires intérieures de
la République populaire roumaine, ingérences contre 1esqui:lles
le Gouvernement de la République populaire roumaine proteste et
les repousse catégoriquement.
Le Gouvernement roumain considère que la Cour internationale
de Justice n'est pas compétente dans la question de l'Assemblée
généraleque l'organisation des Nations Unies lui a soumise par
sa Résolution du 22 octobre 1949, celle-ci étant une affaire inté-
rieure de la République populaire roumaine et, par conséquent,
de la compétence exclusive de la République populaire roumaine.
Le Gouvernement roumain considère que la Cour internationale
de Justice ne peut étre compétente dans la question qu'on lui a LETTRE DU GOU\'ERSEI\IEXT ROUXIAIN (161 j0) 203
soumise, la République populaire roumaine n'étant pas partie ait
Statut de la Cour internationale de Justice.
Le Gouvernement roumain attire l'attention qu'en aucun cas,
la Cour internationale de Justice ne peut êtrecompétente dans une
question concernant la Roumanie sans que le Gouvernement rou-
main y eût donné son consentement.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé T). AXDREESCO. 8. LETTRE DE L'ENVOYÉ EXTRAORDINAIRE ET
MINISTRE PLENIPOTENTIAIR DEE LA RÉPUBLIQUE
TCHÉCOSLOVAQUE AU GREFFIER DE LA COUR
No 478150. La Haye, le 16 janvier 1950.
Monsieur le Greffier,
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de vos lettres en date du
7 novembre 1949, nos 9021 et 9022, au sujet de la Résolution de
l'Assembléegénéralede l'O.N. U. du 22 octobre 1949, Concernant
le Rrespect des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales.
en Bulgarie, Hongrie et Roumanie il,et, faisant suiteà votre
invitation,'ai l'honneur, au nom du Gouvernement tchécoslovaque,.
de communiquer à la Cour ce qui suit :
Les questions soumises à la Cour concernent des matières qui
ont fait l'objet d'amples discussions la IIImc et IVmcAssemblée
générale desNations Unies, discussions qui se sont dérouléesen
l'absence complète et en dépitdes protestations des Gouvernements.
bulgare, hongrois et roumain. A cette occasion, la délégation
tchécoslovaque a objecté à plusieurs reprises que le traitement de
ces questions était contrairela loi et en opposition avec les dispo-.
sitions du paragraphe 7 de l'article2 de la Charte des Nations
Unies, étant donné qu'il s'agit d'intervention dans des affaires.
relevant de la compétence nationale d'un État.
Le Gouvernement tchécoslovaque objecte en outre :
Dans le sens de l'article 82 du Règlement et de l'article 68, la
Cour doit appliquer,à la requête pour l'avis consultatif, les dispo-
sitions prévues en matière contentieuse. Dans cette procédure, la
Cour est en premier lieu tenue d'examiner sa compétence et d'en.
décider au terme de l'article 36, paragrabhe 6, et de l'article 53,
paragraphe 2, du Statut.
Des faits que la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie ne sont pas
membres de l'organisation des Nations Unies, et ne sont pas p-ties
du Statut de la Cour. ainsi que du fait que chacun de ces Etats.
a expressément rejeté le procédé de l'Assemblée générale des
Nations Unies en cette matière, y compris l'appàlla Cour, celle-ci
devra - analogiquement d'après l'avis consultatif de la Cour per-
manente de Justice internationaledu 23 juin 1923, no - inévita-
blement constater qu'elle n'est pas compétente.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
(Signé )r J. MARTINIC. 9. \WITTEN STATEMENT PRESENTED BY THE
AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT UNDER ARTICLE 66
OF THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE AND THE ORDER OF THE
COURT DATED 7 NOVEMBER, 1949
By Kesolution adopted 22 October, 1949, tlie Geiieral Assembly
of the United Nations requested the International Court of Justice
for an advisory opinion on certain procedural questions relating ,
to the interpretation of the peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary
and Koumania. These questions were four in number, answers
being requested to questions 3 and 4 only in the event of certain
conditions not being fulfilled. The Australian Government submits
the following statement in connection with the first two questions.
It may be useful to consider briefly as a preliminary question
the argument advanced at the Fourth Session of the General
Assembly that the International Court of Justice \vas not com-
petent to give the advisory opinion suggested on the gronnd that
interpretation of tlie treaties was exclusively within the competence
of the contracting parties. Under Article 96(1)of the Charter of
the United Nations and Article 65 of the Statute of the I.C.J.,
the General Assembly may reqoest the International Court of
Justice to give an advisory opinion on any legal question. In its
opinion on the Conditions of admission of a State to Membership
of the United Nations, the Court irself has stated thzt the deter-
mination of the meaning of a treaty pro\lision is a legal question
(I.C.J. Reports 1947-1948. p. 61). The I.C.J. is therefore clearly
competent to give the interpretations requested by the General
Assembly.
Question I. "Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and
Associated Powerssignatoriesto the Treaties ofaceon the other,
concerning the implementation of Article of the Treaties with
Bulgaria and Hungary and Article3 of the Treaty with Romania,
disclose disputes subject to the provisions for the settlernent of
disputes contained in Article of the Treaty of Peace with Bul-
garia, Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and Arti-
cle 38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania?"
........................
Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Article 40 of
the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and Article 38 of the Treaty
of Peace with Roumania (hereinafter referred to as the C,ommon
Article) provide:206 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF AUSTRALIA
"Escept where another procedure is specificallyprovided under
any article of the present Treaty, any dispute concerningthe inter-
pretation or execution of the Treaty, which isnot settled by direct
diplomatic negotiations, shall be referred to the Three Heads of
hlissionacting under Article 36 (40,38), except that in this case the
Heads of Mission will not be restricted by the time-limit provided
in that article. Any such dispute not resolved by them within a
periodof twomonthsshall, unlessthe parties tothe disputemutually
a ree upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request
of either party to the dispute to a Commission composedof one
representative of each party and a third member selectedbyutual
agreement of the two parties from nationals of a third country.
Should the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month
upon the appointment of the third memher, the Secretary-
General of the United Nations may be requested by either party
to make the appointment.
The decision of the majority of the members of the Commission
shall be the decision of the Commission,and shall be accepted by
the parties asefinite and binding."
Disputes "subject to the provisions for the settlement of dis-
putes" contained in the Common Article are disputes "concerning
the interpretation or execution of the Treaty". The circumstances
of the diplomatic eschanges between certain Allied and Associated
Powers on the one hand and Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania
on the other, as understood by the Australian Govemment, clearly
constitute disputes concerning the execution of the Treaties.
On z April, 1949, notes verbales on behalf of Australia, New
Zealand and the United Kingdom, which States are Allied and
Associated Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace, were
delivered to the Bulgarian, Hungarian and Roumanian Govern-
ments by His Majesty's Ministers in Sofia, Budapest and Bucha-
rest. Canada associated itself with the notes to the Hungarian
and Roumanian Governments. These notes set forth the grouiids
on which it \vas alleged that those Governments had denied to
their peoples the exercise of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms which they were pledged to secure to them under
Article z of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary, and Article 3
of theTreaty with Roumania (hereinafter referred to as the Human
Rights Article). Notes couched in similar terms were addressed
on z April, 1949, to the same three Governments by the Govern-
ment of the United States of America, another Allied and Asso-
ciated Power signatory to the Treaties of Peace.
By their notes verbalesof 8 and zz April, IO April and 20 April,
addressed to His Majesty's lfinisters in their respective capitals,
the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania rebutted
these allegations and claimed that their obligations under the
Treaties of Peace had been and were continuing to be honoured.
The allegations of the Government of the United States of America WRITTEN STATEMENT OF .4USTRALIA 207
were likewise rebutted in notes of (21 .4pril, 1949) Bulgaria,
(8 April, 1949) Hungary, and (18 April, 1949) Roumania.
The Aiistralian Government consider that these allegations
and rebuttals amount to disputes. In the case of the Mavrom-
matis Palestine Concessions, reported in the Court's Publication
Series A., No. z, of 30 August, 1924, page II, the Permanent
Court of International Justice defined a dispute as "a disagreement
on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interest
between two persans". There are clearly disagreements on points
both of law and of fact in the present cases.
Disputes "subject to the provisions for the settlement of
disputes" contained in the Common Article are, in the language
of the Common Article itself, "disputes concerning the inter-
pretation or execution of the Treaty". The disputes in question
are disputes regarding the exccution of the Treaties. One party
to each dispute alleges that the Human Rights Article of the
Treaty is not being executed. The other party maintains that
the Article is being executed. Subsequent diplomatic exchanges
concerning the establishment of Comniissions disclose in addition
disputes concerning the interpretation of the Treaties. (SeeGeneral
Assembly Document A/ggo, Annexes 13-17 b.)
The Australian Government, therefore, is of the opinion that
the disputes in question relate bath to the execution and the
interpretation of the Treaties and are therefore properly subject
to the provisions for the settlement of disputes contained in
Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace aith Bulgaria, Article 46 of
the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and Article 38 of the Treaty
of Peace with Roumania.
........................
"In the event of ail affirmative re$y to question 1:
Question II. Are the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania obligated to carry out the provisions of the Articles
referreà to in question1,including the provisions for the appoint-
ment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions ?"
The Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania
entered into force on 15th September, 1947. The Governments
of Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania are hence under a legal
obligation to carry out the provisions of al1 the articles of the
Treaties, including the provisions relating to the settlement of
disputes.
Careful reading of the Common Article and analysis of the
sequence of events since the inception of the dispute lead inescap-
ably to the conclusion that it is now mandatory for Bulgana,
Hungary and Roumania to appoint representatives and so help
to constitute the commissions provided for in the Comrnon Article :208 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF AUSTRALIA
1' No other procedure is specifically provided elsewhere in the
Peace Treaties for the settlement of disputes concerning
the interpretation or execution of the Human Rights
Article.
z. The disputes have not been settled by direct diplomatic
negotiations.
3. The disputes have been referred to the Three Heads of
Missions. By their notes of 31 May, 1949, the United
Kinedom and the United States Heads of Mission at
sofi:, Budapest and Bucharest asked the U.S.S.R. Heads
of Mission whether they would be prepared to meet them
in order that the Threc Heads of Mission in each case
might take cognizance of the disputes in the manner
prescribed in the Treaties. In a note of 12 June, 1949,
addressed to the U.K. Government, the Embassy in
London of the U.S.S.R. said that it was authorized to
declare 'that the Soviet Government saw no cause for
the summoning of a conference of the Three Heads of
the Diplornatic Missions in Bulgaria, Hungary and Rou-
mania.
4. The disputes were not resolved by the Heads of Mission
within a period of two months.
5.The parties have not yet mutually agreed upon another
means of settlement.
6.On I August, 1949, the parties to the disputes alleging non-
execution of the Treaty in notes addressed to the Govern-
ments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumania, requested
the reference of the disputes to commissions.
The stage has now been reached when it is mandatory for
Commissions to consider the disputes.
The Common Article provides that the Commission is to be
composed of one representative of each party and a third member
selected by mutual agreement of the parties. There is a dearly
expressed obligation imposed on the parties to the dispute that
the dispute shall be referred to the Commission ; the question
now to be determined is whether the Governments of Bulgaria,
Hungary and Roumania are under an obligation to appoint repre-
sentatives to the Commission.
The nature and purpose of the Common Article is to settle
disputes arising out of the inteqxetation or execntiou of the
Treaties of Peace, and it is submitted that the interpretation to
be favoured is that which urill make the Common Article effective
to serve this purpose. The compulsory reference of a dispute to
the Commission presupposes that the Commission has been con-
stitnted, and this can only be done by the appointment of a
representative of each party and a third member selected by mutual
agreement of the two parties, or, failing agreement, by the Secret- WRllTEN STATEhlEST OF AUSTRALI.4 Zog
ary-General. It is iiecessarily implied that the parties to the
dispute appoint representatives. They are consequently under a
definite legal obligation to appoint. To contend othenvise would
frustrate the whole method of adjustment of disputes as laid down
in the Peace Treaties and defeat the very purpose of the Common
Article.
For these reasons, it is the opinion of the Australiaii Government
that the word "shall" appearing in the second sentence of the
Common Article applies by necessary implication to the appoint-
ment of a representative by each party to the dispute, and that
the Govemments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Konmania have an
inescapable legal obligation to appoint representatives to the
Commissions. 10. LETTRE DU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRAN-
GÈRES DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE HONGROISE
AU GREFFIER DE LA COUR
Monsieur le Greffier,
En réponse à votre communication no 9019 en date du 7 no-
vembre 1949, au nom du Gouvernement de la République
populaire hongroise, j'ai l'honneur de porteàvotre connaissance
ce qui suit:
Le Gouvernement de la République populaire hongroise, dans
les notes qu'il a adresséesaux Gouvernements du Royaume-Uni
et des Etats-Unis en réponseaux notes de ces derniers, a maintes
fois développéet prouvé :
I" qu'il a exécuté et il exécute d'une manière conséquente
les stipulations du Traité de paix et qu'il a procédéet il procède
dans une stricte conformité aux stipulations de ce Traité, en
ordonnant la dissolution des organisations et partis ayant eu
pour but la restauration de l'ancien régimefasciste et lorsqu'al
poursuivi et continue de poursuivre en justice ceux qui déploient
une activité visantà renverser la République populaire hongroise
démocratique ;
z0 que, du moment que le Traité de paix a expressément
reconnu la souveraineté de la Hongrie et lui a imposé, en même
temps, le devoir de prendre des mesures appropriées contre tout
mouvement fasciste, il est évident que les mesures prises en ce
sens par le Gouvernement hongrois, qui, d'ailleurs, appartiennent
au domaine de ses affaires intérieures et découlent d'une stricte
application des stipulations du Traité de paix, ne peuvent faire
l'objet d'aucune contestation ; d'où il résulte que l'accusation
d'avoir violé lesa droits humains 1et les stipulations du Traité
de paix, n'est en réalité ,qu'unprétexte pour les Gouvernements
du Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis pour s'ingérerdans les affaires
intérieures de la République populaire hongroise et pour exercer
une pression sur son Gouvernement afin que celui-ci subordonne
sa politiqueà celle de certains Etats et gouvernements étrangers.
Il résulte de tout ce qui précèdeque les Gouvernements du
Royaume-Uni et des Etats-Unis n'ont en aucun droit de s'adresser
à l'organisation des Nations Unies sous prétexte d'un différend
artificiellement construit, et que l'Assemblée des Nations Unies
a procédéégalement sans aucune base légale et contrairement
au droit, lorsqu'elle s'est adresséeà la Cour pour demander son
avis au sujet de plusieurs questions en connexitéavec cette affaire.
Eu égard à tout ce qui vient d'êtredéveloppé,le Gouvernement
de la République populaire hongroise n'est pas à mêmede prendre LETTRE DU GOUVERNElIEXT HOKGROIS (13 1 50) 211
part à la procédure engagée devant la Cour sur l'initiative de
l'Assemblée des Nations Unies, procédure que le Gouvernement
hongrois considère et quant au fond et quaiit à la forme comme
illégale et comme dépourvue de tout effet juridique. Le Gouver-
nement hongrois ne désire donc présenter aucun exposé concer-
nant les questions posées à la Cour par I'i\ssemblée des Nations
Unies et il ne fait connaître son point de vue concernant l'illégalité
de la procédure qu'à titre de siinple information.
Le ,principe de l'égalité,de l'indépendance et de la souveraineté
des Etats est du nombre des règles les plus universellement
reconnues du droit internatioiial. Cc principe comporte, entre
autres, une interdiction expresse pour les États et pour les organi-
sations formées par eux de s'ingérer -, sans titre suffisant -
dans les affaires intérieures des autres Etats. Or, il ne peut y
avoir aucun doute que le Traité de raix avec la Hongrie, signé
à Paris le IO février 1947, loin de rétrécir sa soliveraineté, a
réintégréla Hongrie dans l'exercice de ses droits souverains. Il
est notoire, en outre, que ce méme Traité n'a attribué à l'Orga-
nisation des Nations Unies aucun droit de contrôle concernant
l'exécution de ses clauses. Il est notoire, enfin, qu'à la suite
de l'attitude que certaines Grandes Puissances ont adoptée
contrairement à leurs engagements solennellement pris, la Hongrie,
jusqu'ici, n'a pas étéadmise au sein de l'organisation des Nations
Unies et qu'ainsi les stipulations de la Charte visant les devoirs
des Etats Membres, ne peuvent non plus être invoquées à son
égard. Dans ces conditions, il est évident qu'aucun organe des
Nations Unies n'est qualifié (le s'occuper do prétendu différend
relatif à l'exécution du Traité de paix, ni d'iiitervenir, à ce titre,
aux affaires de la. Hongrie. Par conséquent, l'orgaiiisation des
Nations Unies, en adoptant des résoliitions et en prenaiit I'ini-
tiative d'autres procédures en cette matière, est sortie des cadres
de ses propres attributions déterniinées par la Charte.
Le Gouvernement hongrois croit devoir attirer l'attention
$galement sur le fait que les stipulations de la Charte visant les
Etats non-membres, ne peuvent non plus être invoquées pour
justifier le procédé illégal des Nations Unies. Il est vrai que
l'article2, paragraphe 6, de la Charte prévoit que «l'Organisation
fait de la sorte que les États qui ne sont pas membres des Nations
Unies agissent conformément à ces priiicipes dans la mesure
nécessaireau maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales II.
Le Gouvernement hongrois cependant - ainsi que j'en ai fait
mention plus haut -, daiis ses notes adresséesaux Gou\~ernements
du Royaume-Uni et des États-Unis, a suffisamment démontré
que les mesures légalement prises pour la sauvegarde efficace
des institutions démocratiques et contre les ennemis de la démo-
cratie, loin de menacer la sécurité et la paix internationales,
contribuent, au contraire, à leur raffermissement. Du reste, pour
autant que le Gouvernement hongrois le sache, personne n'a212 LETTRE DU GOUVERKEMENT HONGROIS (13 I 50)
jusqu'ici hasardé l'affirmation que les lois de la République popu-
laire hongroise ou les mesures prises par son Gouvernement
pussent signifier une menace quelconque pour la paix etla sécurité
internationales, En réalité,les dangers pour cette paix et cette
sécurité proviennent de toutes autres sources.
Le Gouvernement hongrois croit superflu d'illustrer de plus
près, ni la situation juridique intenable, ni l'ébranlement de la
confiance dans la justice internationale, qui pourraient résulter
de l'inauguration d'une jurisprudence qui admettrait que, dans
les cas où la souveraineté des Etats s'oppose à toute intervention
de la part de Puissances étrangères ou d'organes internationaux,
le principe de la souveraineté des États indépendants soit rendu
illusoire par la voie détournée d'une demande d'avis consultatif
de la Cour internationale de Justice.
Pour tous ces motifs, le Gouvernement hongrois n'est pas en
état d'attribuer des effets juridiques quelconques à la procédure
illégale initiée par l'Assemblée des Kations Unies, et pour cette
raison il n'est pas à mêmede présenter des observations concer-
nant les questions que l'Assemblée des Xations Unies a posées
à la Cour.
Veuillez agréer, etc.
Budapest, le 13 janvier 1950.
(Signé) KALAI,
Ministre des Affaires étrangères
de la République populaire hongroise. 131
SECTION C. - EXPOSÉS ÉCRITS
SECTION C.-\VRIT'CEN STATEMENTS
-.
PREMIÈREPHASE
FIRST PHASE
1, \Yf:RLTSENSTASEIIEYT SI~B!YIITTEDBY THE
GOVEKN3IEX'I' OF THE GNITED STATES OF AAmIEKICA
UXDER :IK'I'ICI,E G6 OF THE STATUTH OF THE CObRT
AXD THE ORDER OF 'îHE C'OtjR7'
UrlTED IIECE&I13ER17. 1949
-- .
A. I~zita'aIResdrilion ofIfu C'cneral Asszjizbly
Ttie Gerteral Asscrnbly of the Cniterl Nations. hy its Resolutioii
approvcd April :<O,1959, rcfcrred to tlie f:ic:ttliat one tbc pur-
poscs of the United Nations is the proinotion and encouragement
of rcspec ftr hunian rights arid fundameri ta1freecloms for all, a~id
to the fact that ttic Goverrirneritsof Bulgaria and Hungary had
beeri acciisetl,bcforc thc General Asembly, of actç coritraryto
tht:purp~~s of the Gnitcd Nat ions a~tdtcitlieir obligations under
the ?'re;~iierofhace to cnsure to a11~iersoriwithiiitheir reçpcctive
jririsdictions the ciijoyrncnt of hiimnn rights ailci fundamen t:il
frccdoms, and expressed decp coricerriat these "grave accusations".
It ivas noted therein, "iritiisatisfactiori",that steps litid bccri
taken t)y several Slatcs sig~iatoricsto the Treaties of Peace with
Bulg;iria and Hiirigary regardin tgese accuçat ions and expresscd
tire Iiope thal iricasurcs iiwoiildhe diligeiltly :ipplied, in accordance
with the Trcaties, iiiorder &O erisure respect for liurnan riglils
and fiindarnerit:ilfrccdomç. The GeneraI rissernlily ùy the Rcso-
11tioiifurt her iriost urgtly drew the ;~ttentir>riof thc Governmerirs
of Bulgiria aiid Hungrirp to their cibIigatioiis uridrr the 'l'reaties
of l'eacc, including tlieir obligatioto cti-opcrate in the settlerricnt
of these rliies~ior;sancl dec~dcd to rctain the r~ucstiorion the
agenda ritfIieFourth Scssionof the Gtt~ieraAl sçembiy. (RcsoIution
272 (III), :\pril :p.7949.)
B. ]'/te"hirji~ati-r-ightArlictesoj liie Trealies oPcace
Article z of the Trcatk- of Peacc with Biilgarin reads:
"ISuIgariaslialltakc ail rnexsuresnecessary to securc to al1
permns under Uulgaririn juriçtlictiontvithaut distirictioii 3to
-
. 'Shui:Idho S~ir-rirnl[;\'Ol'y llrc I?t:<isl~~r.J racc, sés, 1ririgu:~g: 0r-t:religior, llic etijriyrrirtiiof Iiirin;tn i-iglits
aritl of the fiiiiririrnciit:ilfrecdoms, incliidii?gfr-ccdorro if csprcssiuti,
of press atid putilic:itiari,of rrl igious riordiip. oI pu1itic:il opiriinii
and of public ineetitig,"
Article 2 of tlit: Trcaty of lkace wit1-iHrrrigary rcarls
"I. 1-turigary shall takc a11 rneasirres ritci-ssary to sccurc to rtll
neiçoiiç under I.Iun~ari., iurisdictiori, rvithoiit distinction as to
iriçc, ses, Iai~giinge oc rclkion, the e.noymeri t of hiirriari riglits
nfid of the furidanicritalfreetloiiis. incliidi~t~f :reerlorri ul cxüres5irii-i.
of press arid ~iublicatioi-r,oi ~cligiouj rvorship, of political' opin ioti
2nd of piiblic mcetitig.
2. IIuriga fuytkiw undertakes that tlie Iaws i:iforce in Hiii~~gary
sliall not, either iiitlicir coritunt or iiitheir applicatioii, disçr~irriiriritc
or entail any discrirriinationhetweeii ycrsoris of Huiignriar~ natioil-
ality un [tic gruuntl of th~ir raçc, ses. Iangiiage or religioii. whçtther
in rcference to thcir pcrsons, pi-opsrty, busitiess, prolcssiorial or
fin:inciaf iritcrcsts, statu$, political ur civil rights or üny other
~iialtcr-."
:\r*ticle 3 of the Trcaty of Pe;ice with Kutnariia contains pro-
visions ideritic:;~w l ith thosc of XriicIe 2 of the Treaty svith Hun-
gary I.
C. The "disfl-illes" rPt.ficLs O j the ''rentics oi Pelacc
.4rticl<:36 oi the Treaty of Pcact: \t.ith Rulgaria (Article 40 crf
the 'l'reaty ofPciit;~ wirh Hurigary arid Article 38 tif the 'I'reaty
of Pe:ice ivith Riirriariki) reads :
" I. Exceyit \vher~i another procerliire is spccifically proviclcd
riridrr any article ol tliç present Treaty, any dispute coriccrning
the interpretatiori or eseciit.iori oi the Trcüty, whicti is not settled
by dir-cc1diplornatic negotiatioris, shnll be referretl to tlie Thrce
Heads of Missiori acting under Article 3j 139 iii tlic Trclity of
Peace witti Hungary, 37 iri the 'Treaty of Peace wit.h Kumania y,
--
On Jiinc 21, icjq6, th~ Emnotllic ~~idSocial Couneil of tlie Lnitcd 'Intiocs
hail arloyl~vl a Rerulatinn corit?inirig tl!fo1lr)ir;ingpnragrnph :
"l'rndiii~ the adoptinii of an i~itçrriiitional billrjphts.thc gen~rril prjil-
cii'ltslirilttic acccptcd that iritcrri;iLi~rtrcarics invulving hasic hiiinan
rights, iticluding tu the fullest rxtent pi-xricatilç trcaties or'ycacc, shal1
coriferm to the fundiiriienlal ataiitiardrelniiitto siiclrighti set lorth iiithc
Cliiirtcr."(Kzso!ulio$ts adepictlLy Iht: Srcniad .Sessioit ujihc Ec~a~l!riç (2nd
Srniul Coriricil.jniiriiaNo. -29, Jul- 13, 1946, p.521.)
5:\rticle 35 of the Treaty uf Pcacc ivith Hi:igariri(:irticlc39 of the Treaty of
l'=ce wi:h liringary, .-I-ticl37 uf thc .l'rcaty of I'aaczwith I<iim;inin) reads I
"1. Fur a pcriod not to escccd ciglitct tionths from thc coming intr) Iorce
ofthe prçscri:Trraty. the Ht-~~1s !tlieD~pl~matic >lissionsiriSutia[Uudapcsf,
Uiichnrrsr! of tic Svviet IJniniithe Ur:ikecl I<irigd<iand tlic United Statcs
of .\niericn, actingincoriçcrt. will rppi-rseiit t:\lliedand .isruci;ited Fuivers
iridcaiing u-ith thc 3i:lgarian (;nvcrnment iriiill1:iatters conccrriitig th
cuc~utiun nnri interprçtatiuti of the prpselit 'Treaiy.
2. T1iç Tlirct:Heds of Xlissiuiivill xi\-r theHiilg;ii.i;in [HiliiqariaHc-
maniari: Goi.crrirncnt siich guidançc, lcchriicalarlvire and clarihcntioii ris except tliütiiitliic:isetltc Heads of Misi;ioii !vil1not bc rcstricted
by rhe Lime-limitpi-ovidcd iri tliaarticlr. -41: such iliapiitnot
rçwlved bu them {vitfiina period of two rrionths siiall, u~itcssthe
partie to the dispute mutuaHy zgree illion another rneüris of
çertlerricribc ~.cfc~.rcditthc request of Etitherpariy to the rlisputc
to ri Commission corriposed of one reprcscntative of ench party
aritla tliird incniher ~electcd by rnritualagreement of the 'trvo
parties froriiriatioiialof a tliird couritry. Shr>iildtliet1i.0 pi-tirs
ktil tu ngrec rvittiiai ~,eriatof one rnoritltupon the rippoiritnieiit
of the ihird rneinbcr, rtie Seçreiar.y-General ai the United Yatioris
may hc reqncstcd by eitticr party 10 make the appciintmeiit.
2. ï'iie decision of ific nlajority of tlicniernbers of thc Com-
mission stiiilbe the decision of the (:ommission, and siiall be
accepted by tlic parties il.dciïriiive and bindirig."
II. Qr;ris~ro?rs REFORE THE COURT
.4. Kesol-tdioa O/ dhe Geizsr~dAsserti-hly uepes/i~~gudilisory opi~:ioit
By a Resolutioti approved Octobcr 22, 1949, the General
r'issernbly, atirsFourrh Sesiciri,refcrrctI to its Remlution of April30,
r949, disciisscd nule, whercin thc attention ofthe C;overrirnt:ri ts
of Uiilgaria and Hungary werc drawn to their obligatir>risuriiler
the Treaties of Peace. iriduding the olilig+lio~~ to co-cilierate iii
the settlement of the rliicstioii pointeci out th;lt certain Ailicd and
Assuciated Powcrs Partics to the Trcrtiics of Peace had chargcd
Bulgaria, Iiuiigarj. ancl Rumailia with violations thereof and had
called upon tlie Goïcrrirnerits of those countrics to take rernetiiat
mcasures ; statcd that those Grivernrnents had rcjectcd the charges
made ; stated that the Grivcrnmciltç of the Allied and Asçociated
Po\\-ers concernecl h;id coight iinsucces~firllyto refer the questio~i
of Treaty vicilaiiorts to the Heds cif alissiom iriSofia, Budapest
and Bucharest, in pursuance of provisions of the Treaties; and
stated that those Governmcnts had called upon the Goverrimerits
of Rulg;iria, I-ungary :in4 Rumania to joiri inappoin ting Corrirriis-
&ris pursuant to ttie proviçiciiisof flie Trcaties biit that thcg
refused to appoint thcir rcpreçeritatives.
Finally, the General Asserriblyby its KesoIution of October 22
expressecl con tiniring interes tn, arid increased coilcem at, the
grave:ic.c.~isationsrrirdc::ig:iinstBulgarsi, Hiirigary and Riirrtaiiin ;
reçtiirded its o~>iniorittintthe refus:il of tiiosc Go~lerntnents to co-
operatc iri its efforts to cxamiric the grave charges witii rcgard to
the ohser vancc of h tmari riglits atid fundamerira1 frecdoms j iisti-
fied the concern of thc Gencrai Assernbly about thc. state of affsirs
prev;iiIirig iri Hulgaria. Hnrigary and Rumania, alid stotet-lthac
P. -----
Trclityhothssinlcttcrzntiin spi~.il. and eiricipexwu~ioti ofth,: prcsent
3, The l3iilgiiri[l-lungariaiRtininriinnGrivrrnment shaII afford the
said Thrrt: Ht:.wlof .\lission al1 nccessary informatand any assistancc
sv11jcIthcy may rcqujrc inrhc fizihlrncnt of ttasks devolving on tircm
iindtr tiie prescrTrc;iLy."I33 \VHI'ITES S'I'ATEXIEST OF THE U.S.A.
it fiad dccided to çubrnit the follotving questions to the Iiitci-na-
ticin;il Court of Justice for iirlviwry opiriicirt:
" '1.,Do tlie diplornritic eschnnges hetween 13iilgariiiHungriiy
and Komariia on the one Iiand aridccrtairiAllied ancl -issociater!
I'owers signa toriesto tlieTrenties of Perdceon tIic tillieconcertiing
the imyilernentation of Article 2 nf the Treaties tvitiiIjulgaria
, and Hrrngary ;ii~tAtticlc 3 ol ihc Trcii~y ivitiiRomnnia, disclose
clispiitcssubject to tlic ~irovisions fnr tlie settlcrnciit of rlisputes
contuirietl in Articles gCi of the Trcaty of Pcacc \vit11 I3ulgaria.
Article 40 of thr, 'ri-eiity of l'ciice rvil1i 1-Iurgar:itidAiticle 36
of ttte Trcaty of Pcace witli 1iom;inia ?'
In the eventof an affirmative reply to qiicctiun 1:
'II tre the Covcrriiiientç of Euigaria, Hungary and Rornania
obligated to carry out the provisionr of the articlcs rcfcrred to
;IIqirestion 1, iiicl~iding thc provisioris for the appoiiltment of
thcir rcprescritntives to the 'I'reaty Conirniçsiuiis?'
In the event of an alfttrnatire tqiy tcr question 11 nrid if
xi-ithiithirty days from the date when ttic Court delivers its
opiriiori,tiicGovcrrirnerirsconcerned have tiot iiutificd the Secre-
taryGenern1 that they Iiavc appointcd titeir representatives to
the Treaty Comniissions,and the Secretas-GeneraI hns so ndvised
tlie Tiiternational Court of Jiistice :
'III. IIorle fails to appoint n.representative to a ?'reaty
Comrnissjon irnder fhc Trcatim of Pcace ir,i~h 13ulguriu, I-lungary
and Romania ~vliere tliat prtrtv içobligaterl to appoint a repre-
sentative to the Treaty Coinmission, is the Secretary-Cc1icr2l of
the United Nations fiiiiliorizcdio üppoirit iIie third membcr of
the Commission illion tbc rcquc-st of the otIier Iiarty to a dispute
according to ilte provisions of the respective 'I'renties?'
In the event of an afhrrriativc rcply to qucstioii III :
'IV. Woiild a Treaty Cornntissioii cornpxcrl nf a relimsentuiivc
of one pacty and 1i third member appointed I>y tIicSeciatary-
Gtrtcral of tiic Uniied Sntionç co~istitiiten Cornniissiori, ivithin
the rneaning of the relevatit Trcaiy articlcs, competent to rnakc
a definitive and hitiding decisiuti iri settle~ieritof n dispute ? ' "
(Rcsolution, Octokr 22, 1949, CIOC A./1043.)
Question 1 is the firçt question iciht: :inswered liy the Court,
arirliri"the evcnt of an affirinntive reply to qiiestioti IV, cliiestion II
is to be answcrcd.
The C~ivernmerit {iftlie Uriitcd States does not strh~nit a statc-
ment on questions 111 aricl IV bec;irise the Gericral Asscrnbly
ResoIutiori ofOctoher 22, 1949, cciritctplates that these latter
questions shall be answered only if replies to questions T and TI
are in the afirnistir-e rtnd thc Govcrnmcnts cciricerriecl rio tiot
appciint tl~cir rcprcscr~tatives tn t.he Tre:iti; Conimissians.
It is riot to he presiinied that itithe event the Court g;irves;i~i
opinion in the afirmatise on qr~estion 11,thc Parties trithe Treaties \SHI-T-ES ST21-TE>II.:STOF THE l;.S..\.
136
the conteiiiicrrisiviiicliIiave heeii pit ic.ir\v;trdori Ilhis riibjccl
bu I'i~ilaiilililKii:isi;i respcivcly, aridof accuriiig tlieattendance
of ~iicli witiicçses as rriig1itI>enecessnrj?. 'I'iie (:oiii.\vl'otilcof
course: bc at a very ere;it clisaovantagc in çucli srii~iquir!;oivii~g
to the fact tIirtKiissin rclriscs tu take part iriit. It iippeiiriiow
to be ïery dritibtfii1w1iritIierthers: tvt.ou!d he available lo thc
Court iiia~cr-iülssuffirient tr3 i*tiablc i~to atrici: a& ariy jiidicial
corictirsiurt pon the qi~csiioi~OI fact: IVliat dicl the parties ngree
tu 7 The I;oiirr dot.; rlot say tIiat ther-e is an :ibsnliitérulc that
the rctlucst LOI a-i arlx-isarapinio:i rnay nnt ir:volvc surrie intluiry
3s to fûcts, hiit, uridcr-ordinary ciiriirnstances, it is ceita inly
espciliriittlirt the tacts upon which [lie opiiiioti oftlie Court ii;
ilcsitcd j;liould not be in cnntroversa yid itsliuiild not be left
tci iI;e Coiirt. itselfo asccrlüin mhat FIrcyare.
....'l?ie cluestiori put:to the Court is nnt one of absiract law,
liiitconcerns dircctly the maiti point oi tliecontroversy hetwccri
Finland and Riissia, arid cririoi-rlvhe d~tcidec ly an irivcsligatiori
int.0 tlic iactsuriderlying the cilse.hrrswcring the qucstiuri ~irould
be sulistaritiiilltrluivalent to decidiiig tlie clisp~itc betrr-een the
parties." (Tbitt2s-29.)
Xot cinly is the Court riril:isked tn pas':ui-i the inerits of the
dispr~rc or ~liti trii1:hof the charges made, I-iiiit is:ilso nut asked
to detcrniirie wiictlier the chargca rriwltt,if cstaI~lislic<I, ould he
ufficieilt to justify a Treaty Cornrnissiriii in tiilding a viri1:iticitjf
the 'Treaty. All thc Court is &cd to rletcrmine is irliether tIie
ililil~rnatiç ncgotiatioc nliscltise a dispute which mny propcrly
hc broiight liefore a Trcary Commi~sioi-i. IL isfoi. the Commissiori
to detcrrriirie tlie su~cieilcy rif&liech:irgtts rriatlc:~ndrvhat, if an-,
further coririclcra~irirtihcy merit.
On Scptember 20, 1949, the United States Represent;itive to
the L'nited Katiuris transinitted to the Çccrctary-C;cner.;il oi the
Uriiti:tlN:itions copies oi the notes transrni tted through the dipIo-
niatic chaririel Lietiveer-ithc Ccivernm~rit ci[ tlie United States,
aç cine ofthe A1Iit:cland hssociatetl Forvers p;irty IO t.he 'Treaties
oi Peace wiik Bulgarix, Hriilgaryand Riirnaniz, and the Govern-
meiits of thosc couiïiries. Tn its ilotes, thc Govcrrir~ic~iloi th
United Sixtes charged thoçe Governrncnts with violations of the
"human-rights" Articles of the rcqiective Tre;ities of I'eace and
irivtiked the "rlis1,iiltts" Articlcs of tfiesc Treaties. (L'.K. Doc.
AjqSg,Septernbcr 23,1rf.19: Lhc. A/cjS j!C.orr.I. Septèniùer 27,1949.)
,.
1hc Secretgtry-i;erieral \vas rrquested by the C;cneral Asserrbly
in its Kcsuluticiri of Oc,tobcr zz, 1949, referred tt,ahove, to nlake
vail il abeo the 1riiern;itionaI Court of Jiisticc ttierelevant exchan-
ges of diploniatic correc;~icindericcand thr: records of the Gener;il
rlsacnibly ~iroccediriçs on this question. On ApiI 2, 1949, thc Lcgatioii of the liniiecl States iii Sofia,
acting iirider instructioil of thc Ch\-erilincii t of the Unitcd States,
as a Party tu the 'Trenty of I'eace, preseiitcd a riote tcithe I3ulgar-iari
Forcigil Ofice formeIly chnrgirig 1Iie Governniciit of I3iiIgaria
with havirig repcntt:tiIyviolatecl -4rliçlt: 2 (if tl-ic'Treaty of Piiacc,
qiio ted nizte, by " ]>rivative irieasures arid cipprcssivc actç" (l'hi(;.
h/gYg, :2nne>i 1, 1i. q*); cnllcd upon the J3iilg;irinri Guvernrrierit
to adopt prompt renicdiril nie:isures in respect of trie vicilationr ;
ancl reclucstcd Ilint Govcrrimen~ tn specify the stcps it !vas ~rcpared
to takt: in irnpleineritirig full>. the tcrrriç of Article 2. :ls i1111~-
trative of the violations hy the Hulgarian Govcrrirneiit cif the rights
assiircd rtnder Article 2 of the Treaty. there ivas poirlrerl ottt iii
the riote r)f trie Vnited States Ihrt fact ti1:it.-
[I.] "'I'lirough the esercise of police powcr tltc Eulgririan
(iovernrnerit has de1iri\.pd large i~iirnbcrs of its citizens of tiieir
basic Iiutnari riglits, assurcd tu tliern undcr tlie Srcaly oi Pcace.
.li~csc depriuatioiis have been manifestecl bp arbj trary arrcsts,
.q-stemat ic pcrversiori of tlie judicial process, aiirl tlic ]>rolongetl
deterition in prisons :incl amris, \vithout public trial, of yersons
wliost: vicw arc opposcd to thosc of dic r6girne."
Zz.] "Similar-ly , tIicBulgnriain Goircrrin-ici~thas denicd to licrsons
livii?gundcr i ts jurisdictiori,as individuals ;r iias orgriiiizctlgroiips
iiicluding deiiiocrntic politicnl parties. tlie undamcnt:il freedoiiis
of political opiriiori and ol public rriucting. It hns dissulvcd tlie
Xational .++-ririan Union, tlie Ru1gnri;in Socialist Party and other
groups, and hx iiniprisnrid inany of their leaders. {Yith tlic
Treaty of l'eacc bnrely irieClcct arid irithe face of rvorId opinion,
the Ru1g:irian {;overrirneiit urdered tlie esecutioii of Xikola Petknv,
Xationnl Agrarian Union leader, wlio dared to esI,reKq crternocratic
political opiriion v;liich did riut ctirrcspond to tiiosc of tlie FUI-
sariari tiovernment. 13rocecdings ivere instittitcd agaiiist tl~ost)
dcpuries ivha did not agree ivith its policics, rvitli tlic result tliat
no vestige of parlinrrieritary oppositioii iio\t!rremains,an illustration
of the effective deilhl of freedom of political opiniori ijiI3ulgaria."
[3: "RF restrictions on the press aiid ori otlicr ~iiiblicatinls,
tiic Utilgarian Govcrriiticiit lia5 dcnicd to I1ersoi-i.iintlcrits jirris-
diction tlicfr.ccdurriof cr;pr.essiori giliirii~iteedto tliem ui~tlcr-the
Trcaty of Peace.. 13y Iws, atlrninistrntivc acts, and tlie usp. of
iorce and jritirriidation on tlie pari of iis nficials, the 13ulgarinn
C;nverrirncr ti Iirimacle il irnpossiblc for individual cit izeiis operily
to express i-iews not in conformi ty to thmc oficirilly pr~criùccl.
1-reedom of Ihc press cloes not exist i~iIjirlgaria."
C4.1 "13y Icgiçlrition, ùy the acts of its oficials. and by 'trials'
of religioul;leaders, thc I3ulgarian Gnvernrnerit 11iisrictetliricoti-
. -. ... -.-iitionof :lie csprcss provisions of the 'ri-eaky of I'cacc in
3 :lttliclirnrof ~ht.dclixvcryofthe <ir,tni .4pritI,1949. thc 13ulgzrUii Z;o\.crii-
trientii-:iinformer1 in ri-riting :liathc Canarlinn (;or-srrttnc:itrvhilc nur in a
positiiritomake re~ircscnrntioeshlisetrin ~hnTr~zty 01 I'C;IÇIind r~yricstcrttini.
the Hiilgniian Luccramcnt hc infortnctlci€thc idcn:ity OF C;iri;:tlivicrvw ivitli
Iho~e of jlie Unitcd States. :Cnnntl;ris riAtfiart\tritlic'I'rc:ity,)
+ 'l'licP;IXCS rcfvr tv thc p:çsçt~t lvo!i~til~. WHITTEK STATEMEXT OF THE G.S.A.
=42
bly. This Government caneven lcss agrcc to suffer the criticism
of foreign Powers, inso far ;isthe activities ofBulgarian courts .
arc coriccrried,beirig iriexistence ùy virtue ofthe Coiisti tutiori
and ftinctioning in public in accordance ïvith the mat moderri
and rriost dernocratic Iaws.
'l'liBulgarian Government wil1 repeI every attcriipt at inter-
ference in ilie domestic affairs of Biilgaria and will consider as
:inunfriendly act any actenipt to iurcc it to accept treatrncnt as
;tStaie rvhosc interna1 acts would be suhject to judgment by
lorrign Powerç."
Ttie reply uf the Riilgarian Goverriment referred to the note of
the Covernmerit of the United States as "iinfoiinded", arid as
regards the "esçencc of the accrrsations", stated that it "rcjccts
them energeticaIIy". It was added :
" .... Under the rcgirnc of ycople's deniocracy in Bulgnria, the
toilingmasses oftuvi~isandviIhgcs, whicit constitutc the irnnicr~c
majority of trieiiatinn,enjoy not only on papcr biit nlsa infact
nllfundamentalpolitical riglits and frccdorriofman. Rcstriciions
the frccdonicof speecheor of préss,do notiexist aridareonot npplied
in Uulgaria esccpiirig irithe cases rovided by tltc larvagairist
infnngers and in the interestitsclfo pihlic security, maintenance
of orclcr and public rnorals of the pcopic."
The reply, dated April S, 1949, of the Kungarian Government
to the note of April 2 from the Governinent of the Lnited States,
stated :
" ....It is well knorvn thnt concerni~ig tlie frce enjnyrncnt of
hiiman riglits the Rcpublic ol IInngary, wcll hefure theconclusion
of Lhc 'rreaty of Peace, abolisIicdal1 discriminatioiisas to race,
sex, Inngpage and religionwhich esisted under thc Horthy rkgirne.
Thus, the Gcwertimerit of Hurigary haç fully cornplied witli tlie
provisions of the 'l'reatyofI'eace.' (UOC. )\/985. Annex 4. p. 30.)
The Governmeii t of Hiingary calleriailention to ArticIe 4 ofthe
Treat y of Peace coricerrii~ig tiie dissolution of organizations, not
only k-ascist birt others "which have as tlieir irim denial to the
people of thcirdcuiocratic rights", ;itistated that it was procecdiilg
in the sense of these provisions of tIie Treaty of Pe:ice "when
di~sol~irig tlieorganizatio ariisparties aiming at the restaration
of the oldFascist rbgjmc and wheii summoning to Court thosc who
pursur. an at:tivify to overthrow the dcinocratic Republic".
Hesides stating that Hungary "emphaticaiiy rejects" the notc
of the Tjnited States, the rep1y stated :
"The Goverriment ofHungary deciares once more that 1-Itinga~
has fulfiiled, fulfillç and will fulfill all obligationernbodied ui
the Treaty of Peace. At the same time, the Government of Hiin-
garyernphaticalty protests thc tendency of the Government of
thc United States to use tiiestipuiaiiurijof the Treaty of Pace \lrR1TTEK ÇTATEMEEiT OF TIIE U.S.A. 143
as a pretes t for iuegitimate interference in the domestic affairs
of the sovereign Hungaririrt Stak and for supporting thri reac-
tionary and Fascist forces opposeci to flic GovcrnrrientHurigary."
The rcply of thc'liiinianian Government of ,4priI 18, ~1349t,o
the ntitc of ilpril 2 froin the Govcrnmerit of the United States,
sk~ted that the April 2 note was sirriilnr to "former riotes" iri
which ''certain affirmatioiis rvere made by the Govcrnmeot of the
Lnited States with rcfei-cncc tcvioIation by thc Rumanian Govern-
ment of the provisions of ~Zrticlc 3 of the hace Treaty".
(Dnc. AjtjYj, Annex 6, p. 34.) 'I'hereplyof Rumania statcdthat the
note of April :!"does not correspond to reality and ....relicats tlie
invent ions of the slanderuus press of the irnperialist rnonopoIists".
In an effort to dernoiisir:ite th;it the laws of Rurriania "in fact
guarantee ille ap~iIicütionofthe provisions ofArticle 3 ofthe Peace
Treaty", it ivas siated iii the reply :
"Inthe Rumarihn ILopIe's Republic the esercise of the fund-
ameritnlfreedoms, frccdu:tiof asuerribly,of dciiionstra~ions,ofthe
aresmirred by makirigre gunvaiIahlehtothtfiose who work priritirig
faciliiicssupplies of pnpcr arid rriceting placcs.
Iliçcrimiriationbecause of nationalit y or race i-j ptinishable
bÿ lnur.
Rcligious vrgariizatioris crijofrccdom of worship and are given
the phces andmearrs riccessaryfor tkc eucrciçcoftlicir religion."
Tkc Kumariian Govcrnment declared iri the note that the 'Ciiiitcd
States was trdnsgressing the Tr~aty of Pcacc by tryirigto prevcnt
the application of Artick 5 which, as described in the repIy, "pro-
vides that the Kuinanian Governrncilt ri-il1 not penni t the existence
and activities of any orginizations of a Fascist ty1)e:ind which liavc
as thcir aim denial to the people ofthcir dcmocratic rights".
Elnally, it ur:isstated irittierelily that-
IIn coliseqriericethc Goverriment of ttic liu~nanian Fcoplc's
Kepublic dec1iii.e~thatitcannot accept the attempt of the United
States Goverriment to ititcrleririthe interna1affairs of Rtimania
and it rcjectsthc riote ofthe Government of the United States."
1n view of thc fact thnt fhe Rulgarian, IIurigaria :rcIRumaiiian
Govcrnrneiits deriied tha t tIiey Iiad violated the provisions of the
Treaties of Peace, arid indicatcd tlieir uni~iIIingncss to adop t the
requested remediaI measureç in execution of the Treaties, ibe
Go\-ernment of the United States inforrned each of the three
Goverriments (by riotes deiivered liy thc Amcricari Legationç in
Sofia, Budapest and Bucharest on May 31, rgqr)),that in its view
that Goveriiinen thad "not givcn a satisktctory rep1y to the spcific
cliargcs set forth in the 1,eg::;ition'snotc" [of A~iril 2, rgdg]. Iii
the notes, the Government of the I!riited States aIIuded tu the
fact that the rcplics contaiilcd degations against the Uriited By a of Jtinr, 30,-949, the Gr>vrrnment of the United States
reqiicstcdthe Soviei Cocernment torecntisider itsdecision, pointing
out that : "The Soviet Gciverrimttrit ...has associatcd itself with
the poriticiriotlicGovcrnments cifBuIgariri, Hiirigary ariclKuinariia
iri dcnyirig th;itthc Trtiaties h;ive hecn viol:it.ecl.This interpre-
talion il; dir;jiiitcdby tire United States arid l'y 0th~' signatories
of the 'Srcaties of l'tac(:." (Doc. A/985, .Ariries 20, p. 54.) Tlic
reply of the U.S.S.K. of Jüly 19, 1949, to Clicrcqrrcst for ~ecoiisider-
ation cif the matter, statcd that that Govcrnment did not sce anJ:
basis [or a reviea of its position. (Dot. AjgY j, hrines zr, p.55-56.]
Oti July 27, ~949, ~IleGovernment of Buigriria :iddresscd a note
to the Governrncnt of the United Staleç setting forth its view Chat
the settlcriientprocedurcs provided for iri Article 36 of the Treaty
of Pear:c with Rulgaria werc riot applicable, and citirig certain
R\ilg:irian constitutional provisions as king "in f&IIaccordance
isitti the Treaty ol Pence", referririg to Article 4 of the Treaty
regardirrg the dissolution of ":il1 organizatio of a Façcist type ori
Biilgarian tcrritory". ï'hc note further statcd tl-iat "t hc -various
prut:eetlings hefore Riilgarian coiirts, thc acts of administrative
;igericies and ot.hers irivario~tç cases cannot be made n subject of
diçcussiori iriçoriricciiorlwi th the execiition of t-hc:Pencc 'Treaty
siiice, frorrithe pint of view of iritr:rnatiori:~I1xw,the test and
spirit of ihc Trerity as ive11as the exact provisions of Article 2
of the United Xations Cliartcr, such a discussion would coristitute
an iriadniiçsiblc interference in the interna1 affairs of our country
and wvbuld be an infririgemcnt of its sovereignty". (Doc. hi98 j,
.-\riries22, p.58.)
Ttvo rnoriths Iiavirig dapsed sinçe the Head5 of Mission irithe
tiiree capitals were requested tu rnwt for the piirpose, arict rio
meeting Iiai,irig takcti place :uid the dispute rérnaining nnresolved,
the Govcrnrnerit of the Enited States found it ncccssary to invoke
tlic additiori:~I Peace Treaty procediire for the settletnent of dis-
pu tes. 'This proccdure envisages the cstaliIislirnet (under each
Treaty of PcaccJ of Commissioris co~rlposed jiicach case of oric
representati\rc of CBC~ Party and a titird rncrnber selcctcd by
rnutiinl agreement of the two parties £rom nationals of a third
country. It provides that should the two p;~rties fail to :igree
trithin a period of oric rnwith iipon the appr)iritrricriof the third
rnernber, the Sccretary-Gerierai of thc Unitecl Nations may be
reclrrestcd by either party to make thc appointrnent. It further
provides that the (Iecisiorof the Commiçsion is to be accepted
as "dcfinitive and biiiding".
In notes dclivcrcd on Xiiguçt I, 1949, to the Governmcnts of
Hungary, Bulgaria, and Runiania, the Government of tlic finitcd
Stares rcqueçtcd that the disputes be rcfcrmd ta Commissions
çoristitiited in accorrl;iizcc tvith the respective Articles of the
Treaiies ofPeace ;inA açkedthe several Government; to juin iri
narning the Corrimiçsiunç. (Doc. AlgSj, Anriexes 23, 24 and 25,pp. 38-6 .1The Governinents of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania
rejected the request inthcir noter; datcd Septeniber x, August 26,
and Septeniber 2, 1949, respectively. (Doc. tl/g$,, Anilexes 26,
27 ünd 28, ]'P. 6~43.1
On Scpternber 19,1949, tlie ~overnmeri't of the United States
addressed further riotes t cithe Goverriment=of Bulgaria, Hiirigary
and Humania, stating ihat thc Goverriment of thc Cnited States
considcred that the Government addressed hüd rio grorrridsfor
dcclaring unilaterally tIiat a rlispiite over the execution of the
"human-righ ts" Artidc "does not exiçt". The position was takeri
that tlieiact of the existence of a dispute as to cach of the sevcra1
Treaties i~asseif-evident ;that refiisalto comply with the "ciisputes"
Artidcs co~istituted a serioiis netv breach of 'l'reaiy cihlignti»ns;
that the defense piitfortvard NitIi respect tnobliga tionç tosirIlpress
Façcist organizations was a "flimçy pretcxt that will not siarid
examination in the Iight of the systcmatic suppressiari of human
rights and freedorns" ; that fhose Gorerrimcnts tvere not the sole
arbiteri oi LIieirexecution of their obligations under the Treatiea ;
that as to the defense that the sovereignty of the Staie addresed
was impugncd, "it is mariifest tliat....sovereignty is Ii~nitcd by ....
clear internat ional obligatioils" ; and tiiat tIic iiivocat ion bÿ the
Vnited States of specific1reat.y proccdiires for the settlernent of a
dispute "ciin in no scnse bc regarded as unwarraritedintervention
in the interiial affairs" of the Goverriment addressed. Ir. \vas con-
cluded iii the notes that the recalcitrant attitrrde of the Govcrn-
rncnts iti tlimatter cot11dinno way affect the dctermination of the
Govemmcrit of the Ijnited States tohave recourseto al1appropriate
rncasures for securirig compliance wiili the obligations of the
human-rights provisioris of the Treaties of Peace, as also of tlic
"dispufes" provisions. (Dm. AI98 j,itrinoxes~(), 30and 131 ,p.65-.6g)
Subwquently, 011Octobcr 27, the Goverriment of Hungary, iila
further cuniniunicarion to the Go\-criiirierit of tlic United States,
took the position that it "iv:is rninutely observing tlie stipiilations
containcd in Article 2 of the Peace Tre;ityM ; that "cornplia~icc
with the stipulations of Article 4 isa coriditio~i simeqzra li07tof
guaranteeing to al1 pcoplcs and to the Hungarian people among
thern, the rights defincd by Article 2 of thc Trc:ttyH ; that the
Coveniments of tlie United States and thc Uriited Kirigdon-i had
on sevcral occasioris infringcd tlie stipulations of t\ic Trcatics of
l'cacc; that Hungary was astotiisbed LItntIhe Government of the
Gnited States espressed tlie opinion tliat by assainiilg certain
obiigations tiirough the signature of thc Trcaty of Peace, Hungary
kad become "a Stüte ïvith Iirnited mvereignt y" ; aiiù firially th:it
the riotc of Selitcrnber rg \vas io bt: construeg as a ricw allempl cif
"unlawful interference iviih tlic iriterrial:iffairs of Huogary".
{A copy of the com~nuriicntion is attachcd.)
011 January 5, 1949, the Governrncrit of tIic Cnited States, bu
riotes delivercd to the Governments of Bulgaria, Hurigary andGovernmcnt and tlic AIlied ;iritAssciciatcd Poivers by vio1;iting tbc
rights of citizer~s to life and liberty through El-iarhitrary exercise
of police pou-cr arid pcrver~ir>ri tifthe judicial proceses ; denying
freetlorn of npiriiori throuqh suppressin,r, disçolving and ~iursirig
deiriocratic poli tical parties ; suppresslng freedorn of opinioi-i,
exprcssiori a~irlof ;issoci:~tionthrough an irisidi<iiisnetwork of police
and other agcntç who ohserve, report un, arid seek io r:ortrciprivate
opinion, asociation and activily ol citizens ; diminating freedorn
of the pres:, piiblicatiori and expression throu~fi restrictive decrces,
coritrol of prin tirig establishments ancl distriliii tion of neivsprint ;
dei~ying frccdom of a~3ernIiy l on ~iolitic inaatter5 to ;il1except
Corniliunist groups and tlieic co1l:~licirntow; dcnying iretidotn of
religioiis worsl-iip aiid pract ice, incIudiiig the Iiarassrnen t arid
alistri1t:tion('ifeligious gntlicring : proceeding il1an arbitrary arid
unjustified manner against rcligious Imders on fabricatcd grounds.
as in tl-iccases of CarclirialMindzenty and Lutheran Bishop Ordass ;
anci replacing religious leaders rvith snbrcrvient coIIaboratcirs.
(c) And furtlier, arirlas illiist.nit.ive only, has [lit!Government
of Rilrnnilia, or lias ir tlot,\:iol:ited the 'Trcaty of Pcace Iietwren
thnt Government and thc Allicd and Associated I'owcrsby deriyirig
freerlcim ufupiniori iri disrupting, çileilcing and outlawing otlier
thari Commrinist-controllcd political parties and depriving demo-
cralic leaders oftheir liberty ; to this end, employing rnctkods of
intimidatiori arid perversions of the jiiclicialIirtiçessas in the case
of the so-calcd r ri ai":nid <:{indenination to life imyirisonii~ent of
Tuliu RIaniu, President af tiie National Pcasarit Party, :ind other
ltladers ; scizing arid Iinlrlirig Riim:inian citizens for lorrg periods
of tirne without public tria1 ; stiilirig frccdoni of exprcssio~i of
politicaI oyiiriiunat variance with that of the Govenirnent. by laivs,
decrces and at'lrninistrative rneaiures, aswell ;is iiyextra-legal actç
or organizatioris affiliat~d \~ith the GovcrrinieriLarid the Cornmu-
riiçt Party ; di~rii~ialirig irtled<>mcifthe press arid of piiblic;ttion,
iriclridii-igthe taking of cmitrril of id1 priiltirig crtablisiirrierits arid
the çii~iprexçionof all publicat ioris rlotresponsible to the direction
of, or which do not serve the purposes of, the Communist Party ;
elirninating freedom of assernhly and (if ;issciçiatjon, save for
Comrnurlist aricl C(irnmuriist-approved org:triiz;itioris, bÿ furcible
interventions or threst thereof ; abriclgirig Ireedom rif rttligious
~vorship, by Icgislatiori arid of.herineasurcs, by assirrnirigexterisise
corilnd over the practice of religiori, incliiding rlic applicatiori of
poIitica1 tests, incompatible with freedom of worshiy, and, in at
lcast nrie instance, by destroyib nyg Govcrnmciit dccrcc a major
rcligious body and transfcrring its property to the State.
2. \IThether çoriie of the violations corriplairi~tl of Lcicik~ii:~cr,
orily prior to the cffcctive rlnte of the Peace Treniies, or wkietlier
13iftyhave uccurred srrbscqiteritlyio that date. 3. J-lrhether. the allegatioris of the Lovernrnents of Riilgaria,
Hu~igary ;rridKiimania in defcnse tliat \\+:il is cornl>laincd of
bÿ the Uriitcd States is, or isnui, irifact n diii): of tlie accusecl
Goverilrnei~ts urider ;iI?roper interyretatiort of otlicrpro\:isioiisof
the 'I'reaticsof Peace relating, i7itt.r ah, to the riippi-ession of
Fascist organizatic>iis.
4. \\'hcther the States acciiseciof vicilating the Peace Sreaties
can tlctcrmine iiriilaterrillg: tlie natancl cxtcnt of thcir obligations
under the hiimari-righ ts provisions of the scveral Treat icsof Pcacc,
or wliether this cliiestiori ispropcrlg to be resulved by tkie Treaty
yrocctiiires.
5- Whethcr thc States accused of violating the Pcacr: Trcaties
cari dckrrninc iiiiik~tcrally the natiite arirlextcrit of ~hcirobli-
gations trndci- the provisions referrcd tu IIIparagraph 3, srprrr,
selatirig gcncraiI>r t.othe supprtissiori of 1:ascist orgar-iizatioris, cir
tshcther thiç cluestirin is prci~ierl~rto be rcsolved hy tlic Treiity
prowdiires.
6. JP'hetIicr,as allegcd by Biilgaris, Hungary and Kilr~iania in
defense, tIic matters of which they are ;iccuscd arc domestic
mat ters sol cl o!f coriccrn tu them, or n.hether these m:it ters halle
becorne by re:isoii of the stipulations of the 'Sreaiies of Pcacc
m:ittcrs sppropriate for dctcrriiiiiation under th ''disputes"
provisions ni the scveral Trcaties of Peace and Iiave ccascd to be
solcly of clomcsiic conccrn.
F. Prortmsrrcerneiitsby the Pertttaneirt Catrrt oit i/ze szfbjecl O{
"r2is#zdes"
TIic "dispirtes" refcrred to in the respective ArticIes of the
Trcaties of Peacc, andas to ivhich provirion is made for thcir resolu-
tion, arc dcscribed in the several Trraties as"any dispute coiicerning
~he interprcr:itiuri or execiitioofthe Treaty, which is not setLIcd
hy direct diplornatic negotiations". 'l'his language is cxçeedingly
tiroad in xopc.
The Permanent Coiirt of 1ntern;itional Jiidicc dcalt with the
question of ivhat coiistitutts a tlisputc oria ~iumber of ciccasioris.
Tri~gzg the Gnvcrrimcn t of Grecce filed ariapplicalion niilirriitting
to tIte L'errnniienrCourt of Iritcrnationril Justice a casc arising out
of the ttllegcd refusa1 on the part of thc Gover~irncntof Palcçtitie,
and also on the part of the 13ritish Goverrirrieritas M:iiidatciry, to
recogriize iotIieirfiill exterit certairights acquireil11y M. hlavrom-
matis, a Greek subject, iindcr coiitracts and agreements condiided
by hiin with Ottoman authorities iri reg:irtI lo coriccssions for
certain public works to be constructcd iri Palestine.
Artidc 26 of the British Maridate for Palestine coritained thc
frillowing prox~ision:150 WRITTE'J STATEMEKT 01: THE 1J.S.A.
"The Mandatory agrees tliat, if any dispute ivitatever should
ariscbetweeii the 3,Taiidatoryürid anot her Xcrnbw of the I-erigue
of ;\'a.tionrclating to the interprctatio~i or tlie applicatjori of
the provisions of iIichlrindatc,sudi ctis~iiltif itcarinot hc settled
by riegotiaiion,shall bc suttrnitted to the Permanent Coiirt of
Interiiatiorial Jusriccyrovided for liy Article ~4 ofihe Cuverinrit
of the Lcague of Nations."
The British Governrnent filcd ol>jcction to the Court's juri~clic-
tion and rcquested the dismissal of the proceedings.
In its Judgrn~rit on the jurisdictiori, the Court cnnsidered,
inter dia, tivo questions: "Does the niatter befort: the Court
constitu te a dispute between the J1andator.y arid ariother Mernbcr
of tIlc Leegue of Nations ?" arid " 1sit a disptite which cannvt be
settled t>y negotiation .;" (The iIfzis Pf~lesfine Conces-
siuns, Judgment No. 2, Scrics A., Ko. 2, Augmt 30, 1924, p. 11.)
11 1o doing, the Court clefineda "dispu te" in thc following rnanrier :
"Adispute is adisagreeilicrit on a pointof law or fact,a conflict
uf legal views or of interests bettvcerl two perçons." Ibâd.
It cciricluded that "The ires se sutt betwwn Great Britain and
Greece certaiyn1 possesses these cliaractcristics." IbirJ.
ArticIe 26of the Mandate hgreernent, it tvillbc rroteù, reIemed
to "any dispute whatevrr ...relating to rhe intei-pi-cctationor the
applicatiun of the ~trovisiaris of the Uaxidntt: ...if it cannot bc
settlcd By rit.gotiafiori", and lliiisset up a çtricter test for tleter-
rniriing the Coiirt's jurisdiction, as it~..üsneccçsary to show tliat
the dispute coriid flot {jessettleby ~icgoliation, than the pcrtinerit
Articles of the Treaticis of Peacc for determining the jurisdiction
of the Treaty Conirnissions which rcfer to "ariy tlispirte concerning
the intcrprtttatioii or cxecutiori of the Treatÿ, uhich is ?rotsettted
by direct dipIornatic negotiatioi~s".
TIie Couri, in holding that thc dkpiite could not be settIed hy
ncgotiation, however, significantIy stated :
"The sccoiid coriditioriby which thisArlicle clefinesand Iimits
tlie jurisdictiori of the Perrnanenf Court in qriestions arisingout
of tIlc interpratation and application of the hiandate, a'slRst the
dis$~fla c~~~tfitie sdfkd !,y rss,~otiiilioIl Iiaç ken contended
that this conriitionisnot fiilfillciri tlie presticase; arid Icaving
ou1 of accniint the corrcspondmce previoiis io 1924 between
3Iüvrornmatis or Iiis sulicitors arid trie British Goven-iment,
emphasis has ken laidon the very srridl itrrmberarrdbrevity
of ilic suhçeqiient coiniriunications exrhangedbetween ilic two
Governmeri ts,ivliich cornrnuniclitions aypcar to he irreconcilable
ïvirh the idea of negotiatioric. yroperlÿ so called. The Lrirevalue
of tliis objection will readily bc seen if it lie rerrierribercdiiiat
the questioiioi tlicirnportargccand chances oI successof diplumatic
negntiatioris isesçcrilinl1y a reltlarione. Negotiations do riot of
necessity aIivays presupposca rriore or Iesstengtliyseries of loie es
aiid despatchcs ; jt may suffice thnt a discilsion shoiild have WKI'ITEN STh'l'BllBST OF THE U.S.A.
I5I
been conirnenced, arid this discussion may have Licetivcry sliort;
this \vil1be thecase ifa dendInck is reached, or iffinallÿ a point
is rcaciiedat ivhich one of thc parties dcftnitely dedares Iiirnsclf
unable, or refuses, to give way, and there can tiierefore be no
doubt tltt thedis#& ca~inolbesclfledbydipio?na ~~ gctialio..."
(lbid.13.)
In1925 the Germari Government filed an applicatinri with the
Perrn;irient Court of Internaticaial Justice subrniiting 3 suit :igairist
Poland concerriirig certairi Gerinan interestis ri Polish Upper
SiIcsia and rehtiiig partii:illarIy to thc expropriation of a nitratc
factory al CIicirz6w arld to tIic arinounced intention of the 1'oIish
Government to expropriate- certiiiri Inrge agriciiltunI estates.
Poland raised an otijeciion to the Court's jiirisdictiori. ilrticle 23
ojthe Germ:irl-PolisIi Coriverition concerriirigIippcr sl~sia, con-
cludcd at Geneva in 1922, on which the Court's jurisdiction rvas
alleged by Gcrniariy to bc bascd, provided :
"1, Shoüld difierftnccs of opinion rcspccting the construction
and applicatiorioi Articles 6 io 22 arrse bctrvccn tlie German
and l'olish Governmen ts, they sliall be subrnit ted to the Per-
manent Court of In terriaiiorial Justice,"
In siistaining the juridiction of the Court, the Court differen-
tiated t)etiwen ;i"difference of opinion" and a "dispiite", aç
folloivs:
"Xow a difference of opinion rloesexist as snon as Urieof the
Governmerits conccriid points out thnt th attitude adoptcd hy
tiic otherconflictswirh its owri views. Even if, under tlrticle 23,
tlie euiçtencr: of a definite dispilie ivere necessart1iiscondition
could at ariy tirne bc fulfilled bymcrins of utiilatcral action on
the part of the applicant. I'xrty. And the Court cürinot üllo\r:
itçeif to be hanipered tiy a meie defect of fnrm, the rernoval of
which dcpcrids soIe1y un the Party conccrricd. " (German lnleresds
in Potisi~ Upper SiItsia and The Factory al Ckorzozei,Judgrricnt
Ko. 6 (Jurisdiction), August 2j, 1925, Series A., Ko. Fi,p. 14.)
Sote that the Court felt that the rerliiirernentof the existence rif
a dispiite wor~lrllit:~ncl even Iiy rneanç of riniIütera1 actionon the
part of orie Party.
The Court nott considered the importance, if any, to be iittached
to the conjunctive "and" bctrveen the ~vords 'r~~~~tr~~tion''arid
"ayiplicatiort" in Article23, ilr1((:011~1udetdI~;itthiçIV= immatcrial
in this case as both constructiori and application of the Convention
wcrc involi~ed.The Goverilmen t of the United States callsattention
to t.hef;xt that the instant "diapiites" Articles describe tticdisiirrte
to be resolvcd by the Tmaty procediires aç "any (Iisputc coricerning
the interpretatiori or execiition" of the Trciities. Here, as iri tlic
Chovzo'wFuclcrrycnse, the diçpu te involves diîlcrcnces witii regard
to both the "interpretatiori" and the "exccution" of the several
Treaties.152 WRITTES STKI'EYEST OF l-Hli:U.S.;i.
Polarlcl contended that 'dil'icrcrices with regard to rep;ir;itions
did nrit faII within the Tope of Article 23, paragraph s, of the
Gencva Cunvention juçt quotcd. 111rcjccting this contci~tioii in
cnsuiiig proceedirigs in this case in 1927, the Court said :
"Tlie Court, by Jridgments Xos. 6 and 7 [(Meritç), May zj,
1926. series A., No. 71, 113srccognized ~Iial dificrerices relating to
tl~c application nf Aiticles 6 to 22 inclirde not oril~thosc rillatirig
to the questiori wlicllic~ the apyilicatiori ut 3 particill caurse
lis or lias not been correct, biiti11so those b~arir~g upon tlie
ap~)licability of thesc articles, tfirit itu Say, upuri an? act or
omissiori crcritiriga situatiori cotirnry to the said ni-t ides...."
(Gerinrrn 1~tfcrt:stsii~Polish 1;r'ppevSilesin and ï'ht!Fuctar): ad
Chorzke, JudgnicnLNo.S (j urisdictioii), Jul26, 1927, Series A.,
Yo. g, pp. 20-21.j
Thti Court addecl :
" ....Ar~iclc 23, riaragrriph 1, wliich constitutes a typicaI ürlii-
tration clatiw ....contcrnplatcs iildiffercnccsof opinion reçulting
from the interprctation and npplicniion of a certaiti ti~ih~r of
arliclcs of a convention. In ~ising ilie expressioii 'Jiflcrcricesof
opinion 1-emlting irorrithe interliretatiori:iridapplication', the
contrncting Parries wem to have had in niind no? sn miich tlie
suttject of such difierences as thcir source, aiid tliiswoiiid jtislify
tlie ii-iclirziof dillerciiccs relating torcparations amongst those
coriceriiin;: the application,ei-en if the iiotion or'thi?application
oE a convention did not cover reparatioris forposjib1c violation."
(Ibid. 24.)
StilI later the Gerrnan C;overnrnent filed a recluest for an inter-
pretation uf the Court's Jiirlgrnerits Sos. 7 a~id 8 in the Chorxoiçi
urse. Ariir:lr firiof the Statute of the Court providecl :
'"l'he judgrnent is final arid witliout appeal. lri tlie event of
dispute as to the rrieani ngscope of the jtidgmerit, the C.ourt
sIlallcoristrue it iiponthe rcquest ofariy Pariy."
The Court accnrding hlad occasion to determine \x-hcthcror ]lot
ttiere existcd a "rlispiiie" as to the meaning or scope of the judg-
rnents rvikithinthe nieaiiing of Article 60.III holding that a dispute
tieed riotbe manifcstcd iria 1orrn;iluT:iyso 1o11 g5 tlie Governrnei~ts
had in fact sltciwn that the. held opposite vicws arid tbat a cligiiitt:
existed as to cach oftIie juclgrnents, thc Court said :
"Bclur,c cxarriining the qiimtion which has thus bccri raid,
ihc Court thi~~ks it advisablc to dtfine tlie mcariirigwliicfi stiould
be given to the ternis 'dispute' and 'rrieariing or srope of the
jirdpcnt', as crriployed iri ArticleGo of the Statiite.
Iri so Par L? concerns thc worcl 'dispute', ihc Court observe
tliat,accnrding to ~hc tenor of Article 60 of the Statiite, the
rnaiiifeslatiori uthe existence of rhc ~Iiçp~ltein a spccific rnaiiner,
as for instance by diplomaiic riegoti:itioiis, is riot required. It
ïvoil1dno doubt be desir~b1e rhat a State shn111d not proceed to it'KlT1E'I STATELIEXS OF THE U.S.A. I53
take risserious a st~p ciimrnoniiig anotiier State to npperir
before tlir Coiirt \vitIiuut liaving previously, wittiin rcasonable
linlits, ciidcnvoured to make it cliiitc cicar that a difierence uf
\~iexvis iiiquestiuriwliiclihas not been cap:ihie of licirigotlierwise
overcnnie. I3ut in view of the woidiri~ of the Article, the Court
con si der,thai it cnnriot requiril tllat tlie diçpiitc shnuld Iiave
niaiiifetted itself i;iluriiial w,zy ; iiccordingto tlieCourt's r,iemr,
itshould be suflicient if thetwo Gw~rnrricrits have in infacthown
rhernscl\:cs a5 IioIdirigopposi t.eviervs in regard to the ineanirig
or scope of zijtidgnient ui the Cotirt.TIit!Cniirt in this respect
recalls thc fact ~hatin its Jiidgmcrit Xo. 6 (rciating to the oùjec~ion
tn the jurisdiction rüiscd by Poland irirep~rd to ttie application
rriadcbÿ the Gerrnaii C;ovcrrirrietit underArticle 33 nf t1ic Gcticua
Converiiion coricerriing Cppr Silesia), it expressed the opiriion
tbat, the article in queitioti not reqiiiring prelimirirtrg: diplornatic
negotiat ions as a coridi t-ionymcedcnt, rccourse colilrl he Iiad to
tlieCourt 3s snor~ iis onc of the I'arties ronsidcrcd that thcre
was a diiierence of opinion arising oiit ol the interpretütioriand
appiic:iiioii oArticlcs 5 fozz oftticCoiiventiori." (G~r?nan Intcrzsls
in. PoEish Cippev Siksiir aiid Tlac Factwy ab C,.?ZOYZ j~d~Ggnent
No. 11 (Ititeryrctation), 1)eceiribcr 16, 1927, Series A., Ko. 13,
pp. 10-11.)
G. Once cidispztit:isdisciuscd tuexisl befwea Ihe I'nrties co?acer?iing
Ihe i?ttrvpretalio+z or ere~ictioltO) th Treofies of Pe(ice, ila'sfuior
the 1'reaiy Co+?a~tzissio fo deterwthe ids@irisdidionand uritfirira'fy
to dcal wilh l't.i~~clicllilthe suflcielzcy uj Ike cliav,qcswtndr: to
:anrr(tnl ihta .sszi?tzptionof itrrisdiclintz urndIRE efi8ct@j uz&/efS
alleged z?rde fense ztporz ifs jtrisdictio~t
Iri harmony \i!\liththe view takcn at thc oiitset (p:ir. II C a~sb8)
of tliis \I?ritteri Statemerit. that the rnerits cif tlie dispute or th
sufficiei~cyof tlic ch:irgcs or ailSvver5 ;ireilut befor-cthc Court, ttte
Governmcrit of t,lie Tinitcd States is of the furtker view thit it
is for tIic Trcaty Crininiissioi-iio tie cstntilisliecl to determirie, at
1r:isi i~itl-icfirst instance, its jnriçdictiori an3 authority Icidcal
rvith the dispiite, ii~cluditigthc sufliciençy of the cIi;irgc.smade to
warrant the ;fisi~mlitiriri of jurisdictiori and the cficct of rnatters
allcgcd ii-itlelcrise;elmi its ju~isdir:ticiri.
Whetlier the dis!iiitc, for esarnl)lc, re1;ites to riiatters solcly
withiri tl-Icornpetence, doinest ic jilrisdict ion, or s,overeigri cent rol
<if T5iilgaris, Hurigary or Kumania, is a qiicstioil yrol>erly to hc
rlccidcd by the Commissiriris uridcr the Treaties cif Peacc.
It will be for the couniries inaking tbc allcgatiorl to tiiake it
bcforc the ;i1)1iropri:i r. Iribtrnal-a 6~rnrnissiori erivisagcd untler
thti Trtiatics of Pc~ctcc . uch Comrriisriotiç, as othcr intern;iiiut~:iI
trihiiriaIs, u.ill pnsscss the inlierelitpomr to pasç upon their own
ji~risdictioil.This is in coi~fomiit y svith xvcll-accepted iriternatiririal
13~ and practicc. (See, for example, Kalstoil, La-ri~ alld Procediire
O? I?~terilstàcinrr'rihzftrtzls(1g26j, Sers. 53 antl 54.) The pririci~iI~:thiit an iriternalioilal tribunal is vected with
authority to determine ils riwn jurisdiction is recognized by
Article 36, paragraldi 6, of the, Statute of thc Court, w1iich pro-
vides :
"Iri the event of a dispute as to whethcr tiic Court lias juris-
diction, the matter shallbe settled Liy tlicdecision of the Court."
'l'hcPcrm;irient Court of Triten~ational J usticc, iri iLs :idrisory
opinion in the I??te~#ret~ilio~ of Ili-eGreco-ï'zbrkish Agreemetzt of
Dece?i:ber I, 1926,siaircl :
" ....it is clear-hrtving regard arriongst otficr ttiingsta the
yrinciple that, as a gcrkeralrulc,any tidy possessing jirrirdictional
plvers has tlic right iii the first place itself io dcicrrriine the
cstciit uf its jurisdiction--that qtiestions affcciirig tlies tent of
the jtirisdictionoi tiicRIixed Corrirriissionniust he settied by the
Cornniissioriiiself without action by any other body licirig neces-
sary". (hilvisory Opinion No. 16, August 28, 1928,Series B.,
No. TU,p. 20.)
T3yAdrninistrat ive Deciaion II, 11ie Xixed Clsims Cornmissiori,
IJriilttdStates and Gerrnany, cstablished iinder the Agreement of
August IO, ~922, ruIcd :
".... at the rhresliold of thc co~isidcraiiort of ezch cIaim is
presented thc qucstion of jurisdiction, which obi,iously tlie Curn-
niiçsiorimust deteriniriepreliminarily fo fixirtg tlie amwilt of
Germnny's financial obligatioris, ifany, in exh case.
Wheii Li~e allegntioin ns a prtition or mernorial ylui i>y
the CnitcJ States bring a c1:iini urithin the terrriso tIie Tre;ity,
the jurisdiction of tlic Comiriissioriattaches. If these all~ga-at~ons
are coritroverted in whole or in part by Gcrrnariy, ilic issue thus
iriademust he decidcd hy the Cornrnissiuri. Sliould the Conimis-
sion sa decide suc11issue that tiic clnim does not faIl ivithin ille
teims ol lhc Trcaty, itwill bedisrnissedfor lack ol ju~-isdictio....
TIic Cornrni~5;sion'sask is tn ap ly the ierrris of the Treaty of
I3rrlin to eacli casa prescoted, Qcïidathnse xvhich it Iiolds are
within its jurisdiction, aiid dismiss al1 othcrs." (Decisio?!~
O.pinionsIr g25-~gzGj, 6-7.)
The Anglo-Arnericar~Tribunal cslaiilished under the Special
Agrecrrien t of Aubxst 18, ~g IO, hetween the United States and
Great Britairi, ]!ad before it the Ria Gran& Irrigaficra rrnd 1,atld
Company, Li~tzzteclc,ase ~~brnitted hy Great Britain. The American
Agent filcd a niotiorifor disrnissaI ori the'ground oflack of British
interest in the claini, and ofsevcraI alleged brtacheç ofthe rulcs
of procedure in thc prcçcritation of the case. The British Agent
argucd in rqJy that a prelirninary motion of tkis character !vas
not conternplated or providecl for by the rules or any of the
instruments controllirig thc Tribunal, :incl that if such a s rio lit in
wcre ~irtividedfor in the rulcs thc prcscriiied ~~ruceriurehad not
been followed. The 'l'ribirnal heId on this poirit :l j6 iVKI'I'TEN ST.ATEAIE'I-r OF THE C.S. A.
Article 380 of the 'I'reaty of Versailles, Jurie 28, 1919 p,rovideil :
"The Kiel carial arid its appronches sliall ticrnairitairieclfree
arici opcrito tlicvessek of corrirricrceand of \var of al1 nations
ai peace with Gerinaiiy nii terms of eriiire ccluality."
'I'he Yerrnanent Court of International Justicc, iri its iiiitial
Judgnient ori the i~ierits, Augtist ~7, ~gz,, held that Article $0
fort);t<leGermzuty 's ayiplyirig to the Kiel canal a ricutrality order
\vhicli woiilri close tlie cnrial icia British vesse1 urider French
chnstcr carrying munitions to Darizigfor trans-shiyrnent to Poland,
duriiig a war bctu-ccn Polarid and Rusai:i, In sritloirig theCorirt
held that in Iriecorningparry io the Trcat?; of Versiilles, Germariy
had to the ext ent providecl in ArticIc 380, nt least, circiirriscrit~cd
her rights of sovereigr-ity. 'The Court, iil itsopinion, stated :
"Thc Cvuri coiisiders that the tcrms of Article 3iio are cate-
gorical ürid give riseto no doubt. It folloivs thrit tlie canal has
censed in be aii interiialaiid national riavigablc waterivay, the
use of iviiich bu ~hc vcsscls of States nther tiian the riliarian
State is left entirel!:to the discretion of that State, aiid that it
has becorne an ir~tertiaiioriwaterway iriterided to provide irridcr
tr-caty guararitcc caiicr acccs to ilic Raltic for the heiiefit ofa1L
nations of tlieworld. Under its new rCgime, the Kiel canal inirst
be open, on a footing of eqiiality, to 311vesscls, wiihoiit making
ariy dktirictiori betwucri war vcsscls and vessels of conillierce,
but un one espress condition, narnely, that thcse vessels innst
h~lnng tn nntioiis at pexce witli Geriiiariy.
...T'lieCourt dec1inm 10 see in the coriclusïon of ariy trcaty
by wliiçliR Statc iiridcrtakcs LVperforirtor refrain fronl perforrning
a ptirticiilaact an abairtlonment of its sovcrcigntÿ. So doubt
any convcntiori crcati~ig art obligatiun of tiiis lcind places a
restriction upon the exercise of tIie sovereign rights of the State,
in the sense that it reqiiires them to lic ei;crcised iria ccrlaiti
way. Eui the right uf c~itcririg iritoiiiterrtritionengagements
is an attrihrite ofState snvweigni~." (Tlzs S.S. i,Vimtif&dm,Jiidg-
ment No. r (Hcrits), hugusl x7,1923, Series A., Ku. 1, pp. 22, 25.)
In rgzr decrees were iusued by the Bey of Tunis, by His Shcrcc-
fi:~rMajesty, and by the Prrsident cifthc Fret~cli Rcpublic. wliich
Iiad the effect of converting certain nritish subjecta iri Tunis and
31orocco (Frcricli zo~ic) irito Frcricli citizens,with the crn-iset1irr.ric.e
that the French Governmcnt began to eliforce againsr tiie~n a
li;itiility foservice in the French amy. TIie Britisl-i (;uvcrnrncnt
prote~ied tu the Frenr:ti Govenii-i~ent :$gainsr the application of
the decrces tciBritisli ri;itiorialç,nridsoggestcd that the matter be
refcrrcd to thc Pcr~~iaricri~Court of 1ritei-nrition:il Jtistiçtirto
arbitration. Seithcr suggcst ion !vasaccepted ?>ythe Frer ic1Gover~i-
ment. When the British Goverilment ari~ioiiriceclits ixitcritiori to
pIact: the matter oil the agenda of the Couilcilof rhe Lcaguc of WRITTES STATEVEKT QIi THE G.S.A. 157
Xatioys, the French Govcrnmerit coriterided that under Arti-
cle 15 (8) of the Coveriaiit of the League of Xations, dealing with
matfers "which Iiy iritcrnaiiona1 ,Iaw ....[are] çolely \iritliithe
domestic jurisdiction" of a party to thc dispute, the Couricil \vas
incornpetent to deal with ii. When the matter came hefore the
Coiincil,October 2, 1922, tkc British Kcprese~ iative expIained
that fricndly curivcrsations had taken place, as a rcsirlt ofwhich -
it\vas ~xo~)~sei that the Permanent Court be asked forari advisor?
opinion as icithc nature ofthe dispute. Accordiiigly, the following
questio1.i\$,asput to thé Court :
" Wlteliicr the dispirte bctsreetiFrance 2nd Great Xritain as
to tiie Sationalily Decrees içsued inTunis a~id Morocco (FrcttcIt
zone) or] Xovemher Btii, 1~21, and tlicir applicationto British
subjccts, is or isnot, hy international bw, sole1 a mntter oi
domestic jurisdictior(Article15, paragraph 8, of YieCovciian t)."
On February 7, 1923, the Perrnancrlt Coiirt g;iiretlie cipinion
that the dispute was not by iriter~iatioiiallaw çoleIy a matter of
domestic jiirisdictinn.{~Vaiionalily Decrees issered in 1-rtnis alrd
hforocco (fiench %o?t,tco~t iVo~eni6er 8, 1921. Advisory Opinion,
Series B., No. 4.) In giving its opinion, the Court stated :
"For the puqiusc oE ihe prescritopinion, it is criuugto observe
tIintit may well happen thnt, in a mritter which, like that of
nationality, isnui, iri pnncipic, regulate bd international I~w,
the right of a State to use its discretion irievertheless restricted
by obligations rvliich it niay hase undertnkcri towards other
States. 111siich a casc, jurisclictiori wliicin, yrinciple, belongs
solely tu the State, is limited hy rulcs of international law.
Articlc Ij, pragraph 5, tliericcaçes to npply as regards those
Stnt-eswhich are entitled to invoke sucri ruLes,and the dispute
as to the qualion tvlietiiea State has or haçnot the right to
take certain mcasurcs becorne in these circurnstitricesa disptitc
of an internationa1character and flilloiitside tliscope of tlic
esceptiorl confained in rbis pnragraph ...."(ibid., zq.)
In 1924, the CounciI of tlic Lcague of Sations, at the insiance
ofthe Mixcd Commission for the excharige of Greek aitcl Turkidi
popiilatior~s,requested an advisory opinion from thc Pcrmaricn t
Court of 1ntern;itional Justice on thc qucstion of the rneaning and
scopé to Lieattributcd tu the rvord "estrthliçhcd" in Article 2 cif
the Convention of Lalisanrie of Januarÿ 30, 1923, regardintg he
exchange of Greek arid Ti~rkish populnt ions. The Convention,
after having I:iid dowil in ArticIe I the gencral principie of, rhe
cxchaiigc of Turkish iiatiorids of Greek orthodou rcligiori estab-
Iished in Turkcy and Greek iiationals oi ii,losIernreligion estab-
lishcd in Grcece, proceeded iilArticle 2 to withdnw frorri this
exchange, on the one haiid, Greek iiri~abitants of Constaritinople
arid,oii the other, 3iiioslcminhabitants ofWestern Thrace. Turkey,
basing her argument on "soverejgil rights", maintained tliat the
18deterrni~iatiori of "establishcd" perçons ivas a domestic matter for
the mirnicipal coiirts fo dccide. TIie Permanent Court rcjcctcd
the contcntiori, statiilg, iiitcralin :
"Tlic Court has rlot io define the meniiing alid scopc of the
tvord 'ecitablklied' in the rtbsiract, but oriIy to determine the
meaning and scope ofthat woril as used in ilrticlc2 of tl-icCon-
veiitiori of Liausinrie. In tliefirct placetlieCourt is sntisfied t.hat
the diïfcrence of opiiiioiwhich fias arisen regirding the rncanirig
and sco~ic of tIieword 'estnblishecl',is a dispute regarding the
inlerpretation of ;i treaty and xi çuch irtvol\*a a question of
internat ional lait,Tiis not a question of doniestic concern bctwceii
the zid~niiiistrritioand ttie inhabita lits ;trie difierence affects
two States which have concludecl a convention rvith a vicw to
excharigirig certairiporliortsof their poptilntions, aiid the criterion
afforded by trieword'atablished' used iiiArticle z of tliis Lon-
i-.ention is precisely iiitended to enable tIie contracting States
to distinguish the part oi their respective populations Iiable lo
exchange from tIie part exempt irorrr it.
Tlie Titrkidt dciegaiiori however inaiiitaiiis that tlie Convention
curit:iiiin reference ro iiatioriaIcgisIatioiiarid irisupport of this
conte11tioti invokes arnongst other tliings Article 13, üccordirig
to ivliich:
"rhe Higlt Cniitracting P3rtics uiidertnke tu introdiice in
their respective larvs sucli modifications as rnmay be necesçafy
witli a view to crrsriririthe exccution of the present Con-
vent ion.'
This clairse, Iiowever, mercly lays stress ori ri principle which
is seil-evident, itccording io \r-hicha State which has coniractcd
valid iritcrnatiortal oblieationçis Liound to make iri its Iegislation
çuch moriificniions 'xs2~ila.be necessary to enwre the fiilfiltncnt
of the obligations undertaken. The special nature of tlic Con-
verition for the El~change of Greek and 'l'urkisfi populatioiis,
wliich closely affects maitcrs regillated hy iiatioti:il Icgislation arid
laj?s down priricipics wIiicli conflict ivith cei-tain riglits gericrally
rccognizetl as heloriging to iridividitais, svfficicntiy esplains the
espress inclusion of a clause such as that contained in :Zrticle IS.
Rut it does riot irithc fcatstfollow because the contrzctirrg parties
are. ubliged to bring tlieir Iegislation iiifo harrnortywith the Con-
vention, that that instmiiient must be construed as .implicitly
rcferring to national legislaLion in so far as that is nut coiitrary
to tlie Convention.
The principal rtinsonwhy the 'hrkish delegation has maintained
the tlicory of an intplicit reference to local legislalioriaypcars
to be tliat, in tiieir opinion, a coiitrary solution rvould iniyolve
corisequences affectiiig Turkeÿ's sovereign rights. But, as the
Court haj alrcady Iiad occrisioii to point out iriits jutbment in
Ihc case of the Jfftn~blcdoa 't,he right ofentering into zntcrnatioiial160 WRITTEX ST;\TE$?E?iT OF THE U.S.A.
thcreto to carry oirt tlie nt>lig;ttionl; rtrising thcrcfrorn. Tliese
rlirticles outliilc tlie ~irtir:ediir~s\\-hicfi the Partihave agreed to
ernploy for the settlerrienl of disl>iites coricerning the interprcctatiori
or execution of 'Trcatÿ provisioris. Tliey prr ivile that if a dispute
caririotbt: r~solved by certain stated procediires it çhal be rcfcrred
to ;i Trt3;iiy Commission whosc dccision shall bc accepted by the
Parties as dcfi~iitive and biriding. Eadi of the conditions reqiiired
hy thc "disputcs" ,4rficles as a condition for the rriariclaiory
reference of a dispute to a Tr.raty Cornmissiciri is prcsent in the
iristarit sitri:ition, as is discloscd by the diplornatic cxchangcs
betu ceri the Parties (discussed nnfe). Tlie conditirins :ire:
(a) Tliat there iç no other procedure for the settleinent cjfthe
dispute spccifically ~irovided tirider the Treaty. Clearly rio otIier
procedrire is providcd in the Treiity for tIie type of a dkpiitc Iicre
under conaideratiori.
(h) That the cxists a disp~ite. Tt lias heeri cstablishcd ir-id~
th;it ;Ldi.ipiitttor disputcs cxist. Thc worcls "a~iy dispute", tvhich
alqir:ir iri the ArticIcs, areof the broadcst sort.
{c) That thé "disputc" coilcerns the "ii~tcrpretation or evecution
of thc Triiaty". Ithas becri shown azt8 that the dispute or disputes
do concerIi the iilterprctation or esccutiun of the Treaty.
(d) Tliat the dispute has not been settlcd by direct diplornatic
iiegotiations. :2s the dipiornatic exchanges disclose, :ilth{)iigf;in
effort has becil inilde iiy the United States aiid other Xllied Goverri-
rnents to obtain a sciliit.iun of the disputes throiigli dililorrialic
channeis, the G~verrimerits oi Hiing:iry, Riilgaria and Rurrtai~ia
uiifortuiialely have rejectcd sucii efforts.
(ej That the dispute was refcrrcdtothe Thrcc He:ids of Mission
and was not çcttled by them \vithiri a period oftwo mtiriths. Aç
lias heen shown ti,iifthe dispute lrac;rttferredto tkc Thmc Hcads
of hiissioris. hitt thc Sovict Covérrimerit refrrsetl to autliorize itç
Anibassadors to act.
(i)Thxt the l'arties did iiot inutually agrcc upori :inritherme:iria
of settlerneilt. 'rhe i3iplom:itic exchanges reveal tIi;it ~iopropnçal
w:is inade or considzr:tiiori given by the Parties to oilicr rricaris
of settlemilnt.
(g) That a request be made hy eiihcr Party ta the dispute for
a referral to a Treaty Cornrnissioi~. :1s pointcd oilt anfe, siic:h
rttquests were matle liy the United States and othcr Allied Govern-
rnents.
The langiiagc of the "disputes" ilrticlcs dcdaring not tha t n
dispute mny bc referred tcia Cornrnisrion but ttintany dispute
slrall be referred to a Corrimision under ststed ~oriditioris clearlj*
imposes a binding nblig;itiorion the Parties to the Tre atles.
T1te "disputes" .?\rticlcs~clfiarly ~irouide, and wcre iriterirledto
provide, the rneans by which disputes bctwceri the Parties -hall
be rewlvcd "unleas", in the languagc of the Articles, "the Parties162 WHI-I-TE?; STATEMEST OF THE U.S.A.
ln the Wi?~itilcdu- nase, the Perrnancnt Cor~rt of Iriternational
Justice stated that even whcrc a restrictiile interpretation of a
trcaly \!*asatlniissihle, the Court rnust "sioy at thr, point whcre
the sci-callcd restrictive in terprctation would be contrary to thc
p1:iiriterms of thc articlt: arid would rlestr-ooywhat has becri cle;irly
graritç:d". (Judgment So. I (Mrritç}, .\i~giist I7, 1923, Series A.,
No. r, pp. 24-25.)
III its ;itlvi~ciryopiniori inrcgnrcl to tlic Pokish J?(isl~Serviceirt
L)an:ig. tlie Permanent Court OITgternatiori;il J~isticc took tlie
position tiiat
"It is ii.cardinal priiicjple ofii~terpretatioritliat rvords mnst
bc iriterpreted in tlic scrise wiiich they would nomally havi: in
rh~ir contcxl, unlesç siich interprctation rvould leatlto something
urireasonahle or absiird. Iri tlie prescrit case, the construction
whicl-ithc Court lias plared on the various trcaty stipulations is
not only reclsui-inble,blit is also supportcd l>y reference to tlic
various artictcs iakeri by themselvcs and iritheir relation one
to anoihcr." (.c\dvisorjOpiniori No. II, May 16, 1925, Series B.,
No. 11, PI'. y-40.)
Ln conriectiun with the Case oj fhc FY~L Zwes of U$per Sai~sy
alid the Di.qiricIoj CCS: flic Pcrrn:iiîcnt Coiirt statecl :
"iri case of ùoribt, the cIauscs of a special agreerrient hy r~liich
a clispntc is referred to the Court mus[, if it does not invalve
duir?g violerice to tiieirterms, he construed in a matiltcr enabling
the claiiscs tliernsdvec: tu have appropriatc cffects". (Order,
riugusi 19,lqg, Çeries A., No. 22, p. 13.)
Tndcterrnini~ig tiieexterit of tlie jnrisdictioricciriierredttpon thc
Otler River Lornrriission l,y the Trcaty of Versailles, the Yerrnailcnt
Coi~rt of Ii~te,rtiatiorial Jiistice statcd that it must griIiack to thc
jxiricililesgoverniiig i~iternational fluvial lam in gcrieral aild
corisider what poçitiori rvas adopted by thc Sreaty ofVersaiIles iri
reg-ard trithose pririciples. Tt coi-icliidcttthat the Trcaty ri1Versailles
adopted the principlc of irite~natiorializ "athatioitlt,i siiy, the
frce u5c of the river for al1 Staies, ripariari or not". In taltiiig ;i
rcasonable iriteryretation ofthi: tre:ii ythc: Corirt coricIuded :
''Article 332 grnnts ftccdorri ufnavigütion on watetways declürcd
internatioiial in the yrevious article to al1 fowcrç ori a footing
of perfecl etluality. 'kir: provision iï~iulrl Iic inappropriate, if
riot arbitra?, if the fr-wdorri stoppcd sliort nt the last politicaI
frontiei." (Trwiio~ird i?rrisdidion oj IlteIjiferjratf'onrrlCommissiorr
oj the iii1~1Oder, Judgment 50. ru, Septcrnber 10, 1929, Series A.,
Xo. 23, pp. 26, 28.)
In ;tconcurring opiriiori cotlceriling the Alrsfuo-Gevl~tala Cztstoms
Régime,Judge :Inzilot ti, iri ccinsidcring Articlc. SS of the Treaty
of Saint-Germairi, said : Note Irom I:nited States Representative to thc United Natioris
to thc Secretary-Ger of the United Nations, Januarg 6, 1950,
eiiçlosiiig-
K.-Huilgariari note of October 27, 1949, ro United Slalcs ;
2.- TJiiitcdStates note of January 5, 1950, ta 'Rirlgariri;
3.- United States note of Jariuary 5, 1950, to Hurigaq- ;
4.-Unitcd States riote of January 5, 1450, to Rurn;inia. WKi'l'TEN ST.4TEMEKT OF THE U.S.A.
1 have the honor to rcfer to niyriolc UN-2748of Septernhei.zti,1949,
forwarding to ou copies of certairi (Iiplumatic corrcspondetirelevalit
to tliecpc=itiorof obscmancc of hrirnaii riglits inBirlgaria, Hurigary 2nd
Rumania. (Gciicral:IsserriblyResolutiorisof Aprd 30, 1949 (272 (Tl111,
and Ociober 22, 194'3(Alrr,43).)
On October 27,1949, siibscqucnt tu tlic datof my lctter,tiieGoverii-
mcnt of 1-Iungaryaddressed a further note to the Governrnent of the
United States {Annex T). On Jariiiarv 5, 1950,tlie Covcrnrricritof th
United States directe ntoes to the &verrimeri tsof Bulgaria, Hunçary
and Kurnariia (Annexes 2,3 and 4).
Tam enclosiiig copies of thesc notes with a requmt that ou Liekind
enough to transmit copies of the notcs to dl 31ernhers of the Gnited
Sations and also to the International COiirtof Jrjsticeiriconnecrion
with the Gencral Assernbly ICcçoliition01Octobcr 22, 1949 (A,if0431.
Accepf, Lscc'!lcricy,the renerved assurances of my Iiigiicscoiisidera-
tion. ,
(Signed) Flr~~~<~ R . AUSTIK ,
Cnited States Iicprewitativc to the United Nations.
Anriex ~.-I-Iuriprian note of 0ctoht.r 27, 1949, to U.S.
Annes 2. 1J.S. note of Janiiary 5. 1950, to Bulgaria.
Aniiex 3.-L.5. note of Jririuaryj, Igjo. to Hungary.
hrinex +-Un$. -note of Januaqr j, 1~50. to Rumania.
Hiç Excellency Trygve Lie,
secretdry-Generd of the United Natio~is,
1-ake Success, Xew York.
HIiNGAHIAE NOTE TO THE UNITED STATES
(27 OCTOBER 1949)
(UrÏginal text iti 'Engliçh.)
'l'i~e1-iungüriariMinistry for Fureign Affairs presentitscompliments
to the Txpation of the United States of An~ericaand, .with reference
to thc Lcgation's note No. jq2, dated Septcrribcr19,1949, bas the
Iioriorto irnpartas follows:166 WRITTES ~'~ATESIEST OF TIIE G.S.A.
The lIuri@arian Government regrets to state that the Governrnent
of the Unitcd States deerned it opporlune to renew tlie accusaiions,
dcprived of al1 real basis wha~oever, and rejcctcd most emphaticaily
hq' the Hungarian Governrnent on several ucwsioris-rrotwit hstanding
that the Hirrigariari Guvcrrir~icrIiacclcarly esplicated ariduridoubt futly
provcdin itsnotes Nos. 2672 and7796/1949 that it wrasmiilritelyobserv-
irig thestipulations contained in ArticIe 2 of iltePeacc Trcaty.
The Hung~rian Governirieri t orice again rejects most cntegoricalty
that tendertiious aiid faIs interpretation of tlic Pcacc 'Treatÿ bylshich
the Governmcnt of ific United States tries to contrnstt he stipulations
of ilrticlcs2 and 4 ofthe Treaty. The Hungarian Government doeç not
see anÿ coritradictionbetweeii the observing ol tlistipulatioiis contnined
in Article z of the Pcace Treaty and the figlit xgairiçFaçcist and
pro-Faacist clements prescribed hy Article4 of the sanie Treaty. On the
contrary. ricorrsequer r cornpliancc rt-ittlrestipulations ofArticle 4 isa
condition sitie yira fiooi guararitecirtgfoal1 peop1,lesnd tu the Huriga-
riaripeoplc among them, the rightc defined by Article 2 of tIie Treaty,
It hns resuitcd clcarly irorritiic ductiments of tlie trials against
3lindszcnty and his accomplices nnd, recentIy, against LaszIo Kajk and
his arcompliccç. thaf ihc persons convicted for their ariiidemocratic
aciivity were pilty of a conspiraçy airriing at the reverse of trie present
derriocratic regime, and to aiinihilatetlic iibcrtics acqirired by the
people, and ta cstalilis:tFaçcist rcgimc of ol)pression, worsc thaii any
othct yrcvious regime of the kind. Accordingly,the HungnrinnGovern-
ment, far frornirii~ingirigtllPcace Trcaty, acts esplicitlyin co~ripliaticc
wifh its stipulatiorts rviieri iriflica blow ripon tlie vile e~icniics of
libcriy and deniocracy, w1io Iiave degenerated to espioiiage and mur-
dervus attempts. Tf the Governnients 01 tlicUnited States and the
United Kingdorn üccuse the 1-Iurigariari ocernmeiit, tliisalrihave but
one rcasoii, Le., the riilingcircles of these count-ries areIiostileto tiic
irideperidericeand dcvclopnicnt of the pcoplc's detiiocracies and, as it
\vas proved by the aiorerncntioricd trials, siiplwrt, in FIu~igary too, the
most dcspcrate eiiemies of deiiiricracy, rlirectitigthem hy tlieir own
network of spics, as wcl1 as bbÿ Tito and iiis cliquc,attaclicd to thcir
service.
As u rriatter of fact, the FTiing:iri:inGovern tnent has repeated[y
statcd tliat prccisely thcsc Govcriiiiicnts have or1 scveral occasions
infriiiged tlic stipulatiorisof the Peace Trealy reiating to Hungary ,
whcri i~rila~vfiilIydenying the rfititiitioof IIungarian propertp found
in tlieir respectivezurics of occupation. when refusirtg ilic cstraditioti
of the Hungarian war-crirninals escaped irito tbeir territory, wiien
suppurtirig fliese war-criminais in tfieir :lritidemocratic activity 2nd
wlieneven rendcririg possililc ihcorganizaiionand equiprricnt of rnilitary
formations of Htingnrian F=ists on the territory occiipied by thern.
I'urtliermore,fhc IIungarian Governrnen t statcs with astonishmen t
that, in addition to the accusations alrcady known and repeatedly
refirtcd, the Goverriment of the United States esprcsscs the opinion-
lvhich isquite new and in no tvay compatible {sith the ruies and spirit
of international larv-tliat, by assuming certain nhlig~tions tltrougIt the
signaturc of the Treaty of Peace, Huiigary has bccome a State with
Iimited sovereignty.
IWen signing the I'eace Tr~aty, Hungars rirasnot, nor is she at
prcserit, iridiiiedto surrender lier sovereignty-on tlie contrary, shc SVKITTEK5T.ITEMEKT OF THE U.S,.-i. 167
will rleferitlhcrindependenccand unhatripcrcddcinocratic (leveloyiiient
agaitist aily imperialist interference. l'he Hung:iriari Goverrirncr:t
consi<iersthe arbitrary iiircrprctation ofthe Pexe Trcair hy rhc Govern-
ment of the Kriited States an atterripi to clairria rigit to coi~siantl>*
interferc rvith Hurigary'ç interna1affnirs, igtioriiithe indepe~idence of
the HiingariririState.
'l'liIIungarinri Govciritiiei~t c;itegorically i-ejects,rrior.co-r-ethe
wholly fictitious calurnny of the Governrricnl of the United Stat~s,
üIlçgirigthat the present Hiingariün regime ht: rnerely "lie totalitarian
i-irlof a rnirioritg:'. It iua riotorioiisfact thatat the general clections
on tlie r5th ofhIay of 1949the 1-lurigarianpeiiplc rnaoifested tlieir will
in tkicrnnst democratic way-by general and secret haltot-and deciclcd
to sripportby 95.5 ~jerwrti tif ihcir\-otesthe policy carried oiibÿ the
prcsent H!ingariaii Goverriment. In view of tliis, tiie fact that ihc
(;overrirnciitof tlicClr~iteS tntesalleges ita diplornatic note lhe liresent
Hungariün Goverliment as bcirig "tlie i-ulof a miriority", cannot he
regarded by the I-Iungarian GovernrneriL but as an eviI-rniiidcdpropagan-
distic mariociivrc, bascd upon the denial of Erue iacts.
In consideration of the ~I~UVC said, ttic IIurigarian Governn-ienr
rejccts most caregorically the note Ku. jv of tlicLcgation of the United
States, as a new aitcnipt of i~nlaïvful interference ivith the interrial
aiinirs of Hurigriry.
The Hungarinii Xinistry for Foreign Afixirs availsilself of this oppor-
tunity to rcncw to the Lcgatioii of the Criited States of Arncrica thc
cxpresior~ of its high cnnsi,lcie~~itiun. '
GNL'rEL)STATES XOTE TO RCI.C;ARIA
(jJANUARY 1950)
[Original text iriEriglis1iJ
The Legation ofthe United Si atcs of Arriericaprcçciitsits compliments
to ~heITinistry 0TForeign Affairs of Uulgariüand 113s~he honor 10rcfer
to the Legation's riotcof ilugiistI, 1949 ,sking the Bulgariaii Govcrn-
iiientto joiri iIiUnited State; Goverriincritin ~iaming a (:orririiission,in
accordnnce with Article 36 of the Trcaly ofPeacc, to çettle the dispute
wliich lias ariren over the ititcrpretntioiand execiitiori ofArticle 2 of
the 'Treaty. Rcicrence is alsorriadeio the Miriistr-y'sote of Seyitember r ,
1949, arid to tiie.X.~gntion's note ofScptember 19,1949, on tiic same
subject.
'i'heLegalion lias tiiliotiorto inforni tiic Hinistry tliat tlicUnited
States Government has designated Ii-lr. Edwiri D. Dickiiisoii as its
represciitativci nri tliproposcd Commission. Tt isrequcstcd tliüt the
Rulgarian Govcrnment desigriatc its reprcscritatiue forthwitli ariil enter
into consi11t;diun iii-iinerliately willi tlie tlriitStates Govertirnent
tiiroiighihc Aincrican hli~iistein Sofia,with aview to tlieappoi~itrrient
of tIie tliirdrricmber of the Commissioti as stipulated in Article 36 of
Lhc Pcace Treatg.r68 WRIITEK 5T.ATE3IES.T OF THE U.S.A.
UXITED STATES SOTE TO MUNGARE'
(j JANIJ.4KI7 1950)
[Original test iiiEnglish;
The Legatioriof the Gnited Statcs of Amcricü prescrits its cornplinicrits
to tlie 11Iinistol ForcigriAfiüirs ofHungary arid11x5the Iiono tr refer
to the T,egation'snote ofAugust T,1949a ,skirigthe Hnrigarian Govcrn-
iricntto joirithe Uriitcd -5tates Government iiitiarriing a Commission,
in accordance with Article 40 of theTrcaty of Peace, to settle tlidisputc
which lias ariscn oc-erthe iritcrprctatiori and exccutionof Article z of
tlic?'reatÿ. Kefcrcriceis aIsomade to the Miiiistry's noteof Aiigust26,
r949, to the.Lcgation's note of Septembcr 19, 1949,and the Miriistry's
noteof October 27, 1949, on tlie same suhject.
TIie 1,ttgnt.ionfiathe Iionorto inforrn tlieMiiiistry that theUnited
States Go\~erririienthas designatctI Mr. Edwin n. Dickitison as its
representative on the propused Cornrniss~on. It isrcquested tliatthe
IIungarian Govcrnrnent designate itsreprscntative forthwit-h and enter
into consu1tatinn itiirnediately with the United Stales Govcrrir~~crit
throuçfi the ilmeriari hlinisterin Ijudapest, wittia view tu the appoint-
rncrit of the third member of the Cornniissiotias stipulared in Article 40
of the Peace Treaty. .
US.iITEIl STATES NOTE TU KU?.f:\FIrl
(5 JAXGAKY lysci)
[Original text iriEngliçlil
The 1-epationofthe Griited Statcs of America yrcscnts ifs coniplirnerits
to the Xi~iistryufForeig~i Affairs nf Riimania and Iizrstlie Iionto refer
to the Legation's note ofAirgust r, 1949 asking the RumanianGovern-
ment to joirr theUnited States Government in narriingü Commission,
iriaccordance with Article $ of the Treaty of Pcace, to settletliedispute
which has ariscn over the intcrprctation and execution ofArticIc 3 of
the Treaty. Rcfcrei~ce isalsomade ta the Ministry's riotc uf Scpternli2,
1949, and to thc Legation'ns ote ofSqtembcr 19, 1949, on the srne
subject.
Thc Lccatiun lias tlie horior toinform the hiinistrv ttiat the IJnited
Siaies Governnierit lias designated Xr. Edwin D: Dickinson as i~s
representative on the proposed Cornrnissiori. It is reqiiesteù tliat thc
Kumaniari Governrnent designate its representativefortiiwitli arid enter
into cor~ultatiori irrirrietiiate\i;ith the Unitecl States Government
through the American Ministcr in Buchartst, witlia vicw to the appoint-
ment of tlic tliird rncmbcrofthe Commission as stipulatecl in Articl3s
ofthe face Trcaty.tiie tri:iIs of Ciir~rclileaders in Bulgaria iuid Hungarÿ which had
receritly takeripIace in those cuun tries. When these rpquesta camc
liefr~ritthe Geriec~l Comrriittee of the Asembly, it was dccidcd
to arnnlgarrinte them in a single item to read z follows :-
"Having regard to the provisiorisof tlic Chartcr and of the
PcnceTreaties,thequestion ofnbservürice in Uulgaria and Hurigary
ofIiuman rights and fundamentalfrepdoms inclirding qilestiorisof
religious atid civiliberties rvitii special refermce to recenttrials
of Ckiurclileaders."
The iridusion of thic; item in the i~gericlawiis olipose(1 hy the
reprcscntativc of the Soviet Uriiori, rrixiriltirtilie groiind that
thc trials wcre the domestic coriccrfi ofthe c~ilrilries coricerned ,
and that the General Asscrribly waa ~iot corripetcrit to discuss
thein in view cifArticle 2. paragraph 7, of the Çliarter, wl-hicti
providcs tha~ nothiiig in the Charter "shall ar1thorir.e the Lriitcd
Nations lo intcrvcne in rn:ittc~s which :ire e~stti-iri:iIlywitliiri the
domcstic jurisdictiori of an! State", It slioiilrl be iiotcrl, boit-wer,
in vicw ofwhat subst~c~iieri tl ciccrrr.r+irlt,ilicSrivicl opposition
kvas aIso based on the grouncl that, if tberewasa disputecoricerriirig
any allttged \!iol;itions of the Pcacc Trcat ies, the pi-ocedrrrclaicl
tlowri iri tliosr: Tréatics for the settlerricrit of disputes should be
followed, aricl that the ,4ssembly u-as not the proper rtiithority
for sccuring the cxeciitiun the Peace Treaties. TIius at thk
stage, and in ordcr to oppose the iridusiciriof ttieiterriiil the
A4ssernbly-s agenda, ilicC;rivr:rrirricnl of tkc Sovicl I:nion was
read y and anxious to rnakeappcal to tlie ~>rovisionsofthe Tre;ities
for the settlement of disputcs : yct whcn, ai a Iatcr staçc, it
asked to r:o-tryi~r;lin the application of this same procediire, it
refnscd iodo M.
3. In poiiit of fat:t, the Goverrimerits 01 the IJriilfid Tcingdom
and the United States had alrearly takcn the openingsteps towards
setting the 'l'rratyproccdurc iii rriotion by addrcssing notes d:ited
April znd, ~949, io tlic Goverrirncnts of Bulgaria, Hungary and
Rottmaiiia, iillegiriga number of violations of the Human Riglits
articlcs of tlic Pcacc Treaties, and caIling upcin those Goverrimentç
to adopt prompt rcrneclinl me;isiires. It isriut iieccsary ior przsent
purposcs to dctail thesr. ch;trges: sufice ii to Say tliat LI-icyrelatctd
to a i-iumber of rncxures aiid actions, Icgislati\!e, jtrdici:iI ;irid
admiriist rative, takcil in the counti-ies concerilcd, whicIi tlic
Coverxirriclitsof thc Cinited Kingdom and-Uni ted States considercd
-. be contrary to ihe Hiimari Rightç ~>rovisiorisof tiie l'ence
Ireaties. In their repliesof ApriI 7~11 , 9i1 ar,d 214, rEq~cctiveIy,
the thrce Gowrrimciits coiitested the correctrizss ard vajidity of
these charges, and also tlic iegal grout~ds on wliich they were
11.The Geileral Cornrriittw of tl-ic A~serrrhly clirly tiecided to
include the rlustraliniijI3oIivian iterri in the agenda, and it was IVRITTEN ST:lTEZIE.iT OF THE USITEU KIXGDOaI 17r
subsequently discussed in the ad IiocPtilitical Corn~nittee of the
Asserrihly, wkere it \vas again argued by the represenfative of
the Soiriet Union (the Goverrimcrits of Bulgaria and 1-Iungary
, (as non-Mcmber States) hnving been irivitcd iciattend and having
refuscd) that the Assembly waç not competeiit to go into the
rri;ilter. The ultirrialc rcsult n'as that iipo~i beirig irifornicd that
the Governments of the United Kingdoin arid EIICIj~tited States
had zrlrertcly invokcd the Pe:ice Tre:itit:s, the A~sernbl y decideti,
by its Kesriliition NO. 272 {III) of April ph, (the text rif
which is giveri iri Annex 1 to the ~ir.esc~-iStatcincnt), 10 iiivait
the resuIt of tliis action, in the nieailtiine retaining the ntziticr
on the agenda for firrther coiisidcratiort at the nest (Fourth)
Session of the Asscmbly .
j. F"ollo$vt-ingri this, the Governmciits of trie United Kiiigdom
;inti United States ertgagerl in an exchange oof diplornatic cor-
rcsponcIence ivitli the three Goverrimeri ts coticertierl,ancl also
with tlieGovt:rrirnci-rtof theSoviet Griioii, iiriahvieis to l~rociiririg
the settlcnient of the disputc iri tl-ic ritanner provided hy the
l'cace Treatics. 'l'hiscorrespoildcncc Iias already bee~i corrirnu-
nicated to tiie Coiirt, hut, for conveilience of referencc, that
reliiting to thc Unitcd Kingdom (Geiierril Asserrit>ly document
A/qgo of Seliternbcr z~tli, 1941) i)rtttrichcd as Annes II to the
prescnt Statement I. For the moment, it is sufficicnt to say,
gerierally ,lliiitthc threc Go~.eri~rneiiis.and also the Goverrirrient
of the Soviet Urtiori, while diriiutirig the charges, refuçed to co-
ciperatc in thc alip1ic;itiuriof those articles of ttie I'eacc Trcatics
tvhich provided frirtlie set tlement of dispiites, denyirig that there
was, in fact, aily dispute, and also reiteratirig tliat the inrttter
{vas one of purely dorrieçiiccuncern, aridcorilcl jint therefore be
tlic su bject ofintcri-iatioi~alsettlemen t.
6. Tfic Govcrnmcritç of the Uriiied k'irigdorn and L-ilited States
accordiriglÿ inftirmed the Secrctary-Gencral of the United Natioris
of the abortive rcsult of thzir clforts to sct inniotion the procedure
cuntc~riplated I>p the Peace Trcaties, and this information \vas
{Ziily commni~icated fo the General Assembly iri the course of
its recen t {Fourth) Session. Tn corisetliience, and Iiaving regard
to the position maintaincd by the Governmen ts of Rulgziria,
Hurrgary and Rournania, and 11s UICGovcrnmciit of the Soviet
Lïniori, that 1hct.e \vas no clispure, and that the provisioris of tlic
Peace 'Tr~atics for the settlernent of disputes were nritapplicable,
the Assembly decided bi* its Resolution dn~ed October zznd,
1949 (the fiill tewt of irxilicli igiven in rlnnex III he~etri), tt>
rcqtrest an advisory opiniori [rom the Court uti the followiilg
questioris :
1 This document did not inciiidtIieHuiigarialnote of Octoher 27tli.1949.
ahich k0as not receivcuntil latcr, and whicivx thconly reply made by any
ofthe three Governmcnts to the United Iiingdnm notes ofScptcmber 19th (stc
paragraph 19 bclow). ThiHungariirinnts isaccordingtyathclted aXnncx II 21. I
WRITTE3 STXTEMENT OF THE UKITED KIXGDO31
172
"1. Uo ille diplornatic cxcic~iarigcsetiveen Hulgaria, IIurigary
and Romania un the one hand znd certain :Illied and Associated
Pomers sigmatories to theTrcatiés of Peaçe on the uthcr, coiiccming
the implernentativn of Article 2 of the Treaties witlr Bulgztria iiiid
Rungwy and Article 3 of the Sreatÿ with Romania, disclose
dispute subject to the provkions for the settlemcnl of. disputes
contained in Article 36 of the 'I'reat 7 of Pence with I3ulgaria,
IZrticle40 of the Treaty ofPcace !vi?i IIutigary, and ~"itkic 38
of the Treaty of Peaçe \vit11Romnia?
In the evcnt of an afirniativc! reply to question I :
II. Arc the Governments ofBulgaria, llurigary and Romania
obligated to carry out trie provisions of the artid= referred to in
question 1, incliidiilg the provisions for the appiritmenf of their
representatives to the Treaty Commissions ?
In'the event of üriaffirmative repl y to qiieçtionIl and if, within
thirty days from the date when the Court dclivcrs its opiriion,the
Covernrrients concerncd have ntit notitied the IccreiaryGe~ieral
that thcy ha\:e appoin ted their repreçentatives to the -Treaty
Com~riissioris and tlicSccrttüry-Ceneral lias so advkcd tiic 11itcr-
national Court of Justice :
III. If one party fails to appoint a rcpresentati toea Treaty
Commission untler the Treatics of Pcace iviLhDulgaria, Hungary
arid Kornania whcre ihaf party isobligated to appoint a represent-
ative to tl-ieTreaty Commission. ic.the Sccretary-GeneraI nf the
United Nations airthorized tu appoitit 1111 i:ird memb~r of the
Corrirnissioriupon the rcqucst of the other prrrty tu a dispute
accofding to tIie ~irnvisionsof the respective Trciities ?
Iti the evcnt of aiz afirrnati\-creplg to qucslion TTT :
IV. Would a Trcaty Corrirriissioricornpo~ed of a reprcscritativc
of one party aiid a tfiirii memher appointen by the Secretary-
GenemI of the United 'iatioi~s conçtitiite a Cornmission, within
the mcanirig of tlicrclcvant Trcaly articles, crinipetcnt io ~nakc
iidefinife and biridirlg tlecision in settlernciit ofa dispute 7''
7. It will be observeti t1i:it these questions are directed soiely
to csiablisliing whether the three Governmeiits co~icer~ierl :ire
undcr an obIigation to takc tlic Iiecessary steps to enablc the
provisio~is of lhe Peacc Trcaties coriceriiirig the setrleinerit of
disputes to fui~ciiuii, and what uriilateral rrte:fiirresif an:', the
other parties to the Trraties can take to tliirelid isuch CO-operation
is riot Irirthçcirning.Tlie qneçt.ions put to the Cotrrt :il-tirililirre-
fore, in ariy way conccrried uritli fit:rnerits or clcrncrits of tlie
subçtaritivc a1Ir.g;ttions na de agairrst trie three Govcrrirrrcntsof
violatioris of the Peace Trcaty pruviçio~is coricerning Human
Rights'. Cunsequently, in the present writtcn Staternent, no
1 Tri thiscolinexiun,itsfioutd be noiedthlitthc seconrl oftIie ques~ions put
to theConrt hx, by a drafting oversightbecn frarned turvidcly. Ttasksrvliell~cr
the Govcrnrnsnts nT Uulgaria, Hitngary and Roumania arc undsr an obligatinn
to çarry out "the provisiiiocof the articles referreto in question1". Itso
happens that in qi~estion 1rcfcrcncismade not only to thearticles nthe Pexce I5'KITTEX SI'AI'EYEKT OF THE UKITEn KIKGDOM
'73
teference wiU be made to thcsc aIIeged violations escept in so
iar as mag be necesdry for pürpmes of clarif~cation.
S. The first question addrcsscd to the Court is whether the
diploniat ic eschanges which have taken pIace conccrning the
in~plementation of the Huma11 Kights articles of the Peace 'Treaties
disdose disputes (Le. inter~iattorialdisputes) ivhich are subjcct to
the provisions of the Pe;ice 'l'reatiesfor the settlcinent of disputcs.
TIiis qucstion tias therefore two elernertts, narnely, is there an
internatiorial diqiutc, and, if there is orie, is it a dispiiteto which
the provisions of the Peace Treaiics providing for tIie settlement
of disputes apply ?
g. The three Governrnents, aiid the Governrncntof the Soviet
Union, deny that there is any dispute, on çrounds rvhich, in so
far as they are dir;c,L)sedin the diplornatic eschange of curie-
spondcilcc, are irradmiçsiblcand,iridced, atmost frivalous. In the
opinion of lie Tjnited liingdorrr Government, it is manifest on
the face of the correspondencc and of the discussions tvbich have
taken place in the GeneraI Açsembly, that a dispute csists. lndeed,
the very fact that rineliarty derlies that there is a dispute, whilc
tiie othcr aserts there is, shoivs tht: existexice of a differerice of
opinion-and I~erice of a dispute-= to the rneaning nrid cffect
of the '1're;~ty.\VhiIc it m;ty be clifficult to give a precise 1egiI
definition of a dispute, the existenceof whidi is rcally more a
question of fact than of law, thc Governntent of the Uiiited Kingdom
consiclers that for present purposes a dispiite triay be said to arise
~vhenevcr one govttrnmerit charges anothcr governrnent with
violation of :itreaty or ge~eral ruIe r>finternational law, and the
other goverrirneritcithcr deriies the charge, or the facts or tIie
correctness ofthe lcg-al ruIe or trcaty iriterpretation on tvhich it
isbased ; or clse, while not in terms deriyirig the charge, persists
in the course complainedof, or fajlç to take ariy remcdiatmeasures.
Iri tlic ~xesent case XIItIieçe elements seem to be prewnt. The
Government of the Iiriited Kingdom h;tç alleged speçific vioIations
of the Hirrnari Rights articles of tlic Pcacc Treaties by which the
coiiritries coxicerned are boiind, and thc observa~icc of which the
Governrnent of the United Ringdom is entitled under the Pcace
Trcaties to reqiiire. It \vil1he seen tIiat in Lheopening part of tfie
dipIornat ic excIinrigcs (sec, for irisance, the Hirrigariariilote of
l'rc;iticolicerriitIisettlzmentof dkpuies.hiit aisoiriçidcntaItri the Pace
Trcaty articles concerningunan Right~, tboiigsnltlj* by ~my<ifdcscripion
of tkisubjcçt anwhich thcdiptulnatir:cscha~igcs had taken plaIn theupininn
of tIie Unitcdl<ingd<irCuverli~ticnttlic substariof qucstion IIis intendml
to rrlatc onlto thc scttlçrrictit of disputcs articlethcCourt isiiotcallcd
upon tu go irittliqucstion cilthe slicgad vio!ations hu~riali rjghis.= 74 IVRITTEX STATEhIEXT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM
April, 7th, the Roiimanian note of April ~gth, and the BuIgarian
note of hpril z~st, 1949) he three Guvernrncnts ïliscussed the
actual substance of the charges made againsti hem, either dcnying
them, or justifyirig the measures or actions conceriled, and makiiig
cotrntercharges '.Ii \vas oriIy at a Iatcr stage tha t it occiirred to
these Governrnents to dcny that there was any dispute at al1 (see
for instance the Bulgarian note of JuIy 27th, xnd the Hungarian
note of rlugust 26th). They therefore tacitly admitted ihai a
dispute on a substantive issue under the Peacc Trcalics haclarisen.
lii addition to denyirig the sii~ist:~ntivtcorrectness of thc charges
made against the~n. thcy aIso dcnicd the correctness of the Liilited
Kingdom's interprctation of thc Pcacc Treatieç, on thc baçis of
ivhich the chargcs \brcrc made. Furthcrniore, hy their verj7invo-
catinri ofthe except ioil ofdomestic jurisdiction as being applic:ible
iri t1icprcscnt case, when the Goverriment of ttie United Kingdom
denies that it hns an? application in vicw nf the cxistcncc of a
specific provision iri xri iritern:itirinal agreement, these Govcrti-
nlents have admit ted, firive indeed tIiernscIvcscrcatecl a dispute.
They have furthcr (aithough this point is not at the moment
actiially in issue) faiIed to discontinue the actions cornphineci of,
or to take any çteps of a remedial character 2. .
10. For aII thcsc rcasoris, ii seernv clear to the Government of
the United Kingdom that a dispute rnust exist, and, so far as
the Goverriment of the Unitcd Kingciorri isconcerned, a dispute
undoubtedly does exist. It is obvious that if it were operi to
parties to a .treaty, in reply to alleged uioIatioris of the treaty,
to causc a disputé riot tciexist 11ythe simple process of denying
its existeiice, means rsouldriever he ivanting to dcfeat the iiltcrition
of the trfiaty ; and it i~ouId bc iisclcss to include in treatieç
1 The Hungarian Govcrnmcnt again tonk iipthe subssta~içeof the rnatterin
tlieinote of Cktobm 17th,1949 (SCIAnnex 11.4)io rvhiçhtiiey oncemore denid
or_;ougI~ tOjt~stifytheacf5of ivhichthey mcre accuseù.and made çountercharges.
2 Some assistarice as to the circutnstauccsin which a dispule canbe said to
cxist is tnhe dcrived Irorn prurioul~çc~riçritstlic Permanent Court of Interna-
tinnai lusticc.111tlie:llauvu~irsiiu!is (Sçricsrl.,No. 2, pp. 1.1,131,B dispute
ras sairlto ho "arlisagreen~erio~ia point ofIaw or fact,a confiict olegnl viervs
orof intercstq belir-cctso lier-sons";rnd Uie Courtreiiisedto Inydown any rule
as to the extent of the prerioiisdiplointitieïcliangcs m bc rcquircd hctaccn
liepartics-a point of mrnc importziicr:on the rlurntiu:~(if siioul<ùi: rüisccl}
oi whether tlie prcvious diplcimatic cxchangcsintrieprwut çasr: werc üdcquatc
to establish thccsistciicc oa disputc. Ithe casc;cftiiGerriiltI>;tc~es!sib'ppar
Silessi(Seria A..Ko. 6,pl),14 arid22),in discusingivliern "diflerence ol opiiiion"
could bc snid to have tecri rst;iblistizd, tiie Court hstliat"eveii if....the
existerice oildetinjteclisput\vert: necessartthis conditioncould atany time lie
fiilfilled nieans uf unilütcral actiron the part of the applica~it part?".anda
difierence of opiriiura saidtoçxist 'kas sooas one ol the Guverumcrits ço~iccrned
points niit thatthcattitudc actoptctlby thc nthcr conflictsivitli its owviews".
In the Chorrdw Füclory case (Scrits 11.So. 13. p.IO), the Coitrtsaid thal"thc
~nariifestato ifothe existenceOC a dispute i~i aspeciirl mnnner,as for instance
by dipluniatic iicgotiatioriis nnt rcqi~ird'. \YKITFES ÇTATE5IEST OF THE CXIîED KlSGJ?O~l
Ir3
provisioris for thc scttleinent of disputes, forirititcse circumstances
such provisions could never have ariy hinding character. sirice
they coilld crniybc operateù with the corisent of thc vcry prty
agaiilst whom the charges tif vioIatiririwere made. IIIfact, tlic
mere procrss of denyirig that a disputc cxiats is itself constitutive
of oric, if the othcr partv alleges tliat there is ;i rlispiltt: arising
tiiit of charges of treaty \riul:~tioris,tvhich ;ire eithcr dcnierl,
persisted in. ni-lcft unremedied. 1 t iç cmly iiy bcgging thc quesiion
at issue that the coriclrrsion cail be arrived at that nci rlisptrte
ex-ists. It is, rni>reox7cr p,recisely 1)~;these rnt3a.ristliat the threr.
Guverrirnentscririctcrncdrcach this lrbsition. This iswcll exempli-
fier1irithe Huiigririan note to the Uriited Kingtlorri of August zTitIi,
rq49, which ccintainç thc foIIowiitg passage refcrring to the setting
np of a C,omrnission(as is recluirbd by the Peacc Trenties for the
firial settlement of disyiiteç) :
"Further .... parrigraph (SC. article)40 stipiilates tlialLlieCorn-
mission he dclcgated (SC. appointeil) orily in case of a '(Iispute'
coricerrii~ithe iritcrprctation2nd carrying out of the E'caceTrcüLy.
There can Iieno qiiestion Iiowevcr about stich a 'dispute' becaiwe -
as it can clearly hc sccn in tlie eriurnerated notesof trie Hirng:irian
hlinistry of E'oreigri Affairs-the Hungwiiirt Guvcrrimcnr has
cxactlp fiilfiIIeditsohIigatiorisassurned in tlie Pcace 'l'renty."
Shc above argument :iriioiiriis to tliis. that becau~e the KUII-
garian Governrncnt, in reply to charges of violating tlie Pe:ccr.
'L'resty, deriies that it Iras vioIated thc Treaty arid says that it
!
has, irii;ict, cxüctly mrnplilicdwith il., therefore t tierris no diqiutc
as to tvliethcr it lias violated the I'reaty or not. The palpable
absurdity of this argument i~ niariifest, secirig that the ver>:
questjrin ;it i~iic is scrtiethcr the TI-~aty is being cürricd ont or
not, ;ind that if ciliviously cannot t>e disposcd of by the simple
~~u(:F..sof dcnyirig the charge. TIie moinent th:tt the Hungarian
Government aritf thc other Gover~irrients coriccrncd ,in relily to
chargcs of 'I'reatyviolatirm, statc that iri fact they we corriylyirig
with the Treitty, a dispute ileccssarily arises, bec;iiisf:the respective
parties ;ire taking iip opposcd attitudes on ciritarid thc same
issrie.TIiat whicli causes a dispute Lu corne itito e~istericc csilnot
sirnultaneously causc it to go out of esistcricc ; gret this is rn:h;it
tIie Hungariail Government is suggestirig. Ey çaying ttiai they
are fulfilling thc 'I'reaty ivIien the Co\:crnment of tlie Grritcd
Kingdom say-3they :ire riot, tl-icy are thcrnse11:es t:itlicr admi tting
the existcncc of ;L dispute or i>ririgii~yone i~ito ~xistence. lt is
nut GosibIe, thereftirc, tl-iat this dispute dionIcl fail to have ariy
existerice bccatise thc Hurigariai-tGoveri-iineiil sa!: thep art: com-
plyirig with t'ticTrcaty. The lrrocws is.agaiti, one which (if it
\vere valid) w\..oukfriecessarily ~riak{?rioilseilse of ail ~irovisions
in trcaties for the settlemeiit of dispiitcç. These provisioris are
includcd on purpose to &:FI ivith cases ir~tirhich ciriparty says
th:it thc othcr Iiiirty isrlot carrying out the trtlaty, but the other IYRITTEN STATEIIEST OF THE IINITED KIX(;I>OJI '77
Go\-erilil-iet,this reasoning is exactly applicable to the present
case. 1t m:iy he adrnitted that, normaIIy, the dealii~gs of :igovern-
ment with its own nationals in itsown tcrritory, and the tria1
of its own nationals in its owri courts for offences-c---rnittcd
locally, are matters esseriiin orl olely ofdomestic concern and
jiirisdiction. The Hrimart Rights provisions of the Peacc Trcatics
were, howevcr, cluite obviousiy ancl ori the facc of them, inserted
for the express purpose of creatiiig ccrtain esccptions to this
positioii inthe casc of these caunt.ries. They were espressly xwrded
so as to çouer nationals of the countries coilcc-rned and the dcalings
of thest:Governments wit,h their own ria iorials. Shesc prorisioris
crcatc iprler~~nlioacrtli1)Iigatioris iri regard to m:ittc.rsitvhicfiwould
or rriight othi:rivise hof purels domestic criricerrtarid jiirisdiction.
Thcy -have the cîlcct (and must lia\-e it, si~iccothccrsise they
could have no effect at a111of giving the otiier parties to tlie
Treaty internatiotia1 Iegal rights in regard to the nxitters ixi
question, for the purpose of secrrririg the observance of tliesc
art-ides hy the Governmerits concernecl in their dealings with
their oxvri nationals in itieirowri territory. To Say that these
matiers do not corne iitiderthe Peace Trtiaties 1iec:irrsc they are
of pureIy domestic coIiccrri would make Iionserise of provisions
which, manifestly and on the facc of tItcm, ~nust have beeii
inserted for no othcr purpose than to cause the maiters conccrncd
to cease to be of purely doniestic juridiction. The Hungarian,
Bulgarian and Koumanian argiiment, and that clf thc Soviet
tiriiori, thercfore begs the riiiestion from the start. To say that
bccauac thc mntters are of pureIy ~li>mes&ic coricerrr, therefore
thcy do not corrict11irIerthe Treaties, is to assume that theyare
in fact of purclydomestic concern, but that is thc very question
at issue. Thc assu~nption is negatived by the manifcst Ianguagc
of the 'l'reatics. The fact that thcsc rnattcrs art: the siibject of
cxpressprovisioi~s in the Peace Treat ies alcine siifliccs to take
them out of-the c:ltegrirytifrriattcrsof ~itrrelv doniesticcoi-icerri.
The qucstjoir becornes one of thc corn~i:itibility nf thc localI;~\ir,
and of the rncasurcs locaIIy taken, witli the relevant ~irrivisions
of the 'I'reatics.
12. 011 the basis of the ahove argument, it issrrbmitted that
the first elenient in the first question put to the Giiirt rnust be
answred inrlie affirmative, narnely, that the diplomiitic exchanges
dci<lisclosethe existence of a dispirte, and rinerifan iriterilationa1
charactcr. The seconcl elcrriciit is wiietlicr that dispute is snbjcct
to the provisioris for the settlemerit of disputes containcd in
Article 36 of ihe Trcaty of Yeace with BiiIgnria, Article 40 of the
Treaty with Hungary, and Article gS of the 'l'reatywith Koiirnania.176 IVRT'ITEKFr:iTEfiIEK'l' OF TIIE UKlfEU KINGDO31
AI1 ttiew ;irt,icieare çimilar in their form and strbatancc, and they
rcad as irillci\v:
"1. Hxccpt rviicre arioiiicrprocedure is specifically provided
under any article of the present Trcatp, aiiy dispiite cnnccfrr n"
the interpretatioiior crecutioii oi the Treaij*, wtiicli: riot sctllc8
by direct diplornatic ricgotiatiurisshail be referred to tlie'l'hrce
Hencls of ,i.Iissicinacting uncler.Article 3except that in this case
the Headsof 311ssioiiwiIlnot bc 1-cstr-icit>y tlitirrie-lirrtruvided
iritfiat Article. Any such dispute not resolved by them rr-ithiii a
period of two nioiiths shall, nnl~ss the parties to the dispiite
mirtiielly agree ulm>oariiiothcr riicolscLtlcrrieri, irefcrrcd at tlie
rcquest of eiti~erparty to rhe dispute to a Camrni~sion composed
of one reprmeiitntivr. of each Party and a ttiird rriernbcrselecicd
by rriutual agrcernent of tlie two parties frorn the riationaIs of a
tIiird couritry. ÇIiouId tlie twparties fail toagree witbin a period
of one month npon the appintmcnt of the third rrterribcr,the
Secrctary-Gcncral of Llic United Nations may he requested hy
eitkierparty to malre the ;1~i~intiilerit.
2. Thedecisioi~of tliemajority of the rnernbersof tlie Conirni~sion
shall tK:the cteckion of the Commi~sion, and sliall be acceptecl hy
the parties as defiitive ancl binding."
It wil bc: seerifrorn the vpening phraxs of this provision that
any dispute ipso jaçlo I;tllsiiilcierjt provided (a) that iis a dispute
"conccrning the iiiterprztatioti or execut ion of the 'I'reaty", and
(b) that it is not a dispute ihc çctllcrrierird w1iit:Iis s~ir.r:ifically
m:~de suhject to a different procedure under any otlicr article of
the Treaty. TIie present dispute, which relates to charges of violat-
irig Ilie Hi1rn:triRights provisions of the Trealieç, as quotcd i~i
paragraph I of the present rvritten Statement, is i~ecessariiy a
disputc "coiiccrnirig Ikc iriterlirr.t:iîicinexemticin" of the Trerity.
The Government of thc Iii~ited Kingdom is nlleging a series of
actioils in violation of thcsc provisioiis, ori the pirt of tlie Lliree
Grivernments concerncd. If thc tIiree I;overiirrierit.s are, i~if;ict,
cornrnitting thesc actions, or havc co~nxriittctltbcrri, thcri tiicy
arc riut, iri the United liingdom vie~r;,executing the Treaty, or
have brokcii it, becaiise they are nut respecthg 01- have already
failed to rcspcct the Iiiimaririgits ~~mvidedfur. To use the language
of these provisions, far £rani takirig "al1 measttres necesary ta
secilrr, to a11 pei-sons uildcr their jurisdiclio~i Lhe erijoyrrieiitof
hui~iari rights arid of itir Eundaniei~tal freedorns", the Govern-
rnents conceri~edare, iri factdenying these rights to the persons
~vhoshould rcceivtl tliem. Tri so Far asthe three Goverriments do
riritadmit that they have committrd or :ire coii-imitting these
actio~isor, aIternative sIyythat tlicy Iiave exccuted or arc duls-
executing Ilie clauses çoncerned, then there is necessarily a dispute
as to whettier the Treaty has been in this rcspcct or is bcing
executcd. TIiere is iri fact a displite concerning the executiori of
the Treaty. \vKITTE.V SrATEMEXT OF 'l'HE UYITED KINGDOM I79
13. There i~ also a dispute coricerning the interpretation tifIlic
Treaty. 'This would rii:ccçsarily ari~c from the fiict alorle that thc
three Goverrimentc; have pleaded tl-ic principlt! ni dorncstic juris-
diction as taking the rrlaticr out ofthe scope uF the Treaty, whereas
the Govcrnment of the Cnitetl Kingdom argues the converse,
t Iiaton its ccirrcct iriterpretaion the Treath~ is clearly applicable,
ziridtakes the matters cririccriied oiit of the sphere of domestic
jurisdiction. Tt 1lvi11be seeri dso that the argumerit of the thrcc
Govcrnrnents to the effect that the Hurnan Rights provisioiis are
being filITrIIediç bascd oii a different cortception of the meaning
of those provisioris froin thnt Iicldby the Initcd Kingdorri Goverri-
nierik. The threc Governmertts (sce for instaiice the TIungürian
anci Rournatiiati notes of hpril 7th nrid rqth, the 13ulg~rian riotcs
af July 27th and Septttnibcr ~st, and the Ko~lrnariiari riotc of
September 2nd) consider that thcse provisioriç niust bc rcad
subject to another yrtivisionof the Ycace'l'reaties, ~iarncly,ArticIe 4
of the Tre:iiies witli IIungary and Bulgari;~, and :lrticle 5 of
the Sreaty with Rriiirriania. l'hese have a accirrirriotext reading
as follci :~vs
"H ungary~I3ulgari 1n~inou1,which in accordance with the
Armistice Agreernerit Iiritakcn nteasurcs for dissolviiigalorgariiz-
ations of a Faxkt type on Iiourri~nzniaterritory whether politicaI,
inilitary orpara-military ,as well asoili~r organizatio coriducting
propaganda Iiostile to the Soviet Uniuri or to any of the ot1i~r
oforganizationss,oftrialnorlatui-wkich have as tlicireaim dcriiai to
tfie people of ihcir democmtic rights."
It \\:il1bc scen froin the corresporic-lericcthat the thrcc Govcrri-
ments rtrgut:, either tiiat the? are orily oiiligcd to carrjTout the
HurnrtriRights ;irticlcs itirespect nf ilciri-Fascistpersoils arid cirgari-
-izatiuns, nr alterriatively, thsltthey iwre jiistifiedin ttieactioris
ivhich :ire the siibject of the c1i;irges rici\\made agairist them,
l~ccausc tliesc actions iwre for the liurpose of c;trrying out tl-ic
pi-ovision qtroted imrnerliately above, Le., for tlic purposc of car-
rying uiit lheir freaty obligatiun not to perrnit the exktence c~r
activitieçciforginiziit ions ofa i;at;<:isttypecirothcr sirnilar orsitri-
izaticins liavii-ig as thcir aini rleriial totIiepeople of tlieir derno-
criitic rights. Tlicrc is here irivolvcd ilclear differericr, of o~iiriion
\)ct\vcei~the respective parties as to the rncaiiing. effect aiid inter-
1-tlatioii of thesc difiererit provisioris, as weli :isof sucIi specific
ter ms as " Fascist" and "rlcnial of democratic rights" . Rlanifeatjy,
thercfore, thcre is a dispute about the iilterpretatiori as well as
about the executitiri (if the Tl'rratic~.
~4. IL ia cqunllj. ciear thai. thk disliirte is riot orle fur which
some othcr melliod of settlemerit isjirovidcd by ariothtir article
of the Trcaties. In each of tlic three Treaties anotl~cr mde of
scttlernent is provided iricoi~nexioriwitb certain of the econornicclaiises {sec Articlc 31 tifttie Treaty with Dulgaria, Article 35 of
the 'rrtf:itywith IIungary, and Article 32 of the Srcaty with
Roiirria~ii;i: but tllcsc asticles sptxif~callÿ enurnerate thc clailses
to whicii they apply. Thlis, Article 31 of the Rtilgarian Trcaty
says : ":2ny disputes which rnay arisc in cotirieicion with Arti-
clcs 22 and 23 and Aririests IV, 5: ancl VI of tiir:I>resent Treat y,
sliail bc rt:ferred to a Coilciliatiori Commissiori. coi~-ijicised",etc.,
arid it is the sarrirstzt-tnfismiifandis in the othcr Trcaties. The
Roiiniürii:in Trcaty in ndclition contairis:Lsliecialarticle (Article33)
providiiig for thc sclflerrierit rifdispiiles "\+-hichmay ririsc in ctxi-
ncxiori with the priccs patd t>y itie Roiirriariian Goverritncrit fur
goods delivered by this Govcrrirric~ i ori accourit of rtipanition..." .
These are the cirrlyothcr Articlcs of the IJeacc Treaties cr>ric:erned
xvliicli provide a rrict!iod for the setilerneni. of disputes di fferent
ironl tli:it coritcrripl:tittd liy the gene~disputes provisiuris cjiioted
iri paragraph 12 above. Tt is clear tli:it the present dispute doeç
not fa11under any of-thtsc i,ther Ar~icles.It arises in regard to
proviriuris (Articles 2-5 of ihe Treaties) whiçh are not an-iongst
thnsc listed or contcmplat cd b y !.liese oiher Articles, pros-isions
ivhich figure iiithat part of the respective Tre:ities headed "Polit-
ical CIauses" , whereas the uthcr Art iclcsfor itiesettlement tif
disputes relate whnlly to pr-ovisiorisfiguriilg i~i Iliaf ~mrt of die
Treaties heaifed "Reparat ioil and Restitution" or "Ecoriumic
Clanses". Iridcerl, thesrother Articles for the settlcincn tof disputes
arc themseives part of the economic claiises and are clearly applic-
ahle only to the provif-ioris cifthat riature enurneratcd in tlicrn.
15. For :il! these reasoris, iis~iibiriitted tha~ rhe ser:oridelttmerit
of the first qiwstion must also bc ansivercd iii the ;iffirrnati\-.c,
i.e.,rhat tlic rIis~irrt(3iscloscd by the clipIomatic excliarige is one
wliich issubject tri Lhe general provision for the settlerrient of
disputes rluotcd iiiparagapli 12 ahove.
IG. The rwxt quesiiori put to the Coiirt, i.e., that iiumbered Il,
iç ~vhether the Govcrnmeiits ril Biilgaria, Hiirigary arid Kournania
ai-clcgally bound to carr?; oiitttiepru.c:isicirof the general disputes
Article of the l'reatics, "iticliiclirig tlic provisiriri for the appoint-
ment of tiieir repreacritativcs to ihe Trcaly cor ri mis sir in^".he
Enited Kirigdom Government submits that oncc ii is est;itiIished
thxt a dispulc fzillirig under tlie Article cowcrncd cxists, there
cari he rio doubt that the Governmcnts of Hulgaria, Hungary arid
1iaumririi;i arc Icgally 1)oiind to carry oui. the provisions of that
Articlc. It waç inscrted in the l'eace Treaties for the express
purpoçe of enabling disputes of the preserit kind ta be settlcd.
It hs no rither purpoçe, and if tIie Govcrrirrieriis ciincerned are,182 LVKI1'TEX STATEMEXT OF TIIE UNITED KIXCDOhI
'Kiiigdom rieiv, a (lispute had arisen wIiich was Iwirig referred
to ttie Heads uf Mi~iori.) Tlie Enited States Heyrcçentativc in
each case eqiressttd willingness to iittenclthe rnectiilg. The Soviet
Re~xfiei~taiive did not reply, biit ;i reyily\vas wnt through the
Soviet Er-ribasç!~i~i London by the riote dated June 12~11, r949.
This riote rejectcd the idea of corisideratit)ri by the 1-Ica& of
Mission, ;idvai-icing argnn-ients airnilar to tkose put fonvard on
beliall nf the tliree ex-crierriy Governmet-its, i~amcly in effec.t,
that there \vas ~tiithirigtii clir;ci~sliecouse it \vas obr?iouc;thrtt
thc thrcc Govcrrirrients tr:erecarryirig oiittlieirTreaty obli~n~icnis
arid that, in any case, the rnattcr fclI corn~ilutttly within the
domestic jurisdictioi-iof those Gorernments. The TTn ied Kingdoln
repIy to this comrniiriication , coiltesting tl-icsc argurnerits, is
çontained in the ilote d:ited 30th June, 1949. Of the thrcc ex-
enerny Governments, ori1y the Uulgarian Govcrnmcnt replied to
the United 1;ingdorri riok rd 3rst May. In this rcpI.;, dated
27th Jrrly, f-liey asaiil jiis~ified t.lieactions: dcnied thar there
was any dispilie. or aily grounrl for irtvoking the disputes Artides.
18.Accordingly, by 30th July, 1949 (i.e..twci rnoriths aiter
the date of thc riolcs referritig theniattcr to the Heads of hlissio~~),
;i situation had ariwn which \vas precircly thal co~ilemplated by
the secorid sentence of the general disputes Article quoted in
~)xragntpI~ rz ahove, i.e., tIiedispute had not bccn rcsolved by
the Tlirtie He;ids of Rlisçiuri within the prercribcd ticricd of t~vo
nionths. The dispute had not becri resoIvecl hy thrni for tl-ic
siniple reasonthat il Ii;ld riever been considcrcd by tliern jointly,
becat~sethe Soviet Rtlliresertt;itivrefuwd to do so. The Govern-
rncril oi ilieUnited Kingdom does nut read the rclcvant ~ircivision
as relating çolely t<icases in whicii tlie He:ids of 31issio havie
made çome attcrnpt iciremlve the dispute, but tiave faiIcd to do
sci witliiril.heyeriod specifred. The provision iri qucsticin relates
rn n simple situstiari of f:ict; it çays: "Ariy such dispute not
rcsolviliclIi?;them within a ~ieriod of two rnontl-i...."The onlp
qucstioi~ is tiierefore-\vas tlit:rlispute in fact redvcd by the
Hcads of 3lissici1i ? lf not, then it is irrelevant why, arirl it do~s
iiot matter \vhethcr, it was bccausc tIiey were unahle to do so,
or hecausc, owirig to the refusa1 of one ofthen-i to participle,
the? werc riever able jointly to consider tlie niatter at al!. TIte
saine rcasoriing applies to the phraçz in the preceding seritence
to the efiect rhat a dispute iiot scttlcd hy dirrrct diplornatic
i~cgoti:ttions"shall ht: reierred to the Headç of 3lissiori", and to
an): coriterttiun that the dispute was ncvcr in fact "referred"
to them. The Cniterl Kirigdorn G<iverriment considerç that this
referencc \vas defiriitivelÿ effccted by meanç of the nute wliich
ilieirRepresentat ive in each of thc thrce capif als concerned
addressed fur the prir1)riseto his Lnited States and Soviet col-
lcagues. It is irnmaterial that the Three Hcads of hlisaion didnot, as a kody, co~isider the dispute, or go iintoit.1t was certainly
rcfcrrcd to ttiem. They did not consider it becausc one of them
refused ici rlrso. It according ieycame a dispute iiot rcsolr~ed
hv therri within thc syiecified ~icriod.
10.This situation Iiavirig hccil reüched, the relevant provisions
of the disputes :lrticlc arc quitc clear. Tiicy siy that, iri theçe
events, the dispute "sliall, uiiless the parties to the dispute
rniitiiallyagree rrlion another niearis of settlement, be referred
al the reyzcesfof eiiker party .tu/?sedza+7c~etri a Commission coni-
posed of....". Thc parties did ~iot, in frict, rnutualy rigree uporl
aliy o~Iicr mcans of settlerrient. Itis a~ai~isi~nply a question of
the existence of a iact, i.c., non-agreement on ariy oflier rrieans
of settlement. Ttie reasons for wrch non-agreement do riot affccl
the fact ,rid it is inilnaterial that the? sprarig,on the oneside,
from a clenial therewas any dispute to be settled'. AccordirigIy,
the matter becarne automaticaiiy referablc tu the çonternplated
Cornrnissiori on the aolc rcqucst of ihe Governmeril of Iiic United
Kingdorn as the other party concerncd. 'l'Lisrequesl the Goverri-
rnerit of the Uriitéd Kingdorn duIy and in terrns mndc in the
riotcs to the ,three Governmerits each dated 1st August, 1'949.
These Governmcrirs al1 repIied (notes of 26th :lugust and 1st
arid znd Seyitcmber) reiterciting their previciirs arguments arid
spccificaIIy rcfusing to participate in the sctting-up of any Com-
mission. To tliis the Gcivern~ncritof the United Kingdom replied
by ideritical notcs diited 19th Septeniher, 1949, ~tating that it
was uriabtc ta accept ttie reasons advarrced hy the three Govern-
ments for refusing to comply witli thc Srcaty provisions and
procedure, and reserving a11its rights. Subsequent ly, the Govern-
ment of the United Kingdrim appointed air. F. Elwyn Jones,
K.L., 1I.P.. asthcir Curnrnissiuneron eacti of tlie three Cornrnis>ions
coiicerried. The three Go\lcrn~ncnts were informcd of Ibis in
identical notes deIivered on jaiiuary 5t11, 1950, in which tlicy
werc al50 forrn:illy requeçted to appoint their o~n Cornmissioners
and to conmlt with the United Kingdom Govcrnmerit as tcithe
appointmeril nf the third Comrriissioner. Tlie iest of tlieseriotes
is given in ,41111eieu he~eto. No reply to thern hu lxen received.
It wiII thus be seen tliat the Govcrri~ncnt ofthe U~iited Kingdorn
has taken a11 the stcps open to it under the Trcatics.
20. 11s regards the obligation of the parties to appoint their
Cornrnissioiler (when this stage has beenreachcd), the Trcaty
posiiioii is that thc Coinmission contemplated by the relevant
ArticIe is to be cornposeci rif "one representative of each party
1 The more particular lycourse iftheCourt holds,inanswer to qucstion 1
(tirit ionly urrtllax~surnptiothatqucstion Iariseai.ail), that exi..tence
ofa disputeisestabIished.184 It'IilTTES STXTESIEST OF TIIE USITEU KISCUO3I
and a third rncrnber selectcd bp mutual agrcernent of the tivo
parties from nationals of a third country". It is çiibrnittcd thal
a provision to the effect that, upon the requcst of one of the parties,
a dispute isto be referred to a Commission composed in this way,
mu~t autoinatically en tail an obligation on cach of thc parties
to appoint or be read y to appoint its represcnfative on thc Co~ri-
mission : othenvisc lie ~irovision iriquestion has nci force or
me:ining. It would bc idIc to provide that :tdispute sh;ill,üt the
reqnest of either partjv,Iir:rt:fttrrecl aoCurnmisio~i of this char-
actcr if tiiere ivereno obligatioii ul>oil tfic lirirrtoeappoint tlieir
Co~nrriissioners,for iii tliatcrise fhere could not corric irito heing
any Lorntliisaiori to which to rcfer the disputc. Ari inhcrcnt and
alisolute contradictiun would be involved betwcen an ohligatioii
to refer a rnatter tci a Cnmniission composed of C~rnrnissioners
app~ir~ted tiy each Party and a third rieiitral Conimissioner, and
the absence of aily cibligatiorion the parties to a~ipoirit their
Cornmissioners. It is suhmit ted therefore that, frorn the: niomen t
at which thtire arises irnder this Article a right for oneparty to
have the rnatter referred to a Commissiori, there simiiltaneouslv
ariscs, as a necessary complernent, ari riki1iga:atoin the other
party to CO-uperatcrn thc settirig-up of the Conirnissiciri,and,
ivhcn callcd upon, to appoint itsreprescntative or1 the Cornrnission.
ZT. Whereas the first and sccorid questioris put to the Court
re1;~ttto the past, and to the obligarions of the Guvernmerits of
Brilg:iria, Hungary and Roumani:~ iinder the general clisputes
Article of the I'eace Treaties, the third and fourth c~ucs toris have
refcrcncc io the position whicti wiIIarise irifiiture ifthesc three
Governrnents persistin their prescrit courseof refiising ioCO-operate
in operatiiig the Treaty procedure (assuming tlicCourt holds that
the- are uiider a Iegal obligatioii tu do ço) ; and these questioils
raise the issue of what steps, if any,Gan he takcti hy the othcr
parties to tlit:Trcaty to put the Trcaty lir<~edure irito effect in
the absence of such CO-operatiori. These qirestions arisc frclrnthe
fact that thc Treaty makes no proviçiori for wIi:itic.to happeri
iri the evcrit of such s default. Iri this tlicscis ~i~thiilg iinusual,
silice i-i~osttreaties cniltriiniriprovisions for rirbitratiori tacitiy
assurrie tht, should ridispute ririsc, tlie ;irbjtralprocedure ïvi1l
duly bc resorted to. The Governrnent oi tIie United Kingdom is,
howercr, so far as its own standpoint goes, less coricerned than
in ihe case of the first iwo qiicsiions IO iirge any pnr.tic111arcon-
clusion as to the third and fourth questio~is, liecause it corisiclers
that the object of these latter questions is rnainly to put the
Generai hsçernbly in a position to determine its owri future prn-
cednre in this matter. If thcse qu~tions are both ariswercd inthe affrrrnative, the AsscrribIy rriay considcr that it uugtit to defer
any further action or consideration, at 1e;ist uritil the yrtEesscs
contemp1:ited hy thcse questions have bcen gone through : should,
however. tIie answer t» hoth or either be in thc i~cgative, it will
tieclear titat no further st:tel>asre ope11to the complainai-it parties
under the Peacc Treiiiitl~;ts~rrcIt.
22. 011 t11cas~~~rn~>tiortlti;if the Court advises, in linslver to
the first two questiciris, thal Ilic thrce ex-enerny Govertiments
arc uildcr an oblig;itiori to appoint reyrt.%ritat ives tcitlie Treiity
Commissians ;and if iiicy have still faiIed tci do sti wittiiii tliirty
days after the delkcry of thk opinion, the tliirtl clucstiori asks
whether f.he Sticretary-General of the L:nited Natioiis would be
compterit to appoint the third rnerniier of each Commission uyori
the recluesi of the other party to trie disprrte. The Gorernrnerit
of the Utiited Kingdoni considers that this questioil shoiild be
:insvered in tlir affirmative. The onlyelement of dnuht arises ori
a purely IiteraI ccinstruçtiun of the wcirclingof tht:geieneradl isputes
Article. TIic difficulty arises be~iiix the Article, after providing
for a Conirriiçsioncoriiprised of cine rqiresentative of each yarty,
tlieri gcior1to provide for a "third"rnemher ~vhoisto be apyoin ted
by the Secretary-Gerieral uliilrthe rcqurst of eittier Iyarty, if the
two parties are themselvcs unable mritiiaIIy to agrcc ripon this
third member. Ii mal: be argued, therefore, that tlie mention of
a third memher irnplics the previous existc~icc of thc othcr twn
mtimliers. Rrrt tlic tcrm rail equally I>eregarded as being rnerely
a convcnient way cif drst:ritiirta parlicular rnember (ifthe Corn-
rnissioil rvhoçeappointrricrit is to bc cffer:teclhy a dificrcnt procc-
dure from that ~irovided for thc appointrric'nt of the other ti~ii ,
members, i.e., as meaning neutral or additional rathcr thail "third"
in the ternpcir;il scizsc. ~ldiizittedlthe fact that the third rnemher
isto be selected in the first piact:''1'3;mutual aggreemeritof tIie
two partics fronr riatiorials of a third country" seerris ~ir.irriaril?;
to coritemplate a situaiiciriri kidlich the two parties have alreadÿ
appointed their iintioi-ial Cornmissioners. TIiiis it can bc arpcd
that the queçtiori of thc appointment of ri third Commissiorier
by means of this rnutual agreement can only arisc aftcr the trvo
~iation:iI Cornmis~ioncrç have been appointecl, and that the samc
miist therefnre apply to any appoiiitrnent- by the Çecretaq-GeneraI
of the Enited K:ttions, in the went of failure to agrce. Tis argii-
ment wvuId Iie much çtrnnger if the appohitmeilt of the third
rricrriber1iat-l tbe made in the first iriçtariceby rnlitna1 :igr~emt:rit
hctrvccn the trilo ~1:3tio1i:lornn~issiori~rs ;isir~diviil~l;ils,but the
Article docs ilot 5;iytIiiç ;it saysthe appciiritmrrit is Lo hc cficctcd
by mutual agrceriierit of thc ~u.0 parties, Le., of fhc tn'o C;o~:ern-
ments. Kotv it is obvioiis that if oiie clf thc parties 11s refcised
cven to ay point its uwii ri;itirialCornrnissirii-ier1tt:rtcari bc no
question of its agreeirig ori thc: dcsignriticiof the neiitral illember
of the Cornrniççi~~i. Inbrie£, thcrc is a situation in ivhich the18s >$'RITTES SI-ATEhIEYT OF THE UKITED KINGL)OII
party conccrricd has refused or failcd Io appoint its own national
Commissioner, and fias equallqrin ef£ect refuscd, or at any rate
faiIcd to agxe uprm, the appointment of the nciitral Loinmissioncr .
ConsequcntIy, the sitriaion contcmplated by rhe firial sentence
of the psragrayk (i.c., "s~iot11dthe t5vi.parties fail to agree within
:tlierird oforle rnonth upon tite appointment of thc thircl rrierniier")
woiild he litcrnlly that which ~~oulrltlieri exist, that is ta Say the
two partics xvould-riot in fact have agreed upon thc appointment
ofthc: third member, using the term "third rncrnber"in the sense
indicated ahove as a coriveriient form of dexriptiori of the cun-
trrnp1:ttetI neiitral merriber of the Commission.
23. It should be noticed in thc forcgoing connexio~i that
althaugh the natiiral tliirig, if the 'l'reaty madiinery were beiilg
operatetI ~rqierIy, ivould doiibt Iess be for the j~rirticstri 1)rgiri
1-i:appointirig thcir owri Corrirriissitiriers, :uid the11 to go on io
appoint the nciitral Commissioner, there is ~iolhing in tlic Article
which positivi.ly requircs that thc IiatiririiCommissioi~crs shoiild
bc dcsigiiatcrI iirst iri pQintof tirrtc. Uri tlie \vr;urdiiigof thc Articlc,
it lvould ihcoreticaIIy bc opcn to thc parties to bcgiri bs agreeing
upoil thc contcrn~ilated third member of the Coinmiçsion, and
only after such agreement to procccd to tlic designation of their
national Cuniniissiofiers : one can i~idced iniagine circurnstances
iri wkicli thcy might prefer to do this. SirriiIarly, there is riothing
iti the wording of tlic Articlt: (:incshvuld the partips fail tiicigret:
iipori the :ilqwintrnent of tlic rieutral Cornrnissicirier) cti ~ireverit
the Szcre~ary-Geiieral frorri bcirig :itonce reciucçtcd to rrinkcthe
ûppuiritmcrit, ~ind for the ~~aliorial Cornmissioricr~surily to bc
appoirited at a later stage ; and again, circumstatices are con-
ceivaiiIt! inwhicli tliisrnight be done ofset purlisse, If t.herefore
this ~mt:ess c':"uIdbe carried out even thouçh 160 riaticir::Ctimmis-
sioriers had a.:yet hem appnirited. then a jorticiviit coiiId bc c;irried.
out if ciriesiicli lornrnissioner tiati Iieen nppoiritcci but. ritittlic
other. Thcse c~nsiderations scern to silpprirt the view that the
term "third Cornrnissioner" is a piecc of description, and cloes
ricilfiave the rcsirll of mitking it a conditioil iirecedent cil bis.
appoinlrneritthat the two national Commissioners çtiould iilreaùy
have heeri d~signated.
24. tïnless the provisioi-i concerncd is rcad iiithe ahove sense,
it woiild alisays 11e al>en to ;LI>?;party to a dispute under the
Trcialy 1.0stultifu thr, Tre:it.y procedure by his ourri :ictiim. Tn
othei. rvurds, altlioirgh the relevant Article cIearIv contemplates
aIi a~il)oiritniet by the Secretav-General, upiin -the requeat tif-
either paiiy, if tl-ic parties canriot. :igrt.e iipoiia t1iird Commis-
sioi~cr\vithiri a perind of one rrionth frtim !.liedatc of thc rcqucst
for reference ta a Coinmission, it tvoiild aliv:iys bc opcn to cine
of the parties to prnlnng tlie contcinplated ~ieriod of one rnoiit1-i
iridrfinitely hy sirnply {Ielaying (cven without ahsnlutely refiising) WRITTEK STATEMEST OF THE L;SlTEI3 KIXÇDOIiI 189
27. SOT, in the Iast rcsort, is the fact that the two rernaining
merribers may not bc able fo agree, an inriillierable objection. This
mereIy rneans that it may be materially inipossible, with onIy two
Commissioiiers, to reach a final (lecision : it does not necewürily
mean that, jf tliey can agree, their dcciçion isnot in the circum-
stanccs a vaIid one. A "majority" decision might weII be regarded
as covering any decision upoii whiçh any tw~ rnernbers of the
Commission are in fact agreed, regardIess of the circurnstances in
which tlic third, or putative thirtl, rricrribcrfails to agree : wliether
L>ecaiiçelie is~ircsent but disagrccs, or becairsc hc is ~iot cvcn
prcscnt, or becausc he was (wrongfuliy) never norninated. provided
always that tlic Tre:uy procedure has otherwise bcen correctIy
folloivcd.
28. As regards the difficulty thai the Cornmisio~i ;tnd, in pnrti-
cular, the third Commissioner, ought to be irt ~irissessio~iof tlie
vie1t.srif both sidcs, the same principlc seems to apply, A Com-
mission cannot iiiany case do more than call iip~n hoth parties
to make kriown their views :tridproduce their evidencc. If thcy
fail or refuse tt~ do so, the Commission has rlot only the right,
liiitactually the drrty 10 rcndcr a decisio~i, so far as it can, on the
bais of siidt cvidencc or informatiriri as it- can ubt:tiri frorriother
' .sources. A Commission composed of t~vo rnerntiers cari, equally
as wetl as a threc-member Gimrriission, call upon both sidcs tu
submit their vitivç and evideilce, and the failure or refusal of une
siclcto do this cannrit of itsclf incayacitate the Con-irnissiorifrom
rendering a decisio~i I.
-- -
wjth rcfcrerice the jiirisdictioof tlic Perinan~nt Courof internat~onal Justicc,
tht : "Once conae~it has twri giveii,itcnnnnt bc ~vithdra~ssduririg trie Court's
wercise of the jurisdictioconsented to" (cf.Iludson ,he P~rrizuneiz# Coic01
Ilikvxniimcil Jtrsiice, ryzo-i9,~p. 4x1, citing thctisof ihc ilfiiruritiuLrppt.r
Silc~ia)(Scrics A.,No. rj, p.~j).<:ZLWShave certain lyurred iiivhich, despite
~hewlthdra~val tione uf the i.:nrnmlsFjoneor hi3 refusaor fidiire tn pnrticipatc,
the Commission has gone on functionirigand hasi giverdrcisioiis or arvards : e.g.
the Franco-Slexicnn Llnirns Cornmissiun of 1929, in the ahsence of the h-Icxicart
Comr~iissioner; thc United States-German Mixd Clntnis (:ommisiuri uf 1939.
aiter the retircmcnt of rhc Gerrnan <:ornrni~sionçr:and thc Leiia Goldfields
Arbitral 'îrihiinalaftcrthe rvit1idratvaof thc Suviçt arbitratur (scegenerally
IIudson's I>Ue~tzdionli?ï'i+brr)zrrl:,1944, pp5.1-,j4 ; Fellcrdleszcun Claims
Coianrissboss,rg35, pp. 7-76; and the Anirzrnl Liigcsof Public Inierriationui
Luw Cuses, 1929-iQj0, p. 420).
1 Siich was the view takcn by the two ramainiiig Arbitratus, Scotmd Stutzcr,
in the Lena GoIdhelds WC, after tbe ii-ithtirawof the Soviel Gnvernment aiid
Arbitrntnr. Dy a clauçc in tliearbitrntin anticle. each parly hnrl iindertakari
"To presantto tfieCourt inIIÜinnerand period ir=cardanw wiih its incihcti~~~s,
a11 thcinfor~uation nectu;s:iry iespectithc oiüttsrs iri dispiiiahich it isable
and \vIiiciti3 ina position to produce, brating in mind considerstiunsof State
importance." On this theCourt of :\rbitra~ioprcinounced as foilows (the ration
is (rom thr: ~-lnirirBig&, 1929-1931, p. A,:?) :-
"This ittfurrnaia~i. byremon of ttiç prcmises[i.e., the non-participahori
uf thc Ço\-ietGoverriment], theKnurt s;~ rio1 able toobtnin dirwt from tlie
iSoviet)Gnmrnrnent, aiid, in wdcr io ascertainthe truth upun the i~siles
20=go i\'RITTEK STATEhIENT OF THE UYITED KIXGDOM
29. The point may be clearer on the bais ofanapplication of
the principle of estoppel. If a Cornrnission compoxd of only two
rricmbers-;t nation:il member of one party and the third incmker
appointed by the Secretary-General- -nmeegives a decision,
it is the frrnction of the parfy which c:onçidersthat decisios to
be invalid to put foward the riecessary challcngc. In the present
case, the only party which ivould havc the necessary .lociis standi
tu do this woiild be the other party to the dispute. But in fact
the othcr part)? to the dispute could only makc this challenge
by plcadiilg its oivn wrongfiil zictiun in nr>tappointing its national
Ccimmissioner.
In f;rct, the hasis of its challcilgc ivould be its owri failure to
apj~fiiritits Cr>rnrnissioner. It is submitttid, however, that a pIea
of invaIidity based solely on the default of the partgr making thc
plea canriot bc gocd oreffective. In brief, the party conceritcd is
estopped or jncapacitat frod challengi~ig ille validity of the
decision, bccauçe it cannot do SV except by pIeading its own
wrong. In that case the decision would rcrnai~i u~ichaiicnged in
law and therefore biridi~ig.This argiirnent xvould have especial
force in the circumstances rlorv conternylated, i.c., that the Court
has advised that the tkree Gowrnments are under 3 Iegalobli-
gation to appoint their Commissioi~crs, but that they have still
failed or refused to closo. Ca11they then hc:heard to say (or can-
anyonc bc heai-d to s;ty cin their behalf) that beclr~tsethey have
(wrongfully) not appoin ted their Comrnissiurier, iherefore the
Coinmission is inconipe tert, or ricin-existentas such, and cannot
properly frinçtion ? Ifnot, there is riobasis on which the vaIidity
of the decision can he challeriged, and it stands.
30. The principle of estoppel has found applicalion iricertain
of the proriounccments of the Permanent Court ofInternational
Justice delivered on qiiestions bearing a close analogy to tiiose
here at issue. For instance, in the ChorxbwFactory case (Series A.,
Xo. g, p. 311, it was held that one of the parties was estopped
from pleading the Court's 1;tckof jurisdictiorion iIie groürid that
" it is... a principle gcricrally accepted in the jurisprudence of
intcriiaticinal arhitrittion,as wcll as by municipal Courts, tkai
one yarty cannot avail himself of the fact that the other has not
hefnreit.theCoiirtwas thuscornpcllcd to admit tk t cvidcnce available
of varioilfactsnriddocuments,upon which Lena [Le.tha LenaGoldfietds
rncntî orrvitneswhsiriginRussia and nut availabatythe trial. Tlic Court
finds as a facfuponthe evidcricthat this was renderenwcssary hp the
diniculty in whicthe CornpatiyIound iMf of gettingeither documentor
persona out of IZussia fLhe purp-roouf the trial."
It issuùrnittedtIiat tïipassage is of particuinterestand significanin
the presentconnexion,ic-bcrcthc circumstanccs thedificultics to evidence
açeiri thLenasecase.miiar urdcr. and sprfrom justthe same kind of critises WRI'I-I'EP;STflEhIEXT OF THE UNITED KI_VGDOhl
192
and tIins irev ve thte dispute from bciilg settled, fFim it isclear
tha ttlic Trcaty procedure for the wttlemeri t ofdisputes, ol~viousb
intendcd to be bindirlg and cornpiilsory on tl-ic Partics, can, in
fact, in thc last rcçort, only bc operaied with the consent. express
or tacit, and given nd hoc in each case, of the vcry Party against
whom the charges of breach of ti-eaty are m:de. Çtich a resuIt
would fail to givc trierelevant provisior-i its iritended me:triirig
aiid effect, or, indeed, any real rneaning or eficct at all, liecaiise
it is in any case always operi tr, pirties to a rreatg to have
7:otalafiarrecourse to arbitratioi~ iiiorder tO scttIc disputes arisirlg
ii~ider it : and unles a procisiori for arbitration or judicial sct-
tleme~it is compulsorv, there is no object in including it. Con-
sequently, oiithe Liasisni the principle zit7es mugis valerat qua?^
pereat, lht: ailrive-ineritioned result ought to be avoidcd if it is
possible lo do so by any fair and rtiasonable intcrpretation of
rhc provisiori concerned whick docs nor do violcncc tu its clcar
wording. In paragr:iphs 26-23abovc, reasons have been given
for thinking thal ari affirmative anç.rifcr to the fuurth question
put to the Court woiild not be inconsisirnt with the Language
of the gencral dispntes Article of the Peace Trent ies. There-fore,
iri the aliplicatioii of the pririciples jiiçt discusscd, Ilic Govern-
ment of the Iiriited Kingdom subrnits that the fourth question
yut to the Court diciiild also be aiiswcred in the afirniative l.
In making thiç subrriissiori , the Governmerit (ifthe Uiiited King-
dom is not suggeçt ing ariytliirig which the practiçc of the Cni ted
Kingdoni ilscII does not recognize. Section 6 of the Unitcd King-
dom Arbitratio~i Act, ~859, expresçly provides that wherc there
is an agreement to ariiitnite, and one parts inakes dcfault in
aplitiirtting his arbitrator, ttie other part y ma?, after servinç
a prcscrihed notice, appoint liis riwn rirbitrator to act as soit:
arbitrator, arid that such arbitrato ar' srd sha1I thcreu~iciri lit:
hinding on bath parties as if thc arbitrator had been appointed
\>yconsent. A sixrliIar rrrIeapplies iivhcrcthe agreement provides
for a reference to three arbitrators (sic Halsbury's Lmm oj Eng-
land, Vol. I, pp.646 arid 547)-
(Signedl G. G. FI~MAURICE,
Agent for the Governrnent
of thc ITnited Kingdom.
1 Tho doctrine ofut Tesniügisuu!eal qlcaperioaias appliodin decisionancl
opinions of the Permanent Court uf Intcrnatio~iaJustice.wrrs exhaustively
discusd intliecourse of the oralarpiitriepr~ented by tho Governm~nt of
tlie C~iitcd Kingdom during the hearinof theprcliminnry point uf juridiction
iiitrie Cwju case, February-lhrçh, 1948,and willbc ioitnon pp, 90-97of the
Record (Distrz41).towhich the Guvernrncnt ofthc Tinitrdiiingdoin begsleave
tn referfor thc purposesof the presenrcase atçn. WRITTEN STRTEh3ENT OF THE IlKITEU KIKGDOFI I93
Kh?X)LU'l'lOS .nlDOI'TEL) BY THE GEXERAJ, ..1SC;EhlBLI'
' OFTHEUSI'1'k:DNATIOSS A'I'I'I32o3rdPI~EXAKY
MEETISG ON AFRIL ph, 1949
272 (III). Observance in Bulgaria and Rungary of human
rights and ftrndamental freedums
[Xo& vz~r~z~c~d3.
LETTER FROhi THE USITED 1ilN~;T)Oll HEPRESE;N'I'Al'lriB
'ru'rm UNITBU XATIOXS (19SEF~AIRER 1949)
UKITE~ NAT~<>KS GENE: Rhl. ASSP:MUI-Y Gencral.
FoiirthSession. A:ggo.
Item Z; of thc agçrida. 27 Srpternber, 194g.
HUXGARIAN ''NUTE VERBALE" TO I'HL UUSITEL)KISGDOlrl
(OC'1'C)BER27th, 1949)
Thc FIungarinii Minislry forForeign Affairs ~irescntits corripljrnents
to tlie British Le ation ririd,witiirefere-i~cto tlie r,egation9riote
No. 473 of the19th"çcpternhw, 1949 ,as the honoiirtqimpart asfollows:
Tlie 1-IungariariGovernment regretto statethat thGovernrneritO! the
United Kingdom deerned itopportilneto rericwthe accitçationdeprivcd
of al1 rml basiç whatsocvcr, and rejecied moçt categoricallyby the
Hungarian Goverrinietit-not withçanding that theHungarian Govern-
ment on severaloccasions had cl~ürl explicatcà in itsnotes30s. 2671
and 7735j1959 an,d iiridoubtfullyproveci tliat the- wcrc rniniitely
observing tltc stipulationcoritainedin Article 2of trie Ik~ce Treat .
The Hirnqriün <;overnrnent nnce ü~airi rcjectsmo~t categoricaly
tliüt ierideritioand falsc iritcrprctationof the YeüTreaty, by which
the British Governrricnttry to corttraçt the stipuIationscontain~d
respectivelyin Artides 2 and 4 of the Trraty. Tite HiriigarjaGovcrn-
rrieridocsnot sce any cortiradictioii betureentheobserving ol ~stipul-'94 WRITTEE: ST.ATE3lEh'T 01:THE UPiiTEU KIXGDOM
atiorisof Article 2 of the Treaty and the fightagainst Fascist and pro-
Fascist elerneiitsprescribed by Article 4 of the same l'reaty.On the
contrary, a corisequeritcornpIiance with the stipulations ofArticIe 4 is
a condition si~tequa mîa of guaranteeiiig to al1 peoples, and to the
Htrngariati peoplc arnong tIim, the rights defined by Articlc 2 of tlic
Trcaly.
It has resiilted clearly froriithc docurricritsof the trials against
hlindszenty aiid hisaccomplicesmd, recently,againstLadu Rajk andliis
accom~ilices,that the perçonsconvictcd for tbeiranticlernocraticactivity
were guiIty ol a corisyiracy aiming at the reverx of thc prcseritdcrnc-
cratic regirne, and to annihilate the lil>ertieacquired by the people,
and to establish a Fxiiçcisrcgirncof oppression, worse thari any uihcr
yrevious regirne of the kind. Accordingly, the Hungarian Ciavernment,
far from infringing thc Pcacc 1-reatp,acts esplicitl incornpliancc with
its stiiilatioris when inflicting blow upoti tlieviYe encmies of liberty
aiid Arnocracy who have de enciated ro espionïge and rniirderous
attempts. If theGorertimcritsu y the United Kingdom and of the Enited
States accuse the 1-Iungariztn overnment, this can havc butone rexuln,
id,., tlic ruiing circofsthese countries arc iiostilto theindependeiice
and deveiopmeiit.of tIic pcop1e7sdernacracies and, asit was proved by
the afnremcntioiied trials,support, in Hungary too, tlic rriost desperate
eneinies of dcrrtucracy,directing them by theirowrr~ictwork ofspies, as
\ricl1asbyTito and his diqrie,attachcd to tiieir service.
As a triatter of fact, tiicHungarian Governmeiit lias rcpcritcdly
stated that prcciscly these (;nvertirneiitshave, ori scvcral occasions,
itifririged thestipirlations oftl-iPcacc Treaty reIating fO Hvngary,
1r:hen unlaivfullyderiyirigthe rcstitütion ofi-iui~gariariroperty fourid
iti theirrcspeclrr7e zones of occiipationwhcn refusing the extradition
of tiic Hungarian \var-criiiiir~alscscayed into their territory , %hcri
srrpportiiig tliescrvar-crirriinain their antidcmocratic aclivity and
whcrleven renrteringpossible the organkation andequipmei-trof military
formations ofIiurlgnrian Fascists on the territory occupied by tiirrn.
Furthermore, the Hungarian Governt~ictnsta tes mith astonishmen t
that, in addition to the accusations already known aiid repeatedly
refuted, thc Government of the United Kirigdom ertpreses the
opirtion-which içquite iiew aridiri no uray compatible witli the rula
and spirit of internatiuriril km-that, bÿ murning certain obligations
through thc sigriature of theTreaty of Pelicc, Hungaryhas hecome a
State with Iirnitesovercignty.
When signing tIiePeace 'l'reaty, Hungary was not, riur is siie at
present, iriclined to surrender her sovcrcigrity-on the contmry, she
wiil defend her inde endciice arid unhampered democratic developrneiit
agajnst any imperia içt interference. The HuiigariarrGovernment con-
side,rs thearbitras. interpretation of the Pcace ï'reaty by the British
Goverirmentan atternpt to ciah a right to constantly interfe wreih
Hungary's internai affairs, ignorinthe independcr~cc of the Hungarian
State.
The Hungarian Govcrnrrierit categriricaily rejects,morcover, tire
wlivlly fictitioncalumny of tlie British Governtncnt, alteghg that the
present Hutigarian regirne be rnereIy "the ruie of a minority", It is a
notoriousfact that atthe gerieraIclections onthe 15th Mayof 1949 the
Hungarian people manifested their wil1 in thc most dernocraticway-
by gencral and secret ballot-and decided to stipport by 95.5% of WRITTES S'l'XTE>l.IE?IT OF 'l'III.: CXITEKIN(;I30?rl
195
tl-icirvotes the poIicy carricon hy tlieprcscnt Hungarian Government.
Inview of ihis,the factthat tlie BritishGovernrnerit allemesin adiplo-
matic note the prescni IIun ariariGovernment asheing 'ttia rulc ol a
rniauri~y". eannot be regarfed by the Huiig;riiniiGiivernrnent but an
evil-minded propagaridistic manocuvrc, bascd iipn the denial ofcrue
fxts.
Tn consideratioriuf the above said,the Hiingarian Governrrier~trcjccts
rriostcategorically thc riote No. 475 of tlie BritishTxgation, as ü new
ritterripof unlnwful interference with ttie intcriiaaffairs of Hungary.
The Hungüriari Zliiiistryfor ForeigAffairs availsiisclfofthis oppor-
tunity to renew to the Uriiish Legatiori LIieexpression of itsIiiglcon-
sideratiori.
ItESOLCTIOX AI)OPTELi RY THE GESERIIL ASSEXULY
{IF THE GNITED XATIOKS AT U" 235th PLEKARY
XEETING OX OLTOBER ?and, 1949
[iV~t ve$rodzcc~d.:
TEXT OF I1)EN'l'ICAL KOI'ES FR031 THE GOVERNMEST
OF 'rFIE UNITED KISGUOM ?'O TIIB GOYERNMENTS OF
BUI-GAKIA, HUNGARY rlXD ROMANIA UELIVERED 0i:
JAXUARY 5th r95o
His I3ritzirirSIajcsty's T.egation pi-sent tbeir coniplimcnts tr, the
Uulgarian 1 Illinistr01 Foreign Affairç and with refereiicc io their
note Xo. 4x0of 1st .qugust, 11349r,gardirig rciercnceto a Commission
as laid down iri Articl36 1 of thc Peace Treaty wit1i Bulgaria aftheir
displite with the Eulgarian Goverri~nent ovpr the interprctatiori of
Article 2 of thc Treat~ have the hononr to irifonn the Ministry of
Foreign Afiairstliat Ilk Majesty's Go\-ernment in the United Kingdnm
have appoint-ed Mi. 1:Elwyri Jolies,K.C., M.F., astheir represcntative
on the proposcd Commissiori. It is accordingly reqriested tiiüt the
Bulg"an Go~~crnrnentmay appoint their represeiitative frirthwith and
at tfie same tirne enter iriiconsultation cith His Majesty's Govern-
ment in the Unitcd- Kingdom rvith'a viy to flicappointment ofa
[hird memher as stipulated in the Pcacc Treaty.
2. 1-IisBritannic Xajesty's Legation take this opportunity to rcnew
to the Uulgaria~i >Ihist~ of Foreign Affairs Lhc assirrance of their
I~igIicoiisideration. 3. TÉLÉGRAMME ~?MA?JAKT DIJ IvIINISTKE
DES AFFAIHES ÉTRAKGERESDE LA REP~I,IQUE
POPCLriIKE DE RTiT,GARTE ET ADRESSI?
AU ~'KÉSIDEKT TSF TI,A COUR
hie référarit A lettre ilurn6ro 9019 qiie GrefFier de 1;i Cour
m'adressaen datc sept riovcrrihrc rsg :~isujet Résolutiorivingt-
deux octol~re1949 par lacluelle Assemblée générale Nations L~iics
dernarida i la Coirr avis consultatif sur interpret ation certains
articles Traité dc paix avec Riilgarie, ai horirieur vous fairsavoir
clut: Gouvernen~cnt bulgare corisiclbant qiic cxtte ~~n~ddureest
dériiiiietout fondement juridique et estimant par cons4qucrit
iriutile aixirder le: fondes questions posécs devant Cour, dtsirc
porter A sa conriaiçsance à titre infori~iation ce qui suit au sujet
régulariti:celte prcickdiirr..
Assembl~e générale'Jations Unies cri vioIatiun stipuiritioris
expresses article deux paragci~ihe sept et article cintliiarite-cinq
de Charte s'occupa questions qiii relèvcnt cs~cnticllerrie~it rle
cornpétericenationale dc l'État bulgare. De rntrne, ct toujours eil
violatiori de Charte et du Trait6 paix avec BuIgarie, cIIe ahorda
exameri de l'article trciitc-six susditirati.en decidant derriander
à Cour iriternatiun:tle Justice avis consultatif surces questions,
bien que Icdit article Traité paix prévoit sa propre procédure
et exclut par 1% corrt~iéLe~ir:tnt de 1'Assen~hlkt:g;én&~leiSations
I:nitts que de Cour interrintioriale Justice.
Cela rre constitue quc riouvellt: ~iii:isede tentative certxiriç
paya dc s'immiscer dais affaires intériciires dc Bulgarie - plus
spf.ciaIernent daris sesfonctions Iégisatives judiciaires et adminiç-
tratives - irnrritiriri I.a(.jtclIeouvernement de République
~)opulaire Bulgarie s'oppose de maniere la plils énergiclue.
Irimpétence de l7AsserriiilPeg&nérr~lcNatioriç Unies dans
toute ccite tentative d'immixtion erilrnirrcinconipi.tcrice dc Cour
internationale Justice de s'occuper problkme qui lui esr pose, bien
que ce dcrnicr soit c16guist sous forme demande avis coilçultatif.
En second lieu Goiivernement bulgare estime que Cour lie
salirait Smettrc avis corisiiltatif demaridésaris porter graatteinte
au pri~icipthien établi en droit iriternatioiial, prriclamC:par Statiit
de Ia Cour et oiiservépar jurisprttdcricc constante, savoir pri~icipe
selon Iequel toi1t.e~iruckiure judiciaire dans un cas dktcrminE,
portant sur qiieçtionjiiridiquc pcridarite entredeux parties, exige
application règles du contentieux (artide çoixaritc-huit Statut etarticles quatre-vingt-deux et quatre-vingt-trois RCglement} et
par conçkquent n'est opgrante rlir'dconditiori que conse~itemcnt
préalahle de toutes les parties cn cause soit acquis.
Bulgarie n'est pas rnen-ibreKations Cnics. Elle n'est y;issoumise
obligaticiris clécoulantde Charte ciStatut en ce qui corlcerne avis
consultatifs.Elle n'a liasaccepte et n'acceptt: liasjuridictio~i de
Cour. Celle-ci est donc iiicomp&tcri tc 4rnettrc avis coris~l~atif
demaridé par Assernblke générale Hations U~iics.
VruilIez agréer, etc.
(Signé) V LADIIIIR POPO'~OYOV,
Aiinistre Affaires érangkres
R&p~~liliqu populaire Bulgarie. 4. T~I-~?GRA&~~~U EU MINISTRE LIES AFFAIRES
~TKIING~REÇ DE LA KÉPUBLIQUE SOVI~~TIQUE
SOCIALISTE D'U KKAIKE A LA COUR INTEKNATTOiYALE
DE JCSTICE, LA HAYE
15 janvier1950 (reçu Ir16 janvier).
Kiev.
En rcpunse à vos Iettrcs n 902~et 9022 du 7 novembre 1949,
au norridu Gnrrvcriiement de la Républiqrre soviCtir.~iiesocialiste
d'kkrailie,j'ai l'honneiir de porter S votreconnaissance cc qui
siri: comme l'a diclaré la déldgiitionde la Répub!ic~rrseovié-
tique socialiste cI'Ckraiau cours de la4-m~Session de 1'Assem-
'Dl&générale,celle-cn'a1):ile droit d'cxanilrierla question relative
au respect dcs rlrnilde l'homme et des liber165 fondamentatcseri
Hongrie, en Bulgarie et ?riRournariic,car ceci est contraireau
paragraphe 7dcl'article2de laCharte dc I'Orgariisatirm des Sations
.Unies, et il semble qu'il y ait 1uriringérencegrossikre rlansles
:iffaires inttt-ieiires dJEtats souverains ; ericonsé1,AssenibICe
ghnéralen'est p;ifoiidéea demander un ;lui sonsultatifA laCour
interriationalsur cette r~nestion, qui relève excluçivcmci~t de la
cornpbtence nationale {lesdifitats.Your ces rrioliis, le Gouverne-
ment dc laRkpiiblique soviétique scicialiste d'Ukrainestime yue
la Cour interriationale n'a pasdroit etriepossèdcpas de IiaseIiii
permettant d'examiner cetteqiicstiorsarile consentement effectif
à uri tel examendes Gouverriements hongrois, Ijulgare et roumairi.5. IIETrEK FROlcl THE C;H.~RC;~ DL)'AFFAIRES .4.T.OF
THE KfiION OF SOVIET SOCLALIST REPUBLICS IK THE
NETHERLrlNDS TU THE REGTSTRAK OF TRE
INTEKNATIOKAT. COURT OF JUSTICE
U'lto#iwial1ranslaliom. The Hague, Jariiiaryr4,1950.
Uear &Ir. E. Hambro,
Reing chargcd by the MinistryofForeign Affairsofthe U,S.S.K.,
I Iiave the honour, iri relily tthe Ietters 30s.9021, 9022, rif
Nuvemlier 7th,1949, to cornmunicate tliat, as had alrcady t~eeri
declared hy the Soviet Dcltgaticin at tIiFourth Session of the
Gcncral Asseinbly of theIjnited Nations,the General Asscrnbly,i~i
viriuc of the p. 7, Articlc2 of LIieChartcr of the Organization,
is not compcterit tciexaminc the question of "R'Iaintttnance of
hiiman rightç and furidamenta1freedorns in Bulgaria, Hungary,
arid Romania", as co~icerning sule1y tthe iiltcrn coiripetence of
these States, and, concleqilently, the General .kssernbly is nut
cornpetent to request the IriternationaICourt of justice for an
advisory opiriiorion this question. On thc same grounds the
InternationalCourt of JiisticequaIIy is not comyeteriitoexamine
thisquestion without accx>rclanceofthe Governmcrits of tiie directlu
iriteresteStates.
With respect,
(Sigaed) M. VETROV,
Chargé d'suaires a.iof the V.S.S.K.
in the Kcthcrlarids. 6. TGLEGRAI MI E DU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES
ÉTRANC~RES DE LA R~PLBT,TQUE SOCIALISTE
SEIVIÉTIQUE DE BIÉLC~RUSSTE h LA COUK
IK'rEKKATIOrihLE DE JUSTICE, LA HAYE
'l'radztctiorfuitepar le I;[email protected]]
Minsk.
En réponse à vos letire 9s021-go22 dn 7 novembre 1949par
dttlégstiondu Gouvernementde laRépublique socialistsovikiquc
de Bikkirrrsçie, j'ai l'honneur de porteA votre conriaissarice (lue,
cornniel'adhjrideclarc1üdéibgatiorcilelaRhpuhlique socialistesovié-
tiquc de Bi&loriissift,lorde la qmeSession de I'hssernbl~e gfriErale
des Nations Lnics, la question rcIativcail respect tfes droits de
l'homme et des libcrtts eascintielles en Biilgaren, Ilongrieet en
Roii!riariirdkvt: exclusivernerit de la cornpétcnce intcrieure de
ces Etats etpartant I'Assembl6c gknérale,en vertu du paragraphe7
dc I'articl2 de la CItartedes Nations Lriies, n'est pascornpétcntc
pour cxaininer cette quest ioilclicoris$qriençe, eiie n'a pas compé-
tence pour dcmandcr uii avis consultatifj.la Coiir internationaie
deJustice sur ce point pour les memcs inotifs,eteii oiiirecril'ab-
sence du consentemeilt à l'examen de cette question cleGotrver-
nemeri ts des Etats directement intéressésl,a Cour iri~erriatiori;~Ile
n'est pas riorpIus compéte~ reIiriuen coririaîtrc.6. TE1.RGRAM FROM THE MINISTEK E'OK FOKEIGX
AFFAlRS OF THE BYELORVSST AX SOVIET SOC1 ALIST
REPUBLIC TO THE IKTERNATIOSAE COUKT OF
JUSTICE, THE HAGLE
January r 5th, 1950 {received Janiiary ~6th).
Inreply to ywr Ietters Nos. 9021-goazof Kovember 7th, 1949,
011belialfof the Govcrnment ofthe Byeloruçsian Soviet Socjalist
Hcpublic, 1 have the horiour lo informyou that, as the dclcgation
of the ByeIoriissiaSoviet Socialist Republicalready stated during
the IVtli Scssiori of thGencral r2ssembly of the United N. t'ons,
the question relatingta the observance in Rulgarirt, Hutigary xnd
Riirnania of human rights and fundainenta1 freedun~sisexclusively
within the domestic juriscliction of thesc States axiclthcrcforc the
GencraI .rissernbIyundcr Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter,
is not corn~ieterito considcr this question ; conscqnen t1y.the
Assernbly is notcompetent torequest an adviçory opinion of the
IntkrnatioilaI Court oJustice onthisquestiorfor thesame reaçons,
and furthemore, in the absence of coriscnt,by the Governments
ofthc States whicli aredirectly interested,that this clrrestionhe
ex;irnincd, thc TnterriationCourt is notcompetent to considerit. 7. 1.ETTRE DI; CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES .A.'I. DE T,A
RÉPURT~IQEE POPTiLAIHE ROUIIIAIKEAUX PAY S-BAS
-AU PR~SIDENT DE LA COUR INTERNATIONALE
DE J LSTICE
LÉ~arron DELA K~FURLIQCE POPIILAIRF:
nF.Hor:~n?iiaux PAYSUAS
TZ La I-Iayc, lc 16 janvier 1950,
hloiisicnr le l'résident,
En rCponse l'adresse no 9019 du 7 ncivttrril1949 de laCxiur
internationale de Justice, i'ai l'honneur de vorrs transmettre de
lapart du Gouvernemerit de la R&pubIiqrre ~iopulairc rouniaine ce
qui siii:
Par sa communication faite Ic 7 octobre ~349 au Secretaire
gén6raI des Kations Unies, le Gouverneinent roumain a montré
qu'il considéreque la discussionau sein de Iacurnmissiori pr>litique
spécialed'un point appel4 (observations des droits de l'homme et
des droits cilibertés fondarnertt:~les dans IaKépublique populaire
' roumaine u est entiércmcritdépourvud ee fondement et constitue
unc immixtioil dans les affaires inthriciirde la Roumariie.
Le Goilverriernent de la R6piiblique pcipiilaire rourriairica rc-
pousse cette tentative d'irnrnixtioet a protesté contre lefait que
1'Assernhléegé;ériCrdace Xations Ilnics s'estlaisçéeentraîner dans
des actions contraircs aux stipulations catégoriqrres (le la Cliarte,
Le Gouvernement roumaiil considère qiie la Résolution de
l'Assembléedes K;ititiriITriiesdi23 cictcibr1949 ,arIaqucIIc ejt
demandk irravis consul tatifà la.Cour internationale de Justice,
airisi que la prochdurcengagée dcvant cette Cour reprberiterit une
continuation dc ces ing6rences dans les :iffairie rlérieurcs dc
la Képublique populaire roumaine, ingkences contre Icsquelles
le Gouvernernerit cle la RtpubIiqrie ~iopulaire roumaiilproteste et
lesrepciusse catégoriqucrnent.
Le Gouvcrncment roumain considèreque I;LCoiirinternationale
de Justice n'est pas cornyGLente dans la clrrestion de l'Asscmb1i.e
généraleque l'Organisation des Natiuris Unies lui a soumise par
sa R&soliititin cl22 octobrc 1949, cellc-ci étant uneaffaire int6
ricure de la RépubliquepopuIaire roumaine et, par ccirisécjueri~,
de la coiiipi.tencexc1usive de la KépubIic~iiepopulaire roumaine.
Le Gouvernement roiirriaiconsidére rltreIa Courinternationale
de justice ne peut &ire coniphterite dans laquestion qu'on lui asoumise, la République popdaire roumaine n'&tant pas partie air
statut (le IaCour internationale de Justice.
T-c:Goüverrtement roumain attire I'attcntionqu'en aucun cas,
la Cour interr~atiolialc dc jusiinc peut etre compEtcntc dans une
qucstioil concernant laRoumanie sans que le tiouvertiernent rou-
main y eut donné son consentement.
Veuillezagreer, etc. 8, LETTRE DE L'ENVOYÉ EXTKAOKDlKAlKE ET
BllKISTKE PL~KIPOTEXTIATRE DE TA RI?PLRJ.TQI~E
TCH~?COSLOVAQI;E AU GREFFTER DE TA COUR
d'ai I'honncur d'acçiiwr réception de vos lettres eii date d~r
7 novembre 1949, "3' gozr et 9022, au sujet de la Kéçolutiori rle
l'Assemblée génhi-alede l'O. K. U. du 22 octobre 1949 ,oncerilaiii
le (respect des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondainental~s
en Bulgarie, Hongrie ci Roiirnanie n, et, faisant suite à votre
invitxtiwl,j'ai I'himneur,au noIn dn Go~rverrieme~ittdi6çoslovaquc,.
de çommiiriiqiier à laCour cc qui suit :
1,es ,qt~e~tit)~rssoumisesj.la Coiir concenient des matiéreç qui
or1t faitl'objet d'ni-i-ildcçdkcussiorià iaIIIrricet.Il?'lAsstinblée
généraIcdes Katrons Unies, discussions qui sc sont déroulées en
l'absence cornpl&tcet eridtipitdes protestations dcs Gouvcir-icmerits
bulgare, hoilgrois et rtiilrnairiA cette occasiori, Ia déIég niort
tchécoslovaque a objectt; à.plnsierirsreprisesque 1c traitcmrritde
ces clnestionç &tait coi-ilrairIa2Ir~et erioqqiostion :ivecles dispo-
sitions du paragraphe 7 de l'article 2 dc la Charte des Xations
Unies, Etant dom6 qu'il s'agit d'iritcrvciitiondans dcs affaires
rclc~zailt de la cornpetence nationale d'un Etat.
IdeGoilvernement tcliCc~i~lov:iq~~o ebjecte en outre :
naris Icsens de I'iirti 82ldu REg1erri~:n tt de 1';irticle 68, la
Cour doit appliquer, ri la rcquetc pour l'avis co~isiiltatii, les dispo-
sitions prkvucs cn rnatiére contentieusc. Dans cette procidirre, la
Cour est eii premier lieu tcriuc d'csarniricr sa corripktericeet d'en
décider au tcrine de I'articie 36, paragrabhc 5, ct dc l'article 53,
paragraphe 2, du Statut.
Des faits que laBulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie nc çorit lias
membres de l'Urganisatiori des Kations Unies, et ne sont pas partie.;
{IIIStatittde la Cour, ;iiri~ique du fait que chacun de ces I'=tats.
a cxprcss~rr~enl rejet6 le procPdé rit: I'Ax~,ernbI4egenkralc dcs
Sationç Unics cn cette niatikrc,y cornpris 1'qy)elà la C<iiircelle-ci
devra - analogiqucriient d'aprhs l'avisconsultatif de la Cour per-
manente de Justicc internationale dii 23 juin 1923 ,i"j -- iriévita-
Iilement constater qu'eile n'est pas cnn~pbtcnte.
Vcuillcz agi:er, rtc,
{Sigilé)Dr 1. ~~ARTISIC. Q. brit'KITTENSTATENENT PRESEYTED BY THE
AUSTRALltlN GOVERNAIEYT UNUER ARTICLE 56
OF THE S'SATUTE OF THE TFU'TERKATIOX.4T,
CQGRT OF JUSTICE AND THE ORDEII OF THE
COLRT DATED 7 KOVEATRHR, 1949
i3y Kesoliitioriadoptcd zz October, I949, the GeiieralAss~imbly
of the tinitcd Xatiotis requestcd thcInter~~atiorialCourtofJustice
for an advisory opinion on certain ~irocedural qiiestions rclating
to the iritcrprctatioof tIie peace treatiewith Bulgaria, Hungary
and Kaiimania. Thesc qucsticiris ivcrc four i~ii-iumbcr, ariswers
being requestcd to questions 3 and 4 only iri the event of certain
coriditionsnot being fiilfilleThe Australian Goverriment subrriits
the following statemerit i~ic:ci)nnectionwitIi the ftivoc~iimtioiis.
It may be usefuI to corisiderbrieflyas a preIiminary question
the argurner~tarIv:inccd at thc Fourth Session of the GenenI
AssembIy thaf the International Cuiirt of Justice \vaasnot corn-
peteritto give the advisory upinion siiggested onthe grourid that
intecpretationof the treat iew:isexcIusivey wi thin the ccim~ietence
of the contmcling parties. Under Articlegti (1 1f the Charter of
the United K;iticinsand -4rticIe 65 of tlic Statirteof the I.C.J.,
the Gencral Assenibly may reqiiest the International Court of
Jrrsticeto give ariadviçory opiiliorion sny legal question. ln its
opiriioron the Coriditions of admisiori ofa State to llilembership
of the Unitcd Nations, the Court irselfhsa stated th2t therletcr-
mination of the mcariirig of:i t-reatpro\-isitin is a legd rIiiestion
(I.ÇJ. Reports 1947-194p 8.,f'~), The I.C.J. isthereforc clearlp
cornpetent to give the intcrprctations requcsted by the GcneraI
Assernbly.
Question 1."Du tlic dipIorn*ticexcliaiiges betrveen Bulgaria,
Hungary and Kornariia011 fhe one hand and certainAllied and
tlsçociated PoilverssignatoriestiiTreaties ofl'eace oilicother,
concertiitig thirriplemetation ofArticle z of the Treaties ivith
Rulgaria and Hungary and Article 3of the Trcat with Romania,
disclose disputessubject to the provisions forfie sett1crricnof
dispiitcscontairicin Article36 of the Treatyof Peace with SUI-
~aria, Ar1icle40 of the Treaty ofPeace witli Hungary, and Arti-
cle gS of the 'Treatyof PcüceirrithRomariia?"
........*..*...........~
Artide 36 oftIie Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Article 40 of
thc Trcaty of Pcace with Hungarv, and Article38 of the Treaty
of Pcace with Kournariia (hereinal~cr referred tcias tlic Commun
Article} provide : "Escept where another procedure is spifIcally providecl under
ariy articte ofthe prcscnt Treaty,any dispute concerning thc inter-
pretatiori or eseculion oftheTreaty, rvliichis ~ioscttlcd hydirect
diplortn icanegotiatiosn hsallbe referred to the Tiirt~ Hcads of
hlission acting under ArticIe 35 (40, 38cxccpt that inthiscase the
inthatsoarticle. Anywisud^odisputesnot resolve tdmy-themitwitliinad
pericidoftrw months sliall, unless tlie prirto thc disputrnuturiIly
;i reeupon another mcaris ofscttlcmcnt, be 1-eferreat thc rcquest
07 either party to the dispute Lo a Corninissioii çoiriposeof one
repreçcntative ofeach partyand athird rnernher selecteby mutilai
agreement of the tivo partiesfrorn riatioria1of a third courttry.
Sliould the two partiesfailto agree within n periotlof cine month
ixpon tlie appoint ment of the ttiirdmember, die Secrctarry-
GeneraI of tlie United Nations mas he requested by either party ,
tci rnakc tlieaplioirttrrierit.
The decision ofthe majority of the ir1crribcofsthe Commission
sliallbe the decision ofthe Commission, and sliall 11acceptecl I>y
theyiirti es dcfinitc and Liindirig."
Disputes "subject to the provisions for the settle~nent of dis-
putes" con tained in the Comrnoii Article arc dkpu tes "concerning
the interpretation or eueciitiori of the Trcaty". Thc circnrnstanccs
of the diplornatic exchanges between certain Allied and Associated
Forvers on the onc harid and Bulgaria, Hungary and Roumai-iia
on the other, as understod by the Austnili:~ri Govenirnent, clearly
constitiitedisputes concernirig the execution of the Trcatieç.
On 2 ApriI, 1949, ?~olewr,erlitiiesorbehalf of Rustralia, Kew
Zeaiand and the United Kingdom, rvhich States are AIIied and
Açsociatcd Powcrs simatories to thc 'l'rcaties of Perice. wcrc
delivered to the ~ulgrian, HungarÎan and Roumririia~i kovern-
ments by His hlajesty's Ministers inSofta, Biidnpest and Bucha-
rest. Canad;i associateci itself with the riotes ta the Hung;irian
and Roumanian Governments. Tliese notes sct forth the groiittds
on which it \vas dIeged that LIiose C;orernrncrits had deriied to
their pcoples the exercise of the human rights and fundamental
freedoms which thcy wcre pIedged to secure to them uriclcr
Article z of the Treaties with Bulgaria ancl Hiirigary, atidArticle 3
of the Treaty with Rournania (hereinafter referred to asthe Hunlrtn
Righls Article). Notes ctiuclied iri sirriilar tcrms \vci-e :irlrIresseti
oii 2 ApriI, 1949, to the same three Governments l>yflie Goverri-
ment of the United States of Arnericn, anoflier hllied and Asw-
ciatcd Power sieriatnrv to the Treaties of Pcacc.
- -v
By their ,+~oteverbal&of S and zz April, lo April aiid 20 April,
addressed to His Blajeçty'sJlinisters in their respect ive capitals,
the Governrne~its of Bulgaria, IIuiigary and Rournania rebir tied
these allegations and ctaimed that their obiigatioiis under the
Treaties of Pcace had been and werc coiltinuing to be honourcd.
The rillegationsof the Government of the bni td States of America T, BO other procedurc is sper:ificallyprovidcd eise~vt-hei. ir: the
Peace .Srcaties for the sc~tlerneti t of disputes conccrniiig
Ihe interprekition or exccutiori of the Hi-irnai~ Kights
Article.
2. Thc diqiiites have noE bccn scttled l>y direct diplornatic
negotiaiions.
3. The disputcs have bccn referred to thc Tliree Heads of
Missions. B~J thcir riotcs ol gr May, 1949, thc United
k'ingciorn arid the United States Heads of 3lission ar
Sofia, Bndapeçt arid Bucliarest ajked the U .S.S.X. Hcads
of .irissionwfiether thcy would l>e ~irepared 1.0meet them
in order that tlie Threc Hcads rtf Missiun in eaçh case
rniglt trike çcigriizance of tlie disprries in the manner
prescr.ih~ci in the Tr~atics. In a ~iotc:of Ta Jiirie, Tg4p.
addrcçsed to the 1.i.li. Govcrnment, the Errtbassy rn
Loildoii oi the U.S.S.R. said that it ivas :iuthorizeti to
declare 'ihat the Soviet Ciovernment saiv no causc for
the summrining of a conference of the Three Heads of
the niplornatic RIissions in Bulgari;i, Hiingary and Kou-
mania.
4. The disputes were not rcsolved by the Hcads or' Missiari
witliiri:tpcriod of tivo moriths.
5. 'The parties havc ~iot yet mutually agreed upon :tnother
ineans of settlernent.
6. Ori r Ar~gust, 1949, thc partics ttithe disputcç alleging non-
excçution of IlleTreaty irinotes addresjed to the Govern-
rneiits of Bulgarin, Hungary aiid Rollmania, reqiiested
the rcferericc of the diqiuteç to corntnissiori~.
Tite stage has nu\v bccn rcaclied when it is rriandatoru for
Commissions to ccmsider the dhpiit~s.
Tlir: Crjnimon Article provides t1i;ithe Comnîissiun iç to be
composed of one rqireentativc of each part? and a thircl member
sclcc:clet:lhymutual agreement of the ii:irt&s.Thcrc is ü clearly
expresed obiigütirin imposed oii thc parties to the dispute that
the dispute shall he reierred to the Corrirnission ; the question
~iow to be deterrniiied is whether the Govemments of Billgoria,
Hungary and Rriiirnania are under an ubligalinritri:iypoiiit repre-
sentatives to the Comrniçsitiri.
Tiie nature arid Iiurposc? of the Cornmu11Article is to çettle
disputes arising out ot the iiltcrlirctatinror execntiori uf the
Treaties of Pe:ice, ancl i~ is subrnitted that the interprctaliori tti
1)e favorri-cdis tliat mhich will make the Comrriori Article effective
tii serve this purpose. Thc ccirnliiiisory reference of a disputc io
the Commission prcsiiIilir isestha t the Cornmic;sion h;w lieen con-
stituted, and this can orily be donc by ilie appointrrierit of a
represetitative of each party rind a third incrriherse1ectt:dhy mutuai
agreement of t1ie t~voparties, or, failing agreement, hy the Secrer- \SI'KITTEK STRTE3lbXT OF AUSTRALIA Zog
ary-General. It is rieccssarily implicd that the parties to tlic
dispute appoint represcritatives. 'I'hey are conwquen tly iiridera
dcfinite kgaI obligation to appoint. '1.0 contend othenvise would
frustrate the whole rnethod of adjustment of dis~iiitcçalaid dom
in the Peace Trcaties ancl defcat the uery purposcof the Crimrnori
rfrticle.
t'ortl-iesereasons, itis theopiriitirof tiitA~~straliaiiGovcrnmcnt
that tIie word "sitaII" aypeüring i~i the sccoild seritence of the
Coriiriicin Article applies by necessar?; implication to the appoint-
ment of a reprcscntative by cach partÿ to the disyutc, and tliat
thc Govemrnents of Rulgaria, Hungary and Rourriania 1iai.e an
irieçcapabIe legs1 obligatioii to appoint repraeiitatii~cs to the
Cornmissions. 10. LE'S'IKE Dti h3lNiSTKE DES .4PFATRES ÉTRAX-
~khi~s DE LA REPUBLIQUE POPULAIRE HOKGROTSE
AC GREh'FiEK DE LA COUR
En rtponse à votre commuilication no go19eri date du j rio-
vernbre 1949, au ncim du Gouvernertle~ii de 1a Républiqrre
pop~il:iirc tjngrriiçej'ai l'honneur dc portcr ;ivotrb con~iaisçarice
ce qui suil :
T,eGouvernement de Ia KEpublirliit: IiririulairIiorigroise, dans
les noies qu'il a :iciresçCes aux tiouvernemerits du Royaiime-1:ni
CL dcs l?i;tts-L'nis en rkponseaux ilotes dc ccs derniers,a maintes
fois dévelolilii: et prouvé:
I" qu'il a cxécutb et il exéciite d'une inailihe constquente
les stipulations du ?'raitéde paix cl clii'alprocédé et il ~irocGdt:
daris irne stricte ccmfoniiité aux çtipul~ticiris dc cc Trait;, eri
orclunriarit 1:i disoliitiondes organiçatioris ei partis ayant eii
pour but la restaura~iori de l'ancien régime fsciste et Iorsqu'il a
poursuivi ct contiriue de poiirçiii\lre en justicc ceiix qui deploient
une activité visant à renvcrscr laRCpuFilicluepopulaire hungroise
dkrnocratiquc ;
z3 que, du moment quc Ic Traitt: de paix a exyres6ment
reconnu Ia souveraineté de la IIongrie et lui a irnliris&carm2ri1e
temps, le devoir de prendrc dcs rriesin.es ayproprikils coritrtoilt
mouvement fasciste, il est évident que les mesurCs me ris TIece
seris 1)" le Gouvernement hongrois, qiii, d';iilleurç, appartieririerit
311 domaine de ses it%ires iritdricurcs et d4couIcnt d'iir~estricte
application des stipt11;itions du Trait6 dc pais, nc peuvent faire
l'objet d'aunrrie contcstatir>ri ; d'di il rbulte que l'accusation
d'avoir violé Ics rdroits humains iiet les stipulations du Tr:iit&
de paix, n'est cn réalité,qn'uri préiftstt: pour les Goiivertiemertts
du Royaume-Lni et des Etats-Enis pour s'ingSrer rlaris les affaires
intkricurcs {ltt la Rkpubliqiie popuIaire horigrriiçcet pour exercer
iiritpression sur son Gouvcrriernerif afin que celui-ci subordonne
sa politique à cellede certains ftnts et guuveri~emen ts itrririgrrs.
Il résulte de tartt ce qui pri.céiie clireles Goiiverriements ilil
KoyaumeXni etcfcs l?tats-~~iis n'ont eii aiicnri droit rtcs'aclrcsscr
à I'Orga~iisatin des Kat ions Unics sous pr6lexte d'un différerid
artificiellerricr~ construitet que l'Assemblée des Nations Unies
a procédF &galement sans aucurie base légale ct curitrairement
au droit, lorsqu'elle s'est adri3ssAi.. laCour pour demander son
avis ausiijct de plusieurs questioris en conilexit&avec cette affaire.
Eu Ggard à toi1tce qui vient d'êtretf&vdoppé,le Grinvernemerit
de la République I>ri~nllairehorigroiscn'est liasà mêmede preridrepart ;i Is procédurettrigagtiedevant la Cour sur I'iriitiativc. de
1'AssernbIée des Xatioris U iiies, pracédiire clliele Gol~iivernemetn
hongrois considkre et clirant ari fond et quarit a la forme comme
illkgxle et comme dé~ioiirvuede tout effet jiiridique. Le Gouver-
ten nitehongrois ne dEsirc donc prbeii ter aucun espcmk mricer-
riant les qucstjons posées A [aCour par I':~ssernblce dcs Xations
Unies et illie faitconnaître son point de vue concernant I'illégaIit15
dc la prockdure qu'ri titre de siinyle information.
L.e principe de I'égnlitS, de I'indCpendance et rIc Ia souveraineté
ries fikits est du ricimbre des règies Ies pliis universellement
reconriues <iii droit internaticinal. Cc priiicipe cornpur te, eritrr:
;iiitrcsune iriterdict ion expresse pour les Etats et lit iiles orgiirii-
satiom formees par eux de s'irigércr - sails titre siiffisant-
daris les affaircs intérieures des autres États. Or, il rie peut y
avoir aucun doute que le Traité de lais avec la Hongrie, signi.
à Pri~is Ic xo Wvrier 1947, loin de rétrCci sra sorrverair-ieté,a
reintgri la Horigrie ~1311 s'esercicc de ses droits soiiverains. Il
est notoire, en outre, cliic ce merne Traitt: n'a attribrréa I'Orga-
nisatiori des Y;itions Ilnics aucun droit de caritr6le concerri:int
l'esbcution de ses CI~~SCSI.I est notoire, enfin, qii'h In siiite
de l'atrituclc que certaines G ral-idcç Puissarir:cs tirit.adoptée
cri~itraircrneriA leurs erigagerricrits solcri~icllc~nepris,la FIorigric,
jusrlii'iciri':lias étéadrnise ;tisciride 1'0rga11isact lesar:itioris
Uriies et qu'ainsi les stipulritioiis tfcla Charte visarit les clcvoirs
des fitats Blembres, ne lieiivcnt non plus étre iii\-oquécs à son
égard. Bins ces ccinditioris, il est évident clu'aucuri organe des
K::'atioriUnies ri'ttstqiialifié de s'occuper di1 prétendu difiérend
relatif à l1eiï&ciiticii u Traite de pais, rii d'ititervenir:Lce titre,
aux affaires de la Hongrie. Par coiiséqucnt, I'Orgüiiisation des
Katiuns Ilnies, en adoptantdes résolntioiis el c~i prcnaiit l'ini-
tiative (l':tires procédiircs cri cette maticre, est sortie des cadres
cle ses propres nttrihiitions déternrinkes p:ir 1:iCharte.
Lc Goiivcrricrnent hoiigrois croit dcvoir attirer I'etteritioii
Ggalciiient sur Ic fait que le5 stipulations de b CIi:irte visa~ztics
Etats non-membres, ne peuvent non plus étre i~ivoqufes pour
justifier le procédt. ill6gaI des Nations Unies. 11 est vrai que
l'article2, paragr;iplic: f>,dc la Charte prévoit que (t1-Orgailisation
fait de Ia sorte (lue lesctats qui ne sont yrtsmcmbrcsdes Xations
liiiics agissetit conformdnlent 5 ces ~~rirtcipcs dans la rntistrre
nkcessaire au rnaiiiticil de lapais er de Ja çécuritei'nterriatio~ialca.
Lc Louvernement hongrois cepcridarit - ainsi qne j'en ai fait
mention pliis haut -, dans ses noies adressées aux Gi>iive~riemcnts -
du Royarxrrie-Lni et des l?lats-unis, a sttfiç;immerrt dérrtontr;
que les mesures ISgalement priscs pour la saiiucgardc cfficace
des iristitutions dt.mt>r:r;iticlcstcontre les ennemis de iadémti-
cratic, loin de menacer la seciiritit et la paix internzltiori;~lcs,
soritribuent, ;LU cciriiraircà leur raffermissement. L)u reste, pour
autarit que le Gouvernerne ritIicirtgrois Ic sache, perwriric n'ajusquJici hasard& l'affirmation que les lois dc la RCl-iiihliquepopu-
laire horigroisc ou les mesures prises par son Gouvenieniciit
pussent signifier une menace quelconquepour la pais cl-laskcurité
iriternationales. En rC.:tlitfles dangers pour cette paix et cette
siiciirité provierilien1 de toutes autres sources.
1.e Gvuverncmcrlt horigrois croit superflu d'illustrer de pliis
pGs,. rii1:i sti~atio~i jirrictiqiie inten:ible, ni l'ébraillenierit de la
coi~fiarice tlrtnc;la juslice ixterrialiori;ilt:, qi~)ourri~ient r6suIter
de l'inauguration d'une jurisp;udencc qui adrriettrait que, dails
les cas oii la souveraineté des Etais s'opposc A toute intervention
de la part dc Fuirsances ktrar-igFreçou d'organes internationaux,
lc principe de lasouvcraiiieté des Iltats indépendants sriitritritiii
illusoire par I;tvoie rli.tuiir~i&ecl'iiridvmai~cied'avis consullatif
de la Cour i~iicrriationale de Justice.
Pour tous ces ~notifs,le Gouverncrncrit horigrois ri'est pasen
4tat d'attribuer dcs efiets juridiques quelconquesà. la prockdure
ill&gale initiée par 1'AssemblSe des 3ations E.:ilieçJet Ilriiir cet te
raiswi i1 n'est pas & même tir. 1iré~entr.rdes ohservatioris concer-
ilaiiles c-1nestions que I'AssembIPe des Xatioris Cniés a précs
à la Conr.
Veuillez ngrtier, etc.
Biidapcst, Ic 13 janvier 19go.
(Sig~tk]KAi,r,~r,
Ministre des Affaires étrangères
de la République populaire horigrtiise,
Exposés écrits