Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Beginning of public hearings - Statement by Dr. Ivan S. Kerno

Comique No. 50/10.
(unofficial)

INTmdATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE

Interprctation of Peace Treaties wlth Bulgaria
Hungary and Iiomnia.

Beginning of Public Hearings -
Statment by Dr. Imu S. Karno.

The Hague, 28th Fcbruary, 1950*

In its second public sitting thisyear, the International
Court of Justice this marning began hearings at the Peace Palace in
Thc Hague, in the advisory case concerning the interprotatio nf
Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romnia (for background
informatio neeR~lcas~ issued on 25thFcbruary.)

A brief opcning addressvas given by the President,
M, Jules BASDEVANTa,nd thc Registrar, Dr. Edvard HA&IBRû,read
out the text of the four questions 011which the Court's zdvisory
opinion was sou@ 'Dythe Gcneral Asscmbly (See Release rnentioned above).

The firstoral statement was then mde by Dr, Ivan S. KERI\JO,
United Nations Assistant Secretary-Genera f o~ legalmatiers, who
8 spoke as represcntatiivc of the Secretary-Gener aflthe United Jlatlons.

Dr. Kemo gave an objective eccountof the min points and
espects which had beenbrought out in the previous discussians con-
cerning thc issue beforc the Gencral Assembly.

He paid tribute ta the Court as the highest international
judicial authority in the world, and expressedgratification at
recent tendencies towrds making grcater usa of the Coud, In
evidance of this he recslïed the lastsessionof tha General Assmbly which
had decidcd to request the Court for na less than three advisory
opinions, and iurthermorc, scveral contentiou sas eshave been brought
beforc it by certain States, The provisions of 6he Chartsr with regard
to'tha International Court of Justicehave thus become a living realiky,
fi, Kerno said.

Inan historical review of the issue before the United Nations,
Mr. Kerno pointed out that when the subjectwas dlscussedby the General
Assembly in spring 1949, the charges that Bulgaria and Hungciry had
8 camittcd certain acts in violation of the Charter and the Treaties of
Peace were strenuously argued by çer-bain delegations, and equaliy
strenuously denied by others. In Its resolutian of 30th April, 1949,
the Assmblg expressed"its deep concern ot the grave ,accusation sade

against the Governments of Bulgaria dnd Hungary regarding the suppression
of hwn rights and funclmental freedomçin thosc countriesll; but it
passedno judgmentupon the substance of the chrges, and simply noted
Itwithsatisfaction that steps have been taken by several Statessignatories
to the Peace Treatics with Bulgaria and Hung~ry rcgarding those accusationsn.
The Assemblythen, uniquely and expressly, made an urgent appeal to the
States concerned to apply for the settlement of the issue, - the
procedure provided for in the Peace Treaties.

Some delegations, Yi. Kerno observed,hnd denied fron the outset
and throughout the discussions, that the General kssen~bly had zny cornpetence
whatsoever to deal with the problem, The main arguments in support of
this point of viewwere st.mnar5eed by Dr, Kerno as follows:

On the one hand it was argued that, by Article 2, paragraph 7,
the nuthors of the Charter hnd intcnded to bar any intervention in btters
which are essentiall y ithinthe domestic jurisdictio of any State.
Thc Charter's generrxl provisions concerning hwn rights ancl fundamental
freedornscould not Prev~il agnhst the express injunctioo nf Article 2,paragraph 7, since the binding natureof theseprovisions was considsred
extrernely doubtful, and also b ecause the Charter! s provisions could not
be binding upon non-mernber States, The only stipulation of the Charter

which might be Uiterpreted as being blnding upon a Stste not a Member of
the United Nations was Article 2,,paragraph 6, under which the Organisation
lishall ensurethat States whichare not Nembers of the United Nations
act in accordance with these prinpiples so far as mg be necessary for the
cnance of international peace and securityI1,

Since, howcver, the allegcd dispute did not involve the
maihtsncince of intemtionnl peace and security, that provision was not
applicable. Lastly, it waa snid thatunder Article 107 of the ChwLer,
questions rehting Lo treatics of peace were outside the competence of
the United Nations, &en if a violation of these Peace Treaties hmà
occurr&d, the only messures applicable were those provided for in the
Tseaties conccrning the execution and interpretntion thereof ,

As agalnst this, Dr. Kerno continued, iL was contended by the
delcgations which clnime6 that the Ceneral AssmbLy waa competent that,
firstly, the General Assembly had powers to detcdne the scope of its
jurisdiction. UnderArticle 10 of the Charter the General Assembly was
entitlcd to "discuss any question or any r:;stters within the scope of the
prcsent Charter". The problsm at issue lnvolved human rights and
fundanenta 1recdons; the provisions of the Charter which contsfncd
references to the obligations of Mernber States with regard to respect
for hwn rights and'fundamental freedoms were so nwnerous that It could
hardly be danied that any questlon involvulg these greai, principles was
within the scope of the Charter. The United Nations should obviously
beable to ktervene in the case of a violation of human righls; other-

wise,those provisions would bs worthless, Apart frpm the Charter
itself, ths respcct for huri~nn rights and fundamenml freedoms specially
and expresslywns provided for in the Treatiesof Peace, which had been
registercd with the Secrctariat of the United Nations.

Thus, the whole question had become one of international concern
2nd was no longer one essentially vdthin the donesticjurisdictioo nf a
SLate. Ik was further pointed out that the Pqce Treaties could in ho
case be pleaded to rebut the compctonce of the United Nations if and to
the extent that such competence was previously in existence. Indeed,
Article 103 of the Chcrter provided that "in the ovent of a canflict between
the obligations of the Membors wf the United Nations undey the present
Charter and their obligztions under any othor international agreement,
their obligations under the present Charter shalk prevaill1 ,

Flnally, in reply to the argument thatnon-member States could
not bc bound by the obligations containcd in the Charter, attention was
dlnawn ta the tems'of Article 55 c, rsquiring the United N~tions to pronote
"'universal respect for, and observance of, hman rights and fundanenta1
freedomsfor al1 without distinctio n s to race, sex, language or
religionII. Thus, it was the duty of the United Nations to ensure the
universal respect for, and observonca of, human righks and fundamental
f recdomsby Nember and non-Nember States alike .

Vhen consideration of the questionv~s resumcd jn Septenber,
1949, the CrcneraZ Assenbly had befo~e it thc valminous oxchange of
notes between'the United States of herica and the United Kingdon on the
one hand, and &lgariq, Hungary and Romani2 on the other hand.
The
discussions sgaindwlt witb the substance of the charges, which had now
been bmught not only ngainst Bulgaria 2nd EIungary, but also ngahst
Romnia, The questionaf the competenceof the UnitedNatioOs was raised
again, Butin both of tbese respects, the arguments advanced on either
slde were, broadljr speaking, the same as those used durkg tbc third
session.

The grcatcr part of the discussion dealt with the difficulties
whichmergcii in the c1,iplomatic correspondence between the States con-
cerned with regard to thc procedure provlded for in "kbe Feace Treaties
and its application, In the first days of the debate n draft -3-

rcsolution was proposcd by Bolivin, Çznzda an< the United Statcs of
Laericc, the purposeof which was to ask for an opinion on the four
questions which are now before the Court;.

Those who favoured this draft resolcition rnaintained that,

in pursuance of the resolukion adopted by the General Assembly at its
previous session, certain Allied and Associated Fovrers had taIren steps
to set inmotion the machulery provided in the Eaace Sreattes for tha
settlement of disputes, The refusal af the Eovernments of Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania to participte in the Truaty proceduras constituted
a further violation of the Treaticls as wûll as of thc! Gcneral Assembly
resolution. By stating thzt thcy considcrcd their obligations under
thc Treaties fulfillcd and dcnying tha cxistcncc of any dispute requiring
the application of the Trcaty machinery, th~y sought to evade el1 chargas .
of violations,

The refusal by the thsee Govcrnments rsisadlegal issuesof
paramount Unportance, Thc detcrminaticin of th2 issues was ossential
in the interest of internationa llm, It was thcrefore urged that the

Gcneral Assmbly should rcqucst an advisoryopinion? froq the International
Court of Justice on thc legal questions concerning the npplicability and
Smplmmtation of thc Trcaty procedurus,

On thc othcr hand, Hr.Kernc conttucd, othor represcntntives
assertcdthat Bulgaria, Hungary 2nd Zomanin wcrc net guilty of violating
the Feaco Treatics. In fact, thcm v~zs na Hdisputelf, svlce thcre wsre no
'"arrticsT1. In the opinion of thesereprcssntatives, the Trczties of
Peacc, onvisngcd tht one of thc p-rtics would bc Bulgarin, Hwlgary or
Romanin, that is to say, th9 conqucscd pzrty, and thc sther would be the
party formed by khi: threc Govcmmcnts of the Unltad Stctes of America,
the Unitod Kingdom and thc Soviet Union. In tha cuse at issuc, however,
such a situation did not zxist. Ln fact, therc wzs onay one party,

namcly Bulgarin, Hungnry and Romni,?,, and that party wris not convincod
of the existence of a dispute. On the other side, therc was no party
in the sense of the Treaties, since thc only governments involved were
those of the United Kingdom and the Unitod Statcs, that is to say, two
Gavcmsrits and not three, Acçcirdjuigl~rthey argued, the qucstion w4s
clear, 2nd it was unnecesssr o requcst the Court for an advisory opinion.

In reply to thisIast argument, it was coritended thnt ths three
Powcrsdid not have ko comc t? n prlor cgrocmcnt as to the existence of
the dispute before the Treaty proccdures could bc applied. If prior
accunent were neccssary thcre i?ouid br: na point in stipulating that the
qucstionshould bc refcrred to thc thrcc Hz?.ds of PZission, sincethe'
.letter would nlrendy havc the matter before tha. Thcrc ms no doubt

thatthe Traty procedures applicd to any dispute arishg betweéneny
onc of the AlTicd and Associcted Powers and the ex-cnemy States.

The resolution ~~dopted on 22nd Gctober, 1449, agailrefrained
from pnssingsny judgment 2nd from dc>.ling hith thc subskanceof the
problcm. APrk frum requcstingan~?dvisoyiropk~ion, it simply kept thé
questionon the agendaof the fiftb rcgular scssion, It expressed the
Gzneral Assemblyf s Itcontinuing intorcst in and its incrensed c2hcern at
the grave accusations made agninst 3uïgarin, Hungary and %mniall, and
recorded its ophlion tbt tho refus21 of the Govenments of ~Bulgaria,
Hungnry andfiorznia to CO-opdrztc in its cfforts -to emminc the grzve
charges wlth regard to the observance of hmn righrs and fundanenta1
frecdomsjuatlfied ltthisconcern of th(: Ganersl Assernbly nbout the
state of affciirs prev~iling in Bulg,?.rla,Hungmy and 3omnia in this
respecti'.

Dr. I'iornothcn drew the Court'sattention to the factthat the
SÇcretary-Gcnorz.1 of the Unit cd Nztions occupies a very special position
in thc matter, Under the treaties In questionhc my bo requested to mke
the appoint~nent of the third mmbcr af a Conmission, Itis of the essence
of this pmceclurc, -Dr. Kcrno said, th~t the appointment of the third
mmber shouldbe entireiy free from the slightest suspicion of partiality,
The Secret~ry-Gcnera tLcrofarc cannot take any positim either on the
merits or on the questions prcsented to this Court. Bo d3 so mightcffcct the vicw which thc partics mighthold with respect to his
inp~rt iality*

On thc other hand, the Genorzl Assembly dcüned it "important
for the Sccrotsry-Genort sl bo ndvissd ~uth~rit~ttivzly cancadng the
scopcof his cuthority undcr the Troztics rf Pence". In these circumstances
it was cvidont, Dr. icorno conc3udcd, thnt the Socretary-Dener wùluld
be able ta define his attitudo only in thu light of tha opinisnof the
Court and iiith full howlodge of tha viows of th2 General Assembly.