Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Advisory Opinion of the Court of 30 March 1950

h:\!ci&
I.C. J. Cariuminiqué No,5~/f9. .
(Unof ficial)

'
The following information fmm the Registryof the
InternationaC lourt of Justice has been comunicated to the
Press ;

To-day, 30th Iviarch,1950, the International CouTt of
Justice gave its Advisory Opinion concerning the fnterpretation
of Peace Treatieswith Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania which the
General Assembly af the United Natians, referred to it by the
Fiesolution'of 19th October, 1949,

By eleven votes to three the Court statedthat disputes
exrisecd with thcse countries sub ject to the provisions for the
settlemen otf disputes contained in the ~reaties themselvas; and
thatthe Governmcnts of the three countrisswere cbligated to
carry out the provisions of the Articles of those Treaties which

relate to the settlmcrit of disputes, hcluding the pmvisions
for the appointment of tk~ir representntivet so the Treaty
Commissions,
3f

a- The following are the circumstance isnwhich the Court
was led to delivcr its opinion:

In April, 1949 the queation of the observance of hwn
rights in Bulgaria and Hungary having been refersed to the General
Assembly, the latter adopt'eda resolu~ion inwhichit expressed
its deep concern at the grave accusation sade againsl the
bvémments of Bulgaria and Hungary in this connection, and drew

their attention to their obligations under the Paace Sreaties
which they had signed with the Allied and Associated Powers, lnclud-
ingthe'obligatio tn CO-operate in the setelment of al1 these
questions,

On 22ndOctober, 1949 theAssanbly, confmnted by the
chargesmade in this connection by certain Powersagainsc Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romanis, which charges wore rejected by the latker, and
noting tkt the Govemments of these three countries had refused
to designate their repreçentatives to the Trea'ty Cornmissions for
. the settlmncnt of disputes on the grounds thatthey we5o not legally
i0 obligated to do so, and deeply concerned with this situation; decided
to refer the following question to the International Court of Justice

for an Advisory Opinion:

.' 1. Do the diplornatic exchanges between the three States
and certain Allied and Associated Powersdisçlasedisputessubject
to the provisions for the settlement of disputescontained in the
Trcatle s?

II, In the event of an affirmative reply, are the three
States obligatcd to carry out the provisions of the Articles in the
Peace Treaties for the settlanent of disputes, including the pmvisions
'for the appointment of their represenhtives £Q the Commissions?

II, In the event of an affirmativ eeply to question II
and if within thirty days from the date when the Court delivered its
opinion the dcsignta ion has nat b een made&sthe Secretary-General of
the United Nations autharised to appointtk- third Member of the
Commission s

IV. kthe~~tofanaffirmativereplytoQuestionII1,wouLd
a Commission so conposed be wmpetent to make a defidtivc (2ndbinding
decision in setthnent of a dispute? However, Questions Il1 and IV which ref er to n clause in the Peace
Trestiosunder which the Secretayy-General of the United Nationsis charged
to appoint, failing agrement between the parties, the third member of the
Treaty Commissions are no% submitted to the Court foran Immed%ate nnswer, .
The Courtwlll have to consider them ody if the appointmen of national
mmbers to theCodssion has not bem effected within one month after the

delivery of the opinionon Questions 1 and II.
.
W A'

In to-dayis Opinion theCoiara thswered questions 1 and II,

The Courtfirst consid~red whethe~ Article 2, paragraph 7 .ofthe Charter
which prevents the UnitedNations fmm intervening inmattcrs wfiich are essentlally
within the domestic jurisdiction of a State, barrad it fxom ddivering jn Opinion
in the present case. It ne.tcd on the onc hand that the General Assemblyjustified
the examination which it hd undertaken by: reiyingupon Article 55 of the Charter
which states -t;ht the United Ejations shall promote dversal respect for and
observanc ef han righ.ts&on the other that the request for' an @inion' àid not
csïl upon the Court to deal with the alleged vi.olations ' of the provisions
of the Treaties mncerning human rights: the object of the Recfucst is directed
solely to obtaininc gertain clarifications- of n legal nature regarding the
applicabillt oy the procedure for the setilment of disputes as provided for In
The interpretation of the terms of a Treaty for this purpose
the Treaties,
could not be cansidered as s question essentially within the domestic jurisdic
of a State, it is a question of international hvr which, by its very nature, 1I"
within the cornpetence of the Court.

The 'Court conçidered, on the otherhand, trhether the fact that Bugaria,
Hwigary and Romanla had exprcssed theh opposition theadvisory proeeeàings
shoufd not detedne. it, by the appiication of the principles wklch govern the
functionin ogf a judic51 organ, to decline to give an answer, ' It .pointed out
that contentiou srocedure resulting in a judgment, and advlsory procedure were
differmt. 1% considered that it had the mer to examine whether the circwn-
stances of each case were of such a character as should lead it to decline ta
answerthe Request. In the present case, which tras clearly dif ferent from the
Eastern Carelian case (1923) the Court held that -1£ should not decline because
the raquest was made ~dth a vlewto enlighthing the General Assembly on the
applicability of the procedure for the settlement of disputes, and the ~ourt'was
not asked tu pronounce on the merits of these disputes, The Court gave an-
affirmativ enmer to Question 1, pointing out on the one hand that disputes

exiated because certain charges had been bmught against certain States, which.the
httcr rejected, and on the other hand that these disputes were subiect to the
provisions of the Articles for tkiesettlemeno tf disp&s sconbhcd" in the P&
Treatie s, *

Taking up Question II, .the Court determined its meaning and pointed out
thatit referredsolciy to the obligation upon Bukaria, Hungary and Romnia to
carry out the Articles of tkie Peace Treaties concerning the settlment of disputes,'
including the obligation ta appoint their representat ives ta the Treaty Cods sions.
The Court found that all the conditions requlred for the cornencanent of the stage
of the settlement of diswtes by the Commis sions, had.been fuulilled, Cons~quently,
it gave an affinnative qnswcr to Question LI.

L
)E x

The Opuiionof th^ Cmrt was ddivered in public, the Secretary-General
of the United Nations and the States signatories to the Treaties having beenduly
notkfied. The tex& of the conclusions of the Opinion ms cabléd to those
signatory States &ich were not rcpresented at the Heariqg,

Judge Azevedo, whilst concurlring in the Opinion, appended to it his
individual opinion. Judges Winiarski, Zoricic and Krylov, considering that the
Court çhould have dedined to give an Opinion, appended to tbe Opinionetatmentg
of thelrdiSsorrting opinion. .

Thc Hase, 30th March, 1950.