Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Statement by Mr. Benjamin Cohen (U.S.)

CommuniquéNo. 50/32,

INTERNAT TONi1LCOURT 3F JUSTICE

Interprctation of Peace Troaties with Bulgaria,
Hwigaqr cd Romania.

Statment by Nr. BenjamLn V, Cohen (u.s.)
~
The Hague, 1st March, 1950,

On the second day af the public sitting in the advisary case con-
cerning the Iliterprstation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romnia,
the Court heard a statem~nt delivered on behalf of the Unitad States of America
by Mr. Benjamin V. COHEN.

In.his statement, Th. Cohen, - the first U,S. rcpresentativ teo appear
before the Court - strongly upheldthe right of the United Nations to concern
itself with the observance of hunan rightsin the three coutries concerned,
both der the provlPsions of the Charter and the Peace Tkeaties. The deep
indignation, he said, that hâd been aroused throughout the world by reports of
the suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms in certain Balkan
corntries clearlp showed a situation that was likely to impair the general
welfare and friendly relations among nations. The future of the United Nations,
he dontlnued , ay weU. dependupon its ability to promoke .respect forhuman
rights and to develop effective procedures of peaceful settlment.
$.;
Mr. Cohensaidtkat deliberately and not by accident had the States
formerly allied with Germny been required to undertake, as an international
obligation, to prol8ct and safeguard the fundamental freedomsand human rights
of theirpe S. These States bad solemlyand~ot~inglyunde~aken this
obligation in eace Treaties, In support of this $5, Cohen quated a statemant
by the former U.S. Secretary of St@e Byrnes, who testifying before the United
States sonate Cornmittee on Foreign Relations had said-dth respect to the
ratification of the Peace Treaties:

l'Ptseemed to us desirable that treaties constitute as far as possible a
settlemen tf al1 questiorsarising out of thewar and that methods be provided
which would enable disputes arising in regardto the interpretatio or execu-
tion of the treaty provisions to be speedily resolved.

I1Weencountered some difficulty - 1 would Say we encountered great
difficulty - In reaching agreement on a procedure forsettling disputes, but
a formula was ultimately found which1 believe will fumish a satisfactory
basisfor the ultisnate resolution of those questions whichcannot be
e resalved by bilaterzf negotiati~n,~~

Mr. Cohen revoaledthat diplomatic exchanges concerning hwnan rights hnd
taken place betweenThe United States and the thrae States concerned Long
before the effective date of the Traaties of Peace.Already when the Bulgarlan,
Hungarian and Ramanian Governmentw sere subject to the armistice regimos, the
United States had found it necessary on the basis of the Yalta decisions ta
make diplomtic representations with regard to the actions ol these Governments
in curtailing the f reedoms of their people.

When these Treaties came before the United States Scnlite, there was
somequestion whether they should be ratified becauseof the cantinuing failure
of these Eovernment so respect the hwn rights of thsir geoples. Former
Secretary of State Byrnes urged rztification, stating, inter alia:

tlOnly through the conclusion of a definitive peace can the ex-enmy states
resumetheir sovercign rights and thereby accept full responsibiiity for ,
their own acts in the future.11

and again:
I
"Otherbenefits granted to the people of the ex-enemy states assure the

maintenance of their basic hmn rights and fundamontal freedoms. These
clauses constitut en international obligation ind assureother states
tha right to soc to it that the? are maintained.I1
Since ,., Sirice the coming into effect of the Peace Treaties, the United
States has been Ynpelled to point out repeatedly the continued failme of
the Government of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romnia to confom tkeir policies
to their newly assurnedinternational obligations,

As a first step, in its notes of April 2, 1949, the Gavement
of 'the Unitod Statcs proceeded formally- to charge the Governments of Bulgaria,
Mu~gary and slomanla ~5th s;rs2;cmatic and deliberat e violations of the
respectiv elauses of the Feace Trcatics obligating them to securc to their
peoples thc cnjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The United
StatosGoverment set forth by way of illustration specific charges of such
%olati)s and rcqucsted that rcmudial measurcsbe taken by the three

Governmc S.t

The Govcmments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romnia in thltirrcpLlos
dolivcred in April 1949 rcjcctcd the United States charges, Thcyaffimed
that they had'fully cornplicd with the'Pcaco TraaZ<es, assarting thatunder
thc P~ace Vcatics thoy wcre obligatcd to takc masures against Fascist
activitias and suggestkg tkt it ~ms agauist suchneasures that the United
States was protcsting, Thq nlko indicatod thntthey considered the action
of thc United Statcs in making thc charges to constitutc an unwarrantcd
interfcrence in their domestic affnirs,

Th3 diplomtic efforts having'provo ad fsilure, the United States
on 31 May, 1949 irivokcd the Treaty Airticlcs providing for thescttlement
of such disputes bg the Hcads of Diplomtic lissiors of the United Kingdom,
Soviet Union and Unlkcd Statcs In Sofia, Budnpost and Buch~rcst,

The UnitCld Kingdom exprcssed willingnos ~o comply with this requcst,

The SovioL Goverment, howcver, doclined, in a note of Il June 1949, to
authorixe its represontativc ts,discuss the mattcr. It mpresscd the vicw
that thc three formlrrcncmy countrics were strictlyfulfilling thoir
obligations undcr the Pace Treatics and thnt the mmsurcs cornplaincd of not
only did not viohte, but were directed tomrd the fulfi'lnient of, the P~ace
Treaties. Eiorcovcr, the Sovict Goverment chlmed, thcse rneasures wcre
?dithin th@ domestic compatcncc of tkcse countrle ss soveretgn states.

In an cffort to persuado the Sovict Union to rcconsldei rts rcfusnl
the United States yolnt~d out, in a furtker note to thc USSRd~ted June 30,1949,
thqtthe existence of disputes bctwzm thc Unitod States end the three former
enenry Governments cannot bc qucstionsd siiicc! th¢ UnitcdStates hs charged
them wlth violations of Yeace Tro~tics and Lhey have rcplicd assertkg that
their actions do not constituto such violations. The United Statos further
pointed out tht the fulfilmcnt of intcrna'cionzl treaty obligations cannot

be considcrcda purclydomestic offair. Irzn.replyl:at;d July19, 1949, the.
Soviet Union rofuscd to modify its position,

On 27 July,1949, Bulgarie nddresscd n nota to the United States
setting fortbthe provisions in thc Bulgarian Constitutiod nesigned to gunrantee
the observc?nce of the obligations zrising out of the human rights clause of the
Peacc Treaty. The Bulgarian Govcrnmsnt rcstated its vicw thnt the measures
complained of in the Unlted States notes werc takm in execution of other
Peacc Trcaty provisions, It asçertad tmt the procecdings in the 13ulgarisn
courts and aclmii?istrztivengencics could not be mda mbject f the Peace
Treaty procedurcsand denied that t?dispute cxLs.ted,

Whcnmore thnn two months had elcapsed and the disputosremajned
unresolved by thc Hcads of ?fission, kha UnLtcd S.tates found it necessary
to invokethe. addition21 Fcnce Trcaty procodure for th2 establishment of
Treaty Commissions to sebtle the disputes. On 1 August 1949, the United
States requested Bulgnrin, Hungary and Romnia to join with it in nzrrdng these
Commissions. The theue Governmcnts rejectcd this request in their notes
dated 26 August, 1 September and 2 September 1444, respectively in which they

reaff Lmed their prevlous positions ,

On 19 Septomber 1949 the Unit;.d Statès addrcssedfurther notes to
thc Goverwnants of Hungary, Bulgari?, and Roma~ia i- which lt restate'd itsview~
on the disputed issues cmph2sizii-ig thattkc Treaty provisions regarding tho
eliraincitionof Fascist activities cnnnot be utilizcd as a cloak for thedenial cf fundamental freedoms specif ied in the human rightsclauses of the

Treaties. The United States Goverment further announced that it would have
recourse to al1 appropriatm eeasures for securingthe cornpliance by the
three Governments with theirobligations under the human rightsciauses and
under the disputed Articles of the TreaLies,

In a further note to the United States date& October 27, 1449, the
Hungarian Goverment reaffimed its prior position and repeated that it had
acted in cornpliance wikh the Treaty provisions requiring the ellinination of
Fascist activities.

' On 5 January 1950 the United States advised the threeGDverments
that )Ir, Edwih il,Dickinson was designated as the United States representa-
tive in the propesed T~eaty Commissions, At the same the the United States
requested the three Governments to designate their representativ eortheth
and enter into cansultations knmiediately with .theUnited States Goverment
through the American Ministers accreditst do thcm wikh a view to the

appointment of the third membera of the ~odssians,

On January 17, 1950 the Hungarian Goverment replied commenting
on the fallure of the United States to appoint its representativ on the
Treaty Garnission earliar, But the EEungarian Governent reasserted that no
dispute concerning the interpretatio orn exedution of the Peace Treaty
existed wd dechred again that it would not take part in the Treaty
Commissio the establishmen of which it consldered unnecessaly,

Surisdictio onf the Cou~t.

JJlr ,ohen then stated that in the vlew of the United States there
was no doubt of ths jurisdiction of the Court or of the propriety of the
Court to exereise its jurisdictioi nn this matter, -

The Charter (in Article 96) and the Statute of the Court (in

Article 65) were explicit, he said, in conferring jurisdiction on the Court
to give an advSory opinion at the request of the General Assemblyon any
legal question, For the making of such request by the Assernbly the Charter
and the Statute require neitber unanh.it nor the consent of States which
may be specially cohcerned. -

He pointed out that the Statute of the present Coufi clearly
recognises the Charter as an independant source of jurisdiction in addition
ta the jurisdiction conferred by ordinamy tseatics and conventions whichare
binding only an the parties thereto. The Charter is something more than
a mere treaty or convention betw~cn the parties thereto, Mr. Cohen said.
It is the constitutio of the international comrmirrity,

Mr. Cohen then quoted precedents to prove that the obligations
respecting human rights which the Gavernments of Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romaniâ assurned under the Paace Treeties are not matiers essentiall y ithin
the domestic jurisdiction of those States.
On the contrary, he said, tbose
obligations have deliberately been made obligations essentialio yf inter-
national concern. Thcre is no provision in the Charterand no principle
of international law which limits the treaty-making pwer of sovereign
statas or rclievesthm of responsibilitf yor the £uLfi.Lmmt of their treaty
obligation. Nor is there any provision in the Charter or prbciple of
internation21 law which would deprive the Court or any other appropriate
international tribunal of its jurisdiction on the ground that an alleged
exception of domestic jurisdiction prevails over treaty obligations between
the parties. Zn no event can a mere advisory opinlm by the Court on the
questionssubmitted rcgarding the Peace Tseaties be deemed in any way an
intervention in rmtters essentially within the domesticjurisdiction of the
states concerned, The Court" advice on thsse questions will not aven
inwlve a determination whether any of the rnatters cornplaineci ofis or isnot
essentially within the domcstic jurisdidion of the States concerned or a
determination of what woufd be the effect of such a fjnding on the disposi-
tionof any clah.. Such determinationu snder the Trcaties are left to the
Treaty Codssions. Mr, Cohen then continued to giwe evidence to show why in the
opinion of the United States there are no reasons which ahould deter the
Court fromexercisini gts jurisdiction by answerlng the questions submitted
by the General Assembly. He dealt particularly thsiththe first and second
questicn before the Court, and in conclusion u~ged the Court to glve in its
advisory opinion, an affirmative afiswer ta both questions, namely that a
dispute exists and tbat the Govementsof &Lgaria, Hungary and Ramania
are under an obligation to carry out the Feace Treaty provisions for the
settlement of such disputés; including the agpaintment of theirrepresentatives
to the Treaty Commissions,