Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on June 27th and 28th and July 18th 1950, the President, M. Basdevant, presiding

B. - PROCES-VERBAUX DES SÉANLES TENU-ES

LES 27 ET 28 JLIX ET LE 18 JUILLET Igro

(DEuXI~MEPHASE}

Préseiils: MAI. Lllnç~av.~ar, risirl~iit; GUERRERU i,ke-PrÉsirlciit;
ALVAREZ H,ACK~Y(.>K ~C~IN,I~TRS KI,\'ISÇT,HER,sirARNOL~ D,TcNAIR,
hl. KI.AESTAD R,ADA~ 'ACHA, ?m. KRYLOV R,EAU,HSC MO, AZEYEDO,
.uges; RI.IIAXRROG , r8fli.z~.

Présct~lipi~nje~zt:
M. Ivan KI~~zYCS~),rttüire g6néraarijoiiireprCseritniitdu 5ccrGt:iir~
gknéral des Nations VI~~PS a,sistedc

M. I-ISAN-TSL~I-LI m~~,hi-ede la Division dcsqutsti~ns juridiques
géiikralesau Secretariatdes Nations Unies.
Les représeximtts deGoz~.;err:cme> zts'va~rs

Royatirne-Uni : G. G. ~;~TZ%I:\L~RIC,.BI.G., deusi4mi: cyisci[\cr
juridique au Foreign Office.
Etats-Unis d'.4mérique: l'hoiiniablRenjamin V.CcitrI:.K,

Le PHESIDENT ou,vrant I'nudiciice, indiqqiicla Cour sc rkiiitafiri
d'eriteiiilre les eqiooraus quiseroritprtseritkddatisldeusibne phase
de l'affaire visant certaines questiode pracbrliirerelativesl'iriter-
rétation des iraif& de paisqtii otit&Li.coricli~s aveu: la I3irlgarir,
Hongrie er ka Ruunianis.
Par iine résolritiodatée du zz octribi.~t~g, 1':'isfemhlég6ritrale
desXations U'iiics :ilradé~ididc deniarideriIri Couriiavis cons11t1a.tii
A ce sujet. Cette deiriandccom1iort;~itquatre questionsdont les deus
dernières nedevaien Eireposées ;ila Cniiqiiesoiis ccrraintç conditions.
Par 501:I\~idu 30 mzrs rgjo, ICour a rkporiduiifinnativenieiiaiix
deux prenii$res riestioriU'autre parl,IF :ecrétaireg6néraI iinfurnit
la Cour que Ics~e,vwnmne~,tc dc LaEulgnrie, de la ilongrica de la
Roumanie n'ont pas di&grii.leurs représentanailscnitirnissiotis prSvueç
par les trait& de paixdatisles trcte jours dc la date laqriclltiCniii
avait rcnclu sori üvij. B.-hfINUTES OF THE SITTINGS HELD ON

JU-UE 27th AND 28th AND JULY 18th, ~gjo

(SECOND PHASE)

Przsenl : Presitlei~~ASDE~'AXT; Vice-PrdsidenlGu ERI~EKO : j~idgcs
AI.V.ARE lZ,c~ivo~i~rr~VIIIIARSK DI,3VISSCHER Si,AR SOI.^ 31cX.a1~,
Kgistrrir,I~AM~RO.I PAÇIIA, KRYLOVR , EAI), Hsu 310, Azev~wo ;

.4Eso9rzsent :
Mr. Ivan KERNO, ,4ssista11t Secretary-GerleraI, repi-csen tiiig tlie
Sectctarÿ-GenerüI of the Uiiited Katiorisassistedhp

3lr. Hsu.4~-?'SUI-LIU llernher of tiicGcncral 1,egal Ui\.isioat the
Secretariat ofthe United Kations.
The Hepreseiitn1fi:eoJ!liefullozc.iGorier~rmetr ls

Unitfiri Kingdom : $IrG. G. FITZ~~AURIC C.31.G., Seconri Legal
Adviser ofthe IloreigriOKtce.
United Statcs of hmerica : titc HonniirabIe Bcrijar~!i~~. COHEK,
assisted t>y:

\Ir.LcoiiardC. MEEKER oi, theOfficoftlieLcgalhdviser, Department
oi State.
,1liePRIISIIIENT d,fcr dcclaringtlic sitting open, said tlint the Court
had met to h~ar the cirnlstntcrnentswfiicti woul.he subrriittcdin the
second phase of tlie case concerriicertain prticedirquestionsrelating
to tlie iriierymtatiorof the T'ence Treatifi sigiietlwitli I3?ilgnria,
H Ingliry aridIiornania.
Uy RcsoIution dattd OcIober 22nd, 1949. the GerieralAssembly of
the IjrliteKations had decidcd to request thcCourt iog1.e an advisory
opiiiionon tliisubject. This rcqucst conçiçted of inur qiiestiorithe
laçt trvo beiiig put ttlic Court only itndecertain conditioiis.
R y itsOpirtion of lriarch3oiti, 195,he Court Iiatanswered the first
t\vo rlucstionsin thc affirmative.Ori tiic other hand, the Secretary-
Geneml ofihc United h'ittiotis had notified fhc Carirtthtlic Goi~ern-
ment s of Uulgaria, I-iiingarand Roinania liad iiot designated tlicir
rcpr~cseiitativetothe Cornrnissioriurider theTreütiesof Peace williin
thirtjrrlays from the datewiicn the Courtdelivcrcd its opi~~ioii. 333 TREIZIÈ~IE S~AXCE (27 VI 50)
Le Président,constataritqilelesconditions prhvuesdarts la résolution
dti 22 octobre 1949 ,oiIrque la Courait examiner lesqirestionsIII ct
IV, se trouvent ainsi remplies, prie le GREI;~;IE dc<donner lecture
des deux qucstioiis dontla Cour est actuelIemcri1saisie.

Cette lecture laite,PRÉST~I~E a~T~itequeIesnutificatioriniicessaireç
ont &té adressCes aux ptats intl.ressés, qiii onétC:avists des dC1aiç
respectivement fixkspur Iüprksentntion d'exposés krik et d'exposés
oraux.
Sei11le Gouvernement des États-~nis d'Amérique a présenté, dans
le ddaiqui lui étaiimparti, unexposc Ccrit ; ia,enoutre,arinoncé soli
intention Jcprksenter un exposéorni devant iaCour et s'estfaitreprg-
senter i cet effet par l'l~oiiorabBenjamin V. Cohcn, assisi6 de hl.
Leonard C. hleeker.attadiiau servicc ducoriseilljuridiquedu Ukparîe-
ment d'État.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni s'at réfbréaux ohscrvatioris
déjA énoncéespar Iui,au sujetdes questions dorit s'wcupe aujourd'hui
Ia Cour,dans l'ex oséécritprEsentC e:nson nom ailcours de laprcniihre
phasede I'rffnire. esreprksentédevant laCour parM. G.G. I'iternaurice,
deuxième conseilIerjuridique arrForeign Office,qui présentertincsposé
oral.
Le Pr6sidcnt coiistatela présence devant la Cour des représentants
du C;oiiver~iment dcs États-Unis d7AmEriqiie et di1 Royaume-fini,
ainsi que dii rc r&seritantdrr Secrztaire ghnéraldes Sations Unies,
hl. vanKerno, Lrktaire géi~era idjoint, srirtd dM. Hsuan-Tsui-l.ii~,
ConseilIerjuridiqiieau DEpartemen t juridique des Xations Unics. 1t
donne la parole ?i31.Ivan Kerno.
M. Ivan I~EHKO présentel'expose reproduit enannexe 1.

Le PR&SIDEKT donne Ia paroIc au représetitant des Etats-unis
. d'Amérique.

L'honorable I3enjamin V. COHENprésente l'espod reproduit en
annexe O.
(L'audience, iriterrompue h12h.50, cstrepriseA 16hcurcs.)

31.C~)I Is reprend et terminc son exposé a-
Le PRBSIDEIIp rie le reprcsentant du Gouvernement du Royaurne-
Uni de Graride-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Sord de hien voirloirprésenter
son exposé.
hi. G. G. FIT~UAU~~ IrbEserttsonexposé,reproduit en annese '.

L'audience cst Ievk B 18h.30.

Le Prkident de la Cour,
(Sigai) RASDEVAST.
Le Grcfl~crde la Coiir,

(Signé) ?r?.HA~IHHI~. THIRTEENTH SITTISG (27 VI 50)
,733
The conditions laid down in thc Rcsolutjon of October aend, 1949,
under whicIi tiicCourt \vastu examiric Questions 1 Il and TV wcrc thils
frilfrlled.He açkedthe REGISTRA o read the trrroquestioiisiiow be1ot.e
the Court.

After the qiiestions hati heeri readthe P~r~snrew observed that the
necesary riotificatioiihad been sent tothe States concerned, whic!iwera
infomied of the tirne-Iimits fived for the presentation writtcn aridoral
statements.
The lini teri States Coveniriit alonehad presented awrittcn statement
within tlicprcscribcdtinle-limii. Inaddition,tiIiadtIecIaredits intentiori
of presenting an oral statemcnt and Iiad deSigriatcd tlicHoiiourable
Benjamin V. Cohen, assisteri by Alr.LcoiiardC. Rleeker,of theOffice of
the Legal Depart~rient,Department of State, as itsrepresentxtives for
this purpose.
The United Kingdom Governmeiit had referred to its observatiorison
the questions nriw befurethe Court in theu~rittenstaterrtcnt prcscntedin
ii-s narne during the Srçt phase of the case. This Governrnerit was
represented befure the Court by hilr.C. G. l:itnnaurice, Second 1-egdl
Adviser of the !'omigriOficc, wiio would yreserit an oral :,tatement.

'17iePreçident noted thnt the representatives ofthc Government.: of
the United States of Arnerica arid of the United liingdo~n and the
reprcse~iiative oftheSecretary-tiei~eralofthe United Xatiuns, Mr. Ivan
lierno, Assisfan1 Çecretav-General, assisted by Mr. Hsuan-?'sui-Liu,
Legd Courisellor,of tlieLegaI Depürhnent of the Secretariatof the
United Xatioiis,werepreçent in Court. He called upon Mr. Kcrno.
Mr. Ii-aiKICI~K pmçented the çtatcment which isreproduc~vl in the
annex 1.
The PI<ESIIIEN cTIIedupuri tiirepresentative .ofthe United States of
Arnerica.

The 1-Iuriouralile etijaminY. COHEN presented thestaternenl whidi is
repi-oduced in the rinnex 2.
(The siftingwas ~ispended at 12.50 p.m. and resurned at 4.p.m.)

hlr.COHEP c;ntit~ucdand conduded hiç staicrnenta.
TIie PRESIDENc TriHecupoii the repreçentative ofthe Government of
the United Kingdom ofGreat Uritain and Northern Jrelaridto prcsent
his statement.
3Ir..G. G. FIT~HAURI comEmenced his statement (annex 9.

TIte Court rose at 6.30 p.m.334 QL~ATORZI~~IE ET SEIZI~~IE S~ANCES (2s VI, 13 TI1 50)

I,e Pribrrit.:~--,ivrant lasknce, iiivitcIcrepi-esetant du Royaume-
Erii à poui.suivrc sori exposé.
M. G- C;. Fi.izu..~unrcr:tcprcrid et terniiiiel'exposéreproduit en
anTICSe =.

Le PRESI~E~T prorioriceIüclôture de Ia proc6diire uriile clanl'affaire
de I'interlirétatiodes traitésde pais avec IaBulgarie, la Hongrie et la
Roumnriie.
I_'atidieiicest let'& 5 r2 h.30.
(5igntitures.J

SEIZIE.'A $IE ANCE PUHLIQUE s (IS vrI jo, IOR. 30)

Pra~~?its:Ies rnemhres tle laCotir tnentionnk au pro<&-verbal de la
trciziknie séanccct Ic GrcFficr.
Le ~-'RCSIDI:N oTv,rant l'audicricc,signale qrie Ia-Cour SC réilnit
aujorird-hui pour prononcer son avisdans la deuxikme ptiase c!el'affaire
consuitative qui a trait A I'iiiterprkt des trnitb de paix condus
avec laBulgarie,la Hongrie ct la Roumanie. Cet avis faitsuifc celiri

qu'a déjhrendu 1:Courdans la mcme affaire,APa date du 30 mars 1950.
LePrkident prie le G ~~KPFIEHde doliner lectirrde la partie pertinente
de la résalution. datbe clu 22 cictobre 1949, par laqiidle l'r\~semblée
génka1edes Satioris Uriies a demandé un arriscoiisultatifA Ia Cour:
Cettc fecti~re fnite, IF ~~I~?s~T?ENT r.ppelle qrie, conformément A
I'ariicl67du Statut, Ie Secrétaire gtnfcal des zï'atiorrUni- ainsi quc
les reprPçentarits des hieirihrcsdes Xations uiiies et autres Etats direc-
tenient int4reçç ont bit!durncr ti~irCvciius.
I,aCoiir, rltcidiint conforménient A l'article 39du Statut, richoisi,
comnie dcvaritfaire fni, le testfmnç:iis de l'avisC'est de cf: texte*que
dorinc Iectiir-ele Présiderit, qiriprie, ensuite,Ic GREFFIERdc donner
lecturecti anglais di1dispositifde l'avis,

Le PR~SIDENaT nnonce cnsiiitequ'ilva donncr Iccttircde13déc!aratiori
joint? & l'a\-is et faite par 31. Krylojuge
hiM. Iiead et hzevcdo, juges, di.cIararit ne oiivoirSC rallier l'avis
dc la Coiir er prgvalariidudroit que leurcoiiybiel'rrticl57du Statut,
ont jointaudit avis l'ex-?os2de leirrsopinionsdissidentes i

Mh!. les juges Kead et Azevedo orit fait savoir qu'iIs n'avaient pas
1'in:etion de dorinerlectiire de Ieiiropinions dissidentes.
1.e PrCsideritprunonce laclUturedc I'audieticc.

1,'aiidicnceristlevée & II h.1j.
(Sigriul~rres.)
-
1Quaraiitc-ncuvibmc scanccdc Ln Coiir.
2 Voir pp. 366-379.
'Soil;anti&me searicde la Cuur.
Voir public~tindela Cour, Hmiredes A rréis, AvconsrtliaielOvdon?ianccs
1950,pp. 221-230.
fde118,p. "30.
D .pp. 231-247 et 246-254. FOIJRTEESTH ASU SIXTEEXTH SITTLTISGS (2s VI, IS VI1 50) 334
FOIJKTLESTII PURT,II: SITTING (23 VI 50, 10.30 a.**.)

Presctzt: [Sec ihirtcenth sitting.]
In opeiiing the sitting, the PKESIIIEK caTlIedupori the represeritative
of the Governmcnt of the United Kirigdorri to continue Irisstatemeiit.

Aïr. C. G. FITXM.~GR~ Co~ltitlucdand conciilcied the stntement .
reprduced iri tiic ariri'.
'ThePRESIDEN Tecjared the dosure of th; uraIproceedi~igs irthe case
concerning the interprctati ofothe Peace Treaties with 13iilgaria,
kIungüry and Komani;~.

The Court rose at T2.30 p.rn.
(Sigiradiires.)

SISTEENTH PUBLIC SITTING a (18rJrrjo, 10.30 a.>??.)

Presmt : the mcmbers tifthe Court inentioned in the miniites of the
thirteenth sitting arirlthe Registrilr.
In operiirigliic sitting, the PRESIDEYT stated tliat tIie Court had
riççemt-iledto d~livur the opinion iri triesccoiid phase of the advisory
case concerning the intei-pretation of the l'rac'l'rcati- withRirlgaria,
Ilurigarlf and Romania. This opinion fcillowd the opinion already
delivered bytIte Court in the same case,orihiarclixoth, Igjo.
IIecalIcd itpon th^REGIÇTR.~ tR read thc relevant part ofthe IZesolu-
tion of Octoher nend, 1949, by which the GeneraIAssmbIy of the
Uriitcd Sations Iiad requc~tcd aiiridvisory opinion froni theCourt.

Aftcr the Kegistrar Iiad rend the text, the PRESIIIEPI Ttcalled tliat,
urirlerArticle 67 nî the Statute, tlic Sccrctarv-GcneraI of the U~iited
Xations alid the represenialivcs of thc Menibers of the C'nitedV ations
ancl other States ciirecilconcerriedIiact becn diily notfzed.
He ailder1 thntunder Articie 30of the Ftatrite,tiicCourt Ilad dccided
tliat theFrench textof llteopinion rvouldbeauth~ritative. The President
then reatl this text*,and reqireste(the ~IEGISTR~ tIRreiidthe operative
clause of tiic opinion irLriglish.
The PRESIDENa Tririoui1~t3dhat he would reaù the decliirnticitvliich
Judge Krylov had xpp~ndcdto the opiniuri6.
Jtidges Read and Azci*cdo,declaring that they were unable tocurlcur
iiitfioliiriioriotlieCourt arid availing thcmxIves rifItcright conferreci
iipon them by Article 57 of the Statute, ripperidcd their disscntilig
opiiiionsto the opiniori of tlie Court
Jiidgcs -RcacI aiidAzevedo irifonr~cdthe President tliat tliey didnot
~vish to reüd tIicidis-wntinq opiniori~.

The preskien t declared tht:sitting clowd.
TIic Court rose at II.Tj 3.111.
[S.Ci~iinliives.J

E'orty-nintmceting 01 Ili~ Coi~rt.
= SSWpp. 360-379,
Sixriethmeeting of tlie Coirrt.
See piiblicatioof theCourt, R~porfsof Jridgmrnis,rldvisory Opinioxnnd
O~dfr: rgso. pp.XI-? 30.
Idein, p.~3u. .
... pp. 231.247 and ?4S-zj~. A3NEXES AUX PROCÈS-VEKBAUX

EXPOSCS ORAUX DE JUIX 1950

(DEUXI~MEPHASE)

ANKEXES TU THE BIINUTES

(SECOXD PHASE)

1. - EXPOSÉ DE M. IVAN S. KERNO
{KEI'I~ESENTn .~KTECK~TAIHECI?S&RAL DES X:\TIOKS UNIES)

rlLA SHASCE PUBLIQUE Dl1 27 JUIX Igj0, >t;\TI?J
AlonsicurIc Prbsident, hiesçiei iessMembresde la Cour,

Au coirrsde lapremihre pliasc dc laprocédiire concernantl'inter-
prétatioridcs TraitCsde pais concltiavec la Bulgarie,IaIIorigr.iect la
Roumanie, j'ai eu l'wcasion deprhseiiteh laCour, comme reprkeritünt
du Secretaire générddes Xations Uriies,trnesp& oral qui consistait
siirtotren un rbsumé ol-ijcctdes points saillants ddiseur.orisSII~VC-
nues au sein de 1'Açsernblé génhle. I>e uis, corrirrvous venez de
le mentionner, Monsieur le Président, laeour a dan&, 5 la date du
go mars rgjo, son avis consu1tat ausujet des deus première.squestions
4ui 1uia~qaientété poséespar 1'Asserriblég4nériIe dans sa Résolution
du 22 octobre 1949.La réponse de laCour a été affirmative sucesdetis
premières qriestionsConfor~iibmcn At la Késolufiodi122 octobre 1949,
le Secréiaire gCnCraa faits2voirà la Cniir, par utélégrantriien date
du 2mai Igjo, que, dans les trentejours padir du 30 mars 1950,les
Gn~ivernenients de la Riilgaric,de la 1-Ionrieet de la Kournariie ric
lui ont pas fait connaitie qu'ils aruiïrit %siCnb leursiepi6seniïiits
aux commissions prévues par Ics traitCs r!e pais. Lc Secrétaire
g&nbral a confirinison tL1Cgrammcpar une lettre portant la 1riCrnc
date. 1-a Coirrestdonc ap~ieIGA SC proriuncersur les qiiestions111
et IV de laRbsoliition du22 octobre 1949.
Dans rriori cxpsé du 2s fél-rier1950,j'aindiqui:quece lritIcprojet
cornmiin dc; dCltgatiqnçde Bolivie, du Canada et des Etats-U~iis
d'Arnérique 1qui servit debase A lu disciissiadevant Ia Commission
politiqirspkciale.La Cour vcrra dans Iesprocés-iverhauxqu'en ccqui
coiiccrriele libellé des quatrqucçtians, aucune niodificatiun ne fut
pr0posC.eau cours de la discirssion que c'est leteste primitifde ces
quatre qtiestions quiest incotpori.dans laR&solutian du 22 octobre
1%9.En cffctla discussion conservaiinf: allurylutbt générale.Elle
iic toucha qtr'esceptionnellernentaux dktails.
1 Dncuments A/AC,jrfL.~jR evDossiçr. cliernise ri.336 EXPOS~ DE 31.KERKO (SATIONS li~i~l~)- 27 VI 50

IIfaut ccpendrrnt remarqrIer, et je l'ai me11tiorinSdaris mon premier
exposé, qii'aiars que la plupart des délbga ons étaientdispokcs en
pnttcipc 3 soumettre à la Co~,iiriiternationale dc Justice certaines
questions juridiqiies, pliisiciirs di.1tgatioiiont élevé des objections
au sujet des quesiions II1et 1 V. 1.adélégation aurtrdiennne otamment,
airrait préféré que ces deux questio~is fusseritsupprinilccs ei qu'utic
cornrnission spiciale fitlinrappart h I'AssemhléegénéralesurIes difi-
cultés qui resteraietirirkoudrc unc foisqiic laCotir se seraitpronoticke
stirles deux premièresquestions. Ur. arnencterncnt p~Cscnli: ;i cct effet
par la délégütion niiçtralictitie fucepctidnnt repoussé par lx Commis-
sion politiqiie spéciale.Ori a aussi esyx-imé la crainte, au cours dc la
disciissio~tquc Ies qiiestions III et IV n'ahoutisuent indirectement
h urie revision des trait63de paix.
],esobjections ainsi lurmirKcspar ccrtiiirics dClt?gatinnsdans lLom-
rnissioripolitiqiie speciaie furentpartiellement reyrisccris6ancc pl&riière.
Etant doriri;cette sitiraticin, lvote de lnresolution fut effecttrépar

dix~ision. II dorina Icsrésultats suivants:

Qiicstion T : 47 pnirr,6 cnntsc et 5 abstentions ;
Questioil II :46 pour, 5 conirc ct 7 abstentions ;

~uestibn ILL :3s potrr,6 contre, et rq rtbçicntions;
Qucstinii IV :37 pour, 6 contre et Ij abstentions.

1,'eiisemblede la résolution fut ensuite adopté par u~tappel riuiriiria1
qui dorina 4 j voia pour, j contre et 7 abstentions. On voit donc - et
c'est pourquoi je rrresuis permis de citer ces résultats - qiic pour
Irsçc~uestioris[I et 1V, Ie itoiiibrdes abstentions fut plus consirikrnhle.
On voit aussi que pour I'eriserrrbledc la résolutionily cut5 vois contrc
et 7 abstcntioris.h~irks le vote tfeI'ensttmhle r1ela résolution,une dCIP-
gütion a rnzlrt~uu quclqucs doulcs au srijct dcla forniiilationjuridiqiie
et de I'opport iinitkde ces quesrions >, c'eçt-à-dIi ercrluesliciriIII

et IL'.Une autre d6légatioria cstirnh qu'elle ne pouvait ccs'ciigagcr
clir'ence qrii coricerne la c]ut.stion 1n.
Telles sorit les quelques remarques que j'ai voulu rijontcri rriori
premier cxyod ni1sujet des di~c~~ssio~ iui SC svnt dérollIée3A Ia Coili-
mission politique spbcialc ct aux sCances plbriièrcsdc 1'Assembléc
gknf rale.
En ce qui concerne la correspondance diplomatiqrie entre les Etats
en question, le Sccrctairegé~dral ü cornrriuriiquhA la Cour A la datc du
16 inai Iqjocertains documents supplEmentaircsclujil avait reçus dcs
Gouverneiiients du Carinda, rlu Royaume-Uni et des iitats-Uiiis d'Arne-
rique. 11s'agit de dcriiaiidcsforniuldcs par ces Goiivernenenf s afin
que les Goti~ertierrreritde 13uIgarie. de Hongrie ct dc Iiournanicproch-
dcnt i la nomination de leurs reprksentnnts dans lescommissiancjpriivues
par les traitEset qri'une cansr~itationait lieu pour le choix du troisienie
membre des commiçsions.
Lesdeus questions qui se troiivent niaintenant devant la Cour rriettent
en cause des priilcipcsimportants dc droit international. 1,'aviscoiisirl-
tntif de la Cour aura donc certainement trtic irriportiincegkiiériile
considérablé. Qiiant an Secrétaire généra les Xattons Unies, ii suitla
procédure de la Cour a\-ccuiiint6i.ftparticiilierEn effetla question Il T
le concerne spéci;iiemen tt dir~ ternent.1-'AsseriibIPgcSnSrale a iridiquc 2.-STATEMEKT' RY MI-R .EKJAMI K V. COHEN
(REPRESENTATIV EF THE 1j';l'SEDSTATSS OF AMI~R~C~)
AT THE PURI.TC SITTITING OF jL:S15~7th~ 1950

May it please thc Court :
It is a great privilegc for me to appearagain before this liigb tribunal
to prcsent thc V~EW ofthe United States on the qiiestions on which the
General Assembly in its Resolution 29.1 (IV) of Octohr z~çt, rgq9,
reguested an ad~isory opiniori.
:ILtticIicaring before this Court, laqt SlarcTsiimrnarized the prmeed-
ings iiitttel'iiirand Forirth Sessionsofthe General r\sscrnbly to make
it cIear to the Court that ansrvers to the questions siibniittedivere
urgeritiy needed by the Assemhly to guide it in the performance of its
functions under the Cliarter. 1 erideavoured ta show why t1icAçsembly
dcsircd the Court's guidance in deali~igwiih the imporlaiit item on its
agenda entitled : "The obserr:anct! in Bulgaria, 1-Iurigaryand Rornania

of human rights and fundanlerital freedoms." This sitiiatioriiad, iri
the Grstinstance,been brought tothe attention of tlicAsçcirihlybecaiise
,of the widesprcad coiicern caused throughoiit the worId by the triais
uf Cardinal hlindsxent y and other Church leaders iiithese countrieç.
The reçolutions pssed by thc rtsctnbly at Loth tlieThird and Fourth
'Sessions evinced a desire on the part of the Assemhly to Iiavc lhis
clifticuliand disturtiing situationexplored and adjustcd by the orderly
procedrrres for the scttlernciit of disputeprorided in the Pcace Treatieç,
astiming, of course, these procedures to be obiigatory,nppticmble and
aznuilrlliiSuclta disposition of the agenda item scerned to he inaccord
witli the spirit of Article 33 of tlieCharicr, thritparties to a diçpiite
shouId first ofa11seek n soiution by paceful menns of their owrt ciioice.
rit tIiekcriringlast llarch, this Cnurt heard argunients on the first
two questions siibmitted 11y LIicAsscrribly aiid uri the question of the
jnriçdictiotof tiicCoiirt to give guidance to the hçsembly by ma!. of
an advisory opiriionon rnatters ofthis charxter relating tn non-members
of thc United Kations \<+thout thcir coriscnt.
In ifs Advisory Opinioii of Mürch 30t11, 1950, this Court corisidcrcd
that it Iiüd jurisdictionto aiiswr the firsttivo questions and that it
was under a duty to do so.
Ttireferericc to Question 1, the Court wns of the opiiiion that the
diploiiiatic exchanges hetrveen Riilgaria, Hiingary and Romanin on
the one handand certain AIIicd arid Associated Po%\-erssignatories
to the ireaties of peace on the other, concernirig thc irnplementatian
of the hunian rights claiiçeçcontained in tiie 'I'reatiivith Bulgaria,
Hirngary airdRomariia, disclwe disputes suhject to tlie prorrisionsfur
the settlenicrtofdisputes contained in thesetreat ies ol peace.

IIIreference tn Question II, the Court waç of the opinion "that thc
Governiiicnts of Bulgaria, Hungary and Komania are ohligzited to
sarry out the pro\-isiorisothose articlcs rcferrcdto in the hrst question, STATEMENT. UY ~r. COHEN (rr.s.n.)- 27 vr 50 339

whirh relate to the settlement of disputes. including ilic provi.~ORS
for the appointment of their repreçanfatii:~~to the treaty commissions".
Zn hrief, the Court has iiidvised the Asscinhly that the peace ircaty
prwedurcs for ihc sctilemerit of disputes arc lapplicabk aiid ilirittiic
parties are ohiigabedto carry out theçe procedures, iricludirigtlieappoint-
mrrit of their representatives to tlic ircatÿ commi~sions.
'I'iieCourt's ariswcrs to tliefirst two questions irot only müke clcar
that the disputes provisions of the treatie ait: nfi$licutle todisputes
coiiccrning the iihwrvarice of the hiiman rights chuses. The Court's
answcrs also niake clear titat tite displites provisiniisof the treritics
are not, and were riot intended to he, oyiticirial ariroluritary, hut
atiliçriiorand ma~zrdo~ory.
ltwas obc-iously Clichope of the Gerieral Asscmùly that, if ~hr.Criurt's
answers to the firsttwo <~nestions were in the affir~natiuc, Ille parties,
in tbc Iiglitoi the Coiirt's advicc, would forthwith proceed i? settle
Tlicirdisputes in accordarice rvith the applicable arnf obligatory dispates
provisiuri; of ihc trcaties. 1t was uiidoubtedly that hripewhicli causecl

the Assembly to direct that the lnst two qucstioris bc sul-itnitted io
ihis Court oiily if,within tliirtÿ days nfter affirmative riris1vr;is the
Court to thc fir.st twoqircstions, t1ic govcrnnietts concernecl have not
notified the Secrctary-Lenerd that thsy Iirivcappuinicd their r'cpre-
rentatives to the treaty conirnission aixi the Secretüry-General lias
so adviscd t11c Court.
Rut since tiie C;ovcrrimcnts of Uulptria, IIurigatyand Rornn~iiahave
coiitiiiireto refuse tu carry out the provisioris of the ircatiesruga~dirig
thc disputes procedures, it noir. becornes neces.ssaryfor tlieCourt to
conçitler the 1x1 iwo questioris sulirriittcd by thc Asembly. Tiiese
questions rnise the importari tpractical and Iegalissue wtiethcr the man-
datory disputes provisioi~sofihctreaties prnvid e nieans of setthnent
and decision wliich are iri faci aeiuiIatile Lo fulTi1this purpose if tlie
gnvernments concetriecl lai1 to carq out tfie disputes provisions as
tIicy lia\-cagreed.
uuestions 111 and IV have beeri rcad to iIicCourt by the Kcgistrar.
Thew clii~stionsraise fiindaiiientalissues not only irnportar~ttu guide
the Asscrribly in its irnrncdiatc:problcrns, hirt iniportant to giiide the
Unit erINatiuris arid individual Stütcs iritlieir effortto devise eflcctive
and Tint illiisory rnearis forthe p:icific settIcrricnof dispiitcs. Thcse
questtioris~I~VO~VCa.determiriaiion wkcther one party to atreaty contain-
itig obligatory procedures for the settlmer~t oi dispulcs has the legal
yorvcr, by repiidiafing its obligation to he hoi~nd by those procedures,
tu prex-crii LIicvther parties to the treaties from haviiig the rights of
the parties rleterrnined in acct>rdaricewitii thosc treaty procedures.
The içsucs involved are of f~rstimportailce iriinternatiuiiallaw and
in the worrkingof tlic Uriited Sütions. Uy ils rcsolutions, the Assembly
has inrlicated its deep iinerest in the steps wiiicli tnay be takcri to
pronlote and encourage universal respect for,and ubscrvünce of, liuiriati

rig1its and fundamentai frccdoms. Ry its reçoltitions,tlic ,AssembIy
has aIso indicated its inicrest iri ivliat ritbc donc to mske pnssible
the effectiveapplicntinn of peacefirl settlement proccdwcs previoudy
agreed upori by tlic parties. 'l'hcfurureof the United Natioris and the
peace of the world rnay well depericlup~i ilicability of the coniniiinity
of nations to secure Iiurnanrights and to bring about tfic use of effcçiive
proccdurcs of peace 1f1 scttlment.
30 STATEJIE'IT BY Mr. COHEN (~J.s.A.)- 27 YI 50
34 1
"1. Exccpt wtiere nnotIier procedure iç specifically providcd
under ariy article of the prewnt Treaty, ans disprite concerning
the iiiterpwtation or exccutiori of tiie Treaty, wIiicliis not settIcd
by direct diplorriatic negotiations, shnll he refencd to the 'ïfiree
Heads of 31ission...Any suck dispute not rcsolvcd hy them n-ithin

a period of two rrioritlis sliall, unIess tIie partieto the dispute
rnutualy :igree iipun aiioihcr nicans of settlcmciit, be referred at
the rcqucst of citlierpart yto the dispute to aCominisçioii composed
of one represeritative of each party and a third rrierrihr wlected
by rilutual agreenicnt of ihc ivre prtrlicsfroni riationals of a third
country. Should the two parties fail tu agree within a period nf
orlerriortlt upori the appoiiitmcntof a third member, the Swretary-
(;cneral of the Lriited Natio~ij rriay tic requcsted by either party
to niakc thc appointment."

In ils hclvisory Opiriioriof 3Iarch 30, this Court statcd:
"The t1iplom;itic clucrirncnts prcscnt-cd to the Court show that
the United KirigtIom and the United States of Americaon trieone
liaridand BuIgaria, Hiingary and Romania on the other, have not
siicceeded in wttlirig tlieir disputes by direct rir:gotiations, They
frirthcr show that ttiesedisputes were nt,tresvIvcd by the Heads
of hlissiori witliiri the prescrihed perindof trvo ~noritiis.It is a f~ict

that t.he parties to tlie dispüies Iiavc riut agrccd upori any other
rncans 01 scttlcrncnt, It içnlso a fact thnt the United Kingdoni aiid
tlie United States of America, aftcr tiiccxpiry of the prescribed
period, reqti~stzd tiiüt tlicdisputes diould be siltcled by the Com-
missions rncritiorietl in the 'I'teaties.
This situation Ied the Geiierril hçsembly to pit Qiresticin II
so as to obiairi griidance fnr its firtiire action.
'I'he(:oiri.fintis~Iiatri1~Iicçondilio~isrcquirccIfor the cornmerice-
ment of trie stage of tlic scttlcrrterit of clisputcs Iiy the Commission
have bcen fiilf~lled.
In vit:w {ifthe Iact that [hi: Trcaticç provide tliat ;iriytlisputcç
slirill brelcrrcd to a (:cirnmissiciiat the request of either party*,
it foIlows tint eitlier prty is ohligatzd, nt the reijucstof ilic otlicr
party, to co-oper;ite in constituting the Commisstori,in particular
by appoiiiting its rcpreseritativc."

Tn vicw oi tiicsc findings by this Court and tlie ftirtherclmr arid
undeniable fact that the parties have faiIed to 3grt.twitliiri tligicriod
prescrib~d in the fr~atics upori ~licr~ppuintmcnt oi the thin1 member.
it ncccssarily lolloivs frorn the clear aird nnetlui\,ocal langnagc! of the
treaties that "the Secretarÿ-General of the IJiiited Natio~is rriay be
re iiested by either party to rrirtkcLhc appoiiitrrietit".
%iç woids ui tiic Lieati~s, Mi. President, gire a piecije anrwer to
Question III submitted to the Court, and therr: is ~iorcüsoii to assurne
that the treaticç were riot iritcridcd to ntcrin wliat tiieysay. 'ThisCourt
statcd in ariswcring Question r1: "lnview oofthe I~ct tlint the Treaties
provide tti:iany dispute shall be ieferred to a Corrirnisçion 'at the
request of eithcr party', itfollorvs tliat citlicparty is obligated, at tfie
rcquest of the otI1t.r party, to csoperate in constituting the Corntriis-
sion." So it may nour b~ said with crlual force and etluaI Iogic with
regard tn Qiicçtinn TT1: iri viciv 01tlie fict tliat ilic trcaties providethat "sltouldtlictwo parties faiI travec witliin a period of orle moritli
upon the appin trnent of a thiid meiirber, the Secretary-General may
be rcquested by either party to ~riakctitc appointmcnt", il thcrcfore
follows tliat iorle of tlie parties refuses to CO-operate Mth the otiier
party in an effort to agree upon ihc appintrncnt of thc third member
within the preçcribcd pcriod of one rnonth, "the Sccretriry-GerreraI
of the United Xations is authorized to ap oint tlie third rnernher of
the Commissionupon the rcquest of ihc otrier party".
Titereis nottiirigin the treaties~vhich suggests that the parties must
designate theirrepresentativeson the trcatycomniissionsbefore agreeing
amorig tIicmscIvcson iitc third rnember or, failing such ügreerrierit,
before requesting the Secretary-GeneraI to appiiit the third mem ber.
The treatifisdo not providc that the rcpreçcntatives dcsigriated by
tlic parties to servc ori ihe trt'lity cornrni.isi~r~ssiiüll have ariyiliing
to do with the selection ofthe third mcinber. rirbitration clauses not
infrcquently provide for the selectiort of a tliird arbitrator by agrcc-
rrieritol tIictwo arbitrators appointed hy the parties. i3ut siic1is not
the case here. Çelection of the tliird rneiiiher uiider the ~renties isto
he soirght in the firstinstance "by muiual agi4ccrneno tf the trvoparties
from riatiorialsai a third roirntry". Failing mutual agreement ori tlic
third rnembere, ither party rnay rcquest tlic Sccretary-Geitcrai to rnake
the appointment. It is the parties tfiemselves and i~ot tiieiappointed
represeritritivesor1 the treaty cominissions to whorri the frinctiun of
arranging for the appointmcnt of the rliirdrnember is c~itrustecl.
As this Court stated in îts Advisory Opinion of March goth, 1950,
whcri onc party excrcises itsrights rrntlerthe treaty to refer a dispute
to a treaty commission, thc otlier party is obligatcd to co-operate in
setting up the commission. 13ut as long as the parties CO-oyerate in
good faith it is Ieft tu them rvhether the rvish ta appoint their
representativesbefore or aftcr thc xlection o ithe tliird nieniber.
As a mattcr of fact, wherithe Uriited States first excrcised itsrights
rrnder the treaties to request the reicrence of the disputes to treaty
conimissions, the Gnitcd Statessuggested iri its notes of Xugust ~st,
1949, to the tliree Goverrii~ientsthat they join with the Ilnited States
iranarning tlie tr~aty cummissions. It was oiily after rweiviiig whoiIy
unçatisfactory replicsrejecti~ignriysuggestion of CO-opcrnlioiiin riarning
the cornmissioiis tIiat the Cnited States announced on Jiinuzry 5th
of this year the appointmcnt of ifsreprcsentatii,~ to the trcaty crini-
missions.
But it is possible under the treaties, for either oboth of the pariies
if tlieq'wisft,to arrange for the selection nf tlie tliird memher before
naming their reprecentativcs 10 tlie ircaty commissions. Knou~lcdge
of ihe idcntify of the third rnember rnight quite legitimately influerice
the parties irt ciioosing tiieiown representatives. Appointment to the
conirnission of rnernbers ablc tu spcak the sarnc langriagcand yoçsessing
sotnewhat çimilarexpericncesandtalents rnight well facilitate the work
of the cornrriissio~iarid coritribtitornutuallysatisfactory and construc-
tive results.
Certainly the failuce of one of the parties to fulfrliis obligation to
rtame its representative to the trmty conirnission and tn cc-operate
in an effortto agree upon tlie thirdtiicmber aîfords riogrouiid for taking
away the cIear treaty rights of thc otiierpartyto requestthe Sccretary-
GerieraI to appoirit the third or netitrai memher. There is iio reiistinto deny to the Sccretary-Gencral the authoritÿ
which the ircatics expressly soi~glittoconfer iryotlIiim. As chiefadmiriis-
trative offrcer of the Unit~d Niilio~is,he ivzs giveri a vital part Lu play
in the pacifiesettIetricntof disputesunder the treaties. tl'henthe trcaties
were drawii,the Stzts responsihlt: for tlieidrafting Iiad the confidence
to entrtist tu fiim the appointment of the third rncmher of tiic com-
missions if the parties coulti not agrec aniong theiiiselc-es. Aivare of
their oii.12conflicting idcologies, t-hey givc LIicautbority to name the
imparti31 rriember of ~kieçuniniission to the Secretüry-C;eneraI ,clicviiig
~hat in event of disagreerneiit liecoiild hest chuose a third rieutrd
rricmbercapable of judging and uridcrstandiiig mdely clivcrg~n t poirits
of views.
There is no reason to read iriio tlie trenties conditions wliicli the
dritt'turiier\i.iselyomit ted from the trcatics. Tliey did not rerl~tire
protrncted ricgotiatiorisbetmccn the partie to agree upri the thirtl
memher as :icondition to trieestrcisc of the Secretar>:-General's ziutlior-
ity. Theu did not requiretlir: pricir appuin trrientof the rcprcsentatives
of the parties as a conditiuri to tl-ic appointmerit hÿ the Secrctary-
GerieraIof the third rnember. l'bey wisely sotight to niake possible
withorit yroloriged hickering aiid cluarrellirigbetwceri the parties the
appointmeri t by tiw Secrctar~:-Gcncral of a third rrtcrrihewliosc fairnesç
arid non- artisanshi~irvoirld berecogriizcd and acceptcd by both particç.
ln di$ cult situatioris wliere the parties are deeply suçpicioirs of
oric ariother and conceriiedto safegurird tiiciroivn inicrests in ciisputcd
mattcrs, ari nppnintnicnt by the kcrctary-General Iriay well prove
to Litjust ~bccatalyst ncceçsary to induce ilic parties ta name rheir
rcprcseirtatives arid lo accept tiic ircaty pr~cetlitres for fhe settlcrricnt,
of thcir disputes. Tnd~cd, dcçpite the tension and strongi~wlingsbetween
the parties to tiic trcaties,we uen tiirc sri11to hop that tlie sclcctiaii
of a third member by the Secrctiiry-Gciicrnl will serbverliis constructive
3rd iisefiipiirpose. Certainly, horvevcr, tIici-woiild bc no jiistificaiion

in deriyirig tlic Secrctary-Gcneral the autlioriîy the trcafics confer
iipori him on tliegcoiriid that tiicesercise of his authnrity woirldor
rni,.it tiltimateIy pi.cive to he abortive.
1he treatic sotifcr upon the Secretary-General the autl~ority to
appoint the third rriernherof a trcnty ccimmission wlien the pnrtiés are
unafilc:to agreeiipon 1Iieselection of a tliird mcmbsr witliiii one rnoritli.
']Xe lariguagcof thc trcaties is clear. 'I'heruisnu reasuri in law or in
quity why the ivordç of the trcalics slioiild not be construed tu rriean
wIiat lhcy sap. The t'nitcd States hopes ~liat the Court will have rio
dificdty iri givirig ariftfirrnativt!niiswer to Qücstion Ill. A negative
ansmer would, iri our jiiclgrnerit,bc a serious blow tn the progrcss of
iritcrnafional laïv in the CleIdof pncific scttIment of disputes.
1 turn no&- io Questiori IV.

Itis hofi, as 1 have jrist esplairicd, tiiaif thisCourt answers Qiics-
tion III in the affirmative and tlic Secrctary-Gencral appoiiits tlie STATRMEST BY Mr. COHES (u.s.:~.)- 27 VI jO
344
neutral memher ofthe cornrriissiori,al1 ofilic yartiewsilj appniiit tlieir
own rcprescnraiivcs or1 the commission as is their clear right and
duty to do.
I3ut as it iç possible, unfortunately, that the three Govcrnrnents
\\5ticontinue to refirse to carry out their ul~li~ttioristu appoint flicir
reprcsen tntives, tlie GcricnilAssernbl~~I~is rcquested the guidanceof
tlirs Coiirtas to the riutIiorïtyof tIic trcaty cornniissions to proceed
upitlioutthe rcprcsentativeç of thc defrtultiilgparties.
In considering Question IV, hlr. Preçident, it i5iinportant for the
Coitrt to bear iri rrtindthxt Qiicstion IV, Iike Qiiestion III, is based
ori the asçurnption that one ofthc pal-tiescoiitiriuesla refuse to csercisc
its right and to ft~lfiits obligatio~itoc~opcrate irisetting irp tlie com-
mission. 'l'hcGencral hsseml)ly. 1 arri sure, did not eveii intend to
çuggcst thnt tir-#memhers of the con~rnissio~icoutd cxclridc tlieother
meinber from itç deliberaiioilsor cuuId proceed todecision if tlie other

rncnibcrdicd or becarne seriousIyil1 or otherwise iticayacitated \\<thout
vaiting a reawiiable tiine for the appointnient ufIiis succesor. The
prriMcrnon --hic11 the Gc~icraIAs~n~blydesires advice isthe right of
the t\vo rnembcrç tu proceeclif one of the parties refuses to esercise
its right and to fulfiIits duty to appointits reprcwritative.
It is31~0 very iriiportrint,hir.I'resident,to henr in rnind ihat Q~ies-
tion I!' is directeci to the cot>ipeerzcy of the turo members to niakc a
definitive and binding dccision in settlcrncrit of a dispute if o~ic oI
the partics refuses to appoint its represe~itatir~e.\IIrrfirniative :inswer
by Ibis Coiirtto Question IV \vouId merely incan ihat iiitliesecircuni-
stances tIietivomernbers have the ji~risdiction andritrtlioritto proceed
and to make binding and definitive dwisions. Eut ati affrrrnativeanswer
to the question, iriour judgtrierit ,-ould not prcclude the two coirirriis-
sioners considering ohjcctiaristo their owli jiiridict~on over the stibject
matfcr of thc'various claims forming the bsis of tlic dispute. Nor
wouId aii affirmaiive answcr tothe question rirevent the two corrirnis-
sioners from adlicriiigto principla esaIogous to those prescrihed for
this Court in Article 53 of its Statiite,in denling witii cases in which
orle of the parties failçto appear. An afirmativc answcr to the question
wouldnot excIude a finding bythe cornriiissionersthat they were unable
foobtnirt tlie fücts necessnry to make a decisioi~ otrtlic mcrits. An
affirmative answer \vil!sirnplysustain fhe autIiorityofthe cornmissior~ers
todecide for theniçel~es whal they will or \\-iriotdecide. Anafirrnatil-e
answer \vil1 sirnply nican tliat one party to the treaty cannot. by its
unilaterd and illegal dcfaull, divest a duly coristituted rnajority of
the cornmissian of ttie authority coriferred ripon thein by the treaty
fo make tlefitiitive decisionçbindingiipon the yartics. See Ir] ternational
Law Coinmission : Report orr .4rbitralion Pr~cetliirchy Georges ?scelle,
United Nations Generril A{CX.~/IS zI Xlarch, 1950~pages 25-26,
pages 44-46, pages 64-dj.
As Profesor Scelle statctl iri lrecenf Report opr .4rtiitrutboProceiiirr~
t<,thc litternational LawLOMM~SS stOp~a,,page 65 :

"It may pcrIiaps be objectecl tIiat the prsistent failure of the
defauIting govcrnment to npvar niay inpractice make jtirripossible
for the Iicriringto proceed. That iç the eternal objcct~on we have
already encountcred.Eut ttie violation oflarv cannot preverit the
laÿirig dorvn of the Iaw whenever this is yraciicable ; aridin the 346 STATE3IEST HY Mr. COIIEiU [~I.S.A.) - 27 1'1 50

United Statcs props-d, at page677, U.S.S.Ii. proposal at page 67s.
Report of the Politicaland Territorial Commission for Rornania, C.P.
'len) Doc I jat page 733,vote in plenarysession at page819 ;Bulgnriult
$miy , Draft Articlc 34, United Kiitgcloni-United Stares proposal at
page 863, U.S.S.K. proposal üt page 864, Reporl of tlicPolitical niid
Territorial Cornrnissionfor Bulgaria, C.1'(l'lcri)ifoc22 ai pages790-910,
Yotc iri pleiiiiry sessiatpage 996; Hzrngrrria.laIl'rcalynratt Article 35.
- United Iiiilgdoni-Uriiicd States proposai ai page 1041, U.S.S. K. proposai
at page 1042. tieporrof Political 2ndTerritorial Lornmis;ion for Huiigary,
C.P. (Pieri.]Doc. 27 üt pages 1116-1 r17, vote inplciiary session at
pzge I195. Tlie Council of 1;oreigil Miiiisicrs accepted the sirbstniice
of the Peace Con ference recornmeiidat ion with one important esccptioii :
they suhstituted a treatÿ conimission for the:Court.
A carcfut examination of the proccdurc fur settlenient of disputes
contnined in the dispu tes articles disclosesthat, white ttic draftsrnen
left the door open for mutual agreement betiveen the parties at al1
stages, tlicp very catefully and deliberatciy avoided allorving the proce-
diire ntany stage tobe stalIed or frustratedbythe absence of agrcerrierit
amonp the parties.
Tlic displites articlcLiegins witli the provisiaii that ariy dispu te
concerning thc iriterpretntion or c~ccution ofthe lrcaly wbich isnot
settled by direct diplornatic ricgotiations shdl bc rclerrcd tothel'hree
Heads ol blission. 1t isimportant tu riotc tltat the provision dm not
rcquire rrny shorving 1Iiat furthcr efforts at diplomatie ~icgotiaiion
woiild bt? iiriavailing.'iVheriever one party fmIs that the porsibilities
of negoiiation are exhai~std, that patty is at liberty to put the disliiite
bclore the Hends of tlie Three3Escioris.
'I'hedisputes article alloivstticHeads of 3lission fwo rr~orithsivithin

whicli to resolve the dispute. 'I'o resolvc tlicdispute they must act in
concert, that is,unariiliiously.Biit if the Headsof Mission do riot reso!vc
the dispute wirhin two nioriths,whether or not they iiüve made seiious
effort to resoive it, thciravthority ceases. Ilnless the pasrics to the
tlispute mutually ügree on a~iotlier means of sctllerrierittIic disputes
article irav vid westhoui Iurther qiialirication that trie clisprite shil
lie refcrrtlrritrhe request ofcilk~~ pnrty,tr,n treaty comrnissio~i.
'I'he trcaty cornniission is to bf:coniposcd of a representative of
each party alid a tliird rriemberivho is to be n nationaI of a tliird
country. TIthe parties donor agree ivithin one month iiporithe :tppoint-
nrent of tiiczhird memher, regardles of tire rcasor~for the faifure to
agree, either pnrty inay request the Secretary-General tu niake the
appointment.
Of course, withoirt express provisioit to tIic contrary, a11mernheis
of ii treaty cornrnissioii would have a riçtitto participate in the rvork
of tlie commission if thcy wislicd. Rut the dispiitcs articIc carefuI1y
avoids statiiig iiiat a treaty commission can rncet, do its businem,
and givt:its decisionsonly ifal[ tlirce nienibers attend. On thecontrnry,
Lhc disputes article significantly provides that "the clecision of the
majoritp of tiicrnembers of the conlrnission stiall hc the dwision of
the cciinmission,and sh;iII be acceptcd bg the parties as definitiveand
binding".
T submit, >Ir. President, that a careful reading and stirdY of these
trenty provisions show bbyond a resonable doubt that they rvere
deIiberareIp drafted foprovide proccdiircç of settlement whiclr would encourage the evii nolion tliat States can bc espected to ohseri=e their
treaty obligatiorts only in so far as they consider fhcic observance
advant agzaus.
The partics to the trenties hcre in question ncceptcd ihc obligatciry
jurisciictionof thc treaty cornrriissioiis.Oticc t hc coriditions required
for th? cornnienccrticrit of the stagc of the settlement of disputes, by
thc cornrriissiurihave beeii fitlfillcthe parties have rioriglilto repuilrate
the jiirisdictioiiof tlie cornrnissioriç by failure to cri-operate in tiicir
procedurcs. 'l'liparties barre no more right, in our vieu,, tu repudiate
the ohligntory jiirisdiçtioti of the trcaty çorrirriissiunsthan they n-oiild
have to repudiate the compiilsory jurisdiction of this Court Iiad iIicy
by ihcir treaties acceptcd tiic conipiilsory jiiriçdictiorrof this Court
instead of that of tlietreaty commissioris.

The coristriiction ofthe treaties i~hichwe here iirge is fullysupportcd
by the acceptecl canoiis of trcaly interprctntion andLiy rvell-estüblished
1cpi:rprinciples.

I shall riow ondeavour to sliow that the coiistruction whicb we Iiaw
' bascd upori the trtxty clnitses here in qucstioti is fiiHysupported hy the
accepted canoiis oE treaty interprelatioii and by well establisl-icdIcga1
principlc.TIie canons of trcatÿ iiitcrpretntionwtiich snpport ttieconçtruc-
tiuri of the treaties whicli we urge arc riot riew. 'l'beyti<iiiot feekto
impose u~ioii States artificinl aridunorthoclos conceptions of riglii and
rvrniig.Tlicy seek ratlier to givc lire 2nd ineaning io the rcgirrieof Pws
which States hy their treaties hüve obligatcd 1herriseli:eto h01,iioirrand
tcirespect. Tlicy are rlesignafed to ertsure tiiatthe just esyectatioti of
States wliich observe tlicirtrcaly oMigationsshall not be frusirateri and
defented by tIiearbitrrtryand illegalacts of States whicli failto carryout
theit obligations.
Thcse cIassica1canons ofiriterpretation wcrz elorluently espressed
by the Swiss jurist, Vattel, nearly trvo hundretl yenrs ago in his chaytcr
on the iriterpretation oftrcatics in his great trcntise or1 ?'{le ta= O]
:Y&irrtrs. \Vith Four perrr~ission,Mr. President, 1 wiIl qirote at 50i1ic
length what Vattel ha5 tsritten, whiclt in my opinion is very pertinent
to tiic sulutiori of the qiiesrion before us:

' Aiiy intcrprctation thnt lends toariahsurdity slioiild he rejected;
or, in other words, WC caiinot give tn a dccd a sciisethat leads to
ariabsurdity, bt~twe niust ir~tcrpretit so as to rivoidthe absurdity.
.As itis not to bc prcsurried that a pcrsori intends what isahsurd,
Ive cannot suppose that the speaker mennt that his rvords sliould

lericto an absurdity. Ho Inore can it hepreçutnedthat he approached
sciserioiisa nlatter in a trifling spirit; for what is disl~oncst atid
unlawful isnot to he presiirneti. I3y the wordabsrrrdis rricnrri itt
orrIywhat isfiliysic4rCii~ipossihle,biit also wtiat is mornily irnpos-
sible; thrit isto Say, wiiat isso contrary to reason thnt it cannot be
attributcd to a man of go4 sserise ....
The riile w-eIiavc just laid down is ont of übsolute necessity and
shoitld be follvwed evveir ï+-l~cr'ithe text of the law or trcaty,
corisiclcreditiitself, contains nothiiig tbat is obxurc vr equivocal ; STATEYENT BY Yr. COHEX (U.S.A.) - 27 1'1 50 349

for it rnust he ohservecltllat uncertainty iiithe rneariiiigto be giilen
tu a law or trcnty isnot due on1y to obscurities or to otkier faiilts
of expressiort, but is Iikewise due to the limitations of tlichurrian
rnind, wliich caniiot foresce ri11cases and al1 circumstarices rior
appteherid al1 the conseclueilccs 01 rvbat k eriactcd or agr~ed to,
and firially,to ilic impossihility of enteriiig inioso rn:iriydetails.
1.aiç.sand treaties cnn oiilyLc slaied ingc~ieral[crins, aiicl in king
applicd to pai.ticuIar.cxi~ they Jiould be iritcrprcted agreenhly
to the iritcritiori ui the Ip,nislatnr or of the rnntrnctinparties. In
iio case caii it he pres~iincthat ilic partieshad in miid aiiytliirig
al~surd.Coiisequcntly, wIieritiieir expressioiistakeri iritlie proper
and ordirtary çcrisc,Icad to ahsurdifies, we mirst devi:ite from tliat
scnse jiistsofar as is riccessary to avoid iIicabsurdity ....
Tt is rioi lo bc prcsirmed tiiatsensible perrçons, wlieri drawing
iip a treaty or ariy othcr s~rioiiç dociimerit, rneaiit that riothirig
should corne of thejr ücl. SIic iritcrprctütiori wiiicl\voiiI<render

tlic dtxurnerit riull aiid void ca~zrinobf:eadmitted. This riile rnay
he considcred as a subdivision of tfic prcccdirigone, for it isa form
of absurdity iiiatthe very ternis of the docrinient should rcduce
it to rnean iiothing. Tlic docunient inrrst be illt~rpre~edirtsiic!i a
way as to prodirce itseffcci and i~otprnve rneaninglcsca . nd vuid ;
and in doing so the same rrietbud is tu ticfolloweclas !vas point~d
out in the preceding paragraph. In both cases, as in al1 cases of
iiitcrprctatiun,the object is to give tlieserise wkiich isprcsiimed to
be most coiiforrnablc to the intention of the parties. If several
differvriiritcryi-cttiorisofferthe~nselves, any one of whicli will Save
the docurrient from beiiigniillor ab~ird, that onemiist be pr~cfer~red
whidi appears to be most iriaccord with tlicirileritioof the frarr~er
of the dxurnent, idiich intention can be ascertaine<$ from the
pecr-iliarcirciirnstnnce~uftiiccase and (rom oihcr rulcs of interpre-
tation." 111, 'C7attcl, he Law of I~~~ORS (1 SJ, ~11. 1,sec. 282.

Vattel's principles ofinterpretatiori Iiave been qiroted or parnpi~rased
and applicd in many dccisioris of iritwriatiuriatriliirrials,cg.,Cosia
Ha'cn,zClnims, 11, Iriternrttionalr'irbitratioi~(>,Toore,rGqY ) Ij31, 1565
(~862 ;)H~drorz's Rtrj~ Cow~fiunyCloims, 1, id. ,~. 266 (1869) ; ï'he
islund O! Timor, H~iic Cuirrt Reports (Scott, 191 )!, 355,384 (1914) ;
Easterr~ Exfe~isiua, A zlstrirlasiaizdChètza'I'elegynfil~ nns$any. [.Id.I8,
A.J.T.1,.(1924) 535, 838 (1923 ;)CriyncgnIldian Clams, zo, A.J.I.L.
(1926), 574, 357 (1q26 ;)I'ûIish I'osint .Sc~~~icr!,flanzig, Perrnnnent
Corirtnf Tiiteiii:itioiial JiisiiAdvisory OpinioiiNo. 3 T,May 16,1925,
Serics R, So. TI, pages S-qj, at page 39-40 ; Y'haFrce Zoncs O{ Upper
Suwy orirlthe Dislricl O/ Gsx, Permanent (:oiirt of IritcrriütiorialJustice,

Order, Aiigirst ry, 1929, Scrics il,Xo. 22 pages 5-51, at papes 13.
Tlicse cariotis of intcrpretaticiri were employed by tiiePermanent
Conri of International Justice in tuFo cases which are particularly
illi~minating in relation to ~Iiicssues now belore this Coirrt.
In the Chor~diü Iiactorycase, Jirdpent No. 8 (jiirisdictionJuly 26tIi,
1927, Series A, So. 9, pages 4-44, ai pge 25, the Penriaricnt (:ourt
had tci consider whether ArticIc 23, paragraph r, of the GenevaConven-
:ion of May ~~tii, I22, betwew Gerrrimy and Poh~id, wtiich rquired
submission to tlie c?ecisiori otlie I'ermanent Court of "diflerences of
opinion, resuIting from the interpretatini~and application of Articles6The Court ws asked to sas rvherhcrthe decision to he iakcri Ly the
Gaiincil \vas to he "an arbitral an-ard, a recurrirricridation or risirnpIe
mediation" (id. a, p.7). Turl;ey hacl rnziintained in tlie Coiincil that

a definitive settlerricriof tlie frotitier cnnlrltiot he made witiiout its
consent. Riit the PerrnarieritCourt fouiid "bot11from a gramrnritical
artd logiçal point of vicm as we11as from that of the role asigned to
that article in the hacc Trcaty" (id., ai p. 231, that "the iritenliorof
the parties as, hy means uf rccourse totlic Couricil, tociisrireadehnitive
and biriding sctlntiori of the dispiite shich rnight arise bctivecn theni"
{id., at p. 19). Inthat casc thc Court had to inicr frcirnthe gerieral
context of the disputes article that it was tlie inteiitinrof the parties
that the Cniincil was t.ohave tiic authurity to triake a definitive arid
biridiilg clccisionIiitlie disputesarticles of the pmce treatie nsnr hefore
f hisCourtit is expressly providedthat tlie decisions of tlicircaly coin-
missions sha11 he deftnitivc iiritLiiridirig.
Irittie AJosu! cajc, moreocer, the T'ermaneiit Coirrt had to consider
whether the Council could makc its dccision withoii t the curicurrcrice
of tticintercstd Sratm. Article j of the (:ovenant of the 1,eagrieof
Nations pruvided tI~iit"except 1;here otherwise espressly p~ovided
in this Covenarit or by the terms of the present Trcaty, cfccisions
at any meetin5 of flic Asscrribly or of trie Cou~icil shall require

the agrccniciit ot al1rnembersof the I,eague represented at the tneetiiig".
'I'heonly ycrtincnt exception to t.iiis riilc in thCoven:irit ivas that iii
paragraph fi ofArticle Ij,ivIiic IiroviclcdtIiat memhrs of tlic Lcague
u,orrldnot go to war witfiariy party to a disputc wfiickicomplied witit
ihc rccorrinieiidatioricof flw C:011nciithat are iinrinimously agreed to
by the menibers other tliari tllc partics tu the dispute. l'iic'l'rcatp
of Lausanne, urilike the preqent pcaccetrratie rs,de rioexpress provisiort
for tlieCouricil takirig3cti011 hy majority vote. AltliougIi the csception
provitied in ~iarügrapfi fi of:Irticlc15 of tlie Covenant \vas ~ioiIitcrally
applicable, the Permanerit Court liad no dificulty in tixtendirig tltc
priricipleofttia t article to,the A,fostd case. T1ie Criiirtstated :
*I
Frorria practiçitl standpoint, to reqirirethat the repres~ritatives
of the 13arties shoiild accept tlic Couiicil's dccision would Le iunta-
mount to giving thm n nglit of veto eriüblirigthem to preverit
anp rkcisiuri beirig reaclied ; this ~vouldhardly bc in confomitp
witli the intention rr~anife,îted in Article 3, paragraph 2, of the
'1-reaty of Lausaririe." (Id., rit p.32.)
1 subrriit, Mr. Presideiit, that with eqliaI Cogeiicy il niay h stated

here that from a practical point of vicw to refuse to recogriizc tlicright
of a rnajority of a trealy çornrnissiori to prvceed to clcrision~f oric of
ihc yarties rciiiscs to appoint its reprexntiltil-e f:w01ldbe tantarnoiint
to giviirga party a rigttt of vc~o enabling it to prevrnt any dccision
king reached 1~ the treiity corrirnissiori.Arid tliiw snuld not be iri
conforrnity wirli tIic intentionclerrrlymanifesteci in tliedispiitm articles
of tlie peacc Lreatics.
I'rofessor Georges Scelle irIiisr,ecent scliolarly Refiorlon Arbilration
Procedare to tiicIritcr~iationalLaw Lommiçsion ofthe Lnited Nations
of which Iie was reccntly ~Iected Presiden? (United Nütiuris Geneml
A~I:X~]I~, 2'" tlarch, rgjo, pp. 21-23], coi~sidcrsiriail objectiveriminer
the legal coiisequeiiccs wliicli should follow from a refricnl to fulfiI
thc oliligaiioito rcsort tn arhitratinn. HF: states (at p.23) :3j2 çT:ITEMEST BT Yr. COHEY (u.s.:~.).- 27 VI 50
"As filr as pirre jiiridilc ogic iu coticcrned, there c:in 11eno
doubt that a party who 11;~consented to tlic ohli$~ti o!siuhmit

to arhirratio a nd, ~~OYC ail,fo thc stipu1;itians for bringing it
aboutliy sciling u a trihiinai, is failing to fulfiatinùl~gation in
positii,e 13~ by re rusing to carT out the proccdurai acts wliicki
he 113siindertaken to pcrfonn. Conseclircntlv, the party ivho Iias
çrtrr-icoiil Iiis obligations niay not be deprivcd of thc jiiridical
guarnntees to \vtiichlie içeiititlcd or of tsettlcrrietiofthe dispute.
The solution is one gmenlly adopted iri rilunicipal law, ancl par-
ticularly iriFrcriclhiv. Frorn the pniiit of view ai international la~\~
2nd orcler the soliitioiisiiould legically I>cthe siiriicAriarcliy is
pronlotecl wkencver ri converitioriril and constructive juridical
principle i: left iiniippliedand ivhenevcran 'iriteniatiorialoffcrice'
gues uriyuriislicd."

Afi~r reviewing tlie ronçidcratio~is bascd en "wIitic:~l expediency "
whicli Iiavc bccii urged agaiiistthe "propr jiiridic:alsolution", Prcfcssx
Scelle crincliiclec,(p.24):

d''I'hese Iast considerarions"-which rdar~ to politicalcxpcdicricy
- arc iiotentiiely conviricirig. It ispossible to argile that, except
whcn a refusal to cc-uprate rnakes it m~terially impossrhle to
çarry out tlic pruccdure, the trihiinal can continue to functiori
and that the sittiatioiis tIlcsarne as that [iroducetl by the rvitii-
drawal oi one of the jutlgcj frorn an established rorirt. Ive shall
set.tiiat iritiic latter case the snlutinti iiinur vicw caiinot bc iri
doubt. l'hus, if the tribunal cari be set up arid luric tioriwitIiout
the p~rticipati ofnthe rcprcscniaiivc of the recalcilrant Ftate,
its dccisiuriwill bc vaIid 2nd ccnn IK invoked againçt tlie alistaining
government, ivhich cannot plcad iiullitysince .i;era~ditrrr $rwpriun~
ttdvpitiidi n?lecnnis."

1 resvtfuily submit, Mi.. Prcsident, that tlàe upplilicatio;~lo trie
prybl~ni riow hefore $lie Court of acccpted carions of ti-entuititerpret-
at~ori retluires the çoricl!isionthxt ohligatory trcaty procedures for
the dcfrtiiti~~sccttlcmentof disputes carrirocbc trustrat& hy the irnl:~u:fiil
refiisalof a pariy ro :ippoiitrits repi-6ent;itive lo a trcaly cominission.
Thc treatÿ procedirres providc foraction ùy a diily cortstitutcd rriajority
..
of a trcaty cominissioii. lo rcco,o?~izet/w fip~üxr G/ a Sf~tt:to f~dfs6raCe
the trurriypruccrlzirtrtirefysirig lu appoital ifs refireseir~uli: uid!i OLlo
gkc greai~'rlcpl c#mt 10 ilsad O/ rie/uaithun xuirlrt5e gicen doth n rigdide
7:fitO/ ils ~ep~cs~nî~li~ on~ the treafy cnmmissio?~,i/ u$poinled. Thcre is
notliing iri the ire;rtior iiif.hr principlesof interrialiuriabw Lu rcqiiirc
or .>nctioii siic:hn nianifest[y ahsiird and inecliiita1,le result.
Ic hold that a State may, by defaulting uporiits ohfigaiion to appoint
a rcpresrr1tatir.e to :i trcaty commission, pre17ell tllc oillcr rriernbcrs
of a treaty rominissiori Crorii procéediiig Io decisiun, ivould nullify
the crucial provisions of tlie treiaty pruceilures.If a Citae cniild prevent
tiefiniiive scttlcriieni Liu ti commission througii refusing u~~la~~~fi~lly
to appuirit its re~ireserilativr, tli~ oh1igator.pcliaractcr of ttic ireatyf
procedures w-culd be desiroyed arid the partics ~~oiild for practical
piirposcs bc irtiie saine position as if the ti-eaty corilrii~icdriojirovisiuti
for the settlement of disliutes. STATEMEVT RY MT. COHEN {L.s.A.} - 27 VI 50
354
art oi tlie St~tilttof the PerniailentCourt of International Justice.
f~ilen a prty uccepir rhe jurisdictionof thk Co,irt -whrrher through
havitigacccpted its compulsory juridiction generally, or thruirgliliiivirig
agrecd in :iclvariccto acccpt its jurisdictioiiin a particular case or in a
particular category of cases. or throngh voIuritarily subrnitting to itç
j ui.isdictioin a partictilac~e-ttiat party has a right to he heard. Kut,
under iiirticlc53 ofthe Statut-e,ifa partl;dues riot avail iijtll oi its right
to be Iicard,it cannot prevent this Court from proceerlirigto judgmerit.
Oricr a parirthas acccpted or bound itself tnarccpt tlijcuriscliction of
thic Coiirt, it hi^^no righf, by zbstai~ing fro~ricxercising ils rights, to
divest tliisCourt of its jurisclictionCnder Article 53. if a party wiiidi
haçaccepted the jürisdiction of thisCourt fails to Iippear, it isfor tliij
Court tn satisfy itself rvitctlicr it has jurisdictiori uiider tSiaiutc and
whethcr iitc clairof the crthcr arty isw,elIfounded in fact and irilaw.
Scc Miriority Schools in D.pper&,si,! Permanent Courr of Iiitîriiîtional
Justice, Judgmerit So. 12, :lpril 26, 1923S ,crics A, Ko. 15,pagcs 4-23,

Court of Justice,rjJiidgm~nt ofhIarchlim25,ry1948,cpges), rj-38tc,tapgcsaI
27-29. hioreuver, liic jurisdictioriof Ilik Court to proçcccl to judgment
\voiildnot bcaffected by the fact tIiatif the tlefaultinpart,v had clroçcn

to cserctse itsriglit to defend itçcIf, it rniglit rilhave had the right
uriclcrArticle 31 of tiiis Court's Stature to clioosc and ad kuc jiidge.
An agreement to nccept the jirrisdictioof a treafy con~rnisrion uriùcr
the disputes articlesof thcse ircaiics isin onr judginent atialogoiis to ari
agreement to accept the juridiction tifthis Court.Parties to the lrcati~
have a rigi1to prcscnttheir case totlietrcaty commissions justas parties
in cases hefore this Court Itave the right io prescnt their case to tbis
Court. Parties to the treatie Iiave a right to appuiritLh6r represerilativcs
oil tlietreaiy çumrnissions jus1 as partics before thisCourt 1iar.a rigiit
undtr appropriate circurristai~ce o appoint wE hnc ju(1ge to si1 witli
this Court. Eut thcre is no more justif-ation for perrnittirig a pxy, ,by
rcfusing to awil itwlf of ils rights, to defeattiic obligator juyrisdictron
of a treaiy cornmissiori tliari theris for pennitting a party under similar
circiimstances to defeat the jiirisdictionof this Court.
It has riever Liccriaiid it inot now, suggcstcd that aIiyrparty slioirld
be eacludcd iroin its right to appoint its representativeon a treaty com-
rnissiori. Detcrmir~atioii thata majority of a treaty commission rririy
proceed iiridclccidea case rcfcrrcd toit wiien une party failsor refuxs to
acail itselfof the right io appoint ü repreçciitativc on tIie commissi;inn
dues not involve the exciusion of thatpart): frorn the comrriissioti.
:Ifirrriativc: arisçisoQuestiurisIl Iand II -ÿ'uldnot excIude Bi~lgaria~i,
1-Iuiigarianand ICorriaiiianrcpreçentatives from the treatc yomrnissirins
if tliese three colintriesdecided to appoint represeritatives at üriy stage
beforc fiiiadccisionsbv the cornniissions.The commissions wotild riwiiii
tri10mernkrç oriIyif and so lorig as the thrcc couiitrieç failcd to n,me
tlieir re resentatives. These three ~~overnmeïits are iiot deriied tlicir
rizIltto 7iüvc tlieirrcprcseitalivcs on tIlccommissions.Ii thcir represen-
tatives are not ayqwrrited,it is diie to tIieir delikrate absteiitioriand
~iilfii lefaiilt.
Xo State can claiiii that it riglits are denied or prcjudiced when it
refuses to availitselfof tlirightswhich it clairrare denied or prejudiced.
No State can clair tnat itis Iiurf buitsown waiver ofits rights. A Stale
wIiich ha?bound itself tu acc~pt procedures for tlic scttlemerit odisputes cannot clairnthrit itrights to participate insiich procedtirm have beeri
denicd or prejiidiccd wheii itrefuses lo iivüiitst1:liol sucli rights.
1 ~111rio\\,corisider,?;IrPrcsident, the application to the present case
of the t\-eII-B~iowdoctrine rhat no one canprofit from his own wrung.
The failtiorfethe C;nvei.nrncritsol Bulgaria, Hungary and Romariia to
appoitit ihcir rcprcsentatives on the trerity cornmissioris is riut simply
a frtilureto euercise tlieir rights iindcr the trc:ities. 1t is afailurc to
carry oit their ohligatiotis iindcr ttreatics,andtliis Court l-iaso found.
It isa basic pr,irici~iof jurisprri<lenctIiatnu orle can profit{rom Iiis
0m-1 wrong. In Justinian's Digest it-fiiid this prinriple expressein ilicsc
words : "A7t'cwaozszto delicfumeliurcm s-lsa~cotdicioitewijacm $viesi."
Digest 50.17.114 No1 .nc citn irnprove his position tlirough bis own
wrong. The saine principlefinds cxprcssion in the maxim :A'mo uruiitur
pvopriutn farrfiitnida'nmfl~gans.
Ttit~riiatiriiin~lau,Iiaexpresscd this principIe iii varj-ing mays. III
the Cltorhj~aFnc~orycax, the Permanent Cousrof International Ju.tice
stated tlie ductririiritiiese terrns :

" 1t is, nioreuver, a pririciple generally :lccepted iii the
jurisprudence of internalioilalarhitration, as wcll as by miinicipal
coiirts, that one Party cannot aç-riiliiirriseoi tltc lact thai ille
other liasriot IulfilIcd someobIigation or has not had recoiirse to
sonie means of redress, if the former Party had, hy some ilIcga1
acl, prcvcnted tbc latter from fulfillirtlieobligation in question,
or frmi having recourse to the tribrinal wc-hiwouldhave been open
to him." Tke Chorzdzzi Faclory (Jiidgrncnt No. #,Jiirisdictiori),
Çeries A, Xo. 9, 31 (1927).

This priiiciplc hns hwn applicd iiimany situations. A iiuniltcr of
ç'3qeshave held ~tiat iid~ctai State lias coritracted ari iiitcrtizitional
obligafinti it cannot pIead in defciicc,against a clairn hased on siich
obligation, that its constitirlionor domcstic law jireverits the r-ccugrii-
tionof [lieclaini.Pailiirc to enact dorricstiIcgislatiurto briiigclornetic
law into liiie witiitlic rcqriirei~ientof :in internatior itlig:~iinn is
riodcfencc against a clnim bascd on tlieobligation. Gev-ltrriSeffl~.rs
iaPoiIü~d, Perniaricnt Court of Interriatiorial JusticeScrics R, No.fi,
36 (1923) ;Fxcftangeof Grcek irrliTurkisk Pofitdniions,SetiesU, No. IO,
19-21 (1925;) TIzc Churzdïg Fartury (Judjimerit No. 13, It~derriiiij,
Series A, No. 1;. 33 (1928 ;)ï'ke firee ZUP~E oS L'~~$GS YRV~ u!td !Izd
DzstrictofI;e.i:(Order, Ikcember 6, r93o}, Series A, No. 24, 12 jrtjjcil ;
same (Judg~ncrit ?;o.171 ,eries AilS,Nu. 46, 167 (1g3zj ; Grdcû-&-lrlpt-
rim~ "Cmnîfiatîzities"Series ER, go. rT, 32 {193(9 ; ?'~e~i?>seOt/ PPO.<R
iVnlionntsa?aDirnzig, Çerias .i\;BNo. 44, 24 (1932).
Iri llicprciposccl Dcclaration or1 riglltsaiid düties of States wliicli
the In ternational Law Corrimission siihrnirtetl tci tliIüst session of
the Geiicralrlssemlily and uliicli tliGcrieral :lssembly commended as
''anotable. and suhstaritiiil çontribiition tciwards Elleprrigrcssivedevelop-
' ment of international law and itscndifrcatinn", the princiylc that no
State slioiildbe perrnitr~dto profttby itsown wrong iscIearly recognizerl.

Gerieriil ~lsscrriblRcsolution 3îj (IV). Article 13of that rl~rlar'atioii
provides that : "Lvery State hns the dutp to carry out in gocd laith
its objgations arising from ~r.cates aiid othcr soui-cesof international
law, and it rriay riot irivokc provisioniriils cotisiitutionor in ifs larvs
as an excuse for failurc to perform this duty." Articlcs IO aiid 11 gofurtlierand impose the dtity or1 other States not to give assistance or
rccogr~itiorto acts which woulrienalilca Slate toprufitby its owii ivrorig.
Thus, Article 10 provides tliat : "Every State bas the di~ty to refrain
froni giving nssistn~icc tu ariy State ivhich is acting itiviolation of
Article g, or agai~ist wliick the ijnitcd Xatioris is takirig prcveii~ive or
eriforccrnent action'' ;and Article lr lirorides that : "Evcq Stnte has
ilic duty to refrain fiorii recogiiiziiig any territorial accluisition hy
ariuthcr Statz action in violatioriof-41-ticlq." AilicIc 9, wliich is rcfcirrcd
to irzthe ür-ticlcI Iiaw cluuteti, provides 1lr:it:"Every 5trtt.cIras tlic
dirty to refrainfrom resorting to wrrr as an instrument nf nntiorialpolicy,

arid to rcfrairifrom the ilircai or irse of forcc agairist LIicterritorial
integrity or political iritleyiendencc of ariotlierState cir in ariy otlier
inanner inconsistent mith interiintional Iaw and order."
Tlicre are also a niirnber of States holding that altcr suhniisriorito
international arbitrntiori one rlftIieparlies canricitl'y withdrawi~igits
arliiirator frustrate thc arbitration. Coiowliia v. Cantcn Co., Iyo U.5.
524 (1903) ; Frerac/t-Afgxicrin;L.fi.wd Ciuims [rgzg-30j Ann. Dig. 424,
425 {~y)q) ; Un ifcd .5faf8Cermrtn rlfixed Clairm. Sabutiige Claiins,
Xict-isiortof the Comniissiori rc~idered hy tlie Urripjrejuiic rg, 1939, VI,
Hackw-orth, Ui;ssl oi isfznralional Luw (1943)~pp.9(>-97 .1s 3lGrigrihac
says irihiç Tyliittfhéoriqztaelfiraliqitc rieI'iavtir'lragti:rzler~i(1895):
276-77, "lt ij, intiwd, irnpoçsihle to atimit thnt one arbitcr tliroiigh
cIear bad faith or siriiple ricgtigcnce can paralyze tiic :iction ot the
triliuriitl." This propositioisstrongly supportcd by Prolessoi. Gcorgcs
Scelle iri Iiis I-cprirto the InternaliorlaI Law t'(:ornrnissiooi wliiç1i1
have already referr-ed,See Xefiortnra Arhitratimt Procrdiirc by Georges
Scelle,United Satiom, Gcricrd Ajt:X.q,jrS,21 MarcIt rgao, ~ia-6 32-3 j ;
z, Hu&. f ~lcrtrirlio~aLcw, (2ndrev. cd., 19451I ,GZ~ ; firitcnberg,
t,'Organisütion jrrdici~rirc, la ~5vocidureet Ies sejalc~icesP?a~er~tdiornaks
(1937) 231 ; III, I'hillimnre, Co~wzcntaries ,ilpou Irttertiatio?~aJLaw

(2nd cd., 1873)~4. But scc 111, Calvo, Lc droit irzlevnutiunalthéoriq~e
zt $rufiqrte (5th cd., 18961 ,ec. 1768. I shall review hriefly the facts in
the prii~cipal cases vvhiclisirpport this proposition.
IIZ Cadolnhiau. Carra Co., slcbra, the Republic of Lolorribia antl an
ArriericariCompany holding a conccssiori iricolo~nbia agreed to submit
a controvcrsy to a s~iecial commission. 'I'hircommiçsion consisted of
three arbitrators-one appointer1 on hetialf of Colonibia, oiie on behalf
of tliecnrnpany, aiid tiie third b'; agec~ricritbetwen the United States
Secretai-y (ifSt:ite and tlie Colomtiian Ministcr-ai W'üdiington.The
Coinrrtissioiiwas to rcadi itsdccisions by niajority vote. 1'Iiecurltroversy
in cluestion 'vas tried before the cornmission. 'roivard flic erid of tlie
proceediri~s and jiist prior to the makingof the a-rd, tlie Colornhian
comrriissioncraiinuuncccl liis resignatior~. 'l'he remaining two cornmis-
sioiiers proceeded tn inake tlie arvard. 'f'hf:Unitecl States Sirpreme
Courl, in an opinion deIiirercd by Hr. Justice IIolrrics.Iiücinn Iicçitation
in holding tliat th arvürd \vas valid and ttiat the ivithdraiviilof ilie
C:olornhian corriniissiunercouIdnot Irusirate the :irbitration.
In ii~e I;~~~t~h-~Wexic lWf~ .~c(Cldiiw C~C, sespv~, a cnn\:cntiori
of ItIarch, 1927,between France aiid Mexico provided for the arl~itra-.
tion of cerLain international claims. subwqiietitly, the hlexican (iovern-
ment took the positinii tliai. thc comniission prcsiclcrit'sIiinctioris had

alrca* expii-cd, and propxul to the Frendi Goverriment the appoint-
rnent of a ricw umpire. 'The Frerith Guvernment declined to accept STATEMENT BY Mi-. (:OHEX (U.S.A.) -*27 YI j0
35 7
this propos?I. Thereafter, the A~Iesicrin corrirriissione;~hserite<hIiniself
from the conirriiççion's prm~erlings. TIIF:Presiclcnt and the 1:rench
r.ommissi;sne.r then p~occedcdin ihc rl-drrofttie ct>mrnifiio to dispose
of titccases w1iiçIi Iiad already ben presented to thc coniniis~iïin.
'I'lieyhheldthat the nbsei-iccof reprcscritationof &le.uicodid not form

a jirridical ohstacle to the rriaking of axards hy niajority decisiora.
l'iic case othe Sr~butrrgCe~uiv~ sgaii~stGcriiiaiiy, str,$camc hefore
an arbitral tribunal set up tu adjutlicate certain c:I;iirnstietwerri thc
UriitedStates and Gerrnnrty followingthe First \I!orld\Var. The ti.ihrrnnl
consisrd cl€an American çorrirriissioriera, Cierrnariconirriiasioi:erand
ari rirriyirc.IIcaririgs wcrIielcand m award made in tlircarly 1930's.
Subsequeritly, tliAmerican agent ntovcd fora rehearing of the sabotage
claims arising from the Rlack Torriund Kirigsland esplosioris, on thc
grouricltiiatLiicrcItactticcri fraiiditheoriginaI prcsentation of cviderice
to the arbitrators. A reheariiig was field. Aftcr tIieparties ilad made
their stihmissions. and wIiile the tribunal {vaseng:igerlin <iecidiilgtIic
issues rescritcd to it, tlic Gerrnnn cornmisioiier annoiinced his i4ctirc-
rnerit ?rorn the curnmissiori. Ttie Ariicrican coniniissioncr pre ared an
opinion holding ihnt i.his wiiiidraual did riui uust lliï urisktion of
iltc cornrriissioii.TlicIIII~~~I-~, ~11r~~s Mr. Jiistice Roberts theri on
tfie United States Suprenlc Court, in a dccisiori rcridcrcclJiinc 15th,
1~139 gave an the decision ol tlic curnrnissiori tliüt the corrirnission
remaincd competcnt to dccide the questionç beflireit despite the witk-
drawal of th Gerrriaricornmissiorier.
'mie holdiiigtliat tlic withdra\r;ülofüii arbitralor ducs rioi friistrate
ilic triburial's rvorkialso Iarniliarin rniii~icipbw. Hzir1li.fvSmifln, 2,
13arn, K.13.412. q4 Eng. Kep. jS7 (1734 ; GOU(EJP YISi~vtvs2,Jac. 6iW.
249, 37 Eng. Rep. 622 (Ch, 1820) ;inrc I ozrrq and Dulwtin, 13C.13.
623, ~7, 133Erig. Rcp. r3~-45 (1853) ; To!do S.S. Co. v. Zclnil11
'I'rnnsJI.Co.,184, Fed. 391- (C.C.A. Gtli, 1911) ; A.T. 8; .S.F. Hy. v.

Brulhmh~od u/ Loc. Fir~nze?s& EPI~.,26 F (dl, 4I3 (C.C.A jth, 1928) ;
C~rpznier v. IVood, IMet. 4q (Mass. 1840 )Dotige v. Bvcrtanrs,-7sN.K.
138 (1579j .,mzrican Eagk Firtrirts. Co. v. N. J. ilas. Co.240 1.i'.
395, 148 S.E. 562 (I zj); Widder V.Bit#a'alo& id.Hrrro?~ Hy, 24G.C.K.
izz. ((lpper Caniicla Silrrn'Bencli 1S6ij ;:1861] i Dalloz qqq (Fi C.EA.
rY6o).
I'lie propositiortliütthe mithdrawai of an nrhitrator frnm a tribunal
does not render the triburialincumpetent to procecd has heen rnrtiri-
tained in international law evcn wherc the arbitratw wit ttdrcw Mure
atty ineetin of th? trihiiria%\-aiield.lri tiie case, Eor csarripof,Lctzn
Goldfirids &o., Llil.\;.Ll.S.5.K. iry~g-3<<, Aiin. ilig ~zh (iygo), the
Soviet Governn-ient in ü concession agrccmcni had grantcd to a I3rrtisIi
coinpniiy cuc1il;ivr. rights oI expIoratioii arid rriiriirigiri cerlnreas
of Soi,ici Icrritory. SIic agreement provided that a11 disputes ariçing
oui of tIicagrc~rrierislludd be decitled hy a coiirt of nrhitration coi~sist-
iiig of three rnernhers -one to bc sclcctcd by thc Soïict Govcri>merii,
onc by the T,eiiaCompany, and a third by niuturil :igreemeritof the
parties. it also provided tliat it "nile of the parties, in the ahsericeof
insurmountable ohstxcIes, docj iiot scnd its atbitriitor orifthe iat ter
refuxs to take part in the Court nE Arbitratiori,then, nt thc request of
the othcr part y, the matrcr in tiispute isettletibq:the siiper-arliitratcir
and the utfier rnernber of fhc Court, on conditiori that sirch dccisiori
is ni~animonç." In 1929 and 1930, there were various disagreementsbetween the soviet Goverriment and tlie corripany. The compariy
dctnmtded arLitration. towhich ihc Sovict Govcrnmerii at first agrccd.
Tite parties pruceeded to appoint their arbilratur aid agreed or1 tlie
tiiird or "siiperzrbitrator". :Ifter the date for tlie firsmeeting vf the
tribrinalliaclbeen fixed, hiif bciore any tneetitig took place. the Sovict
Govciiiinent refujed to parlicipatt: i~ithe pi-uceeclings anti cnriterided
that ilic arbitration was cai~ceIlcdbccause, the Soï:ict Guvcrrinicnt
alIegcd, the cornpaiiy Iiad ccaseti to hnaricc the unrlertakirig providetl
for in the concessinn agreeiiieiî t.The "aipfrrarbitr:itor", togethe writh

the arbitrator rcprcsesitiiig the çurnpiitiIT,Iicld that the coriccssion
agreement as stilI operative and that the jurisdiction of the ;il-bitral
tribuilal rerriaiiicd unaffeçred. Alttiougli Ilic agrccrnen t ia tlrijcase
made provision fur two spt~ified contingencies of non-participation
by an arbitrator, thc ag-reemcritonly conftrmcd a result wIiic11,in oiir
judgrnerit, sIiouId iollow by trie application of tlie prîriçiple ttiat one
sliould iiot profit from Iiisowri wrong.'These cases wlticl~1II~VF r:viewed
cIesrIy sliow that a yvtÿ to ail agrccmeiit ha5 ncirher the lcgal right
rior the 1qpi power to[rusirate nr-hitrntionproceedings hy mithdrrrwirig
it~ reprcrst?i.iittirrie.
Thc prii~ciplethat a party 10 a dispiitc cannot irripr-ovcifs positioii
tliroiigh ifs own hrcach of cibli~atiori has obvious applicatioii to ihc
situation ~iresentetiby Qucslinns 1 II and IV riow beforc the Coiirt. 'I'lie
fact rlint Eulgaria, Hungary arid Romanis have rciiiscd io appoint
represeiitati\!es toIhc trcaty cornmissioiis-as tlicy are legally bourid tu
do-~hould not he Iield to provide thern with anp escape Irom their
obligatioil to rrccept the treary procediires for the dcfinitivc scttlcrnent
of treaty dkpiitcs. Thercis iio differe~icein priricipbetween riraitciiipt
tO frtistrate:irkiitratiori yruce~dings, after they have started, hy ~itli-
drawirig aiiarhitrator, and aririttenipt tufrustrate the corrirricncciiicnt
of the rirbitr:itioiprocedures, after they Iirrve beeri :t~reetI to,by
rclusing to appoint araarbitrator. Roth are unilateral and illegal efforts
to obstruct tliecarrying orlt of agrccd settlei-iicntproîedurcs. WIiiIcsomc
of the cases dalirig ivitfi iIimthdraivril of :inarbitrath oarve stressed
the iitifairticsof pcrrnitting partially cxecütcd yroceedirigs to he

frustrated Li? 11" illegal ~vitliiir,zwalof ariarbitrütor, it iseqiially urtfair
in fact and equally untenable in legai principle to pctmit agreerl proce -
durcs of settl~ment to he frustrared hy the illcgal rcfuml to name an
arbitralor.
01 coiirse, the sitii;itiis{lificrcnt ia31 agreement providcs for three
arhitrators and thc faili~rrto rlarrietIie tliiis nnt the resolt of dcfault
hy aiiy 01 tlic coiitr-actirigparties. Tliat was tlicase iii theSt. Croix
arbitratio~ibetwceii the L'riitcclStates niid Great 13ritairli~nderthe Jay
Trcaty (I~LN), and it \vas also the cxw in th: statutory arhirraiim
proi-.idcd forby ttie Irish Frcc StüLc AgrccrnciitAct of 1922.
Tn tkic Si. Crois case, iincler aTreaty dated Soveinher ~gtIi, 179.4,
bcirvcen Great13ritüiriaricl the I?'iierl States, pruvision was made for
ihc arbitrntion of a fioiinrlary. TIlc arhitration trilmrial \vas to consist
of orle coii~niissiotiertiaiiied liGrcal Brilain and une by tlie United
States, ti~ ~WO COII~III~SY~O toIagrIes on the cliuiceof a third. The two
iiaiioniil cmrnissioriers ivere appninted, and met tngcthcr. h t this time
tiietwo cornrniçsioners deh:t>atcdivliether,beiore sclcctirig a ttlirdcom-
missiuricr, thcy werc empowered to appuirit a sccretary and ordcr a
siirvey to be riad deA.fter Iiearing argirrnents fronl connsel, the two360 STATESiENT BI' >Ir. LOIIEX (U.S.A.) - 27 VI 5O

'ïtie case, as 1 have saicl, Iioir-evcr,is allogctlier different frorn tfiat
whcre a State, wliicIiis a yarty to a treaty, defaults irpon its obligation
to appoint its rcyireseritaive to a treaty comrnksion.
The detcrmiriation that a Lreaty ço~~irriis~iucioirnpused ofthe repcsen-
fative of one 1i:irtyand a third rnernher appointcd by CheSccretary-
Gcrieral of trieUnited Nations can decide a dispiite,rvhen the ather
piirty clefaultson its oliligatioristo appuirit a rcprescritative, does not
jniwltle the intro<luctionof anp novel or anornaloirsdoctrine into trie
law. III tiirriunicipzllaw of tlie grcal nlajority oE cüutitrics, provisioi>
iç made lor tliralipoiiitrricntofiiriarbitnitor (often by the court) if one

of the parties to a dispute refuse orfails to appoint itsarbitiatcr untler
art arliiiraiuii iigreernent. This is tnie in tlie Commercial rirbititioii
Iaiv of 29 otit of 43 countries wliose Iaw isfouiid summarized in Cvm-
nrzrcicil Arbilrutivn nrid Ihc law Ihroitglioiiltlu Lt'orlrl,a publication
prepared h the Iriterriationd Chamber of Commerce (IntcrriaLional
Chamber O? C'oii~mcrce, Uase1, rqqg). See dm Iiussell, Arbilrr;:ioia nnd
A~eburd(13th cd., rgyj), 12 j ;6, !\Ji'illistori,Conlrucls (rcv. rd19-38),
sec. I920 ; Stiirges, Cimiinsrciid A rbi!rnlioirsand Amrds Irgp), sec.5.
14-47.)
In rntiniciliilai\,iriiiie absence of statutes, there \vas aiiearly relric-
rance on <litprt ofcourts to ait1iiithesvcific eiiforceineriof arhitration
agrcemcr~ts wheri u~ic party defaiiltecland cleclincd to proceed ri-ith
arbitration, tliougli thc validity and Liiridinctiüracter of the d-wbiiratiori
agreenieiit rvrisrecognized aiid was Iicldto support ntiactiorilur damagris.
7 lietlicory oftfiiç early rclucta~ice was a judicirilpolicy agairistparties
contracting to oust tlieestablished courts of jurisclictinriSce 6.\Villison,
op. cit.S?~$YU, sec.~rjrg. 'I'hisrationale,rvhichsubsequcntly yieIded to
statutor-y criactnieritshas of courie no rclevnrice iri the fidd ofinter-
n;iticinalInw, where tliere are no coiirts of generaI jiirisdictioito rvfiich

States can resort isitliout having in somc maiiricr obtairicd :iconsent to
suit froin theottierparty or parties io the dispuie. -4s>Ir. Justice FIoIrrit~
stated in tIie caseof Cololnbin v. Cnucn Co., strpra: "IIIlirivate rnatters
the coiirtsare open if arbitration fails, butiiithis case tIicalternat ive
rw a resort tu tliplomatic dernarid." Xrbitration thus hxq a spccial
importance iriinternational Iaw, since it iswry often the only mode of
peaccfiil arid defiairive settlcirioii of a dispute opentu the piriies. {Scc
alsv Internntioiial Inw Lonirni:sion : licporl ou Artiirafior~ Proczdz~re,
by Georges Scellc, United Katiuiis &nerd i\$N.4!;~$, 21 3Iarchig jo,
P- 9.1
Iri tIic present c.=e, tlieGo\,ern~nents of Biilgaria, Hiiiigarv niid
Romania Iiavc agrccd to accept and tic hoiind hy the trcaty procedures
for the sef.tlenictitof disputes, Tri its opiriioriof hIarch 30, ~g jo, tliis
Courf lias advisecl tliat thesc Govcninicrtts areobligated to cu-oprate
in carryingout those ~iroccdurtts.Those proced~ires specifically provide
that "the decision of the majority oftlie nicrnl>crç cif tlie Corninissiori
diriIlLe tIiedecision of the Cunmiicuion". I submit, >Ir. 1'1-esident,that
there isno rertsoti iri f:ict or larvfor remg~iiziiig aIegalpower iithese.
Iiovernments to fnrstrat tee operatioir of thesc trcaty procedrireç by
failiiigto escrcisc tiieirIegal rïght, rvhich is a1so their Iegal duty, to
appoint their represer iatiws un the treatp commisrions. To give them

that tegrilpowcr ~vouldhe to <çsist thcm to profit by their atm wrortg
aricltu irnyrave their positiari by their own rlefault. 3.-ST=1I'EhIE BNYT hlr. FITXhTAVRICE.

(REPRESEKI-IXC ~111:USITED KIXGDOY GOI'ERKMEN-r)
AT THE I'ljHLIC SITTIKGS OF JUNIS 27th AKI) ~Qth, IgjO

?Ar.Presidcnt, 3leinbcrs of the Court,

Siace I laçt had ihe honour ofstaridiiigIicrt, tlieComi h,2s given its
o~.>iniorionthe first trvo questions contained inthe K~oIutiori ofiiic
GeneralAssfmhly ol tficbnited Xations dated zz Ocrriber of Iüst yczir.
The Cntirt answered both qii~stions in thc affirmative aridinfact heId
ttiat dispuics didesist ktween my Government, arnongst other Govcrn-
ments, and TIle Governments of Hiilgaria, Hunçaria and Komania,
whidi ougIit fo bc settIed bymcarisof the procedure Iaitl doïrn in the
ar,bitrrition clauseof the reIevant Face treaties, and thzf. tbc Govcrri-
rnents of those three former enemy countries were under a legalobliga-
tion to cornply rtiih those ai-bitratiofi clauses arid iri particular to
appoiril tlieir representativcç onthe arbitrc aolmmissions cor~tcrnplatcrl
by the* clauses.
According to the Assembly's rcsolution, if,rvitiiinonemont ii of thw
firidirigson the part of the Court, the three Gouerrimenls did riot
notif yhe S~ecrerary-(ieneral of theLrnitedKarions of the appoin tmen t
of their rcprescntatir~es to thc treaty cumrnis~ions, the Court waç
requested to give a repIy to tIiethird and foiirthquestions containeci
in the Assernbly's resoIiiiion. Tnorclcr to avoid ariy possibility of a
rnisundersiaridirtgr,ny Guvcrrirri~ri t,getlier witli orlierof t1ie Allicù
Govertiments concerned, drew tiie attentionof tlie thrcc fonner enemy
Governments to tlicOpinion oftlie Court dütcd 30th RIarch last,,aiid
oncc more urged the111to riarncLheir respective cornrnissicriicrrcrnind-
ing them that tlie Allied Governments' Cornmissioriers liad long since
bcen riorni~tatcd. TIie tlirec Govornirients not onIy failedto appoint
tlicir cornmisjioners,but onc or trw of them ai lext replicd oracc niore
denyiiig that they were under nnÿ obligatioti to makc ariy appointmeni
arid again rclusirig to rccog~iizc i!ie cornpetence of the Coiirt. Tlic
relevant correspondcnce is, 1 think, hefore the Coud, and it is clear
that the failure of the thrce Govcrrirnertts to appoint their commis-
sioiicrsclespite the findinjisof the Court that they are unclera Igal
obligation to do so is riclibernteaiid intentioiialand not due to any
mere eri-or or o~:ersight.
Tl-ieicforeMr. Prcsidcnt, the broacl issue notv before the Court is
1vIietheran impassi: has been reached inivliich itisrnaterially irnpnsible
to applp the arbitratioi~ auses oftlie pcriçc trciities anto scttle thcse
disputes accordirig to t.11iriicntions of tIiosf3clauses or w.I.tictlir,i
tlic other hand, therc slilesist legal menns hy whicli those intentions
cari ~icverthcleçsk carried out cleslii~il~claiiure ufthe former cnemy
Governriients to cn-opcratc. '1'0pirt it in nnother way, ihe issue is
\irIietherit is riow neceçs:iry-whether tiiere isrio alterriatil-but-to
acqiriescein hc frustration of tlicarbitratioriclauses because lie tlirce ST.4TF.MIIKT UY >Ir. FITZM;IURI(:E (u.K.) - 27 CI 50
363
Govcrnnients refuse to apply ttheseclaiises, although tlie Court lias
found that thcy are irnder a Iegal obligation to do so, or \r:liether, on
tlie other hand, il ispossible to avdd sucfi frustratiun by the application
ofrccogriized Iegal principics.
Sucli is the niain jssii~hefore lltc Court, ttiatis to say whether thse
clauses are frustratcd ancl impossible of application oi-riot. III tlie
prescnt case, tliiçissiieis prescrrtedto rhc:Court itithe form of the hird
and fourtii questions cnntained in [lie ~Isscmbly's rcsoliition, aiid before1
addrass rnyseII sF~ijically to these qucsiions, 1 sIioir1dlikc to mnke
une or two general ob~ervatioris ahont them.
AIthough these qiicstinns :ire twiiriicallyscparate qii~stio~is,they arc
reallp different axpects of the came prrublcni, nntl thcrc is a dosecon-
nexiori bctweei~tliern.The third qiicstiotnskswlicther, despite tiic failurc
of the former eii~mies to :ippoint tlicircomniissioners, nny otfier party
to the dispute, sucfi as, for iristance, theCriited Kingdont Guuei-nrnent,
,
tliedso-cdled tltird Seoreneirtml mmernlier tof! thetcommissions roroncerned.

Thc fourth question asks wliethcr the two-niemher corrtniissiotis thus
conutit-utcdeach coiisisting of tlie national coiiimissioner of oric of t lie:
parties and tlic third or nenirnl cornrnissio~~ea rppoiiited hy the Secre-
fary-Gensral, rwiild rank uridcrthe peace treatieç as ~iroyierlycutistituted
comrriissioris which corild give vülid ancl biridirigdccisioris.
These qirestionç arc inter-coniiw,ted iri t\vo ways. Inthe first place,
there rvould ohviorisly not ticrriiich point inasking the Secretriry-Gei~eral
toappuirit the tllird orrieirtral corriiriissione, r ithe Secretary-Gerieral
making that appoiiitnicnt, rlril~ss the corrirrii~io~i could theri filnction
or1 the resulting twn-niernber baçia Cor-isec~uently the cardirial issue iil
this mat ter liesrully in tiic ançwer tu tlic forirtiquestion, narnely the
curriyeieiicc of a tit-O-membcr commision and iiscnpacity to give a
vdid decision.
S~mrUy, bolli tliesc qireçtions rire related to tiic samc prtible~n of
ovcr--riding general irnporiarice to whicli 1 referrd in rriy itaternent
before ttieCourt last hfarch, narnclq~, tlic utility and ohligatory ~ialiirc
of arhitration ckailscs in treaties.
It inust bynow he apparent to everyorie that the tliree former eiiemy
Goverrirrien ts have enp~geii ciria clclibcrat~,and 1 ma y add, coriccrtcd,
poIicy oftrqing to prcvei~t the application of thc arhiitration clwses of
trie pcacc treaties to the prcçeiit dispilies.Up to the date of the Coiirt's
opiniori of 30th Varch Iast, tliesc Guvcrnmciits coiild affect to justify
tliis by prerending that no disptites exisitd. Since tliat date tl-ie~have
not cvcn tbat pretest, fiimsy thoughi tiilways ws. I'aced with thc fitiding
of the Iiigticst itcrnat iniialtriburilil tliat juridicallthere is a dispute,
and that th7 are uridcr a lcgal ohligatiori to :ipply tl~cpeace ~reaty
provisio~is iur settiir~if,, thenowIiave recm,iirsc tothe tkvice ofrcfuçing
or failing to appoint their conimi~<ioricrs.
Onanalusis in the ligltt oi thCoiirt's findiriof last Ilarcli,thezttitutle
of the forrricrciiemy Governrnerits rvillbe çeen Co arnoui-itto a revocatiori
of the consent wfiich they have already given to rcfer these dispirtcs
to the pc:icc treaty cornrnissioris.It is, howcver, a general yrinciple of
law, which h;is Lccn rccognized by iriternationaltribunals, that curiseni
oricc giveti cannot validly bc revnlrcd.
Cleariv, denial that itay dispute cxistsis not the nnly inetlioclby which
it can he atternptcd to defeat the ciear inteiitio~iof an ai-bitratiori clause364 STATE3IEST RY $Ir. PI.I'Z3I:IURICE ~G.K.) - 27 VI 50

such ;zsthat whicli figuresin the peacc treaties;and, just as the doctrine
advanccd by the former criemies over the qu&ioii ofthe existcncc of a
dispute was destructive of the ivhoie ç-aIueandpurposeof arbitratioii
clause;, so etliralIis the proctss offaiii~ig tu appoint an arbitrator or
commissioiier.
Thc ncxt step n the plan of carnpnign of tlicse Governments \vil1
doiilitlessbc to wgue ttiat,because thcir cornmissioncr haç. not bwn
apliointed, any tribunal \i:l~ichissetup witliciirt hi1will bc tlefective
or not vaIid1y constituted, arid any decision wliich it purports to givc
will be a nullity.Iftiiisprocess is juridicdly admissible,tlien,of course,
it \\-il1ffollothut in practice no arbitrati clnuse of the usual and
existing iype, such as is to bc iound in trenties to-day, wiIIhave aiiy
ob1igatory force ercept to the extent to xvhictieach of the partis is
wi1lingto givc it effect whenthe moment todo socornesbygoingthrough
the roperiyappointed proccdure. 1n other wordç, arbiiratioiiclauscs
wiil te reduced ta rnerdy voiuntai-y iiistcad uf compulsorÿ processes of
going toarbitratiori. l'et,as T pointed out in my earlicrslaternent of
last bIarch, ürbitration clauses rvhich have only ü voluntarÿ effcct
ai-einere surplrisxge,siricecoiintries caii dways voIuntariIy agree to
arhitriltca disputed point undera treaty if they wisIt todo sa, andthe
sole object ofan arbitrati clause isto niake nrbi tratioit obligatciry.
In these circt~rn~trin~esi,t seems to iiiyGovernrnent-and we Iiope
tkat the Coui-t will agree-tliat the position shoulcl iiot readiIy he
acceptcd irirvhichit is poçsiti1to defent thc inteiitionto arbitrate, and
to prevent a decision king ~endercd, by rneans of such processes as
refiising torlorninate an arbitrator orcornrnisçioncr ; because, ifthat is
osçiblc,tiin effectreduces what isin tendcd to be a conipulsory clause
for arbitrationinto a inere voluntary pmcreding of going IOnrbitn*ion,

if,when tlietirne cornes, ihcparties {that is tosav both of them) think
that ihcy rire readyand rviilirigtdo so, ivhictirvas certainly ncvcr the
intention oithe original clauac.
Accordingty, wc think tIiat, iit is atal1possibIe,the preçe~it asbitra-
tioii clausessliould bcgiven a rneaning arrdcffcfectliicli \vil! avoitl tliis
resutt, and 1 r7enture to siiggestthat tltis coiiclusion eclualty foIlows
logicatly frorri the vie~vswliichthe Court itself csprcsserin its opinion
of 3oih hlarch last. Irtstafing that the parties rvereunderan oliligation
to CO-oprate in constitiitingtlic trcaly commissions, iriparticular bu
alqioiiitiiig tIicir representativcs,tlie Court ndded: "otherwiw. the
rneliod of sett~erncrttby commission?i. -providcd for in the treatics
tvould cmiipfeteIy frul iri its piirposc." 1 ~espcctfulIy submit that
esrictly the same rinciple is applicable to tlieqtiestions now
hforc die Court. ?hi inethod of sottiemeni providecl for iri the
treaties wo~ild equülly faiIcompIclcly inits pur ose if refusaito carry
out what 1Jie Court has foirrid to be a clear o Eligotion to appoint a
comniiçsioner h,2stlie effect that no commissioncan be coristitutedancl
no decision caii be rendercd.
IYliilc direct aiithoriy on rhis subjcct is unfortirnately lackirig,
the general attitude ofinternational iribunals is iridiciiti'tlthe view
ivhich thcy Ii:tve freqircritltaken &en one of the rnembers of ait
arbitral tribuna[ has bee~i rvithdrawn or lias frtiledtu take his scat.
to which subjcct 1 shallreturn prcsently when I dcai specificallÿwith
the Fourlb Qiiestion.then, if no other meanç of settlenient are agre~dupon, recourse 1s to
bc had ta a commission at the rcqucst oi ciiiicr parLy ; tlicpartics arc
earh to appuirit tiieir commi3i3iorier,but if they cannot agree upon the
the third mmber of the c~i-tirnissiuii, eifher of tli~ni rnay recluest:
thc Swretary-Gcneral of the United Nations tu makc tilt appniritmeiit.
'SIieintc~ition to procure a settlenicnt by orle rnerrrisor anvihcr could
scarcely be clearer, and cal1 ailyune doirht, therefrire, tliat it would he
coiiLrary in thr wliolc spirit aiid tendency of thcsc provisinris if they
could be frustratcd, hrst by denying thaf any dispute exists and, wlicii
that fail;, by refusing or failirigto riorni~iüte a commi3çioner on the
appropriate tre3t.y cnnimissiori ? It is triie that the relevant :iiticIe
might thcorctically fiavc prrivided intcrrns for what wcisto llappcn iri
such ari everit. Hut, as vrx? pointecl outin the IJiiited Kingdom written
staterrient, itisrare for arhiiraiinn clauses iiitrcaties tarnake provision
fw the kind oferrcnts wIiicli ii:tvoccurrcd i;l tlie yresent case, jusias
it iscnrnparativel,~ rare for treatiesto provitle for ahat is to occur in
tl-icveiit of a breach of thari. It is assumcd thal the treaties will be

carried out and that obligations to go toarbitraiion in the event of a
disputéwill noi bi: irustrntetiby procediiral rnarioevvrs. I shall l-iave
to say rriore about this prexntlv, but, briefiyit is invidions arid uften
psycholo@i:ally and alitically >mpossiblc to provide in ndvniice. for
soine tliing tliat oug itnot tcioccur, aiid cürinot occur exccpt as t1ie
resiiltof the defaiïlt or bad faith of one. ofthe parties. The ktct thnt
ttiisis not specificaliÿ pro~ided for iii terrris sliuuld not preueat the
articl ii qriestion being d~ilyinterpret eodas to give it ils logicül arid
clcarly inter~rledeffect.

Alr, Pr-&?identand Mcmbers of the Coiirt,

Yestcrda?; everiing I rnatle sarrie gerieral observatiriiis applicableto
botIl tlieqiiestionr beforc thc Corirt.1 \%il1novr rniiltsozne rernarksoii
these qricslions iridividually.
The firstquestion thst iç toSAY, the tfiird in the .Asl?eniblyrcsdu-
tion of Iast October-whilc reqiiiring carefiil study of the refevniii
clause iiitl-rc pcacc treaties riecd not, I tliink, occasioii aiiy scriuus
difficiilty. 'l'lierelevarlt c1aii.e speüks of a thirci nlernhof tlie trerity
cornmiscions in additioti to the ilational comrnksioncrs, 2nd it :a s
tItat fnilingagreernerit between the parties on ttlis tIiir(rricrribcrtrie
Secretar1:-(&nerd of the Uriitcd Nations rnaÿ he rcquestetl by either
of tlic pnrticsto appoint hini. 1tis,tliercforetIiisso-callcd third rnernbcr,
who is tu Le appointet1 hy the Secretary-Generirl, and the ccri~ral issue,
conscqueritly, is whctlier ~Iic tertn "third cornrnissioncr" or "third
rneniher" is io be uii!lerstrx,d as rn:ikingit an ahsr>liit~prc-coridiiiori
of thc appointtiieiir. ofthat cominissioiler that tlic two national com-
rniçsioneis sbortlcl iilrcady have heen appoiiilcd, or ivlietlier, on the
other haid, the term is rnerely a piece of description, çigriifyiiig ari
additioiial,nentral ri~ernberof thecornmision appoititcd hy a different
process froiii i1iaternpluyeti in the caçc of tlie riatiorialconirriissioriers,
lvho need riot neceçsarily bf: appoirtted in advnnca.
1 suggest that a carefiil reading of the relevant yrovisioris shows
clearly that the latter iiitcrpl-ctation is the: corrcct one.In the first place,the thii.d or ncutrai camrni~sioiiei-is not,zppointcd by agrccmcrit
hetu~eeiithe tivo national comrnissioners-a inethori which is frec~iiently
adnpted innrbitration clauses, biit iiot in this particirlarcasc. On the
cmtrary, here the appoii~trnei~tis byagreement bet~veen the trvo Govcrii-
rnents concerried or, slioi~ldthe57fail to agree, by rhe S~cretary-Gerimil
of tlieCniterlN.?tions aL the request of either ai iIicm. Consequeritly,
the non-appointinentof cithcr or both of the natioiid ilconimissioricrç

does riotoffcr ariy material or iricciiatiicobstacle to tIieappoiritrnertt
of the tliird or ricutr:iIrornrnissiur~er.
Xext, it wilI be seeii t.hat the relevarit provisioii \vouIdnot render it
in any way iirriyossitilefor the tu-uCo\~erri~i~e~b its,~niitr~dagreement,
deliberately to appoint the tliird merriber ol the commission before
nomiriatiiig tticir own national currirriksioricruo , r, failin agreenterit
between thein, to ark tlieEccretary-Genernl to do SO. Thcy rnighr ive11
fml that untir they knew who the thircl con-imissioncr was going tn
he, or who the Secretary-Lenerai l.as goirig to nominate, they would
psefer to postpone the appointnrent of their national cnrnmissioners.
Tt miglit weII he that trie appointment of the national conimi~sioncrs
~wuld dcpcnd on the ternperünicrit and pcrsonality of the rieiitral
merrilier of ~Iic cornmissiori, ori wbich particular Iringuage lie irscd as

Iik ~ireferrcdworkirigIaiigurige, ririso on. Thcre is, asfar as 1 cari see,
notiiing iri thearticIewhich would prevent ilie rnernhers of the commis-
sion bci~igappointcd iri,.;Oto spcak, rcversc order -thai is tcisdy, the
tIiird or ncutraI inembcr firsi, arid liic national inembers afterwiirdu.
If,tfierefore, the appointnient rif the tliird or neutral cominiçsir>ner
cniild take place, altliough ricither of the national comrnissioncrs Iiad
yct bccri appointed, a lnrtioriit woiild çccm that itcoultl take place
if une of tliw Iiadheen appointed hiit not the vtlicr. It iwuId, to sabf
tlit: lem of it,he a vcry uiiloriuriatcreading of tlieclrilisif orleof tlic
partics could noi orily refuse or iail to rioiriiriahis nwii roinrni~sioner,
btit coirld therehy automarically bring to nn end ail furt-hcr stcps to
get tlte commission con~titüted.
Not orily does the proccss of rcqriesting.the Secretary-General to
riiakc the appoiiitiiientof the tiiir commirsioner not require the prior-
ap~~uinlmeritof butli or either of tticnational comrnirsioners, it et~uaIly
rloes iiot rtiquire thc mutrial consent of the two Goveriim~.tits. 'Tlic
~clcvarit pliraçc quite clearly sqs that ir may be thrie ritthe request
of eit1it.rliart y acting aione. The only retluisitc conditions are. first,
thnf ihrt two (;nverrirricritssliould Iiave fniied tlicirisclvesotagrec on
the thirrl or mr~tunlconiniissioncr, and, secondly, tliat a perivd of orlc
montli sliould Iiavc clnpscd duririg~IiicIi it ws open to tiic parties to
agree, urid tiiat ilie,~ should Iiave friiledto 3g1.w within this ~xriutl.
Tt is important to riotice that the peiiod of niie rrioriildocs iiut riin,

as couId Iiave been provi&cI, Irorritlic appoiiitmcnt of the two rialioiial
corrirr~issiorierH.ad this beeri tliccase, it wotild have sugg:stcd tliiit
tlie tIiircorrirnissioi;e rotiItnot be appuiritcd until the national cox-
missioners hari hee11 appoiiited. Hoivever, thnt is not the osition.
Accoiding to tlie luiguage of ilic relevaiti clause, the periol ul Urie
~nontli runs [rom the. tirne when, nu otlierr rrciinsofsettlemitt having
heeii rniitiiallpa,~eed upon, either party mqirests rcference to a com-
nii~ion. 1 \%-ilrericl the relevaripassap. After providing Ior a rcfercricc
to iiieHeads of theGnited States, Cnlted Ririgdom alid Soviet klilissioiis SThTE>lENT HY Mr. FTTZAIAURICE {[:.K.) - 28 VI 50 369

step iritliematter, or to c~operrite in any wriy in the setting up of tlic
conimissions. Cnnseclirentlp,it isclear that there iiow csistç (and tiad
long cxislcd) a situation of faci iiiwliiclt Ilic parties I1;1vfailed withiri
the specifred eriod to agree on the nppointmcnt of the third comiriis-
çioner. There fore, if, as 1sitbmit to tlie Court, it is correct trisay tthnt
the nppoinrn~cntof cithcr or horli of the national commiççioncrs is
riot ailcuseritiril precondition of tiic riorriiriiittf ttic tfiird or neutrül
cornmissioner, then the positioii is tIiat tlie l;nit~l Kingdom Govern-
rneiir and the other Allicd Gover rirnei-~tconcernecl Iiave, alid Iiavc
for some tiine finci, th? rizht to reqriest, :iritcoiild non- rreqiiest,the
Secretas--Genetal of tlie Utiitcd Kations to i~iake tliisa yointrrictit,
ancl the Secreiary-Gerieral for Iiis part would bc criiitief urirler the
ycacc ircaCies to corriply \vit1tliisrcclucsl riridrriakctlie ayipoiritrnent.
Accordinglj?, I çahmit tliat the ririswerto the tiiird qiiestion slioiridhe
in the affirniative.

T stialliioiv pas3 oit to tlicioirrth qiicstinii.This qiiestioriis Iiy iar
flic aiorc iiriportriritothe two, both bccausc itis fIicrriorefundamental
anri because on nitdeperids tlic ~>ractic:autiiity of the arisur:r givitri to
i-hc otlicr uestiori ;sincc, as 1 sx~d enrlici,tlicrc islii-Llcobjcct ititrie
Sccretary- 2 erieral being asked to niake appoititnicrits ifthe resulting
cornmissions cannot he i-egarded as beirig properlp constituted coniiiiis-
sions for the purposes of thc trcaty or cornpetent to givc finalandhinding
decisinris. t is tIie ubjectof the foiirih qucs~iorita detwmirie thiç issue.

Ttis clearlp a difficiilquesiicin, for there arc adtnittcdly a numhcr
of laclors wiiicti niust raise doubts wiictlicr currirnissiuriscoristituted
in the rnanner conternplated by the fourth cluestion can do the 8%-ork
of thc thrcc-mcrnbcr coirirnissionçprimarily cnvkagcd by tlicpcacc
treaties. Tliere isohvimis rorim lor argurneritwlietfier commissions on
which only trvo oftlie LIircpotcntial meinbers are sitirigcaii constitiitc
commissiuns at al1 within the rnca~iiiigof ilie peace treaties. ifnot,
then, of course, they coi~ld not give ariy vaIid or hiiiding tiw,isionç.
These, difbcillties were full discussed in paragraph 25 of the original
United Kingdoni \Vriitei~ ziïtrrneni. siiice rny Goveriiineiit considered
tlirtt it n-uuldhe Iiicking in frank~iessto\v\;nrds~IieCuiirt to atternpt to
el-ade or ignore tiicm, and in any case the Court woiilrl certainl not
have faild itsdf to pcrccive ttiese di5ciiltief.
Kevcr-tIieIcssil is ri150rleccssnry to takc iiitoaccurini:tlic iaci tliat
tbis situation lias been crcated by, aridihat these difficultiesarise frorn,
the failtire-the dclil-it-ratrefusal even--of the three forinpr rnemy
Govcrnrrieriis to çoniyly ivitlitheir obligatioiis iiiidcrthcse vcry pro\-i-
çioris for setiirig up the treaty commissions. This iç cIe:irbecriuse tlie
fourth question coiild oiily arise, arid in the furnial sense does onIy
arise, in coilseqiieilcr:of the fiiidiofthe Court that theçe three Govern-
ments arc unrlcr ale,-alotdigatiorito CO-nperatc iricoi~stitutirithe treaty
cornniissions, anci in conseqriencc 01 the laci thnt they are still rvitfi-
holding such CO-opcratiori.
Urie ditficulty ivitii wiii\se are taccd as regards tlie prcçeiit cliietiori
is the cornpiete lack of any dirccl iiitcrrtalioriiilprcctderit ur autiiurity
to guide ils, or to assist tlic Court in reaching its concliision. 'Tliere
are, iridwd, prdents for the case rvliere a inenitier of a cotrirriissionrnaterially impossible if one of the parties refuses or fails to appoint
hjs co~n~riissioricr.Tiiiit party-so it may be argucd-wi11, of coiirsc,
have acted wrongly ; hc wil1have been gniltv of a clear brcacii of hi5
treaty obligations, as the Corirt IIXS f01113d.In thk situation VXC~OIIS
courses ul rictiorrriüybc open to 1Iic otlicr pariy. but-so it niay be
argued -wIiater7errernedics arc availatde, the setttng up of the corriiriis-
sioii in tlic absence of the tlefnillting party's comrnissioner cantiot
bc orie of tliern, becausc as a i-ilaticrof cocstitutiori triecommission
contenlplated hy the treaty cannot lie set up in the abseiicc -oforie
of the national commissioners. The entity thirs created wuuld not he
the entily cuntcmplatcd by the treaty ; it would bc a different entity.
1 have stated the objectiori fully arid explicitly becaiise it clcarly
forrns the ceiit.raI difficulty inthe present case, and it rriust bc dealt
rvitii. 1vcnltrrc to suggest, Iio~vcves-and Iicre, 1 tl~ink,1 reach the
core of rny argiirnent-that the objectiori which I have just siaicd
really involves a +eiiLioprktcipii ; it nssrimes soniething wliicii ouglit
first to bc dcrrioristr ;ateadssumes that a comrniss~on consisting
of the nominee of the Çecretary-General and tlierepresentativcappointcd
by one of the partics t+-oilldhe a different entity, an entity tlitïerent
irickaracter from the commissiori cuntenlplatcd Liy tfie peace trcaties.
1 siiggcst that.itwould not be ciiffereniin character but orily, soto
spcak, in dcgree, and cven tliat only for so long as ihc other partystill
refused or failed tu appoint Iiis reprcscritativc, whiclit1%-ould be open
to him at any time to do, whicli, indeed, he w.ç-tiulbe iinder a constarit
and coiitiriuiriobligatiori todo. It k orlelhirigto çct ripUI entity wholl y
differeiit in character frorri tliüt coritemplatecl hy the relcvant trcaty ;
it is quite another thiiig to set up what is essentiaI1~ tlic sarne eritity,
lackino gnly some contponent which can at ans timc be siipy>liedb~l
those w-hose IegaI duty 1slo do so.

To put my argutriciii in itsmost concentrated form, 1 suggest that
it ivorild tic juridiczillyincorrect to regard the comrriissions coiitem-
pIated by the fourth qucstion as bcing Inerc trvo-rricrriticrcornmissions
instead ofthe three-meni ber corrirnissioriscontemplated by the treaticç.
1 suggcst ihat juridically and cssentially tbcy woiild be three-mernber
comrni=sions, two of thc rricrrilcrs of which Iiacl beeri sppoin tcd, aiid
tlie thid ofwhich coiild be appointed at any time hy the part- Iiaviiig:
the iaculty and indecd the legal diity of rlningsri. T suggest, infact,
tiirit tlicsc corrirriissiorisurobedtlic trcaty commissions, inechanically
incomplete, perhiips, foras long 3s ihose rcsporisiblestill fail~dtocarry
out their legal obligations, but not juririically defective.
'I'liereisa fundamerital dillcreiicc bcttr~ceiia inalcrial or mechanirai
dcfect w~hichmerely affectstiie workingof the entity coiiccrncd and a
dcfcct or flaw of an essential or juridicnl charzcrer x\+iicli affects its
vrtlidity or corripeterit-If 1 may illustratc niy thcrne irom the naval
and military sphe~e, what is knowri as a battle fleet is not the les5
esscntially a hattlqfleet, nor does it cease to be an eritity or degerierale
into a niere ascemhlage uf riava1 unilu, because its destrvy~r or crriiser
screens are Iackiig ; though the absence of these comyoncnts may
gravcly aiTect the operations of the fleet ;still it rernain as flcct.Thc
sarrim eay be saidof ari arilidivision as regards its artillcr.);engineers.
Equallp, a tribunal isnot the less a tribunri[ber~uuçe one of its rnemb~rs
is rrijsçingStiII Iess does it becorne some other or differerit tribu~ial.
For my part, 1 cannot sec that it makcs ariy cssctitial diflerence of
32 STATEUEYT BI7 Mr. FTTZMAUKICE (u.K.) - 28 1'1 50
372
principle wiiether thernember is rnissib iieauçc he Iis bbccrw~ithdrawn
or faiIs or reluscs io attend, or because he hns never heen appoitircd.
'l'licaiiscis differentbiitthe resriltiç flicsarrie.
1 nthe Writ teiiStatenicnt ofthe Cnited Kingdom,attentiori wiis draïvn
to ilicpossibie difficultp resulting from the paragraph in tiiedispuies
articles which says thnt tlie dccision of the majunty of illernmnbers
of the cornrnissiorsiliall be binding; because,of coirrse,if commissions
coristiulcd ns canteniplated hy the fourth c~ucstiori are rcgardcd as
new and differcnt entities, tlien, secingthat tiiey \vilonly corisiçt of
trvo members. this provisiun about the majority may seem menningIess
since riitiionly two inernbers there caririotbe a ~riajority, butonly
either riiiririirror tlisagrcc~iicriBi11if the cornrni~~ionsare regarded,
aç I suggesttliat they should be, as consistirig in principleof LIiree
rnernbc~, tu70 nf rvhorn hni-e ben nppointed'an tde othcr can take
hiç seat any tiine when Iiis govcrnrnent carries out its lepl obligation
to appoitit iiirn,tlterithis dificulty autoiitaticnllydiçrippenrs, and the
decisioriof thetwo ap ointed rnernhers wiltcoristitute a~iiajority cleciçion
of the cominission wlicil wili be valid and hiliiling iinder the relevant
clause of the treaty.

1 would like now to suggcstyet another ztpprorich to this problem,
whichIeads tuthe sarne result by adifferent roirteThis will alsoperiiaps
bc rinothcr way of applying the doctrineof u-aivcr, to wltidi tlie United
States repreçentative rcierred whcn he espressed the uiew tiiat the
tlit'ec torrneenerny Governments had ir~ivedor forfeited fheir right
of objection iiithis case. BIr. Presidcnt, it is sometimes useful wheii
there are doctririd and fheoreticaI dificulties in fi~idiiithe ansivcr
to a giveii question, to adupt the empirical methods of the scientist
and matheitiatician, bp açsurning or postulating a ceriniriarlswer and
seeiiig how jtworks.If the reçults harrnoni wzelh aIi knownexisting
principles and facts, and do riot involve üriy inliererit corttradictions,
there is agood chance tl-iat theanswcr will in fact be the correct one.
That somc sticli proccss isin riouay foreign tothe jurisprudence or
rnetlids ofinternational trihunals is,I think, indicated by the follo~viiig
passage from the dccision of tlie British-Arnericari Clairns *I'rihiinal
in the c4w of k'astern Extetisiolj,Arrslralasia rrnd Chirra Ttlegruph
Com$u~ty (reported in the Annericatt Jolrrnül O/ Inîxrrinlioaal Lnw,
Vol. 18, 1924, at p. 635) :
"International larv, as weIt as domestic law, may not contüiri,
alid genernIly doeç not coi]tain, expressrules decisivc of particular

caes, but the lunction of jurisprudence is to resolve the confiict
of opposing rights and interests l>y applyiiig,in ùefault of nny
specific provision of law, tlie corallaries of general principles, and
so to find-exactly as in the inathematical sciences-the solution
of tlie ~irohlern."
ApyIying this rnethod,let us suppose that the Secretary-General of
the Uiiited Katioris Itasin füct beert&ed to rnake and has made tiie
iiecessarÿ appointments, and that cammissions, consisting of tlie persori
appointed by the Secretnry-Genernl and the riatioriai comrrtissioner
norninated by one of the parties-tuba-member commissions-have niet and goiir itito al1the evidelice avnilahle to them or which they
have bccn ablc to procui-e,and havc giveri a unariirnuirs dccision. (If,
of course t,ey disagreed there would be no der-isionat all, ;ind a sitira-
tion woiild arist: in ivliifiilfilnieof the ititcntioriof the treaty claiixç
aliout arliitrütiori %vasa matcrial irnpus~itiility.) Kut,assurning that
there was a decision, concusre<I in buhot11tlic existiiig memhei-s of tIic
commission, wliat thcriivoiild he the position ? Thc deçision coiildorily
bc c1ialIerigedhy one oftlic parties to the tlispute.Ex Iiyputkesiitcould
riot and would not hc chalIenged by the gorernmcnt whose rncmbcr
sat orithe cornrnissionarid concurrcd irtthe decision. 1t coulù therefore
rinly he challengzd hy the forrner eneiiiy governrnent concerned. Rut
oii wIiat basiscoulcI such a challenge bc niade ? TIlc onlv possiblebasis,
so far as tIiisparticu1:irissue is concenied, would bé that ~kiccornmis-
sion wxs iincnniplete hecause it dirlnot includc comnusir)nt..rsa ppoint~.d
tiy tlieiorrrierenemy Govcrrirricrits, a~idit would havc io Iic argtied,

t.herefore, that for this renscin the two-member commiçsion imç not
a propcrly coristitiited corriinisjonand could no1 givc a valid decision.
Eut (cveri assurning this to bc a valid objectiori IegalIy, wiiic11,Eor
re;isons 1 have g-iven earlier,1 do not tIiink it i%-oirhIe-but assiiming
itwas thcorcticrilly valid asfar as it wnt), why would the commissions
riot have heen conipletr: 7Tlic ariwer is tIiatthey would riut have beeri
coniplete becairsc the former enerny Go\-ernrnent conccrried had itiIfrilly
defaiil tedin irs obligation to appoint its oïvn national cornmissioner.
In bricf, the cliallerigeN-ouIdbe rcndcrcd inad~riissatilfrom tiic start,
becxnsp, its hasis, narn~ly tlie absence of the es-e~iemv cornmissioner,
\i:otildhesomcthing for whicli the cliallengirigParty was himself rcisporiç-
iblc. This absence of one of tlic national cotrirriissiorirsorrldhavt Lit~i
diie to the rvilfirldefaultof the very party tryiiigto make tliat ahsence
a groiriid for chatlenging the cornpeteiice of rlie corrin~ission. 11)brit:f,
ariy challenge ori tiiitiasis would itsclf bc iiivalidaridinadmissiblearid
coiild nof, therefoi-e be iriade the baqisfor qilestioning tlie cornpetence
of the comniissio~i. Uut, if thisis correct, it woiild foilow that the com-
mission'is lKision was riut oycrito challenge at al1 oii tlic basis of any
Iack of prriper cnnstitution of the commission, New, iii tliew circiim-
stances, and whatever tlie theorctical positioriaç to tlie validlityof a
decisioii gtveiiby siich a corrtrrii~~iiifi,the positionistliatthe decisioii
caririotiriprricticeliecliallei~gcdbecause one ol ~Iicpar-tieshas acccptcd
it in advance, and the oiiier party isprecluded by its owii actiorifrom
pirtting forward rinp vdid ciiailerige, tIten it surely folluw tliat the
decision miist in ractice be valid and binrliilg hecaiise both parties
ivould bc juridica/l' precluceclfront aucging tiic contrary .
'I'hereis a gond deal irithe yractirx of international triburials \vliich
supports tlicvicw I Iiaw jirst,hecn siigesting. Tlicre is first of al1 the
gerieral prirlciple, wiiickis alrnos t lcgal platitude, t1iatStates ariù
parties to disputes canriol bc allo\vcd to profit from thcir owri dciiiult
or it-rong-doing. In its IYritten Staternent, rny tio\:errirrieritcited a
sfrikiiig$assage frorn the jiidgrnent of the Permanent Cnilrt iti the
first Clnmzikz I;actnrycasc (ScficsA, No. 9, p. 311,arid ithas licericited
again 11ytlie reptcscntatirreof the Iinited Çtrit~s.The ],;fisagin qiies-
- tion sccrns to rricto ticso itriportnnt and apt to the preseiit case that
1 dl permit myse1f to rcad it again : "lt iç ...a principle generziliyacceptecl in the jurispruderice ot
interriatiorral arbiiratiaosnwdl as by municipal courts that one
prty cannot avail iiirnselfoftlie fnct lhatthe &lier Ilas notfulfilled
sonie obIigatioii or has not had recourse to sotne ineans of redress,
if the fornicr party has, by somc ilIega1 act, prcvented the latter
from f~ilfillingthe obli~atio iiiquestion, or from Iiavirig rccoursc
to the tribuiial which ivoiild have heen open to Iiini."

In its ayiplicatiorito tlie prcscnt case, this prissligcmig-litbe para-
plirrised zs foilo~~~s,narnely that

if, inthc piesent case, the three forrner enemy Governments Iiave,
hy their failure to appoint their cornrniçjioiiers, prcvented the
nther parties to the dispite frorn having recaiirse to the triburial
wIiich would otiicrwisc liavc been open to ihcm, natnely the three-
menlber commission corrterriplatcd by the vace treaficç, the forrner
erremy Governments cannot amil themselves of that fact, i.e.of
their owri default or wrong, in order to ctiaitetigeadccision arrived
aL by such other ineans ,zsare possib-e within the general scope
of ttie treatyclause on arbitration.
\271atis iiivolved is renlIyan application cif the principle knorvii in
Englidi law as cstoppcl (or tn iisrwh:it 1 belicve is the equivalent
French term priclusinn)-to wiiiclickt lias frequer:ritIybeen giveii

by iri terriationiil tribunais-for instance by thc Permanent Court of
Arhitration in the Gristiudurnn,Pn'otrs Fmd artd YenezncelanPreferen-
tial Ciaims caes, by tlie Alaska Rw~iJary tribunal, by the United
Siaics-Mexican Claims (:ornrnission iri tiic Chamizral case, by the
tribunal in the CroJt case frcported in I-'asicrisic3711, iiithe Hzrsso-
Turkish Puymelit of inlerest casc (rcported in the rltnericaitJolrr~ial
O/ tf~ntcrrinliorzLlaw, Vol. 8, p. 1751 ,rid in the Cmairt case in fhe
. Veneztrelai~;Irbitrnliü~tsof 1903 .he Permancn t Court of International
Jiistice dso recognized the yrinciplc iiithe Sertiian Louas and East
Gree>rtan r<zses(SeriesA, No. 20, p.39. and SeriesAll3, Xo. j3,pp. 62
arid hg) ,lthougIi itdid not thirik it necessary to apply it in thosecases.
An csceilent statenient of the pri~iciplc,in language vcry apt to the
prese~it case, is to bc found iiithe following passage Irom the deckion
of the ztrbitrator iri tliçüçc of th^ Tiunco Con~essions-Grcnt Rriiaia
verius Caslrr Ir'icri(Adrnini~tratrvedecision iVo.I. p. 44) :
".... tliemerc ~>ossesioriof 3 Iicencc does ~iotcstop :the holder
of a licence] {rom attacking .itsvalidity. 1t is the possession ol ri

~viio lias nntofuIh'edenthc tcr-niçofhethaleagrecrricnt fromstpleadingrzon:

and provirig the invalititly (of tiic licence] ....in order to avoid
lialiilityfor brcacli of his contracti".
Althoirgh the Permanent (Ioürt recognized but diil not apply llic
pri~rciplc of cstolipcl itithe Serbian Loam arid Ensd Grunland cases,
it did, in cffcct, appiy tliat principlc!frequently iranothcr field, namely
thnt of the relationsli b eps ee~ta country'sconstitritiorial and rnutiicipnj
law and its iiitemationnl ohliga.ations,treat yor other. Aç \vas poiritcd
out inpürngrnp h10of the United Kingdom \Vritten Çtatement, certain
aspects of this question have, by ariülogy, a distinct tiearirtg uri tIic
pr-cseritcase. T have iri mind particiilarly tIic rule which the Pennaiicnt "Tlic re1nt.d~ by specific performaiicr: was invei\ted ...in nrder
to meei c~zsesrvhcrc the ordinary remcdy by an actiorifor damagcs
is hot an adcquate compcrisation for hreach of coiitract."

In many cascs darriagesare nut aii adequate remedy, and only nctual
performancesutlices. 'ïhris, it w:is always the -tracti¢cof tlieIingliçh
Court of Chancery in appropriate cases to or Aer the actual delivcry
rindera contract of sale of articles p~sesçing a spcial beauty, rarity or
inicrcs w b,cre theimportance of the contrait lay i~ttlie iritrinsnatui-e
of the zrtide tohe sold ratlier ttIiain itsrnonep \.alrie; and ~iow,uiider
thc Englidi Sale of Gods Acts, the Coiirt can, if itiliiiiksfitorder the
actual delivery of nizy spccific and ascertaineLi gouds coritrnct~l tu
be sold.
T sugg-est,&Ir. Presidcnt. tlirit the prewnt case is cniiricntly one in
xvhiclithere cm heno rcai or adcquateremcdy short of cürrying oirt thc
intention of the peace trexties arid referring the dispu tes which Iia~re
ariscn to arbitra1 corninicsions. It iç triithat siiicc ive ariritlie inter-
nationrd, not the domestic, field, spifit performance of the obligations
of the former eiiemy Government scriririukLeciinicdly hedecreed, hecaiise
tfiei-eisno inciirisof conipelling them to carry out tlicsc obligations or
to appoiiit their respective cornmissioners :but tliat it,no rexson for
failing totakc sncli othcr actioras is possible and ivoiildtend taacichieïe
thc aanic rault, n;imcilp to procure a dccision on ilicsc disputes.
Nois, tIiis is thvery positiniiwhich WC firidurtder inany, ifnot most,
systenis ofdomestiç Inw in relstiori tuthe perforrnaiiceof contracictsto
resort to arbiiration. ?'hcre e<liially theCourt will noi, b~~rtuiei?z fi ri^
ii carinut,compel s recalcitrant party tu riomin:ttean arhitrator.\.I?hat
it will dn js to :tppoint tIie nrbitrritor ifsel011 the a yilication of tlie

ot,hcr par-ly.Alternatiuely, as in England, tIictaw ilsc/rnrikes provision
for ific case by aiithoriairigthe wiIliiig partu' arbitrator to proceed
alone and togivc an award ~Iiich isthen hinding nn botb parties.
This practice, which prevails in Englaiid aiid dsewhere, is precisely
that which rveconicnd slioüld bc foUowe(1in the present case. 1 suggest
thnt the Court fias powei- to follow it uiider Article $3, paragrapli (c)
ofits Stalutc, wiiich entitles itto ap@y "the geiicral ririciplcsuf law
recogriized by civilized iiatians". Tha clearly incIu crl' principIes of
domestic Iaiv if ofa general character, and their applicntioiiis specialIy
callcd for where existing ruleç of iritcriialiorial law may not he wholly
arletjtrateTndced, 1 suggest tiiattlie whole tenor of Articlc 38 of llic
Court's Statiite idirected against the Court king dcprivetl of tficrneans
of renderiiiy iidecision on nccount ofthe absciicc of atiy olir,iouslyand
directlp nplilicablcrulc.
Tn the dornestic sphere, noiie ofthis gives riscto anyseriousdifficulty,
atid iri the interiintional splicr1 sug Test tiiiit cquaHy sucli clifficties
ofa prxtical cliatactcr as magr rcçult !om the absence of the arbitraior
orcoinrnissioner ofoneof the parties are notins~iperable either.Xefereiice
to tIicse-dificultics was marie in paragrapli 25 of the United Kingdom
Written Statemeni, arid a solution \vas suggested in paragraph 28 of
that statenient. 'I'hematter is al50 discirssed onpages 26 and 29 of the
Uriited States \IJi.tcn Slaterneiit,itiDocurrient 501171.
it isclear iiiariy case that tficreis ~iathing new about these practical
difictilticçin ttie internationai field. They have occiirred whe~iever,
aficr a tribunal has ùeen coristitutcd, 1Iic arbitrator or commissioner by the facithiitthe present cxe and tliissues rvhichii raiscsare referrcd
to in the report on arbitration procedure furnishcd by Prof. Georges
Scelle to the Internatiorial Law Commission now insessioii at Gencva,
whicli ischarged hy tlie hsseinbly ol the United Nations with the task
of productng a codc on that suùject. Prof .ccllc, wltois wel known to
the Court, and whose eriidition and halxnccd judgment are faniilinrto
iis 211takcs a Iine which sripportsvery strungly the vicivwiiich 1 arn
now advocating. His rcmarks have alretidy bccn tli~oterlhy the repre-
sentaiive of t1ieUnited States, so that 1 shdl riot quote tIicniagaiii,
but, bricfly, he has no doiibt tliai juridicaIlythe failure of one party
to CO-operate iticarrying out the prescribed procedure for arhitrdtion
uught not todeprive the.otfierparty of hk right to an arbitral scttlernent.
He points out that French law guarantees thiçright ; and,risive kriow,
uther systems of domestic law dothe same. 111the international field,
horvever. Prof. SceIIe fwesees certain dificulto ifesa pracficül and
politicaI orderin ttieapplication of a similar princiyle,but he adds that
he does not consider these objectio nsitircljrconvincingor insupcrable,
or that fhey shoiild be allnwed to override the ciear juridical positiorr.
Prof. Scelle then goes ori to espnund his solution ofthe pcoblern.
Hi5 solution consists of introducing certain specificclaiiseç intoarbitra-
tionagreements, the chicf of which for out present purposes would
read as follows :

"If one of tlie parties by systematically abstairiing ohstructs
the operation ofthc prwediire laiddown in the said articles,the
rnissirigarbitrators shaI1 be appoirited hy the Prcsident of the
international Court of Justice in accordance with Article 23 (3)
of the said general act.The trihiinal so constituted sltall Iieathe
cg2seand its j~idgment shali be bi~idirig."

\trithtIiis proposal 1 respectfuliy agree, but, of coursc, it can only
as such appIy to the fuiure, tu arhitration agreements or arbitration
clauses in ireatiesrvhicbare drn1t.n up a! sorne time hercafter. il'hat
ofthc past ? Becausc, :tswe knoiv, arbitration clauscs Iiavériot hitherO
made express provision for tliistype of case. Generally speaking, as
we noticcd earlier, it has hitherto becn tiiougbt unnxessary, whcre a
clause cirarlyobligcd the partics to go ta arbitratian and Lutake certairi
steps for settiiig upthe tnbunaI or crinirniçsiorito provide al50 for what
was to Itappen ifthese steps wcrc nol takeri, sinceithas beeri generaIly
assurried,and cotrectly bcforc the preçent case, tliat tiiercould be no
. question of rclusing to CU-operatc in the çcttiiigup ofthc tribunal
ï.herc il maiii festdispute exisicd coricerning the i~i teryret ütionor
application ol the relevant trmty clauses, and tlie treatÿprovided that
stich a dispute was tu be scttlcd byarbitration.
Xor, I suggest, can any saiisfactury solutinn be found by implying
or reading iiitoarbitration cIau~es an obligatio~i to arbitrate about
whetlier ari obiigatioir to arbitrate cxiçts; for the party \vliicd ieinicç
ilic yrimary obligaf ion to arbitrate \vil1 nlmoçt certainl d eny ilte
secondaroy bligation to arbitrate about wltei~icr the priniary obligation
exists. This willIeadto wIiat mathematicians cal1 an infinitercgress,like
a story about the inan ivho te115astory about a man who tek a story,
orlike a play withirra piay u~ithira play-btrt uricvcry st;igethe action
isthe samc, a refusal to CU-operate in çctti~ig up anÿ cornniissiori or
arbitral tribunal. The only real rernedy tiiereforelies irigiving the partÿ who is ready
to go to arbitratioiithe faculty to coitstitute1tietriburialor cornrnisçion
independently liy sucii mearis s are availablt: in the circiirnstances
within the scope of the arhitration articlc,and the right to obtain a
valid dccision from it. This is what don~csttc Iaw does, and it is what
Prof. Scelle, in effect,suggesk should be specificaIIyprovided in ftiture
arbitration clauses. Tt is equally what rny Covernment suggesis slioiild
constitute tlie correctIndcrfi~eia6ionand application of exisiixgarbitra-
tion chuses, the true intention of which sudi an intcrpretntion woiild
certnin represent, htrt which have never liitficriocoritairicdanycspress
provisiorion LIicsubjeci, becausc it \vas iierreima#ned that they could
be inierpreted in sucha way as to render such cspress provision
ncccssary .
As 1 said a rnorricnt ago, iIiiis not iriour view a case ofbx lerenda.
-1.0legisiüte rvouldbe improper for the Corirf,or for any Court ; hut to
interpret and apply existing principles tn neiv facts, tliat is proper for
a Court. Ii is, indccd, onc of the main functions ofCourts, and in tiiis
function lies a large part oftheir geai due to the cornrntinity. If,in
the prescnt case, the Court considers that esistirigprinciples do riut go
lar criougltro cnablc it to atiswer tlie present questions iritIieafirrri-
ative. that wlll be one thing ; but if tiiisisntltso, and if the Court
thinks that existing principles can be extendcd iri i11crcquircd manner,
theri I respectiully subrnii triai tlicCourt need not be deterred froni
gixlng affrrrnativeans\%-erbsyanyfeeling tiiatin so doing it will he going
beyorid its province as a Court.

T have finished, Rlr. President, and 1 niake rny fnrrnal submissions
to the Court as follorvs:
Oitthe lkird gt4astioI s~y ththi tthatif one of the parties to ;dispute
rlrider the relevant dauses of the peace trcaticç fails to appoiiit his
representative to the approprite treaty conirriiusiori,iic Secrctary-
General of tlieUriited Saliuris 1sautliorized toappoint: tlie thirdmember
of the cpmmissiori upon the requeçt of thc otticr party to thc dispute.

Oir thlifursrthqir$sfioswc say tliis: A truty co~rirriissiocioinposcrI
oi tIicrcprcucritativcof oiic party and of the tliird ~nernber appointed
by the Secretary-Gerierd of the Unitecl Xations wauld constitute a
commission within the meaning of the releva tittreaty articles,cornpetent
tu give a defiriitivearicltiirràingdecisiuriin any dispute coriringwitIiin
the scope of those artides.
1 thank the Court.