Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950 (second phase)

Document Number
008-19500718-ADV-01-00-EN
Document Type
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFSET ORDONNANCES

INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE
PAIXCONCLUS AVEC LA BULGARIE,

LA HONGRIE ET LA ROUMANIE
(DEUXIÈME PHASE)

AVIS CONSULTATIFDU 18JUILLET1950

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONSND ORDERS

INTERPRETATION OF PEACE
TREATIES WITH BULGARIA,
HUNGARY AND ROMANIA
(SECOND PHASE)

ADVISORYOPINION OF JULY 18th1950 Le présent avis doit êtrecité comme suit:
((Interprétationdes traités depaix (deuxième phase),
Avis consultatif:. I.J. Recueil1950, p. 221.>,

This Opinion should be cited as follows:
"lnterpretatio~zPeace Treaties (second phase),
Adziisory OpirzionI.C.J.Reports1950, p.221."

NO de vente :
pl INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1950
YEAR 1950 July 18th
GeiieraLis:
No. 8

INTERPRETATION OF PEACE

TREATIES WITH BULGARIA,

F-IUNGARY AND ROMANIA

(SECONDPHASE)

Interpretation of article of a treaty referring the settlement of disputes
to a commission composed of one representative from each Party and a

third member chosen by common agreement between the tw; parties
power conferred upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to
proceed to the appointment of a third member. failing agreement between
the partieInaPPlicability of this provision to the case in which one of
the parties refuses tu appoint its own commissioner.andtural
mdinavy meaning of the;tmeaning which accords with the normal

order of the appointmof commissioner-provisito be strictly
construed.-Breacof a treaty oblig;timpossibility of providing
a vemedy by modifying the conditions for the exercise of the power to
appoint the third member as laid down in the Treaties.-Impossibility
to apply the principle of interpretation ut res magis valeat quam
pereat contravy to the letter anO/the Treaties.

ADVISORYOPINION

Present: President BASDEVAN ; T Vice-Presidcnt GUERRER ;O
Jzcdges ALVAREZ, HACKWORTH W ,INIARSKI,DE
VISSCHER S,IR ARNOLD MCNAIRK , LAESTAD B,ADAWI

PASHAK , RYLOV R,EAD,HSU MO,AZEVED ORegistrar
HAMBRO.

4 OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 (INTEHPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 222

THE COURT,

composed as above,

gives the foilowing Advisory Opinion :

On October zznd, 1949, the General Assembly of the United
Nations adopted the following Resolution :

"Whreas the United Nations, pursuant to Article 5jof the
Charter, shall promote universal respect for, and observance of,
human rights and fundamentai freedoms for al1without distinctioh
as to race, sex, language or religion,
Whreas the General Assembly, at the second part of its Third
Regular Session, considered the question of the observance in
Bulgaria and Hungary of human rights and fundamentai free-
doms,
Whereas the General Assembly, on 30 April 1949,adopted
Resolution 272 (III) concerning this question in which it expressed
its deep concem at the grave accusations made against the Govern-
ments of Bulgaria and Hungary regarding the suppression of
human nghts and fundamental freedoms in those countries;
noted with satisfaction that steps had been taken by several
States signatories to the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria and
Hungary regarding these accusations ; expressed the hope that
mesures would be diligently applied, in accordance with the
Treaties, in order to ensure respect for human nghrs and funda-
mental freedoms ; and most urgen'clydrew the attention of the
Govemments of Bulgaria and Hungary to their obligations under
the Peace Treaties, including the obligation 'coco-operate in the
settlement of the question,

Wkeas the General Açsembly has resolved to consider also
at the Fourth Regular Session the question of the observance
in Komania of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Wkeas certain of the Allied and Associated Powers signatcnes
to the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romanis
have charged the Governments of those conntries with violations
of the Treaties of Peace and have called upon those Governments
to take remedial measures,
Whrzas the Governments of Bulgaria, Hiingary and Romania
have rejected the charges of Treaty violations,
Whereas the Governments of the Allied and Associated Pawers
concerned have sought unsuccessfully to refer the question of
Treaty violations to the Heads of Mission in Sofia, Budapesand
Bucharest, in pursuance of certain provisions in the Treâties
of Peace,

Whereas the Governments of these Allied and Associated Powers
have calied upon the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungq and
5OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TRE- TI ES) 223

Romania to join in appointing Commissions pursuant to the
provisions of the respective Treaties of Peace for the settlement
of. disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of these
Treaties,
Whereasthe Govemments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
have refused to appoint their representatives to the Treaty Com-
missions, maintaining that they were under no legal obligation
to do so,
Wlzereasthe Secretary-General of the United Nations is author-
ized by the Treaties of Peace, upon request by either party to
a dispute, to appoint the third member of a Treaty Commission
if the parties fail to agree upon the appointment of the third
member,
Wlzereasit is important for the Secretary-General to be advised
authoritatively concerning the scope of his authority under the
Treaties of Peace,

The GelzeralAssembly

1. Exfiressesits continuing interest in and its increased concem
at the grave accusations made against Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania ;
2.Recordsits opinion that the refusal of the Govemments ofBul-
garia, Hungary and Romania to co-operate in its effortsto examine
the grave charges with regard to the observance of human rights
and fundamental freedoms justifies this concem of the General
-4sembly about the state of &airs prevailing in Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania in this respect ;

3. Decidesto subrnit the followingquestions to the International
Court of Justice for an advisory opinion :
'1. Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary
and Romania, on the one hand, and certain Allied and
Associated Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace,
on the other, concerningthe implementation of Article2
of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary and Article 3
of the Treaty with Romania, disclose disputes subject
to the provisions for the settlement of disputes con-
tained in Article 36 ofthe Treaty of Peacewith Bulgaria,
Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and
Article 38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania ?'

In the event of an affirmative reply to question 1 :

'II. Are the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
obligated to carry out the provisions of the articles
referred to in question 1, including the provisions for
the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty
Commissions ?'
In the event of an affirmative reply to question II andif, within
thirty days from the date when the Court delivers its opinion,
6 the Govemments concerned have not notified the Secretary-
General that they have appointed their representatives to the
Treaty Commissions, and the Secretary-General has so advised
the International Court of Justice :
'III. If one party faiis to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgana,
Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to
appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is
the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized
to appoint the third member of the Commission upon
the request of the other pvty to a dispute according
to the provisions of the respective Treaties ?'

In the event of an affirmative reply to question III :
'IV. Would a Treaty Commissioncomposed of a representative
of one party and a third member appointed by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a
Commission, within the nieaning of the relevant Treaty
articles, competent to make a definitive and binding
decision in settlement of a dispute ?'

4. Requests the Secretary-General to make available to the
International Court of Justice the relevant exchanges of diplomatic
correspondence communicated to the Secretary-General for cir-
culation to the Members of the United Nations and the records
of the General Assembly proceedings on this question ;
5. Decidesto retain on the agenda of the Fifth Regular Session
of the General Assembly the question of the observance of human
nghts and fundamental freedoms in Bulgaria, Hungary and
Rornania, with a viewto ensunng thatthe charges are appropriately
examined and dealt with."

In an Opinion given on March 3oth, 1950 (I.C.J. Reports of
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, 1950, pp. 65 et sq~),
the Court answered :

To question 1 :

"that the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and Associated Powers
signatories to the Treaties of Peace on the other, concerning the
implementation of Article 2 of the Treaties with Bulgaria and
Hungary and Article 3 of the Treaty with Romania, disclose
disputes subject to the provisions for the settlement of disputes
contained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria,
of the Treaty tof Peace with Kornaniah H;"lgary, and Article 38

To question II :
"that the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
are obligated to carry out the provisions of those articles referred
7 to in Question 1, which relate to the settlement of disputes, includ-
ing the provisions for the appointment of their representatires
to the Treaty Commissions."

On March 3oth, the Registrar notified the substance of the
Court's answers to the foregoing two questions by telegrams to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the Govern-
ments of all the signatories of the Peace Treaties.
By telegram of May rst, 1950, confirmed by letter of the same

date and filed in the Registry on May end, the Acting Secretary-
General of the United Nations notified the Court that he had not
received information, within thirty days of the date of the delivery
of the Court's Advisory Opinion quoted above, that any one of the
three Govemments had appointed its representative to the Treaty
Commissions.
By Order made on May 5th, 1950, the President of the Court,
as the Court was not then sitting, decided: (1)to fix Monday,
June 5th, 1950, as the date of expiry of the time-limit for the
submission by the States concemed, of written statements on Ques-

tions III and IV of the foregoing Resolution ; (2)to reserve the
rest of the procedure for further decision.
A certified copy of thisrder, the operative part of which had been
notified by telegram of May 5th to the Secretary-General and
the Governments concemed, was sent to all these Governments
by letter of May 9th.
By letter of May 16th, 1950, the Secretary-General of the United

Nations sent to the Registrar additional documents including new
diplomatic correspondence an the present case, transmitted to the
United Nations by the delegations of Canada, of the United King-
dom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland and of the United States
of Americe. These documents are listed in an annex hereto.

By letter of June znd, 1950,a written statement from the Govern-
ment of the United States of America relating to Questions III and
IV was transmitted to the Registry of the Court.

The United Kingdom Government had previously stated its
views on Questions III and IT'in the written statement submitted
during the first phase of this case.
By letter of May 5th, 1950, the Assistant Secretary-General of
the United Nations in charge of the Legal Department informed the
Registry of his intention to take part in the oral proceedings.

By letters of June 12th and zznd, 1q.50,respectively, the Govern-
ment of the United States and the Cnited Kingdom Government
stated their intention of submitting oral statements.

At public sittings held on June 27th and elth, 19j0, the Court
heard oral statements submitted :

8 OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 ~INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 226
on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations by

Dr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal
Department ;
on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, by
the Hon. Benjamin V. Cohen ;

on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, by Mr. G. G. Fitzmaurice, C.M.G.,
Second Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office.

Having stated, in its Opinion of March 3oth, 1950, that the
Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are obligated to
carry out the provisions of those articles of the Peace Treaties which
relate to the settlement of disputes, including the provisionsfor the
appointment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions,
and having received information from the Secretary-General of the
United Nations that none of those Governments had notified him,
within thirty days from the date of the delivery of the Court's
Advisory Opinion, of the appointment of its representative to
the Treaty Commissions, the Court is now called upon to answer
Question III in the Resolution of the General Assembly of Octo-

ber zand, 1949, which reads as follows :
"III. If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated
to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission,
is the Secnetary-Generaiof the United Nations author-
ized to appoint the third member of the Commissioq
upon the request of the other party to a dispute accord-
ing to the provisions of the respective Treat?"s

Articles 36, 40 and 38, respectively, of th.: Peace Treaties with
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, after providing that disputes
concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaties which
had not been settled by direct negotiation should be referred to the
Three Heads of Mission, continue :

"Any such dispute not resolved by them within a period of two
months shall, unless the parties to the dispute mutualiy agree
upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request of
either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one
representative of each party and a third member selectedbyutuai
a eement of the two parties from nationais of a third country.
~Kuld the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month
u on the appointment of the third member, the Secretary-General
Of'the United Nations may be requested by either party to make
the appointment. OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 227

2. The decisionof the majority of the members of the Commis-
sion shall be theecisionof the Commission,and shall be accepted
by the parties as definitive and binding."
The question at issue is whether the provision empowering the
Secretary-General to appoint the third member of the Commission
ayplies to the present case, in which one of the parties refuses to
appoint its own representative to the Commission.

It has been contended that the term "third member" is used here
simply to distinguish the neutral member from the two Commis-
sioners appointed by the parties without implying that the third
member can be appointed only when the two national Commis-
sioners have already been appointed, and that therefore the mere
fact of the failure of the parties, within the stipulated period, to
select the third member by mutual agreement satisfies the condition
required for the appointment of the latter by the Secretary-General.

The Court considers that the text of the Treaties does not admit
of this interpretation. While the text in its literal sense does not

completely exclude the possibility of the appointment of the third
member before the appointment of both national Commissioners
it is nevertheless true that according to the natural and ordinary
meaning of the terms it was intended that the appointment of
both the national Commissioners should precede that of the third
member. This clearly results from the sequence of the events
contemplated by the article : appointment of a national Commis-
sioner by each party ; selection of a third member by mutual
agreement of the parties ; failing such agreement within a month,
his appointment by the Secretary-General. Moreover, this is the
normal order followed in the practice of arbitration, and in the

absence of any express provision to the contrary there is no reason
to suppose that the parties wished to depart from it.
The Secretary-General's power to appoint a third member 1s
uerived solely from the agreement of the parties as expressed
in the disputes clause of the Treaties; by its very nature such a
clause must be strictly construed and can be applied only in the
case expressly provided for therein. The case envisaged in the
Treaties is exclusively that of the failure of the parties to agree upon
the selection of a third member and by no means the much more
serious case of a complete refusal of CO-operation by one of them,

taking the form of refusing to appoint its own Commissioncr.
The power conferred upon the Secretary-General to help the parties
out of the difficulty of agreeing upon a third member cannot be
extended to the situation which now exists.
Reference has been made for the purpose of justifying the reversal
of the normal order of appointment, to the possible advantage that
might result, in certain circumstances, from the appointment of a
third member before the appointment by the parties of their respect-
ive commissioners. Such a change in the normal sequence coiild only

IO OPIN. OF 18 VI150 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 228
be justified if it were shown by the attitude of the parties that they
desired such a reversa1 in order to facilitate the constitution of the
Commissions in accordance with the terms of the Treaties. But such

is not the present case. The Governments of Bulgana, Hungary and
Romania have from the beginning denied the very existence of a
dispute, and have absolutely refused to take part, in any mannes
whatever, in the procedure provided for in the disputes clauses of
the Treaties. Even after the Court had given its Advisory Opinion
of March 3oth, 1950, which declared that these three Governments
were bound to carry out the provisions of the Peace Treaties for
the settlement of disputes, particularly the obligation to appoint
their own Commissioners, these Governments have continued to
adopt a purely negative attitude.
In these circumstances, the appointment of a third member by
the Secretary-General, instead of bringing about the constitution

of a three member Commission such as the Treaties provide for,
would result only in the constitution of two-member Commission.
A Commission consisting of two members is not the kind of com-
mission for which the Treaties have provided. The opposition of the
Commissioner of the only party represented could prevent a Com-
mission so constituted frorn reaching any decision whatever. Such
a Commission could only decide by unanimity, whereas the dispute
clauseprovides that "the decision of the majority of the membess
of the Commission shall be the decisisn of the Commission and shall
be accepted by the parties as definitive and binding". Nor would

the decisions of a Commission of two members, one of whom is
appointed by one party only, have the same degree of moral autho-
rity as those of a three-member Commission. In every respect, the
result would be contrary to the letter as well as the spirit of
the Treaties.

In short, the Secretary-General would be authosized to proceed
to the appointment of a third member only if it were possible to
constitute a Commission in conformity with the provisions of the

Treaties. In the present case, the refusa1 by the Governments of
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania to appoint their own Commission-
ers has made the constitution of such a Commission impossible
and has deprived the appointment of the third member by the
Secretary-General of every purpose.
As the Court has declared in its Opinion of March 3oth,1950, the
Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are under an

obligation to appoint their representatives to the Treaty Commis-
sions, and it is clear that refusa1 to fulfil a treaty obligation
involves international responsibility. Nevertheless, such a refusa1
cannot alter the conditions contemplated in the Treaties for the
exercise by the Secretary-General of his power of appointment.
These conditions are not present in this case, and their absence

IIis not made good by the fact that it is due to the breach of a
treaty obligation. The failure of machinery for settling disputes
by reason of the practical impossibility of creating the Commission
provided for in the Treaties is one thing ;international responsi-
bility is another. The breach of a treaty obligation cannot be reme-
died by creating a Commission which is not the kind of Commission
contemplated by the Treaties. It is the duty of the Court to inter-
pret the Treaties, not to revise them.

The principle of interpretation expressed in the maxim : Ut res
magisvaleatquampereat,often referred toas the rule of effectiveness,
cannot justify the Court in attributing to the provisions for the
settlement of disputes in the Peace Treaties a meaning which, as
stated above, would be contrary to their letter and spirit.

It has been pointed out that an arbitration commission niay
make a valid decision although the original number of its members,
as fixed by the arbitration agreement, is later reduced by such
circumstances as the withdrawal of one of the commissioners. These
cases presuppose the initial validity of a commission, constituted
in conformity with the will of the parties as expressed in the arbi-
tration agreement, whereas the appointment of the third member

by the Secretary-General in circumstancesother than those contem-
plated in the Treaties raises precisely the question of the initial
validity of the constitution of the Commission. In law, the two
situations are clearly distinct and it is impossible to argue from
one to the other.
Finally, it has been alleged that a negative answer by the Court
to Question III would seriously jeopardize the future of the large
number of arhitration clauses which have been drafted on the same
mode1as that which appears in the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria,
Hungary and ~~omania.The ineffectiveness in the present case of
the clauses dealing with the settlement of disputes does not permit
such a generalization. An examination of the practice of arbitration
shows that, whereas the draftsmen of arbitration conventions have
very often takencare to provide for the consequences of the inability

of the parties to agree on the appoir>trr.~ntof a thirà member, they
have, apart from exceptional cases, refrained from anticipating a
refusa1 by a party to appoint its own commissioner. The few
Treaties containing express provisions for such a refusa1 indicate
that the States which adopted this course felt the impossibility of
remedying this situation simply by way of interpretation. In fact,
the risk of such a possibility of a refusal is a small one, because
normally each party has a direct interest in the appointment of its
commissioner .and must in anv case be ~resumed to observe its
treaty obligations. That this wis not so inihe present case doeç not
justify the Court in exceeding its judicial function on the pretextof remedying a default for the occurrence of which the Treaties
have made no provision.
Consequently, Question III must be answered in the negative. It
is therefore not necessary for the Court to consider Question IV,
which requires an answeronly in the event of an affirmativeanswer
to the preceding Question.

For these reasons,

by eleven votes to two,
that, if one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungav
and Romania where that party is obligated to appoint a represent-
ative to the Treaty Commission, the Secretary-General of the
United Nations is not authorized to appoint the third member of
the Commissionupon the request of the other party to a dispu~e.

Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this eighteenth day of July,
one thousand nine hundred and fifty, in two copies, one of which
wiUbe placed in the archives of the Court and the other transmitted
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(Signed) BASDEVANT,
Presfdent.

(Signed) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar.

Judge KRYLOVw , hile joining in the conclusions of the opinion
and the generalline ofargument, declaresthat he isunable to concur
in the reasons dealing with the problem of international respon-
sibility which, in his opinion, goes beyond the scopeofthe request
for opinion.

Judges READand AZEVEDO d,eclaring that they are unable to
concur in the Opinion of the Court, have availed themseives of the
right conferred on them by Article57 of the Statute and appended
to the Opinion statements of their dissenting opinion.

(InitialledJ. B. DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF

THE UNITED NATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ON 22 OCTOBER, 1949

CONTENTS

1. RECORDS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SECOND PART OF THIRD
SESSION

Inclusion of item inagenda.

Records ofProceedings.
Records of the General Committee, 58th and 59th meetings.
Records of the General Assembly,189th and 190th plenary meet-
ings.

Inclusion of item in agenda.
Documents.
Letter dated 16 March, 1949, from the
permanent representative of Bolivia
to the Secretary-General requesting
the inclusion of an additional item
the agenda of the third reguiar ses-
sion of the General Assembly Al820

Letter dated 19 March, 1949, from the
Australian Mission to the United
Nations addressed to the Secretary-
General requesting the inclusion of an
additional item in the agenda of the
third re,dar session of the General
Assembly Al821
Agenda of the third regular session of
the General Assembly ; report of the
General Committee A/829
[See paragraphs
3 a and 3 b.]

38[Note-See Fo&r 4 for:
Telegramdated 4 Apràl, Ig49, from th
Governmntofthe RepcblicofHungary
tothePresidentoftheGeneralAssembly Al831

and

Telegramdated g Afwil, Ig4g. from the
Governmentof the People's Republic
of Bulgaria to the Secretory-General -4183a 2nd Corr. 1.1

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Recordsof poceedings.

34th meeting.
35th meeting.
36th meeting.
37th meeting.
38th meeting.
39th meeting.
40th meeting.
41st meeting.

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Documents.

Telegram dated 4 April, 1949, from the
Govemment of the Republic of Hun-
gary to the President of the General
Assembly Al831
Telegram dated g April, 1949,from the
Government of the People's Repub-
lic of Bulgaria to the Secretary-Gen-
eral Al832 andCorr. I
Allocation of items on the agenda of the
second part of the third sess;letter
dated 13 April, 1949, from the Presi-
dent of the General Assembly to the
Chairman of the Ad hoc Political
Cornmittee AIAC.24147Cuba : draft resolution AlAC.24148and Corr. I

Cuba : amended draft resolution A/AC.z4/48/Rev. 2
Australia : draft resolution A/AC.24/50
Bolivia : draft resolution A/AC.24/51/Corr. I

Australia : draft resolution A/AC.24/52
Chile : amendment to the Bolivian
draft resolution (A/AC.z4751/Corr. 1) AlAC.24153

Colombia and Costa Rica : amendment
to the Bolivian draft resolution
(A/AC.z4/51/Corr.1) AlAC.24154.
Cuba and Australia : amendment to the
Bolivian resolution iA/AC.z4/51/
Corr. 1) A/AC.z4/56

Telegram dated 23 April, 1949,from the
Gof Hungary to the Secretary-General
A/AC.z4/57

Telegram dated 27 April, 1949,from the
Govemment of the People's Republic
of Bulgaria to the Secretary-General A/AC.z4/58

Report of the Ad hoc Political Com-
mittee Al844

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Recordsof proceedings.

zorst meeting.
eoznd meeting.
203rd meeting.

Plenary meetings of the GeneralAssembly.

Resolution 272 (III), adopted by the
General Assembly, 30 April, 1949.
[Note-See Folder 4 for :
Reportof theAd hoc Political Cornmittee Al844.111.RELEVANT EXCHANGES OF DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE COM-
MUNICATED TO THE SECRETARY-GENER FORLCIRCULATION TO
THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITEDNATIONS

Folder7.

Letter dated20September, 1949, from
the representative of the United
States of America to the Secretary-
General (with annexes) Alg851Rev. I
Letter dated 19September, 1949, from
the representative of the United
KingdomofGreat Britainand North-
em Ireland to the Secretary-General
(with annexes) AlggolRev. I
Letter dated 19 November, 1949,from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great-Bntain and
Northem Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annex)
Letter dated 6 January, 1950, from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northem Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annexes)
Note dated 6 January, 1950, from the
representative of Canada to the
Secretary-General of the United
Nations (with annexes)

Letter dated 6 January, 1950, from
the representative of the United
States of America to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annexes)
Letter dated 17 February, 1950, from
the representative of Canada to the
Secretary-General of the United
Nations (with annex)

Letter dated 17 February, 1950, from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great Bntain and
Northern Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annex) Letter dated 17 February, 1950, from
the representative of United States
of America to the Secretary-General
ofthe United Nations (withannexes)

Letter dated 20 February, 1950, from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great-Britain and
Northern Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annex)

Letter dated 29 April, 1950,from the
representative of Canada to the
Secretary-General of the United
Nations (with annexes)

Letter dated 28 April, 1950,from the
representative of the United King-
dom of Great-Britain and Northern
Ireland to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations (witfi annexes)

Letter dated 28 April, 1950, from the
representative of the United States
of America to the Secretary-General
ofthe United Nations (withannexes)

III. RECORDS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOURTH SESSION

Folder 8.

Incl.usion of itein agenda.
Records of proceedings.

Records of the General Committee, 65th [See pages 3 and 4,
meeting paragraphs 71-73,
and page 7,
paragrafihs104
and 105.j
Records of the General Assembly, 224th [See fiages18 and 19,
plenary meeting paragraphs 2-10,
and page 23,
after paragraph56.1 Folderg.

Inclusion of item in agenda.
Documents.

Supplementary list of items for the
agenda of the fourth regular session ;
items proposed by Australia A1948

Adoption of the agenda of the fourth
regular session and allocation of items
to Committees ;report of the General
Committee Al989
[See paragraphs 9-12.]

Folder IO.

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Records of proceedings.

7th meeting.
8th meeting.

9th meeting.
10th meeting.
11th meeting.
12th meeting.
13th meeting.

14th meeting.
15th meeting.

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Documents.

Letter dated 26 September, 1949, from
the President of the General Assembly
to the Chairman of the Ad hocPolit-
ical Cornmittee A/hC.31/2

Bolivia, Canada and the United States
of America : draft resolution A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. I
43 OPIN. OF 18 VI150 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREARIES) 261
Australia : amendment to the draft
resolution proposed by Bolivia, Ca-
nada and the United States of America
(A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. 1) A/AC.3r/Id.z

Brazil, Lebanon and the Netherlands :
amendment to the draft resolution
proposed by Bolivia, Canada and the
United States of America
(A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V.1) A/AC.3r/L.3

Telegram dated 7 October, 1949, from
the Government of the People's Re-
public of Romania to the Secretary-
General AlAC.311L.4
Report of the Ad hoc Political Com-
mittee A/1023

Folder 12.

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Recordsof froceedings.

234th meeting.

235th meeting.

Folder 13.

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Documents.

Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly, 22 October, 1949.
[Note-See Folder II for :

Reportof theAd hoc Political Comrnittee AI1oz3.1

Bilingual Content

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRETS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFSET ORDONNANCES

INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE
PAIXCONCLUS AVEC LA BULGARIE,

LA HONGRIE ET LA ROUMANIE
(DEUXIÈME PHASE)

AVIS CONSULTATIFDU 18JUILLET1950

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONSND ORDERS

INTERPRETATION OF PEACE
TREATIES WITH BULGARIA,
HUNGARY AND ROMANIA
(SECOND PHASE)

ADVISORYOPINION OF JULY 18th1950 Le présent avis doit êtrecité comme suit:
((Interprétationdes traités depaix (deuxième phase),
Avis consultatif:. I.J. Recueil1950, p. 221.>,

This Opinion should be cited as follows:
"lnterpretatio~zPeace Treaties (second phase),
Adziisory OpirzionI.C.J.Reports1950, p.221."

NO de vente :
pl COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

'95"
Le 18juillet ANNEE 19.50
Rôle général
no 8
18 juille1950

INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE

PAIXCONCLUSAVEC LA BULGARIE,

LA HONGRIEET LA ROUMANIE

(DEUXIÈME PHASE)

Interprétation d'une clause de traitéconfiant le règlementde diflérends
d une commission composéed'un représentant de chaque partie et d'un
tiers membre choisi d'un commun accordentre les deu;pouvoirs

conféréau Secrétai~ général desNattons Unies de pprà, défaut
d'accordentre les paràla désignationdu tiers mem-reInappli-
cabzlzte'de cetteclause au cas où l'une des partied désignere
son propre commissair-.Sens naturel et ordinaire des ;esens
conformeà l'ordre normal de désignation dès commis-aiClause
de droit str-cManquement d une obligation conventio;nimpos-

sibilité d'y remédier par une interprétation qui cànmodifier
les conditions d'exercice du pouvoir de désignation du tiers membre
tellesqu'elles ont étéprévuespar le- tImpossibzlité d'appliquer
le principe d'interprétation ut res magis valeat quam pereat à l'encontre
de la lettre et de l'esprit du Traitl.

AVIS CONSULTATIF

Présent s M. BASDEVANP T,ésiden;t M. GUERRERO V,ice-Pr&
dent; MM. ALVAREZ ,ACKWORT H ,NIARSKI,DE
VISSCHER S,irArnold MCNAIRM , . KLAESTAD B,ADAWI

PACHA, MM. KRYLOV,READ, HSU MO, AZEVEDO,
juges;M. HAMBRO G,refier. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1950
YEAR 1950 July 18th
GeiieraLis:
No. 8

INTERPRETATION OF PEACE

TREATIES WITH BULGARIA,

F-IUNGARY AND ROMANIA

(SECONDPHASE)

Interpretation of article of a treaty referring the settlement of disputes
to a commission composed of one representative from each Party and a

third member chosen by common agreement between the tw; parties
power conferred upon the Secretary-General of the United Nations to
proceed to the appointment of a third member. failing agreement between
the partieInaPPlicability of this provision to the case in which one of
the parties refuses tu appoint its own commissioner.andtural
mdinavy meaning of the;tmeaning which accords with the normal

order of the appointmof commissioner-provisito be strictly
construed.-Breacof a treaty oblig;timpossibility of providing
a vemedy by modifying the conditions for the exercise of the power to
appoint the third member as laid down in the Treaties.-Impossibility
to apply the principle of interpretation ut res magis valeat quam
pereat contravy to the letter anO/the Treaties.

ADVISORYOPINION

Present: President BASDEVAN ; T Vice-Presidcnt GUERRER ;O
Jzcdges ALVAREZ, HACKWORTH W ,INIARSKI,DE
VISSCHER S,IR ARNOLD MCNAIRK , LAESTAD B,ADAWI

PASHAK , RYLOV R,EAD,HSU MO,AZEVED ORegistrar
HAMBRO.

4 ainsi composée,

donne l'avis coilsultatif suivant :

A la date du 22 octobre 1949 l'Assembléegénéraledes Nations
Unies a a.doptéla résolution ci-aprks :

((Considéranq t u'en vertu de l'article 55de la Charte, les Nations
Unies sont tenues de favoriser le respect universel et effectif des
droits de l'homme et des libertés fonda~nentales pour tous, sans
distinction de race, de sexe, de langue ou de religion,
Considkrantque l'Assembléegénérale, lorsde la seconde partie
de sa TroisièmeSessionordinaire, a examinéla question du respect
des droits de l'hommeet des libertésfondamentales en Bulgarie et
en Hongrie,
Considérantque l'Assemblée générale a adopté à ce sujet, le
30 avril 1949, la résolution272 (III),où elle a expriméle profond
souci que lui inspiraient les graves accusations portéescontre le
Gouvernement de la Bulgarie et celui de la Hongrie touchant la
suppression des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales
dans ces pays ; qu'elle a noté avec satisfaction que des mesures
avaient étéprises par plusieurs Etats signataires des traités de
paix avec l+ Bulgarie et la Hongrie en ce qui concerne ces accusa-
tions;qu'elle a exprimél'espoir que des mesures seront diiigem-
ment appliquées, selon les traités, en vue d'assurer le respect des
droits de l'hommeet des libertés fondamentales;et qu'ellea attiré
de celui de la Hongrie sur les obligations qui leur incombent en
vertu des traités de paix et notamment sur celle de coopérerau
rhglernent de cette question,

Colzsidbrant que l'Assemblée générale a décidé d'examiner
Cgalement au cours de sa Quatrième Session ordinaire la question
Roumaxiie, des droits de l'homme et des liberth fondamentales en

Considkrantque certaines des Puissances alliéeset associées,
signataires des traités de aix avec la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la
Roumanie, ont accuséles 2ouvernements de ces pays d'avoir violé
les traités de paix et les ont invitéà prendre des mesures pour
remédierà cette situation,
Considbruntque les Gouvernements de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie
et de la Roumanie ont repoussél'accusationd'avoirviolélestraités,
Considérantque les Gouvernements des Puissances alliees et
associéesintéresséesont essayésans succ& de renvoyer la qiiestion
de la violation des traitéaux chefs de mission à Sofia, Budapest
et Bucarest, conformément à certaines clauses des trait& de paix,

Considérantque les Gouvernements de ces Puissances dliées et
associéesont invitéles Gouvernements de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie

5 OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 (INTEHPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 222

THE COURT,

composed as above,

gives the foilowing Advisory Opinion :

On October zznd, 1949, the General Assembly of the United
Nations adopted the following Resolution :

"Whreas the United Nations, pursuant to Article 5jof the
Charter, shall promote universal respect for, and observance of,
human rights and fundamentai freedoms for al1without distinctioh
as to race, sex, language or religion,
Whreas the General Assembly, at the second part of its Third
Regular Session, considered the question of the observance in
Bulgaria and Hungary of human rights and fundamentai free-
doms,
Whereas the General Assembly, on 30 April 1949,adopted
Resolution 272 (III) concerning this question in which it expressed
its deep concem at the grave accusations made against the Govern-
ments of Bulgaria and Hungary regarding the suppression of
human nghts and fundamental freedoms in those countries;
noted with satisfaction that steps had been taken by several
States signatories to the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria and
Hungary regarding these accusations ; expressed the hope that
mesures would be diligently applied, in accordance with the
Treaties, in order to ensure respect for human nghrs and funda-
mental freedoms ; and most urgen'clydrew the attention of the
Govemments of Bulgaria and Hungary to their obligations under
the Peace Treaties, including the obligation 'coco-operate in the
settlement of the question,

Wkeas the General Açsembly has resolved to consider also
at the Fourth Regular Session the question of the observance
in Komania of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Wkeas certain of the Allied and Associated Powers signatcnes
to the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romanis
have charged the Governments of those conntries with violations
of the Treaties of Peace and have called upon those Governments
to take remedial measures,
Whrzas the Governments of Bulgaria, Hiingary and Romania
have rejected the charges of Treaty violations,
Whereas the Governments of the Allied and Associated Pawers
concerned have sought unsuccessfully to refer the question of
Treaty violations to the Heads of Mission in Sofia, Budapesand
Bucharest, in pursuance of certain provisions in the Treâties
of Peace,

Whereas the Governments of these Allied and Associated Powers
have calied upon the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungq and
5et de la Roumanie à sejoindre à eux pour nommer des commissions
conformément à celles des dispositions des différents traités de
paix qui concernent le réglement de différendsrelatifs à l'inter-
prétation ou à l'exécutionde ces traités,
Considérantque le Gouvernement de la Bulgarie, celui de la
Hongrie et celui de la Roumanie ont refuséde désignerleurs repré-
sentants aux commissions prévuespar les traités, alléguant qu'ils
n'étaient pas juridiquemefit tenus de le faire,
Considérant que les traités de paix autorisent le Secrétaire
général desNations Unies à clésigner,à la requête de l'uneou
l'autre partie à un différend,le tiers membre d'une commission
prévue par les traités, à défaut d'accord entre les deux parties
sur la désignationde ce tiers membre,
Considérantqu'il importe que le Secrétairegénéraldispose d'un
avis autorise concernant l'étendue des pouvoirs que lui conférent

les traités de paix,
L'Assembléegéne'rale

I. Afirme à nouveau l'intérêtqu'elle porte aux graves accusa-
tions portées contre la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie et le
souci croissant que ces accusations lui inspirent;
2. Déclareformellementque le refus, de la part des Gouver-
nements dela Bulgarie, dela Hongrie et dela Roumanie, de coopérer
aux efforts que l'Assembléegénérale déploie poué r tudierces graves
accusations relatives au respect des droits de l'homme et des
libertés fondamentales justifie le souci qu'inspire à l'Assemblée
généralela situation qui règne à cet égarden Bulgarie, en Hongrie
et en Roumanie ;
3. Décidede soumettre les questions suivantes à la Cour inter-
nationale de Justice en la priant de donner un avis consultatif :

((1. Ressort-il de la correspondance diplomatique échangée
entre la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie, d'une
part, et certaines Puissances alliéeset associéessigna-
taires des traités de paix, d'autre part, touchant
l'application de l'artic2edes traités avec la Bulgarie
et la Hongrie et de l'article 3 du traité avec la Rou-
manie, qu'il existe des différends pour lesquelsl'arti-
cle 36 du traitéde paix avec la Bulgarie, l'article 40du
traité de paix avec la Hongrie et l'article 38 du traité
de paix avec la Roumanie prévoient une procédure
de règlement ? »
Si la réponse à la question I est affirmative:

((II. Les Gouvernements de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie et
de la Roumanie sont-ils tenus d'exécuter les clauses
des articles mentionnés à la question 1, notamment
:elles qui concernent la désignation de leurs repré-
sentants aux commissions prévues par les traités ?
Si la réponse à la question II est affirmative, et si, dans les
trente jours de la date où la Cour aura rendu son avis, lesOPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TRE- TI ES) 223

Romania to join in appointing Commissions pursuant to the
provisions of the respective Treaties of Peace for the settlement
of. disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of these
Treaties,
Whereasthe Govemments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
have refused to appoint their representatives to the Treaty Com-
missions, maintaining that they were under no legal obligation
to do so,
Wlzereasthe Secretary-General of the United Nations is author-
ized by the Treaties of Peace, upon request by either party to
a dispute, to appoint the third member of a Treaty Commission
if the parties fail to agree upon the appointment of the third
member,
Wlzereasit is important for the Secretary-General to be advised
authoritatively concerning the scope of his authority under the
Treaties of Peace,

The GelzeralAssembly

1. Exfiressesits continuing interest in and its increased concem
at the grave accusations made against Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania ;
2.Recordsits opinion that the refusal of the Govemments ofBul-
garia, Hungary and Romania to co-operate in its effortsto examine
the grave charges with regard to the observance of human rights
and fundamental freedoms justifies this concem of the General
-4sembly about the state of &airs prevailing in Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania in this respect ;

3. Decidesto subrnit the followingquestions to the International
Court of Justice for an advisory opinion :
'1. Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary
and Romania, on the one hand, and certain Allied and
Associated Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace,
on the other, concerningthe implementation of Article2
of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary and Article 3
of the Treaty with Romania, disclose disputes subject
to the provisions for the settlement of disputes con-
tained in Article 36 ofthe Treaty of Peacewith Bulgaria,
Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and
Article 38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania ?'

In the event of an affirmative reply to question 1 :

'II. Are the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
obligated to carry out the provisions of the articles
referred to in question 1, including the provisions for
the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty
Commissions ?'
In the event of an affirmative reply to question II andif, within
thirty days from the date when the Court delivers its opinion,
6 Gouvernements intéressésn'ont pas fait connaître au Secré-
taire général qu'ilsont désignéleurs représentants aux
en a informéla Cour internationale de Justiceecrét:iregénéral

((III. Le Secrétairegénéral desNations Unies est-il autorisé,
si l'une des parties ne désignepas de représentant à
une commission prévue par les traités de paix avec
la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie, alors qu'eue
est tenue d'en désignerun, à désigner letiers membre
de la commission sur la demande de l'autre partie
au différend, conformément aux dispositions des
traités en cause ? u
Si la réponse à la question III est affirmative :

((IV. Une commissionprévuepar les traités qui serait compo-
sée d'un représentant de l'une des parties et d'un
tiers membre désignépar le Secrétaire général des
Nations Unies serait-elle considérée comme com-
mission au sens des articles pertinents des traités
et qualifiéepour prendre des décisionsdéfinitiveset
obligatoires dans le règlement d'un différend ? »

4. Chargele Secrétairegénéralde mettre à la disposition de la
Cour internationale de Justice la correspondance diplomatique
pertinente dont il a eu communication pour la porter àla connais-
sance des Membres des Nations Unies, ainsi que le compte rendu
des débats quel'Assembléegénéralea consacrés à cette question ;
5. Décid dee garder inscrite à l'ordre du jour de la Cinquième
Session ordinaire de l'Assembléegénéralela question du respect
des droits de l'homme et des libertés fondamentales en Bulgarie,
en Hongrie et en Roumanie en vue d'examiner les accusations qui
ont étéformuléeset de leur donner la suite qui convient. »

Par un avis rendu le 30 mars 1950 (voir C. I. J. Recueil desArrêts,
Avis consultatifs et Ordonnances, 1950, pp. 65 etsqq.),la Cour a

répondu :

A la question I :
(qu'il ressort de la correspondance diplomatique échangéeentre
la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie, d'une part, et certaines
Puissances alliéeset associéessignatairesdes traitésde paix, d'autre
part, touchant l'application del'articl2des traitésavec la Bulgarie
et la Hongrie et de l'article 3 du traité avec la Roumanie, qu'il
existe des différends pour lesquelsl'article 36 du traité de paix
avec la Bulgarie, l'article 40 du traité de paix avec la Hongrie
et l'article 38 du traité de paix avec la Roumanie prévoient une
procédure de règlement ; »

A la question II :

(que les Gouvernements de la Bulgarie, de 'la Hongrie et de la
Roumanie sont tenus d'exécuterles clauses des articles mentionnés
7 the Govemments concerned have not notified the Secretary-
General that they have appointed their representatives to the
Treaty Commissions, and the Secretary-General has so advised
the International Court of Justice :
'III. If one party faiis to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgana,
Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to
appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is
the Secretary-General of the United Nations authorized
to appoint the third member of the Commission upon
the request of the other pvty to a dispute according
to the provisions of the respective Treaties ?'

In the event of an affirmative reply to question III :
'IV. Would a Treaty Commissioncomposed of a representative
of one party and a third member appointed by the
Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a
Commission, within the nieaning of the relevant Treaty
articles, competent to make a definitive and binding
decision in settlement of a dispute ?'

4. Requests the Secretary-General to make available to the
International Court of Justice the relevant exchanges of diplomatic
correspondence communicated to the Secretary-General for cir-
culation to the Members of the United Nations and the records
of the General Assembly proceedings on this question ;
5. Decidesto retain on the agenda of the Fifth Regular Session
of the General Assembly the question of the observance of human
nghts and fundamental freedoms in Bulgaria, Hungary and
Rornania, with a viewto ensunng thatthe charges are appropriately
examined and dealt with."

In an Opinion given on March 3oth, 1950 (I.C.J. Reports of
Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders, 1950, pp. 65 et sq~),
the Court answered :

To question 1 :

"that the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary and
Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and Associated Powers
signatories to the Treaties of Peace on the other, concerning the
implementation of Article 2 of the Treaties with Bulgaria and
Hungary and Article 3 of the Treaty with Romania, disclose
disputes subject to the provisions for the settlement of disputes
contained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria,
of the Treaty tof Peace with Kornaniah H;"lgary, and Article 38

To question II :
"that the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania
are obligated to carry out the provisions of those articles referred
7 225 AVIS DU 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE PAIX)
àla question 1 qui sont relatifs au règlementdes différends,notam-
ment celles qui les obligent à désignerleurs représentants aux
commissionsprévuespar les traités. ))

A la date du 30 mars, le Greffiercommuniqua télégraphiquement,
tant au Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies qu'à tous les Gouver-
nements signataires des traités de paix, la teneur des réponses
données par la Cour aux deux questions précitées.

Par télégrammedaté du ~ermai 1950, confirmé par lettre du
mêmejour et enregistréau Greffe de la Cour le 2 mai, le Secrétaire
général enexercice des Nations Unies fit savoir que, dans les trente
jours à compter de la date à laquelle la Cour avait rendu l'avis
consultatif précité, il n'avait étéavisépar aucun des trois Gouver-
nements de la désignation de son représentant aux commissions
prévues par les traités.
Par ordonnance du 5 mai 1950, le Président de la Cour, celle-ci

ne siégeant pas, décida : 1) de fixer un délai expirant le lundi
5 juin 1950. dans lequel les États intéresséspourraient présenter
des exposésécrits relatifs aux questions III et IV de la résolution
précitée ; 2) de réserver la suite de la procédure.

Expédition de cette ordonnance, dont le dispositif avait été
communiqué télégraphiquement le 5 mai au Secrétaire général

et aux Gouvernements intéressés, fut adressée à tous ces Gouver-
nements par lettre datée du 9 mai.
Par lettre du 16mai 1950, le Secrétaire général desNations Unies
adressa au Greffierune documentation supplémentaire, comprenant
une nouvelle correspondance diplomatique relative à la présente
affaire et transmise aux Nations Unies par lesdélégationsdu Canada,
du Royaume-Cni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord et des
États-unis d'Amérique.Cesdocuments sont énuméréa su bordereau

joint au présent avis.
Par lettre du 2juin 1950, un exposéécrit, émanant du Gouverne-
ment des États-unis et relatif aux questions III et IV, fut transmis
au Greffe de la Cour.
Le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni avait déjà fait connaître

ses vues sur les questions III et IV dans son exposé écrit déposé
au cours de la première phase de cette affaire.
Par lettre datée du 5 mai 1950, le Secrétaire généraladjoint des
Nations Unies, chargédu Département juridique, informa le Greffe
qu'il avait l'intention de prendre part à la procédure orale.

Par lettres datéesrrespectivement du 12 et du 22 juin 1950, le
Gouvernement des Etats-Unis et le Gouvernement du Royaume-
Uni firent savoir qu'ils avaient l'intention de faire présenter un
exposé oral.
Lors des audiences publiques tenues les 27 et 28 juin 1950, la
Cour entendit des exposésoraux présentés :

8 to in Question 1, which relate to the settlement of disputes, includ-
ing the provisions for the appointment of their representatires
to the Treaty Commissions."

On March 3oth, the Registrar notified the substance of the
Court's answers to the foregoing two questions by telegrams to
the Secretary-General of the United Nations and to the Govern-
ments of all the signatories of the Peace Treaties.
By telegram of May rst, 1950, confirmed by letter of the same

date and filed in the Registry on May end, the Acting Secretary-
General of the United Nations notified the Court that he had not
received information, within thirty days of the date of the delivery
of the Court's Advisory Opinion quoted above, that any one of the
three Govemments had appointed its representative to the Treaty
Commissions.
By Order made on May 5th, 1950, the President of the Court,
as the Court was not then sitting, decided: (1)to fix Monday,
June 5th, 1950, as the date of expiry of the time-limit for the
submission by the States concemed, of written statements on Ques-

tions III and IV of the foregoing Resolution ; (2)to reserve the
rest of the procedure for further decision.
A certified copy of thisrder, the operative part of which had been
notified by telegram of May 5th to the Secretary-General and
the Governments concemed, was sent to all these Governments
by letter of May 9th.
By letter of May 16th, 1950, the Secretary-General of the United

Nations sent to the Registrar additional documents including new
diplomatic correspondence an the present case, transmitted to the
United Nations by the delegations of Canada, of the United King-
dom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland and of the United States
of Americe. These documents are listed in an annex hereto.

By letter of June znd, 1950,a written statement from the Govern-
ment of the United States of America relating to Questions III and
IV was transmitted to the Registry of the Court.

The United Kingdom Government had previously stated its
views on Questions III and IT'in the written statement submitted
during the first phase of this case.
By letter of May 5th, 1950, the Assistant Secretary-General of
the United Nations in charge of the Legal Department informed the
Registry of his intention to take part in the oral proceedings.

By letters of June 12th and zznd, 1q.50,respectively, the Govern-
ment of the United States and the Cnited Kingdom Government
stated their intention of submitting oral statements.

At public sittings held on June 27th and elth, 19j0, the Court
heard oral statements submitted :

8226 AVIS DU 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE PAIX)

au nom du Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, par M. Ivan
Kerno, Secrétaire général adjoint, chargé du Département juri-
dique ;

au nom du Gouvernement des États-Unis d'Amérique, par
l'honorable Benjamin V. Cohen ;
au nom du Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande du Nord, par M.G. G. Fitzmaurice, C. M. G.,deuxième

conseiller juridique au Foreign Office.

La Cour ayant, le30 mars 1950, émisl'avis que les Gouvernements

de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie et de la Roumanie sont tenus d'exécuter
les clauses des articles des traités de paix relatifs au règlement des
différends, notamment celles qui les obligent à désigner leurs
représentants aux commissions prévues par ces traités, et ayant,
d'autre part, reçu du Secrétaire généraldes Nations Unies l'infor-
mation que ces Gouvernements ne lui ont pas fait connaître, dans
les trente jours de l'avis, qu'ils avaient désignéleurs représentants
auxdites commissions, se trouve à présent appelée à se prononcer
sur la questionIII énoncéedans la résolution de l'Assembléegénérale
du 22 octobre 1949 et ainsi conçue :

(III. Le Secrétaire général desNations Unies est-il autorisé,
si l'une des parties ne désignepas de représentant à
une commission prévue par les traités de paix avec
la Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie, alors qu'elle
est tenue d'en désignerun, à désignerle tiers membre
de la commission sur la demande de l'autre partie au
différend, conformémentaux dispositions des traités en
cause? »

Les articles 36, 40 et 38. des traités de paix conclus avec la
Bulgarie, la Hongrie et la Roumanie respectivement, après avoir
disposéque les différends relatifsà l'interprétation ou à l'exécution
des traités qui n'auraient pas été régléspar voie de négociations
diplomatiques direc~es seront soumis aux trois chefs de mission,
ajoutent :

((Tout différend decette nature qu'ils n'auraient pas encore
réglédans un délaide deux mois sera, sauf si les parties au différend
conviennent l'une et l'autre d'un autre mode de règlement, soumis
à la requêtede l'une ou l'autre des partieà une commission com-
posée d'un représentant de chaque partie et d'un tiers membre
choisi d'un commun accord entre les deux parties parmi les ressor-
tissants d'un pays tiers..4 défaut d'accord dans un délai d'un
mois entre les deux parties au sujet de la designation de ce tiers
membre, l'une ou l'autre partie pourra demander au Secrétaire
général desKations Unies de procéder à cette désignation.
9 OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 ~INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 226
on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations by

Dr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal
Department ;
on behalf of the Government of the United States of America, by
the Hon. Benjamin V. Cohen ;

on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, by Mr. G. G. Fitzmaurice, C.M.G.,
Second Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office.

Having stated, in its Opinion of March 3oth, 1950, that the
Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are obligated to
carry out the provisions of those articles of the Peace Treaties which
relate to the settlement of disputes, including the provisionsfor the
appointment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions,
and having received information from the Secretary-General of the
United Nations that none of those Governments had notified him,
within thirty days from the date of the delivery of the Court's
Advisory Opinion, of the appointment of its representative to
the Treaty Commissions, the Court is now called upon to answer
Question III in the Resolution of the General Assembly of Octo-

ber zand, 1949, which reads as follows :
"III. If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria,
Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated
to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission,
is the Secnetary-Generaiof the United Nations author-
ized to appoint the third member of the Commissioq
upon the request of the other party to a dispute accord-
ing to the provisions of the respective Treat?"s

Articles 36, 40 and 38, respectively, of th.: Peace Treaties with
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, after providing that disputes
concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaties which
had not been settled by direct negotiation should be referred to the
Three Heads of Mission, continue :

"Any such dispute not resolved by them within a period of two
months shall, unless the parties to the dispute mutualiy agree
upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request of
either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one
representative of each party and a third member selectedbyutuai
a eement of the two parties from nationais of a third country.
~Kuld the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month
u on the appointment of the third member, the Secretary-General
Of'the United Nations may be requested by either party to make
the appointment.227 AVIS DU '18VI1 50 (INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE PAIX)

2. La décisionprise par la majoritédes membres dela commis-
sion sera considéréecomme décision dela commission et acceptée
par les parties commedéfinitiveet obligatoire.
La question qui se pose est celle de savoir si la clause qui autorise
le Secrétaire généralà désignerle tiers membre de la commission
trouve son application dans le cas actuel, qui est celui où l'une des

parties se refuse à désignerson propre représentant à la commission.
Il a étéprétendu que le terme (tiers membre ))n'est employé
ici que pour distinguer le membre neutre des deux commissaires
désignéspar les parties elles-mêmeset que ce terme n'implique pas
que la désignation du tiers membre par le Secrétaire général doive
nécessairement suivre la désignation des deux commissaires natio-
naux. 11en résulterait que le seul fait que les parties n'ont pas,
dans le délai prescrit, désignéde commun accord le tiers membre
suffirait à réaliser les conditions exigées pour la désignation de

celui-ci par le Secrétaire général.
La Cour estime que le texte des traités n'admet pas cette inter-
prétation. S'il est exact que la lettre du texte n'exclut pas absolu-
ment la possibilité d'une désignation d'un tiers membre avant la
désignation par les parties de leurs commissaires respectifs, il n'en
est pas moins vrai que le sens naturel et ordinaire des termes
employésindique que la désignationpar les parties de leurs propres
commissaires a étéenvisagéecommeprécédantcelledutiers membre.
C'est ce qui ressort du fait que l'article, après avoir disposéque la

commission sera composée d'un représentant de chaque partie,
poursuit en disant que la dksignation du tiers membre pourra être
faite par le Secrétaire généralà la demande de chacune des parties,
à défaut d'accord entre parties à ce sujet. Cet ordre de désignation
est d'ailleurs l'ordre normal adopté dans la pratique arbitrale, et
l'onne peut raisonnablement supposer, en l'absence d'une indication
positive en sens contraire, que les parties aient voulu s'enécarterici.
Le pouvoir du Secrétaire général dedésigner letiers membre n'a
d'autre source que la volonté des parties telle qu'elle s'est expri-

méedans la clause de règlement des différends.Par sanature même,
une telle clauseest de droit strict et l'on ne peut en étendreles effets
en dehors du cas expressément prévu. Ce cas est exclusivement
celui d'un défautd'accord entre parties sur le choix du tiers membre
et nullement celui, beaucoup plus grave, d'un refus complet de
coopération de l'une d'elles allant jusqu'au refus de désignation
de son propre commissaire. Le pouvoir conféré au Secrétairegénérai
d'aider les parties à sortir de la difficultéqu'elles éprouvent à se
m-ttre d'accord sur le choix d'un tiers membre ne peut être étendu

à la situation telle qu'elle existe actuellement.
Pour justifier une interversion dans l'ordre normal des dési-
gnations, il a étéfait état de l'avantage que pourrait présenter,
dans certaines circonstances, une désignation du tiers membre
préalable à la désignation par les parties de leurs commissaires
respectifs. Une telle interversion ne serait justifiée que s'il était

IO OPIN. OF 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 227

2. The decisionof the majority of the members of the Commis-
sion shall be theecisionof the Commission,and shall be accepted
by the parties as definitive and binding."
The question at issue is whether the provision empowering the
Secretary-General to appoint the third member of the Commission
ayplies to the present case, in which one of the parties refuses to
appoint its own representative to the Commission.

It has been contended that the term "third member" is used here
simply to distinguish the neutral member from the two Commis-
sioners appointed by the parties without implying that the third
member can be appointed only when the two national Commis-
sioners have already been appointed, and that therefore the mere
fact of the failure of the parties, within the stipulated period, to
select the third member by mutual agreement satisfies the condition
required for the appointment of the latter by the Secretary-General.

The Court considers that the text of the Treaties does not admit
of this interpretation. While the text in its literal sense does not

completely exclude the possibility of the appointment of the third
member before the appointment of both national Commissioners
it is nevertheless true that according to the natural and ordinary
meaning of the terms it was intended that the appointment of
both the national Commissioners should precede that of the third
member. This clearly results from the sequence of the events
contemplated by the article : appointment of a national Commis-
sioner by each party ; selection of a third member by mutual
agreement of the parties ; failing such agreement within a month,
his appointment by the Secretary-General. Moreover, this is the
normal order followed in the practice of arbitration, and in the

absence of any express provision to the contrary there is no reason
to suppose that the parties wished to depart from it.
The Secretary-General's power to appoint a third member 1s
uerived solely from the agreement of the parties as expressed
in the disputes clause of the Treaties; by its very nature such a
clause must be strictly construed and can be applied only in the
case expressly provided for therein. The case envisaged in the
Treaties is exclusively that of the failure of the parties to agree upon
the selection of a third member and by no means the much more
serious case of a complete refusal of CO-operation by one of them,

taking the form of refusing to appoint its own Commissioncr.
The power conferred upon the Secretary-General to help the parties
out of the difficulty of agreeing upon a third member cannot be
extended to the situation which now exists.
Reference has been made for the purpose of justifying the reversal
of the normal order of appointment, to the possible advantage that
might result, in certain circumstances, from the appointment of a
third member before the appointment by the parties of their respect-
ive commissioners. Such a change in the normal sequence coiild only

IOdémontré,par l'attitude des parties, que celles-ci ont voulu, par
cette interversion, faciliter la constitution de la commission selon
les termes des traités. Mais tel n'est pas ici le cas. Les Gouverne-
début, contesté l'existencemême detout différendet refuséabso- le
lument de coopérer,de quelque façon que ce soit, à la procédure
de règlement prévuepar les traités. Mêmeaprès l'avis consultatif
émispar la Cour, le 30 mars 1950,avis qui constatait que cestrois
Gouvernements étaient tenus d'exécuterles clauses des traités de
paix relatives au règlementdes différends,notamment cellesqui les
obligent à désignerleurs représentants aux commissions prévues
par ces traités, lesdits Gouvernements ont persisté dans leur
attitude purement négative.
Dans ces conditions, la désignation d'un tiers membre, par le
Secrétaire générala,u lieu de conduireà la constitution d'une com-
mission de trois membres, telle que les traités l'ont voulue, ne
pourrait aboutir qu'à la constitution effective d'une commission
de deux membres. Une commission composéede deux membres
n'est pas le genre de commission qui a étéprévu par les traités.
L'opposition du commissaire de la seule partie représentéepourrait
empêcher unecommission ainsi composéede prendre une décision
quelconque. En fait, une telle commission ne pourrait statuer qu'à
l'unanimité, alors quela clause de règlement des différends dispose
que la «décisionprise par la majorité des membres de la com-
mission sera considéréecommedécisiondela commissionet acceptée
par les parties comme définitiveet obligatoire ».Enfin, l'autorité
morale qui s'attache aux décisionsd'une commission de trois mem-
bres ne saurait s'attacher au mêmedegréaux décisionsd'une com-
mission qui ne serait composéeque de deux membres, dont l'un

serait désignépar l'une des parties seulement. A tous égards le
résultat serait contraire tantà la lettre qu'à l'esprit des traités.
En définitive, le Secrétaire général nesaurait être autorisé à
procéder à la désignationd'un tiers membre que s'iétaitpossiblede
constituer la commission en conformité des clauses des traités.
Dans le cas présent, le refus des Gouvernements de la Bulgarie,
de la Hongrie et de la Roumanie de désignerleurs propres com-
missaires a rendu cette constitution impossible et enlevétout objet
à la désignationdutiers membre par le Secrétairegénéral.

Ainsi que la Cour l'a constaté, dans son avis du 30 mars 1950,
les Gouvernements de la Bulgarie, de la Hongrie et de la Roumanie
sont tenus de désignerleurs représentants aux commissions pré-
vues par les traités, et il est clair que le refus de s'acquitter
d'une obligation conventionnelle est de nature àengager la respon-
sabilité internationale. Un tel refus n'autorise cependant pas à
modifier les conditions d'exercicedu pouvoir de désignation conféré
au Secrétaire général tellequ'elles ont étéprévuespar les traités.
11 OPIN. OF 18 VI150 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 228
be justified if it were shown by the attitude of the parties that they
desired such a reversa1 in order to facilitate the constitution of the
Commissions in accordance with the terms of the Treaties. But such

is not the present case. The Governments of Bulgana, Hungary and
Romania have from the beginning denied the very existence of a
dispute, and have absolutely refused to take part, in any mannes
whatever, in the procedure provided for in the disputes clauses of
the Treaties. Even after the Court had given its Advisory Opinion
of March 3oth, 1950, which declared that these three Governments
were bound to carry out the provisions of the Peace Treaties for
the settlement of disputes, particularly the obligation to appoint
their own Commissioners, these Governments have continued to
adopt a purely negative attitude.
In these circumstances, the appointment of a third member by
the Secretary-General, instead of bringing about the constitution

of a three member Commission such as the Treaties provide for,
would result only in the constitution of two-member Commission.
A Commission consisting of two members is not the kind of com-
mission for which the Treaties have provided. The opposition of the
Commissioner of the only party represented could prevent a Com-
mission so constituted frorn reaching any decision whatever. Such
a Commission could only decide by unanimity, whereas the dispute
clauseprovides that "the decision of the majority of the membess
of the Commission shall be the decisisn of the Commission and shall
be accepted by the parties as definitive and binding". Nor would

the decisions of a Commission of two members, one of whom is
appointed by one party only, have the same degree of moral autho-
rity as those of a three-member Commission. In every respect, the
result would be contrary to the letter as well as the spirit of
the Treaties.

In short, the Secretary-General would be authosized to proceed
to the appointment of a third member only if it were possible to
constitute a Commission in conformity with the provisions of the

Treaties. In the present case, the refusa1 by the Governments of
Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania to appoint their own Commission-
ers has made the constitution of such a Commission impossible
and has deprived the appointment of the third member by the
Secretary-General of every purpose.
As the Court has declared in its Opinion of March 3oth,1950, the
Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are under an

obligation to appoint their representatives to the Treaty Commis-
sions, and it is clear that refusa1 to fulfil a treaty obligation
involves international responsibility. Nevertheless, such a refusa1
cannot alter the conditions contemplated in the Treaties for the
exercise by the Secretary-General of his power of appointment.
These conditions are not present in this case, and their absence

IICes conditions ne sont pas réunies ici, et il ne peut êtresuppléé
à leur absence en faisant valoir que celle-ci est due à un
manquement à une obligation conventionnelle. L'inefficacité d'une
procédure de règlement des différends, en raison de l'impossibilité
de fait de constituer la commission prévue par les traités, est une
chose ; la responsabilité internationale en est une autre. On ne
répare pas les conséquences d'un manquement à une obligation
conventionnelle en créant une commission qui ne serait pas celle

que les traités ont eue en vue. La Cour est appelée à interpréter
les traités, nonàles reviser.
Le principe d'interprétation exprimé par la maxime ut res magis
vnleatquam pereat, principe souvent désigné sous le nom de prin-
cipe de l'effet utile, ne saurait autoriser la Cour à entendre la
clause de règlement des différendsinsérée dans les traités de paix
dans un sens qui, comme il vient d'être exposé, contredirait sa
lettre et son esprit.
Il a étéobjecté qu'une commission d'arbitrage peut statuer
valablement, bien que le nombre primitif de ses membres, tel qu'il
a étéfixépar la Convention d'arbitrage, se trouve ultérieurement
réduit par l'avènement de circonstances telles que le retrait de
l'un des commissaires. Cescas présupposent la validité initiale d'une
commission qui a étécomposéeselon la volonté des parties exprimée
dans la convention d'arbitrage. Or, c'est précisémentcette question

de la validité initiale de la constitution de la Commission que sou-
lève la désignation d'un tiers membre par le Secrétaire général
dans des circonstances autres que celles prévues par les traités.
Juridiquement, les deux situations sont nettement distinctes,
et l'on ne peut argumenter de l'uneà l'autre.
Il a étéallégué enfinqu'une réponse négative de la Cour à la
Question III risquerait de compromettre dangereusement l'avenir
des clauses d'arbitrage, en fait fort nombreuses, conçues sur le même
type que celle qui figure dans les traités de paix avec la Bulgarie,
la Hongrie et la Roumanie. L'inefficacitéen l'occurrence des clauses
établies pour assurer le règlement des différendsn'autorise pas une
telle généralisation. L'examen dela pratique arbitrale démontreque
si les rédacteurs des conventions d'arbitrage se sont préoccupés
très fréquemment de pourvoir aux conséquences d'un défaut

d'accord sur la désignation du tiers arbitre, ils se sont abstenus,
en dehors de cas exceptionnels, de prévoir le refus d'une partie
de désigner son propre commissaire. Les quelques traités qui
ont ,pourvu expressément à un tel refus tendent à démontrer que
les Etats qui ont procédéde la sorte ont eu le sentiment qu'il ne
pouvait être pourvu à cette carence simplement par voie d'inter-
prétation. En réalité,le risque que représente cette éventualitéde
refus est minime, chacune des parties ayant normalement intérêt à
procéder à la désignation de son propre commissaire et devant en
tout cas être résumé rspectueuse de ses obligations convention-
nelles. Le fait qu'il en a étéautrement dans le cas présentauto~iseis not made good by the fact that it is due to the breach of a
treaty obligation. The failure of machinery for settling disputes
by reason of the practical impossibility of creating the Commission
provided for in the Treaties is one thing ;international responsi-
bility is another. The breach of a treaty obligation cannot be reme-
died by creating a Commission which is not the kind of Commission
contemplated by the Treaties. It is the duty of the Court to inter-
pret the Treaties, not to revise them.

The principle of interpretation expressed in the maxim : Ut res
magisvaleatquampereat,often referred toas the rule of effectiveness,
cannot justify the Court in attributing to the provisions for the
settlement of disputes in the Peace Treaties a meaning which, as
stated above, would be contrary to their letter and spirit.

It has been pointed out that an arbitration commission niay
make a valid decision although the original number of its members,
as fixed by the arbitration agreement, is later reduced by such
circumstances as the withdrawal of one of the commissioners. These
cases presuppose the initial validity of a commission, constituted
in conformity with the will of the parties as expressed in the arbi-
tration agreement, whereas the appointment of the third member

by the Secretary-General in circumstancesother than those contem-
plated in the Treaties raises precisely the question of the initial
validity of the constitution of the Commission. In law, the two
situations are clearly distinct and it is impossible to argue from
one to the other.
Finally, it has been alleged that a negative answer by the Court
to Question III would seriously jeopardize the future of the large
number of arhitration clauses which have been drafted on the same
mode1as that which appears in the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria,
Hungary and ~~omania.The ineffectiveness in the present case of
the clauses dealing with the settlement of disputes does not permit
such a generalization. An examination of the practice of arbitration
shows that, whereas the draftsmen of arbitration conventions have
very often takencare to provide for the consequences of the inability

of the parties to agree on the appoir>trr.~ntof a thirà member, they
have, apart from exceptional cases, refrained from anticipating a
refusa1 by a party to appoint its own commissioner. The few
Treaties containing express provisions for such a refusa1 indicate
that the States which adopted this course felt the impossibility of
remedying this situation simply by way of interpretation. In fact,
the risk of such a possibility of a refusal is a small one, because
normally each party has a direct interest in the appointment of its
commissioner .and must in anv case be ~resumed to observe its
treaty obligations. That this wis not so inihe present case doeç not
justify the Court in exceeding its judicial function on the pretextpas la Cour à sortir de son rôle judiciaire sous prétexte de remédier
à une carence à laquelle les traités ont omis de pourvoir.
En conséquence,la Question IIIdoit recevoir une réponsenégative.
Dans ces conditions, il n'y a pas lieu pour la Cour d'envisager la
Question TV, celle-ci n'appelant une réponsequ'en cas de réponse
affirmative à la question précédente.

Par ces motifs,

par onze voix contre deux,

que si l'une des parties ne désignepas de représentant à une
commission prévue par les traités de paix avec la Bulgarie, la
Hongrie et la Roumanie, alors qu'elle est tenue d'en désignerun,
le Secrétaire générales Nations Unies n'est pas autoriséà désigner
Iftiers membre de la commission sur la demande de l'autre partie
au différend.
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au
Palais de la Paix, à La Haye, le dix-huit juillet mil neuf cent cin-

quante, en deux exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives
de la Cour et dont l'autre sera transmis au Secrétaire généraldes
Nations t'nies.

Le Président de la Cour,

(Signé)BASDEVANT.

Le Greffier de la Cour,
(Signé)E. HAMBRO.

*
* *
hl. KRYLOVj,uge, tout en souscrivant à la conclusion de l'avis et
à son raisonnement en général,doit déclarer qu'ilne peut se rallier
à ceux des motifs qui, se rattachant à la question de la responsa-
bilité internationale, sortent, selon son opinion, du cadre de la
demande d'avis.

MM. READet AZEVEDO j, ges, déclarant ne pas pouvoir se rallier
à l'avis de la Cour et se prévalant du droit que leur confère I'ar-
ticle 57 du Statut, joignent audit avis l'exposé deleur opinion
dissidente.

(Paraphé) J. B.

(Paraphé) E: H.of remedying a default for the occurrence of which the Treaties
have made no provision.
Consequently, Question III must be answered in the negative. It
is therefore not necessary for the Court to consider Question IV,
which requires an answeronly in the event of an affirmativeanswer
to the preceding Question.

For these reasons,

by eleven votes to two,
that, if one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty
Commission under the Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungav
and Romania where that party is obligated to appoint a represent-
ative to the Treaty Commission, the Secretary-General of the
United Nations is not authorized to appoint the third member of
the Commissionupon the request of the other party to a dispu~e.

Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this eighteenth day of July,
one thousand nine hundred and fifty, in two copies, one of which
wiUbe placed in the archives of the Court and the other transmitted
to the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(Signed) BASDEVANT,
Presfdent.

(Signed) E. HAMBRO,
Registrar.

Judge KRYLOVw , hile joining in the conclusions of the opinion
and the generalline ofargument, declaresthat he isunable to concur
in the reasons dealing with the problem of international respon-
sibility which, in his opinion, goes beyond the scopeofthe request
for opinion.

Judges READand AZEVEDO d,eclaring that they are unable to
concur in the Opinion of the Court, have availed themseives of the
right conferred on them by Article57 of the Statute and appended
to the Opinion statements of their dissenting opinion.

(InitialledJ. B. DOCUMENTS TRANSMIS PAR LE SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL
DES NATIONS UNIES A LA COUR INTERNATIONALE DE
JUSTICE CONFORMGME AN TA RÉSOLUTION ADOPTÉE

PAR L'ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE, LE 22OCTOBRE 1949

CONTENU DU DOSSIER

ChemiseI.

Inscription de la quesàil'ordredu jour.
Comptesrendus des dbbats.

Comptes rendus du Bureau, 58meet 5gmeséances.
Comptes rendus de l'Assembléegénérale,89meet 190meséances
plénières.

Chemise2.
Inscription de la questàol'ordred.ujour.
Documents.

Lettre en date du 16 mars 1949 adressée
au Secrétaire généralpar le représen-
tant permanent de la Bolivie et de-
mandant l'inscription d'une nouvelle
question à l'ordre du jour de la
troisième session ordinaire de l'As-
sembléegénérale A/820

Lettre en date du 19 mars 1949 adressée
au Secrétaire généralpar la Mission
de l'Australie auprès des Nations
Unies et demandant l'inscription d'une
nouvelle questionà l'ordre du jour
de la troisième session ordinaire de
l'Assembléegénérale Al821
Ordre du jour de la troisième session
ordinaire de l'Assemblée générale;
rapport du Bureau de l'Assemblée Al829
[Voir paragraphs.

3 a13 b.1
38 DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE BY THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF

THE UNITED NATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
ON 22 OCTOBER, 1949

CONTENTS

1. RECORDS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SECOND PART OF THIRD
SESSION

Inclusion of item inagenda.

Records ofProceedings.
Records of the General Committee, 58th and 59th meetings.
Records of the General Assembly,189th and 190th plenary meet-
ings.

Inclusion of item in agenda.
Documents.
Letter dated 16 March, 1949, from the
permanent representative of Bolivia
to the Secretary-General requesting
the inclusion of an additional item
the agenda of the third reguiar ses-
sion of the General Assembly Al820

Letter dated 19 March, 1949, from the
Australian Mission to the United
Nations addressed to the Secretary-
General requesting the inclusion of an
additional item in the agenda of the
third re,dar session of the General
Assembly Al821
Agenda of the third regular session of
the General Assembly ; report of the
General Committee A/829
[See paragraphs
3 a and 3 b.]

38[Note - Voir Chemise4 pour :

Télégramme en date du 4 avril 1949
adressé au Présidentde l'Assemblée
générale palre Gouvernementde la
Républiquepopulaire de Hongrie A1831

Télégramme en date du 9 avril 1949
adresséau Secrktaire généralfiar le
Gouvernementde la Réfiubliquepopu- Al832 et Corr.1.1
laire de Bulgarie

Chemise3.

Commission fiolit.iquespéciale.
Comfitesrendus des débats.

34" séance.
35meséance.
36meséance.
37rneséance.
38meséance.
3gmeséance.
4omeséance.
41meséance.

Chemise4.
Commissionfiolitiquespéciale.

Documents.

Télégrammeen date du 4 avril 1949
adressé au Président de l'Assemblée
généralepar le Gouvernement de la
République populaire de Hongrie Al831
Télégrammeen date du g avril 1949
adressé au Secrétaire généralpar le
Gouvernement de la Républiquepopu-
laire de Bulgarie Al832 et Corr.I
Répartition des questions inscrites à
l'ordre du jour de la deuxièmepartie
de la troisième session; lettre en date
du 13 avril 1949adresséeau Président
de la Commission politique spéciale
par le Président de l'Assemblée géné-
rale AlAC.24147[Note-See Fo&r 4 for:
Telegramdated 4 Apràl, Ig49, from th
Governmntofthe RepcblicofHungary
tothePresidentoftheGeneralAssembly Al831

and

Telegramdated g Afwil, Ig4g. from the
Governmentof the People's Republic
of Bulgaria to the Secretory-General -4183a 2nd Corr. 1.1

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Recordsof poceedings.

34th meeting.
35th meeting.
36th meeting.
37th meeting.
38th meeting.
39th meeting.
40th meeting.
41st meeting.

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Documents.

Telegram dated 4 April, 1949, from the
Govemment of the Republic of Hun-
gary to the President of the General
Assembly Al831
Telegram dated g April, 1949,from the
Government of the People's Repub-
lic of Bulgaria to the Secretary-Gen-
eral Al832 andCorr. I
Allocation of items on the agenda of the
second part of the third sess;letter
dated 13 April, 1949, from the Presi-
dent of the General Assembly to the
Chairman of the Ad hoc Political
Cornmittee AIAC.24147Cuba :projet de résolution A/AC.24/48et Corr. r
Cuba: projet de résolution amendé A/AC.z4/48/Rev. 2

Australie :projet de résolution A/AC.z4/50
Bolivie :projet de résolution A/AC.z4/51/Corr. I

Australie :projet de résolution A/-4C.24/52
Chili: amendement au projet de réso-
lution présentépar la Bolivie (A/AC.
24/51/Corr. 1) XlAC.24/53

Colombie et Costa-Rica : amendement
au projet de résolution présentépar
la Bolivie (AlAC.z4/51/Corr. 1) AIAC.24154
Cuba et Australie: amendement au
projet de résolution présentépar la
Bolivie (AlAC.z4/51ICorr. 1) A/AC.24/56
Télégrammeen date du 23 avril 1949
adressé au Secrétaire généralpar le
Gouvernement de la Républiquepopu-
laire de Hongrie A1AC.24157

Télégrammeen date du 27 avril 1949
adressé au Secrétaire généralpar le
Gouvernement de la Républiquepopu-
laire de Bulgarie A/AC.24/58
Rapport de la Commission politique
spéciale Al844

Chemise 5.

Séancesplénièresde l'Assembléegénérale.

Comptes rendus des débats.
2011ne séance.
20zmCséance.
203~~séance.

Chemise6.

Séan.cesplénièresde l'Assemblée générale.

Résolution 272 (III) adoptée par l'As-
semblée générale, le 30 avril 1949.

[Note - Voir Chemise 4 pour :
Rapport de la Commission politique
spéciale '41844.1Cuba : draft resolution AlAC.24148and Corr. I

Cuba : amended draft resolution A/AC.z4/48/Rev. 2
Australia : draft resolution A/AC.24/50
Bolivia : draft resolution A/AC.24/51/Corr. I

Australia : draft resolution A/AC.24/52
Chile : amendment to the Bolivian
draft resolution (A/AC.z4751/Corr. 1) AlAC.24153

Colombia and Costa Rica : amendment
to the Bolivian draft resolution
(A/AC.z4/51/Corr.1) AlAC.24154.
Cuba and Australia : amendment to the
Bolivian resolution iA/AC.z4/51/
Corr. 1) A/AC.z4/56

Telegram dated 23 April, 1949,from the
Gof Hungary to the Secretary-General
A/AC.z4/57

Telegram dated 27 April, 1949,from the
Govemment of the People's Republic
of Bulgaria to the Secretary-General A/AC.z4/58

Report of the Ad hoc Political Com-
mittee Al844

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Recordsof proceedings.

zorst meeting.
eoznd meeting.
203rd meeting.

Plenary meetings of the GeneralAssembly.

Resolution 272 (III), adopted by the
General Assembly, 30 April, 1949.
[Note-See Folder 4 for :
Reportof theAd hoc Political Cornmittee Al844.1II. CORRESPONDANC DPLOMATIQUE COMMUNIQUEE AU SECRÉ-
TAIRE GÉNÉRAL POUR ÊTRE PORTÉE A LA CONNAISSANCE DES
MEMBRES DES NATIONS UNIES

Chemise 7.

Lettre en date du 20 septembre 1949
adresséeau Secrétairegénéraplar le
représentant desÉtats-unis d'Amé-
rique (et annexes jointes) A/g85/Rev. I
Lettre en date du 19 septembre 1949
adresséeau Secrétairegénérap larle
représentant du Royaume-Uni de
Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du
Nord (et annexes jointes) A/ggo/Rev. I
Lettre en date du 19 novembre 1949,
adressée au Secrétaire général de
l'organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant du Royaume-
Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Ir-
lande du Nord (et annexe jointe)
Eettre en date du 6 janvier 1950,
adressée au Secrétaire généralde
l'organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant du Royaume-
Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Ir-
lande du Nord (et annexes jointes)
Note verbale en date du 6 janvier
1950, adresséeau Secrétairegénéral
de l'organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant du Canada (et
annexes jointes)
Lettre en date du 6 janvier 1950,
adressée au Secrétaire général de
l'organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant des États-unis
d'Amérique (et annexes jointes)
Lettre en date du 17 février 1950,
adressée par le représentant du
Canada au Secrétaire général de
l'organisation des Nations Unies
(et annexe jointe)
Lettre en date du 17 février 1950,
adressée au Secrétaire général de
l'organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant du Royaume-
Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Ir-
lande du Nord (et annexe jointe)
4111.RELEVANT EXCHANGES OF DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE COM-
MUNICATED TO THE SECRETARY-GENER FORLCIRCULATION TO
THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITEDNATIONS

Folder7.

Letter dated20September, 1949, from
the representative of the United
States of America to the Secretary-
General (with annexes) Alg851Rev. I
Letter dated 19September, 1949, from
the representative of the United
KingdomofGreat Britainand North-
em Ireland to the Secretary-General
(with annexes) AlggolRev. I
Letter dated 19 November, 1949,from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great-Bntain and
Northem Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annex)
Letter dated 6 January, 1950, from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northem Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annexes)
Note dated 6 January, 1950, from the
representative of Canada to the
Secretary-General of the United
Nations (with annexes)

Letter dated 6 January, 1950, from
the representative of the United
States of America to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annexes)
Letter dated 17 February, 1950, from
the representative of Canada to the
Secretary-General of the United
Nations (with annex)

Letter dated 17 February, 1950, from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great Bntain and
Northern Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annex)Lettre en date du 17 février 1950,
adressée au Secrétaire généralde

l'Organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant des États-Unis
d'Amérique (et annexes jointes)
Lettre en date du 20 février 1950,
adressée au Secrétaire généralde

l'organisation des Nations Unies
par le représentant du Royaume-
Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Ir-
lande du Nord (et annexe jointe)
Lettre en date du 29 avril 1950,
adressée par le représentant du
Canada au Secrétaire général de

l'organisation des Nations IJnies
(et annexes joint es)
Lettre en date du 28 avril 1950,
adressée par le représentant du
Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne
et d'Irlande du Nord au Secrétaire

général del'organisation des Na-
tions Unies (et annexes jointes.
Lettre en date du 28 avril 1950,
adressée par le représentant des
États-unis d'Amériqueau Secrétaire

généralde l'Organisation desNations
Unies (et annexes jointes)

III. COMPTES RENDUS DE L'ASSEMBLÉE GÉNÉRALE, QUATRIÈME
SESSION
Chemise 8.

Inscription de la questioà I'ordredu jour.
Comptesrendus des débats.

Compte rendu du Bureau, 65me [Voir fiages 3 et4,
séance fiaragraphes71-73,
et page 7,
paragraphes 104 et105.1

Compte rendu de l'Assembléegénérale, [Voir pages 20 et21,
224me séance plénière paragraphes 2-10,
page 25,
à la suite du
fiaragraphe 56.1

42 Letter dated 17 February, 1950, from
the representative of United States
of America to the Secretary-General
ofthe United Nations (withannexes)

Letter dated 20 February, 1950, from
the representative of the United
Kingdom of Great-Britain and
Northern Ireland to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (with
annex)

Letter dated 29 April, 1950,from the
representative of Canada to the
Secretary-General of the United
Nations (with annexes)

Letter dated 28 April, 1950,from the
representative of the United King-
dom of Great-Britain and Northern
Ireland to the Secretary-General of
the United Nations (witfi annexes)

Letter dated 28 April, 1950, from the
representative of the United States
of America to the Secretary-General
ofthe United Nations (withannexes)

III. RECORDS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY FOURTH SESSION

Folder 8.

Incl.usion of itein agenda.
Records of proceedings.

Records of the General Committee, 65th [See pages 3 and 4,
meeting paragraphs 71-73,
and page 7,
paragrafihs104
and 105.j
Records of the General Assembly, 224th [See fiages18 and 19,
plenary meeting paragraphs 2-10,
and page 23,
after paragraph56.1260 AVIS DU 18 VI1 50 (INTERPRÉTATION DES TRAITÉS DE PAIX)

Chemiseg.

Inscription de la questionà l'ordre du jour.
Documents.

Liste supplémentaire de questions à
inscrireà l'ordre du jour de la.qua-
trième session ordinaire ; questions
proposéespar l'Australie A/948
Adoption de l'ordre du jour de la qua-
trième session ordinaire et répartition
des points de l'ordre du jour entre les
Commissions ; rapport du Bureau A1989
[Voir +aragraphes
9 à 12.1

Chemise IO.

Commissionpolitique spéciale.

Comptes rendusdes-débats.

7meséance.
8meséance.

gmeséance.
10me séance.
II~~ séance.
12me séance.

13meséance.
14"e séance.
15meséance.

Chemise II.

Commissionpolitique spéciale.

Documents.

Lettre en date du 26 septembre 1949
adressée par le Président de l'As-
sembléegénéraleau Président de la
Commission politique spéciale A/AC.y/z

Bolivie, Canada et États-Unis d'Amé-
rique :projet de résolution A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. I Folderg.

Inclusion of item in agenda.
Documents.

Supplementary list of items for the
agenda of the fourth regular session ;
items proposed by Australia A1948

Adoption of the agenda of the fourth
regular session and allocation of items
to Committees ;report of the General
Committee Al989
[See paragraphs 9-12.]

Folder IO.

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Records of proceedings.

7th meeting.
8th meeting.

9th meeting.
10th meeting.
11th meeting.
12th meeting.
13th meeting.

14th meeting.
15th meeting.

Ad hoc Political Committee.
Documents.

Letter dated 26 September, 1949, from
the President of the General Assembly
to the Chairman of the Ad hocPolit-
ical Cornmittee A/hC.31/2

Bolivia, Canada and the United States
of America : draft resolution A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. I
43Australie : amendement au projet de
résolution de la Bolivie, du Canada
et des États-unis d'Amérique (A/AC.
31IL.rlRev. 1) A/AC.~I/L.~
Brésil,Liban et Pays-Bas :amendement
au projet de résolution proposé par
la Bolivie, le Canada et les États-Unis
d'Amérique (A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. 1) AlAc.311L.3

Télégramme endate du 7 octobre 1949
adressé au Secrétaire généralpar le
Gouvernement de la Républiquepopu-
laire de Roumanie A/AC.~I/L.~

Rapport de la Commission politique
spéciale A11023

Chemise 12.

Séancesplénièresde l'Assemblée générale.

Comptesrendus des débats.
234meséance.

235meséance.

Chemise 13.

Séancesplénièresde l'Assemblée gknérale.
Documents.

Résolutionadoptéeparl'Assemblée géné-
rale, le22 octobre 1949.
[Note - Voir Chemise II pour :

Rapport de la Commissionpolitique spé-
ciale A/rozg.] OPIN. OF 18 VI150 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREARIES) 261
Australia : amendment to the draft
resolution proposed by Bolivia, Ca-
nada and the United States of America
(A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. 1) A/AC.3r/Id.z

Brazil, Lebanon and the Netherlands :
amendment to the draft resolution
proposed by Bolivia, Canada and the
United States of America
(A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V.1) A/AC.3r/L.3

Telegram dated 7 October, 1949, from
the Government of the People's Re-
public of Romania to the Secretary-
General AlAC.311L.4
Report of the Ad hoc Political Com-
mittee A/1023

Folder 12.

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Recordsof froceedings.

234th meeting.

235th meeting.

Folder 13.

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly.
Documents.

Resolution adopted by the General
Assembly, 22 October, 1949.
[Note-See Folder II for :

Reportof theAd hoc Political Comrnittee AI1oz3.1

ICJ document subtitle

including the text of the declaration of Judge Krylov)

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950 (second phase)

Links