Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
INTERPRETAT:[O ONFPEACE TREATIEW S lFHBULGARIA, .
HUNGARY ANDROMANIA (SECONDPHASE)
AclvisoryOpinionof18July1950
Theadvisoryopinionsummarizedheredealswiththesec- the appointmentof their representativestolhty
ond phase of the questionconcerning theInterpretationofCommissions?"
Peace Treaties sigwithBulgaria,Hungaryand Romania. In theeventof anaffirmativereplyto QuestIIand if
ByaResolutionofOctober 22nd. 1949,theGeneralAssem- withinthirty daysfromthe datewhentheCourt deliversits
blyoftheUnitedNationshadsubmittedtotheCourtforadvi- opinion, the Govemments concernehave not notifiede
soryopinion thefollowingfourquestions: Secretary-Generalthatthey have appotheir representa-
"I. Do the diplomaticexchangesbetweenBulgaria, tivesto the%sty Commissions,and theSecretary-General
HungaryandRomaniaon theonehandandcertainAllied hassoadvisedthe InternationalCourtofJustice:
andAssociated Powersignatoriestotheties ofPeace "111. Ifonepzutyfailsto appointa representotave
on theother, concerningthe implementationoficl2 %sty Commissianunderthe'Preatieof PeacewithBul-
oftheTreatieswithBulgariaandHungaryandArticle3of garia,HungarynldRomaniawherethatpartyisobligated
, theTreatywithRomania, disclose disputes subjectto theto appointa representativeto the 'IteatyCommission,is
provisionsforthe settlementofdisputestaineidnArti- theSecretary-GeneraloftheUnitedNationsauthorizedto
cle 36of the2eaty of PeacewithBulgaria, Article40 of appointthe third memberof the Commissionupon the
the Treatyof Peace with Hungary andArticle38 of the requestoftheotherpartytoadisputeaccordingtophe
TreatyofPeacewithRomania?" visionsofthe respective'Iteaties?"
IntheeventofanaffirmativereplytoQuestionI: Intheeventof anaffirmativereplytoQuestIII:
Romaniaobligatedtocarryout the provisionsofthe Arti- "IV. Woulda%sty Commissioncomposed ofarep-
clesreferred toinQuestionI, includingtheprovisionsforthe Secretary-Generalof the UnitedNationsconstatute
Continued on next page articles, competentto makea definitive binding decision In short, the Secretary-Generalwould be authorizedto
insettlementofa dispute?" proceedtothe appointmentofa third memberonly iiftwere
Treatyprovisions.tutea Commissionin conformitywiththe
On March 30th, 1950,the Court answered the first two
questionsbysayingthatdiplomaticexchangesdisclosed the TheClourthaddeclaredin itsOpinionofMarch 30th that
existenceofdisputessubject I:theTreatyprovisionsforthe the Governmentsof Bulgaria,Hungaryand Romania were
settlementofdisputesand thunderobligation,toappointtheir under an obligationto appoint their representativto the
representativestotheTreatyCJommissions. TreatyCommissions. Refusalto fulfil aTreatyobligation
would involve international responsibility. Nevertheless,
On May Ist, 1950,the ActingSecretary-Generalof the such a refusal couldnotaltertheconditionscontemplatedin
United Nations notifietheCourtthat, within30daysofthe theTreatiesfortheexerciseoftheSecretary-General's power
dateof thedeliveryof the Co~lrt'Advisory'Opinion onthe of appointment.These conditionswere not present inthis
firsttwoquestions,hehad notreceived inforination thatny case and their lackwas notsuppliedby the:fact that their
one of the threegovernment.^ concernedha,dappointed its failureof machineryfor settling disputesby reasonof the
representativetotheTreatyCommissions. practical impossibiliofcreatingtheCommission provided
OnJune 22nd. 1950,theGovernmentofthe UnitedStates forin the'lteatieswasonething;international responsibility
of Americasent a writtensa~tement.The U:nitedKingdom another. Onecouldnot remedythebreachofaTreatyobliga-
GovernmenthadpreviouslystateditsviewsonQuestionsI11 tion by creatinga Commissionwhich was not thekind of
and IV in the writtenstatem~~esnutbmittedduring the first Commissioncontemplated bytheTreaties.Itwas theCourt's
phaseofthecase. dutytointerpret'keaties,not torevise them.
At publicsittingsheldon June27th and:!8th, 1950,the
Court heard oral statementssubmitted onbehalf of the Norcouldtheprinciplethat a clausemust beinterpretedso
Secretary-Generalof the United Nationsby the Assistant astogive itpracticaleffectjustifytheCourtinattributingto
Secretary-Generalinchargeofthe Legal Departmena tndon the provisions a meaningwhichwouldbe contraryto their
behalfof the Governmentof the UnitedStatesof America letterandspirit.
andoftheGovernmentof theUnitedKingdom. The factthatanarbitration commission maymake avalid
InitsopiniontheCourtsaidthat,although theliteralsense decision althoughtheoriginalnumberofitsrnembersislater
did notcompletelyexcludethepossibilityof'appointingthe reduced, for instance,by withdrawalof one of the arbitra-
third member before appointing both national commission- tors, didnotpermit drawingananalogywiththecaseof the
ers, the naturaland ordinary meaningof the termrequired appointmentof a third memberby the Secretary-Generalin
that thelatter be appointed'teforethe third mernber.This circumstancesother thanthose contemplatedinthe'keaties,
clearlyresultedfromthesequenceofeventscontemplatedby becauset:hisraised preciselythequestionofheinitial valid-
the Article. Moreover,itwas,the normalorderinarbitration ity oftheconstitutionofthe Commission.
practice and,in theabsenceofanyexpressprovisionto the Norcoulditbe said that a negativeanswertoQuestion I11
contrary, there was no reason to suppose ,thatthe parties wouldseriously jeopardize thefuture of the many similar
wishedtodepartfromit. arbitrationclausesin other treaties. The practiceof arbitra-
TheSecretary-General's powerto appointa thirdmember tion showedthat, whereas draftsmenof arbitrationconven-
derived solely from the agreementof the parties, as tionsoftentookcareto provide for the'consequencesof the
expressedin the disputesclauseof the treaties.By its very inabilityof the parties to agreeuponthe appointmentof a
naturesuch aclausewasto be strictlyconstruedandcouldbe third member,they had, apart from exceptional cases,
appliedonlyinthecaseexpre:ssly providedhereby.Thecase refrained fromcontemplatingthepossibilityofarefusalbya
envisagedintheTreatieswasthatofthefailureoftheparties party to appointits own Commissioner.The few 'keaties
to agteeuponthe selectionof thethird member andnotthe containingexpressprovisionsonthematter indicatedthatthe
much moreseriousoneofa completerefusalofcooperation . dyingthe situation simplyby wayof interpretationof the
byoneofthem,takingtheformofrefusingtotappointitsown Treaties.Infact, theriskwasa smalloneas,,normally,each
Commissioner. partyhada directinterestinthe appointmentofitsCommis-
A changein the normal setquenceof appointmentscould sioner and must, in any case,be presumedto observe its
onlybejustifiedifitwereshownbytheattitudeoftheparties 'keatyobligations.Thatthis wasnot so in the presentcase
thattheydesiredsuch a reversaltofacilitatetheconstitution didnotjustifytheCourtinexceeding itsjudicial functionon
ofCommissionsin accordancewiththeterm!% ofthe'keaties. the pretextof remedying adefault for the occurrence of
Butsuchwas notthepresentcase.Inthesecircumstancesthe whichthe'keatieshadmadeno provision.
appointmentof thethirdme:rnberby theSecretary-General,
insteadofbringing aboutthe:constitutionofatb-member in the negativeand thereforeit was notnecessaryfor it to
Commission providedforbythe'Ifeaties,wouldresultonly considerQuestionIV.
kind of Commissionfor whichthember'Iteatieshad provided. -
TheoppositionoftheonenationalCommissionercould pre- TheCourt'sanswerwas givenby 11votesto 2.
vent the Commission from reachina gny decision.It could Judge Krylov, whilejoinin in the cor~clusions of the
decideonlyby unanimity, whereas the disputesclausepro- Opinionandthe generallineo fargument,declaredhimself
videdfor a majoritydecision. Therewas no doubtthat the unableto concur in thereasonsdealingwith international
decisionsofa two-member Commission, oneof which was responsibilityas, in his opinion,this problemwentbeyond
designatedby one party o:nly,would nothave the same thescopeofthequestionputtotheCourt.
degree ofmoral authorityas thoseof a three-memberCom- JudgeReadandAzevedoappendes dtatementsoftheirdis-
mission. sentingopinions.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 18 July 1950