Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASEOFCERTAIN NORWEGIAN LOANS
Judgmentof 6July1957
the French Declaration; and thatthis reservation excluded
Proceedings in the caseof certain Norwegian loans, fromthejurisdictionofthecourtthedisputewhichhasbeen
between Franceand Norway, had been ir~stitutedby an referredto it bytheApplicationof the FrenchGovernment.
CourtctoadjudgethatcertainlloansissuedontheFrenchmar-e Consideringthat it was not necessaryto examine the other
ketandonotherforeignmarketsbytheKingdomof Norway, NorwegianObjectionsor the other submissionsofthe Par-
the MortgageBank of the Kingdomof Norway andthe ties,theCourtfoundbytwelvevotesto threethatitwaswith-
Smallholdingand Workers'HlousingBank tipulatedingold outjurisdictiontoadjudicateuponthedispute.
the amountof the borrower'sobligationand that the bor-
rowercould onlydischargethe substanceof his debtbythe JudgeMorenoQuintana declared thah t e considered that
payment of the gold value:of the coupons and of the theCourtwaswithoutjurisdictionforareasondifferentrom
redeemedbonds.The Applic;?.tinxpresslyreferredtoArti- Sir HerschiLauterpachtappendedto the Judgmentof the
cle36(2)oftheStatuteoftheCourtandtothe Declarationsof Court statementsof their individualopinions. Judges-
Acceptanceof thecompu1so:rjyurisdictionrnadeby France rero, Basdevant and Read appendedto theJudgmentof the
and by Norway.For its part, theNorwegitinGovernment Courtstatementsoftheirdissentingopinions.
raisedcertainPreliminaryObjectionswhich,attherequestof
the French Governmentwhich theNorwegiimGovernment
did notoppose,theCourtjoinedtothemerits;.
In itsJudgmenttheCourtupheldoneoftht:grollndsrelied
upon by Norway,which theCourtconsidered moredirect
and conclusive:theObjectionto theeffectthatNorway was In its JudgmenttheCourtrecalled thefacts. The loain
entitled,by virtueof then.ditionof recipr~act, invoke question were floated betwee1885and 1W; the French
the reservationrelatingto naiionaljurisdiction containedinvernment contendedthat the bondscontained a gold
Continuedon next pageclausewhichvariedin form frombondto bond, but which ties, whichwasthebasisof theCourt's jurisdiction, existed
that Governmentregardedas sufficientin the case of each within the narrowerlimitsindicatedby the Frenchreserva-
bond, thisbeing disputedby the NorwegianGovernment. tion.TheCourtreaffirmedthismethodofdefiningthelimits
The convertibility intogoldof notesoftheBankof Norway ofitsjurisdictionwhich hadalreadybeenadoptedbythePer-
havingbeensuspendedon variousdatessii~ce1914,a Nor- manentCourtof Inb~rnationaJlustice.Inaccordancewiththe
wegianlawofDecember15th,1923,providedthat"wherea condition ofreciprocityNorway,equallywithFrance, was
debtorhaslawfullyagreedtopayingoldapecuniarydebtin entitled to except fiom the compulsory jurisdictionof the
kronerand wherethe creditor refusesto ac:ceptpaymentin Court disputes untlerstoodby Norway to be essentially
Bank of Norway notes on thebasis of their nominal gold withinits nationaljurisdiction.
value, thedebtormayrequestapostponemei~otfpaymentfor TheFrench Governmentpointed outthatbetweenFrance
such period as theBankis exemptedfrom its obligationto and Norway thereexisteda treatywhich madethe payment
redeemits notes in accordancewith their nominalvalue". of any contractualdebt a questionof internationallaw and
Protracted diplomatic correspondenceensued which lasted that in thisomec1:ionthe two States could not therefore
from 1925 to 1955,in whichthe FrenchGovernmentcon- speak of domestic jurisdiction.But the aim of the treaty
tendedthatitwould notseemthata unilateraldecisioncould referred to,the Second Hague Conventionof 1907respect-
berelieduponas againstforeign creditorsandrequestedthe ingthelimitationof,theemploymentofforcefortherecovery
recognitionoftherightsclaimedbythe Frenchholdersofthe of contractdebts, was notto introducecompulsoryarbitra-
bondsinvolved. TheNorwegianGovernment,being unpre- tion;theonlyobligationimposedbythe Conventionwasthat
pared toagreeto the variousproposalsfor iinternationlet- an interveningpower should not haverecourse to force
tlementputforwardbyFrance,maintainedthattheclaimsof before it hadtried arbitration.The Court could, therefore,
the bondholderswerewithin the jurisdictioof the Norwe- findno reasonwhy thefact that thetwoPartiesweresignato-
cationofNorwegian law.TheFrench bondholdersrefrainedppli- riestotheSecond Conventionshoulddeprive Norway
fromsubmittingtheircasetotheNorwegiancourts. Itwas in of the rightto invok'ethe reservationin the French Declara-
thesecircumstancesthatthe FrenchGovernmentreferredthe tion. The French Governmentalso referred tothe Franco
mattertotheCourt. NorwegianArbitrationConventionof 1904and totheGen-
eralAct ofGeneva ofSeptember26th,1928.Neitherofthese
Suchbeing thefacts, the Courtat the outset directed its references,however, couldbe regardedas sufficienttojus-
attention to the Preliminary Objectionsof the Norwegian tifytheviewthatthe Applicationof the French Government
Government,beginning with the firso t f these Objections was basedupontheClonvention ortheGeneralAct:theCourt
which relateddirectlyto the jurisdictionof the Court and different from thathichthe French Governmentitselfsettion
which hadtwo aspects. In the firstplace, it was contended outinitsApplicatio~alndbyreferencetowhichthecasehad
that the Court, whose functionis to decide in accordance beenpresentedbybathPartiestothe Court.
with internationallaw such disputes asresubmittedto it,
can be seisedby meansof a unilateralappli:cation,only of The Courtnotedthat fromonepointof viewit mightbe
legaldisputesfallingwithinoneofthefourcategoriesofdis- saidthattheground OCthefirstObjectionwhichwasbased on
putesenumeratedinparagraph2ofArticle 36 oftheStatute the reservationin the FrenchDeclarationwassolely subsid-
andrelatingto internationallaw. In the viewof the Norwe- iaryincharacter.But:inthe opinionof the Court,the second
gian Government, the loan contracts were governedby groundcouldnot be regardedas subsidiaryinthe sensethat
municipal lawand notby internationallaw.,In the second eventof the first groundof this Objectionbeing heldto be
shouldstillbesomedoubtonthispoint itwou:ldrelyuponthe legallyunfounded.The Court's competence waschallenged
reservationmadeinthe followingtermsbytheFrench Gov- onbothgroundsandtheCourtwas freteobaseitsdecisionon
ernmentinitsDeclarationaccepting thecompulsoryjurisdic- the groundwhich initsjudgment was moredirectand con-
tionoftheCourt: "Thisdeclarationdoesnot applytodiffer- clusive.Notonly did the NorwegianGovernmentinvokethe
ences relatingto matters which are essentiallywithin the Frenchreservation,butit maintainedthesecondgroundofits
nationaljurisdiction asunderstoodbyheGovernmentofthe first Objection throughout.Abandonmentcould notbe pre-
FrenchRepublic". TheNorwegian Governmlentconsidered sumedor infed; ithadtobedeclaredexpressly.
thatbyvirtueofthe clauseof reciprocitywhichisembodied
inArticle36,paragraph3,oftheStatuteandc:ontained inthe TheCourtdidnotconsiderthatitshouldexaminewhether
correspondingNorwegianDeclaration, Norwiayhadtheright theFrenchreservationwasconsistentwiththeundertakingof
to rely upon the restrictionsplaced by Franceon her own graph6,oftheStatute.Thevalidityofthereservationhadnot-
undertakings. Convinced that thedispute vvaswithin the beenquestionedby theF'arties.Itwasclear that Francefully
domesticjurisdiction,the NorwegianGovernlnentrequested maintaineditsDeclarationincluding thereservation,andthat
the Courtto decline, ongrounds thatit lackedjurisdiction, Norway relied upon the reservation.In consequence,the
the functionwhich the FrenchGovernmentwouldhave it Courthadbeforeit aprovisionwhich bothPartiestothe dis-
assume. pute regardedasconstitutinganexpressionoftheircommon
willrelatingtothe competenceof theCourt.TheCourt gave
TheCourtconsideredthesecond groundofthisObjection effectto thereservation asit stoodandas the Partiescog-
andnotedthat thejurisdictionoftheCourtin thepresentcase nisedit.
dependeduponthe Declarationsmadeby the]Parties oncon-
ditionof reciprocity;and thatsince two unilateral declara- jurisdictionto adjudicateuponthe disputewhichhad beent
tionswereinvolvedsuchjurisdictionwasconferreduponthe broughtbeforeit by the Applicationof the FrenchGovern-
inconfemng it. Consequently, thecommon willof thedePar- ment.
Summary of the Judgment of 6 July 1957