Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania - Public hearings of 27 June 1950

I.C.J. Comuiqu6 Nu. 50126
&off icial

Thefollowing informatioq fmm the Registry of the International
<.
Court of Justice has becn communicete tdo the press:

. ...
The Internationz Court of Justice this rnornang begm hearjngs at
the Psace Palace in Th3 Hague in the Second Phaae of the Advisory Case
.concerning certain proceduraq luestions relating to the Interpretation
of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and brnmia.

In opening the sitting the ~residen ,tM. Jules Basdevant, ref erred
to the Advisory Opinion delivered on March SOth,1950by whichthe
Caurt answered in the affirmative, the first two of four questions

referred to it for adviaoryopinionby the General Assemblyof the
United Nations under Besolution dated October 22nd, 1949, Ris request
consisted of four questions, the last trm beingput to the Courtonly
* under certain conditions,

The President further referred to the tact that the Secretary-
General had notified the Court ihat the Govemnts of Bulgaria, Kungary
md Romanla had not designated their representative o the Cornmissions
undsr the Peace Treaty within 30 days £rom the date when the Court
delivered the abovc Opinion, and that tbereforc, the conditions under
which the Court kas to exam.ne Questians III a'd IV were fulfilled.

Dr. Edvard Hambro, Registrar of the Court, read the text of
Questions IIJ anciIV.

The Prcsident continued by âtating that the nocessary notifications
. were sent to the'Stat-s concemcd andthat they had been informed of the
tUne lhits fixcd for the presentation of written and oral statements.
The Governent of the United States of America prssented a written
statemen tlthin the prescribed the-lhit and declared its intentio nf
. presenting an ara1 statement,designati tng Hon. Benjamin V. Cohen,
assisted .by Mr.,Leonard ,C. Meeker, of the office of the Legal Department,
Department of State, as its representativefs or thispurpose, The
United Kingdam Governent had refcrred to its written observations on the
question subrnittcd during the first phase of the case, and was now
represented before the Court by Er. G.G. Fitmurice, Second Legal
Adviserof the Foreign Office, who would present an oral statemcnt on
.. .
its behalf .

The Secretary-Generd of the ~nited'~atlon& As represented befare
the Court by Dr, Ivan Kerno, Assistant ~ecretary-~e~era n chadge of
the Lsgal Department; assisted by Mr. Hsuan Tsui Liu, Legd Çouneellor of
the hgal Departpent of the ~ecretariat of the United Nations.

' The fresident of the Courtcalled upon Dr. ~eio,

. Dr, Kcrno began by referring to the first phase of the present
case in which he had presented an oral stateneno tn bkhalf of the
Secretary-Creneral of the United Nations consisting mainly of an
abjective summary of the salieni POintsin the discussions which took
place in the General kssembly, He ddded c few remarks to his prevlous
statement on the discussions which tookplace in the ad hoc Political
Committee ad in the Plenary Meetings of the General kssembly. Dr. Kerno

continucd IlTheSecsetary-kncral is, of course, the head of one of the

principal principal organs of the United Nations. The United Nations is based

on certain fundamentd purposes and principles, fn all hia activity,
the Secretary-General must undoubtedly act in accordanc eith these '
purposesand principles. They are containcd In 'the preanble and the
first two Articles of the Charter.'!
\
me treaties of peace with Bulgzriat Hungary andJmania had given
Secretary-Gener aaspecial task and there wao no doubt, said
Dr, 'Kemo, that in respect of this special task the Secretary-GeneraL
, muid, in any event, be guided and insgircd by the same principles as those
which were at the basis of his general activities under the charter.
The Opinion oT the Courtin the second phase of this casa wuid obv5ousl.y
be of particular importance for the Secretary-General. Dr. Kerno rcpeated
that it was of the essence of the procedure ?der thePeace Treaties that
any action on the part of the Secretary-Genkksa HouLtibe free fromthe
slightest suspici~n of partialit yid eoncluded his statement by sayhg
that the Secretary-General would be able to defiriehis attitude algr
in the lightof the Opinion of the Court and with full howledge of the
views of the General Bnsembly.
e

Re President then cdled upon the Hon. Benjamin'V,Coher ne,prescnta-
tive.af the United States of herica to address the Court.

Zn his remarks, Mr.,Cohen statsd that itwas the view of the United
Statesthat the Peace Treaties falrl$md reasonabïy cond*Jrued, gave the
.Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Rornmia neither the legal right nor
the Xegal power to frustrate the operation of the mandatory provisions
for the settlement of disputeg,bry efusing to appintthair representatives
to the treatycormissions in accordance with the treaty obligation,

In respect of Question III, the trsa%conf erred upon the. Secretar -y
General the authority to appoint the thira member of a treatycodssion
when the parties were unable ta agree upon the selection of Lhs third
memberwithln one month. The language of the treaties &s clear and there
was no reasonin law or in cquity why the words of the treaties should
not be construcd to mean what they said. The IbJtsd States was of
opinion that a negative answer by the Court to Question III would be a m
serious blow to thql,progress of Uiternational lawin the field of
pacifie sektlement ,.of dispute s
. .
Relying, inter dia, upon citations from publicistson the general

principles of international law, d-~dthe jurisprudence of the International
Court of Justice, tho representative of the United States concluded
that an affirmative znsmr should also be given to Question IV,

Mr. ~itzrnaurice, represen tative of the Government of the United
Kingdom df Great-kit ain and Northern Ire1 and, began his statemen t

The Hague, June27th, l950.