Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
1NT"ElRpRETATIO OFNPEACETREATIESWITHBULGARIA , ,
HUNGARYANDROMANIA(FIRSTPHASE)
Advisory Opinionof30March 1950
ThequestionconcerningtheInterpretationofPeaceTreat- betweentheparties,thethirdmember ofthe 'FreatCommis-
ies withBulgaria,Hungary and Romaniahadbeenreferred sions, were notsubmitted tothe Court fbr an immediate
to theCourtforan advisoryopinionby the GeneralAssem- answer.TheCourtwouldhave toconsiderthem onlyif the
bly of the United Nations1:G.A.resolutionof 19 October, appointmentofnational membersto theColmmission hadnot
1949). beeneffectedwithinonemonthafterthedeliveryoftheopin-
By eleven votesto three the Court stated that disputes ion onQuestionsIand11.
existedwith thosecountriessubject to theprovisionsforthe
settlementof disputes containedin theTreatiesthemselves;
and thatthe Governments(sfthe threecountries wereobli-
gatedtocarryouttheprovisionsofthe Artic1.e~fthoseTreat-
ies whichrelateto thesettlementof disputes,includingthe
provisionsfortheappointmt:ntoftheirrepn:sentativestothe InitsOpiniontheCourt answeredQuestionsIand11.
TreatyCommissions. TheCourtfirstconsideredwhetherArticle2, paragraph7
oftheCharter,whichpreventstheUnited Nationsfrominter-
veningin matterswhichare essentiallywithin thedomestic
jurisdictionofaState,barreditfromdelivexing aOpinionin
the presentcase. Itnotedon the one hand thatthe General
Assenlblyjustifiedtheexaminationwhichit hadundertaken
The following are the circumstancesin whichthe Court byrelyinguponArticle 55oftheCharter,whichstatesthatthe
wasledtodeliver itsopinio:n: UnitedNationsshallpromoteuniversarlespectforandobserv-
In April, 1949 the questionof the obsei~anceof human anceofhumanrightsandonthe otherthatthe requestforan
rights in Bulgariaand Hungary havingbeemreferredto the Opinion didnotcall uponthe Court to dealwiththe alleged
GeneralAssembly,thelatteradoptedaresolutioninwhichit violationsoftheprovisionsoftheTreatiesconcerninghuman
expressedits deep concern at the graveaccusationsmade rights: theobjectof the Request isdirected solelyto obtain-
againstthe GovernmentsoffBulgariaand Hungaryin this ingcertainclarificatioofalegalnatureregardingtheappli-
connection, and drew thehr attention to theirobligations cabilityofthe procedureforthesettlementofdisputesaspro-
under the Peace Treatieswhich they had signed with the videdforintheTreaties.The interpretatioofthetermsofa
Allied and AssociatedPowers, including .theobligation to Treatyfor thispurpose could notbeconsideredasaquestion
co-operateinthe settlement'ofalltheseque:stions. essentiallywithinthe domesticjurisdictionof a State, it is a
0; 22ndOctober, 1949 !;beAssembly,confrontedbythe questionof internationallawwhich,by its verynature,lies
chargesmade in this conne:ctionby certainPowersagainst withinthecompetenceoftheCourt.
Bulgaria, Hungary and R.omania, which charges were TheCourtconsidered,ontheotherhand,whetherthe fact
rejectedby the latter, and iiotingthat the Governmentsof that Bulgaria,Hungary and Romaniahad expressedtheir
thesethreecountrieshadrefusedtodesignatetheirrepresen- oppositiontotheadvisory proceedings shoulndotdetermine
tativesto theTreatyCommissionsforthe settleiment f dis- it,bytheapplicationoftheprincipleshichgovernthefunc-
puteson the groundsthatttieywere notlegally obligated to tioningof a judicialorgan, to declineto give an answer.It
do so, anddeeply concerne:dwiththis situ.ation,decidedto pointedout that contentiousprocedureresultingin a judg-
referthefollowing question.totheInternationalCourtof Jus- ment, and advisory procedure weredifferent. It considered
ticeforanAdvisoryOpinion: that it hadthepowerto examine whether thecircumstances
I. Dothediplomaticexchangesbetween the threeStates of each case were of such a character asshould lead itto
andcertainAlliedand AsscxiatedPowers,disclosedisputes declineto answerthe Request. In the presentcase, which
subjectto the provisionsor the settlementof disputescon- wasclearly differentfromthe EasternCmlian case (1923)
tainedintheTreaties? theCourtheldthat it should notdeclinebecause therequest
wasm.adewitha viewtoenlighteningtheGeneral Assembly
Statesobligated tocarryou:ttheprovisionsofthe Articlesin on the!applicabilityof the procedurefor the settlementof
the PeaceTreatiesfor the settlementof di!rputes,including disputes,andthe Courtwas notasked to pronounceon the
theprovisionsfortheappoilr~tmen otftheirxepresentativto merits of these disputes. The Courtgave an affirmative
theCommissions? answerto QuestionI, pointingouton the onehandthatdis-
putes existed because certain chargeshad been brought
111. Intheeventof anaffirmativereply I:questionI1and against certainStates, whichthe latter rejected,andon the
ifwithinthirtydays fromttredatewhentheCourt delivered otherhandthatthesedisputesweresubjectto the provisions
its opinion the designation has not bee.n made, is the oftheArticlesfor the settlemetfdisputescontainedinthe
Secretary-Generalof the United Nations authorised to Peace'haties.
appointthe thirdMembero!ftheCommissicms? TakingupQuestion11,theCourt determined itsmeaning
IV. In theeventof an a~ffirmativreeply to Question111, andpointedout thatitreferredsolelyto theobligationupon
woulda Commissionsocornposedbe competentto makea Bulgaria,HungaryandRomaniato carryouttheArticlesof
definitiveandbindingdecisioninsettlementofadispute? thePeace 'Ikeatiesconcerningthe settlementof disputes,
However, Questions I11andIV whichrefer toa clausein includingthe obligationto appointtheir representativesto
the PeaceTreaties underwtiichtheSecretary-Generalofthe theTn.atyCommissions. The Courftoundthatallthe condi-
United Nations is chargedlto appoint, failingagreement tions requiredforthe commencemeno t fthe stageof theset-tlementofdisputesbythe Commissions,hadbeenfulfilled. natonestotheTreatieshavingbeenduly notified. The textf
Consequently,it gaveanaffirmative answetoQuestion 11. theconclusionsoftheOpinionwas cabledtothosesignatory
* Stateswhich were nortepresented at theHearing.
* * appended toit his individualopinion. JudgesWiniarski,
ZoricicandKrylov, consideringthatthe Court should have
The Opinionof the Court was deliveredin public, the declinedto giveanOpinion,appendedto theOpinionstate-
Secretary-Generalof theUnitedNationsand theStatessig- mentsoftheirdissentingopinion.
Summary of the Advisory Opinion of 30 March 1950