Statement of the Government of the United States of America on the Preliminary question of Jurisdiction raised by the Government of Italy

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

AFFAIRE DE L'OR MONÉTAIRE
PRIS A ROME EN 1943

(ITALIc. FRANCE, ROYAUME-UDE GRANDE-
- BRETAGNE ETD'IRLANDEDU NORD
ETETATS-UNISD'AMERIQUE)

INTERNATIONCOURTOF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORALARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE OF THE MONETARY GOLD
REMOVED FROM ROME IN 1943

(ITALUvFRANCE,UNITED KINGDOMOF GREAT
BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND
AND UNITED STATES OFAMERICA)Tous droits réservés par la

Cour internat iorialede Justice
Al1 rights reserved by the

International Coiirt of Juçticc AFFAIRE DE L'OR MONETAIRE

PRIS A ROME EN 1943

(ITALTECFRANCE, ROI'AUME-UNI DE GRANDE-BRETAGNE
ET D'IRLANDE DU NORD ETÉTATS-UNISB'AMERIQUE)

CASE OF THE MONETARY G0LD

REMOVED FROM ROME IN 1943
(ITALYv.FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN

AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND UNITED STA'IES
OF AMKRICA) COUR INTERNATIOYALE 1 ;JUSTICE

MÉMOIRES, PLAIDOIRIES E DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DE L'OR M

PRIS A ROME E
(ITALIE c. FRANCE, ROT

ET ÉT,4TS-UNIS D'AM
AREETDU15 JUI1954(QUESTTO INTERNATIONAL COURT OF .JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE OF THE MONETARY GOLD

REMOVED FROM ROME IN 1943
(ITALY v FRANCE, UNITED KINGDOM
AND UNITED STASES OF AMERICA)

JUDG3IENOFJUNE~jth,Igj(IJRELI~IINQUESTIO~) PRINTED IN THE NANDS

1STATES OF AMEKlCAON THE PRELIMINAKY QUESTION
OF JURISDICTION RAISED BY THE GOVERNMENT
OF ITALY 1

The preseiit case concerns certain daims to gold whiçh issubject
to distribiition iinder the Paris Agreement on Reparatioi-i fronî
Gerr-~~any,on the Establishment of an Inter-Allied Reparatiorz
Ageilcy ancl on the Restitution of Rlonetary Gold. The Agreement
came into force on January 24, r946. Part III of the Agreement
provided for the pooling of "monetary gold foiind in Germany
by the Allied Forces"; this goldwas to be distributed "as restitution
arnong the cour~tries participating in the pool in proportion to
thcir respective lasses of gold through lootirlg or by wrongful
removal to GerrnanyH. The Government: of Francc, the United
Kingdom, and the United States-as occupying Powers iil Ger-
rnsny-were tu take appropriatc steps to carry out. the agrced
restitution,Lipon receipt fro~nthe participating countries of proof
corzcerning gold losses.
In 1943 Germany removed £rom Rome ficluantity of rnonetary
gold çonstituting the gold reserve which had backed the note

issue of the National Bank of Alhania. Eighty-eight and one-haif
percent of the stock of the National Bank of Albailiawas owned
by the Government of Italy.
France, the United Kingdom and the pited States estahlished
a Tripartite Commission for the Restitution of Tl'lonetaryGold on
September 27, 1946. This Commission was set up for the discharge
of the three countries' resyorzsibilities under Part III the Paris
Agreement. The decisionç of the Comtl+risçionwere required to be
iinanimous.
France, the United ILingdom, the United States, aiicl Albania
were al1 parties to the Paris Agreement of January 24, 1946. On
Decernber 16, 1947, the Governments of France, the United
Kingdom, the United States, and Italy, conçluded a protocol,
pursuant to Part Ill 13 of the Paris hgscemelat, by ~vhich Italy
was to participate in the restitution of gold frorn the 13001.
The Tripartite Gold Commission conducted proccedings relative
to the gçild removed frrrmRome by Germany. On Novemheï 17,
1950, the Commission decided to refer the clairnç concernirig thiç
gold to the Governmeiltç of France, the United Kingdom and the
United States. These three Governments agreed on April zg, 1951,
to rcfer to an arbitrator desigaated by the President of the lnter-
national Court of Justicethe questions whether "(i) Albania haç
I STnTEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT 87

established that 2,338.7563 kilograms of rnonetary gold, whiçh
were looted hy Germany from Rome ii-i 1943 ,elonged to Albania,
or (ii)Italy has established that 2,338,7565kilograins of rnonetary
gold, whidi -Fverelootcd hy Gerniany frcirn Rome in 1943, belonged
to Italy, or (iii) neitherAlbania aor ltaly has established ~hat

2,338.7365 kilogramç of rnonetary gold, tvhich rvere looted by
Germany from Rome in 1943, belonged to eithcr of them". Both
ltaljr and Albania were entitled to present their respective cases
to the arbitrator. An arbitrator was designated inaccordance with
the agreement, and his Opinion \vas given oi-i Febriiary 20, .9j3.
The arkitrator coiicluded that the gold belonged to Albania ~vlthin
the rncailing of Part III of the Paris Agreement.
The Govcrnments of France, thc United Kingdom and the
United States issued a çtstement to accompany the Agreement

of Apsil 25, rgjr. Ti-iat statement read, in part, as follorvs :
"'l'he three Governments havc agreed that, if the opiriion of'tlie
arbitratoris that Albailia has establlshed a daim under Fdrt III
of the Paris Act to 2,335.75Sjkilograms of monetarÿ gold looted
by Germany, thcy will deliver the goldto the Unitcd Kingdom iiz
partial satisfactionof the judgrnent in tfie Corfu Cl~annel casc
unless within go daÿs from thc date ofthe comrnunicrztion of tlie
asbitrator's opinionto Italy and Albania either (a) Albania nakes
a11application to tfieInternatiotîal Court of Justice for the deter-
mination of the cluestivn wlietlïer it is proper that the gold, to
which Albania has establiçhed a claim under Part III, should be
delivered to the United Kingdom in partial satisfaction of the
Corfii Channel judgment ; or (b) Jtaly nzakes an application to the
Interiiational CourtofJustice for the determinationof the question,
whether by reason of any right which she daims to yosscss as a
rcsult of the Albanian law of January 13,194j, or undcs tlie
provisions of the ItaliaYeace l'reaty, the gold should be delivcred
to Ttaly rather than to Albnnia and agreeç to accept the jurisdiction
of the Court to determine the question rvhether tIie daim af the
United Tcingdomor of Italy to rcceive the goId should hnvc priority,
il thiç issuc should ariçe.
The Governmeilts of tlie Frcncli Rcpublic, the United Kirlgdotn
and the United States declare that they zvill accept as de[cr-idants
the jurisdictionof the Court for the purpuse or the deterniiriation
of suctapplications by Italy or by Albanin. orby both.
The threc Governments agree to conform in the matter ol the
dclivery of gold witliany decisions of the International Court of
Justice given as the result of such applications by Italy or by
Albania."

Albania had nqt appeared in the proceedings befose the arbi-
trator, and made no application to the International Court of
Justice within ninety days from February 20, 1953 1.taly, however,
which had appeared in the proceedings before the arbitrstor, filed
an Application with the Court on May 19,1953 Ialy accornpanied
tkiisApplication with the deposit ofa declaratioii tl-iat the Govern-
ment of ltaly accepted the jurisclictionof the Court, in accordance I
88 STATERIENT 01; TITEUNITEW STATlS GOVEHKRIEN?
\vit11the United Nations Security Council resolution of October 15,

1946, for the purposes of part (b) in t1;e fifth yaragraph of the
tripartite statement accompanying the aqeement of ApriE 25, 1951.
Subsequent to thc hling of the Itali~n Application with tlie
Court, timc-Iimits were fixed for the deposit of a Meinorial and
Counter-Mernorial in the case. Novernber r, 1953, jvas the date
fixed for the dep-it of the Mernorial. On Octoher 30, 1953, the
Agent of thc Government of Italy f12eqin thc Registrjr of the
Interr~atior~al Courtof justice a documtjnt cntitled "Case of the
Monetary Gold rernoved from Rom? in 1943-Preliminary
Question". Ili thisdocument Italy requc t d the Court to adju-
dicate on the preliminary question of its juriçdictioil. On Novem-
ber 3, 19 j3, the Court suspended the proceedingç on the meritç,
and fixed Decernher Ij, 1953, as the tirne-iimit within which
thc Gavert-iment of Italÿ might present a written statemcnt
defining its position, togcthcr with sdyporting documents. A
çtatement and annexed documents were subimitted to the Court
hy LtaIy bcfore the expiration of that tirne-limit. A date was
also set by tlie Cotirtfor the Eiling of w~itten statementç by the

other Governinents coiicerned in the case. This timc-limit was
extended, 011the rcquest of the United ICingdom, until Marçh 31,
1954.
II. Inlerest anci attitudof titc Uded ~tbies inthe preseat case

Tlie Governmei~t of the United States las no claiilliswith rcspect
to any olthe gold invalved il1the prcscn; yroceedirig. The United
States is a party in the present case bcfory this Court orily because
it isone of the three couritries tvhich, uncler the Paris Agreement,
were tu distributc monctary gold found in Gerrnany hy the Allied
Forces. The gold iiivoived here has not $et been distrihuted.
Sinçe the United States stands in the yosition of a stalrcholder,
coricerned only to give effect tothe cngagernents iîlade in relevalit
internaticinal agreements and tci discharge any other obligations
it rnay have in the matter, the Govcrnmbnt of the Uilitcd States
docs not submit the present written stat~ment to urge the Court
to make any particular disposition of Ihe question now before
it. Irrstead, the Government of the United States wishes to take
this opport unit? to suggest çome co~iderations which scem
relevant trithe qucstion of the Court's jurisdiction .
I
111. Actior~ by the Applicant z.i~ thiscasé to cizlrlle~sthe Court's
jznisdictio?~

Italy made Application to the lntcrnltional Cuuit of Justice,
in accordüncc with a joint çtatement issued by thc Goverrirnerrts
of France, the United Kingdom and the United States, in order
to assert that the gold involved here should be dclivercd to Italy.
In the ltnIian Application, the contentilons of Italy were based
upon (1) the Italian Gaverizment's ozeinkrshifiof 88.5% of the STATEhIENT OF THE UfilTED STATES GOI'ERNIMEKT 89
stock of tlze Bank of Albania (whose gdd reserve had beeii removcd
to Gerrnany from Rome iil 19413) a~d (2) an Albanian law of
January 13, 1945, which purportecl to abrogate a Ranking Con-
vcntion concludccl by Alhania in 1925 with a Company wholly

owned by the 1talian Governmerlt and to natiorialize, witliout
compensation, the asscts of the National Bank of Albania. In
the Application Italy further reserved the right to assert a claim
to the monetary gold in question by virtue of thc Sreaty of Peace
with Italy. III the writteri statement of Italy coriceraiilg the
preliminary question of juriscliction, it is said that Etaly's claim,
based upon the Albanian law of January 13, Igqj, would require
a determination of Albania's international responsibility with
rcspect to that law and its consequences. According to thc Italiail
statemcnt, çuch a determination could only be made by the
Court if Albania had consentcd to the Coiirt's j~zrisdiction. Italjr
maintains that Albania has not given its consent, and that,
therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to pass upon the Italian
claim.
As the Italian Govcrnrnent itself recog~zizes,a somewhat ano-

rnalous situation is created when ail applicant iri a case before
the Coilrt proceeds to assert that the Court does not h%ve juris-
diction over tlze claim suhmitted to the Court by the apylicant.
The Statute and Ruleç of the Court do not appear to have
envisaged such a situation.
Article 36 of the Statute states that "The jurisdiction of the
Court comprises al1 cases which thc parties refet to it and al1
matters specially provided for iii the Charter of the United Nations
or in treaties alrd conventions iri force". In the present case the
three respondents, Erance, the United Kingdom, and the Uriiterl.
States, consentcd irt advance, by tlie tripartite sta temen t accom-
panying the rgjI Arbitration Agreement, to accept the jilrisdictioii
of the International Court of Ji~çtice in thc suit thich Italy has
brought. Itdy irlvoked the jurisdictirin01 the Court il1 filingits
Application. Contemporaneously Italy filed a declaration accepting
the Court's jurisdiction in satisfactioii of the rcquirement in thc

tripartite statemenc that Italy agree "to accept the jurisdiction
of thc Court tcidetermiiic the question whctlier the daim of the
United Kingduin or of Italy to receive tlzcgold should have priority,
if this issue shciuld arisc".
By tlic tripartite statcmcnt accoinpanyirzg the Agreement of
April 25, ~951, the Goveriiments of Francc, the United Kingdom
and the +United States madc two offers of a contractual nature.
Onc offer was madc to Albania ; thc other to 1taly. The latter was
an offcr by the three Goveriiments to submit to the jurisdiction
ofthe Court for the adjudication of certain specified issues upon the
Application of Italy.By the act of filingits Alîplication, accornpanied
by the Italian declaration accepting the Court's jurisdiction, the
Italiaii Gcivernrnent accepteci the offer of the three Govcrnrnents.

7go STATEllENT OF THE UNITED STAT~S COVERKaTEWT
Article 32, paragraph z, of the Rules provides, in part:

"When s case iç brtiughtbeforethe ~$urt by means ofan aypli-
cation, theapplicationmust, aslaid dowq inArticle40, paragraplzI,
of the.Statute, indicate the party rnaFing it, the party against
walso,sofardas possible,speciftheeprovision ontwliiehtheapplicant
founds tlijurisdiction ofthe Court....O

In its Application to the Court [see page xzof this volume] the
ltalian Goveniment has relied on the tripartite statement as the
basis ofthe Court's jurisdiction.If Italy hab considered that Albania
was a necessary party in the case, the normal course would have
Geen for Italy to narne Albania as one of the respondents. If Ttal y
hacl doubted that Albania' would be subj'ectto the Court's juris-
diction, it would have made its app1ica(ion on the principle of
forrdm firorogatwn. Cf. The Corfu Channel Case, [1948] I.C.J. Ij ;
Mino~ity SchoolsZn U$$er SZlesia,[1928]lj'.Ç.I.J.,Series A, No. 15, I
4 ; see Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. Case, [~gjz] I.C.J. 93, 133-14. This
would have been done in the hope that Albania would corne before
the Court and in fact accept the ~ourt's! jurisdiction. In such a

case, the Court itself must uitirnately decide whether it haçjuris-
diction. Article 53 (2) of the Statute of the International Court
of Justice. If the Court decides that it(as not, the case willbe
dismissed. A?&-Trahian Oil Co. Case, sa+&.
Itis evident from the history of Article 132of the Rules oi Court
that the inclusion of the phrase "so far as possible" in that Article
was designcd to allow for invocation of the principle of /orw
#rorogat.ctnz.See [1g36j P.C.I.:J.,Series 9, Third Addendum to
No. z,54-yjJ 64-72,104, r53-60, 573-75,725 ;id., Fourth Addendum
to No. 2, 87-103, lt dnes not appear that The ArticEc was designed
to enable an ayplicant to institute yroceedings against respondents
accepting the Court's jurisdiction and the4 to object to the Court's
juriçdiction in the case because a State no$ named as a party waç
not believed to have acceptcd the Court's jurisdiction.
Article 62 of the Rules of Court provides forthe filingof prelimi-
nary objections in a contentious case. The Itallan Goverliment
ssserts, in its staternent on the preliminaryl cluestion oi jurisdiction.

that this Article does not "prevent the party which instituted the
procoedings frarn being the party filing tl objection". While the
Article does not expressly prevent, there il a question whether the
Article, read as a whole and in thc light of its history, should be
held to cover a preliminary objection jâised by an applicant.
against the Court" jurisdiction to consider the case which the
applicant has submitted.
Paragraph x of Article 62 of the Rulei of Court derives from
paragraph r of Article 38 of the 1931Rules of the Permanent
Court of International Justice, which read as follows :
"When proceedings are bepn by means of an application, any
prclirninary objection shall befiledaftertlie filing of the Case by STATEY EXT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNnEENT 91
the applicant and within trie timefixedfor the filing of the Couilter-
Case."

This language strongly implies that only a party againçt whorn a
case was filed could rnake a preliminary ohjectioil trithe jurisdiction
of the Court.
In the 1936 Revisior-iof the Rules, this provision was changcd
to read as it now appears in the present Article 62 :
"A preliminary objection must be filedby a party at the*latest
before the expirÿ of the time-limit fixed for the dclivery of its
firspleading."

The history of this revisiori indirates that its purpose iras to
expai-id the Article to cover cases brought pursrlant to a special
agreerncilt as well as tl~ose brought by means of an application.
[1936] P.C.1.3 ., Series D, Third Addendum to No. z, 84-97, 148-
jû, 644-46, 705-08, 733& 767-68, 819, 903. There is no intimation
anywhere that the jiidges envisaged that vnder the revised
rule a moving party would he able tu object to the Court's juris-
diction in a case which it brought to the Court, regardless of
whether the case was brought hy an applicatioi-i or pursuant to a
special agreement.
Çeveral of the judges opposed extension of the rule tu cover cases
othcr than thoçe brought by application. Judge ?lilzilotti said that
"it appeared to him inconceivable that a Çtate that had signed

a special agreement could corne and inform the Court that it had
no jurisdiction". id. at 85. Other judges felt that the respondent
in a case hrought pursuant to a special agreement inight havc
groiinds for a preliminary objection baçed on jurisdiction or other
reasoiis. None ofthe judges expreçsed any thought that under the
revised rulc a rnoving party would be able to object to the Court's
inrisdiction over the case brought hy it.
If the applicant State were succesçful in itç challenge to the
jurisdiction ithad invokcd, and the case w-ere dismissed for warzt
of jurisdiction, the applicant should not be able to derive legal
advalitage frorn the inconsistent course of action it had followed.
In the present case the applicant Çtate should not be able Zater to
assert, for itsowrz purposes, that the situation then differed frorn
what it would bc if the applicant had withdrawn ifs application
or had never filed any application within the time permitted by
the 1951 tripartite staternent. To hold othem~ise ~vould permit
the applicant Statc to improve its own position, at the expense
of cithers, by first invoking a tribunal's jurisdiction and theil
dcnying it.
In municipal law, the doctrine of estoppel is applied in msny
fields. A party which has made an assertion necessary to its case
is not permitted, subseyuently in a la~rrsuit,to deny that assertion

to the detriment of another party. This doctrine of estoppel exists
also in international law. The Permanent Court of International I
92 STATEaIENT OF TT.IEUXITEU STATEI GOVERKRIEKT
Justice and the International Court of ~bstice have applied tIic
doctrine in sevcral important cases brriiight bcfore thcm. Lepl
Stahs of Eastertz G~ee?~la.iz(1533 ).C.I)J., Serieç A/B, No. j3,
73 ;see InlernaliorznlStattrsoSouth-West Afizca, (1950 ).C.J.128,
135-36. International arbitral tribunais lpply thc doctrine as a
matter of course. For exainple, thc Gcrrnano-Poliçk Ifixecl Arbitral
1925, held that Poland
Tribunal, in its deciçion of Deçernber 2, nationality of petsciils
xi~rroube estopped to deny the German
~vhoseestates had been liquidsted un the ground that thcy wcre
Germans. (1925-26) An~izral Digest 01 Pf~blic I~.pkter~zabiona!ze~
Cases, 419.
By the Washington Agreement of rgjrtle three Powers declarecl
their intention to make a distribution of the gold in question,
takiizglinto account the claims of iritcreçted governnients and
allowing for an adjudicatioii on tlie merlits of these clairns.No
government may be perrnitted to frustrate the carryirlg out of
this intention by first invoking the jurisdkction of the Coiirt and
then çecuring a disnîissal of the procedditigç on juriçdictional
grounds.

IV. Qz~eslio~whether Albanici. is njz inkisfielisablePnrly in the
p~esentcase

A. Issues before the Court
In its "Staternenton the Prelirninary ofJurisdiction"
thc Italiari Governnient cited thiç
April II,1949, and of iîlarch 30,
the Court cannot hüve
the consent of the parties.[~p+g] I.C.J.1~ 178,;[1950I] .C.J. 6j,
71. This would seem to he axiomatic, but thc Italian conteriticin
appearrs to beg the questioii of wha are indislxnsable parlier; tu
this yarticular case.
Article36 of the Statuto providei thri thc Couri sliall have
jurisdirtionorcer "al1 cascç which the parties refer to i...."The
present case was referred by Italy and the three resporident
countrieç by the steps outlined earlier in1thc present staterncrit.
Under Article 62, and perhsps alsci Article 63, of the Çciurt's
Statute, Albania Gan ask to "intervenc if1it feelç that it lias a
legal ii-itcrcst il1 the present case. The iricluofothcse Articles,
taken in conjunction ~vitli Article 36, shows that the Statutc
ailows two or morc States to have their cllirns adjudicated dcspite
possible legal interests of third States. The real cluestiori is whether,
despite. alof this, thcre is aiiy valiclity to Italy's conrentioi~ that
Albania is an ir-idisperzsableparty to the case between Italy on
the one hand and Fraiice, the Uriited T<ii~gdo~ia znd the United
States on the other.
'Thc present case is rnaterially difiererz! frorn a suit in which
Italy inight file with the Court an application directeto Albania, STATEBlENT OIT THE UNITED STII'TESG0T;EHNRIENT 93
clainzing compensatioii on accouizt of dainage inflicted on Italy
hy the Albaniaii la151 of January 13,1945, and in tvl~ichAlbania
had not conscnted to thc jurisdictioi~ of the Court. Here Italy
is suiiig threc Foyers to cstablish that her claini to gold held by
thcm is supcrior ta tlic claiin of the United Kingdom to that

gold. There is a res,and it is under the control of the three
respondciits izamed by Italy.
In the yrcsent instance the Govcnlments of France, the Unitcd *
Kirigdonî and the United States havc ü resporisibility under the
Paris Agreement to dispose of certain gold fourid by the Allied
Forces in Germany and now iinder the control of the three Powers.
Wrhen the tl-iree Goverriments agrecd to submit certain questions
to an arbittator for üdvice, they agreed at the sarile time on the
steps they ~vouldtake to dispose of the gold either in the evei-it
that Italy established a daim under. Part III of the Paris
*4geernent or that Albania established a claim urider the same
provisions. If Italy's claim were established, the threc Govern-
ments ~vuuld acccpt that determination as decisive under the
Paris Agreement. If, on the othcr hand, the arbitrator sl-ioulcl
decide that Albailia had cstablished its claim, the three Goverri-
mcilts would deliver the gold in question to the United Kingdom
in yartial satisfactioi-cifthe unpaid judgment given hy the Inter-
national Court of Justice in the Corfu Chanlie1 case, "uilless
mithin go days from the date of the communicatioli of tlie arbi-

trator's opinion to Italy and Albarlia either (a) Albailis makes
an application to thc international Court of Justice for the deter-
mination of the question whether it is proper that the gold, tc,
~vhicli Albania has established a clairn .under Part 111, shouId
be delivered to the Uniteci ICingdoin in partial satisfaction oftlie
Corfil Channcl judgment ; or (bJ Itüly makes an applicatiori to
the Inter:rnatiorial Court of Justice for the deterrninatioil of the
cluestiori, whether by reasorl of any right whicli she clairns to
yossess as a rcsult of tlie Alhaniail law of J anuary 13, 1945,
or ui-ider thc provisio~is of the ltalian Peace Treaty, the gold
should be delivered to Italy rather thari to Albania and agrees
to accept the jurisdictioiî (if the Court to determine the qucstion
ivhether thc daim of the United Kingdom or of Italy to receive
the gold should have priority, if thiç issue should arise".
.4llsania haç made no application to thc Court. The stateinent
of the three Powers made it clcar that in this event thev would
not delitverthc gold in question to Alhania. Thus, Albünia's failure
to rcccive the gold involoed ~ould not stem from any judgment
oÉ the International Court of Justice, but insteacl from the decision
of the three Powers. For the same reason, Albania's failurc to
appear as a pürty in the prcsent case could not affect the possi-
bility of Albaniü's receiving the guld. Under the circumçtances

it is difficult to sec tllat Albania is aiiindispensable party. 1

94 STATEBIENT OF THE UNITED STATES GOVEHfr hlEST
The case now before the Court c~ncerr! rights, as between the
United Kingdom and Italy, with respectl to a quaritity of gold
held by the Governments of France, the United Kingdorn airdthe
United States for distribution. The three) Governments are in a
position to dispose of the gold without Afbania's agreement, and
have declared their intention to do soin the absence of an Albanian
application to this Court. A judgrneilt of t!heCourt settling rights
'betweui Itdy and the United Kingdorn in1the present case would
ilot bind Alhania if the latter had not accepted the Court's juris-
diction and were not a psrty. Article 59 o1f the Statutc of the

Coud states that
"Tl~edecision ofthe Court has II;binling force exccpt bet~vecn
the partiesand in respect of tliat particular case."
I
Mile it istrue that certain çontentio~is rpade by Italy relate to
international obligations of Albania, an y decision on ttiese conteil-
tionç, for the purpose of settling rightç YS between the United
Kingdorn and Italy, would not bind Albania.
In view of the above, it seerns doubtf~illwhether Albania must
have accepted the: jurisdiction of the Court and have beconle
a party in the present case before the Court cal1properly adjtiéicate
on the clairns of Italy uis-d-vis the Unitad Kingdom concerniiig
the gold herc in question.

B. The Statute's provisions on intervention
Not inhequently, a suit hy one State, against another may
involve, directly or indirectly, the rightç or interests of tkird
States. The existence of such a situation does not preclude the
original parties to the suit from securing )n adjudication by the
Court of their rightç as betweei~ themselvl. Rather than bar tlze
Court from giving judgments in such c?ses and frustrate the
desire of the .original parties foan adjudication of issues directly
concerning thern, the Statute af the lnternationai Court of Justice
includes a provision authorizing the intervpntion of a third State
if 'Yt has an interest of a legal nature. wlîich may be affected b5~
the decision in the case'" Article 62 provides that siich a third
State "may subrnit a request to the Court be permitted to inter-
verle....It shall be for the Court to deci* upon this request."
Thus, any State ivhich considers that pending litigation before
the International Court of Justice affects it' own legal interests
may protect those interests by coming intq Court. Albania is free
to do so now in the present suit, even thqugh Albania chose not
to make an application as envisaged in the tripartite statement
accornpanying the Tg51 Agreement to submit certain issues to
arbitration. Such intervention by a third State is a recognized
procedure, and was resorted to iri litigatioy before the Permanent
Court of International Justice. The Winzbledo?~, [19z:j]P.C.1.J., STATEhIENT OP THE UXITED STATES GOVEHNBIENT 95
Series A, No.x,XI. The fact that a thirState,inthis case Albania,

may not choose tointeroene, for reaçons considered çufficient by
the third State, should not be held to make it impossible for the
Court to give judgment on rights as between the original Parties
in the suit.

The Agent of the Governmeilt of the
United States of Arnerica,
(Signed) Hermaiz PNLEGER.