Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-xdx58 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-15T06:01:42.695Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interpretation of Decisions of International Tribunals

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Kazimiekz Grzybowski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The second sentence of Article 60 of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, reads: “ In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party.” The jurisdiction of the Court to construe its judgments is, therefore, obligatory. The Court shall give an interpretation of its judgment.whether the case decided was brought before it by unilateral application or special agreement.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 35 , Issue 3 , July 1941 , pp. 482 - 495
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1941

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This article was written before the outbreak of war in 1939.—Ed.

1 Publications of the Permanent Court of International Justice, Series A, No. 15, p. 22.

2 Ibid., No. 9, p. 32.

3 Ibid., Series B, No. 5, p. 27. See also Moore, , “The Organization of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” in 22 Colombia Law Review, June, 1922, p. 511 Google Scholar, and Politis, La Justice Internationale, pp. 19–20, 167, 193.

4 P.C.I.J., Series D, Addendum to No. 2, pp. 175–176.

5 P.C.I.J., Series D, Addendum to No. 2, p. 178.

6 I t should be noticed that the views of Judge Anzilotti were shared by Lord Finlay. (Ibid., p. 177.)

7 Novacovitch, Les Arbitrages Internationaux, pp. 34–88; see Pillet, Lea Conventions de la Haye, p. 13.

8 1 Dumont, Corps Universel Diplomatique, pp. 238–239; see Novacovitch, op. cit., p. 108.

9 Novacovitch, op. cit., p. 82; see Ralston, International Arbitrations from Athens to Locarno, p. 189.

10 1 Dumont, op. cit., p. 268.

11 Dumont, op. cit., Supplement, Vol. I, p. 231.

12 Ibid., pp. 234, 239.

13 Novacovitch, op. cit., pp. 18–19.

14 Funck-Brentano et Sorel, Précis de Droit des Gens, pp. 461–462.

15 Panama Riot Claims case, 2 Moore, International Arbitrations, p. 1408; see Ralston, Law and Procedure of International Tribunals, p. 48.

16 7 Moore, Digest of International Law, pp. 43–45.

17 2 Moore, International Arbitrations, p. 1274.

18 3 Ibid., p. 2189.

19 2 Ibid., p. 1357; see Stoycovitch, De l’autorité de la sentence arbitrate, p. 8.

20 Lapradelle-Politis, Recueil des Arbitrages internationaux, p. 530. See: 2 Hyde, International Law, p. 154; Fauchille, Traité de droit international public, T. I, Pt. III, p. 89; Salvioli in Académie de Droit International, Recueil des cours, Vol. XII, p. 48; Schätzel, Rechtskraft und Anf. von int. Ger., p. 56.

21 P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 8, p. 38.

22 Ibid., No. 11, p. 37.

23 Ibid., p. 31.

24 Ralston, International Tribunals, p. 43.

25 The element of the influence of the parties on the selection of the arbitrator is emphasized by Oppenheim and Huber, I Oppenheim, International Law, 4th ed., p. 24; Huber, “ Völkerrecht,” 2 Jahrbuch des Offentlichen Rechts (1908), p. 489; see Wehberg, Kommentar zu den Haager Abkommen, p. 47; Usteri, Das öffentlich-rechtliche Schiedsgerichibarkeit, p. 51; André, De l’arbitrage obligatoire, pp. 9,128–129; Merignhac, Traité theorique et pratique de l’arbitrage international, p. 3; Hughes, Pan American Peace Plans, p. 7; 2 De Louter, Droit International Positif, p. 142; Farag, L’Intervention devant C.P.J.I., p. 45; Potter, An Introduction to the Study of International Organizations, p. 159.

26 Letter from Prof. Lorimer, Feb. 10, 1874. Balch, International Court of Arbitration, p. 20. See Acremont, La Procedure dans les arbitrages internationaux, p. 36.

27 See Merignhac, op. cit., pp. 5, 156; Funck-Brentano et Sorel, op. cit., pp. 458–459.

28 Politis, op. cit, p. 208.

29 See Heffter, Le droit international de l’Europe, p. 67.

30 Darby, International Tribunals, 4th ed., p. 192.

31 Lindsey, The International Court, p. 67.

32 P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 8, p. 30.

33 Darby, op. cit., p. 439. See Revue de Droit International et de Législation Comparée, 1874, p. 421; Goldschmidt, “Projet de Règlement,” Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International, 1877, p. 126.

34 Heffter, op. cit., p. 211.

35 Arts. 15 and 37 of the Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

36 Hudson, , “The Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” in International Conciliation No. 214, Nov. 1925, p. 8 Google Scholar. See Helie, La notion des motives dans l’evolution de l’arbitrage international, pp. 17 and 125; Mixed Commission under Arts. VI and VII of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain, Nov. 19,1874, and opinion of Mr. Pinkney in the case of The Betsey, 3 Moore, International Arbitrations, pp. 2292, 2295, and 2296; Schätzel, op. cit., p. 128; Nippold, Die ForibUdung des Verfahrens in völkerrechtlichen Streitigkeiten, pp. 19–59.

37 The question of interpretation of the decisions of the tribunals of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was introduced by a motion of the Italian delegation. It reads as follows: “Any dispute arising between the parties as to the interpretation and execution of the arbitral award shall be submitted to the decision of the tribunal which pronounced it.” (Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, p. 872.) The motion was opposed by Sir Edward Fry (Great Britain). On the proposal of Mr. Lammasch the article was amended in order to meet objections of the British delegation, and it was provided that the jurisdiction to interpret exists in so far as the compromise does not exclude it. (Ibid.)

38 Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conference of 1907, p. 731.

39 See Huber, op. cit, p. 529.

40 Lammasoh, Die Rechtskraft Internaiionaler Schiedsspruche, p. 66.

41 See Darby, op. cit., Project of the Peace Conference held in Antwerp in 1894, Arts. 50–51, p. 465. Nyholm, “Rules adopted by the Alliance mondiale,” Le Tribunal Mondial, p. 471.

42 Deryng, Kompetencja Wyrokowania Staiego Trybunalu Spr. Miedz, p. 2.

43 See I Moore, International Adjudications, pp. xxxvii-xxxix; Pitman B. Potter, op. cit., pp. 363-364; W. C. Dennis, “Project No. 27, Pacific Settlement,” and No. 28, “Pan American Court of Justice,” of the American Institute of International Law, in this Journal, Vol. 21 (1927), pp. 134–144; Moharran, La C.P.J.I., p. 120.

44 Ralston, Law and Procedure, p. xxxvii, Foreword.

45 See I Francqueville, L’Œuvre de la Cour permanente de justice Internationale, p. 61.

46 P.C.I.J., Series B, No. 12, p. 29. See Brierly, Law of Nations, p. 144.

47 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 24, p. 33.

48 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13, p. 23.

49 Hammarskjöld, Le Règlement de la C.P.J.I. in Revue de Droit Int. et de Lég. Comp. (1922), 3° Série, Tome 3, p. 137.

50 P.C.I. J., Series A, No. 22, p. 13.

51 P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13, p. 16.

52 Ibid., No. 4, pp. 5–6.

53 The compulsory character of the Court’s jurisdiction with regard to the interpretation of its decisions, is generally recognized by the writers. The following list is not complete and serves merely as an illustration: Ehrlich, “l’Interpretation des Traités,” Académie de droit international, Recueil des cours, Vol. 24, p. 430; Magyary, Lajuridiction de la Cow permanente de justice irtternationale, p. 168; Bishop, International Arbitral Procedure, p. 122; Bustamante, La Cour permanente de justice Internationale, p. 237; Fauchille, op. cit., p. 657.