No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
1 For the Report on Renvoi this was the second postponement, since the Report was ready for discussion in 1957 at Amsterdam.
2 See 47 Aunuaire de 1'Institut de Droit International, Session d'Amsterdam 531 (I, 1957).
3 Ibid. 394-461, 479-484, 491-496 (II).
4 An English translation of the resolutions adopted at Neuchâtel appears in the Annex to this note.
5 See 53 A.J.I.L. 420 (1959), with comment by Martin Domke; and Allen Sultan “The United Nations Arbitration Convention and United States Policy,” ibid. 807-825.
6 See 47 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, Session d'Amsterdam 34-322 (I, 1957), for the Reports and comments.
Page no 135 note on * English translation by C. Wilfred Jenks.
1 See Hans Wehberg, Institut de Droit International: Tableau Général des Résolutions, 1873-1956, p. 145 (1957); 2 Annuaire (1878) 160. This 1877 Resolution read in part: ‘’ The Institut de Droit International urgently recommends the insertion in future international treaties of a compromissory clause stipulating recourse to arbitration in case of a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of these treaties.” (Translation.)
2 Tableau Général 145.
3 Ibid. 159. After stating that the creation of the new Permanent Court of International Justice responded to earlier voeux of the Institut and to universal aspirations, the Institut expresses the voeu: “ That States submit their disputes more and more frequently to the judgment of that high Court (juridiction) ; “That those States which have not signed the Protocol … [of Signature of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice] examine the possibility of accepting within the widest limits [dans la mesure la plus large] the compulsory jurisdiction of the new Court, it being understood that the parties would always remain free to refer their disputes by common agreement to the Permanent Court of Arbitration or to arbiters of their own choice.” (Translation.)
4 Ibid. 146.
5 Ibid. 273.
6 Ibid. 162.
7 Ibid. 4. This voeu, which has been widely quoted, provides: ‘’ The Institute of International Law expresses the hope that States which include in their declarations accepting the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice a reservation in respect of matters of domestic jurisdiction will leave it to the Court to decide in each particular case whether the reservation is applicable.” (Translation from 45 Annuaire 300 ( II , 1954.)
8 Ibid. 160. This resolution appears in French in 50 A.J.I.L. 645 (1956), and in English translation in 46 Annuaire de 1'Institut de Droit International, Session de Grenade 365 (1956). That translation reads, in part, as follows:
9 47 Annuaire de VInstitut de Droit International, Session d'Amsterdam 476, 488 (1957, II ) ; 52 A.J.I.L. 105 (1958).
10 English translation by Herbert W”. Briggs.
Page no 140 note on * English translation by Ben Atkinson Wortley
11 47 Annuaire 491 (1957, II ).
12 53 A.J.I.L. 420 (1959).