Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:31:04.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unwarranted Extension of Connally-Amendment Thinking

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Wm. W. Bishop Jr.  and
Denys P. Myers
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 55 , Issue 1 , January 1961 , pp. 135 - 145
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1961

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

1 2 Malloy’s Treaties 2369, 2378.

2 See M. O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice, 1920-1942, p. 445 (1943); Shabtai Rosenne, The International Court of Justice 278 (1957). Rosenne comments : “Such a provision is now almost a clause de style in multilateral conventions drawn up under the auspices of the United Nations.”

The Institut de Droit International has prepared a model compromissary clause for inclusion in bilateral and multilateral treaties, which would confer jurisdiction on the International Court of Justice in all disputes relating to the interpretation or application of the treaty in question. See 44 Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International 458-468 (I, 1952); 45 ibid. 310-406 (I, 1954); 46 ibid. 178-264 (I, 1956). The final draft is reprinted in 50 A.J.I.L. 645 (1956).

3 Resolution 171 (III), U.N. General Assembly, 3rd Sess., Official Records.

4 Statute of International Court of Justice, Article 36, par. 2.

5 See Hearings before the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., Jan. 27 and Feb. 17, 1960, on S. Res. 94, Compulsory Jurisdiction, International Court of Justice.

6 The conventions and optional protocol are reprinted in 52 A.J.I.L. 834-864, (1958).

7 Sen. Execs. J to N, inclusive, 86th Cong., 1st Sess.

8 Hearings before Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jan. 20, 1960, on Executives J to N, inclusive, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 76.

9 Ibid. 82 at 88-89; see also 54 A.J.I.L. 942 (1960).

10 Exec. Rep. 5, reprinted in 106 Cong. Rec. 10381 (May 26, 1960, daily ed.).

11 Ibid. 10384.

12 ibid. 10385.

13 Ibid. 10385, 10387-10388.

14 Ibid. 10385-10386.

15 Ibid. 10522 (May 27, 1960, daily ed.).

16 Sen. Exec. C, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.

17 Ibid. 7, 13-14.

18 Hearings, May 17, 1960, before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., on Exec. C, Oil Pollution Convention, pp. 7-8, 12, 13-15.

19 Ibid. 13.

20 Ibid. 14.

21 Ibid. 7, 13-14.

22 Ibid. 14-15; reprinted in 54 A.J.I.L. 941 (1960).

23 Sen. Exec. Rep. 6, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 8.

24 See note 13 above.

25 Senator Mansfield listed, note 14 above, the following agreements for economic co-operation and aid, as including clauses for reference of disputes to the International Court, but subject to the limitations of the general United States acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction: Austria, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2137, T.I.A.S., No. 1780; Belgium, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2173, T.I.A.S., No. 1781; China, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2945, T.I.A.S., No. 1837; Denmark, June 29, 1948, 62 Stat. 2199, T.I.A.S., No. 1782; France, June 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2223, T.I.A.S., No. 1783; Greece, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2293, T.I.A.S., No. 1786; Iceland, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2363; Ireland, June 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2407, T.I.A.S., No. 1788; Israel, May 9, 1952, 3 U.S. Treaties 4171, T.I.A.S., No. 2561; Italy, June 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2421, T.I.A.S., No. 1789; Luxembourg, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2451, T.I.A.S., No. 1790; Netherlands, July 2, 1948, 62 Stat. 2477, T.I.A.S., No. 1791 (obligations also assumed by Indonesia) ; Norway, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2514, T.I.A.S., No. 1792; Portugal, Sept. 28, 1948, 62 Stat. 2856, T.I.A.S., No. 1819; Spain, Sept. 26, 1953, 4 U. S. Treaties 1903, T.I.A.S., No. 2851; Sweden, July 3, 1948, 62 Stat. 2541, T.I.A.S., No. 1793; Turkey, July 4, 1948, 62 Stat. 2566, T.I.A.S., No. 1794; and United Kingdom, July 6, 1948, 62 Stat. 2596, T.I.A.S., No. 1795 (also applicable to Ghana and to Federation of Malaya).

26 These treaties may be found as follows: China, 1946, 62 Stat. 2945, T.I.A.S., No. 1871; Italy, 1948, 63 Stat. 2258, T.I.A.S., No. 1965; Ireland, 1950, 1 U. S. Treaties 785, T.I.A.S., No. 2155; Ethiopia, 1951, 4 U.S. Treaties 2134, T.I.A.S., No. 2864; Israel, 1951, 5 U.S. Treaties 550, T.I.A.S., No. 2948; Greece, 1951, 5 U.S. Treaties 1829, T.I.A.S., No. 3057; Japan, 1953, 4 U.S. Treaties 2063, T.I.A.S., No. 2863; German Federal Republic, 1954, 7 U.S. Treaties 1389, T.I.A.S., No. 3593; Iran, 1955, 8 U.S. Treaties 899, T.I.A.S., No. 3853; Nicaragua, 1956, 9 U.S. Treaties 499, T.I.A.S., No. 4024; Netherlands, 1956, 8 U.S. Treaties 2043, T.I.A.S., No. 3942; Korea, 1956, 8 U.S. Treaties 2217, T.I.A.S., No. 3947.

27 These treaties may be found as follows: Uruguay, 1949, Sen. Exec. D, 81st Cong., 2d Sess.; Colombia, 1951, Sen. Exec. M, 82nd Cong., 1st Sess.; Denmark, 1951, Sen. Exec. I, 82nd Cong., 2d Sess.; Haiti, 1955, Sen. Exec. H, 84th Cong., 1st Sess.; Pakistan, 1959, Sen. Exec. F, 86th Cong., 2d Sess.; and France, 1959, 41 Dept. of State Bulletin 829 (1959). The treaties with Colombia and Haiti have been withdrawn from the Senate.

28 Sen. Exec. Rep. 1 of Committee on Foreign Relations, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., April 22, 1959, recommending advice and consent to the treaty with Muscat, states at p. 3:

“The committee noted that the treaty does not provide for arbitration by the International Court of Justice of disputes arising out of its application or interpretation. Mr. Beale of the Department of State said that such a provision is standard policy in other treaties. However, the Sultan of Muscat refused unconditionally to consent to any provision that might involve the admission of a third party. Mr. Beale suggested that the Sultan’s attitude stemmed from his dissatisfaction with the arbitration of his dispute with Saudi Arabia over control of the Buraimi Oasis.”

29 Sen. Exec. J, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.; 63 Stat. 1299; T.I.A.S., No. 1871.

30 Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., April 26, 1948, on Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with China, p. 29.

31 Sen. Exec. Rep. No. 8, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 6.

32 R. R. Wilson, United States Commercial Treaties and International Law 24 (1960).

33 ibid. 327-328.

34 50 Stat. 1317, Treaty Series, No. 913.

35 48 Stat. 1543, Treaty Series, No. 863.

36 61 Stat. 1180, T.I.A.S., No. 1591.

37 60 Stat. 1886, T.I.A.S., No. 1554.

38 61 Stat. 2495, T.I.A.S., No. 1580.

39 62 Stat. 2679, T.I.A.S., No. 1808.

40 62 Stat. 3845, T.I.A.S., No. 1868.

41 9 U. S. Treaties 621, T.I.A.S., No. 4044.

42 8 U. S. Treaties 1083, T.I.A.S., No. 3873. The language, that “Any question or dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Statute which is not settled by negotiation shall be referred to the International Court of Justice in conformity with the Statute of the Court” [emphasis supplied], would seem clear. It has been suggested that the phrase here italicized was inserted as a concession to the Soviet Union’s opposition to compulsory juridiction of the Court in any form or shape, and would require a special agreement to bring a controversy before the Court unless both parties had previously accepted compulsory jurisdiction. Beehhoefer and Stein “Atoms for Peace: The New International Atomic Energy Agency,” 55 Mich. Law Rev. 747, 776 (1957).

43 3 U. S. Treaties 603, T.I.A.S., No. 3197.

44 3 U. S. Treaties 3008, T.I.A.S., No. 2487.

45 3 U. S. Treaties 2255, T.I.A.S., No. 3625.

46 3 U. S. Treaties 3169, T.I.A.S., No. 2490.

47 6 U. S. Treaties 2731, T.I.A.S., No. 3324.

48 7 U. S. Treaties 479, T.I.A.S., No. 3532.

49 Sen. Rep. No. 1835, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 5.