No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Individual in International Organization
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 September 2013
Extract
International organization is generally regarded as an aggregate of machinery and processes whereby states cooperate with each other for the attainment of common objectives. Granting the validity of this conception, it may be shown that the fields in which states coöperate are of vital importance to individual persons. The international treatment of economic questions looks toward the improvement of the economic status of the individual. The cooperative efforts of states in regard to so-called political questions, such as disarmament, arbitration, and alliances, either promote amicable relations conducive to profitable transactions between the nationals of different countries or lead to hostile activities that injure economic activity and place the individual under the necessity of bearing arms.
- Type
- International Affairs
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Political Science Association 1934
References
1 For text, see British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 100, pp. 841–847Google Scholar.
2 Cases were brought by Dr. Diaz, a national of Nicaragua, against Guatemala (1908), by Salvador Cerda of Nicaragua against Costa Rica (1911), and by Alejandro Numez of Nicaragua against Costa Rica (1913). For summaries, see Hudson, M. O., “The Central American Court of Justice,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, pp. 759–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Discussion may be found also in Ralston, J. H., International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno (Stanford University, 1929), pp. 244–245Google Scholar.
3 Scott, J. B., The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (New York, 1915), pp. 188–203Google Scholar, Articles 4 and 5 of the Convention.
4 Proces-Verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, pp. 204–206.
5 This proposal was in Resolution II of the Committee of Jurists. For their report, see ibid., pp. 747–748. The subject is discussed by Lord Phillimore in an article entitled “An International Criminal Court and the Resolutions of the Committee of Jurists.” British Yearbook of International Law, 1922–1923, pp. 79–86Google Scholar.
6 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International (New York, 1929), Vol. 1, pp. 505–557Google Scholar.
7 They were: (1) when individuals are créanciers of a foreign state in connection with the execution of financial obligations; (2) when individuals are injured by violations of treaties by foreign states; (3) when individuals regard themselves as injured by illegal acts by foreign states; and (4) when individuals have a direct interest in the solution of conflicts of nationality. The committee also recommended that states proceed against individuals in the international court unless they preferred to follow internal procedure.
8 Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, 1929, Vol. 1, p. 311Google Scholar.
9 British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 102, p. 137Google Scholar. See also MacKay, R. A., “The International Joint Commission Between the United States and Canada,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 22, pp. 314–316Google Scholar, and Chacke, C. J., The International Joint Commission Between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada (New York, 1932)Google Scholar.
10 Treaty Series (British), No. 25, 1928. See also Stuart, G. H., The International City of Tangier (Stanford University, 1931)Google Scholar.
11 The system of petitions in the mandate system was defined by a resolution of the Council of the League of Nations adopted on January 31, 1923. See Official Journal, March, 1923, pp. 211, 298Google Scholar. The system is well described in Wright, Q., Mandates Under the League of Nations (Chicago, 1930), pp. 169–178Google Scholar.
12 Several discussions of the question of permitting petitioners to appear in the commission have occurred. On one occasion the commission recommended to the Council that such an arrangement be made, but without avail. See Q. Wright, op. cit., pp. 173–177.
13 This procedure was defined by the Council in resolutions adopted on October 25, 1920, June 27, 1921, and September 5,1923. For the resolutions see, respectively, Official Journal, Nov., 1923, pp. 1426–1432Google Scholar; ibid., July-Sept. 1921, p. 22; and ibid., Nov., 1923, pp. 1293. The subject of “Procedure in Minority Complaints” is discussed by Roucek, J. S. in American Journal of International Law, Vol. 23, pp. 538–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The procedure of the League in minority cases is ably described in Stone, J., International Guarantee of Minority Rights (London, 1932)Google Scholar.
14 The provisions relating to the powers of the Saar Basin Governing Commission may be found in the Treaty of Versailles, Pt. 3, §4, annex.
15 Treaty of Versailles, Art. 389.
16 See, for instance, the Proceedings of the Second Pan-American Scientific Congress. p. v, for the composition of the gathering. The Pan-American financial conferences of 1915 and 1920 furnish another illustration of organizations combining public and private activities.
17 Emerson, R., The State and Sovereignty in Modern Germany (New Haven, 1928), pp. 273–274Google Scholar; Burns, C. Delisle, The World of States (London, 1917), pp. 121–122Google Scholar; Scelle, G., Une crise de la Société des Nations (Paris, 1926), pp. 140–142Google Scholar.
18 G. Scelle, op. cit., p. 140.
19 While this is the most common argument used in behalf of proposals to permit individuals to appear in international courts, others have been presented. Professor Eagleton points out that in international claims commissions where private claims are made through governments, loss of nationality by the individual claimant before a decision is made nullifies the claim. He points out also that, in the case of staatlos persons, claims against a foreign state cannot be preferred, since there is no state able to do so. See his International Government (New York, 1932), p. 182Google Scholar.
20 An able discussion of this subject may be found in Politis, N., The New Aspects of International Law (Washington, 1928), pp. 18–31Google Scholar.
21 This is the attitude of the following writers: Lawrence, T. J., The Principles of International Law (7th ed., by Winfield, P. H.), p. 65Google Scholar; Oppenheim, L., International Law (1905), Vol. 1, p. 19Google Scholar (1920 ed., by R. F. Roxburgh), Vol. 1, pp. 456–460; Hershey, A., Essentials of International Public Law and Organization (rev. ed.), p. 157Google Scholar; Fenwick, C. G., International Law (1924), p. 85Google Scholar.
22 Westlake, J., International Law (1907), Chap. 2Google Scholar; Kaufman, , Die Rechtskraft des International Rechts (1899)Google Scholar; Wheaton, , Elements of International Law (8th ed., 1866)Google Scholar, Par. 19; Heffter, A. W., Le droit international de l'Europe (1883)Google Scholar; Diena, G., “Le traité de conciliation et de reglément judiciare entré l'Italie et la Suisse,” Revue de Droit International et de Legislation Comparée, Ser. 3, Vol. 6, pp. 1–16Google Scholar; Bonfils, H., Manuel de droit international public (1912 ed., by Fauchille, ), Nos. 154, 157Google Scholar.
23 See Schüoking, W. and Wehberg, H., Die Stazung des Völkerbundes (Berlin, 1921)Google Scholar; Kelsen, H., Das Problem der Souveränität und die Theorie des Völkerrechts (Tübingen, 1920)Google Scholar. ProfessorStowell, , in his International Law, p. 8Google Scholar, holds that in the past states as “agents for the enforcement of international law have been confused with “subjectivity,” and that “fundamentally the law of nations is a law of individuals, enforced through the agencies of the governments of the communities into which mankind is apportioned.”
24 The following states are under such minority provisions: Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Rumania, Serb-Croat-Slovene State, and Turkey. See Protection of Linguistic, Racial, and Religious Minorities by the League of Nations. Provisions Contained in the Various International Instruments Now in Force (1927).
25 Regarding sovereignty in mandated regions, see Q. Wright, op. cit., pp. 327–339.
26 For discussions of the problems of sovereignty in international affairs, see Lansing, R., Notes on Sovereignty (Washington, 1931)Google Scholar; Garner, J. W., “Limitations on National Sovereignty in International Relations,” in this Review, Vol. 19, pp. 1–24Google Scholar; Mattern, J., The State, Sovereignty, and International Law (Baltimore, 1928)Google Scholar; Laski, H. J., “International Government and National Sovereignty,” in Problems of Peace (London, 1927), pp. 288–301Google Scholar.
27 This was evident among the members of the Institute of International Law. See Annuaire de l'Institut de Droit International, 1929, Vol. 1, pp. 257–272Google Scholar.
28 This attitude is well defended in Borchard, E. M., “The Access of Individuals to International Courts,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 24, pp. 359–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 On this subject, see Borchard, E. M., The Diplomatic Protection of Citizens Abroad (New York, 1915), Pt. 1Google Scholar; Overlock, T. W., Foreign Financial Control in China (New York, 1919)Google Scholar; and Williams, B. H., Economic Foreign Policies of the United States (New York, 1929), Chaps. 6–11Google Scholar.
30 See B. H. Williams, op. cit., Chap. 5, and Hyde, C. C., “The Negotiation of External Loans with Foreign Governments,” American Journal of International Law, Vol. 16, p. 523CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
Comments
No Comments have been published for this article.