No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The International Law Commission's Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure in the General Assembly of the United Nations
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2009
Extract
When in 1949 the newly-created International Law Commission (I.L.C.) embarked upon the task of codifying international arbitral procedure, it could hardly foresee the extraordinary variety of reactions with which its Final Draft, submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1953, would meet. In the course of the meetings of the Sixth (Legal) Committee of the General Assembly, devoted to the Commission's Draft in 1953 and 1955, as well as in the written comments received from Governments, every shade of opinion seems to have found expression. No praise was spared, no blame withheld. On the one hand, the Draft was called “a work of art, each of its parts being skilfully balanced”, on the other hand it was considered to be, in several respects, “a travesty of the rules of international law and completely foreign to the principle of arbitration”. The entire gamut in between these two extremes resounds through the summary records of meetings and the comments of Governments.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1956
References
page 235 note 1 The Commission's Statute is to be found in U.N. Document A/CN. 4/4, published under the title “Statute of the International Law Commission and other resolutions of the General Assembly relating to the International Law Commission” (Lake Success, N.Y., 1949).
page 235 note 2 The revised Draft is also contained in a detailed historical commentary published by the United Nations Secretariat on the instruction of the I.L.C. and called “Commentary on the Draft Convention on Arbitral Procedure adopted by the International Law Commission at its fifth session”, Doc. A/CN. 4/92 (New York, 1955).
page 236 note 1 A/2456, para. 14.
page 236 note 2 See p. 235, footnote 2.
page 236 note 3 Pages 117–260.
page 236 note 4 A/2456, para. 14.
page 237 note 1 Both cases are discussed in the “Commentary”, pp. 13–14 and 29.Google Scholar
page 237 note 2 “Commentary”, p. 8.Google Scholar
page 237 note 3 The following United Nations documents will be cited by their symbols: (1) Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its fifth session, 1 June–14 August 1953 (A/2456), (2) United Nations, General Assembly, Eighth Session, Official Records, Sixth Committee, 382nd–389th Meetings (A/C. 6/SR. 382–389), (3) Arbitral Procedure, Comments received from Governments regarding the draft convention on arbitral procedure prepared by the International Law Commission at its fifth session (A/2899, A/2899/Add. 1 and A/2899/Add. 2), (4) United Nations, General Assembly, Tenth Session, Official Records, Sixth Committee, 461st–464th and 466th–472nd Meetings (A/C. 6/SR. 461–464 and 466–472).
page 237 note 4 International judicial settlement, on the other hand, is not necessarily contractual, at least not in the strict sense of the word. In his Procesvoorwaarden in het Volkenrecht (Dordrecht, 1951), pp. 94Google Scholaret seq., shortly to be published in a French edition brought up to date, the author emphasized that before the International Court of Justice a party's attitude may suffice. He sees, at this point, a development from private law to public law methods and submits that the composition of the adjudicating body is, therefore, not the only “basic” difference between arbitration and judicial settlement (as implied by Jully, , “Arbitration and Judicial Settlement—Recent Trends”, A.J.I.L., Vol. 48 (1954), p. 380Google Scholar, footnote 1). Neither of the two differences, however, appears to be essential. Essential differences, the present writer holds, do not exist between the two forms of adjudication.
page 238 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 48 (italics supplied).
page 238 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 386, para. 5 (italics supplied).
page 238 note 3 A/G.6/SR. 387, para. 32 (italics supplied).
page 238 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 3.
page 239 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 12.
page 239 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 22.
page 239 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 39 (the printed edition of the summary record carries the word “eliminated” instead of “unlimited”; the original mimeographed version of the document had the latter, correct, expression).
page 239 note 4 Comp. the striking statement made by the delegate of the U.S.S.R. in the 388th meeting (17 November 1953): “Arbitration, in the meaning accepted in international law, was a means of giving effect to the Charter's purpose of maintaining and strengthening international peace and security. He did not know of any controversial issue that could not be settled peacefully by negotiation between the parties” (A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 5; italics supplied).
page 239 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 20. See also A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 8.
page 240 note 1 A/2899, p. 32.
page 240 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 3.
page 240 note 3 The delegate of the U.S.S.R., referring to a remark made by the representative of the Byelorussian S.S.R. (A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 16), made it clear that in his opinion a State even “could not delegate to anyone the power td decide whether a dispute fell within” the category of arbitrable disputes (A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 10; italics supplied).
page 240 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 16.
page 240 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 23.
page 240 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 21.
page 240 note 7 Less correct seems to be the statement of the Greek delegate, “that while the draft convention infringed the sovereignty of States, that was equally true of the General Act of 1928 and of every treaty under which States undertook to leave the settlement of a dispute to a third party” (A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 7; italics supplied).
page 240 note 8 A/C.6/SR. 383, paras. 9 (Norway) and 12 (China), 384, paras. 30, 32 (Pakistan) and 40 (Panama), 386, para. 14 (Canada), 387, para. 47 (New Zealand), 466, para. 17 (Colombia), 467, para. 52 (Bolivia), and 469, para. 4 (Philippines).
page 241 note 1 A/2899, p. 12.
page 241 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 39. See also the statement made by the British delegate in the Committee's 462nd meeting (23 November 1955, A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 37). In the Sixth Committee's 468th meeting (3 December 1955), the delegate of Pakistan devoted much time and energy to an exploration of the true nature of arbitration (A/C.6/SR. 468, paras. 3 et seq.).
page 241 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 11.
page 241 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 2.
page 241 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 388, paras. 38–39, and 463, para. 33 (Brazil), 464, paras. 19 (Yugoslavia) and 26 (Chile).
page 241 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 15.
page 242 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 23.
page 242 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 466, paras. 34 et seq.
page 242 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 35.
page 242 note 4 Ibid., para. 42.
page 242 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 30.
page 242 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 15.
page 242 note 7 A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 3.
page 243 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 10.
page 243 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 11.
page 243 note 3 Ibid., para. 8.
page 243 note 4 Ibid., para. 13.
page 243 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 463, para. 42.
page 243 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 32.
page 243 note 7 Ibid., para. 34.
page 243 note 8 Ibid., para. 28.
page 243 note 9 Ibid., para. 43.
page 243 note 10 A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 2. See for the other Governments named: A/2899, p. 5 (Belgium), ibid., p. 10 (Chile), A/C.6/SR. 384, paras. 11 et seq. (France), A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 14 (Byelorussian S.S.R)., A/C.6/SR. 386, para. 4 (Argentina), A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 3 (India), and A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 7 (Czechoslovakia).
page 244 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 386, para. 22.
page 244 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 464, paras. 7 and 14.
page 244 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 5.
page 244 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 26.
page 244 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 461, paras. 12 and 15.
page 244 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 18.
page 244 note 7 Ibid., para. 20. See to the same effect the statement of the Brazilian delegate made in the 388th meeting, on 17 November 1953 (A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 38).
page 244 note 8 A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 31.
page 244 note 9 Ibid., para 29.
page 244 note 10 Ibid., para. 32.
page 245 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 382, paras. 12–13.
page 245 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 12.
page 245 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 28.
page 245 note 4 Ibid., para. 35.
page 245 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 17.
page 245 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 22, and 462, para. 32 (Cuba), 384, para. 40 (Panama), 467, para. 52 (Bolivia), and 469, para. 4 (Philippines).
page 245 note 7 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 23.
page 245 note 8 A/2456, para. 9.
page 246 note 1 The same conclusion was reached by Mr. H. Lauterpacht (as he then was) in an article on “Codification and Development of International Law”, A.J.I.L., Vol. 49 (1955), pp. 16 et seq.; and comp. Dr. Yuen-li Liang's lectures before the Hague Academy of International Law, “Le développement et la codification du droit international”, Recueil des Cours, 1948, II (Vol. 73), pp. 488–490, on the origin of the distinction.
page 246 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 2.
page 247 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 20.
page 247 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 32.
page 247 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 13 (Netherlands), 383, para. 23, and 464, para. 39 (Uruguay), 384, para. 31, and 468, para. 4 (Pakistan), and 466, para. 43 (China).
page 247 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 21, and 462, para. 32.
page 247 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 10.
page 247 note 6 Ibid.
page 247 note 7 A/C.6/SR. 382, para. 13 (Netherlands), 384, para. 38 (Panama), 386, para. 3 (Argentina), 387, paras. 33 (Czechoslovakia) and 42 (Cuba), and 468 para. 10 (Pakistan). But see the Peruvian delegate, who in the General Assembly's 554th Plenary Meeting (14 December 1955) stated that the I.L.C. “encroached upon the subject of the progressi ve development of international law” (United Nations, General Assembly, Tenth Session, Official Records, 544th Plenary Meeting, para. 51).
page 247 note 8 Ibid.
page 247 note 9 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 47.
page 247 note 10 A/C.6/SR. 463, para. 40.
page 248 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 38.
page 248 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 461, para. 41. Comp. the metaphor used by the French delegate: “The provisions relating to the intervention of the Court recalled the role of a doctor or a surgeon who was called only when a person was ill” (A/C.6/SR. 468, para. 17).
page 248 note 3 A/2899, p. 21 (Sweden), and A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 3 (Philippines).
page 248 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 463, para. 25.
page 249 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 32.
page 249 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 386, paras. 22 and 23.
page 249 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 8.
page 249 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 386, para. 6.
page 249 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 461, para. 25 (Israel), and 462, para. 5 (India).
page 249 note 6 Ibid., paras. 24 and 26.
page 249 note 7 Ibid., para. 26.
page 249 note 8 A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 41.
page 249 note 9 Ibid., para. 39. See to the same eflect Professor François (A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 22) and the delegate of France (A/C.6/SR. 468, paras. 18–19). And see the most interesting observations on the subject made by Jully, , op. cit., pp. 397–407.Google Scholar
page 250 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 31.
page 250 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 32, and 467, para. 7 (Czechoslovakia), and A/2899, p. 10 (Chile). Comp. the quotation, para. 8, supra, from A/C.6/SR. 388, para. 8 (U.S.S.R.).
page 250 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 42; and see A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 38, and 388, para. 41.
page 250 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 16.
page 250 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 468, paras. 14 et seq.
page 250 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 14, and 462, para. 13 (Byelorussian S.S.R.), 386, para. 22, and 464, para. 52 (Syria), A/2899, p. 21 (Chile), and A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 5 (Czechoslovakia).
page 250 note 7 A/CN.6/SR. 461, para. 42.
page 250 note 8 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 22.
page 251 note 1 This should read: paragraph 2.
page 251 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 10.
page 251 note 3 Comp. Professor François in the 387th meeting of the Sixth Committee: “Article 2 dealt with the arbitrability of a dispute. That involved the interpretation of a treaty” (A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 22). And see Johnson, , op. cit., p. 176.Google Scholar
page 251 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 30; and see A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 14.
page 251 note 5 A/2899, p. 25 (United Kingdom), A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 6 (Guatemala), and 466, para. 45 (Egypt).
page 251 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 467, para. 52.
page 251 note 7 A/2899, p. 26.
page 251 note 8 A/2899, Add. 1, p. 5; and see “Commentary”, p. 9. The Yugoslav Government, loc. cit., preferred an express provision to the inference to be made from the I.C. J.'s jurisdiction under Article 29 of the Draft.
page 251 note 9 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 14 (France), 384, para. 22, and 464, para. 12 (Iran), 386, para. 8 (Argentina), 387, para. 8 (Guatemala), and 388, para. 18 (Peru).
page 252 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 12 (italics supplied).
page 252 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 23.
page 252 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 383, paras. 19–20 and 46, 385, para. 34, and A/2899, pp. 22–23 (Sweden); and 383, para. 45, and 387, para. 25 (Professor François).
page 252 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 20; see also A/2899, pp. 22–23.
page 252 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 26.
page 252 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 384, paras. 13 and 16, and 385, para. 32 (France), 386, para. 6 (Argentina), and 387, paras. 8–9 (Guatemala).
page 252 note 7 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 25.
page 252 note 8 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 4; and see 385, para. 24.
page 252 note 9 A/2899, p. 3; and see A/C.6/SR. 386, para. 9.
page 253 note 1 A/C.6/386, para. 37 (Mexico), and 387, para. 11 (Guatemala).
page 253 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 21.
page 253 note 3 A/2899, p. 31.
page 253 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 20.
page 253 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 18 (Canada), and 464, para. 44 (Norway). Comp. the Chilean Government's comment, A/2899, p. 13.Google Scholar
page 253 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 45.
page 254 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 384, para. 15, and 385, para. 30 (France), 384, para. 41 (Panama), 385, para. 24 (Greece), 386, para. 26 (Syria), and 386, para. 37 (Mexico).
page 254 note 2 A/2899, p. 4 (Argentina), pp. 12–13 (Chile; see also A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 29), and p. 23 (Sweden).
page 254 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 461, para. 15 (Venezuela), 462, para. 22 (Honduras), and 466, para. 45 (Egypt).
page 254 note 4 The Syrian delegate, loc. cit., merely recalled “the generally accepted principle … that procedural law was never retroactive”.
page 254 note 5 Loc. cit.
page 254 note 6 Loc. cit.
page 255 note 1 A/2456, paras. 48–52.
page 255 note 2 A/2899, pp. 21–22 (Sweden), A/2899/Add. 1, p. 5 (Netherlands), and A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 45 (Norway).
page 255 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 385, para. 24 (Greece), and 387, para. 47 (New Zealand).
page 255 note 4 A/2899, p. 32.
page 256 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 21. See the Mexican delegate's comparison with the Pact of Bogotá, A/C.6/SR. 386, para. 41.
page 256 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 46 (New Zealand), 388, para. 18, and 467, para. 58 (Peru), 461, para. 15 (Venezuela), and 464, para. 29 (Chile).
page 256 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 387, para. 20.
page 256 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 39.
page 256 note 5 A/2456, para. 55.
page 257 note 1 A/2899/Add. 1, pp. 3–4; and see A/C.6/SR. 461, paras. 36 et seq.
page 257 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 467, paras. 48 et seq.
page 257 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 461, para. 31.
page 257 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 471, paras. 3 and 5.
page 257 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 462, para. 7 (India), 464, para. 24, and 471, para. 54 (Yugoslavia), 466, para. 11, and 471, para. 22 (Afghanistan), 466, para. 15 (Liberia), 466, para. 29, 470, para. 13, and 471, paras. 55 et seq. (U.S.S.R.), 467, para. 12 (Czechoslovakia), 467, para. 38 (Mexico), 467, para. 60, and 469, para. 37 (Peru), 468, para. 34, and 471, para. 67 (Ethiopia), 469, para. 7 (Philippines), 469, para. 20 (Guatemala), and 469, para. 48 (El Salvador).
page 257 note 6 A/C.6/SR. 461, para. 16 (Venezuela), 462, para. 19, and 471, para. 42 (Canada), 462, para. 38 (United Kingdom), 471, para. 18 (Belgium), and 472, para. 22 (Honduras).
page 258 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 464, para. 48 (Norway), 466, para. 20 (Colombia), and 472, para. 9 (China).
page 258 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 471, para. 32; and see 468, para. 26.
page 258 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 472, para. 9.
page 258 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 38.
page 258 note 5 A/C.6/SR. 471, para. 58; and see A/C.6/SR. 470, para. 13. See further A/C.6/SR. 469, para. 6 (Philippines) and A/C.6/SR. 471, para. 6 (Israel) for two intermediate opinions.
page 258 note 6 The Commission's membership will be renewed by 1 January 1957. The delegate of the U.S.S.R. suggested that the I.L.C. in its new composition might have different views on arbitration (A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 29).
page 258 note 7 A/C.6/SR. 468, para. 26 (France), 471, para. 18 (Belgium), and 472, para. 9 (China).
page 258 note 8 A/C.6/SR. 468, para. 39 (United States), 470, para. 4 (United Kingdom), and 471, para. 43 (Canada).
page 259 note 1 A/C.6/SR. 470, para. 7 (United States), and 472, para. 7 (Indonesia).
page 259 note 2 The vote was taken by roll-call. See the list of Member States participating in the vote in A/C.6/SR. 472, para. 37.
page 259 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 471, para. 7.
page 259 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 461, para. 32. For a similar request from the delegate of the United States, see A/C.6/SR. 463, para. 27.
page 260 note 1 See para. 14, supra.
page 261 note 1 Stone, op. cit., p. 736Google Scholar, is of the opinion that existing law “includes the avenues of escape”.
page 261 note 2 A/C.6/SR. 383, para. 3.
page 261 note 3 A/C.6/SR. 463, para. 26.
page 261 note 4 A/C.6/SR. 466, para. 42. Johnson, , op. cit., p. 175Google Scholar: “There is no reason to regret or fear the introduction of yet another means of settling disputes alongside the existing means. International law is not yet so rich in machinery that it can afford to neglect any new machinery which may have some prospect of contributing to the settlement of disputes”. See also the Mexican statement made in the 467th meeting (quoted supra, para. 9), and Carlston, Kenneth S., op. cit., A.J.I.L., 1954 (Vol. 48), pp. 298–299.Google Scholar