YEARBOOK of the INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 1958 Volume II Documents of the Tenth Session Including the Report of the Commission to the General Assembly
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 1958 Volume II Documents of the tenth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly UNITED NATIONS YEARBOOK OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION 1 Volume II Documents of the tenth session including the report of the Commission to the General Assembly UNITED NATIONS New York, 1958 NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. A/CN.4/SER.A/1958/Add.l UNITED NATIONS PUBLICATION Sales No.: 58. V. 1, Vol. II Price: $U.S. 1.50; 11/- stg.; Sw. fr. 6.50 (or equivalent in other currencies) CONTENTS Page ARBITRAL PROCEDURE (agenda item 2) Document A/CNA/113: Draft on arbitral procedure adopted by the Com- mission at its fifth session: report by Georges Scelle, Special Rapporteur (with a model draft on arbitral procedure annexed) 1 DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE AND IMMUNITIES (agenda item 3) Documents A/CN.4/116/Add.l and 2: Draft articles concerning diplomatic intercourse and immunities: Articles proposed by A. E. F. Sandstrom, Special Rapporteur 16 LAW OF TREATIES (agenda item 4) Document A/CN A/115: Third report by G. G. Fitzmaurice, Special Rap- porteur 20 STATE RESPONSIBILITY (agenda item 5) Document A/CN A/111: International responsibility: Third report by F. V. Garcia Amador, Special Rapporteur 47 PLANNING OF FUTURE WORK OF THE COMMISSION (agenda item 8) Document A/CNA/L.76: Comments and proposals submitted by Mr. Jaroslav Zourek 74 COMMUNICATION FROM THE SECRETARY-GENERAL Document A/CNA/L.74: Communication dated 2 May 1958 from the Sec- retary-General of the United Nations to the Chairman of the International Law Commission 77 REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Document A/3859: Report of the International Law Commission covering the work of its tenth session, 28 April-4 July 1958 78 CHECK LIST OF COMMISSION DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO IN THIS VOLUME. 139 in INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION DOCUMENTS OF THE TENTH SESSION, INCLUDING THE REPORT OF THE COMMISSION TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ARBITRAL PROCEDURE [Agenda item 2] DOCUMENT A/CN.4/113 Draft on arbitral procedure adopted by the Commission at its fifth session Report by Georges Scelle, Special Rapporteur (with a model draft on arbitral procedure annexed) [Original text: French] [6 March 1958] CONTENTS Chapter Page I. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS 1 II. THE UNDERTAKING TO ARBITRATE AND THE "COMPROMIS" 3 III. THE QUESTION OF ARBITRABILITY 4 IV. THE ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL 5 V. IMMUTABILITY OF THE TRIBUNAL 6 VI. POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL—PROCEDURE 7 VII. CLOSURE OF PROCEEDINGS 10 VIII. THE AWARD 10 IX. DEFAULT 10 X. INTERPRETATION OF THE AWARD 11 XI. ANNULMENT OF THE AWARD 11 XII. THE PROBLEM OF REVISION 12 XIII. CONCLUSION 12 Annex. MODEL DRAFT ON ARBITRAL PROCEDURE 12 1. General observations vention might be prepared from it in accordance with ar- 1. The International Law Commission will recall that ticle 23 (c) of the Commission's statute. the subject of arbitral procedure has been on its agenda 2. After examination by the Sixth Committee and the for a long time, and that much time and effort have al- General Assembly, the draft was referred back to the ready been devoted to it. The topic was selected and ac- International Law Commission for further study in the corded priority at the very first session of the Commis- sion (1949). A draft containing thirty-two articles (A/ light of further observations by Governments and the 2163, para. 24) was adopted in 1952 and submitted to observations of the Assembly. The Assembly on 14 De- Governments. A new text (A/2456, para. 57), taking cember 1955 adopted on the subject resolution 989 (X), into consideration the comments of Governments, was which postponed until the thirteenth session, i.e. the forth- prepared in 1953 and submitted in 1955 to the General coming session of 1958, consideration of the question Assembly at its tenth session, in order that a draft con- whether it would be desirable to convene a conference Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. II of plenipotentiaries to conclude a convention or whether Governments which compose the United Nations Gen- some other solution should be adopted.1 eral Assembly. The Special Rapporteur accordingly felt The reception given to the Commission's draft by the that no good purpose would be served either by laying majority in the Sixth Committee and in the Assembly before the Assembly a draft convention which had but was, in fact, decidedly unfavourable to the adoption of a little chance of receiving consideration or by asking the convention incorporating the draft's principles and articles. Assembly to convene a conference of plenipotentiaries The majority considered that the draft would distort the which could only resume, probably to no avail, the discus- traditional institution of arbitration; that it would turn sions already held in the General Assembly and in the that institution into a jurisdictional procedure, whereas Commission. according to custom it was diplomatic in character, and General Assembly resolution 989 (X) itself suggested would link it with the institutional jurisdiction of the a solution in its preambular paragraphs, which refer to "a International Court of Justice by making it, as it were, set of rules on arbitral procedure [which] will inspire a court of first instance; that the draft would face Govern- States in the drawing up of provisions for inclusion in ments with unacceptable demands for the surrender of international treaties and special arbitration agreements" sovereignty; and lastly, that it would cause the Commis- and recall "that this draft includes certain important sion to abandon its primary task—the codification of the elements with respect to the progressive development law on the subject—and thus, on the pretext of developing of international law on arbitral procedure". It was to be the institution of arbitral procedure, damage it by con- expected, therefore, that in this attenuated form the draft siderably reducing its field of application. might prove acceptable to the Assembly. 3. We shall not attempt to analyse the various bodies It is open to the Commission, under article 23 of its of government opinion, some of which approved the draft statute, to act on these suggestions by recommending or raised only minor objections to it, while others, in the General Assembly either "to take no action, the re- contrast, raised serious objections or even rejected the port having already been published", or "to take note of draft; nor shall we attempt to classify Governments ac- or adopt the report by resolution". This would remove cording to their willingness to sacrifice more or less of the risk of the Commission's work being wasted. The their sovereignty in order to foster the organization of the Commission has not yet had an opportunity to opt for universal community. Suffice it to say that, as the num- either of these alternatives. ber of States Members of the United Nations increases, Furthermore, it may be thought that the result thus so the majority hostile to the Commission's draft seems achieved would differ little from that aimed at in previous bound to increase, for the more recently the new Mem- conventions on the subject, since the ratifications ob- bers have required their sovereignty the greater will be tained have not been very numerous and the sponsors of a their desire to maintain it whole and entire. compromis are always free to depart from it and to adopt 4. It is true that the Commission's draft drew its provisions which they consider more appropriate to the inspiration directly from the doctrine of the jurists—such nature of the dispute. (Lex posterior derogat priori.) as Moore, Lammasch, Politis, Lapradelle, van Vollen- This, indeed, was the sense of the decision which the hoven and Renault—all of whom consider that the real Commission adopted by 10 votes to 4, with 5 abstentions, future of arbitration lies in making it jurisdictional. It is at its 419th meeting. It decided to turn the draft conven- not less true that such a prospect, and in particular the tion into "a set of rules which might inspire States", as prospect of frequent recourse to The Hague Court, has recorded in the Commission's report covering the work proved unacceptable to the representatives of most of the of its ninth session. (A/3623, para. 19).2 1 The text of this resolution reads as follows: 5. The Convention for the Pacific Settlement of In- ternational Disputes (1907)3 defined arbitration in gen- "The General Assembly, 4 "Having considered the draft A/2456, para. 57) on arbitral eral but unimpeachable language in its article 37, which procedure prepared by the International Law Commission at opened a way that the Powers showed themselves willing its fifth session and the comments (A/2899 and Add.l and 2) to follow over half a century ago.. In its draft the Com- thereon submitted by Governments, mission followed this lead, while at the same time drawing "Recalling General Assembly resolution 797 (VIII) of 7 December 1953, in which it was stated that this draft in- upon doctrine. cludes certain important elements with respect to the progres- It may be thought that there is, in the strict, no gen- sive development of international law on arbitral procedure, eral custom with regard to arbitral procedure, for the "Noting that a number of suggestions for improvements on simple reason that practice has shown it to be desirable the draft have been put forward in the comments submitted by Governments and in the observations made in the Sixth 2 The Commission had previously rejected a proposal by Committee at the eighth and current sessions of the General Mr.