l ~ A'~"'\ \ l q / :Sor) ON) l°I <I'> UNITED PATIONS CONFERENCE 011 INTERNATIOl'~AL ORGANIZATION FOR THE PRESS MAY 29, 1945 No• 178 ADVISORY C01~IITTEE OF JURISTS At its initial meeting at 3:00 P.M. Tuesday, May 29, 1945, the Advisory Committee of Jurists considered the Organization and structure which the proposed Charter will take as its various portions are reported from technical committees and commissions, The Advisory Cornrnittee also considered certain language questions and legal drafting problems. One of the Advisory Conun ittee's functions is to review in the five official langua 0es of the Conference (English, French, Spanish, Russian and Chinese) the drafts as report­ ed from the technical cmmili ttees and commissions and as considered by the Coordination Com.11ittee. The Advisory Committee of Jurists was created by the Steering Committee as a small advisory group with the responsibility of reviewing texts prepared by the Coordinat­ ion Committee and eventually the whole text from the point of view of terminology. I The Advisory Committee of Jurists, composed of six 41 n1embers, represents the five official languages of the Con .. ference, the sixth member, Mr. Green Hackworth (U .s •), serves as Chairman. In addition to Mr. Hackworth the Members of the Committee are: United States - (Chairman) - - - - Gr een H. Hackworth Fairmont - 586 United Kingdom - - - - - - - - - - Sir William Malkin Mark Hopkins - · 1026 or 614 France - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Jules Basdevant St. Francis - Apt.P-12, 1249 or 835 China - - - - - • - - - - - - - - Hsu Mo Mark Hopkins - 15181 1218 or Mezzanine t• u.s.s.R. - - - - - - - - - - - S. A. Golunsky st. Francis - 105i Mexico ·- - - - - - - Manuel Tello - St. Francis - 710 THE UNITED NATIONS RESTRI CTED COMNlTTEE OF JURISTS Jurist 61 (revised) G/49 Washington, D. C. April 20, 1g45 REPORT ON DRAFT OF STATUTE OF AN IN'., FRNATI CNAL COURT OF JUSTICE RfFERRED TO IN CHAPTER VII OF THE DUMB ARTON OAKS PROPOSALS SUB~UTTED BY THE UNITED NATI C• NS COMM ITTEE OF JURISTS TO THE UPITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AT SAN FRANCISCO \ \ (~ashington, D. c., April 20, 1945) \ 61 I • •Jurj_ s t 61 (revised) I I 1 I I The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals having provided that The United Nations I nternat~onal Organization should incl ude ruoong its principal organs , an International Court of J ustic e , a Committee of Jurists designated by Tbe United Nations met in Washington for the purpose of preparing and submitting to the San Francisco Confer ence a draf t Statute of the said Court. The present report has for its purpose to present the result of the work of this Committee . I t coul d not in any way whatsoever pre j udice the de c i sions of the Cor..ferenc e . The jurists wh o hav e drawn i t u p have , in so doing , a c ted as jurists ,vithout binding t he Gover nments which appointed them. The Dumbarton Oaks Proposals provided that the Court woul d be t he principal judicial or gan of The United Nations , that it s Statute , annexed to The United Nations Charter, woul d be an integral par t ther eof and that all the Membe rs of the I nternational Organization shoul d ips8 facto be p arties to the Statute of the Court. I t did not decide whether the said Court would be the Per manent Court of I nternational Justic e , the Statute of whi ch would be preserved with amendments , or whether it woul d be a new Court the Statute of which wo1;.ld , howeve r, b e based on t he Statute of the existing Court . I n the preparati on of its draft, the Committee adopted the method , and it was recalled before it that the Permanent Court of I nter national Justic e had functioned for twent y years to the satisfaction of the liticant s and that , if viol ence had suspended its activitj, at least this insti­ tution had not failed in its task . Ne v ertheless , the Committee considered that it was for the San Francisco Conference (1) to determine in what form the mission of the Court to be the principal judic ial or gan of The United Nations shall·be stated, (2 ) to judge whether it is necessary to recall, in this connec tion, the p r esent or possible existenc e of other international c ourt s , ( 3 ) t o cons ider the Cour t a s a 6 ]. -].- Jurist 61 (revised) new court or as the continuance of the Court e s tablished in 192C, the Statue of which, revised for the first time in 1929, will again be revised in 1945. These are not quest ions of pure form; the last, in particular, affects the operation of numerous treaties containj_ng reference to the jurisdiction of the Permanent Court of International Jus tice • • For these reasons the draft Statue gives no wording for what is t o be Article 1 of the latter • • DRAFT SThTUTE Article 1 LFor reasons stated j_n tr:e accompanyj_ng Report, the text of Article 1 has been left in blank pending decision by i he United Nations Conference at San Francisco~7 The Commi t tee has proceeded to a revision, article by article, of the Ptatute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. This revision consisted, on the one hand, in the effecting of certain adaptations of form rendered necessary by the substitution of The United Nations for the League of Nat­ ions; on the ot her hand, in the introduction of certain changes judged desirable and now possible. Pith regard to this siecond point, moreover, the Committee has considered that it was better to postpone certain amendments than to compromise· by excessive haste t he success of the present project for an International Organization, this even in consideration of the eminent function pertaining to the Court in a world organization which The United Nations intend to construct in such manner that peace for all and the rights uf each one may be ef fectively assured , It has happened many times that thi s exam ination has l ed the Co m:iJ.~t tee to propose r Etaining such or such Articles of the ftatute without cl:,::..:::1.ge. How,-? i: 8r, ~he,cc-:nmi ttee has deemed i t useful to n v:,:o er the p,~r3. grap hs of each article or' the Statute, w~e ther changed or not. CHAPTER I Organization of the Court The Committee has introduced only one modification in Article 2. Despite the res ti:~ ct at tach:.ng to the name of The Permanent Cour t of Inter~ational Justice, it has eliminated that name f rom t ~~ s Article in order not to pre­ judice : n any way the decisicn which is to be made with regard to f rticle I: this elimination may be only ~rovisional. 61 Jurist 61 (revised) * * * Article 2. The Court shall be composed of a body of independent judges, elected regardless of their nationality fr·Jm among persons enjoying the highest moral esteem, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurists of recognized competence in international law. 7 * * * Although the proposal has been made to reduce the number of the members of the Court either preserving the general structure thereof, or changing it, the CJmmittee has deemed it preferable to preserve both this structure and the number of judges which in 1929 was made fifteen. It has been pointed out that, thereby, the interest taken in the Court in the different countries would be increased and that the creation of chambers within the Court would be facilitated. A member of the Ct,mmittee suggested that that would permit the representation of different types of civilization. On the other hand, the Committee has seen fit to establish directly in this Article the rule derived indirectly from another provision and which does not permit a State or Member of The United Nations to number more than one of its nationals among the members of the Court. Article 3 The Court shall consist of fifteen members, no two of whom may be nationals of the same State or Member of The United Nations. * * * For the election of the judges it is provided, in accordance with what seems to be the spirit of the Dumbarton Oaks Proposals, to have it done by the General Assembly of The United Nations and the Security Council, leaving to these the task of determining how a state which, while accepting the Statute of the Court, is not a Member of The United Nations, may participate in the election. The method of nomination with a view to this election has given rise to an extensive debate, certain delegations having advocated nomination by the Governments instead of entrusting such designation to the national groups in the Permanent Court 61 -3- Jurist Cl (revised) of Arbitration as has been established in the present Statute; the continuance of the present regime has been defended as introducing a non-political influence at this point of the procedure for the election of the judges. In the debate, at the moment of the vote, the Committee was divided without a majority being clearly shown. _· Afterward a compromise sugges­ tion was presented by the Delegate of Turkey; it would have l consisted in giving the Government the power of not trans~ mitting the nominations of candidates decided upon by the national group, this disagreement depriving the country • concerned of the exercise of the right to nominate candidates for the election in question.