Слике страница
PDF
ePub

notice, for American citizens to express their views on the subject? Would any vital American interest suffer if this matter were put over for a year or put on ice for an indefinite time?

There are highly organized groups in the United States that seem infatuated with the idea that the United States has only to enmesh itself and its interests with those of other nations in order to insure a just peace.

But our involvement in the Korean war is alone enough to refute this notion. Due to the brilliance of General MacArthur and one or more of his successors in command in Korea, that war would have been won-in fact, was to all intents and purposes won. Yet we were compelled by our tie-in with other nations to refrain from winning the war. And so we lost it.

I firmly believe that this resolution should be defeated.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. Thank you, Mr. Hart, for your statement. I want to refer to only one paragraph on page 4 in which you object to what you believe to be the short notice and precipitate nature of this hearing.

This resolution, I believe, was filed last year. It has been the subject of considerable discussion over the country.

As everyone knows, for various reasons, this session of the Congress is going to be somewhat compressed. There are a couple of conventions that are going to be held in July that will probably have an effect on adjournment time; I am not sure. But anyway, notice was given, I believe, on the 21st of January-but I will check that date that these hearings would be held, and up until, I believe, today or yesterday at the latest, every person, organization, or group that had desired to be heard was put on the list to be heard.

I believe six or seven requests more have come in, either last night or today, requesting to be heard.

I cannot speak for the chairman; I cannot commit the committee. The attendance here at this particular moment precludes any polling of the committee, so I am not authorized to make any commitments, but I have no doubt that within all reasonable limits any appropriate or proper people or groups who have views to present on this will be permitted to present those views.

I am sure that I do speak for the chairman and for the committee when I say that we, regardless of our personal opinions on this matter one way or the other, have no desire to compress this hearing nor to rush through unduly in any way, shape, or form.

I merely say that in defense of the committee procedure, and I would not want you to misinterpret the action of the committee on this matter.

We hope to have as adequate hearings as the circumstances will permit.

Mr. HART. Then, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for that. I would simply suggest that owing to the importance of the subject, the overwhelming importance, and owing to the fact, as you just said, that this year's calendar is going to be very tight, the whole matter should go over at least a year for further hearings then. Senator HICKENLOOPER. Yes, I understand your position.

May I just correct my statement of a moment ago? A public press release and publicity on the hearing was not put out on January 21;

it was put out on the 15th of January, so I merely want to make that correction for the record.

Mr. HART. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hart.

The next witness is Mr. Harold Evans, Friends Committee on National Legislation.

STATEMENT OF HAROLD EVANS, FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON

NATIONAL LEGISLATION

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman and Senator Hickenlooper, my name is Harold Evans, and I apologize for my voice, but I cannot help it. I live in Philadelphia where I have practiced law for nearly 50 years. I am a member of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) but neither I nor anyone else can speak officially for them as a group. I feel confident, however, that the great majority of them strongly support Senate Resolution 94.

NEED FOR INTERNATIONAL COURT TO SETTLE DISPUTES

Men today are united, I believe, as never before in a well nigh universal desire to abolish war. But if war is to be abolished, international disputes that cannot be settled by negotiations or arbitration must be settled by law. And if they are to be settled by law there must be one or more courts with compulsory jurisdiction to settle international disputes, the resolution of which depends upon facts and the application of principles of law.

The International Court of Justice is such a Court. Thirty-two nations have without reservation accepted its compulsory jurisdiction in disputes involving the interpretation of a treaty, in questions of international law, the existence of a breach of an international obligation, or the reparation to be made for such a breach, unless some other means of settlement has been agreed to by all the parties or unless the dispute involves a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a party. Six other nations, including the United States, have accepted compulsory jurisdiction but each, following the example of the United States in 1946, has provided that it may unilaterally determine whether a dispute is within its domestic jurisdiction. France originally had a similar self-judging domestic jurisdiction reservation, and because of this fact its suit against Norway (which had no similar reservation) was thrown out on Norway's statement that the matter was within its domestic jurisdiction. France subsequently withdrew its self-judging domestic jurisdiction reservation. It has withdrawn it probably largely due to its experience with Norway with its dispute on the Norwegian loans.

RESERVATION AS A BLOCK TO SUCCESSFUL FUNCTIONING OF COURT

Now, I think it cannot reasonably be gainsaid that our action in writing into our acceptance resolution of August 2, 1946, the words “as determined by the United States" have been an effective block to the successful functioning of the International Court. In any national judicial system it would be unthinkable for a defendant to have the right to determine whether the court had jurisdiction of an action

brought against him. To do so in the field of international disputes casts serious doubt in the minds of others as to the sincerity of our advocacy of the rules of law in the world.

The record of the United States during this century in the field of the peaceful settlement of international disputes has been one of strong and effective leadership in promoting agencies to this end-the Permanent Court of Arbitration, the Permanent Court of International Justice, and the International Court of Justice-but a deadening lack of faith in supporting them, after they have been created, and in trusting important issues to their decision. These courts could not function effectively without our active backing and we have failed them.

BELIEF IN RIGHT RATHER THAN MIGHT

For us, even at this late date, to withdraw the crippling self-judging reservation would help remove the doubt that uncommitted nations have had as to the sincerity of our advocacy of the rule of law in the world. Our willingness to agree in advance to submit our international disputes to the decision of an impartial court is an acid test of our professed belief in right rather than in might. Of the 10 nations in NATO the United States is the only one which denies the International Court the right to determine its own jurisdiction. I believe it is high time that we rid ourselves of this unenviable distinction.

I have read with interest the reports you have received from the Department of State and the Department of Justice favoring Senate Resolution 94 and heartily agree with them. There is no need of my reiterating their arguments.

DANGER OF INACTION

If there are some who feel that danger is involved I would agree with them, but I am convinced that the danger of inaction is far greater than the danger of action. The danger of giving the International Court of Justice the right to determine its own jurisdiction is merely that it may erroneously decide that it has jurisdiction to pass on questions that are essentially domestic. The decisions of the Court and the character of its judges show, it seems to me, how small this danger is compared with the danger of losing the confidence of the free nations of the world that we are wholeheartedly supporting in international affairs the rule of law which was long ago defined by Aristotle as "intelligence without passion."

REQUIREMENT OF FAITH

Now, Senator Hickenlooper says it requires faith, and I would agree with him that it does require some faith, but I think in looking at the history of the world we find that progress has nearly always come from faith which has been exercised on a reasonable basis.

Certainly in the founding of our own country it was true, and it seems to me that in the field of international relations today, unless there can be some faith, there is little chance of further progress. I thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mrs. Wilson K. Barnes, the national chairman of the national defense committee, the National Society of Daughters of the American Revolution.

Mrs. Barnes, we are glad to have you.

STATEMENT OF MRS. WILSON KING BARNES, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL DEFENSE COMMITTEE, NATIONAL SOCIETY, DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

Mrs. BARNES. Thank you for the privilege of allowing me to present the statement of the National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution, concerning Senate Resolution 94, to the distinguished members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

I am Mrs. Wilson King Barnes, chairman of the national defense committee, National Society, Daughters of the American Revolution. Senator Humphrey, in his bill-Senate Resolution 94-has proposed to our Congress that the Connally amendment to the Statute of the International Court of Justice be repealed. This amendment reserved to the United States the right to determine unilaterally whether a subject of litigation lies essentially within domestic jurisdiction. Senator Humphrey's bill would eliminate this automatic reservation from our declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The reasons for our opposition to the repeal of the Connally amendment are as follows:

CONFERRING POWERS TO DETERMINE JURISDICTION

It would indeed be ironical for this Nation to confer upon a foreign body the power to determine its judicial jurisdiction which no court in the United States, Federal or State, has been given. In the United States, all courts have their jurisdictions conferred by either a written constitution or a statute passed by the legislative branch of the Government. American courts determine their own jurisdiction only in the context of a definitive body of constitutional and statutory law. If the determination of jurisdiction is an usurpation of power, the legislative branch of the Federal or State Government may readily eliminate the usurpation. There is no definitive body of international law other than in the maritime field of jurisprudence, and the United Nations Charter does not purport to limit in any definitive manner the distinction between international and domestic areas of decision.

BLENDING SOCIOLOGICAL AND POLITICAL CONCEPTS WITH JUDICIAL

DECISIONS

The United States during the last 25 years has experienced decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States in which there has been a trend of blending sociological and political concepts with judicial decisions. This demonstrates the inherent danger in entrusting to the World Court the power to define its own jurisdiction. The Supreme Court, composed of jurists trained in the same legal tradition, limited by the written Constitution and municipal law, has extended its jurisdiction into political and sociological areas. It is reasonable to believe

that the International Court of Justice with no definitive body of law, no prior tradition of judicial restraint, and with judges trained in different legal systems, and without agreement among themselves as to either the principles of law to be applied or the methods of applying the law would fail to decide cases upon a political and ideological rather than upon a strictly judicial basis.

COVENANT OF HUMAN RIGHTS

The jurisdiction of the Court comprises all cases which the parties refer to it, and all matters specially provided for in the Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions in force. Should the United States subscribe to the Covenant of Human Rights, its citizens would find there is no guarantee to the ownership of private property and that the concepts of inalienable rights derived from our Creator have been changed to that of the State as their author; furthermore that those rights are not absolute but exist only so long as they do not threaten national security.

GENOCIDE CONVENTION

Although the International Court is supposed to try only cases between nations, the Genocide Convention permits trial of individuals who by an act or word cause serious mental harm or inflict conditions of life bringing about destruction in whole or in part of national, ethnical, or racial groups. Thus a citizen of the United States, should this country adhere to the Genocide Convention, might be tried and sentenced by the International Court.

DETERMINING DOMESTIC JURISDICTION

The United States is apparently the only Federal Union member of the United Nations, in which the Central Government has one group of powers while all others are lodged in the several States. All State powers and all Federal powers would seem to be essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of this country, but whether the International Court of Justice, composed of members whose ideologies and system of laws are foreign to the common law and constitutional law of this country, would so decide is problematical. To the Soviet Union, the basis of our law is called bourgeois morality and even among nations friendly to the United States, there are differences as to principles

of law.

The States as the only parties capable of amending our Constitution might find themselves shorn of that power, as well as their other governmental powers, if we should waive our present right of unilateral decision.

IMMUNITY TO CONSTITUTION AND SUPREMACY OVER DOMESTIC LAW

At present a dispute between the United States and another nation can be settled by the World Court if both nations agree for it to be decided. A blanket submission to International Court jurisdiction would put the same tool for nullifying our Federal and State constitutions in the hands of forces outside the United States as would the use

[blocks in formation]
« ПретходнаНастави »