Release of the World Court from the bondage of the Connally amendment ought to be regarded as one of the most important aims of the 1960 congressional session.

[From the New York Herald-Tribune, Dec. 10, 1959] ATMOSPHERE HAS CHANGED-CUTTING WORLD COURT STRINGS By Victor Wilson

(Mr. Wilson is on the staff of the Herald-Tribune Washington Bureau) WASHINGTON.-The legal and diplomatic worlds are watching with alert attention an act of practical idealism being planned by President Eisenhower.

This is his announced intention to propose, on an "appropriate occasion," that the Senate undo an action of August 2, 1946, which, in effect, nullified the usefulness of the International Court of Justice, by hedging on American adherence. The blow to the World Court came in just six words written by former Senator Tom Connally, Democrat of Texas, then chairman of the Senate's Foreign Relations Committee.

The words, added to a Senate resolution, gave the court, judicial organ of the United Nations, jurisdiction in international disputes affecting the United States, but excluded jurisdiction in matters regarded as domestic "as determined by the United States."

Since, under the U.N. charter, the Court and not litigants, decides what is an international dispute and what is a domestic dispute, Senator Connally's sixword reservation made American adherence to the court "illusory." Nevertheless, the Connally reservation carried by a 51-12 vote (10 Democrats and 2 Republicans opposing). And the resolution itself, which had the effect of a treaty, was passed, 62-2. (Republicans Langer and Shipstead opposed.)

Other U.N. member nations decided quite rightly that the Connally reservation barred Court action in any case affecting the United States, without this country's consent, since it could claim that a case it didn't want to be heard was a domestic affair. Many of these nations, including most big ones, hastened to make major and minor hedges of their own.

The upshot has been that in the 13 years of its existence, the Court, which has 15 judges at $20,000 a year each, has acted in less than a dozen cases.

Mr. Eisenhower would like to change all this with one idealistic stroke. In an exchange of letters with Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat of Minnesota, he said he will seek elimination of the "automatic reservation," and hope that other countries will follow suit, thus contributing to the "greater effectiveness" of the World Court.

But there is a thoroughly practical side to this, too.

Russia and its satellites, in and out of the U.N., never bothered with hedges on World Court jurisdiction, simply ignoring its authority on anything. On the other hand, the United States, because of its reservation on jurisdiction, can not legally hail another nation before the Court.

If the reservation were dropped by this country, however, it might very well demand a hearing before the court on such cases as the Soviet assault on Hungary, the Chinese Communist suppression of the Tibetans, and similar cases that might arise.

The defendants probably would not appear before the bar, but their condemnation by a legally constituted World Court would have a greater impact on global public opinion than a U.N. condemnation, with its always-present political overtones.

A vehicle for the President's practical idealism is already present in a resolution given to the Senate by Senator Humphrey on March 24, 1959. It would simply delete former Senator Connally's six words from the treaty.

Senator Humphrey's resolution is now in the hands of the Foreign Relations Committee, headed by Senator J. William Fulbright, Democrat of Arkansas. Though Senator Fulbright favors the deletion (he voted against the Connally reservation in August, 1946), it is understood he has hesitated to hold hearings on it, fearing that too early action might do more harm than good.

Now, it is understood, the entire atmosphere has changed because of President Eisenhower's stand. Furthermore, it is pointed out by Senate observers, the old rigid isolationist bloc in that body has been pretty well shattered by the voters.

A two-thirds vote of the Senate would be required to pass the Humphrey resolution or a similar one proposed by the President. Though no nose-count has been attempted, knowledgeable quarters here believe it would carry easily. No House action would be necessary.

Supporters of the Humphrey resolution are quick to point out, however, that its passage would not immediately usher in an era of sweetness and light in international affairs.

Big powers, they expect, would continue to settle big issues among themselves outside the U.N.-just as they do now.

But, they add, any step that works toward the settlement of any issues, large or small, by a rule of law, instead of force, is a gain for peace.

[From the Charlotte (N.C.) Observer, Dec. 11, 1959]

ONLY ROAD TO PEACE-IKE SAYS ALL NATIONS MUST ABIDE BY LAW

HE GETS OVATION IN INDIA-INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNAL URGED

NEW DELHI (Friday) (AP).-President Eisenhower declared Thursday nations must accept the rule of international law to provide a sound basis for peace. He spoke in an academic followup to his speech Thursday in Parliament implying strong American support for India in its conflict with Red China.

"It is better to lose a point now and then in an international tribunal," he said, "and gain a world in which everyone lives at peace under the rule of law." The President thus renewed his plea for peace in a speech prepared for a convocation at Delhi University on the acceptance of an honorary degree.

He won a deafening ovation Thursday when he appeared before 600 legislators at a joint sitting of Parliament. There he told the Indian nation, jittery over the border dispute with Red China, that the United States has strong forces ready to help its friends. He warned that military weakness invites aggression, subversion, and revolution manipulated from without.

Eisenhower delivers another speech later today at the World Agriculture Fair. He will cut a ribbon to open the 5-acre American pavilion, one of the highlights of his visit to India.

Speaking at the 30-year-old university of 10,000 students near the walled old city of Delhi, Eisenhower said development of a reliable framework of law among nations is needed to permit economic development as well as to put "an end to the suicidal strife of war."

He also proposed greater exchanges of students, so the world can "look on our youth, eager for larger and clearer knowledge, as forces for international understanding."

The President called young people the "vital, dynamic element in the world's resources for construction of a just and secure peace."

Stressing the important links of peace and international law, Eisenhower praised India for recently accepting, with only a few reservations, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice at The Hague.

The Indian note of acceptance followed closely the model of U.S. acceptance. The Soviet Union repeatedly has refused to have anything to do with the Court. "A reliable framework of law, grounded in the general principles recognized by civilized nations, is of crucial importance in all plans for rapid economic development around the earth," Eisenhower said.

The rule of law is needed, he went on, "for one good reason: If international controversy leads to armed conflict, everyone loses; if armed conflict is avoided, everyone wins."

[From the New York Times, Nov. 27, 1959]

EISENHOWER SAYS ARMS PACT VALUE OUTWEIGHS RISKS-CONCEDES SOME DANGER OF EVASION OF A TREATY BUT GREAT PERIL WITH NONE

HE WRITES HUMPHREY-PLANS NEW PLEA TO CONGRESS TO DROP U.S. RESERVATION ON USING WORLD COURT

WASHINGTON, November 26.-President Eisenhower believes the risks of nonagreement on disarmament are "enormous."

On the other hand, he asserts, if the United States signs such an agreement it runs "some risks" that other nations might evade its terms.

He made his views known in a letter from Augusta, Ga., dated November 17, and made public today by Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat, of Minnesota.

Senator Humphrey, as chairman of a Senate Subcommittee on Disarmament, had written the President urging new efforts for arms control. The Minnesotan also urged early passage of a Senate resolution that would remove the reservation imposed by the Senate on its acceptance of jurisdiction by the International Court of Justice. The reservation is one that would permit the United States to declare "essentially domestic" an issue that it did not wish the Court to hear. The President declared his intention to "restate to the Congress my support for the elimination of this restriction."

Such action, the President held, "would place the United States in a better position to urge other countries to agree to wider jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice."

The President said that one of the chief efforts of this country in the last half dozen years had been to try to develop means for controlling and cutting armaments.

He told Mr. Humphrey that success in this quest would bring greater security to all countries and ease the threat of a nuclear conflict.

The President said he was hopeful that the present talks at Geneva on discontinuance of atomic weapons testing would produce agreement.

Senator Humphrey wrote the President that advocacy of measures toward establishing a just and lasting peace was particularly urgent now, after the recent visit of Premier Khrushchev of the Soviet Union.

Such a move, the Senator said, would make it doubly clear to the entire world that, "while we shall strive mightily for a peaceful resolution of Soviet-United States differences, our goal has not shifted toward a two-power world."

Instead, he said, "We continue to look resolutely toward an international system in which the rights of all nations will be respected, regardless of size or military power."

Following is the text of the President's letter:

"Dear Senator Humphrey :

"I write now in further reply to your letter of October 21, 1959.

"One of the great purposes of this administration has been to advance the rule of law in the world, through actions directly by the U.S. Government and in concert with the governments of other countries. It is open to us to further this great purpose both through optimum use of existing international institutions and through the adoption of changes and improvements in those institutions.

"Timely consideration by the United Nations of threatening situations, in Egypt in 1956, in Lebanon in 1958, and in Laos in 1959, has made an important contribution to the preservation of international peace and security. The continued development of mutual defense and security arrangements among the United States and a large number of free world countries has provided a powerful deterrent against international lawbreaking. One cannot, however, be satisfied with the way events have developed in some areas, for example, Hungary and Tibet. The international community needs to find more effective means to cope with and to prevent such brutal uses of force.

"One of the principal efforts of the United States in the last half dozen years has been to devise effective means for controlling and reducing armaments. Success in this quest will bring greater security to all countries and lift the threat of devastating nuclear conflict. In order to make progress toward the goal of complete and general disarmament expressed in the United Nations resolution recently sponsored by the United States and the other members of the General Assembly, this Government has followed the policy of seeking re

liable international agreements on manageable segments of the whole arms problem. I am hopeful that the current Geneva negotiations on discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests will produce agreement. A resulting treaty would, of course, be submitted to the Senate.

"Next year the United States will be participating in further disarmament efforts to be undertaken by a group of 10 nations which will, as appropriate, report on its progress to the United Nations Disarmament Commission and General Assembly. The best and most carefully elaborated disarmament agreements are likely to carry with them some risks, at least theoretically, of evasion. But one must ponder, in reaching decisions on the very complex and difficult subject of arms control, the enormous risks entailed if reasonable steps are not taken to curb the international competition in armaments and to move effectively in the direction of disarmament.

"As you know from my message to the Congress on the state of the Union in January 1959, and from expressions by the Vice President, the Secretary of State, and the Attorney General, the administration is anxious to contribute to the greater effectiveness of the International Court of Justice. The administration supports elimination of the automatic reservation to the Court's jurisdiction by which the United States has reserved to itself the right to determine unilaterally whether a subject of litigation lies essentially within domestic jurisdiction. I intend, therefore, on an appropriate occasion, to restate to the Congress my support for the elimination of this reservation. Elimination of this automatic reservation from our own declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction would place the United States in a better position to urge other countries to agree to wider jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. "I appreciate having your views on this vitally important subject.”

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 27, 1959]

IKE ASKS UNITED STATES TO BACK STRONGER WORLD COURT-PROPOSES MOVE TO REPEAL "VETO" ON JURISDICTION

(By Warren Duffee)

United Press International

President Eisenhower said in a letter made public last night that the World Court must be strengthened because more effective means are needed to prevent such brutal uses of force as the Communists applied in Hungary and Tibet.

He said he would ask Congress again to eliminate its requirement that the United States decide for itself whether a subject of litigation is a domestic problem or within the Court's jurisdiction.

Mr. Eisenhower said in a letter to Senator Hubert H. Humphrey, Democrat, of Minnesota, that he would restate to Congress, "on an appropriate occasion," his opposition to the restriction. The letter was dated November 17 from Augusta, Ga.

Humphrey had written the President asking support for a resolution to repeal the "automatic reservation" provision, authored by former Senator Tom Connally, Democrat, of Texas.

“The administration is anxious to contribute to the greater effectiveness of the International Court of Justice (World Court)," Mr. Eisenhower said.

"Elimination of this automatic reservation from our own declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction would place the United States in a better position to urge other countries to agree to wider jurisdiction of the Court," he said.

"One of the great purposes of this administration," Mr. Eisenhower said, "has been to advance the rule of law in the world, through actions directly by the U.S. Government and in concert with the governments of other countries."

He pointed out that the United Nations and "continued development of mutual defense and security arrangements among the United States and a large number of free world countries” have provided a powerful deterrent against international lawbreaking.

But he indicated that these were not enough.

"One cannot be satisfied with the way events have developed in some areas; for example, Hungary and Tibet," the President said. "The international community needs to find more effective means to cope with and to prevent such brutal uses of force."

Mr. Eisenhower also stressed the importance of devising effective means of controlling and reducing armaments. He said that success in this quest will bring greater security to all countries and lift the threat of devastating nuclear conflict.

Mr. Eisenhower expressed hope that the current Geneva negotiations on discontinuance of nuclear weapons tests "will produce agreement." He noted that the United States would take part in further disarmament efforts next year in a group of 10 nations that will report to the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the General Assembly.

He cautioned that the best and most carefully elaborated disarmament agreements are likely to carry with them some risks, at least theoretically, of evasion. But the alternative, he said, entails greater risks.

[From the Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Dec. 2, 1959]

FOR THE RULE OF LAW

As President Eisenhower has declared in his letter to Democratic Senator Humphrey, the International Court of Justice more popularly known as the World Court-would be strengthened if our country withdrew its reservation regarding disputes that may be technically construed as involving questions of an essentially domestic nature. In the opinion of numerous outstanding legal experts, the effect of the reservation, which has been enacted by many other nations (in keeping with the example we set in 1946), has been to circumscribe and weaken the Court's potentialities as an organization designed to promote peace through the rule of law.

With this in mind, Mr. Eisenhower has told Mr. Humphrey that the Republican administration favors legislation under which our Government would no longer reserve to itself "the right to determine unilaterally" whether a subject of international litigation lies within domestic jurisdiction and may therefore be ignored by us if another nation brings it up before the World Court. Further, he has affirmed his intention to request Congress, on an appropriate occasion, to do away with the reservation and thus place the United States in a better position to urge other countries to agree to wider jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Mr. Humphrey, as chairman of a Senate Disarmament Subcommittee, has already introduced a simple resolution to that end, and it well deserves to be adopted.

Of course, on great issues involving international power plays and farreaching political maneuvers-issues like the contest over the future of West Berlin-the World Court can do little or nothing. Such issues, in fact, lend themselves much more to negotiation than to a judicial procedure. Nevertheless, in a strictly legal sense, there are many questions that could be settled through such a procedure if countries like our own did not insist upon the unilateral right to say whether or not those questions are basically domestic. If this reservation were eliminated, the International Court's work in behalf of peace could hardly fail to increase in effectiveness.

[From The Evening Star, Washington, D.C., Nov. 27, 1959]

WORLD COURT CURB ASSAILED

President Eisenhower says "the international community needs to find more effective means to cope with and to prevent such brutal uses of force" as the Communists employed in Hungary and Tibet.

The President said he intends to renew his request to Congress to repeal a restriction on U.S. participation in the International Court of Justice, or World Court.

At present this country reserves the right to decide whether an international issue falls within the World Court's jurisdiction. In other words, no case involving the United States can be taken before the World Court without this country's approval. Other countries also reserve this right to "veto" the Court's jurisdiction.

"Elimination of this automatic reservation from our own declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction would place the United States in a better position to

51053-60-26