tion on Norwegian bonds, France having copied the self-judging aspect of the domestic jurisdiction reservation of the United States. (Case of Certain Norwegian Loans, Judgment of July 6, 1957; I.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 9.) Some of the judges of the International Court are of the opinion that the self-judging reservation is, as the Senate subcommittee suggested in 1946, a violation of paragraph 6 of article 36 of the statute which provides: "In the event of a dispute as to whether the Court has jurisdiction, the matter shall be settled by the decision of the Court." The same opinion was expressed by Senator Pepper in the Senate debates of July 1946. Under this view, the entire declaration under the optional clause may be held invalid. In any event, the United States is unable to sue any other state in the International Court unless that state should agree ad hoc to such suit. Accordingly the United States has not secured the protection which was contemplated by the Congress in enacting section 115 (b) 10 of the Economic Cooperation Act. It cannot secure such protection unless it repeals the self-judging clause.

Throughout its history, the United States has sought the settlement of international claims through various types of international adjudication according to law. The need for judicial settlement is greater than ever since the establishment of the United Nations, but the United States has legislated itself out of the right to invoke the jurisdiction of the International Court even as against those other states which have freely accepted that jurisdiction.

THE LONG-RANGE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES ARE IMPAIRED BY THE SELFJUDGING CLAUSE

It is in the long-range interests of the United States to promote the rule of law generally among nations beginning with those nations associated with us in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and in the Organization of American States and extending to other states in Europe, in the Middle East and Asia, and in Africa. It is the constant and proper policy of the United States to bring home constantly to the attention of the governments and peoples of other countries that the actions of the Communist nations belie their protestations that they are the nations of peace. It is essential that the United States should support its own peaceful attitudes by support of the rule of law, not only in words but in actions. The repeal of the self-judging part of the domestic jurisdiction reservation would be notice to the world that the United States, in contrast to the Soviet Union, is a law-abiding State prepared to have international legal disputes adjudicated in the "principal judicial organ of the United Nations"; that the United States is observant of the principle laid down in article 36, paragraph 3 of the Charter of the United Nations, namely, "that legal disputes should às a general rule be referred by the parties to the International Court of Justice in accordance with the provisions of the Statute of the Court." THE INTERESTS OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD NOT BE ENDANGERED BY THE REPEAL OF THE SELF-JUDGING CLAUSE

A study of the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice reveals that the Court is insistent on the point that its jurisdiction depends upon the consent of the parties. The Court has not showed the slightest inclination to amplify its own authority or to act in any but a judicial and impartial way. Of course the United States might not win every case to which it was a party; we have both won and lost cases in international tribunals since 1794 when we first by the terms of the Jay Treaty agreed to this form of settlement of some of our then outstanding disputes with England.

The judgments and opinions of the International Court of Justice are well reasoned and based on law. We have had no reason to criticize the attitude of the Court in the cases to which we have been a party, that is, the case with France concerning American rights in Morocco; the Interhandel case with Switzerland; and the case of the Albanian gold in which we were only a nominal party.

As was pointed out by the Senate subcommittee in 1946 and as has been noted in other statements to this committee during the hearings on Senate Resolution 94 in January of this year, even without the self-judging clause, the Court could not take jurisdiction of any case involving matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.

51053-60- -27

Great Britain has not felt or found it necessary to attach a self-judging clause to its acceptance of the optional clause and it has had more actual experience with the world court than the United States has had. France, which had a self-judging clause copied from that of the United States, withdrew it after its experience in the Norwegian Loans case described above. The only other states which maintain at this time self-judging reservations modeled on that of the United States are Liberia, Mexico, Pakistan, the Sudan, Union of South Africa.

I have confined this statement to the main issue raised by Senate Resolution 94 and have not discussed other questions concerning the advantage to the United States of further acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

STATEMENT OF DR. HARLAND J. O'DELL, VICE PRESIDENT, THE AMERICAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIAN CHURCHES, AND PASTOR, THE CANTON GOSPEL CENTER, Canton, OHIO, FEBRUARY 17, 1960

I am Dr. Harland J. O'Dell of Canton, Ohio, pastor of the Canton Gospel Center, and vice president of the American Council of Christian Churches. I wish to present to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations the viewpoint of the conservative-minded people of the churches in the American Council of Christian Churches on pending resolution, S. 94.

The American Council of Christian Churches represents 17 denominations and independent churches, with a membership of more than one and a half million. We as a group of Americans are opposed to the repeal of the Connally amendment for the following reasons:

1. In these days of confusion, distrust, and deceit, and of nation after nation ruled by tyranny, we need to strengthen the historic independence and freedom of our country rather than weaken it. Subtle forces within our country-though in some instances well meaning, and less well-meaning forces from the outside are suggesting that we surrender a basic, fundamental principle of our freedom to the jurisdiction of a world court, where the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States have no meaning at all.

2. Not one argument I have seen thus far presented in favor of the repeal of the Connally amendment is a sufficient reason to forfeit and jeopardize our historic liberty and the right to be tried in a court of justice.

3. We are being asked to form a world court of "justice" with such nations as Russia, who has boasted of broken promises, and in whose fundamental philosophy, lies, and deception are an admitted necessity. Moreover, this Court will be dominated by Russia, and her philosophy of "justice" will then take preeminence over the Constitution of the United States by the simple expedient of being outnumbered.

Our

4. We have a moral obligation to preserve the heritage we have received. Founding Fathers fought and died for the principles they outlined in our Constitution, and passed on these liberties to us. It goes without saying that we owe it to ourselves, to our children and their children, to keep safe and strong these freedoms and rights that have sprung from faith in God and have cost so many so much.

5. The whole idea of justice through a world court is paradoxical. It is inconceivable that any law could be enacted by a system that has produced tyranny on every hand, that could also produce justice for the free peoples of the world. The Bible states this principle so aptly in the third chapter of the book of James, verse 11: "Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?" 6. The American people ought to be able to see and read the proposed "international laws" upon which any world court would make its decisions, before they even think of discarding their rights under the Constitution of the United States. Where are these laws? What strange statutes will replace our Bill of Rights? This is something every American has a right to ask.

7. Our Nation under God was founded upon Christian principles, and many times religious matters involving legal decisions must be interpreted by our courts. We cannot expect a just and fair decision from atheistic people from Communist countries where the record shows the murder of thousands of Christian people and whose avowed purpose is to stamp out religion.

CONCLUSION

The pressures causing the seeming need for a world court stem from the frightening strength and destructive power of both the United States and Russia in this missile age. May God help us to think straight, hold fast our freedom, and remember the Bible says in Proverbs 21, verse 31, "The horse is prepared against the day of battle, but safety is of the Lord."

STATEMENT OF KENT COURTNEY, PUBLISHER, THE INDEPENDENT AMERICAN NEWSPAPER, AND PUBLISHER, THE SOLID SOUTH NEWSPAPER

I am very honored to appear before this committee to speak out on behalf of the more than 10,000 subscribers to the Independent American newspaper and the Solid South newspaper, which subscribers are located in 49 States.

The reason I am here before this committee is because several hundred of my subscribers have requested that I present the following testimony: My main thesis is that the repeal of the Connally amendment would jeopardize the United States of America as an independent republic.

To substantiate this declaration I present the following information :

"WORLD PEACE THROUGH WORLD LAW"?

The American people are, for the most part, a trusting people with respect for law, order and the U.S. Constitution. Unfortunately, however, some Americans are also gullible and will believe anything, provided that:

(a) It has a lofty-sounding slogan.

(b) Well-recognized political leaders are associated with the promotion. Surely, the phrase "World peace through world law" sounds good. Everyone wants peace.

And the promoters of this noble-sounding slogan are no less than the President of the United States and Presidential aspirants Nixon and Humphrey. Certainly those are "big names."

These promoters of "world law" propose to achieve world "peace" by repealing the Connally amendment, so that all issues, whether domestic or international, can be settled by the World Court, of which Communist Russia is a member. President Eisenhower hopes by such action to "shame" the Soviet Union into agreeing to do likewise, and thus "world peace would be established on earth." But would it?

Continuing concessions by the United States and attempts to “shame" Communist Russia into becoming an honorable member of the family of nations are futile and foredoomed to failure.

RED RECORD OF BROKEN AGREEMENTS

Pointing up the futility of "peace agreements" with the Soviet Union, a 1955 report by the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee stated: "The staff found that in the 38 short years since the Soviet Union came into existence its Government had broken its word to virtually every country to which it ever gave a signed promise * * *. It keeps no international promises at all unless doing so is clearly advantageous to the Soviet Union."

RISKING AMERICA'S SOVEREIGNTY

Even when confronted with the indisputable fact that Red Russia does not live up to her agreements, the promoters of "world peace through world law” still persist in urging "one more try," and are willing to jeopardize the sovereignty of the United States in order to promote their scheme of "world law." Here's how they plan to go about it:

THE CONNALLY AMENDMENT

In 1946 the U.S. Senate passed a resolution giving the World Court (the judicial arm of the United Nations) jurisdiction in international disputes affecting the United States. However, the Senate resolution contained one vital safeguard of American interests and this was a provision that the World Court would not have jurisdiction in "matters which are essentially within the domestic

jurisdiction of the United States as determined by the United States." These last six words "as determined by the United States," are known as the Connally amendment.

In discussing this subject the Arizona Republic of Phoenix stated editorially: "If the United States yields its right to determine whether a matter is domestic or not, it yields a substantial portion of its sovereignty to a court on which two Communist judges usually sit. It binds itself to accept the decisions of a court that is weighted against democratic principles."

Further, if the Connally amendment is removed, then the World Court, sitting in The Hague, Netherlands, will have the right to determine whether a dispute is international or domestic.

ARE WORLD COURT PROMOTERS SINCERE?

Attorney General Rogers says that he is sure the World Court would not accept purely domestic cases. Mr. Rogers has a right to his opinion but one man's hopeful opinion should most surely not be a basis for risking the sovereignty of these United States. Also, if the internationalists of both political parties, who are pushing for repeal of the Connally amendment sincerely believe that the World Court will rule only on international matters, then why are they so loudly urging the repeal of the Connally amendment? Why not leave the Connally amendment intact where it can safeguard America's interests by preventing the World Court from ruling on domestic issues? The position of the internationalists is weak indeed.

WHAT IS THE WORLD COURT?

Before the United States gives up its national sovereignty, and the right to decide which are domestic issues, affecting all the citizens of our Nation, and 'before we put the destiny and control of our Nation in the hands of a World Court dominated by people from foreign lands-let us take a look at what the World Court really is:

QUALIFICATIONS OF WORLD COURT MEMBERS

All judges are nominated by governments which are members of the United Nations, and require for election a majority vote in both the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations. The nominations, therefore, are strictly political. No bar association or other professinal group may nominate.

The World Court judges take no oath of office to any principle.

There are no uniform United Nations qualifications for World Court judges— not even a legal degree.

Several of the judges now serving are from countries that have not accepted any jurisdiction of the World Court-even on international matters. And yet these judges would (if the Connally amendment is repealed) be able to rule on domestic issues in the United States.

WE ARE OUTNUMBERED 14 TO 1

The World Court is composed of 15 judges. No nation may have more than one judge. The current court is composed of the following nations: The United States of America, Egypt, Nationalist China, Australia, Greece, France, Mexico, El Salvador, Britain, Argentina, Uruguay, Norway, Pakistan, Red Poland, and the Soviet Union.

You see above that the United States has only one judge on the World Court. When his term expires there is no guarantee that another American will replace him. He could, for instance, be replaced by a representative from Hungary— and thus the United States would be at the complete mercy of the World Court on which we would not even have a representative.

FIVE JUDGES COULD RULE THE WORLD

The World Court consists of 15 judges. Nine of these would make up a quorum, and the majority of a quorum (only five) is enough for a decision from which there is no appeal.

If the Connally amendment is repealed as requested by President Eisenhower and other leftwing internationalists, it would be possible for the Soviet Union,

Poland, three other members of the World Court to get together and render judgments affecting domestic issues in the United States.

CONQUEST BY TREATY

The power of the World Court is defined by the terms of our treaty with the United Nations, which includes the safety factor of the Connally amendment. Under the U.S. Constitution, treaties are equal to or superior to the Constitution as the "supreme law of the land." The U.S. Supreme Court has held that laws made by treaty, besides being immune to any test of constitutionality, also supersede domestic law.

If the Connally amendment, which now protects us, is abolished the World Court will immediately have jurisdiction over domestic matters in the United States. Louis Budenz warned that Soviet Russia has planned for many years to use the loophole of the treaty clause to destroy the sovereignty of the United States and lead us into a World Government which would be dominated by Russia and her satellites.

DO YOU WANT A FOREIGN-CONTROLLED WORLD COURT TO RULE ON THESE
DOMESTIC ISSUES?

If the extreme leftwingers, the Socialists and internationalists succeed in repealing the Connally amendment, here is what it will mean to you, as an American citizen:

WE COULD LOSE THE PANAMA CANAL

The national defense of the United States is a domestic matter. However, the repeal of the Connally amendment would make national defense a subject on which the foreign-dominated World Court could rule. For example, the Republic of Panama could sue us in the World Court to recover the Panama Canal Zone and the canal itself. Without unrestricted passage of our ships of war through the Panama Canal it is certain that we could not quickly reinforce the defenses of our Pacific coast in the event of another Pearl Harbor. The World Court could be expected to rule against the United States on the question of the Panama Canal, and the national defense of the United States would thus be dangerously weakened.

HERE ARE SOME ISSUES THE WORLD COURT COULD RULE ON

(1) Tariff.-The World Court by decree could abolish all U.S. tariffs, thus flooding our country with cheap-made, foreign goods which would seriously injure American industries.

(2) Immigration.-The World Court could abolish our immigration quotas and security provisions. In this way the United States would be forced to accept hordes of immigrants from any and all parts of the world. Also, our security restrictions against Communist agents entering our country could be abolished. (3) Foreign aid.-The World Court could decree that America must continue forever and even expand foreign aid, because, the World Court would contend, if we halted foreign aid to any nation it would hurt that Nation's economy. Further, the World Court could delegate the United Nations as the sole dispenser of our foreign aid program. Because of Communist domination of the United Nations, the largest part of our foreign aid could thus be diverted to Communist countries.

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW VERSUS TYRANNICAL DECREES

The World Court operates under decrees of the United Nations—not under the Constitution of the United States.

In this country the U.S. Constitution guarantees peaceful assembly, free speech, right of petition, trial by jury, and the right to own property and other basic freedoms.

Individual guarantees and rights of this type are not found or are severely limited in the United Nations Charter and the so-called Covenant of Human Rights of UNESCO.

The rights of individuals becomes all-important in view of the mounting pressure by the internationalists in both the Democrat and the Republican Parties to repeal the Connally amendment, because if they succeed in destroying this safeguard, then the World Court will be able to rule on domestic law in the