We are very happy to join in the nonpartisan effort which is supported by the President and the Vice President and Senator Humphrey and yourself to bring about a change in our relationship to the World Court. We hope, that without undue delay, your committee will report favorably on the resolution to repeal the Connally amendment. With great respect for the work of your committee, and assuring you of our continued interest in all of your actions. Sincerely, MURIEL A. DAVIES, President. Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, ARLINGTON, VA., February 21, 1960. Chairman, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: In response to your public notice that the record would be kept open for 10 days to allow for filing additional statements, am taking the liberty of enclosing a copy of the letter published February 8, 1960, in the Washington Post, and a copy of the unpublished answer to the questions raised by the editor of that newspaper. I am opposed to Senate Resolution 94 on the ground that it represents just another phase of the general confusion of the rules without meeting the problem nor coming to grips with the real issues involved. Wherefore, it is most respectfully requested that this letter and the two enclosed letters to the Washington Post be included in the record of the hearings on Senate Resolution 94 as and for my public statement and testimony in opposition to such form of misrepresentative government. Thank you very much for your kind attent.on and thoughtful consideration in this matter in which so much public confusion has been manifested. Faithfully yours, JOHN BRADLEY MINNICK. FEBRUARY 1, 1960. Mr. ROBERT H. ESTABROOK, DEAR MR. ESTABROOK: In rejoinder to your editorial concerning the proposed "repeal" of the condition to the acceptance of the "statute" which created the World Court, it ought to be remembered: 1. The "statute" was not enacted by a representative body of the people of this or any other nation. Accordingly, the Court has no foundation in fact nor rule of law to support it from the beginning. 2. Ratification of the "statute" under the authority of the United States, however, metamorphosed this diplomatic dilemma into the supreme law of the land by constitutional definition. Accordingly, we are bound by it whether we like it or not. 3. The rule of law which binds the United States has no extraterritorial effect, except by force of arms. Accordingly, nonaggression and mutual defense treaties become considered to be necessary and advisable. 4. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief (please correct me if I am wrong), no other people of the world has adopted an irrevocable constitution containing an unequivocal rule of law such as is to be found in the supremacy clause of our Constitution. Accordingly, it is manifest upon the face of the record that we are bound by a rule of law which is not binding upon the rest of the world. (Please correct me if I am mistaken in my conclusion.) Under existing principles (rules of law) of our Anglo-American jurisprudence, it is recognized that an agreement which lacks mutuality of obligation is unenforcible. Wherefore, pray tell why we ought to advocate the "repeal" of the only check and balance left open to us without calling the whole thing off to the utter embarrassment, chagrin, and frustration of our conscientious diplomats who dreamed it up? On the other hand, if we are to have a rule of law for the world, let's get one which is binding on everybody and which every responsible citizen in every nation will swear to support and defend from the beginning. Then we will have an informed and an intelligent public opinion upon which to base the elimination of war and the threat of war to the everlasting reduction of the national debt and the tax burden of the people of the United States. Thank you very much for your courtesy and consideration in this matter in which considerable public interest has been shown. Faithfully yours, JOHN BRADLEY MINNICK. FEBRUARY 8, 1960. Mr. ROBERT H. ESTABROOK, Editor, the Washington Post, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. ESTABROOK: Thank you for correcting me in certain minor particulars. The fourth paragraph, as corrected by your basic research, would read as follows: 4. No other people, except for Afghanistan, Austria, Bolivia, Brazil, and Colombia, have adopted an irrevocable constitution containing an unequivocal rule of law such as is to be found in the supremacy clause of our Constitution. Accordingly, it is manifest upon the face of the record that we are bound by a rule of law which is not binding on most of the world. In answer to your first question why any great nation should want a check on (not against) international justice, it ought to be remembered that this great Nation from the beginning has established checks upon local, State, and National justice and which we are sworn to support and defend. Accordingly, there is sound reason why we should insist upon a check on the World Court at least to the extent that we insist upon the checks and balances in our own State and Federal Constitutions. In this regard, it ought to be noted further that the corollary to the supremacy clause provides that State law shall be the rule of decision in the Federal courts unless otherwise provided or required by the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States. In effect, then, the reservation in our acceptance of the "statute" is merely an extension of this principle and related rules of law governing the jurisdiction of Federal and State courts. In answer to your second question what difference does it make, it ought to be remembered according to your basic research that most of the world powers are not bound by any international rule of law, otherwise recent historical events could not have happened the way in which they have been reported in the public press. For an excellent recent summary, please see "Modern Const tutions," by Russell F. Moore, Littlefield, Adams & Co., 1957. Accordingly, the difference is whether we ought to accept the double standard of "Do as I say and not as I do" as a sufficient guarantee of peace on earth and goodwill toward men, or whether we are justified in requiring some more tangible evidence of good faith. On your last point, it ought to be remembered at this time that Congress has no more power under our Constitution to nullify the domestic effect of a ratified treaty than the President and the Supreme Court have to enact new laws. Public discussion and open debate ought not to be classified as a drag on world justice. Thank you again for your courtesy and consideration in this matter. JOHN BRADLEY MINNICK. STATEMENT OF FRANK E. HOLMAN, ATTORBNEY AT LAW, Seattle, Wash. FOREWORD By way of introducing myself, my name is Frank E. Holman, age 74, a lawyer from Seattle, Wash., and a past president of the American Bar Association (1948-49). For purposes of further identification, there is attached hereto, as appendix A, a biographical sketch. During the last few months, I have received many letters asking my views regarding the current movement to eliminate the so-called Connally reservation, attached to the declaration by the United States (S. Res. 196, Aug. 2, 1946), limiting the U.S. acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (commonly referred to as the "World Court"). Many of these letters, as well as public statements made by members of the American Bar Association, even in the higher echelons, have exhibited such lack of understanding of the situation-particularly of the historical background—that about a week ago, upon my own initiative and at my own expense, I decided to prepare, print, and distribute a pamphlet on the subject, summarizing some of the facts and events that, in my opinion, are significant in any consideration or assessment of the present campaign to modify or eliminate the reservation. Because of the amount of research that has been required in its preparation, the pamphlet will not be completed and ready for distribution until about February 5. Therefore, in order to meet the unexpectedly early date of the hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have prepared somewhat hurriedly this statement of views for submission to the members of the committee on the date now set. It seemed particularly incumbent on me to speak up, because in 1947, during the "honeymoon days" of the United Nations and its agencies, I, as a member of the American Bar Association's special committee for peace and law through United Nations, the great majority of whose members are now deceased, voted in favor of a recommendation to the U.S. Senate for the withdrawal of the Connally reservation-a recommendation that has been frequently referred to by proponents of withdrawal in recent discussions. But, immediately after 1947, proposals and events affecting the domestic affairs of the United States and violative of the provisions and intendments of the Charter of the United Nations, as to noninterference in domestic affairs, changed my views and those of many others with respct to the withdrawal of the Connally reservation. These events put any withdrawal proposal into a deep sleep, from which it was not aroused until 1958 by a group of enthusiasts in the American Bar Association for world peace through law, who were apparently willing at this point of world history to subject the United States to risks that the Connally reservation protects us against-risks which, in my opinion, should not now be taken. Respectfully submitted. SEATTLE, WASH., January 25, 1960. FRANK E. HOLMAN. PART I. THE CHARTER OF THE UNITED NATIONS The United Nations Charter was promulgated and signed in San Francisco, June 26, 1945. During the deliberations with respect thereto, it was for a time doubtful whether any agreement could be reached on the establishment of a World Court. Certainly none would have been reached creating a World Court with compulsory jurisdiction over the member states represented at that Conference, as will appear from a reading of State Department Publication 2355— Conference Series 72-being a letter of June 26, 1945, to the President of the United States from Mr. Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., the then Secretary of State. But, in order to have a World Court at all, an ingenious and somewhat subtle compromise was arrived at, whereby, under chapter XIV of the charter, an "International Court of Justice" was established as a principal organ of the United Nations, to function only in accordance with a so-called "statute" annexed to the charter and made a part thereof. Though all members of the United Nations are declared to be "ipso facto, parties to the 'statute'" and may therefore voluntarily resort to the Court for the settlement of any particular international dispute, no nation is subject to the general compulsory jurisdication of the Court except to the extent that it may so agree in a formal "declaration" deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. In other words, without such affirmative action by way of depositing such a declaration, the Court has no jurisdiction over the member states except as to international disputes where nations voluntarily submitted or referred a particular matter to it. A declaration according general and compulsory jurisdiction to the Court is effective only in accordance with its terms which each nation sees fit to specify in the "declaration" (Court statute, ch. II, art. 36(5)). The Court is authorized to issue advisory opinions under certain situations specified in the charter, but these have no binding force or effect even upon the particular nations involved in the matter. However, in February of 1946, by indirection, the General Assembly attempted to give advisory opinions of binding force. This was the first effort to circumvent the charter with respect to noninterference in the domestic affairs of the member states, and will be referred to later in connection with other events and efforts in and out of the United Nations, to bring our domestic affairs within the orbit of international determination. In submitting the charter for approval and ratification, the then Secretary of State and Chairman of the U.S. delegation to the United Nations Conference at San Francisco, Mr. Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., in his formal letter to the President of the United States, dated June 26, 1945, explaining the charter and its intendments-which letter was published and widely circulated-stated and represented that, under the charter (which included the World Court as one of the principal organs of the United Nations), "the sovereign equality of the member states is declared to be the foundation of their association with each other." This clearly indicated that no state, by its approval of the charter would, ipso facto, gives up or forfeits its sovereignty so far as the various agencies of the United Nations were concerned; unless, of course, as provided in the charter, a state voluntarily elected so to do. This was why the right of veto was preserved with respect to the Security Council, the chief enforcement agency of the United Nations. Unless this power of veto is voluntarily waived, no state is to be bound by decisions of the Security Council. Mr. Stettinius said, inter alia, in this connection: "The Security Council is not the enforcement agency of a world state, since world opinion will not accept the surrender of sovereignty which the establishment of a world state would demand. The Security Council, therefore, depends upon the sovereign member states (of the Council) for the weapons both of persuasion and of force ** (but) they shall exercise their power only in agreement with each other and not in disagreement." In other words, any one member of the Council, in disagreement, may exercise a veto power. The Security Council's power of compulsion as against a member state is controlled by this right of veto, in order to preserve the principle of sovereignty; and, on the same theory, a member state was accorded the clear right to limit and control the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court by the nature and character of the declaration it chose to file with the Secretary General. The United Nations Charter is a multipartite treaty and, as such, under our form of government, was required to be submitted to the President and to the Senate for approval and ratification. The prompt consent of the U.S. Senate was obtained July 28, 1945. This consent was based largely upon the representations made by Mr. Stettinius and the State Department, that it in no sense constituted a form of world government and that neither the Senate nor the American people need be concerned that the United Nations or any of its agencies would interfere with the sovereignty of the United States or with the domestic affairs of the American people. The ardent internationalists and the world-government enthusiasts were disappointed with the charter. They had tried at San Francisco to have the Conference of Nations set up a world government. After the charter was promulgated, and after its adoption, they proceeded and have since and are still proceeding, by a variety of devious maneuvers and clever resorts to semantics, to transform the United Nations into a world government or to give it many of the incidents thereof. A number of these maneuvers will be specified later, but it may be stated here in passing that the present effort to modify or eliminate the Connally reservation is one of them. In addition to specific negations in the charter, that there was no intention of establishing a world government or any of the incidents thereof, as shown by the veto provisions with respect to the Security Council and the provisions according each nation the right to file an acceptance (under such terms as it saw fit) of the compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court, there were other specific negations like that found in article 2, subparagraph 7, which reads as follows: "Nothing contained in the present charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the members to submit such matters to settlement under the present charter." Moreover, in describing the general nature of the charter and its intendments, Mr. Stettinius further assured the Senate and the American people as follows: "The charter commits the United Nations to the maintenance of 'international peace and security,' to the development of 'friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,' and to the achievement of ‘international cooperation in solving international problems,' * * * "Further, in its capacity as a declaration, the charter states the principles which its members accept as binding. 'Sovereign equality' of the member states is declared to be the foundation of their association with each other. Fulfillment in good faith of the obligations of the member states is pledged 'in order to ensure to all of them the rights and the benefits resulting from membership' in the organization. Members are to 'settle their international disputes by peace 51053-60- -30 ful means' and in such manner as not to endanger international peace and security, and justice. Members are to 'refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.' At the same time members bind themselves to give the organization 'every assistance in any action it takes' in accordance with the charter, and to 'refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.'” In addition to pointing out that the Security Council was not to be "the enforcement agency of a world state since world opinion will not accept the surrender of sovereignty which the establishment of a world state would demand," Mr. Stettinius closed the door as to certain other principal organs of the United Nations being instrumentalities of a world state as follows: "A similarly realistic acceptance of the facts of the actual world limits the General Assembly to discussion and deliberation without the power to legislate, since the power to legislate would necessarily encroach upon the sovereign independence of the member states. So too, the Economic and Social Council has no power or right to interfere with the domestic affairs of the states composing the United Nations. And for the same reason the jurisdiction of the Court is limited." [Emphasis supplied] With all the foregoing representations and assurances, both in the charter itself and on the part of the Secretary of State, who was also Chairman of the U.S. delegation at San Francisco, and on the part of other high government officials who participated in the United Nations Conference there, the Senate and most of the American press and a very large part of the citizenry, including the American Bar Association, joined in proclaiming that the structure of an international organization had at last been devised under which all nations, great and small, would be able to maintain international peace and security. It was broadly asserted that henceforth all nations through the agencies of the United Nations would discuss and determine their controversies peaceably and live in a friendly relationship but under the principle of the self-determination of peoples as to their sovereignty and as to their domestic affairs. So universal was the acclaim of the charter that it was ratified by the U.S. Senate almost without debate and with only two dissenting votes and very soon thereafter ratified by more than 50 other nations. The years 1946 and 1947 became the "honeymoon period of the charter." The writer, as a member of the American Bar Association's Peace and Law Committee and otherwise in public and private utterances, was as enthusiastic for the charter as were any of its most enthusiastic supporters; and continued so to be until the world government advocates (by whatever name called) both in and out of the U.N., began to try to circumvent or alter its intendments so as to deny to the United States the right to rely on its provisions and its principles with respect to the protection of our constitutional rights and liberties and the control of our domestic affairs. The charter itself (ch. XVIII) contains specific provisions for its amendment. but as with many of our liberal friends who, without resorting to the slower but more valid and more honest process of amendment, have sought and unfortunately succeeded in changing our Federal Constitution with respect to many State and individual rights through executive, legislative and judicial pronouncements, the internationalists also eschew the amendment process with respect to the United Nations Charter. It should be pointed out that changes in our Federal Government have often been wrought by beguiling the American people with phrases and slogans-the New Deal, the Fair Deal, the General Welfare, Civil Rights, Social Security, etc., etc. So, in the international field, we are beguiled with such phrases as World Peace, World Order, Human Rights, and World Peace under Law (whose law?). The world government advocates, while relying on all the above self-serving and argumentative phrases, have recently adopted the technique of avoiding the actual phrase or label of world government by speaking of world order or world law. Witness the recent book by Mr. Moses Moskowitz entitled "Human Rights and World Order," in my review of which (American Bar Association Journal of August 1959) I pointed out: "Though it is carefully disguised and the phrase as such is never used in the book, lurking in the background of this, as of all other crusades for a worldwide code of human rights enforceable by a supranational authority, is the old bogey of world government. This is the world order sought to be established." |