the differences or other items which might be in dispute. This is not an attainable objective considering the present state of affairs in the world. But I do suggest that we cannot expect some magic agreement to be developed overnight in which we will substitute the rule of law for the rule of force. Men who are thinking intelligently and constructively in this field, have to offer some means to make progress toward this end, the repeal of the Connally amendment is a small step, but an important step in that direction. People ask, "Are you going to suggest that the United States should submit questions to the World Court which might be purely domestic in character?" I know many of the critics say, "What about immigration, for example, and what about purely domestic matters that should be decided by the Congress of the United States and not by some World Court?" My answer is, "There is no danger insofar as items of this nature are concerned." The Court's jurisdiction is limited to international matters only. I believe that so long as the United States insists on a reservation in which we say, in effect, "We will not submit anything to that Court unless we, ourselves, determine in each individual case whether we want to," the International Court is never going to amount to anything. I say that if the United States, which believes in the rule of law between individuals, does not take the lead with our firm beliefs and with our strength, in submitting our differences with other countries, to the World Court, we can't expect other countries to do so. So I think that this would be a helpful step. In view of the terrible alternative with which we are faced, I think it is the only constructive action that the Senate of the United States should take under the circumstances. Hon. J. W. FULBRIGHT, U.S. SENATE, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, February 25, 1960. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I would appreciate it if you would permit the attached editorials from Pennsylvania newspapers supporting the Humphrey resolution (S. Res. 94), to repeal the Connally amendment, to be inserted in the committee record of proceedings on the resolution. Thank you. JOSEPH S. CLARK. [From the Harrisburg Evening News, Feb. 4, 1960] UNSHACKLE THE WORLD COURT A THOUGHT Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. Corinthians 3: 8. The United States soon will have a dramatic chance to prove before the world that it means what it says. The chance will come about when the Senate considers repeal of the so-called Connally amendment. This amendment has reduced America's oft-repeated support of the principle of international law to a farce. It is time to scrap it. The United States, time and again, has espoused the importance of the International Court of Justice in Geneva. The Court was established, along with the United Nations, in 1945. It was the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice created by the League of Nations. A majority of U.N. members favored giving the Court compulsory jurisdiction in international disputes, but the United States and the Soviet Union opposed this. Hence, the acceptance of the Court's right to adjudicate anything was made "optional." The Court cannot arbitrate between international contestants unless all parties voluntarily accept such arbitration. Of the 85 countries party to the Court's Statute 39, including the United States, accept the Court's compulsory jurisdiction in foreign-not domestic-disputes. But, in 1946, the U.S. Senate adopted the Connally amendment—which, simply, would leave the United States, not the Court, to decide whether an issue was "domestic" or "international." This amendment clearly negates American professions of dedication to international legal procedures. It has caused several other nations in turn to water down the Court's authority in deciding whether a dispute could be handled by it. President Eisenhower, in his state of the Union message last year, called for a reexamination of the whole question, urging that “the rule of law may replace the rule of force in the affairs of nations." In his most recent state of the Union message, the President stressed: "There is pending before the Senate a resolution which would repeal our self-judging reservation. I support that resolution and urge its prompt passage. If this is done, I intend to urge similar acceptance of the Court's jurisdiction by every member of the United Nations. * * *” The President might have been thinking of the four lawsuits the United States has filed against the Soviet Union to recover damages for the shooting down of American planes. Or he may have reflected on similar suits we brought against Hungary and Czechoslovakia. The International Court had no choice except to dismiss all of these cases because the accused blandly refused to accept the Court's jurisdiction. The point is that the United States cannot honestly condemn the Communists for treating the World Court with contempt so long as it insists on its own prerogative of telling the Court what it can or can't adjudicate. As Secretary Herter pointed out the other day, the Connally amendment hamstringing U.S. participation in the World Court is "inconsistent" with this Nation's basic philosophy. There need be no misapprehension, he said, that repeal of the amendment would threaten U.S. control over its own domestic matters since "domestic issues are clearly beyond the Court's jurisdiction." Vice President Nixon and Attorney General Rogers have spoken in similar vein. The Vice President recently urged that all of this country's future treaties contain a clause submitting disputes of interpretation to the World Court. And the Attorney General declared that "when this Nation advocates the rule of law, we've got to make a start on that road." By repealing the Connally amendment, the U.S. Senate can affirm America's devotion to the rules of civilized conduct-and challenge the Communist world to do likewise. The Senate should seize the opportunity. [From the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Feb. 9, 1960] CALLS CONNALLY AMENDMENT VITAL For the first time, I disagree with the thinking of your great cartoonist, Alexander, on the Connally amendment cartoon, "Operating Under Difficulties," February 1. Few people understand the Connally amendment. To do so, one must know that it is a reservation added to our treaty of adherence to the U.N., and as such, a party to the statute of the International Court of Justice, consisting of 15 judges from 15 nations, which sits at The Hague. Its purpose, according to its friends, is to promote world peace through world law—a laudable purpose if it were possible. Article 93, clause 1, U.N. Charter provides: "All members of the United Nations are ipso facto parties to the statute of the International Court of Justice." Article 94, clause 1, provides: "Each member of the United Nations undertakes to comply with the decision of the International Court of Justice in any case to which it is a party." Clause 2 provides: "If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment." This is clearly a punitive provision. The Connally amendment simply asserts that the United States will now accept the Court's decision "* * * in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States, as determined by the United States." The last six words are the controversial ones. This simply means that the United States is a sovereign nation and that we will not permit any other nation or foreign court to meddle in our domestic affairs. It is difficult to see how any American can oppose the amendment, if he understands it. The U.N. has 10 Communist member nations, who are therefore parties to the ICOJ statute. Two of these the U.S.S.R. and Poland-have judges on the Court. Under the Court's rules of procedure, a three-judge panel may decide any case, and such decision is binding on the entire Court, and therefore all U.N. member nations. This means that two judges-a majority of the three required-may make any decision in any case. HERMAN A. DYKE. [From the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Jan. 26, 1960] THE PRESIDENT'S APPEAL Settlement of international disputes under the rule of law instead of by force has an appeal today that is not purely sentimental. It could involve our very existence. Yet when the International Court of Justice was established, 15 years ago, the United States approved it with a crippling amendment. The Connally reservation provides that when this country decides a disputed question is essentially within its domestic jurisdiction the International Court shall not pass on it. Other nations followed our example and made a similar reservation. The Court, therefore, has almost become useless. President Eisenhower in his annual message urged Congress to repeal the Connally amendment. Tomorrow the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee will hold hearings on his appeal. The reservation was one of the dying gasps of isolationism. Some Americans became unduly excited about our independence being threatened when it was not in the least in danger. The Court has no authority back of it except the judgment of mankind. The President has said that he would prefer to have this country lose some cases rather than have it turn its back on judicial processes. Strengthening the International Court will not usher in an era of peace, but it will help. This country cannot afford to brand itself as a laggard in substituting law for force. [From the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Sept. 4, 1958] THE RULE OF LAW In the light of events in Little Rock, a curious shadow falls upon the hopes that Attorney General Rogers expressed in his speech to the International Law Association on Tuesday. Discussing the causes for the "tragically limited" role the World Court has been able to play in settling international disputes, he quite correctly ascribed its disappointing record to the insistence of many nations, including the United States, on deciding for themselves when a dispute falls within their own "domestic" jurisdiction. He went on to voice the opinion that "the time has come" to reexamine reservations of this sort. Here it may be suspected, in the light of Little Rock, that wishful thinking began entering into his remarks. Arkansas and Virginia are actively challenging the right of the U.S. Supreme Court to pass upon matters which they deem to fall within their own "domestic jurisdiction" as sovereign States. Other States are preparing similar challenges. The jealousy with which some of the States guard their own "sovereign rights" against the Supreme Court is exactly matched by the determination of nations to decide when they will submit to the decisions of the World Court. If, as he says, "the time has come" for a more general acceptance of the rule of law, it has not yet shown itself clearly in the South. [From the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin, Dec. 21, 1959] CRIPPLED WORLD COURT One body of the United Nations fails to function. It is the World Court established by the U.N. Charter. In nearly 15 years of its existence it has acted in less than a dozen cases. This is partly the fault of the United States. When our Senate in 1946 ratifled the Charter of the United Nations it tacked on a reservation declaring that no international case involving the United States could be taken before the World Court without our consent. That made us, instead of the Court, the judge of what cases it could hear. Other nations followed us in making a like reservation. President Eisenhower, before he left on his trip in the cause of peace, announced he would appeal to the Senate to strike out the reservation. This he had done in his annual message in January; but it was appropriate at the outset of his voyage for peace that he should again express his determination. The World Court would not have any more power to enforce its decisions than has the United Nations as a whole. But as a court it could speak with judicial impartiality on the issue before it. That fact would give a standing to its verdict not now possessed by a political body such as the U.N. General Assembly. Small as the step might be, the repeal of the reservation would be a move toward the rule of law instead of force. [From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Feb. 1, 1960] STRENGTHEN WORLD COURT Eight words prevent this country from doing the kind of job it should in encouraging a rule of law in world affairs. The words appear in the reservation that the Senate made when it agreed in 1946 on having the United States take part in the World Court. The Senate stipulated then that the Court could have no say on "disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States of America as determined by the United States of America.” Those in italics are the eight words. They are the heart of what is called our self-judging reservation. The administration and a lot of sensible lawmakers and citizens want to get rid of those words. The compulsory jurisdiction of the Court is limited, by its own statute, to international legal disputes. The Court itself is supposed to have final say on whether it has jurisdiction in a particular case. The Court is an organ of the U.N.; and the U.N., by its charter, is not authorized "to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State." The worst that could happen if the United States wanted to defy a Court decision would be for the matter to go to the U.N. Security Council, where the United States has a veto. As a practical matter, the self-judging reservation that qualifies our membership in the World Court has done and can do a lot of mischief. It has encouraged some nations to make a similar reservation. It could boomerang on us if we were to take a legitimate dispute to the Court, because, under a reciprocal gimmick, any other nation involved in litigation with us could claim the same right of whether to allow jurisdiction to the Court. The self-judging reservation weakens U.S. pleas for a world order based on law. How can we lead others in such a matter when we ourselves lag? Moreover, if there is any nation that should be striving to strengthen the World Court and thus, for example, the worth of international contracts, it is the United States, which has such farflung investments and treaty arrangements. In his state of the Union message to Congress this year, President Eisenhower renewed a plea for replacing force with a rule of law among nations. "There is pending before the Senate," he said with regard to the World Court, "a resolution which would repeal our present self-judging reservation. I support that resolution and urge its prompt passage." So should we all. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 1, 1960] THE WORLD COURT RESERVATION To remove a misconception that the Eisenhower administration wasn't enthusiastic about it, two members of the President's Cabinet urged favorable Senate action recently on repeal of a limiting provision attached to U.S. membership in the International Court of Justice. They were Secretary of State Christian Herter and Attorney General William P. Rogers. They told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the administration fully supports the repeal measure. It would remove a reservation to court membership passed in 1946 under the sponsorship of the late Senator Tom Connally. The reservation prescribes that the United States may determine whether a dispute coming before the court is essentially within its domestic jurisdiction and hence not subject to adjudication by the World Court. In his State of the Union message President Eisenhower appealed for elimination of this restriction. Secretary Herter and Mr. Rogers discounted any likelihood the World Court would assert jurisdiction over the domestic affairs of this country. Mr. Herter put the main argument very well with the statement to the Senate group that the reservation was "inconsistent with the deeply rooted conviction that no one should be a judge of his own case." The repeal will be fought by extreme right wing elements, is already under attack from them. It is up to the Senate, where a two-thirds vote would be required to settle the issue and it is necessary to determine if the prestige and usefulness of the World Court is to be increased by us, or its value to the cause of world peace and order is to continue to be impaired. [From the York Gazette and Daily, Feb. 5, 1960] WORLD LAW One of the little-noticed features of President Eisenhower's state of the Union message last month was his reference to the so-called Connally amendment. This was the condition the U.S. Senate in 1946 tacked onto its approval of U.S. participation in a World Court. The Senate thereby all but nullified its approval. For the Connally amendment said in effect that the United States would abide by all referrals to and decisions by the World Court except in such cases where we did not think it was the World Court's business. The intent of the Connally amendment-so named for the late Senator who was postwar chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee-was to set up a U.S. veto power over the World Court. And that is what it did. The Senate committed the United States to the Court in one breath and took back the commitment in the next. A good many persons said at the time there was no sense to this. The record bears them out. The World Court has been mostly inoperative and entirely ineffective. It has decided about a dozen cases, all minor, in almost 14 years. The contribution it might have made to the development of a code of enforceable international law has been negligible. Last November, Senator Hubert Humphrey addressed a note to President Eisenhower, pointing out that the Connally amendment was a major barrier to world understanding and to world peace supported by law. He advocated its removal. The President in carefully chosen words agreed. He followed up his comments to Senator Humphrey with a suggestion in the state of the Union message that it would be advisable to reconsider the Connally amendment. A resolution to this effect has been introduced in the Senate and hearings have been held by the Foreign Relations Committee. We sincerely hope the resolution succeeds. The world has long since passed the stage when one nation can set itself up as a law unto itself. National sovereignty is still very much a meaningful phrase in some important matters. But as regards others-as one can easily see in the present negotiations on permanent cessation of nuclear weapons testing-it does not apply. The discoveries of science have overridden national boundaries; nations must solve together the problems science has raised. Let us trust that repeal of the Connally amendment will result from the resolution that is now before the committee Mr. Connally used to head. [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Feb. 25, 1960] WORLD COURT RESERVATION A series of heated arguments for and against broader participation by the United States in the International Court at The Hague erupted the other day in the house of delegates of the American Bar Association, meeting at Chicago. The outcome was that an attempt to repeal a long-standing ABA position against the Connally amendment, restricting submission of questions affecting this country to The Hague tribunal, was blocked, but by a narrow margin-100 to 93. During the discussion John D. Randall, president of the ABA, announced he had been "officially assured" that the Connally reservation will not come up for action in the Senate this year. If that is the case the prospect of a long delay in dealing with the issue is regrettable. |