The purpose of Senate Resolution 94, which I introduced on March 24 of last year, is to delete the words of that reservation, "as determined by the United States of America."

Those words, in effect, negate the whole intent and purpose of the declaration of adherence. It is no submission to a court's jurisdiction if you reserve to yourself the power to decide, in every case, whether or not the Court has jurisdiction.

One of the ablest judges of the Court, Judge Lauterpacht of England, has expressed the opinion that a country having a reservation of this sort does not adhere to the Court at all. He says that a reservaiton of this sort

deprives the declaration of acceptance of the character of a legal instrument, cognizable before a judicial tribunal, expressing rights and obligations.

He concludes that the United States, never having effectively accepted compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, can neither sue nor be sued before the Court under article 36.

I think it is important that this cloud on our membership be removed.

I digress to point out, of course, Mr. Chairman, that this is the point of view or the attitude as expressed by one distinguished jurist. This may be subject to some other interpretation.

DOUBLE-EDGED EFFECT OF RESERVATION

Now, the clause that I referred to, that is, the reservation, has a double-edged effect. On the one hand, it allows us unilaterally to decide whether or not any case falls within the Court's jurisdiction, if another nation attempts to bring us before this tribunal.

But on the other hand, the Statute of the Court provides that every party to a dispute may assert each and every right that its opponent has; so, whenever we bring suit, our opponent is also entitled to avail itself on this same right to decide, by itself, unilaterally, whether the case is subject to the Court's jurisdiction. We are, therefore, impotent to bring any nation before the tribunal against its will so long as we have this reservation.

COURT'S LACK OF JURISDICTION OVER DOMESTIC MATTERS

Mr. Chairman, none of us believes that the Court should have jurisdiction over disputes with regard to matters which lie within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.

I want to repeat that the Statute of the Court makes it crystal clear that those disputes which lie within the domestic jurisdiction of a country are not to be subject to the Court's jurisdiction.

Senate Resolution 94 does not disturb the reservation in our declaration of acceptance which excludes domestic matters from the Court's jurisdiction. I emphasize this point, Mr. Chairman, in view of the misunderstanding in certain quarters as to the scope and intent of my resolution. I invite the committee's attention specifically to page 2 of my resolution, beginning at line 14, which provides that our declaration of acceptance of jurisdiction of the Court shall not apply todisputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States *

Further, the Statute of the Court does not confer upon it any jurisdiction over domestic matters. Article 36 specifically limits the Court's jurisdiction to legal disputes concerning

a. the interpretation of a treaty;

b. any question of international law;

c. the existence of any fact which, if established, would constitute a breach of an international obligation;

d. the nature or extent of the reparation to be made for the breach of an international obligation.

And finally, the U.N. Charter, of which the Statute is a part, provides in chapter I, article 2, section 7, that

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 * * *

So, regarding some of these fears, Mr. Chairman, that have been expressed in the literature which seems to be flooding the country, in order to fan what I consider to be emotion on the subject, this matter of domestic jurisdiction has been properly handled, carefully guarded in both the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court.

VETO EFFECT OF RESERVATION

The effect of my resolution would be to remove the so-called reserve clause and allow the court to decide what is domestic and what is not. By the present language, the United States may use as a complete defense to any case brought against it in the Court, however plainly not a domestic matter, the fact that the United States had itself determined the case to be a domestic case. In short, the United States reserved to itself a veto power with respect to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

And I might add, we have conferred an identical right, to be asserted in cases against us, upon all of our adversaries. This is no way to achieve international justice, and I might add, no way to protect the legitimate interest of the United States, both political and commercial.

REASONS FOR RELIANCE ON THE COURT

The question may well be asked whether we can safely rely on the Court itself to decide whether or not disputes are essentially matters of domestic jurisdiction.

The answer to this question lies in the history and the composition of the Court. I hope there will be spread upon the record of these hearings a list of the judges of the Court since its creation, and a summary of the decisions it has made. (See Appendix A, pp. 265281.) When these are studied, I am sure you will conclude, as the American Bar Association in a section report of last August "The Self-Judging Aspect of the U.S. Domestic Jurisdiction Reservation with Respect to the International Court of Justice"-concluded:

The decisions of the Court lead us to the conclusion that it has acted with conservatism, and has given reason for more confidence in its judicial standing, scholarship and impartiality than has in fact been generally accorded it by the various nations.

RESERVATION'S EFFECT ON U.S. COMMERCIAL INTERESTS

At the present time the Court is more of a hope than an actuality. The Court, which is in essence a continuation of the League of Nations Permanent Court of International Justice, began its work in April 1946. In the 14 years that have intervened less than four cases a year have been submitted to it.

Obviously, Mr. Chairman, an international court would be a most useful device to expedite the affairs of nations in this modern era. And obviously, too, it would be particularly useful to the United States, the world's most important trading nation, and inevitably, the world's most important claimant nation, if effective judicial machinery were established.

As a matter of fact, I consider the present reservation a very serious blow to America's interests, both politically and commercially, and surely one that has cost the United States untold millions of dollars in terms of the settlements of disputes between nations on economic or commercial matters.

During these hearings you will hear some of the leading members of the American bar, men who are familiar with the intricacies and problems of foreign trade and international controversy. I believe they will tell you why they, and the American business community who are their clients, are interested in the establishment of workable judicial machinery for the settlement of disputes so that world commercial and government relations may be conducted on a more orderly basis.

SETTLING INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES BY PEACEFUL METHODS

But over and above this need for instrumentalities to expedite the routine handling of international business are certain broad principles. As a nation we have steadfastly maintained the principle of law and order in the international community. We have tried to act justly and we want others to act justly toward us. We want to settle international disputes by peaceful methods, at least so we say, and I believe we mean it; and my purpose in offering this resolution is to provide some of the machinery that will make possible an equitable adjudication of the disputes.

President Eisenhower and others have made frequent reference to the need for a rule of law in world affairs. I am heartily in accord with this, the more so because of my experience in the disarmament field where it becomes increasingly clear that only a body of law, enforceable before duly constituted international tribunals, can insure the smooth operation of an effective disarmament arrangement.

I certainly do not envision any such large role for the present International Court of Justice, but I do feel that we must make certain efforts to enlarge the role of the Court and to create a tradition in international jurisprudence.

OTHER COUNTRIES HAVING SIMILAR RESERVATIONS

At the present time 6 of the 38 nations which accept the Court's compulsory jurisdiction have so-called reserve clauses in their declarations. These countries are the United States, Mexico, Liberia, the

Union of South Africa, Pakistan, and the Sudan. France had a reserve clause, but withdrew it on July 10 of last year.

It is notable that no nation had, as a condition to its adherence, reserved the right to judge unilaterally for itself whether matters lay within its domestic jurisdiction until after the United States had done so in 1946. In other words, we were the pace setter.

COMMUNIST ATTITUDE TOWARD THE INTERNATIONAL COURT

It is interesting to note, at this point, that not a single one of the nations which have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court is Communist-controlled. The Communists-from Mr. Khrushchev on down, have been busily creating the impression that they are the true crusaders for peace. But when it comes down to cases, such as accepting the International Court of Justice, the Communist nations turned their backs.

I find us in a rather embarrassing position. We are apparently more hypocritical. We have accepted the Court's jurisdiction without giving it any cases.

The Communists say they do not want the Court's jurisdiction, and the attack against the Court is really quite disturbing to me because it sort of coincides with the constant attack which is leveled against the Court from the Communists, and I would like to see all Americans take a very forthright stand on the matter of rule of law, rule of justice. It saddens me when I see literature and pamphlets and folders which, for all practical purposes, substantiate the Communists' purposes of claim about the Court. I feel that this is most unfortunate.

VALUE OF COURTS TO CREDITOR NATIONS

Now, Mr. Chairman, if we rightly understand the self-interest of the United States, courts are most valuable to nations who wish to enforce agreements and the United States is the world's leading creditor nation. Throughout the world nations, individuals, and corporations, have debts and contract obligations to American nationals and to the Government itself. Clearly, even in the most narrow terms, it is to our interest to enforce these obligations in courts of law rather than to resort to more tedious processes or to be placed in the sometimes ridiculous and sometimes dangerous position of having nothing to rely upon but the show of force; and, obviously, a great desire and a great unwillingness to use force.

RESOLUTION IS A LIMITED STEP FORWARD

In an age when atomic weapons are coming to be regarded as part of the conventional equipment of the ordinary combat unit, we cannot afford to neglect every opportunity to create what the late John Foster Dulles called legal institutions of peace.

But I would like to make it clear that I am not sponsoring this resolution on the broad ground that a more effective Court will save the peace. I sponsor it only as one step, and I might add a limited step, which will make a modest contribution toward the solution of certain types of international disputes.

EXCHANGE OF CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN SENATOR HUMPHREY

AND PRESIDENT EISENHOWER

I am very pleased that President Eisenhower is in full support of this resolution. On October 21, 1959, I wrote to the President and respectfully urged him to give full backing to my proposal. The President in a letter of reply on November 17, 1959, clearly stated his desire that this resolution be approved by the Senate. I quote from the President's letter:

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 ask, Mr. Chairman, that the exchange of correspondence between the President and me as it appeared in the Department of State Bulletin of January 25, 1960, be inserted at the conclusion of my testimony in the printed hearing record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection.

(The exchange of correspondence referred to is as follows :)

PRESIDENT EXPRESSES VIEWS ON WORLD COURT AND DISARMAMENT

Following is an exchange of letters between President Eisenhower and Senator Hubert H. Humphrey which was made public by Senator Humphrey on November 27.

PRESIDENT EISENHOWER TO SENATOR HUMPHREY

AUGUSTA, GA., November 17, 1959. 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 law-breaking. 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 resolution1 recently sponsored by the United States and the other members of the General Assembly, this Government has followed the policy of seeking reliable international agreements on manageable segments of the whole arms problem.

1 For text, see Bulletin of Nov. 23, 1959, p. 766.