Page 192 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

Charter was a favorable recommendation. The lack of a 1950, replied that they were. Upon the continued refusal
favorable recommendation on the part of the Security of Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania to appoint a commis-
Council cannot be construed by the General Assembly as sioner, the General Assembly asked the Court whether
an unfavorable recommendation, permitting it to proceed the Secretary General, who by the terms of the treaties
with its own vote on the admission. To do so would was authorized to appoint the third member in the ab-
deprive the Security Council of an important function sence of agreement between the commissssioners on his
assigned to it by the Charter. selection, could proceed to make this appointment, where
The Reparation for Iduries StGffered in the Service of the one of the parties failed to appoint its commissioner. The
United Nations Opinion (1948-1949). 151 As a conse- Court, on July 18, 1950, replied that the Secretary
quence of the assassination in Palestine of Count Ber- General could not do so under the terms of the treaties of
nadotte, the United Nations Palestine Mediator, the peace.
General Assembly asked the Court two important legal The problem before the Court was one of treaty in-
questions. (1) Does the United Nations have the interna- terpretation. By denying the Secretary the authority to ap-
tional legal capacity to bring an international claim against point the third commissioner the Court in effect construed
Israel for damages caused to the United Nations by the the treaty in such a fashion that the deliberate failure of
assassination?; (2) Does the United Nations have the in- one side to appoint a commissioner could render the en-
ternational legal capacity to bring an international claim tire arbitration machinery ineffective. The Court realized
against Israel on behalf of the relatives of the victim? The that a treaty should, if possible, be so interpreted as to be
fust question raised not only the nature of the U.N. but effective. However, it also realized that a treaty should not
further its relation to nonmember states. The Court said be rewritten by a court under the guise of interpretation in
that the U.N. not only had sufficient legal capacity to bring order to improve its operation.
an international claim against a state, but could even bring The International Status of Southwest Africa Opinion
such claim against a nonmember. The U.N. had interna- (1949-1950). 153 The Court on June 11, 1950, held that
tional existence not only in the eyes of its members, but South-West Africa was impressed with an international
even in the eyes of nonmembers because of its purposes status when it became a mandate under the League of Na-
and because of the great majority of states which make it tions. The death of the League did not affect that status.
up. The second question raised the problem of diplomatic Therefore, the Union of South Africa, as the mandatory
protection. Ordinarily a state can only bring a claim on power, could not unilaterally cancel that international
behalf of its own nationals. The Court permitted the U.N. status and annex South-West Afiica. It was not under an
to sponsor such a claim, reasoning that the risk of possible obligation to convert the mandate into a trust territory
duplication between the U.N. and the victim's national under the U.N., but it was obligated to report to the
state could be eliminated either by means of a general General Assembly on South-West Africa as it had done to
convention or by a particular agreement in any individual the League. This opinion permitted the U.N. to become
case. an inheritor of certain prerogatives possessed by its pred-
The Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hun- ecessor. The Court, however, stated that the United Na-
gary and Romania Opinion (1949-1950). 152 In the 1949 tions was to exercise this prerogative subject to the same
peace treaties with the Allied States, Bulgaria, Hungary restrictions imposed upon the League of Nations. This
and Romania agreed, among other things, to respect cer- restriction was the central issue in the two following ad-
tain freedoms of individuals in their territories. In the visory opinions.
event a dispute arose over the performance of the peace The Voting Procedure on Questions to Reports and Peti-
treaties each side was to appoint a representative to an ar- tions Concerning the Territory of Southwest Africa Opin-
bitral board. The two representatives were to choose a ion (1954-1955). 154 On June 7, 1955, the Court, at the
third member. request of the General Assembly, decided that the voting
The Allied States accused Bulgaria, Hungary and procedures adopted by the General Assembly in dealing
Romania of denying to some of their citizens the with matters pertaining to South-West Africa were
freedoms guaranteed by the treaties. The allegation was procedural in nature and therefore did not amount to
denied. The Allied States then asked for the appointment supervision in excess of that performed by the League of
of commissioners to arbitrate the dispute. Bulgaria, Hun- Nations over South-West Africa.The Court was forced to
gary and Romania refUsed to appoint a commissioner. The reconcile the more liberal voting procedure in the General
General Assembly asked the Court if the three Balkan Assembly with its earlier opinion which restricted the
countries were bound to do so. The Court, on March 30, U.N.'s supervision of South-West Afiica to that exercised
by the League of Nations.
151. [I9491I.C.J. Rep. 174;digested in 43 Am. J. In17 L. 589
(1949). 153. (19501I.C.J. 128;digested in 44 Am. J. Int'l L. 757 (1950).
152. [I9501I.C.J. Rep. 65, 121, 221; digestedin 44Am. J. Int? L. 154. [I9551I.C.J. Rep. 67; digested in 49 Am. J. In17 L. 565
742, 752 (1950). (1955).