The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 1935. THE WORLD COURT

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 98, 19 January 1935, Page 6

The Dominion. SATURDAY, JANUARY 19, 1935. THE WORLD COURT

1.. . " — Of qreat world interest is the announcement that President Roosevelt has urged the Senate to approve the proposal that the L'nitcd States should join the Permanent Court of Intel national Jus. c . This tribunal, which was constituted under the aegis of the Leagu of Nations in 1921, and held its first session on June 15, 192- differs fundamentally from the League itself in that its constitution and functions are those of an international judicial body, while the League is an international political institution. Hence the Court s decisions, establishing as, they do important precedents and rules in internati litigation, are gradually building up .a system of niternational law. Prior to its establishment there had existed and functioned at iiregu < intervals since its establishment in 1899 a Permanent Coin t o Arbitration. American advocacy was largely responsible for. its institution; the United States, in fact, was the first of the nations o resort to it for the hearing and settlement of an international dispute. In 1907 the American delegates to the Second Hague Conference were instructed to work for the development of .this Court into a permanent tribunal composed of judges who. are judicial officers and nothing else, who are paid adequate, salaries, . who have no otlipr occupation, and who are devoting their entire time to the trial and decision of international cases by judicial methods and under a sense of judicial responsibility.” No further progress was made until 19- J, owing mainly to the difficulty of agreeing upon the method of selecting the judges, but in that year, largely through the instrumentality o a distinguished American, Senator Elihu Root, the Court was finally constituted by the League of Nations under , a statute and protoco separately signed by over 50 States. Since its inception the. Com . has given judgments and advisory opinions in many cases of great international importance round which bitter controversies had laged, thus rendering signal service in the interests of peaceful negotiation. But the extraordinary thing is that the United States, one o the strongest and most persistent advocates for the establishment of the Court, should have refused to become an adherent. Ihe chief obstacle in the way was the provision in the statute that unless a State signed the “Optional Clause” granting to the Court compulsory jurisdiction over it in certain classes of legal disputes, the Court had no power to draw an unwilling suitor before it, even if that State were an adherent, and render judgment affecting it one way. or another. A majority of the nations signed the clause, lhe united States refused. In 1926, however, the Senate affirmed the principle by a majority of 76 votes to 17, but insisted in one of five reservations upon a principle of procedure that was unacceptable to the othei Powers, namely: . . . nor shall it without the consent of the United States entertain any request for an advisory opinion touching any dispute or question in which the United States has, or claims, an interest.” , Fortunately the Court itself solved the difficulty by ruling in a case between Finland and Russia in which .the lattei refused to participate, that “it is well established in international law that no State can be compelled to submit its disputes to other States, whether to mediation or to arbitration, or to any other means of pacific settlement . . . The Court being a court of justice, cannot even in advisory cases depart from the essential rules guiding their activities as a court.” This ruling made it possible for a protocol to be drafted which would satisfy America and find acceptance by the other States, and on December 9, 1929, the signature of. the United States was attached at Geneva to the documents providing for. the membership of that country in the Permanent Court of International Justice. In a strong plea for ratification by the Senate,, the then President, Mr. Hoover, described the Court as “peculiarly identified with American ideals,” and expressed the hope and belief that a way would be found “by which we may take our place in a movement so fundamental to the progress of peace.” . Everything seemed clear for ratification, then considered to be a pure formality. But “there’s many a slip . . - Stiong opposition was organised in the Senate, and the proposal was shelved. When Mr. Roosevelt assumed office the question was revived, but it was considered inadvisable in the then state of Senate and public opinion to pursue it. Apparently the President thinks that the auspices are now more propitious. The voting balances in the Senate, now overwhelmingly Democratic as the result of the November Congressional elections, certainly give ground for greater optimism for the ratification of the proposal, than at any other time since it became an issue, and it seems practically certain that it will be adopted. In that happy event the cause of peace should be powerfully reinforced. -