Basic HTML Version
Otbers bad been agreed upon in
treaties.
Rules dealing witb the rights of
mercbant ships in. foreign ports, ex–
traditíon of criminals, rígbts of am–
bassadors and díplomatic agents,
and rigbts of passage tbrough terri–
torial waters are just a few examples
of rules that were developing into
intemational law. Then there were
laws of war, such as rules for the
treatment of prisoners of war and
rules against attacking undefended
cities and towns.
Of course, many of these were
frequently violated. That only dem-
and impartía} jurists was made a
little easier for natíons wíshing to
arbítrate. The conference created
the Permanent Court ofArbitration.
In reality, this prestigious ín–
stiiution was neíther permanent nor
a court in the true sense. Toward the
end of World War 1, this court and
The Hague Peace Conference of
1899 carne to be much in the news.
President Woodrow Wilson of the
United States was gaining much
space in ·tbe public press with bis
determined insistence on making
tbat war the war to end all wars by
bis League of Nations.
U.
nless some effect ive world super–
government can be brought quickly
into action, the proposals for peace
and human progress are dark and doubtful.
onstrated that what was developing
was international law with no power
of enforcement. A prerequisite for
rule of intemational law among na–
tions is a court to interpret this body
of intemational law and to render
deCisions based on it. Today, many
see in tbe Intemational Court of
Justice at The Hague the embryo of
a court that would be as effective as
national courts within nations - a
World Court backed by force. But at
that
poínt we encounter tbe
real
problem - how to establisb force
over an international decision.
Many today pío their hopes for
the world on tbe future ofthis body.
The Hague Peace Conference
Scattered through the blood–
drenched pages of bistory are a few
examples of nations agreeing to
settle
some
controversies by judicial
settlement instead of by war. They
set up occasional and transient tri–
bunals, known as
ad hoc
tribunals of
arbitration. But what was most
needed was a
permanent
court.
At Tbe Hague Peace Conference
in 1899, tbe selection of competent
PLAIN TRUTH Oecember 1973
-
Sir Winston Churchi/1
Tbe next step in developing tbe
present court carne in 1920. Tbat
year saw what had been started
in
The Hague Peace Conference cre–
ated into the Permanent Court of
lnternational Justice by the League
of Nations Covenant.
So bere, at last, was a permanent
body that was a real court to which
nations could come at any time. 1
say "could."
lt
was entirely a volun–
tary matter. The opponents of
Woodrow Wilson's League of Na–
tions were loudly protesting the
whole thing as absolutely impotent,
because "it had no teeth," as Tbeo–
dore Roosevelt loudly contended. 1
heard many speeches along tbat
line. And, as Justice Singh says
today, law without force is impo–
tent, and force wíthout law is an–
archy - and we witness both in the
world today!
This Court, as organized in the
League of Nations Charter, was a
standing court of 15 jurists who had
no other professions, devoting full
time to the Court. But the Court was
powerless to prevent wars. It, like
the League of Nations, bad "no
teetb" - no power to enforce its
decisions. It ended in 1945, with the
end of Wor1d War 11.
The ·Present lnternational
Court of Justice
After World War II, in 1945, the
work of the League of Natíons was
taken over by the new1y formed
United Natíons.
1 attended the entire San Fran–
cisco Conference where tbe U.N.
charter was drafted. 1 heard great
speeches by world leaders, saying
this was the world's "last cbance"
for peace. Yet as soon as the plenary
sessions, for public show, were over,
and tbe diplomats met in prívate
sessions, they were tearing at one
another's throats like mad dogs,
each fighting vicious1y for selfisb ad–
vantage, each out to "get" and to
"take" from the others all he could.
This, in fact, is tbe way diplomats
have been "fighting for world
p'eace" for 6,000 years!
The League of Natíons' per–
manent Court of Intemationa1 Jus–
tice was succeeded by the United
Nation's Intemational Court of Jus–
tíce. Attached to the U.N.'s Cbarter
as an integral part of it is a 70-
article statute setting out tbe organi–
zation and procedures of the World
Court.
Tbe World Court, sítting at The
Hague, is composed of 15 distin–
guíshed and higbly competent
judges from various nations. No two
may come from tbe same nation.
They are elected by unanimous vote
by the General Assembly and the
Security Council. Members are
elected for a 9-year term, and they
may be reelected. Elections are held
every three years, five seats being
filled or reelected at that time. A
judge may not engage in any out–
side professions or in any po1itical
functions. A judge may be removed
by tbe unanimous vote of the other
judges.
All decisions are determined by a
majority of the judges present, nine
constituting a quorum. In case of a
tie, tbe presídent of the Court has
the deciding vote. The Court elects
7