•  
  •  
 

Publication Date

1969

Abstract

THE primary problem confronting both the Permanent Court of International Justice under the League of Nations and the Inter- national Court of Justice under the United Nations has been the reluctance of nations to submit themselves to the compulsory jurisdiction of either court. Consequently to achieve the full potential of international adjudication, a greater number of nations must be convinced of the advantages in utilizing the compulsory jurisdiction of the present International Court of Justice.

When the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was under consideration, many leading international jurists were cognizant of its necessity. American representatives, James Brown Scott and Elihu Root, spoke for the concept of compulsory jurisdiction in the report of the Advisory Committee of Jurists made at the Hague in 1920. Despite their efforts compulsory jurisdiction was not incorporated into the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. Exclusion of this principle may have stemmed from a continuing prevalence of the "Hague Conference psychology", occasioned by the fact that those conferences had not been able to go beyond the issuance of resolutions. Furthermore some nations, particularly the "Great Powers", feared that they might shackle themselves by endorsing such a provision.

Download

Share

COinS