Abstract
Although it is true that not many students these days write about the concepts of “legal dispute” and “political dispute,”1 it may be appropriate to examine the general notion of both “legal dispute” and “legal question” which may become relevant to Article 36(3) and Article 96 (1) of the Charter respectively in the course of the handling of international disputes by the Security Council.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Lincoln P. Bloomfield, “Law, Politics and International Disputes,” Intern. Concil., No. 516 (1958), p. 261.
As quoted in H. Lauterpacht, “The Doctrine of Non-Justiciable Disputes in International Law,” 8 Economica (1928), p. 281.
Manley O. Hudson, International Tribunals, Past and Future. Washington: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1944, p. 7.
This article was a further amplification of Article 16 and Article 38 of the Hague Convention on Pacific Settlement of 1899 and 1907 respectively, which had recognized that “in questions of legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions,” arbitration was the most effective and equitable method of settlement. Manley O. Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942: A Treatise. New York: Macmillan, 1943, p. 454.
Of the twenty-seven advisory opinions given by the Permanent Court of International Justice at the request of the League Council, twenty-one opinions were on questions relating to existing disputes between States, that is, involving questions relating to substantive rights and duties of parties, and as such they could have been also settled through contentious proceedings except the Eastern Carelia case. See Leland M. Goodrich, “The Nature of Advisory Opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice,” 32 A.J.I.L. (1938), pp. 744–746.
Cf. “Le Conseil de Sécurité… doit agir au mieux des circonstances;…. Il a tous les droits, il peut prendre toutes les initiatives, ordonner toutes le mesures et ses décisions sont sans appel. C’est donc à lui de decider dans quelle mesure les frontières doivent être, soit maintenues, soit modifiés, selon les besoins de la paix et de l’ordre international.” La Pradelle, La Paix Moderne, 1899–1943: De La Haye à San Francisco. Paris: Editions Internationales, 1947, p. 477; The Security Council is not a body applying the law accepted by the Members, but it is the “creator of the law.”
John Foster Dulles, War or Peace. New York: Macmillan, 1950, p. 194.
Philip C. Jessup, Transnational Law. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1954, pp. 103–104
Marius Vaucher, Le problème de la justiciabilité et de la non-justiciabilité en droit international des différends dits “politiques” ou “non-juridiques” et les notions de compétence exclusive et de compétence nationale. Montreux: Ganguin et Laubscher, 1951, pp. 234–235.
Even if Articles 36 (3) and 96 (1) of the Charter are read together, the argument of a writer to the contrary is not convincing. See Louis B. Wehle, “The United Nations Bypasses the International Court as the Council’s Adviser: A study in Contrived Frustration,” 98 U.P.L.R. (1950), pp. 291 ff.
An exception is the Corfu Channel case. The resolution of the Security Council in that case gave rise to a hopeful expectation that the Council might adopt a similar resolution without the consent of the parties. See C. H. M. Waldock, “Forum Prorogatum,” 2 I.L.O. (1948), pp. 377 ff.
S. B. Krylov, “Les notions principales du droit des gens: la doctrine soviétique du droit international,” 70 Recueil (1947,1), p. 441. This reference was made of course only to customary rules. Further see
Jan F. Triska and R. M. Slusser, “Treaties and Other Sources of Order in International Relations: The Soviet View,” 52 A.J.I.L. (1958), pp. 699 ff.
E. A. Korovin in E. A. Korovin (ed.), Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1951, p. 146. In the revised edition of the book published after the death of Stalin, i. e.
F. I. Kozhevnikov (ed.), Mezhdunarodnoe Pravo. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1957, Prof. Korovin omits such a direct reference, although he still retains relatively extreme position as compared with other contributors. See pp. 59 ff.
J. Frankel, “The Soviet Union and the United Nations,” 8 Y.B.W.A. (1954), p. 69
A. Dallin, The Soviet View of the United Nations. Cambridge: MIT Center for International Studies, 1959, mimeo., p. 46
Hans Kelsen, The Communist Theory of Law. London: Stevens, 1955, pp. 148 ff. But compare Oliver J. Lissitzyn, “Western and Soviet Perspectives on International Law — A Comparison,” A.S.I.L. Proceedings (1959), pp. 21-30.
Krylov in Korovin, op. cit., p. 475. Ironically, the Iranian case of 1946–1947 was given as a good example of the negotiated settlement. The extremity of the Soviet view of the negotiated settlement is characterized by Percy Corbett as that the USSR “wishes not only to avoid any obligation to arbitrate, but, if it should participate in arbitration, to preserve its discretion at each stage of the proceedings;…. [For it,] arbitration is nothing more than negotiation in another form.” Law in Diplomacy. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1959, p. 171. Cf.
Peter Benjamin, “Soviet Treaty Practice on Commercial Arbitration since 1940,” 53 A.J.I.L. (1959), pp. 882–889.
See Timothy Taracouzio, The Soviet Union and International Law. New York: Macmillan, 1935, p. 296.
N. Polyanskii, Mezhdunarodnyi Sud. Moscow: Academy of Sciences, USSR, Publishing House, 1951, p. 4. On the Soviet antagonism toward the Court, see
Shabtai Rosenne, “The International Court and the United Nations: Reflections on the Period 1946–1954,” 9 Intern. Org. (1955), p. 255.
Grigory I. Tunkin, “Co-Existence and International Law,” 95 Recueil (1958, III), p. 1 at 59-60.
Krylov, Mezhdunarodnyi Sud. Moscow: Gosyurizdat, 1958.
Ibid., p. 158 Also see R. P. Anand, “Attitude of the ‘New’ Asian-African Countries toward the International Court of Justice,” 4 International Studies (1962), pp. 119–132
Jorge Castaneda, “The Underdeveloped Nations and the Development of International Law,” 15 Intern. Org. (1961), pp. 38–48.
Arnold McNair considers that most international issues are of such character. The Development of International Justice. New York: New York Univ. Press, 1954, p. 32.
Max Sørensen, “The International Court of Justice: Its Role in Contemporary International Relations,” 14 Intern. Org. (1960), p. 274.
Quincy Wright, International Law and the United Nations. New York: Asia, 1960, passim.
Shabtai Rosenne, The International Court of Justice. Leyden: Sijthoff, 1957, p. 459.
On this problem, generally see E. Hambro, “The Authority of the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice,” 3 I.C.L.Q (1954), pp. 2–22; and id., “Dissenting and Individual Opinions in the International Court of Justice” 17 Zeits. a. ö. R. V. (1956–1957), pp. 224 ff. On probable conflict in the interpretation of legal questions between the Security Council and the Court, see Polyanskii, op. cit., pp. 207-209.
Cf. Morton A. Kaplan and Nicholas deB. Katzenbach, The Political Foundations of International Law. New York: Wiley, 1961, Chapters 1, 10, and 13.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1969 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kahng, T.J. (1969). Nature of Legal Questions and Problems of Handling Them. In: Law, Politics, and the Security Council. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6131-4_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-6131-4_2
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-5753-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-6131-4
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive