|
There
were two systems of jurisdiction:
1)
Voluntary jurisdiction – a system that limited jurisdiction to
particular disputes submitted to the Court by an agreement made ad
hoc after the dispute had already arose.
2)
Compulsory jurisdiction – a system whereby a number of States
agreed by means of a convention to confer jurisdiction upon the
Court in all disputes which could potentially arise between them,
and to allow reference of each particular dispute to the Court by
unilateral application of either party to the dispute.
Conditions
that should have been satisfied by a dispute in order to be suitable
for inclusion:
1) found impossible to be settled by diplomatic means;
2) not submitted to another court/tribunal;
3) was a case of a "legal nature", i.e. it should have
been regarding:
a) interpretation of a treaty;
b) any question of international law;
c) existence of any fact which, if established, would
constitute a breach of an international obligation;
d) nature or extent of reparations to be made for the breach
of an international obligation;
e) interpretation of a decision of the Court.
Jurisdiction
under treaties could arise from:
1) The Covenant of the League of Nations ;
2) The Peace Treaties (other than #1 or #3);
3) protection of minorities;
4) mandates;
5) collective international conventions of a "legislative"
character;
6) political treaties (of alliance, commerce, etc.);
7) bilateral conventions concerning transit and communications;
8) treaties of arbitration and conciliation.
The
Covenant provided that:
Article 13: the members of the League of Nations were obliged
to submit to arbitration or judicial settlement any dispute that
would arise between them which they recognized to be suitable for
such submission and which could not be satisfactorily settled by
diplomacy. The other party could defeat the jurisdiction by refusing
to recognize the suitability of the dispute for such procedure. In
this case, the members of the League of Nations should have
submitted this matter to the Council, by means of a notice.
Article 14: the Court was given a power to give advisory
opinions.
The Statute provided that only States or members of the League of
Nations could be parties in cases before the Court. Hence, private
persons, whether natural or corporate could not appear as parties
before the Court, including sovereign rulers, ex-sovereigns, public
bodies and officials etc. Although it was possible for a government
to take up a claim of its citizen or corporation against another
government (e.g. a nation under protectorate or Mandate, or
minorities under special circumstances). British Dominions and
India, and any other fully self-governing Dominion or Colony which
could become a Member of the League of Nations, were entitled to
appear before the Court irrespective of whether or not they could be
described as States. States could not be refused access to the
Court, even if its sovereignty was subject to limitations, unless
the sovereignty was completely in the hands of another State, in
which case the protecting or mandatory State would be the party
before the Court.
The
Court was opened to the members of the League of Nations and states
mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant, even if they had not
ratified the Protocol of Signature.
If a member of the League of Nations mentioned in the Annex
to the Covenant were to retire from the League of Nations it would
still continue to enjoy the unconditional right of access under that
paragraph. The Court was open to the states-non-members of the
League of Nations and not mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant
only on the conditions laid down by the Council acting under Article
35 (2) of the Statute. The conditions referred to in Article 35 (2)
were laid down by a resolution of the Council of May 17, 1922, which
provided for the deposit of a declaration accepting the jurisdiction
of the Court in accordance with the covenant and becoming subject to
the conditions of the Statute and Rules of Procedure of the Court.
The declaration could have been either particular (i.e. in respect
of the dispute which had already arisen) or general (i.e. in respect
of all disputes or certain types of disputes).
The
following are the States neither Members of the League nor mentioned
in the Annex to the Covenant, which were entitled to appear before
the Court under Article 35 (2): Afghanistan, Free City of Danzig,
Egypt, Georgia, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Russia and San
Marino, as well as Costa Rica, which was not mentioned in the Annex
and had retired from the League of Nations.
Hence, members of the League of nations and states
mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant could come before the Court
whether or not they had signed or ratified the Protocol of Signature
of the Statute, while other states could only come before the Court
after having made a declaration under the above-mentioned
resolution, unless the jurisdiction of the Court was involved
by/against them under the Peace Treaties of 1919-1920 or certain
other treaties
|