|
JUDGES
Nomination
of Judges.
The electorate(panel?) consisted of the Assembly and Council of the
League of Nations(I don’t get this sentence). Their choice was
limited to the candidates submitted to them by the nominating
authority. The candidates were nominated by the national groups in
the Court of Arbitration i.e. by the members of that Court appointed
under Art. 44 of the Hague Convention of 1907 and, in the case of
states which were not parties to the Convention, by national groups
appointed in the same manner.
The only states entitled through their national groups to nominate
candidates were those which were Members of the League or mentioned
in the Annex to the Covenant. The Revision Protocol provided that
any state having accepted the Statute would be able to take part in
the nomination as well as the election of the judges.
At least 3 months before an election, the Secretary-General of the
League should have called upon the members of the groups to
nominate, within a given time, persons in a position to accept the
duties of the members of the Court. The maximum number of candidates
which any one group could nominate was four, and of these only two
could have been of the nationality of their group. The number of
candidates could not be more than double the number of seats to be
filled. Thus if the election was for the full number of judges, or
for any number exceeding one, four nominations were allowed, but if
there was only one vacancy to be filled, the national group was
limited to two nominees being of the group's own nationality. Two or
more national groups could nominate the same person.
Election of Judges.
After the process of nomination was completed, the Secretary-General
of the League of Nations had to prepare a list of candidates
and submit it to the Assembly and the Council. These organs then
would independently elect the judges and deputy-judges. There was no
express provision provided by the Statute as to the election in
these two bodies. The elections were made by absolute majority, i.e.
each candidate had to, in order to be elected, receive a majority of
all the votes cast, not merely more votes than any other candidate.
Further, he should have received an absolute majority of votes both
in the Assembly and in the Council. The two bodies held separate and
simultaneous sessions, at which the voting took place by secret
ballot. Successive ballots were held until the required number of
elections has been made. Then the list of successful candidates in
each body were compared to each other and those whose names appear
in both were elected. If more than one Member of the same nation was
elected in this way, the election of the eldest of them was alone
effective, the other election(s) were regarded as null and void. If,
after the 1st meeting in each body held for the purpose of the
election, one or more positions remained to be filled, 2nd and, if
necessary, 3rd meetings would take place. If the 3rd meeting of the
Assembly and Council in accordance with the normal procedure did not
result in the whole quota of judges or deputy-judges, a joint
conference consisting of 6 members (3 appointed by the Assembly and
3 by the Council) would be set up. The joint conference did not take
place automatically at the conclusion of the unsuccessful 3rd
meeting. The Assembly or the Council would propose this formation
when they considered that a prolongation of the normal procedure
would be useless. The duty of the commission was to select a name
for submission to the Assembly and Council which would satisfy both
of them. It did not have power to impose its choice upon them. In
the deadlock, the commission could go outside of the list provided.
This was the only case in which a candidate for election could be
sought outside of the body of candidates nominated by the national
groups.
After the joint conference would submit the name(s) to the Assembly
and Council they would vote in the same way as before. In the event
of an equal vote among the judges the eldest had a casting vote.
Term of office.
Members of the Court were elected for 9 years and were eligible for
re-election. Three considerations were involved in the duration of a
judge's term of office:
1) the vital matter of irremovability;
2) continuity of jurisprudence;
3) the possibility of eliminating unsatisfactory judges.
Although the judge's term was 9 years they had to continue to sit
until their places had been filled. Moreover, they had to sit in,
and finish, all cases which they had begun to hear at the time of
the expiration of their term, even after appointment of a successor.
The term of office of judges and deputy-judges commenced to run on
January 1 of the year following their election. Vacancies caused by
death, removal or resignation were filled by the same method as that
laid down for the original election. But the member elected to fill
such a vacancy would hold office only for the remainder of his
predecessor's term.
The members of the Court were divided into judges and deputy-judges.
The function of the deputy-judges was to replace the judges when,
for any reason, a sufficient number of them was not able to be
present. But because of the large number of judges, the office of
deputy-judges was abolished under the Revision Protocol. Judges
could not be a member of a government, a member of the diplomatic or
civil service, a representative on the Council or Assembly of the
League of Nations, or a member of the Secretariat. The question of
whether a judge could be a member of a legislature should have been
decided on a case-by-case basis. The election of a person holding an
incompatible office was not void. It was not a question of
disqualification; the judge elected in this manner had to decide
whether he would accept his appointment as a judge and resign his
other office, or retain the latter and decline the judgeship. The
Revised Statute also prohibited the members of the Court from
engaging in any occupation of a professional nature. No member of
the Court could participate in the decision of any case in which he
had previously taken an active part as an agent, counsel or advocate
for one of the contesting parties, or as a member of a national or
international court, or of a commission of inquiry, or in any other
capacity (PCIJ Statute Art. 17). There was only one way by which it
was possible to dismiss a member of the Court and that is by the
unanimous decision of all other members. The members of the Court,
when engaged in the business of the Court, enjoyed diplomatic
privileges and immunities.
The Court elected its President and Vice-President. Their term of
office was 3 years, and they were eligible for re-election. The
President directed the work and administration of the Court and
presided at the meetings of the full Court. The Vise-President took
the President's place when he/she was unable to be present or if the
Presidency was vacant (until the appointment of the new President).
The election took place by secret ballot, and the candidate
obtaining an absolute majority of votes was declared elected. The
Court appointed its Registrar. She/he was elected by the majority of
votes given by a secret ballot. Her/his term of office was 7 years,
and was also subject to re-election.
Number of Judges.
The total number of judges constituting the full Court was 15, but
it was contemplated that two judges at a time could have been given
long leave. The normal number would be 13 or even 12. The
deputy-judges had to be summoned if, and only if, 11 judges could
not be assembled. A quorum of 9, however, sufficed to constitute the
Court. Judges ad hoc were not taken into account for the
calculation of the quorum, or of the eleven judges mentioned above.
National Judges.
The Statute provided that:
1) judges of the nationality of each contesting party retained their
right to sit in the case before the Court;
2) if the Court included a judge of the nationality of one of the
parties only, the other party could have selected from among the
deputy judges a judge of its nationality, if there be one. If there
was no such deputy judge, the party may choose a judge, preferably
from among those persons who have been nominated as candidates;
3) if the Court did not include upon the bench judges of the
nationalities of the contesting parties, each of them may proceed to
select or choose a judge. The national judges summoned ad hoc
were equal to ordinary judges in respect of their qualifications, on
the one hand, and powers and duties, on the other.
CHAMBERS
The
Statute provided for the formation (by the Court) of special
chambers to hear cases related to labour, transit and
communications, respectively.
1.
Chamber for Labour Cases.
Primarily,
labour cases should have been those referred to in Part XIII of the
Treaty of Versailles and corresponding sections of the other Peace
Treaties, but they were not necessarily confined to those cases. The
Labour clauses of the Peace Treaties set up an International Labour
Organization affiliated with the League of Nations, which, inter
alia, was entrusted (through the body known as the Conference)
with the task of making recommendations and framing draft
conventions related to the conditions of labour. The PCIJ retained
compulsory jurisdiction in connection with the questions which may
have arose in respect of the fulfillment or non-fulfillment by
individual States of their obligations in regards to these
recommendations and conventions, as well as, in all questions or
disputes relating to the interpretation of the Labour clauses
themselves or subsequent conventions concluded in pursuance thereof,
i.e. the contracting parties consented in advance to allow any one
of them to bring the matter before the Court without further
agreement in regard to the submission of a particular case.
The
Procedure for Labour cases.
Every 3 years the Court appointed a special chamber of 5 judges. In
addition, 2 judges were selected for the purpose of replacing a
judge who could not participate in the proceedings. If parties so
demanded, cases could be heard and determined by this chamber. In
the absence of any such demand, the full Court would sit. However,
in both cases (i.e. chamber/full court), judges trying labour cases
would have to be supported by 4 technical experts (who would not
have the right to vote). Technical experts were chosen for each
particular case from a list of "Assessors of Labour Cases"
nominated by each member of the League and an equivalent number
nominated by the Governing Body of the Labour Office. The Governing
Body should have divided its nominees equally between
representatives of workers and employers whose names appeared on the
list of persons of industrial experience mentioned in Treaty of
Versailles (Art. 412). The appointment of the experts for each case
was made by an absolute majority of votes either by the Court or by
the special chamber which had to deal with the case. The President
of the Court was charged with obtaining all information which might
have been helpful to the Court in selecting the experts in each
case.
In the labour cases the International Labour Office was at liberty
to furnish the Court with all relevant information, and for this
purpose its Director should have received copies of all written
proceedings. This is the only instance in which the Statute
conferred the right of taking part in a contentious case before the
Court upon any entity other than States. The right was limited to
giving information, and did not enable the International Labour
Office to occupy the position of a party.
2.
The Chamber for Transit cases.
The
second group of cases for which a special procedure was laid down
was related to transit and communications. Cases particularly aimed
at were those referred to in Part XII (Ports, Waterways, and
Railways) of the Treaty of Versailles and the corresponding portions
of other Peace Treaties, whereby 'compulsory' jurisdiction was
conferred upon the Court, but again the Chamber/Court under Article
27 of the Statute was not limited only by these cases; all int'l
disputes relating to transit and communications were within its
provisions.
The
procedure adopted was similar to Labour cases, with the exception
that the technical experts did not participate by default, but only
when it was so desired by the parties or the Court. This distinction
between procedures was introduced in the course of the final
consideration of the Draft Statute by the plenary meeting of the
First Assembly, when it was pointed out that Transit and
Communications cases would not in their legal aspect necessarily
bear a technical character and would not necessarily involve
domestic and sociological elements attached to labour cases.
Technical
experts in transit and communications cases, if they sat as a result
of the decision of the Court, received out of the funds of the Court
the same compensation as experts in Labour cases. If they sat at the
request of the parties compensation was to be covered by the parties
in accordance with rules made by the Court.
By
way of an exception to the general rule, Articles 26 and 27 provided
that if there was a national judge of only one party sitting as a
judge in the special chamber, the President of the Court would
invite one of the other judges to retire in order to substitute
him/her with a judge chosen by the other party in accordance with
Article 31, but this system was altered by the Revision Protocol.
3.
The Chamber of Summary Procedure.
It
was composed of 3 judges (5 under the Revised Statute) elected
annually by the full Court, and could hear and determine cases by
summary procedure at the request of the contesting parties. Its
jurisdiction only arose as a result of the corresponding agreement
between the parties.
|