|
|
[p6] THE COURT,
composed as above,
having heard the observations and conclusions of the Parties,
delivers the following judgment:
[1] The Governments of His Britannic Majesty in the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, of the Czechoslovak Republic, of His Majesty
the King of Denmark, of the French Republic, of the German Reich, and of His
Majesty the King of Sweden, hereinafter referred to as the "Six
Governments", of the one part, and the Government of the Polish Republic, of
the other part, have submitted to the Permanent Court of International
Justice, by means of a Special Agreement concluded in London on October
30th, 1928, between the aforesaid Governments, and filed with the Registry
of the Court, in accordance with Article 40 of the Statute and Article 35 of
the Rules of Court, under cover of a letter from the British Legation at The
Hague dated November 29th, 1928, the question, with regard to which they
were in disagreement, as to the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of
the International Commission of the Oder to be laid down in the Act of
Navigation of the Oder.
[2] According to the terms of the Special Agreement, the Court is asked to
decide the following questions:
"Does the jurisdiction of the International Commission of the Oder extend,
under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, to the sections of the
tributaries of the Oder, Warthe (Warta) and Netze (Noteć) which are situated
in Polish territory, and, if so, what is the principle laid down which must
be adopted for the purpose of determining the upstream limits of the
Commission's jurisdiction ?" [p7]
[3] Article 3 of the Special Agreement providing that the Agreement "shall
be communicated to the Court by one of the Parties", the Court was duly made
cognizant of the case on November 29th, 1928, the date on which the British
Legation's letter was received. The Agreement was duly communicated on or
after that date to all concerned, as provided in Article 40 of the Statute;
further, in accordance with the terms of Article 63 of the Statute,
notification of the deposit was sent to the Parties to the Versailles
Treaty, other than those concerned in the case.
[4] The President of the Court, by an Order of December 29th, 1928, fixed
the dates for the filing of the documents of the written procedure, subject
to the Court's right to modify the times so fixed in the event of the
Parties submitting proposals to that effect. Such proposals having been
received, the President, by an Order of February 25th, 1929, extended the
times for the filing of Cases and Counter-Cases and decided to dispense with
the submission of written Replies by the Parties. A further extension was
granted by an Order of March 26th, 1929, which fixed their expiration at
April 15th and June 10th, 1929, respectively.
[5] The Cases and Counter-Cases were duly filed within the times thus
finally fixed and were communicated to those concerned as provided in
Article 43 of the Statute.
[6] In the course of public sittings held on August 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd
and 24th, 1929, the Court heard the arguments of Sir Cecil Hurst, K.C.,
G.C.M.G., K.C.B., Counsel for H.B.M.'s Government in Great Britain, and of
the above-mentioned Agents for the French and German Governments; it also
heard declarations made by the Agents for the Czechoslovak, Danish and
Swedish Governments mentioned above. Further, it heard the arguments of the
above-mentioned Agent for the Polish Government, as well as of Counsel for
that Government, M. Charles de Visscher, Dean of the Faculty of Law of the
University of Ghent. It finally heard the replies of Sir Cecil Hurst, M.
Basdevant and Dr. Seeliger on behalf of the Six Governments, and the
rejoinders of M. Winiarski and M. de Visscher on behalf of the Polish
Government. [p8]
[7] In support of their respective contentions, the Parties have cited the
documents a list of which is given in the first annex to this judgment [FN1]
; some of these documents were submitted either as annexes to the documents
of the written proceedings or during the hearings; the remainder have been
collected by the Registry with the assistance of the General Secretariat of
the League of Nations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] See page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[8] The Polish Government having, in its Case, cited and relied on inter
alia certain passages taken, directly or indirectly, from the Minutes of the
Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways of the Conference held in Paris
in 1919 which drew up the Versailles Treaty, the Six Governments in their
Counter-Case raised an objection to the admission in evidence of such
references. The Court, having .regard to this objection, made on August
15th, 1929, an Order the full text of which is reproduced in the second
annex to this judgment [FN2] ; the operative portion was as follows:
"The Court .... invites the Agents of the Parties to submit at the hearing
fixed for Tuesday, August 20th, at 10.30 a.m., and before any argument upon
the merits, their observations and final submissions upon the said question,
it being understood that the Court will pass upon this question immediately
after receiving such observations and submissions, and that the argument on
the merits shall follow forthwith, unless the Court shall otherwise decide."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN2] See page 38.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[9] In execution of this Order, Sir Cecil Hurst, M. Basdevant and Dr.
Seeliger on behalf of the Six Governments and M. Winiarski on behalf of the
Polish Government, argued this preliminary point before the Court on August
20th, prior to any arguments on the merits, and the Court, by an Order of
the same day, reproduced in full in the third annex to this judgment [FN3],
ruled that:
"the Minutes of the Commission on Ports, Waterways and Railways of the
Conference which prepared the [p9] Treaty of Versailles shall be excluded as
evidence from the proceedings in the present case".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN3] See page 41.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[10] The Six Governments in their Counter-Case contended that:
"the answers of the Court to the questions submitted for decision should be
those submitted in their Memorial".
[11] These answers were as follows:
[12] Upon the first question: that,
"under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the jurisdiction of the
International Commission does extend to sections, situated in Polish
territory, of the Rivers Warthe and Netze, tributaries of the Oder, if there
are in Polish territory sections of these rivers which come within the
definition of 'navigable waterways of international concern' contained in
Article 1 of the Statute on the 'Regime of Navigable Waterways of
International Concern, signed at Barcelona on the 20th April, 1921'";
or, in the alternative, that
"Under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the jurisdiction of the
International Commission of the Oder does extend to the sections situated in
Polish territory of the Rivers Warthe (Warta) and Netze (Noteć), tributaries
of the Oder, if there are in Polish territory sections of these rivers which
fulfil the conditions of navigability laid down in Article 331 of the
Treaty";
and, upon the second question submitted:
"By virtue of the provisions of Parts (1) and (2) of Chapter III of Section
II of Part XII of the Treaty of Versailles, and in particular of Article
338, and by virtue of the pro-visions of Article 1 (2) of the Barcelona
Statute, the principle which must be adopted for the purpose of determining
the upstream limits of the Commission's jurisdiction is that these limits
should include all sections of the Rivers Warthe (Warta) and Netze (Noteć)
which are covered either by the pro-visions of Article 331 of the Treaty of
Versailles or by the provisions of the general definition contained in
paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the Barcelona Statute";
or, in the alternative: [p10]
"By virtue of the provisions of Parts (1) and (2) of Chapter III of Section
II of Part XII of the Treaty of Versailles, and in particular of Article 338
of the Treaty of Versailles, the principle which must be adopted for the
purpose of determining the upstream limits of the Committee's jurisdiction
is that these limits should be fixed in accordance with the provisions of
paragraph (1) of Article 1 of the Barcelona Statute";
or, thirdly, that:
"Under the provisions of Parts (1) and (2) of Chapter III of Section II of
Part XII of the Treaty of Versailles, the principle which must be adopted
for the purpose of determining the upstream limits of the Committee's
jurisdiction is that these limits should be fixed in accordance with the
provisions of Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles at those points where
these rivers respectively cease to be either naturally navigable or
navigable by reason of lateral canals or channels constructed in their
original river beds, either duplicating or improving naturally navigable
sections or connecting two naturally navigable sections."
[13] The above are, therefore, the submissions of the Six Governments.
[14] The Polish Government submitted in its Case that the Court will be
pleased
[Translation.] "to give judgment that in accordance with the Treaty of
Versailles the jurisdiction of the International Commission of the Oder does
not extend to those parts of the Warta (Warthe) and the Noteć(Netze),
tributaries of the Oder, which are situated in Polish territory, and
therefore extends to those sections of the Warta (Warthe) and Noteć (Netze)
which provide more than one State with access to the sea, that is to say,
the German section of the Warta (Warthe) and the German and common sections
of the Noteć (Netze)".
[15] To this the Six Governments opposed in their Counter-Case a submission
to the effect that "the contention of the Polish .... Memorial, namely that
on the rivers Warthe (Warta) and Netze (Noteć), tributaries forming part of
the system of the Oder, while the limits of the r�gime of navigation must be
determined by the application of the Barcelona Statute, the limits of the
jurisdiction of the Oder Commission must be determined exclusively by the
application of the definition contained in [p11] Article 331 of the Treaty
of Versailles, should be rejected" and that "the contention of the Polish
.... Memorial, with regard to the interpretation of the definition in
Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles, should" also "be rejected".
[16] In its Counter-Case, the Polish Government summarized its contentions
in the following three points:
[Translation.]
"(1) Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles only states that those parts of
the Oder system which provide more than one State with access to the sea are
international, and consequently, it excludes from this definition those
parts of the tributaries of this river above the Polish frontier;
(2) The geographical definition of the internationalized system laid down in
Article 331 cannot be modified by the general definition provided for in
Article 338 except in so far as concerns the navigation r�gime, but in no
case as concerns the international administration;
(3) In consequence, the jurisdiction of the Oder Commission does not extend
to the purely Polish parts of the Warta(Warthe) and the Noteć (Netze)."
[17] It will thus be seen that the submissions of the Polish Government
dealt only with the first of the two questions put to the Court, leaving out
of consideration the second question; in this respect, it made the following
statement in its Counter-Case:
[Translation.] "The question as to what is the law which should govern the
fixing of the upstream limits of the jurisdiction of the International
Commission of the Oder can only arise in the event of an affirmative answer
being given to the first question. The Polish Government, being of the
opinion that the jurisdiction of the Commission does not extend to the
purely Polish parts of the Warta (Warthe) and Noteć (Netze), was not obliged
to consider the answer to this second question. It makes every reservation
as to the submissions made in the Memorial of the Six Governments and as to
the grounds for those submissions, and reserves the right to state its case
in regard to the three solutions proposed by the Six Governments in the
course of the pleadings before the International Court of Justice."
[18] The Court, however, by an Order dated August 15th, 1929, invited [p12]
"the Agent for the Polish Government to file with the Registry by midday on
Saturday, August 17th, at latest, any alternative submissions as to the
second of the two questions submitted to the Court under Article 1 of the
Special Agreement of October 30th, 1928".
[19] The full text of the Order is reproduced in the fourth annex to this
judgment [FN1] .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FN1] See page 44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[20] Accordingly, and within the time fixed, the Agent for the Polish
Government filed a document, a copy of which was immediately communicated to
the other Parties ; it contained the following passage:
[Translation.] " .... if, contrary to what Poland regards as the law, the
Court should answer the first question in the affirmative, the Polish
Government could not admit that the definitions contained in Article 1 (1)
of the Barcelona Statute and Article 331 of the Versailles Treaty should, as
the Six Governments demand, be applied simultaneously.... Article 1 (2) of
the Barcelona Statute refers to waterways expressly declared, that is to say
those enumerated in the first part of Article 331, paragraph 1. That part
alone is unchangeable; as regards the definition, that contained in Article
331 is purely and simply to be superseded by Article 1 (1) of the Barcelona
Statute."
[21] In the arguments and declarations made on behalf of the Six
Governments, their submissions as formulated in the written pleadings filed
by them were maintained. On the other hand, the Agent for the Polish
Government, in his arguments, submitted at least two contentions which had
not been expressly stated or at any rate elaborated in the written documents
filed on behalf of this Government. Having regard to this fact, the Six
Governments, through the intermediary of Counsel for His Britannic Majesty's
Government in Great Britain, formally asked the Court to rule that these
contentions should be disregarded, whereas the Agent for the Polish
Government requested the Court to overrule this demand of the Six
Governments; the Court will deal at a later stage of the present judgment
with the situation thus created. [p13]
[22] The Agent for the Polish Government in his oral arguments maintained
the conclusions set forth by him in the written pleadings, as regards the
first question before the Court, except for the arguments already referred
to, and subject to a declaration made by him in his rejoinder to the effect
that the conclusion in the Polish Case was badly worded ; this conclusion
should have stated "only the exact reply to the question submitted by the
Special Agreement". With regard to the second question, he reserved his
right briefly to state in his rejoinder the reasons for the submissions
which he had presented on August 17th, 1929. Counsel for His Britannic
Majesty's Government having objected to this course, on the ground that it
would preclude the Six Governments from discussing these reasons, M.
Winiarski made a short statement concerning the second question also; this
statement did not amend or add to the submissions filed on August 17th,
1929, as stated above.
THE FACTS.
[23] According to the arguments and to the documents before the Court, the
origin of the present case is as follows:
[24] Under Article 341 of the Treaty of Versailles, "the Oder shall be
placed under the administration of an International Commission which shall
comprise" representatives of Poland, Prussia, the Czechoslovak State, Great
Britain, France, Den-mark, and Sweden. This Commission shall, under Article
343 of the Treaty, "proceed immediately to prepare a project for the
revision of the existing international agreements and regulations". Such
project "shall, inter alia", under Article 344 of the Treaty, "define the
sections of the river or its tributaries to which the international r�gime
shall be applied". The r�gime in question is the one referred to in Article
338 of the Treaty, i.e. the regime set forth in Articles 332 to 337,
inclusive, or laid down in the General Convention mentioned by Article 338
as intended to be "drawn up by the Allied and Associated Powers and approved
by the League of Nations".[p14]
[25] The International Commission set up in order to assume the
administration of "the Oder" held its First Session at Baden-Baden in March,
1920. It at once undertook the work of preparing the draft Act of Navigation
contemplated by Article 343 of the Versailles Treaty; difficulties, however,
arose when it came to the definition of the sections to which the
international r�gime was to apply, and at the Fourth Session of the
Commission, held at Swinem�nde in July, 1922, the Polish delegate maintained
that "the Warta should be internationalized from its confluence with the
Oder up to the Polish frontier", adding that the situation was the same as
concerned the Noteć in so far as it was navigable; the delegate for Prussia,
on the contrary, submitted that if the principle of the internationalization
of tributaries was to be adopted, it must be integrally maintained, and the
navigable portions of tributaries situated in Polish territory should not be
excluded from the international river system. The other delegates, except
the Polish delegate, more or less completely took the same view.
[26] At its Sixth Session, the Commission adopted, on January 29th, 1924, a
resolution stating that the efforts made with a view to reconciling the
opposing views had failed; that the Commission would not proceed with the
preparation of the Act of Navigation; that, however, Article 376 of the
Versailles Treaty afforded a solution; and that therefore the delegates
should approach their respective Governments on the matter.
[27] Following upon this resolution, the British Government, by a letter to
the Secretary-General of the League of Nations dated August 23rd, 1924,
asked that the question set forth hereafter should be submitted to the
Advisory and Technical Committee for Communications and Transit of the
League of Nations:
" .... whether the International Commission provided for in Article 341 of
the Treaty of Versailles, in the project to be prepared under Articles 343
and 344 for the revision of the existing International Agreements and
Regulations relating to the Oder, is debarred, having regard especially to
the pro-visions of Articles 331 and 338 of the same Treaty, in defining
under Article 344 (c) the sections of the river or its tributaries [p15] to
which the international r�gime shall be applied, from including tributaries
or parts of tributaries of the Oder which are in Polish territory and are
navigable".
[28] The French Government, by a letter dated October 21st, 1924, made a
similar request, formulating as follows the question at issue:
"....whether, in application of the relevant stipulations of the Versailles
Treaty, including Article 338, the International Oder Commission should fix
the limits of the international river system of the tributaries of the Oder
at the frontier between Germany and Poland, or at the point above that
frontier at which the said tributaries become naturally navigable".
[29] The British Government, in its request, relied on Article 376 of the
Treaty of Versailles, on the Resolution of the Assembly of the League of
Nations of December 9th, 1920, and on Article 7 of the Rules for the
organization of the Advisory and Technical Committee; under these Rules,
this Committee may, if necessary, proceed to nominate a Committee of Enquiry
with instructions to investigate the question and submit a report.
[30] The reference of the matter to the conciliation procedure laid down by
the above provisions led to the adoption on November 27th, 1924, by a
majority of the Advisory and Technical Committee, of a "suggestion for
conciliation", which was communicated to the International Oder Commission
and to the Governments represented thereon. The "suggestion" was rejected by
Poland, while Germany reserved its opinion. The International Oder
Commission therefore in June 1925 agreed that the work on the Act of
Navigation could not be usefully continued, and adopted a resolution
inviting the delegates to inform their Governments of the situation, "in
order that they [the Governments] might take such measures as they
considered necessary".
[31] The Advisory and Technical Committee, for its part, having meanwhile
been informed of the attitude of the Governments concerned with regard to
its "suggestion" of November 27th, 1924, adopted at its Eighth Session on
July 30th, 1925, a resolution under the terms of which the Committee
"considers [p16] that it should declare that the procedure of conciliation
which has been undertaken is now closed and that it should duly inform the
Governments concerned of this fact".
[32] The Governments thereupon authorized their respective delegates on the
Oder Commission to meet for the purpose of drafting a Special Agreement to
bring the matter before the Permanent Court of International Justice for
decision and defining the questions on which the ultimate decision of the
Court was required. The result was the formal sign�ature, on October 30th,
1928, of the Special Agreement referred to at the outset of this judgment.
THE LAW.
[33] In accordance with Article 1 of the Special Agreement reproduced above,
the Court has to deal with two questions which may be formulated as follows:
(1) Does the jurisdiction of the International Commission of the Oder extend
to those portions of the Warthe (Warta) and the Netze (Noteć), tributaries
of the Oder, which are situated in Polish territory ?
(2) If so, what is the law which should govern the determ�ination of the
upstream limits of this jurisdiction ?
[34] The second question, however, arises only if it is decided that the
jurisdiction of the Commission extends to the portions of those rivers which
are situated in Polish territory; for, if the first question were answered
in the negative, the upstream limit of the Commission's jurisdiction would
be the Polish frontier.
[35] There does not appear to be any dispute between the Parties with regard
to the meaning of the word jurisdiction (juridiction) in the present case.
The Court considers that this word relates to powers possessed by the
Commission under treaties in force; the questions referred to the Court
relate to the territorial limits of these powers. [p17]
* * *
[36] Before considering these questions, the Court must deal with two points
which were raised, or reverted to, by the Agent for the Polish Government
during the hearings and which the Representatives of the Six Governments
claim should be excluded from consideration.
[37] The first relates to the meaning of the word "Oder" in Article 341 of
the Treaty of Versailles, the relevant part of which runs as follows:
"The Oder (Odra) shall be placed under the administration of an
International Commission...."
[38] The Polish Agent pointed out that Article 341 does not say "the Oder
and its system referred to in Article 331" but simply "the Oder", and that
therefore, if reliance be placed on this provision, the jurisdiction of the
Commission extends to the Oder alone, even if in virtue of Article 331 the
r�gime of internationalization also extends to the tributaries of the Oder.
[39] Whatever value this argument might have in relation to the provisions
of the Treaty of Versailles, and the significance of these provisions will
be considered later, it is certain that it cannot be admitted to change the
terms of the question put to the Court under the Special Agreement. This
question as formulated proceeds on the assumption that the Commission's
jurisdiction extends over those portions of the Warthe (Warta) and the Netze
(Noteć) which are not situated in Polish territory, and that the only point
in dispute is whether the said jurisdiction ceases at the Polish frontier or
whether it also extends into the territory of Poland. It may also be
remarked that it was solely on this point that the dispute between the Six
Governments and Poland arose in the Oder Commission and was dealt with first
during the conciliation procedure and afterwards before the Court; the
jurisdiction of the Commission over the German section of the Warthe (Warta)
and the German and common sections of the Netze (Noteć) is, moreover,
conformably to the terms of the submission, admitted in the conclusions
[p18] of the Polish Case and is implicit in those of the Polish
Counter-Case.
[40] It is therefore quite clear that the questions on which the Court is
asked to give judgment presuppose that the jurisdiction of the Commission is
not limited to the principal river but also extends to the tributaries.
These questions cannot be changed or amplified by one of the Parties.
[41] The second point relates to the applicability of the Statute annexed to
the Barcelona Convention of April 20th, 1921, relating to the r�gime of
navigable waterways of international concern.
[42] The Special Agreement asks the Court to settle the question "according
to the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles". But Article 338 of that
Treaty, of which the text will be reproduced hereafter, is to the effect
that certain provisions relating to the matter at issue will be superseded,
or possibly completed or modified, by the provisions of a "General
Convention drawn up by the Allied and Associated Powers, and approved by the
League of Nations, relating to the waterways recognized in such Convention
as having an international character". The Parties agree that the Convention
referred to is the above-mentioned Convention of Barcelona. The Six
Governments base their principal argument on this latter Convention, or more
precisely on the Statute annexed thereto, and made an integral part thereof,
the articles of the Treaty of Versailles (aside from Article 338) being only
subsidiarily relied upon by them.
[43] Before the Committee of Enquiry of the Advisory and Technical Committee
of the League of Nations, the Polish Government had contended that the
Barcelona Convention, which that Government had not ratified, could not be
invoked against it. This argument had been dealt with and contested by the
Six Governments in their Case; but, as it did not appear either in the Case
or in the Counter-Case of the Polish Government, the other side considered
themselves entitled to regard it as abandoned. The Agent for the Polish
Government having, however, in his oral argument, relied on the fact that
Poland had not ratified the Barcelona Convention, the Six Governments asked
the Court to reject the Polish contention in limine, on the ground that it
would be contrary [p19] to the letter and spirit of the Rules of Court and
to the practice of arbitral tribunals on which those Rules are based, to
admit new contentions at an advanced stage of the proceedings and after the
opposing Parties had been led to believe that such arguments would not be
put forward.
[44] The Court considers that the objection of the Six Governments is
untenable.
[45] The fact that Poland has not ratified the Barcelona Convention not
being contested, it is evident that the matter is purely one of law such as
the Court could and should examine ex officio. It may further be observed
that neither the Polish Case nor the Counter-Case contains anything from
which it may definitely be concluded that they intended to abandon the
argument based on non-ratification. The Court will therefore pass upon this
point and will do so at the outset; for it is on the solution to be given by
it to this question that its decision depends as to what Treaty provisions
must serve as a basis for its consideration of the dispute.
*
[46] The question whether the Barcelona Convention may be invoked against
Poland which has not ratified it, arises out of Article 338 of the Treaty of
Versailles which runs as follows:
"The r�gime set out in Articles 332 to 337 above shall be superseded by one
to be laid down in a General Convention drawn up by the Allied and
Associated Powers, and approved by the League of Nations, relating to the
waterways recognized in such Convention as having an international
character. This Convention shall apply in particular to the whole or part of
the above-mentioned river system of the Elbe (Labe), the Oder (Odra), the
Niemen (Russstrom-Memel-Niemen), and the Danube, and such other parts of
these river systems as may be covered by a general definition.
Germany undertakes, in accordance with the provisions of Article 379, to
adhere to the said General Convention as well as to all projects prepared in
accordance with Article 343 below for the revision of existing
inter-national agreements and regulations." [p20]
[47] In virtue of this article the contracting Parties to the Treaty of
Versailles have agreed that certain provisions of that Treaty shall be
superseded by those of the future General Convention; the question is
therefore whether this super-session depends on ratification of the said
Convention by the States concerned - in this particular case on ratification
by Poland.
[48] It follows that the question does not relate to the Barcelona
Convention in general as such, but only to the effects which that Convention
may have under Article 338 of the Treaty of Versailles. It also follows that
the question is important only in so far as the Barcelona Convention would,
by extending them, modify the territorial limits of the jurisdiction of the
Oder Commission as laid down in the Treaty of Versailles.
[49] The question therefore is whether the obligation undertaken by Poland
in virtue of Article 338 of the Treaty of Versailles is sufficient to render
the Barcelona Convention applicable to the extent contemplated by that
article.
[50] With respect to this, it must be pointed out that Article 338 expressly
refers to a "Convention"; unless the contrary be clearly shown by the terms
of that article, it must be considered that reference was made to a
Convention made effective in accordance with the ordinary rules of
international law amongst which is the rule that conventions, save in
certain exceptional cases, are binding only by virtue of their ratification.
[51] It remains to be seen whether Article 338 intended to derogate from
that rule. The contemplated Convention is one "drawn up by the Allied and
Associated Powers and approved by the League of Nations". As regards the
first point, it may be admitted that the expression to draw up (�tablir) a
convention is perhaps not entirely without ambiguity; but it would be hardly
justifiable to deduce from a somewhat ill-chosen expression an intention to
derogate from a rule of international law so important as that relating to
the ratification of conventions. As regards the approval of the League of
Nations, this is probably explained by Article 23 (e) of the Covenant, under
which the Members of the League are bound to "make provision to secure and
maintain freedom of [p21] communications and transit". There is nothing to
support the view that this approval, the purpose of which is quite different
from that of ratification, should replace the latter rather than supplement
it.
[52] The Court, therefore, concludes that, even having regard to Article 338
of the Treaty of Versailles, it cannot be admitted that the ratification of
the Barcelona Convention is superfluous, and that the said Convention should
produce the effects referred to in that article independently of
ratification.
[53] But if any doubt still remained as to the interpretation of Article
338, it would be dispelled by the provisions of the Convention itself. The
Convention may be regarded as "drawn up" by the Allied and Associated Powers
acting under Article 338 of the Treaty of Versailles. Now, far from
dispensing with ratification in general or declaring that ratification would
not be necessary in order to bring about the effects which the Convention
was intended to have under the Peace Treaties, the Powers assembled at
Barcelona adopted provisions differing in no way from the clauses generally
inserted in inter-national conventions of this nature; such provisions
clearly make the coming into force of the Convention as regards each of the
Parties depend upon ratification. The provisions in question are as follows:
"Article 4.
The present Convention is subject to ratification. The instruments of
ratification shall be transmitted to the Secretary-General of the League of
Nations, who will notify the receipt of them to the other Members of the
League and to States admitted to sign the Convention. The instruments of
ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Secretariat.
In order to comply with the provisions of Article 18 of the Covenant of the
League of Nations, the Secretary-General will register the present
Convention upon the deposit of the first ratification.
Article 5.
Members of the League of Nations which have not signed the present
Convention before December 1st, 1921, may accede to it. [p22]
The same applies to States not Members of the League to which the Council of
the League may decide officially to communicate the present Convention.
Accession will be notified to the Secretary-General of the League, who will
inform all Powers concerned of the accession and of the date on which it was
notified.
Article 6.
The present Convention will not come into force until it has been ratified
by five Powers. The date of its coming into force shall be the ninetieth day
after the receipt by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations of the
fifth ratification. Thereafter the present Convention will take effect in
the case of each Party ninety days after the receipt of its ratification or
of the notification of its accession.
Upon the coming into force of the present Convention, the Secretary-General
will address a certified copy of it to the Powers not Members of the League
which are bound under the Treaties of Peace to accede to it."
[54] The Court, therefore, considers that, as the Barcelona Convention
cannot be relied on as against Poland, the questions submitted must be
solved solely on the basis of the Treaty of Versailles and without regard to
the reference made in Article 338 of the latter Treaty to the Convention in
question.
* * *
[55] Coming now to the first question, it may be recalled that the Six
Governments ask for an answer in the affirmative, having regard (1)
principally to Article 1 of the Statute annexed to the Convention of
Barcelona, which is made applicable by Article 338 of the Treaty of
Versailles; (2) subsidiarily, to certain articles of the Treaty of
Versailles.
[56] The Court, having, for the reasons given above, set aside the reference
to the Barcelona Convention, will consider the question on the basis of the
relevant articles of the Treaty of Versailles; it is on these articles alone
that Poland relies in asking for a negative reply. [p23]
[57] At the outset the Court should draw special attention to the general
arrangement of Chapter III of the 2nd Section of Part XII of the Treaty of
Versailles (Ports, Waterways and Railways); in this chapter are found all
the articles that can have a bearing on this dispute.
[58] This chapter contains three groups of articles. In the first, headed
"(1) General Clauses", are comprised the rules common to the four rivers,
the Elbe, the Oder, the Niemen (Russstrom-Memel- Niemen) and the Danube,
which form the subject of the chapter. The second group contains "Special
Clauses relating to the Elbe, the Oder and the Niemen
(Russstrom-Memel-Niemen)"; whilst the third group is devoted to "Special
Clauses relating to the Danube". This arrangement clearly shows that the
special clauses must not merely be read and interpreted in the light of the
general clauses, but also that they find in the latter a natural complement.
[59] It follows that, since Article 341, which places the Oder under the
administration of an international commission, does not define the
territorial limits of that administration, reference must be made to Article
331, which is the first in the chapter and which indicates the limits within
which the river system of the Oder is internationalized.
[60] It is true - and on this point the Polish representatives have insisted
repeatedly and from different points of view-that what is called the "r�gime
of internationalization" of rivers, which as regards the Oder arises out of
Articles 332 to 337 of the Treaty of Versailles, is not necessarily bound up
with the administration by an international commission. But it is none the
less true that, when a Commission is set up, it is natural to suppose that
the territorial limits of the "r�gime" and of the "administration" by the
Commission whose function is to make practical application of the principles
of the r�gime, are coincident. Failing any contrary indication drawn from
the context, it must therefore be under-stood that the competence of a river
commission with such a function extends to all the internationalized
portions of the river and river system.
[61] Now Chapter III of Part XII of the Treaty of Versailles - except for
Article 338 which does not apply in the present [p24] case - contains no
indication which could justify any differentiation between the territorial
limits of the regime defined in the first group of provisions (Articles 332
to 337) and those of the administration set up or provided for in the second
group (Articles 340 to 345). On the other hand, a precise indication that
the r�gime and administration are coincident is found in Article 344 (b)
which defines the matters confided to the Commissions' powers in a manner
exactly corresponding to the r�gime set out in Articles 332 to 337 (which
under Article 345 are to govern pending the ratification of the new project)
whilst Article 332 in its turn expressly refers to Article 331.
[62] For all the reasons above given, the contention of Poland that the
powers of the Commission should be limited to the river designated by the
name of Oder must be discarded, even if such contention were not excluded
for the reason relating to procedure already mentioned.
[63] If the territorial limits of the r�gime of internationalization and
those of the Commission's administration are the same as regards the Oder,
it follows that the question before the Court must be determined according
to the terms of Article 331, the text of which is as follows:
"The following rivers are declared international: the Elbe (Labe) from its
confluence with the Vltava (Moldau), and the Vltava (Moldau) from Prague;
the Oder (Odra) from its confluence with the -Oppa; the Niemen
(Russstrom-Memel- Niemen) from Grodno; the Danube from Ulm;
and all navigable parts of these river systems which naturally provide more
than one State with access to the sea, with or without transhipment from one
vessel to another; together with lateral canals and channels constructed
either to duplicate or to improve naturally navigable sections of the
specified river systems, or to connect two naturally navigable sections of
the same river.
The same shall apply to the Rhine-Danube navigable waterway, should such a
waterway be constructed under the conditions laid down in Article 353."
[64] As regards the interpretation of this article, the only point at
present in dispute is the meaning of the words "all [p25] navigable parts of
these river systems which naturally provide more than one State with access
to the sea".
[65] It is not disputed that the Warthe (Warta) and the Netze (Noteć) rise
in Poland and that after flowing for a long way through Polish territory,
they form the German-Polish frontier for a certain distance, and that then
they pass into German territory, where the Netze (Noteć) flows into the
Warthe (Warta) before that river joins the Oder.
[66] The actual wording of Article 331 shows that internationalization is
subject to two conditions: the waterway must be navigable and must naturally
provide more than one State with access to the sea. These are the two
characteristics - and this observation, as will be seen, is not without
importance in relation to the question to be answered-by which a distinction
has for a long while been made between the so-called international rivers
and national rivers.
[67] The navigability of the Warthe (Warta) and the Netze (Noteć) in Polish
territory being assumed, the Court has to deal only with the second
condition, namely, whether that part of the two tributaries which is above
the German frontier may be regarded as providing more than one State with
access to the sea, in the sense of Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles.
The Polish Government contends that that part of the Warthe (Warta) and of
the Netze (Noteć) respectively, which is in Polish territory provides only
Poland with access to the sea and that therefore it does not fall within the
definition of Article 331. On the other hand, the Six Governments maintain
that the condition prescribed by that article is fulfilled; for the fact of
providing more than one State with access to the sea concerns the waterway
as such and not a particular part of its course.
[68] It remains therefore to be considered whether the words "all navigable
parts of these river systems which naturally provide more than one State
with access to the sea" refer to tributaries and sub-tributaries as such, in
such a way that if a tributary or sub-tributary in its naturally navigable
course traverses or separates different States, it falls as a whole within
the above definition; or whether they refer rather to that part of such
tributary or sub-tributary which provides [p26] more than one State with
access to the sea, in such a way that the upstream portion of the tributary
or sub-tributary is not internationalized above the last frontier crossing
its naturally navigable course.
[69] In support of their argument, the Six Governments have submitted that
the word -part in Article 331 refers to river systems, and that a part of a
river system, in the natural meaning of the terms, is one of the units
composing the said system, namely, a tributary or sub-tributary. And they
have endeavoured to support this interpretation by observing that, when in
Article 331 it was intended to refer to a part of a waterway, the word
section was used.
[70] The Court fully appreciates the value of this argument, but considers
that it is not alone sufficient to show that the intention of the
contracting Parties was to internationalize tributaries and sub-tributaries
as such.
[71] Nor can the Court, on the other hand, accept the Polish Government's
contention that, the text being doubtful, the solution should be adopted
which imposes the least restriction on the freedom of States. This argument,
though sound in itself, must be employed only with the greatest caution. To
rely upon it, it is not sufficient that the purely grammatical analysis of a
text should not lead to definite results; there are many other methods of
interpretation, in particular, reference is properly had to the principles
underlying the matter to which the text refers; it will be only when, in
spite of all pertinent considerations, the intention of the Parties still
remains doubtful, that that interpretation should be adopted which is most
favourable to the freedom of States.
[72] The Court must therefore go back to the principles governing
international fluvial law in general and consider what position was adopted
by the Treaty of Versailles in regard to these principles.
[73] It may well be admitted, as the Polish Government contend, that the
desire to provide the upstream States with the possibility of free access to
the sea played a considerable part in the formation of the principle of
freedom of navigation on so-called international rivers. [p27]
[74] But when consideration is given to the manner in which States have
regarded the concrete situations arising out of the fact that a single
waterway traverses or separates the territory of more than one State, and
the possibility of fulfilling the requirements of justice and the
considerations of utility which this fact places in relief, it is at once
seen that a solution of the problem has been sought not in the idea of a
right of passage in favour of upstream States, but in that of a community of
interest of riparian States. This community of interest in a navigable river
becomes the basis of a common legal right, the essential features of which
are the perfect equality of all riparian States in the user of the whole
course of the river and the exclusion of any preferential privilege of any
one riparian State in relation to the others.
[75] It is on this conception that international river law, as laid down by
the Act of the Congress of Vienna of June 9th, 1815, and applied or
developed by subsequent conventions, is undoubtedly based. The relevant
provisions of this Act are as follows:
[Translation.]
"Article 108.
The Powers whose territories are separated or traversed by the same
navigable river undertake to settle by common agreement all questions
affecting navigation thereon. They shall appoint for this purpose
commissioners, who shall meet, at the latest, six months after the end of
this Congress, and take for the basis of their work the principles laid down
in the following articles.
Article 109.
Navigation throughout the whole course of the rivers referred to in the
preceding article, from the point where they respectively become navigable
to their mouths, shall be entirely free, and shall not in the matter of
commerce be prohibited to anybody, provided that they conform to the
regulations regarding the police of this navigation, which shall be drawn up
in a manner uniform for all and as favourable as possible to the commerce of
all nations."
[76] If the common legal right is based on the existence of a navigable
waterway separating or traversing several States, it [p28] is evident that
this common right extends to the whole navigable course of the river and
does not stop short at the last frontier; no instance of a treaty in which
the upstream limit of internationalization of a river is determined by such
frontier rather than by certain conditions of navigability has been brought
to the attention of the Court.
[77] It therefore remains to consider what is the position adopted in this
matter by the Treaty of Versailles. In contradistinction to most previous
treaties which limit the common legal right to riparian States, the Treaty
of Versailles and the other Peace Treaties which almost textually reproduce
the essential pro-visions of the former Treaty, adopted the position of
complete internationalization, that is to say, the free use of the river for
all States,. riparian or not. Article 332 grants freedom of navigation on
waterways declared international in the previous article to all Powers on a
footing of perfect equality. This provision would be inappropriate, if not
arbitrary, if the freedom stopped short at the last political frontier.
[78] The introduction of representatives of non-riparian Powers on the river
commissions is not exclusively or mainly due to the desire to afford a
greater measure of protection to the interests of landlocked States; it is
rather to be explained by the interest that non-riparian States may have in
navigation on the waterways in question. It would be difficult to understand
why that interest should not be recognized where the question of reaching
the ports of the last upstream State is involved. The interest of all States
is in liberty of navigation in both directions.
[79] In the same way, it must be noted that Article 331 mentions
geographical points in fixing the limit from which rivers are
internationalized, without taking any account of the last political
frontier. Thus, the Elbe (Labe) is declared international from its
confluence with the Vltava (Moldau) and the Vltava (Moldau) from Prague; the
Oder (Odra) from its confluence with the Oppa; the Niemen
(Russstrom-Memel-Niemen) from Grodno ; the Danube from Ulm. It is not
necessary for the Court to enquire what criteria served as a basis for this
determination. It is sufficient to observe that points within the territory
of the last upstream riparian [p29] State were everywhere chosen; this fact,
which entirely corresponds with the principles of international fluvial law
summed up above, seems hardly in accordance with the Polish contention
which, if it were well-founded, should apply to the principal river as much
as to the tributaries.
[80] Finally, mention must also be made of Article 344 (c) which provides
that the projects for revision of the existing international agreements and
regulations to be prepared by the international commissions in accordance
with Article 343 shall "define the sections of the river or its tributaries
to which the international regime shall be applied". This provision - which
places the river and the tributaries on the same footing - is easily
understood if, in the case of the tributaries as in the case of the river,
the delimitation depends on certain material circumstances, the application
of which involves a more or less discretionary element; but it would have no
meaning if the limit of internationalization of the tributaries was
determined by the last political frontier.
[81] From all that precedes, the conclusion may be drawn that the Treaty of
Versailles adopts the same standpoint as the Act of Vienna and the treaty
law which applied and developed the principles of that Act. That is,
moreover, what the Allied and Associated Powers expressly declared in their
Reply to Germany on June 16th, 1919: "the provisions regarding internal
navigation routes apply only to river systems which are. all international
as defined by the Congress of Vienna and by later conventions".
[82] Article 331 must therefore be interpreted in the light of these
principles, which leave no doubt that the internationalization of a waterway
traversing or separating different States does not stop short at the last
political frontier, but extends to the whole navigable river. The Court,
having already observed that the territorial limits of the administration of
the Oder Commission coincide with the territorial limits of
internationalization referred to in Article 331, therefore reaches the
conclusion that the jurisdiction of that Commission extends to those
portions of the Warthe (Warta) and Netze (Noteć) which are situated in
Polish territory. [p30]
*
[83] Besides the arguments already considered, the Parties submitted several
others during the written and oral proceedings drawn from certain provisions
of the Peace Treaties concerning other rivers, in particular the Moselle and
the Danube, and from the proceedings for the establishment of the definitive
Statute of the latter river. The Court, being of opinion that these
arguments, drawn from independent provisions and diplomatic negotiations,
cannot modify the conclusion which it has reached by means of a direct
interpretation of the provisions applicable in the particular case, does not
think it necessary to deal with these arguments.
[84] One exception, however, must be made as regards the argument which the
Polish Government endeavoured to draw from the Reply of the Allied and
Associated Powers to the Austrian Delegation, in which the following passage
is to be found:
"The Allied and Associated Powers have considered whether the international
r�gime should be extended, as the Austrian Delegation proposes, to the whole
navigable course of the tributaries of the Danube, of the Drave, of the
Save, of the Theiss. It has not appeared to them desirable for the moment to
push internationalization further than the definition of Article 291 (286)
provides for, and to internationalize a navigable part of a river system
which does not naturally provide more than one State with access to the
sea."
[85] Taken in itself, and literally, this passage might seem to express the
idea underlying the Polish interpretation of Article 331 of the Treaty of
Versailles. But if Austria's demand be read attentively and if the
territorial conditions of the course of these tributaries be considered, it
appears that what Austria asked for and the Powers refused to admit was the
internationalization of even purely national tributaries or of tributaries
the national status of which was not yet finally established. If this is so,
the refusal "to internationalize a navigable part of a river system which
does not naturally provide more than one State with access to the sea" would
simply mean a refusal to go beyond the interpretation which the Court [p31]
has just given to Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles. The Court is
unable to find in the reply given to the Austrian Delegation any sufficient
ground for a different interpretation.
* * *
[86] The Court having given an affirmative reply to the first question, must
also answer the second.
[87] The Special Agreement does not ask the Court to fix the upstream limits
of the jurisdiction of the Oder Commission, but only to say what is the law
which should govern their determination. It follows from what has been said
that this law is to be found in Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles.
[88] According to this article, the r�gime of internationalization and
therefore the jurisdiction of the Commission includes "all navigable parts
of these river systems which naturally provide more than one State with
access to the sea, with or without transhipment from one vessel to another;
together with lateral canals and channels constructed either to duplicate or
to improve naturally navigable sections of the specified river systems, or
to connect two naturally navigable sections of the same river". It follows
that the jurisdiction of the Commission extends up to the points at which
the Warthe (Warta) and the Netze (Noteć) cease to be either naturally
navigable or navigable by means of lateral channels or canals which
duplicate or improve naturally navigable sections or connect two naturally
navigable sections of the same river.
[89] FOR THESE REASONS,
The Court,
having heard both Parties,
by nine votes to three,
gives judgment to the following effect:
(1) Under the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, the jurisdiction of
the International Commission of the Oder [p32] extends to the sections of
the Warthe (Warta) and Netze (Noteć) which are situated in Polish territory.
(2) The principle laid down, which must be adopted for the purpose of
determining the upstream limits of the Commission's jurisdiction, is the
principle laid down in Article 331 of the Treaty of Versailles.
[90] Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this tenth day of September, nineteen hundred
and twenty-nine, in eight copies, one of which is to be placed in the
archives of the Court and the others to be forwarded to the Agents of the
Governments of His Britannic Majesty in Great Britain, of Czechoslovakia,
Denmark, France, Germany, and Sweden, as also to the Agent of the Government
of Poland.
(Signed) D. Anzilotti,
President.
(Signed) J. Lopez Olivan,
Deputy-Registrar.
[91] Mm. de Bustamante and Pessoa, judges, and Count Rostworowski, judge ad
hoc, declaring that they were unable to concur in the judgment delivered by
the Court, and availing themselves of the right conferred on them by Article
62 of the Rules of Court, attached to the judgment this statement of their
dissent.
[92] M. Huber, Vice-President, while agreeing with the judgment, felt it
necessary to express certain reservations concerning the reasons which led
the Court to exclude all application of the Statute annexed to the so-called
Convention of Barcelona. On this subject, he presented the following
observations.
(Initialled) D. A.
(Initialled) J. L. O.
[p33] Observations by M. Huber.
[Translation.]
[93] The reasons given by the Court for excluding all application of the
Statute annexed to the so-called Barcelona Convention - while perfectly
correct in so far as this is an independent convention in force between the
Powers which may have ratified it or adhered to it - are not necessarily
pertinent as regards the application of the Statute annexed to the
Convention, within the precise and restricted limits fixed by Article 338 of
the Treaty of Versailles. It is difficult to admit that the carrying out of
Article 338, which lays down imperatively - and not simply as a possible
alternative - the supersession of the "r�gime set up in Articles 332 to
337.... by one to be laid down in a general convention", can depend on the
ratification of that convention as such by States which have already
ratified the Treaty of Versailles, and therefore on an act left to the free
will of each of the Parties.
[94] As the supersession of the r�gime contained in Articles 332 to 337 by
that established by the General Convention is, in Articles 338, 343 and 345,
provided for only in regard to the said Articles 332 to 337 which are
specifically and therefore limitatively mentioned, it does not seem possible
to draw the inference that Article 331 is also replaced by Article 1 of the
Statute annexed to the Barcelona Convention, so far as concerns Chapter III
of Section II of Part XII of the Treaty of Versailles, which relates to the
four river systems of the Elbe, the Oder, the Niemen and the Danube. The
applicability of the Barcelona Convention as an independent convention, as
referred to in the second sentence of Article 338 above mentioned, is not
affected by this consideration. The limits of internationalization as far as
Chapter III is concerned, and consequently the limits of the jurisdiction of
the International Commission of the Oder, therefore remain fixed, as the
Court has said, by Article 331.
(Signed) Max Huber.
Annex I
_____
DOCUMENTS CITED BY THE PARTIES
IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CONTENTIONS.
A.�Documents filed on behalf of the Six Governments:
Maps:
(1) The waterways from the Oder to the Vistula.
(2) The Lower Netze.
(3) The Upper Netze with the Netze and Bromberg Canals .
(4) The Moselle.
Relevant provisions of the Treaty of Versailles: Articles 331-338, 341,
343-349, 362, 376, 379.
Relevant provisions of the Treaty of Saint-Germain: Articles 291,292, 299,
301-304, 328, 331
Relevant provisions of the Convention and Statute of Barcelona:
List of High Contracting Parties in the Preamble, and Preamble (less list of
plenipotentiaries).
Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention.
Articles 1, 2, 10, � 5, and 22 of the Statute.
Resolution of the International Commission of the Oder, January 29th, 1924.
Resolutions of the First Assembly of the League of Nations concerning the
Barcelona Conference, adopted on December 9th, 1920.
Resolution of the First Assembly of the League of Nations regarding the
technical organizations of the League, adopted on December 8th, 1920.
Letter from the British Foreign Office to the Secretary-General of the
League of Nations (August 23rd, 1924).
Letter from the French Foreign Minister to the Secretary-General of the
League of Nations (October 21st, 1924).
Convention and Statute of the Danube, Articles 1 and 2.
Final Act of Vienna (June 9th, 1815): Articles 108 and 109 and Annex 16,
Articles 1 and 2.
Extract from the award of Mr. Walker D. Hines, Arbitrator under Article 339
of the Treaty of Versailles between Czechoslovakia, Germany and Poland (July
6th, 1922).
Extract from the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the
Observations of the German delegation on the Conditions of Peace (June 16th,
1919), Part XII.
Extract from the reply of the Allied and Associated Powers to the
Observations of the Austrian delegation on the Conditions of Peace
(September 2nd, 1919), Part XII.
Minutes of the first session of the Legal Committee of the Advisory and
Technical Committee for Communications and Transit (third meeting, September
19th, 1924).
Report of the Commission of Enquiry (November 17th, 1924). [p35]
Annex 1: Minutes of the Commission of Enquiry (first meeting, October 8th,
1924).
Appendix: Letter to the Secretary-General of the Advisory and Technical
Committee for
Communications and Transit from the Polish delegation with the League of
Nations (October 8th, 1924).
Annex 2: Letter from the French Foreign Ministry to the Secretary-General of
the League of Nations (October 21st, 1924). (See above.)
Minutes of the first session of the Joint Session of the Legal Committee and
the Sub-Committee for Inland Navigation (November 24th-26th, 1924).
Annex I: Texts connected with the report of the Committee of Enquiry on the
dispute concerning the application of the articles of the Peace Treaty
regarding the Oder.
Annex II : The natural navigability of the Warthe and the Netze. Statement
of the German delegation.
Annex III: Map of the Upper Netze with the Bromberg and Netze canals. (See
above.)
Annex IV; Extract from the statistics for 1913 published by the Statistical
Bureau of the Reich.
Annex V: Draft Resolution submitted to the Mixed Committee on November 26th,
1924.
Annex VI: Draft Resolution adopted by the Mixed Committee on November 26th,
1924.
Minutes of the seventh session of the Advisory and Technical Committee for
Communications and Transit (third meeting�November 27th, 1924).
Annex IV : A.�Letter from the British Foreign Office to the
Secretary-General of the League of Nations (August 23rd, 1924).
Appendix: Resolution adopted by the International Commission of the Oder on
January 29th, 1924.
B.�Letter from the French Foreign Minister to the Secretary-General of the
League of Nations (October 21st, 1924).
Annex V: Resolution regarding the dispute concerning the application of the
articles of the Peace Treaty relating to the Oder. (See above.)
Resolution of the Supreme Council, January 13th, 1920.
Observations submitted by Austria on June nth, 1919: Provisions common to
the river systems declared international.
B.�Document filed on behalf of the Polish Government:
Additional extract from the award of Mr. Walker D. Hines (July 6th,1922).
C.�Documents collected by the Registry:
Full texts of the Convention and Statute on the R�gime of navigable
waterways of international concern, signed at Barcelona on April 20th, 1921.
Extract from the protocols of the International Commission of the Oder (4th
Session�Swinem�nde, July 1922):
Protocol No. 2 (July 11th, 1922)
. � 3 ( � 13th, � ). [p36]
Annex 1: Draft Act for the navigation of the Oder submitted by German
delegation.
Annex 2: Draft Convention on the Statute of the Oder submitted by
Czechoslovak delegation.
Annex 3: Draft Convention on the Statute of the Oder (Memorandum by Polish
delegate)
Appendix to Annex 3:
Ad Article 2: The special delimitation suitable for the application of the
international r�gime.
Annex 4: Draft basis of discussion prepared by the Secretary-General for the
Act of Navigation of the Oder.
Annex 5: Proposals by the Prussian delegates.
Annex 6: Proposals by the Polish and Czechoslovak delegates.
Annex 7: Draft Act of Navigation of the Oder (text for first reading).
Extract from the protocols of the International Commission of the Oder (7th
Session�Dresden, February 1925):
Protocol No. 1 (undated).
,, 2 (February 7th, 1925)
� 3 ( � 8th, � ).
Annex to Protocol No. 2 : Suggestion for conciliation in the dispute as to
the application of the articles of the Peace Treaty relating to the Oder.
Extract from the protocols of the International Oder Commission (8th Session
� Mariansk�-Lazn�, June 18th, 1925).
Extract from minutes of the Eighth Session of the Advisory and Technical
Committee for Communications and Transit (Geneva� July 24th-30th, 1925) :
I. Ninth meeting (July 29th, 1925)
II. Twelfth ,, ( � 30th, � ).
Annex 7: Action taken on the resolution of the Advisory and Technical
Committee as to the dispute on the articles of the Peace Treaty concerning
the Oder :
I. Letter from the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to the
Governments represented on the International Commission of the Oder (June
24th, 1925).
II. Replies from the Governments represented on the International Commission
of the Oder (July�August 1925).
Act of Navigation of the Elbe (Dresden, February 22nd, 1922). Final
Protocol.
International Conference for drawing up the Definitive Statute of the
Danube.
I. - Vol. I: Extract from Protocols Nos. 1 to 29 (Paris, August 2nd�
November 16th, 1920):
Protocol No. 17 (October 18th, 1920).
Annex to Protocol No. 17: Report by the President of the Sub-Committee on
the Danube system to be internationalized.
Sub-Annex A to Annex to Protocol No. 17: Declaration by Roumanian delegate.
Sub-Amiex B to Annex to Protocol No. 17 : Declaration by German and
Australian delegations.
Sub-Annex C to Annex to Protocol No. 17: Declaration by delegate of the
Serb-Croat-Slovene Kingdom. [p37]
II.�Vol. II : Extract from Protocols Nos. 30 to 68 (Paris, April 5th�July
21st, 1921) :
Protocol No. 45 (May 11th, 1921)
III. � Idem:
A. � Annex to Protocol No. 45: Report by the President of the Sub-Committee
on the Danube system to be internationalized (May 4th, 1921).
B.�Protocol No. 47 (May 17th, 1921).
Annex II to Protocol No. 47:
Supplementary Report by the President of the Sub-Committee on the Danube
system to be internationalized.
Extract from the Act of the Congress of Vienna (June 9th, 1815).
Extract from the Convention between the riparian States of the Rhine, and
Rules for Navigation of that river (Mayence, March 31st, 1831).
Act of Navigation of the Rhine (Mannheim, October 17th, 1868).
Articles concerning the navigation of the Neckar, the Main, the Moselle, the
Meuse and the Scheldt, signed at Vienna (Annex No. 16 to the Final Act of
the Congress of Vienna, June 9th, 1815).
Extract from the Treaty for the final separation of Belgium from Holland
(November 15th, 1831).
Extract from the Act for the Free Navigation of the Elbe (Dresden, June
23rd, 1821).
Extract from the General Treaty of Peace between Austria, France, Great
Britain, Prussia, Russia, Sardinia, and the Sublime Porte (Paris, March
30th, 1856).
Extract from the General Act of the Conference of Berlin (Annex to Protocol
No. 10 February 26th, 1885).
|
|
