Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

1950 '95"

YEAR

March 30th General List

March 3oth, 1950 No. 8

INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES WITH BULGARIA, HUNGARY AND ROMANIA

Advisory function.-Competence of the Court : objection on the ground of alleged lack of competence of the General Assembly, based on the character of the Court as a n organ of the United Nations ; Article 2, paragraph 7 , of the Charter.-Power of the Court to reply to a R q u e s t for Opinion in spite of the opposition of certain States; duty to ansmer ; limits of this duty ; Article 65 of the Statute.- Qztestions relating solely to the ionditions of application of a procedure, provided jor b y treaty, for the settlement of disputes.-Article 68 o f the Statzrte : discretion allowed to the Court.-Existence of disputes ; applicability of the procedure provided for by tvzat.y for the settlement of disputes to disputes concerning the i n b r ~ r e t a t i o n or execution of the treaty.-Definition of a question put to the Court.-Compulsory settlement of disputes by Treaty Commissions ; obligation for the parties to the disputé to co-operate i n the constitution of the Commissions by appointing their repvesentatives.

ADVISORY OPINION

Present : President BASDEVANT ; Vice-President GUERRERO ;

J ~ d g e s ALVAREZ, HACKWORTH, WINIARSKI, ZORICIC, DE VISSCHER, Sir ARNOLD MCNAIR, KI-AESTAD, BADAWI

PASHA, KRYLOV, READ, HSU MO, AZEVEDO; Registrar

HAMBRO.

4 composed a s above,

gives the following Advisory Opinion :

On October zznd, 1949, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the following Resolution :

"Whereas the United Nations, pursuant to Article 55 of the Charter, shall promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for al1 without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, Whereas the General Assembly, a t the second part of its Third Regular Session, considered the question of the observance in Bulgaria and Hungary of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas the General Assembly, on 30 Apnl 1949, adopted

Resolution 272 (III) concerning this question in which it expressed its deep concern a t the grave accusations made against the Governments of Bulgaria and Hungary regarding the suppression of human rights and fundamental freedoms in those countries ;, noted with satisfaction that steps had been taken by several States signatories to the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria and Hungary regarding these accusations ; expressed the hope that measures would be diligently applied, in accordance with the Treaties, in order to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms ; and most urgently drew the attention of the Governments of Bulgaria and Hungary to their obligations under the Peace Treaties, including the obligation to co-operate in the settlement of the question,

Whereas the General Assembly has resolved to consider also

at the Fourth Regular Session the question of the observance in Romania of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whreas certain of 'the Allied and Associsted Powers signatones to the Treaties of Peace with Bulgana, Hungary and Romania have charged the Governments of those countries with violations of the Treaties of Peace and have called upon those Governments to take remedial measures,

Whereas the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania

have rejected the charges of Treaty violations,

W h e a s the Govemments of the Allied and Associated Powers

concerned have sought unsuccessfully to refer the question of Treaty violations to the Heads of Mission in Sofia, Budapest and Bucharest, in pursuance of certain provisions in the Treaties of Peace, Wlzereas the Govemments of these Allied and Associated Powers have called upon the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and

OPIN. O F 30 III 50 (INTERPRETATION O F PEACE TRE- TIE ES) 67

Romania to join in appointing Commissions pursuant to the provisions of the respective Treaties of Peace for the settlement of disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of these Treaties,

Whereas the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania

have refused to appoint their representatives to the Treaty Commissions, maintaining that they were under no legal obligation t o do so, Whereas the Secretary-General of the United Nations is authorized by the Treaties of Peace, upon request by either party to a dispute, to appoint the third member of a Treaty Commission i f the parties fail to agree upon the appointment of the third member, Whereas it is important for the Secretary-General to be advised authoritatively concerning the scope of his authority under the Treaties of Peace,

T h Gelzeral Assembly

r. Exfiresses its continuing interest in and its increased concern a t the grave accusations made against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania ;

2 Records its opinion that the refusal of the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania to co-operate in its efforts to examine the grave charges with regard to the observanse of human rights and fundamental freedoms justifies this concern of the General Assembly about the state of affairs prevailing in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania in this respect ;

3 Decides to submit the following questions to the International

Court of Justice for an advisory opinion : '1. Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgar'ia, Hungary and Romania, on the one hand, and certain Aliied and Associated Powers signatories to the Treaties of Peace, on the other, concerning the implementation of Article 2

of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary and Article 3

of the Treaty with Romania, disclose disputes subject to the provisions for the settlement of disputes contained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and Article 38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania ?'

In the event of an affirmative reply to question 1 :

'II. Are the Governments of Rulgaria, Hungary and Romania obligated to carry out the provisions of the articles referred to in question 1, including the provisions for the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions ?' In the event of an affirmative reply to question I I and if within t.hirty days from the date when the Court delivers its opinion, 6 the Governments concerned have not notified the Secretary- General that they have appointed their representatives to the Treaty Commissions, and the Secretary-General has so advised the International Court of Justice : 'III. If one party fails to appoint a representative to a Treaty Commission under the Treaties of Peace with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania where that party is obligated to appoint a representative to the Treaty Commission, is the Secretary-General of the United Nations authonzed to appoint the third member of the Commission upon the request of the other party to a dispute according to the provisions of the respective Treaties ?'

In the event of an affirmative reply to question I I I : 'IV. Would a Treaty Commission composed of a representative of one party and a third member appointed by the Secretary-General of the United Nations constitute a Commission, within the nieaning of the relevant Treaty articles, competent to make a definitive and binding decision in settlement of a dispute ?'

4 Requests the Secretary-General to make available to the International Court of Justice the relevant exchanges of diplomatic correspondence communicated to the Secretary-General for circulation to the Members of the United Nations and the records of the General Assembly proceedings on this question ;

5 Decides to retain on the agenda of the Fifth Regular Session of the General Assembly the question of the observance of human nghts and fundamental freedoms in Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, with a view to ensuring that the charges are appropnately examined and dealt with."

By a letter of October 31st, 1949, filed in the Registry on November 3rd, the Secretary-General of the United Nations transmitted t o the Court a certified tnie copy of the General Assembly's Resolution. On November 7th, 1949, in accordance with paragraph I of Article 66 of the Court's Statute, the Registrar gave notice of the Request t o al1 States entitled to.appear before the Court. On the same date, the Registrar, by means of a special and direct communication as provided in paragraph 2 of the above-mentioned article, informed all States entitled t o appear before the Court and parties t o one or more of the above-mentioned Peace Treaties (Australia, Canada, United States of America, Greece, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Czechoslovakia, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Union of South Africa, Yugoslavia) that the Court was prepared t o receive from them written statements on the questions submitted t o it for an advisory opinion and to hear oral statements a t a date which would be fixed in due course. An identical communication was sent, also on November 7th, in pursuance of paragraph I of Article 63 of the Statute, to the other States parties to one of the above-mentioned Treaties, namely, Bulgaria, Hungary and Romanid. These communications were accompanied by copies of an Order, made on the same date, by which the Acting President of the Court appointed January 16th, 1950, as the date of expiry of the timelimit for the submission of written statements and reserved the rest of the procedure for further decision. Written statements and con~munications were received within the prescribed time-limit from the following States : United States of America, United Kingdom, Bulgaria, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Australia and Hungary. I n accordance with Article 65 of the Statute, the Secretary- General of the United Nations transmitted to the Registrar a set of documents which reached the Registry on November 26th, 1949. Some additional documents, which had subsequently been filed with the Secretariat, were fonvarded to the Registry, where they arrived on Febmary zlth, 1950. Al1 these documents are enumerated in the list attached t o the present Opinion. In a letter dated January 23rd, 1950, the Assistant Secretary- General in charge of the Legal Department of the Secretariat of the United Nations announced that he intended to take part in the oral proceedings and to submit a statement on behalf of the Secretary-General. The Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of the United States of America stated, in letters dated respectively January 6th and February ~ o t h , 1950, that they intended t o submit oral statements. At public sittings held on February 28th and on March 1st and znd, 1950, the Court heard oral statements submitted :

on behalf of the Secretary-General of the United Nations by Mr. Ivan Kerno, Assistant Secretary-General in charge of the Legal Department ;

on behalf of the Govemment of the United States of America by the Honorable Benjamin V. Cohen ;

on behalf of the Government of the United Kingdom by Mr. G. G. Fitzmaurice, C.M.G., Second Legal Adviser of the Foreign Office.

I n conformity with the Resolution of the General Assembly of October zznd, 1949, the Court is a t present called upon to give an Opinion only on Questions 1 and II set forth in that Resolution. The power of the Court to exercise its advisory function in the present case has been contested by the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, and also by several other Governments, in the communications which they have addressed to the Court. This objection is founded mainly on two arguments. I t is contended that the Request for an Opinion was an action ultra vires on the part of the General Assembly because, in dealing with the question of the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the three States mentioned above, it was "interfering" or "intervening" in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of States. This contention against the exercise by the Court of its advisory function seems thus to be based on the alleged incompetence of the General Assembly itself, an incompetence deduced from Article 2, paragraph 7, of the Charter. The terrils of the General Assembly's Resolution of October zznd, 1949, considered as a whole and in its separate parts, show that this argument is based on a misunderstanding. When the vote was taken on this Resolution, the General Assembly was faced with a situation arising out of the charges made by certain Allied and Associated Powers, against the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania of having violated the provisions of the Peace Treaties concerning the observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. For the purposes of the present Opinion, it suffices to note that the General Assembly justified the adoption of its Resolution by stating that "the United Nations, pursuant to Article 55 of the Charter, shall promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedonis for al1 without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion". The Court is not called upon to deal with the charges brought before the General Assembly since the Questions put to the Court relate neither to the alleged violations of the provisions of the Treaties concerning human rights and fundaniental freedoms nor to the interpretation of the articles relating to these matters. The object of the Request is much more limited. It is directed solely to obtaining from the Court certain clarifications vf a legal nature regarding the applicability of the procedure for the settlement of disputes by the Commissions provided for in the express terms of Article 36 of the Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary and Article 38 of the Treaty with Romania. The interpretation of the terms of a treaty for this purpose could not be considered as a question essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of a State. I t is a question of inter-

9 national law which, by its very nature, lies within the competence of the Court. These considerations also suffice to dispose of the objection based on the principle of domestic jurisdiction and directed specifically against the competence of the Court, namely, that the Court, as an organ of the United Nations, is bound t o observe the provisions of the Charter, including Article 2, paragraph 7.

The same considerations furnish an answer to the objection that the advisory procedure before the Court would take the place of the procedure instituted by the Peace Treaties for the settlement of disputes. So far from placing an obstacle in the way of the latter procedure, the object of this Request is to facilitate it by seeking information for the General Assembly as to its applicability t o the circumstances of the present case. It thus appears that these objections to the Court's competence to give the Advisory Opinion which has been requested are illfounded and cannot be upheld. Another argument that has been invoked against the power of the Court to answer the Questions put to it in this case is based on the opposition of the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania to the advisory procedure. The Court cannot, it is said, give the Advisory Opinion requested without violating the well-established principle of international law according t o which no judicial proceedings relating to a legal question pending between States can take place without their consent. This objection reveals a confusion between the principles governing contentious procedure and those which are applicable to Advisory Opinions. The consent of States, parties to a dispute, is the basis of the Court's jurisdiction in contentious cases. The situation is different in regard t o advisory proceedings even where the Request for an Opinion relates to a legal question actually pending between States. The Court's reply is only of an advisory character: as such, it has no binding force. I t follows that no State, whether a Member of the United Nations or not, can prevent the giving of an Advisory Opinion which the United Nations considers to be desirable in order to obtain enlightenment as to the course of action it should take. The Court's Opinion is given not to the States, but to the organ which is entitled to request it ; the reply of the Court, itself an "organ of the United Nations", represents its participation in the activities of the Organization, and, in principle, should not be refused. There are certain limits, however, to the Court's dutv to reply to a Request for an Opinion. I t is not merely an "organ of the United Nations", it is essentially the "principal judicial organ" of the Organization (Art. 92 of the Charter and Art. I of the Statute). I t is on account of this character of the Court that its

OPIK. O F 30 I I I 50 (IS'TERPRETATION O F P E A C E TRE- TIE ES) 72 power to answer the present Request for an Opinion has been challenged. Article 65 of the Statute is permissive. I t gives the Court the power to examine whether the circumstances of the case are of such a character as should lead it to decline to answer the Request. In the opinion of the Court, the circumstances of the present case are profoundly different from those which were before the Permanent Court of International Justice in the Eastern Carelia case (Advisory Opinion Ko. 5), when that Court declined to give an Opinion because it found that the question put to it was directly related to the main point of a dispute actually pending between two States, so that answering the question would be substantially equivalent to deciding the dispute between the parties, and that at the same time it raised a question of fact which could not be elucidated without hearing both parties.

As has been observed, the present Request for an Opinion is solely concerned with the applicability to certain disputes of the procedure for settlement instituted by the Peace Treaties, and it is justifiable to conclude that it in no way touches the merits of those disputes. Furthermore, the settlement of these disputes is entrusted solely to the Commissions provided for by the Peace Treaties. Consequently, it is for these Commissions to decide upon any objections which may be raised to their jurisdiction in respect of any of these disputes, and the present Opinion in no way prejudges the decisions that may be taken on those objections. I t follows that the legal position of the parties to these disputes cannot be in any way compromised by the answers that the Court may give to the Questions put to it. I t is true that Article 68 of the Statute provides that the Court in the exercise of its advisory functions shall further be guided by the provisions of the Statute which apply in contentious cases. But according to the same article these provisions would be applicable only "to the extent to which it [the Court] recognizes them to be applicable". I t is therefore clear that their application depends on the particular circumstances of each case and that the Court possesses a large amount of discretion in the matter. In the present case the Court is dealing with a Request for an Opinion, the sole object of which is to enlighten the General Assembly as t o the opportunities which the procedure contained in the Peace Treaties may afford for putting an end to a situation which has been presented t o it. That being the object of the Request, the Court finds in the opposition to it made by Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania no reason why it should abstain from replying to the Request.

For the reasons stated above, the Court considers that it has the power to answer Questions 1 and I I and that it is under a duty to do so.

II

OPIN. OF 30 III 50 (INTERPRETATION OF PEACE TREATIES) 73

* * *

Question 1 is framed in the following terms : "Do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and Associated Powers signatones to the Treaties of Peace on the other, concerning the implementation of Article 2 of the Treaties with Bulgaria and

Hungary and Article 3 of the Treaty with Romania, disclose disputes subject to the provisions for the settIement of disputes contained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary and Article 38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania ?" The text of the articles mentioned in Question 1 is a s follows : Article 2 of the Treaty with Bulgaria (to which correspond mutatis mutandis Article 2 , papagraph 1, of the Treaty with Hungary and Article 3, paragraph 1, of the Treaty with Romania) : "Bulgaria shall take al1 measures necessary to secure to al1 persons under Bulgarian jurisdiction, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion, the enjoyment of human rights and of the fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, of press and publication, of religious worship, of political opinion and of public meeting." Article 36 of the Treaty with Bulgaria (to which correspond mutatis mutandis Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary a n d Article 38 of the Treaty with Romania) :

"1. Except where another procedure is specifically provided under any article of the present Treaty, any dispute concerning the interpretation or execution of the Treaty, which is not settled by direct diplomatic negotiations, shall be referred to the Three Heads of Mission acting under Article 35, except that in this case

the Heads of Mission will not be restncted by the time-limit provided

in that Article. Any such dispute not resolved by them within a period of two months shall, unless the parties to the dispute mutually agree upon a n ~ t h e r means, of settlement, be referred at the request of either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one representative of each party and a third member selected by mutual agreement of the two parties from nationals of a third country. Should the two parties fail to agree within a period of one month upon the appointment of the third member, the Secretary-General of the United Nations may be requested by either party to make the appointment.

2. The decision of the majority of the members of the Commission shall be the decision of the Commission, and shall be accepted by the parties as definitive and binding." The text of Article 35, which is referred t o in Article 36 of t h e Treaty with Bulgaria (and t o which correspond mutatis mutandis Article 39 of t h e Treaty with Hungary and Article 37 of t h e Treaty with Romania), is a s follows:

"1. For a period not to exceed eighteen months from the coming into force of the present Treaty, the Heads of the Diplomatic Missions in Sofia of the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, acting in concert, will represent the Allied and Associated Powers in dealing with the Bulgarian

Government in all matters concerning the execution and interpretation of the present Treaty. 2. The Three Heads of Mission will give the Bulgarian Government such guidance, technical advice and clarification as may be necessary to ensure the rapid and efficient execution of the present Treaty both in letter and in spirit. 3. The Biilgarian Government shall afford the said Three Heads of Mission all necessary information and any assistance which they may require in the fulfilment of the tasks devolving on them under the present Treaty."

Question 1 involves two main points. First, do the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and Associated Powers signatories to fhe Peace Treaties on the other, disclose any disputes ? Second, if they do, are such disputes among those which are subject to the provisions for the settlement of disputes contained in Article 36 of the Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary, and Article 38 of the Treaty with Romania ?

Whether there exists an international dispute is a matter for objective determination. The mere denial of the existence of a dispute does not prove its non-existence. I n the diplomatic correspondence submitted to the Court, the United Kingdom, acting in association with Australia, Canada and New Zealand, and the United States of America charged Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania with having violated, in various ways, the provisions of the articles dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms in the Peace Treaties and called upon the three Governments t o take remedial measures to carry out their obligations under the Treaties. The three Governments, on the other hand, denied the charges. There has thus arisen a situation in which the two sides hold clearly opposite views concerning the question of the performance or non-performance of certain treaty obligations. Confronted with such a situation, the Court must conclude that international disputes have arisen.

This conclusion is not invalidated by the text of Article 36 of the Treaty with Bulgana (Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary and Article 38 of the Treaty with Romania). This article, in refemng t o "any dispute", is couched in general terms. It does not justify limiting the idea of "the dispute" t o a dispute between the United States of America, the United Kingdom and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics acting in concert on the one hand, and Bulgaria

(Hungary or Romania) on the other. I n the present case, a dispute exists between each of the three States-Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania-and each of the Allied and Associated States which sent protests to them.

The next point to be dealt with is whether the disputes are subject to the provisions of the articles for the settlement of disputes contained in the Peace Treaties. The disputes must be considered to fall within those provisions if they relate to the interpretation or execution of the Treaties, and if no other procedure of settlement is specifically provided elsewhere in the Treaties.

Inasmuch as the disputes relate to the question of the performance or non-performance of the obligations provided in the articles dealing with human rights and fundamental freedoms, they are clearly disputes concerning the interpretation or execution of the Peace Treaties. I n particular, certain answers from the Governments accused of violations of the Peace Treaties make use of arguments which clearly involve an interpretation of those Treaties.

Since no other procedure is specifically provided in any other article of the Treaties, the disputes must be subject t o the methods of settlement contained in the articles providing for the settlement of all disputes. The Court thus concludes that Question 1 must be answered in the affirmative.

I n these circumstances, it becomes necessary to take up Question II, which is as follows :

"Are the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania obligated to carry out the provisions of the articles referred to in Question 1, including the provisions for the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions ?"

Before answering the Question, the Court must determine the scope of the expression "the provisions of the articles referred to in Question 1". Question 1 mentions two sets of articles : one set being those articles concerning human rights, namely, Article 2

of the Treaties with Bulgaria and Hungary, and Article 3 of the

Treaty with Romania ; the other set being those articles concerning the settlement of disputes, namely, Article 36 of the Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary and Article 38 of the Treaty with Romania. The Court considers that the expression "the provisions of the articles referred to in Question 1" refers only to the articles providing for the settlement of disputes, and does not refer t o the articles dealing with human rights.

This view is clearly borne out by the various considerations stated in the Resolution of the General Assembly of October zznd, 1949. I t is confirmed by the fact that the Questions put to the Court have for their sole object to determine whether the disputes, if they exist, are among those falling under the procedure provided for in the Treaties with a view to their sextlement by arbitration. The Court does not think that the General Assembly would have asked it whether Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are obligated to carry out the articles concerning human rights. For, in the first place, the three Governments have not denied that they are obligated t o carry out these articles. In the second place, the words which precede Question II, "In the event of an affirmative answer to Question 1", exclude the idea that Question I I refers to the articles relating to human rights. There is no reason why the General Assembly should have made the consideration of the question concerning human rights depend on an affirmative amwer to a question relating to the existence of disputes. The articles concerning human rights are mentioned in Question 1 only by way of describing the subjectmatter of the diplomatic exchanges between the States concerned.

-The real meaning of Question II, in the opinion of the Court, is this : In view of the disputes which have arisen and which have so far not been settled, are Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania obligated to carry out, respectively, the provisions of Article 36 of the Treaty with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty with Hungary, and Article 38 of the Treaty with Romania ?

The articles for the settlement of disputes provide that any dispute which is not settled by direct diplomatic negotiations shall be referred to the Three Heads of Mission. If not resolved by them within a period of two months, the dispute shall, unless the parties to the dispute agree upon another means of settlement, be referred at the request of either party to the dispute to a Commission composed of one representative of each party and a third member, to be selected in accordance with the relevant articles of the Treaties. The diplomatic documents presented to the Court show that the United Kingdom and the United States of America on the one hand, and Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania on the other, have not succeeded in settling their disputes by direct negotiations. They further show that these disputes were not resolved by the Heads of Mission within the prescribed period of two months. I t is a fact that the parties to the disputes have not agreed upon any other means of settlement. I t is also a fact that the United Kingdom and the United States of Amenca, after the expiry of the prescribed period, requested that the disputes should be settled by the Commissions mentioned in the Treaties.

This situation led the General Assembly t o put Question I I so as to obtain guidance for its future action.

The Court finds that all the conditions required for the commencement of the stage of the settlement of disputes b y the Commissions have been fulfilled. I n view of the fact that the Treaties provide that any dispute shall be referred to a Comnlission "at the request of either party", it follows that either party is obligated, a t the request of the other party, to CO-operate in constituting the Commission, in particular by appointing its representative. Othenvise the method of settlement by Commissions provided for in the Treaties would completely fail in its purpose. The reply to Question II, as interpreted above, must therefore be in the affirmative.

For these reasons,

THE COURT IS O F OPINION,

O n Question I .

by eleven votes t o three,

that the diplomatic exchanges between Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania on the one hand and certain Allied and Associated Powers signatories t o the Treaties of Peace on the other, concerning the implementation of Article 2 of the Treaties with Bulgaria

and Hungary and Article 3 of the Treaty with Romania, disclose

disputes subject to the provisions for the settlement of disputes contained in Article 36 of the Treaty of Peace with Bulgaria, Article 40 of the Treaty of Peace with Hungary, and Article 38 of the Treaty of Peace with Romania ;

On Question II :

by eleven votes to three,

that the Governments of Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania are obligated to carry out the provisions, of those articles referred to in Question 1, which relate to the settlement of disputes, including the provisions for the appointment of their representatives to the Treaty Commissions.

Done in French and English, the French text being authoritative, a t the Peace Palace, The Hague, this thirtieth day of March, one thousand nine hundred and fifty, in two copies, one of which will

16 b e placed in the archives of the Court and the other transmitted t o the Secretary-General of the United Nations.

(Signed) BASDEVANT, President .

(Signed) E. HAMBRO, Registrar.

Judge AZEVEDO, while concurring in the Opinion of the Court, has availed himself of the right conferred on h i m by Article 57 of the Statute and appended to the Opinion a statement of his separate opinion. Judges WINIARSKI, ZORIEIC and KRYLOV, considering that the Court should have declined to give an Opinion in this case, have availed themselves of the right conferred on them by Article 57 of the Statute and appended to the Opinion statements of their dissenting opinions. (Initialled) J . B. (Initialled) E. H.

ANNEX

DOCUMENTS TRANSMITTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE BY T H E SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH T H E RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY T H E GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON 22 OCTOBER, 1949

1. RECORDS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY, SECOND PART OF THIRD SESSION

Folder I.

Inclusion oj i t e m in agenda. Records o j proceedings. Records of the General Committee, 58th and 59th meetings. Records of the General Assembly, 189th and 190th plenary meetings.

Folder 2 .

Inclusion of i t e m in agenda. Documents. Letter dated 16 March, 1949, from the permanent representative of Bolivia to the Secretary-General requesting the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the third regular session of the General Assembly A/Szo

Letter dated 19 March, 1949, from the Australian Mission t o the United Nations addressed to the Secretary- General requesting the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the third regular session of the General Assembly AIS21 Agenda of the third regular session of the General Assembly ; report of the General Committee A1829

[See paragraphs

3 a and 3 b.]

[Note-See Folder 4 for :

Telegram dated 4 A p r i l , I 9 4 9 , from the Government of the Republic of Hungary to the President of the General Assembly Al831

and Telegram dated 9 A p r i l , 1949, from the Government of the People's Republic

of Bulgaria to the Secretary- General -41832 and Covr. I .

Folder 3.

Ad hoc Political Committee.

Records of proceedings.

34th meeting. 35th meeting. 36th meeting. 37th meeting. 38th meeting. 39th meeting. 40th meeting. 41st meeting.

Folder 4.

Ad hoc Political Comnzittee.

Documents.

Telegram dated 4 April, 1949, from the Government of the Republic of Hungary to the President of the General Assembly A1831 Telegram dated 9 April, 1949, from the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to the Secretary-General Al832 and Corr. I Allocation of items on the agenda of the second part of the third session ; letter dated 13 April, 1949, from the President of the General Assembly to the

Chairman of the A d hoc Political

Committee AIAC.24147

Cuba : draft resolution A/AC.z4/48 and Corr. I Cuba : amended draft resolution A/AC.z4/48/Rev. 2 -lustralia : draft resolution A/AC.24/50 Bolivia : draft resolution A/AC.z4/51/Corr. I Australia : draft resolution A/AC.z4/5z Chile : amendment to the Bolivian draft resolution (A/AC.z4/51/Corr. 1) AlAC.24153

Colombia and Costa Rica : amendment to the Bolivian draft resolution (A/AC.z4/51/Corr. 1) A/AC.24/54 Cuba and Australia : amendment to the Bolivian resolution (A/AC.z4151/ Corr. 1) A/AC.q/ 56 Telegram dated 23 April, 1949, from the Government of the People's Republic of Hungary to the Secretary-General A/AC.z4/57

Telegram dated 27 April, 1949, from the Government of the People's Republic of Bulgaria to the Secretary-General A/AC.24/58

Report of the A d hoc Political Committee Al844

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly. Records of poceedings. 201st meeting. aoznd meeting. 203rd meeting.

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly. Documents. Resolution 272 (III), adopted by the General Assembly, 30 April, 1949. [Note-See Folder 4 for :

Report of the Ad hoc Political Committee A1844.1

II. RELEVANT EXCHANGES OF DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENCE COM- MUNICATED TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL FOR CIRCULATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE UNITED NATIONS

Letter dated 20 September, 1949, from the representative of the United States of America to the Secretary-General (with annexes) A/g85/Rev. I Letter dated 19 September, 1949, from the representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the Secretary-General (with annexes) A/ggo/Rev. I

III. RECORDS OF GENERAL ASSEMBLY, FOURTH SESSION

Folder 8.

Inclasion of item in agenda. Records of proceedings.

Records of the General Committee, 65th [See pages 3 and 4, meeting paragraphs 71-73, ana Page 7,

paragraphs 104

and 105. j

Records of the General Assembly, 224th [See pages 18 and 19, plenary meeting paragraphs 2-10,

and page 23,

after paragraph 56.1

I n c k s i o n of item in agenda. Documents.

Supplementary list of items for the agenda of the focrth regular session ; items praposed by Australia A1948

Adoption of the agenda of the fourth regular session and allocation of items to Committees ; report of the General Committee Al989

[See paragraphs 9-12.]

O P I S . O F 30 I I I 50 (INTERPRETATION O F P E A C E TRE- TIE ES) 118

Folder IO.

Ad hoc Political Committee. Records of proceedings.

7th meeting. 8th meeting. 9th meeting. ~ c t h meeting. 11th meeting. 12th meeting. 13th meeting. 14th meeting. 15th meeting.

Folder II.

Ad hoc Political Committee. Documents.

Letter dated 26 September, 1949, from the President of the General Assembly

to the Chairman of the Ad hoc Political Committee AlAC.3 112 Bolivia, Canada and the United States of Amenca : draft resolution A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. I Australia : amendment to the draft resolution proposed by Bolivia, Canada and the United States of America (A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. 1) A/AC.y/L.z Brazil, Lebanon and the Netherlands : amendment to the draft resolution proposed by Bolivia, Canada and the United States of Amenca (A/AC.~I/L.I/R~V. 1) AlAc.31lL.3 Telegram dated 7 October, 1949, from the Government of the People's Republic of Romania to the Secretary- General AlAC.3rlL.4

Report of the Ad hoc Political Committee A / I O Z ~

Plenary meetivtgs of the General Assembly. Records of proceedings. 234th meeting. 23 5th meeting.

Folder 13.

Plenary meetings of the General Assembly . Documents. Resolution adopted by the General Assembly, 22 October, 1949. [Note-See Folder I I for :

Report of the Ad hoc Political Committee Al1023.1