Evening star., 1946-08-11

therefore not subject to the courts
action.
Among the other great powers, Great
Britain has accepted compulsory juris-
diction but Russia so far has not
In the case of the former court, 56
states accepted the jurisdiction, many,
however, with reservations The most
usual reservation was acceptance on a
reciprocal basis, that is, in relation to
the states giving the same acceptance.
This acceptance of the jurisdiction of
the court applies to four classes of
cases listed in the court statute which is
part OF the United Nations Charter.
The four are the Interpretation of
treaty, anv question of international
law, the existence of any fact, which, If
established, would constitute a breach
OF an international obligation and,
finally, the nature and extent of the
reparation to be made for the breach of
an international obligation.
International law is not as systema-
tized or codifled as the laws of nation,
something which Judge Hackworth has
labored hard and long to correct For
this reason, the statute of the court
says:
The court, whose function Is to de-
eide in accordance with international
law such disputes as are submitted to 1t,
shall apply:
"a. International conventions, whether
general or particular, establishing rules
expressly recognized by the contesting
states.
"b. International custom, as evidence
of general practice accepted as law.
&C. The general principles of law rec
ognized by civilized nations.
ID. judicial decisions and the
teachings of the most highly qualified
publicists of the various nations, as
subsidiary means for the determination
of the rules of laws"
To the judge of the usual court inter-
preting the well-codified laws of his ma
ton the precepts listed would seem ex-
tremely vague. They would, moreover,
call for tremendous fund of special
lied information.
The status of international law was
discussed some time ago in a speech
Judge HackWorth made at the Univer-
slty OF Virginia which throws some light
on the problems of an international
jurist. He said:
There exists today, generally speak
ing, several schools of thought with
reference to the nature of international
law. One group holds the belief that
international law is definite and certain
on all the more important phases of
international relations, and the solu-
tlon for almost any difference can be
found within the framework of its prin-
clples. Another holds the belief there
is little, if any, international law upon
which nations may rely. Between these
two views there exist various shades of
opinion.
Not Static Law,
There are, submit, many phases of
tne relations OF nations-in peacetime as
well as Wartime-not adequately COW
cred by international law, and to evolve
a method by which nations will agree
that they shall thereafter be bound,
and Will recognize that they are bound,
even when their interests are vitally
affected, is exceedingly difficult.
International law cannot remain static,
Yet II rules to govern the conduct of
nations are stated in terms too sweep
ing or TOO lar in advance of the time,
nations will flout them as they f1out
an archaic rule"
Judge Hackworths colleagues in the
State Department say his refusal to see
international law as a static body of
rules and his determination to explore
new paths through trackless areas of
international relations has been one
OF the strong points of the departments
legal Office. Judge Hackworth, a COL
league said, would not rule something
could not be done because there was
no precedent for it. II it was desirable
to do, Judge Hackworth would find
way to do it, and set precedent for the
future as well.
Judge Hackworth knows the prece-
dents. One notable source of them Is
the result of work done in Washington
during the Civil War. 1t is a codifca-
ton of the rules of war prepared by
Francis Lieber, jurist, revised by
board of Army officers and approved by
President Lincoln This code, used as
guide by the Union Army, attracted
widespread interest abroad and was
greatly relied on by codification con-
u H.
International meetings for various
purposes carried the development of
international law forward. Some of
these developments arose from the needs