129

DÉCLARATION DE M. SHAHABUDDEEN
[Traduction]

J'aurais préféré que la question de la compétence soit entièrement tran-
chée à ce stade. Toutefois, j'ai voté pour Parrét, comprenant qu'il visait à
offrir aux Parties l'occasion, qui mérite d’être acceptée, de soumettre l'en-
semble du différend à la Cour. C’est pourquoi je n’expose pas les motifs
de ma préférence.

{ Signé) Mohamed SHAHABUDDEEN.


DEMANDE DU GOUVERNEMENT ALLEMAND
D'UNE MESURE CONSERVATOIRE

DANS L’AFFAIRE CONCERNANT L’USINE DE CHORZOW
(INDEMNITES).

A Monsieur le Président et à Messieurs les Juges de la Cour
permanente de Justice internationale.

Le soussigné, dûment autorisé par le GOUVERNEMENT ALLE-
MAND,

Vu la Réquête concernant l'affaire relative à l'usine de
Chorzôw (demande en indemnité) et introduite le 8 février

1927,
Vu l'arrêt rendu par la Cour le 26 juillet 1927,

Vu l’article 41 du Statut de la Cour et l’article 57 du
Règlement de ladite Cour,

A l'honneur de vous adresser la demande suivante :

Dans son Arrêt n° 8, la Cour a statué que «c’est un principe
de droit international que la violation d’un engagement
entraîne l'obligation de réparer dans une forme adéquate. La
réparation est donc le complément indispensable d'un manque-
ment à l'application d’une convention sans qu’il soit nécessaire
que cela soit inscrit dans la convention même.» (Page 21.)

L'obligation du Gouvernement polonais de réparer les
dommages résultant de son attitude à l'égard des Sociétés
anonymes Oberschlesische Stickstoffwerke et Bayerische Stick-
stoffwerke, constatée par la Cour dans son Arrêt n° 7 comme
‘non conforme aux engagements internationaux de la Pologne,
est donc établie. En principe, le Gouvernement allemand ne
demande qu’une indemnisation pécuniaire qui, pour être, aux
termes susdits de la Cour, adéquate, ne saurait être inférieure
à un certain minimum; ce n’est donc, à vrai dire, que la
limite supérieure de la somme à allouer qui est litigieuse.

Lorsque, pendant les négociations directes avec le Gouver-
nement polonais, le Gouvernement allemand se déclara prêt
à accepter la somme alors offerte par le Gouvernement polo-
nais, il s'était laissé guider entre autres par le motif qu’à
cette époque une occasion très favorable s'était présentée qui
aurait permis aux sociétés en question de procéder à la recons-
truction de l’activité économique dont elles étaient pri-
vées par la mainmise et l’expropriation sans indemnité de
5 CHORZOW. — ORDONNANCE DU 2I NOVEMBRE 1927

leur entreprise. La méme situation existait encore lorsque le
Gouvernement allemand introduisit, le 8 février 1927, sa
Requête, étant donné qu'il croyait pouvoir attendre l’arrêt
définitif de la Cour au cours de sa session ordinaire de 1927.
L’exception d’incompétence soulevée par le Gouvernement
polonais a déçu cette attente et détruit la possibilité alors
ouverte d'utiliser l’occasion de reconstruction. La demande, par
le Gouvernement polonais, d’une prolongation des délais de la
procédure cause un nouveau délai considérable pour l'arrêt
définitif. S’il fallait attendre cet arrêt, de nouvelles occasions
d’une reconstruction économique qui se sont présentées entre
temps ne sauraient également pas être utilisées.

Le Gouvernement allemand souligne que ce n’est pas seule-
ment le montant de la somme d'indemnisation qui est essentiel,
mais, au moins dans la même mesure, la date du paiement.
Vu que les occasions pour recommencer l’activité économique
ne se présentent pas tous les jours, le dommage causé par
la mainmise et l’expropriation ïllicites grandit chaque mois,
et, qui plus est, le préjudice résultant de nouveaux délais
ne pourra pas être matériellement réparé. Le but d’une entre-
prise appartenant à l’industrie, notamment chimique, . ne
consiste pas seulement à réaliser des gains pécuniaires, mais
également à participer, le moment donné, à la production
mondiale, à influencer le marché international et à augmenter
les expériences techniques et scientifiques. Si pendant les
périodes décisives pour le développement d’une branche de
l'industrie une entreprise est exclue de ce développement,
ce n’est pas seulement son économie privée, mais également
l’économie nationale qui en subit un préjudice qu'aucune
indemnisation pécuniaire, aussi élevée qu'elle soit, ne saurait
jamais réparer.

L'augmentation de la production, la réalisation de progrès
techniques ainsi que l'importance croissante des engrais chimiques
qui se sont produites pendant les dernières années sont connues.

Les chiffres suivants peuvent servir à documenter ces faits.
La consommation mondiale d’azote était

en 1913-1914, de 770.000 t, d'azote, dont 337.000 t. d'azote artificiel,

» 1920-1921, » 950.000 » » » 530.000 » » » >
» 1926-1927, » 1.300.000 » » » 900.000 » » » ;
» 1927-1928, » I.520.000 » » » 1.320.000 » » »

En ce qui concerne notamment les usines exploitées par la
Bayerische, l’usine de Piesteritz (Allemagne centrale), construite
pour une capacité de 30.000 t., fabriqua en 1922 25.000 t.
d’azote, et elle en fabrique a présent, quoique ce ne soient que
la moitié des installations qui sont utilisées, 30 à 36.000 t.

l’usine de Trostberg (Haute-Bavière) a produit en 1920 7.000 t.
d’azote, tandis qu'elle produit aujourd'hui 33.000 t. d’azote.
6 CHORZOW. —- ORDONNANCE DU 21 NOVEMBRE 1927

Pendant ces derniéres années, qui sont caractérisées par une
augmentation excessive de la production d’azote artificiel,
la Bayerische, et avec elle l’Oberschlesische, auraient eu
Voccasion de participer à laugmentation de la production
mondiale, notamment en France, en Belgique, en Italie. Étant
donné que l’exploitation de l'usine de Chorzéw leur avait été
enlevée, et qu'aucune indemnisation ne leur avait été payée du
chef de la mainmise et de l’expropriation illicites, elles ont dû
refuser les offres qui leur avaient été faites. Le préjudice qui
en résulte est irréparable. .

Or, à Vheure actuelle, il s’agit de plusieurs nouveaux projets,
dont la réalisation serait d’une importance capitale pour les sociétés
en question, et dont l’un engage également les intérêts de l’écono-
mie nationale. Le Gouvernement allemand renvoie à l'égard
desdits projets à la déclaration solennelle annexée et faite
sous la foi du serment t.

Dans ces conditions, vu que le principe de l'indemnité est
reconnu et que ce n’est que la limite supérieure de la somme
à payer par le Gouvernement polonais qui est encore douteuse,
vu que, sans paiement immédiat, le montant du dommage et
de l'indemnité grandirait considérablement, et vu que le
préjudice causé par un nouveau délai serait matériellement
irréparable, le Gouvernement allemand estime que la nécessité
d’une mesure conservatoire par laquelle la Cour indiquerait au
Gouvernement défendeur la somme à payer immédiatement
à titre provisoire et en attendant l'arrêt définitif, s'impose
pour sauvegarder les droits des Parties tant que l'affaire est
pendante.

La genèse de la disposition de l’article 41 du Statut montre
que, comme faisant objet d’une mesure conservatoire, on
n’envisageait pas seulement une omission de la part des
Parties, mais également un acte positif. La rédaction primitive
de la disposition en question, telle qu’elle provenait du Comité
des Juristes (cf. Procés-verbaux des séances du Comité, 1920,
pp. 56r et suiv., 608, 735), n’avait visé que des omissions à
indiquer pour les cas où il s’agirait d’actes effectués ou sur
le point de l’être. Mais, dans la 3m° Commission, instituée par
le Conseil de la Société des Nations lors de sa session de
Bruxelles au mois de décembre 1920, M. Lafontaine (Belgique)
avait posé la question de savoir si l’article proposé serait
également applicable aux cas où ce serait l’omission d’un acte,
et non un acte effectué ou sur le point de l’être, qui porterait
_ préjudice à l’une des Parties. La discussion sur ce problème
fut terminée par un changement de la rédaction primitive,
décidé sur la proposition de M. Ricci-Busatti, et en vertu
duquel on biffa les termes «acte déjà accompli ou sur le

' Non reproduite.
7 CHORZOW. — ORDONNANCE DU 2I NOVEMBRE 1927

point de l’être» pour choisir la rédaction compréhensive telle
qu’elle se trouve dans l’article 41 du Statut. On désigna le
motif du changement en soulignant que «ainsi tous les cas
possibles seraient envisagés» (cf. Société des ‘Nations, Cour
permanente de Justice internationale, Documents, pp. 103,
104). Et, dans le Rapport de la 3me Commission, M. Hagerup
dit: «La Commission a remanié légérement cet article pour le
rendre aussi effectif dans le cas d omission portant atteinte à un
dvowt que dans le cas d@actes positifs» (loc. cit., p. 172).

En ce qui concerne le montant de la somme que le Gouver-
nement allemand prie la Cour d’indiquer au Gouvernement
‘ polonais à payer immédiatement, il n’envisage qu’une sofnme
minimum et indispensable pour le moment.

Pour l'appréciation provisoire de la valeur de l’usine (biens-
fonds et installations construites sur ceux-ci), le Gouvernement
allemand joint à la présente demande l'expertise! de la Société
américaine Lybrand, Ross Bros. and Montgomery, Accountants
and Auditors, Members of the American Institute of Accountants,
à Berlin, Unter den Linden. Ladite société a son siège social
à New-Vork, et des succursales entre autres à Berlin, à
Londres, à Paris, etc. Elle a soigneusement étudié les livres de
la Bayerische et aboutit à un résultat de 65 millions de
Reichsmarks. Ce résultat, obtenu par d’autres méthodes de
calcul que celles qui sont à la base du calcul de la Requête,
est presque identique à celui de cette dernière. Le Gouverne-
ment allemand voit dans cette concordance une corroboration
importante de la justesse de ses conclusions. En tout état de
cause, il croit qu'aux fins de la présente demande le chiffre de
65 millions peut servir comme base pour le paiement provisoire
et immédiat. Si l’on laisse de côté, d’une part, les intérêts, de
6% dus jusqu'au 3 juillet 1927 (environ 17 millions de Reichs-
marks), et, d'autre part, l’amortissement, porté dans le Mémoire
au chiffre d'environ huit millions, et si l’on divise 65 millions de
moitié, on parvient à une somme de 32,5 millions de Reichs-
marks. En demandant maintenant 25 millions — c’est en
même temps la somme sur laquelle les deux Gouvernements
étaient sur le point de tomber d’accord au mois de janvier
courant —, le Gouvernement allemand est assuré que sa
demande se tient en tout cas dans le cadre de ses droits établis.

En ce qui concerne la valeur des brevets, licences, etc.,
utilisés illicitement jusqu’à présent par le Gouvernement polonais,
le représentant de ce Gouvernement avait reconnu formelle-
ment devant la Cour, dans la séance du 20 février 1926, que
le Gouvernement polonais ne nie aucunement son obligation
d'indemnisation, reconnaissance répétée dans la note du
Gouvernement polonais du 9 septembre 1926 (cf. Mémoire du

1 Non reproduite.
8 CHORZOW. — ORDONNANCE DU 2I NOVEMBRE 1927

Gouvernement allemand, p. 4). D’aprés le calcul donné dans
ledit Mémoire, page 20, il s'agissait jusqu’au 3 juillet 1927
d'une somme de sept millions et demi. En demandant de ce
chef à présent cinq millions, le Gouvernement allemand peut
de nouveau être sûr que cette somme rentre dans le cadre de
ses réclamations légitimes. ‘

Tl va sans dire que si, contre toute attente, la somme
finale à laquelle la Cour parviendrait dans son arrêt définitif
était inférieure à trente millions de Reichsmarks, le Gouverne-

x

ment allemand se déclare prêt à rembourser le surplus.

PLAISE A LA COUR,

en vertu de l’article 41 de son Statut, indiquer au Gouverne-
ment polonais qu’il doit payer au Gouvernement allemand à
titre provisoire la somme de trente millions de Reichsmarks
dans le délai d’un mois à dater de l’Ordonnance demandée
par la présente.

(Signé) Dr E. KAUFMANN,
Agent du Gouvernement allémand.

Berlin, le 14 octobre 1927.


693

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Limitations ratione temporis to declarations made under Article 36, para-
graph 2, of the Statute — “Disputes” — “Situations or Facts” — Reciprocity
— “Continuing” events or violations of law — Prima facie jurisdiction for pur-
poses of Article 41 of the Statute — Matters to be decided at provisional mea-
sures phase and matters to be reserved for more thorough later consideration —
Two alternative consequences of an absence of prima facie jurisdiction — Judi-
cial authority and creativity dependent on jurisdiction.

1. Where one State has accepted the jurisdiction of the Court under
Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute with a limitation ratione temporis
and the other State has accepted the jurisdiction without such a limita-
tion,

“nevertheless, as a consequence of the condition of reciprocity stipu-
lated in paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, it is
recognized that this limitation holds good as between the Parties”
(Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, 1938, P.CI.J., Series A/B,
No. 74, p. 22).

2. The declaration accepting the Court’s compulsory jurisdiction made
by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 25 April 1999 states in part
that:

“T hereby declare that the Government of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia recognizes, in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2,
of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, as compulsory
ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other
State accepting the same obligation, that is on condition of recipro-
city, the jurisdiction of the said Court in all disputes arising or which
may arise after the signature of the present Declaration, with regard
to the situations or facts subsequent to this signature, except in cases
where the parties have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to
another procedure or to another method of pacific settlement...”

This follows, with a small variation, the well-known so-called “Belgian
declaration” of 1925 by which any retrospective jurisdiction of the Court
ratione temporis was precluded both as to disputes and as to situations
and facts.

3. The declaration made by Portugal contains no such limitation, but
it applies inter se to identify the scope ratione temporis of the Court’s

41
694 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

jurisdiction, for the reason set out in paragraph 1 of this opinion. This is
so even though the Portuguese declaration lacks the customary invoca-
tion of the condition of reciprocity. This is because that condition appears
as an element within Article 36, paragraph 2, itself.

4. It may, of course, be the case that, while the dispute has clearly
arisen subsequent to the critical date for jurisdiction, the situations or
facts giving rise to the dispute appear to have occurred before that date.
That was exactly the situation in the Phosphates in Morocco case, where
the Permanent Court addressed the possibility that acts “accomplished
after the crucial date”, when “taken in conjunction with earlier acts to
which they are closely linked, constitute as a whole a single, continuing
and progressive illegal act which was not fully accomplished until after
the crucial date” (Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, 1938, P.C.I.J.,
Series AIB, No. 74, p. 23). Equally, there exists the possibility that acts
carried out prior to the crucial date “nevertheless gave rise to a perma-
nent situation inconsistent with international law which has continued to
exist after the said date” (ibid. ). This latter eventuality is indeed reflected
in the International Law Commission’s Draft Article 25 on State Respon-
sibility (Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. I], Part I,
p. 80).

5. It is not the Court alone which has had to formulate jurisprudence
on the concept of “continuing events”: so has the European Court of
Human Rights (see Yagei and Sargin v. Turkey, European Human Rights
Reports, 1995, p. 505); and so also has the Human Rights Committee
(see Guye et al. v. France, No. 196/1985, 3 April 1989, 35th Session); and
Siminek v. The Czech Republic (No. 516/1992, 31 July 1995, 54th Session).

6. The Court gave its own answers to this issue in Phosphates in
Morocco. It explained that the problem of whether there were “continu-
ing events” that gave rise to a cause of action after the crucial date must
be examined in the particular context of each case. But two factors
always have to be borne in mind: the first is that

“it is necessary always to bear in mind the will of the State which
only accepted the compulsory jurisdiction within specified limits,
and consequently only intended to submit to that jurisdiction dis-
putes having actually arisen from situations or facts subsequent to
its acceptance” (Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, 1938, P.CIJ.,
Series A/B, No. 74, p. 24).

And second, it was necessary to see if the facts were merely a necessary
and logical consequence of earlier ones which were barred from scrutiny
by the temporal reservation. On the particular facts of the Phosphates

42
695 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

case, the Court found that the cited facts and situations could not be
viewed as “a final step and crowning point” of the earlier events (P.C.IJ.,
Series A/B, No. 74, p. 26) nor did they “alter the situation which had
already been established” (ibid., p. 27). Nor could they be separated from
those that had arisen before the crucial date.

7. That this particular jurisdictional problem, as any other, requires
close attention to be given to the intention of the State issuing its declara-
tion with limitations or reservations was stated by the Permanent Court
in the Phosphates in Morocco case and recently affirmed by this Court in
the case of Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the
Court, Judgment (I. C.J. Reports 1998, p. 454, para. 49). It is striking that
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia did not advance arguments before
the Court suggesting either continuing events or a continuing dispute (the
latter not having been an issue in Phosphates in Morocco). It squarely
based itself on a dispute it perceived as arising, and situations and facts
that it perceived as occurring, after the crucial date of 25 April. It did not
wish any dispute there may have been between itself and Portugal prior
to 25 April to be subject to the Court’s jurisdiction, nor any situations
and facts relating to such dispute. That was the intention of the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia and it was clear. But within that intent there was
also a hope — the hope that there could be identified a dispute that arose
only after 25 April. Certainly there were events, occurring after 25 April,
that were the subject of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s complaint
(though these were not specified by date or in any detail). But the Court
has not been able to see a dispute arising only after 25 April. The claim
that aerial bombing by NATO, and NATO States, was illegal, was made
in the Security Council on 24 March and 26 March, and rebutted there.
The conditions specified in the Mavrommatis case (Mavrommatis Pales-
tine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.LJ., Series A, No. 2) for
the existence of a dispute were thus met at that time.

8. No doubt the continuation of the bombing and the targets hit after
25 April has aggravated and intensified the dispute. But every aerial bom-
bardment subsequent to 25 April does not constitute a new dispute. In
short, there are situations and facts occurring subsequent to the crucial
date, but there is not at the present time a dispute arising subsequent to
that date. In effectively realizing the intention (which the Court must
respect) of its declaration, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was not

43
696 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

able also to realize its hope. Its declaration accordingly fails to invest the
Court with jurisdiction.

9. Of course, in the Phosphates in Morocco case the Court was address-
ing temporal limits at the phase of preliminary objections. But because
the Court must be satisfied that it has jurisdiction, at least prima facie,
before considering whether the conditions of Article 41 of the Statute are
met for the indication of interim measures of protection, the question
must be dealt with here at this stage, albeit on a provisional basis.

10. Complex issues arise for the Court in satisfying itself that it has a
jurisdiction at least sufficient to consider indicating provisional measures
under Article 41 of the Statute.

11. Minimal guidance is provided in the Statute and in the Rules of
Court as to legal requirements relating to the indication of provisional
measures. Article 41 of the Statute merely provides that the Court “shall
have the power to indicate, if it considers that circumstances so require,
any provisional measures which ought to be taken to preserve the respec-
tive rights of either party”. This shows both the function of interim mea-
sures and the fact that the Court has a discretion as to their indication —
but nothing else. The Rules of Procedure in their successive versions have
provided little guidance on the application of Article 41 of the Statute,
with those of 1936 and 1978 reflecting the most significant developments
in the practice (for details, see Guyomar, Commentaire du Réglement de
la Cour Internationale de Justice, 2nd ed.). It has been through the case
law of the Court that the many different legal elements relating to pro-
visional measures have evolved (no interim judgment to be given: case
concerning the Factory at Chorzôw, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 12; nexus
between rights to be protected and the measures sought: Legal Status of
the South-Eastern Territory of Greenland, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 48;
Polish Agrarian Reform and German Minority, P.C.LJ., Series A/B,
No. 58; meaning of the protection of the rights of the parties; the ques-
tion of extension and aggravation of the dispute: Electricity Company of
Sofia and Bulgaria, P.C.I.J., Series AIB, No. 79.

12. It is equally through its case law that the Court has had to address
the jurisdictional problems that arise when a request for the indication of
provisional measures is made before the Court has definitively estab-
lished its jurisdiction in a case.

13. In the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case, the Court stated that, because
“it cannot be accepted a priori” that the claim “falls completely outside
the scope of international jurisdiction” the Court could entertain the
request for interim measures of protection (Interim Protection, Order of
5 July 1951, ICT. Reports 1951, p. 93). At the same time, the Court

44
697 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

noted that the indication of such measures “in no way prejudges the
question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the
case and leaves unaffected the right of the Respondent to submit argu-
ments against such jurisdiction” (U.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 93).

14. This latter statement of the consequences for subsequent phases of
an Order for interim measures has remained essentially unchanged over
the years. However, the jurisdictional prerequisites for the issuance of
interim measures of protection have undergone important developments
in the jurisprudence. Indeed, the debate had already been heavily engaged
within the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. case itself. In their dissenting opinions,
Judges Winiarski and Badawi Pasha viewed the Court as finding that it
was competent to indicate interim measures of protection “if prima facie
the total lack of jurisdiction of the Court is not patent, that is . . . there
is a possibility, however remote, that the Court may be competent” (ibid.,
p. 97). But observing that interim measures of protection were in inter-
national law even more exceptional than in municipal law, as they were
“a scarcely tolerable interference in the affairs of a sovereign State”, they
ought not to be indicated unless the Court’s jurisdiction was “reasonably
probable”.

15. In Fisheries Jurisdiction (United Kingdom v. Iceland), the Court
refined the formula, stating that when considering a request for the indi-
cation of provisional measures, it had no need “finally to satisfy itself
that it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it ought not to act
under Article 41 of the Statute if the absence of jurisdiction on the merits
is manifest” (Interim Protection, Order of 17 August 1972, 1 C.J. Reports
1972, p. 15).

16. In the Nuclear Tests case (1973), France insisted that the Court
was “manifestly not competent in the case”. The Court, departing in part
from the formula it had used the year before in the Fisheries Jurisdiction
case, stated that it “need not . . . finally satisfy itself that it has jurisdic-
tion on the merits of the case”, but that it ought not to indicate provi-
sional measures “unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant appear,
prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might
be founded” (Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection,
Order of 22 June 1973, IL C.J. Reports 1973, p. 101). In none of the next
three provisional measures cases (Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War,
Order of 13 July 1973, LC.J. Reports 1993, p. 328; Aegean Sea Conti-
nental Shelf, Order of 11 September 1976, LC.J. Reports 1976, p. 3;
United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, Order of
17 December 1979, I.C.J. Reports 1979, p. 7) was the question of juris-
diction the main basis for the order.

17. In Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua,
Provisional Measures (Order of 10 May 1984, LC.J. Reports 1984,
p. 179) the Court came back to the issue, repeating the exact formula of

45
698 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

the Nuclear Tests case. That formula is now firmly established (Arbitral
Award of 31 July 1989, Provisional Measures, Order of 2 March 1990,
LC.J. Reports 1990, pp. 68-69; Passage through the Great Belt (Finland
v. Denmark), Provisional Measures, Order of 29 July 1991, I. C.J. Reports
1991, p. 17; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punish-
ment of the Crime of Genocide, Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April
1993, I C.J. Reports 1993, p. 11, and Order of 13 September 1993, ibid.,
pp. 16-17; Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,
Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996, L.C.J. Reports 1996 (I),
p. 12; Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Paraguay v. United
States of America), Provisional Measures, Order of 9 April 1998, I. C.J.
Reports 1998, p. 255, para. 23; and LaGrand, Provisional Measures,
Order of 3 March 1999, I C.J. Reports 1999, p. 13, para. 13).

18. Thus a party seeking the indication of provisional measures must
show a prima facie basis upon which the Court’s jurisdiction in the case
might be founded. That being said, several questions (which have a par-
ticular relevance in the present case) remain. What is sufficient to show
the required “prima facie” basis for jurisdiction? And what jurisdictional
matters will the Court look at, as necessary for this purpose, at the pro-
visional measures stage, and what will it reserve for any further hearings
on jurisdiction?

19. It is the practice of the Court that weighty and complex arguments
relating to its jurisdiction will not usually be addressed at the provisional
measures phase but rather will be regarded as appropriate for resolution
only at the preliminary objections phase. The Co-Agent of the Swiss
Government in the Interhandel case suggested that the Court would not
wish, at the interim measures phase, to adjudicate “upon so complex and
delicate a question as the validity of the American reservation” (/nter-
handel, Interim Protection, Order of 24 October 1957, I.C.J. Reports
1957, p. 111). The Court, there being able to base its refusal to indicate
provisional measures on other grounds, gave no answer to this question.
In the Nuclear Tests case of 1973, Australia advanced detailed arguments
alleging the continued validity and applicability of the General Act of
1928 as a separate basis for jurisdiction. Without distinguishing the Gen-
eral Act from Article 36 of the Statute, the Court satisfied itself with say-
ing that “the provisions invoked by the Applicant appear, prima facie, to
afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded”
(Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France), Interim Protection, Order of
22 June 1973, 1 C.J. Reports 1973, p. 102).

20. In the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicara-
gua case (1984), the Court was faced, at the provisional measures stage,
with very complicated arguments relating both to the legal effect of the

46
699 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

United States declaration of 6 April 1984 and to the apparent failure of
Nicaragua to have deposited an instrument of ratification of the protocol
to bring its adherence to the Statute of the Permanent Court of Interna-
tional Justice into effect. The Court briefly recounted the legal problems
associated with each of these provisions and stated that it:

“will not now make any final determination of the question of the
present validity or invalidity of the declaration of 24 September
1929, and the question whether or not Nicaragua accordingly was or
was not, for the purpose of Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of
the Court a ‘State accepting the same obligation’ as the United
States of America at the date of filing of the Application, so as to be
able to rely on the United States declaration of 26 August 1946, nor
of the question whether, as a result of the declaration of 6 April
1984, the present Application is excluded from the scope of the
acceptance by the United States of the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court...” (Order of 10 May 1984, I. C.J. Reports 1984, p. 180).

The Court satisfied itself with saying that “the two declarations do
nevertheless appear to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the
Court might be founded” (ibid. ).

21. In the present case the Court has also not made any final determi-
nation upon the question of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s status
or otherwise as a Member of the United Nations and thus as a party to
the Statute having the right to make a declaration under Article 36, para-
graph 2, thereof. This is clearly a matter of the greatest complexity and
importance and was, understandably, not the subject of comprehensive
and systematic submissions in the recent oral hearings on provisional
measures.

22. Of course, just as with the question of Nicaragua’s ratification of
its adherence to the Statute of the Permanent Court in the Military and
Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua case, it might be thought
that the status of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia was a necessary
“préalable” to everything else. But when dealing with provisional mea-
sures the Court is faced with unavoidable tensions between the demands
of logic and the inability to determine with finality when operating under
urgency in response to a request for provisional measures. The opera-
tional principle is that matters of deep complexity will if possible be left
to one side in determining the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court for
purposes of Article 41.

23. In the Nuclear Tests cases and in the Military and Paramilitary
Activities case, the Court equally held over certain arguments relating to
declarations under the Statute. By contrast, the Court in this case has
addressed, for purposes of provisional measures, both the terms of the
declarations of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and Portugal and the

47
700 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

interaction of the declarations of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
Portugal.

24. The prima facie test of jurisdiction does not make it sufficient
merely to note the very existence of two declarations at this stage. This is
not to be deduced from the statement of the Court in the Cameroon
v. Nigeria provisional measures case that “the declarations made by the
Parties in accordance with Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute consti-
tute a prima facie basis upon which its jurisdiction in the present case
might be founded” (LC.J. Reports 1996 (I), p. 21, para. 31). The
Nigerian request for a reconsideration of the rule in the Rights of
Passage case, as it bore on the interpretation of its own declaration,
clearly fell into that category of complex and weighty objections to juris-
diction that had to be deferred for proper consideration until the pre-
liminary objections phase. In that particular light (and because the
Rights of Passage principle was well established in the Court’s case law),
the declarations would in the meantime be treated as establishing prima
facie jurisdiction.

25. The same guiding principles apply to treaties said to provide a
basis for the Court’s jurisdiction. Thus the several complicated argu-
ments that had been advanced in connection with Article [X of the Geno-
cide Convention were not addressed in the provisional measures phase of
the Genocide case of 1993; and it was against that background that the
Court said that Article IX of the Convention appeared to “afford a basis
on which the jurisdiction of the Court might be founded” (Application of
the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Geno-
cide, Provisional Measures, Order of 8 April 1993, [I C.J. Reports 1993,
p. 16; and Order of 13 September 1993, 1 C.J. Reports 1993, p. 342).

26. But it should not be thought that mere invocation of a jurisdic-
tional clause, with nothing more, suffices to establish a prima facie basis
of the Court’s jurisdiction. It cannot be otherwise, because the jurisdic-
tion of the Court — even if one might regret this state of affairs as we
approach the twenty-first century — is based on consent. And consent to
jurisdiction cannot be established, even prima facie, when it is clear from
the terms of the declarations themselves that the necessary consent is not
prima facie present, or simply is not present, simpliciter. As Sir Hersch
Lauterpacht put it in his separate opinion in the /nterhandel case, the test
of jurisdiction of the Court prima facie is met if, in the relevant instru-
ments, there are “no reservations obviously excluding its jurisdiction”
(C.J. Reports 1957, pp. 118-119). Reservations relevant for this purpose
are both those in a State’s own declaration and those that it may rely on
reciprocally.

48
701 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

27. Yugoslavia made no submission at all to the Court on either the
optional clause declaration of Portugal or on its interplay with its own
reservation. It did not tell the Court why, when read with Article 62, para-
graph 2, itself, Portugal’s reservation and that of the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia did not together exclude prima facie jurisdiction. Nor did
Portugal rely reciprocally on Yugoslavia’s declaration, no doubt deeming
that to be inconsistent with the position it took alleging the declaration to
be invalid. But the Court cannot fail to consider these matters, and none
of them is so obscure and complicated that it could not be dealt with at
this stage; and nor was that suggested by Yugoslavia.

28. As the Court stated in the Norwegian Loans case: “since two
unilateral declarations are involved [reciprocal] jurisdiction is conferred
upon the Court only to the extent to which the Declarations coincide in
conferring it” (Judgment, LC.J. Reports 1957, p. 23). And the Court
clearly stated in Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada) that:

“Conditions or reservations thus do not by their terms derogate
from a wider acceptance already given. Rather, they operate to
define the parameters of the State’s acceptance of the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court.” (ZC.J. Reports 1998, p. 453, para. 44.)

Each of these dicta appears in the judgments on jurisdiction, these not
having been provisional measures cases. But a State seeking the introduc-
tion of provisional measures must show that jurisdiction prima facie
exists, notwithstanding conditions, reservations and the operation of reci-
procity between declarations.

29. The restraint upon the liberty of action of a State that necessarily
follows from the indication of provisional measures will not be counte-
nanced unless, prima facie, there is jurisdiction. But an absence of prima
facie jurisdiction at this stage and for this purpose does not necessarily
mean that jurisdiction may not, in the event, later be established. How-
ever, if in considering whether there is jurisdiction prima facie for pur-
poses of Article 41 of the Statute, it is clear beyond doubt that no juris-
diction exists in a particular case, good administration of justice requires
that the case be immediately struck off the List in imine.

x * #

30. Finally, it should not be thought that the Court, because it has had
to address the question of its prima facie jurisdiction in the case brought

49
702 LEGALITY OF USE OF FORCE (SEP. OP. HIGGINS)

by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, is indifferent to the great suffer-
ing in Kosovo and Yugoslavia. Indeed, the preambular paragraphs to its
Order show otherwise. Nor does it seek to avoid making its contribution
to an elucidation of the heavily contested issues of law. But the Court can
take on its responsibilities within the United Nations system and use its
judicial authority and creativity only when it has jurisdiction. In this case,
the Court’s jurisdiction has yet to be established even prima facie.

(Signed) Rosalyn Hicains.

50


217

APPENDIX 2.
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.

_1.—In 1928-1929.
A.—DocuMENTS FILED DURING THE “WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS.
I.—By the Agent of the French Government :
1—Extract from the Protocol of November 3rd, 1815, ‘annexed to the

Declaration of November 2oth, 1815.

2.—Note of the Plenipotentiaries of England, Prussia, Russia and Austria
to Pictet-de Rochemont (Nov. 7th, 1815).

3.—Noté from Pictet-de Rochemont to the Plenipotentiaries of ‘England,
Prussia, Russia and Austria (Nov. 13th, 1815).

4.—Reply of the Plenipotentiaries of the Great Powers to Count de Thaon-
Revel (Nov. 2oth, 1815).

3.—Treaty of Peace between Austria and France signed at Paris on
November 2oth,. 1815.

6.—Instructions sent by the Directoire fédéral to Pictet-de Rochemont
(Dec. 12th, . 1815).

7.—~Letter from the Directoire fédéral to the State Council at Geneva
(Dec. 12th, 1815).

8.—Treaty of territorial cession and delimitation between Sardinia and
Switzerland signed at Turin on March 16th, 1816.

9.—Manifesto of the Royal Court of Accounts of September gth, 1829. ,

10.—The Minister of Foreign Affairs to the French Minister at Berne
(April 17th, 1851).

11.—The Minister. of France to the President of the Swiss Confederation
(April 30th, 1851).

12.—The Minister of France at Berne to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(May oth, 1851).

13.—The Minister of Foreign Affairs to the French Minister at Berne
(Sept. roth, 1852).

14.—The French Minister to the Président of the Swiss Confederation
(Sept. 24th, 1852).

15.—Note by the President of the Swiss Confederation to the French
Minister (July 2oth, 1853).

16.—Note from the French Minister to the President of the Swiss Con-
federation (Aug. ztith, 1853).

17.—Treaty between France and Sardinia signed at Turin on March: 24th,
1860.

18.—Decree of June 12th, 1860, in regard to customs tariffs in Savoy.

19.—Declaration in regard to the exportation of salt, signed on March 25th,
1861, between France and Switzerland.

20.—Regulations in regard to the. District of Gex annexed to the Treaty
of Commerce concluded on June 3oth, 1864, between France and Switzerland,

125
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 218

21.—Convention in regard to the customs régime ‘between the Canton of
Geneva and the free zone of Upper Savoy signed at Paris on June 14th, 1881.

22.—Convention in regard to neighbourly relations and the inspection of
adjacent forests signed on February 22nd, 1882.

23.—The Minister of Foreign Affairs to the French Ambassador at Berne
(April 18th, 1893).

24.—The law of March 31st, 1889, modifying the Decree of June ‘12th, 1860,
relating to the delimitation of the French customs’ frontier in Savoy.

25.—Commercial Convention signed at Berne on October 2oth, 1906.
Annex C: Regulations in regard to the District of Gex.

26.—Note from the French Embassy to the Federal Political Department
(Dec. 18th, 1918).

27.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(Jan. 14th, 1919).
_  28.—The Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister at Paris (Feb. 6th,
1919).
29.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(Feb. 17th, 1919).
30.—Note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Legation
(Feb. 24th, 1919).

31.—Note from the French Embassy to the Federal Political Department
(April 26th, 1919).

32.—Draft proposal for a convention communicated to the Federal Politi-
cal Department on April 28th, 1919.

33-—Note from the French Embassy to the Federal Political Department
‘(April 28th, 1919).

34.—Letter from M. Pichon, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to M. Ador,
President of the Swiss Confederation (April 29th, 1919).

35.—Text agreed upon with M. Dunant, April 30th, t9r9.

36.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(May 2nd, 1919).

37.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(May 5th, 1919).

38.—Note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Legation
(May 18th, 1919).

39.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(May 29th, 1919).

40.—Note from the French Embassy to the French Political Department
(June 14th, 1919).

41.— Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(July Ist, 1919).

42.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(Oct. 1st, 1979). ‘

43-—Note from the French Embassy to the Federal Political Department
(Oct. zith, 1919). .

44.—Note from the Swiss Political Department to the French Embassy
(Nov. 11th, 1919). . ‘

126
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 219
45.—Note from the French Embassy to the Federal Political Department
(Nov. .17th, 1919).
46.—Note from the Federal Political Department to the French Embassy
(Nov. 25th, 1919).
47.—Note from the Swiss Legation to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(Dec. igth, 1919). |
48.—Note. of the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Legation
(Dec. 25th, 1919).

49-—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the French Ambassador
at Berne (Aug. 4th, 1920).

50.—Letter from the Director of the Federal Political Department to the
French Ambassador (Feb. 25th, 1921).

51.—Letter to M. Motta and note from the French Embassy to the Federal
Political Department (March 26th, 1921).

52.—Note from the Swiss Political Department to the French _Embassy
(April 1oth, 1921).

53-—Note from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Legation
(May 1oth, 1921).

54.—Convention of August 7th, 1921, governing the relations of commerce
and good neighbourly relations between the free zones of Upper Savoy and
the District of Gex and the adjacent Swiss cantons.

55.—Law of February 16th, 1923, modifying the customs’ regulations of
the free zones of the District of Gex and Upper Savoy.

56.—Letter from the Swiss Minister to the Minister of Foreign . Affairs
(March 19th, 1923). =

57.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(March 21st, 1923). a

58—-Letter from the Swiss Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(March 26th, 1923).

59.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(March 27th, 1923). .

60.—Letter from the Swiss Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(April 5th, 1923).

61.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(April 17th, 1923).

62.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(Oct. roth, 1923).

°63.—-Decree of October roth, 1923, putting the law of February 16th,
1923, into operation. |

64.—Letter from the Swiss Minister to the Minister of Foreign : Affairs
(Oct. z17th, 1923).

65.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(Oct. 25th, 1923). . . .

66.—Letter from the Swiss Minister to. the Minister. of Foreign Affairs
(Oct. 30th, 1923). :

67.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss : Minister
(Nov. 7th, 1923).

- 127
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX ~ 220

68.--Letter from the Swiss Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(Nov. tr2th, 1923).
69.—I. Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(Jan. 22nd, 1924).
II, Draft Special Agreement (Jan. 22nd, 1924).
70.—I. Letter from the Swiss Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(Feb. 14th, 1924). ‘
II. Swiss Draft of Special Agreement (Counter-proposal, Febr. 14th,
1924). ; ;
71.—Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Swiss Minister
(March 19th, 1924).
72.—Letter from the Swiss Minister to’ the Minister of Foreign Affairs
(March 31st, 1924).
73.—Minutes. of July 4th, 1816, relating to the handing over of part of
the District of Gex to Switzerland.
74.—The French Minister at Berne to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
(Sept. 24th, 1852). :

75.—Idem (Sept. 28th, 1852).
76.—Note of the French Chargé d'affaires (Oct. 25th, 1926).

IL. By the Agent of the Swiss Government :

1.—Letters patent from the Duke Louis de Savoie.

2.—Declaration by His Majesty in favour of the citizens and burgesses of
Geneva exempting them from customs and from billeting military persons
as regards their houses coming under the definition of l’Ancien Dénombre-
ment (June 15th, 1754).

3 A.—Regulations concerning the levy of toll dues on the Rhône.

3 B— Regulations in regard to market dues at Geneva of December 18th,
1689. ‘

3 C.—Scale of market dues at Geneva, 1704.

3 D.—Édit of pacification, 1782. |

3 Edit of pacification, 1782.

3 F.—Genevese Code approved by the Petit and Grand Conseils on the

2nd, 9th and 11th November, 1791, and by the Conseil Souverain of 14th No-
vember, 1791.

3 G.—Constitution of Geneva promuigated by the Sovereign on February
5th, 1794 (Year III of the Republic); modified and supplemented on Oc-
tober 6th, 1796 (Year V), as a result of the vœu expressed by.a very large
number of the citizens on August 31st, 1795 (Year IV); followed by the
existing laws and édits promulgated from December 12th, 1792 (Year I), up
to and including the law of December 16th, 1797 (Year VI); together with a
general alphabetical index of the contents.

4.——Resolution of the Committee of Public Safety (16th Germinal, Year ITI).

5.—Congress of Vienna. Declaration by the Powers concerning Switzerland,
March 2oth, 1815 (Annex No. 11 to the Act of the Congress of Vienna).

6.—Draft proposal for the cession of a. part of the District of Gex to
Geneva, and the creation of a custom’s zone between Geneva and Basle.
Paris, October 1oth, 1815.

128
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 221

7.—Extract from the Protocol of the Conference of November 3rd, 1815.

8.—Peace Treaty of Paris of November 2oth, 1815, between France of
the one part and Great Britain, Austria, Prussia and Russia of the other.

9.—Treaty between His Majesty the King of Sardinia, the Swiss Confeder-
ation arid the. Canton of Geneva. Turin, March 16th, 1816.

10.—Manifesto of the Royal Court of Accounts of September gth, 1829.

11.—Resolution of the Supreme Diet of August ist, 1816, relating to the
Federal customs.

12.—Law re-instating the cantonal customs (Nov. 4th, 1815).
13.—Law re-instating the customs (May 3oth, 1816).

14.—Resolution of the Council of State of August 24th, 1816. Regulations
in regard to customs and tolls.

15.—Extract from a.letter partly in cipher from the syndic Turrettini to
Pictet-de Rochemont (Oct. zoth, 1815).

16.—Article VI of the Treaty between His Majesty the King of Sardinia,
the Swiss Confederation and the Canton of Geneva. Turin, March 16th, 1816.

17.—Extracts from the Treaty of Turin, March 24th, 1860.

18.—Regulations in regard to the District of Gex annexed to the Treaty
of Commerce concluded between Switzerland and France, - June 30th, 1864.

19.—Regulations in regard to the District of Gex of October 2oth, 1906.

20.—Note from the Chargé d’affaires for Sardinia .to the President of the
Confederation (June 23rd, 1850).

21.—Note from ‘the Federal Council to the Chargé d’affaires for Sardinia
(Jan. 31st, 1851).

22.—Treaty of ‘Commerce between the Swiss Confederation and H.M. the
King of Sardinia (June 8th, 1851).

23.—Convention in regard to the customs régime between the Canton of.
Geneva and the free zone of Upper Savoy, concluded on June 14th, 1881,
ratified by Switzerland on April 28th, 1882, and by France on June r2th, 1882.

24.—Federal Resolution concerning imports from the free zones of Upper
Savoy and Gex (June 19th, 1908).

25.—Draft convention transmitted by the French Embassy at Berne to the
Federal Political Department, April 26th, 1919.

26.—(z) Draft convention remitted to the French Embassy at Berne | on
October 15th, 1919.
(2) Note transmitting this draft to the’ French Embassy.

' 27.—Preliminary draft of convention remitted to the Federal Political
Department by the French Embassy at Berne on January 24th, 1921.

28.—New French draft remitted to the Swiss representatives, May 24th, 1921.

29.—Swiss counter-proposal, remitted on June | and, 1921, to the French
representatives. |

30.—French proposal remitted by the French Embassy at Berne to the
Federal Political Department on ‘June 2nd, 1921.

31 —Convention between Switzerland and France governing the relations of
commerce and good neighbourhood between the ancient free zones of Upper
Savoy and the District. of Gex and the adjacent Swiss cantons, concluded on
August 7th, 1921.

129
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 242

32.—Bill relating to the reform of the customs’ regulations of the free
zones of the District of Gex and Upper Savoy, filed in the Chamber of
Deputies on December 2nd, 1922.

33-—Report made on behalf of the Committee for Customs and Commercial
Conventions entrusted with the consideration of the Bill adopted by the
Chamber of Deputies, concluded at Paris, August 7th, 1921, between France
and Switzerland, and governing the relations of commerce and good neigh-
bourhood between the ancient free zones of Upper Savoy and the District
of Gex and the adjacent Swiss cantons, by M. Noél, Senator, dated Febru-
ary oth, 1923.

34.—Law under which the Convention, concluded at Paris on August 7th,
1921, between France and Switzerland, governing the relations of commerce
and good neighbourhood between the ancient free zones of Upper. Savoy and
the District of.Gex and the adjacent Swiss cantons, was approved (Feb. 16th,
1923).

35.—Law relating to the reform of the customs regulations of the free
zones of the District of Gex and of Upper Savoy, February 16th, 1923.

: 36.—Special Agreement concluded on October 30th, 1924, between Switzer-
land and France in regard to the free zones of Upper Savoy and the District
of Gex.

37.—Notes exchanged on October 30th, 1924, between the Swiss Minister
at Paris and the President of the Council, Minister. for. Foreign Affairs of
the French Republic, at the time of the signature of the Special Agreement.

38.—Note. addressed on May 29th, 1919, by the Federal Political Depart-
ment to the French Embassy at Berne.

39.—Note addressed on July ist, 1919, by the Federal Political Department
to the French Embassy at Berne.

40.—Message from the Federal Council to the Federal Assembly in regard
to the agreement concluded between the Federal Council and the French
Government as it appears in Article 435 of the Treaty of Peace between the
Allied and Associated Powers and Germany (Oct. 14th, 1919).

41.—Message from the Federal Council to the Federal Assembly in regard
to the Convention between. Switzerland and France governing the relations
of commerce and good neighbourhood between the ancient free zones of
Upper Savoy and the District of Gex and the adjacent Swiss cantons, signed
at Paris on August 7th, 1921 (Oct. roth, 1921).

42.—Message from the Federal Council to the Federal Assembly in regard
to the acceptance of the Special Agreement concluded on October 30th, 1924,
between Switzerland and France, in respect of the free zones of Upper Savoy
and the District of Gex (Nov. 25th, 1924).

43-—Report of the State Council of Geneva, dated October gth, 1920, sub-
mitted to the Grand Conseil on October 16th, 1920.

44.—Report of the Geneva State Council, dated February 8th, 1921, sub-
mitted to the Grand Conseil on February 12th, 1921.

45.—Report of the Geneva State Council of September 1921, submitted
to the Grand Conseil on September 28th, 1921.

46.—Note from the Plenipotentiaries of England, Prussia, Russia and
Austria to Pictet-de Rochemont (Nov. 7th, 1815).

47-—Note from Pictet-de Rochemont to the Plenipotentiaries of England,
Prussia, Russia and Austria (Nov. 13th, 1815).

48.—Note by Count de Thaon-Revel, Sardinian Envoy at Paris, to the
Plenipotentiaries of the Great Powers (Nov. 11th, 1815).

130
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 223

49-—Note from the Plenipotentiaries of the Great Powers to the Count
de Thaon-Revel, Sardinian Envoy at Paris (Nov. 2oth, 1815). .

50.—Law of the Canton of Vaud of June 6th, 1812, in regard to a scale
of toll-dues.

_51.—Law of the Canton of Vaud of December 2oth, 1833, in regard to
a scale of toll-dues.

52.—Report on a draft proposal made by the Canton of Geneva in regard :
tg toll-dues of the Swiss Confederation.

53.—Extract from the supplementary arrangements under Article 5 of the
Declaration of the Congress of Vienna in regard to the Canton of Geneva.

54.—Letter from the Minister of France at Berne (Sept. 29th, 1852),
with the annexed schedules and observations.

55.—Resolution relating to the levy of import dues at the frontier of the
Confederation (Aug. 16th, 1819).

:56.-—Convention relating to the extension of the levying of Federal import
dues provided for on August 7th, 1840, and put into force on July 17th,
1843.

57-—Regulations putting into operation the levy and the control over
Federal import dues. Resolution of September 2nd, 1841.

58.—Nominal schedule of merchandise imported in 1849 to the canton,
some of which originated from abroad and some from Switzerland; the
former of these having to pay cantonal and Federal dues, whereas the latter
only paid cantonal dues.

59.—Document relating to proposal made by the State of Geneva concern-
ing the Federal import dues sent for purposes of information to the Mem-
bers of the Grand Conseil (April 14th, 1849).

60.—Extract from the Federal law relating to tolls in the Swiss Confeder-
ation (June 30th, 1849).

61.—Extract from the minutes of the eleventh Conference of the Commer-
cial Negotiations between France and Switzerland (March 25th, 1863).

62.—Geographical outline by Professor Chaix.

Maps and sketches :

View of the Geneva basin.

Network of roads in. the Geneva basin.
‘Railways (trains and tramways).
Agricultural divisions of the Geneva basin.
The Gex zone.

The Sardinian zone (small).

AEE PA

63.—-Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations of January 1920.
64.—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations of July 1920.

65.—Exchange of notes which took place in 1917 between the Federal
Political Department and the French Embassy at Berne in regard to the
police cordon set up during the war.

66.—Convention relating to the control of liquor traffic between France
and Switzerland of August roth, 1877; declarations and resolutions relating
to the application of the Convention.

67.—‘Toujours à propos de la dette interalliée de 1594”, by Francis De Crue.

17 131
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 224

68.—Memorandum addressed by the syndics généraux des trois ordres of
the District of Gex to the Coniréleuy général (March 23rd, 1775), registered
on March 25th in the book of the Syndics et Conseil du Tiers-État. |

B.—DocuMENTS FILED DURING THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS OR FURNISHED ON
REQUEST.

By the Agent of the Swiss Government :

Note from the Federal Political Department to M. Hennessy, French
Ambassador at Berne (Nov. 5th, 1926).

C.—Maps FILED ‘HORS TEXTE”.

I—By the Agent of the French Government:

1.— Zones franches de la Haute-Savoie et du Pays de Gex (extract from the
map of France, 1: 200,000, published by the Service géographique de l'Armée).

2.—Territoire de la République de Genève d'après les Traités de 1749 et
de 1754; territoires acquis sur la France et la Surdaigne ; zones convention-
nelles (extract from the map, Ii: 200,000, published by the Service géographique
de l'Armée). ‘

Il—By the Agent of the Swiss Government :

Pays de Genève (scale 1:90,000), with limits of the petites zones franches
(drawn by André Chaix, Dr. sc.).

2.—In 1930.
A.—DocuMENTS FILED DURING THE WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS.

I—By the Agent of the French. Government:

1.—Proposal for a settlement in seventeen articles.

2.—Note concerning various historical considerations cited in favour of
the régime of the free zones.
I. The participation of Geneva in the Savoy war (1589-1601) and Geneva’s
alleged historical rights in respect of the District of Gex.

A. The conditions on which Geneva entered the war.

B. The Treaty of April 1oth, 1589. The departure of Sancy’s mer-
cenaries. The defection of the Bernese.

C. The first retreat of the Savoy troops. The end of the Savoy offen-
sive and the alleged conquest of the Gex District by Geneva.
Geneva’s sacrifices in the war.

D. Examination of the alleged legal titles of Geneva to the possession
of the District of Gex. |

II. The customs régime between France and Geneva in the xvitth and

xvinith centuries (1601-1775).

TIT. The letters patent of January 2oth, 1776, and the régime of separation.
IV. The free zones viewed as compensation for the loss of Mulhouse. ~

V. Origin of and justification for the Sardinian free zone.

Map of the political and economic enclaves of the Republic of Geneva in the
xvrith and xvirith centuries.

3.—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations in December 1929.

4.—Note of the Head of the Federal Political Department to the French
Ambassador at Berne (March 7th, 1930).

132
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 225

5.—Note of the French Ambassador at Berne to the Head of the Federal
Political Department (March 12th, 1930). :

6.—List of 32 communes in the arrondissement of Gex.

7-—List of communes in the small Sardinian zone.

8.—Map of communes in the arrondissement of Gex and the small Sar-
dinian zone.

9-—Opinion of the Council of State of April 6th, 1819.

10.—Decision of the Minister of Finance of May 7th, 1819.

11.—Manifesto of the Royal Sardinian Court of Accounts of April 12th, 1822.

12.—Decision of the Minister of Finance of October 13th, 1828.

13.—Extract from the report of the Sub-Prefect to the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1847.

14.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1847.

15.—Report of the Sub-Prefect to the Council of the arrondissement of
Gex for the first part of the session of 1848.

16.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1848.

17.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the session of 1849.

18.—The law of the Canton of Vaud of June 6th, 1812, regarding tarifts
for tolls.

19.—Table of the export duties at present in force in France and those
provided for by the laws of December 17th, 1814, and April 28th, 1816.

20.—Tariff of the Sardinian Customs of March 14th, 1818, in respect of
certain foodstuffs.

21.—The Genevese law of November 4th, 1815, regarding the re-establish-
ment of the cantonal customs.

22.—Genevese law of May 30th, 1816, regarding the re-establishment of
the customs. .

23.—Decree of the Upper Diet of August rst, 1816, regarding the Federal
Customs.

24.—Decree of the Genevese Council of State of August 24th, 1816, regu-
lating the customs and tolls.

25—Table of goods paying duty during the year 1841.

26.—Estimated receipts from the cantonal and federal customs in the
Genevese budgets from 1816 to 1850.

27.—Extract from the Federal law of June 30th, 1849, regarding tolls.
28.—Tariff of tolls annexed to the law of June 30th, 1840.
29.—Tariff of tolls annexed to the law of August 27th, 1851.

30.—Products. exempt from duty from 1816 to 1849 and taxed by the
Federal laws of June 30th, 1849, and August 27th, 1851.

31.—Position of the customs offices on the left bank in 1849 (Genevese
offices) and in 1851 (Federal offices).

133
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX : 226

32.—Customs offices of the VIth arrondissement since 1888.

33.—Portion collected in the Canton of Geneva of the total yield of the
Federal customs from 1850 to 1927. |

34.—Graphic of customs receipts collected upon goods entering the Canton
of Geneva.

35.—The Minister for Foreign Affairs at Turin to the Sardinian Chargé
d’affaires at Berne (Feb. 7th, 1850).

36.—The Sardinian Chargé d’affaires at Berne to the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs at Turin (Feb. 18th, 1850).

37.—The Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Turin to the Sardinian Chargé
d'affaires at Berne (June 6th, 1850).

38.—Note of the Sardinian Chargé d’affaires to the President of the Swiss
Confederation (June 23rd, 1850).

39.—Extract from the report of the Sub-Prefect to the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1850.

40.—Memorial addressed to the members of the Council of the arrondisse-
ment of Gex and of the General Council of the Ain (Aug. r4th, 1850).

41.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1850. ;

42.—The Minister for Foreign Affairs at Turin to the Sardinian Chargé
d'affaires at Berne (Dec. 13th, 1850).

43.—The Sardinian Chargé d’affaires at Berne to the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs at Turin (Dec. 18th, 1850).

44.—Letter from M. de Barral to the Minister for Foreign Affairs: at Turin
- (Jan. 7th, 1851).

45—The Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Turin to the Sardinian Chargé
d’affaires at Berne (Jan. 13th, 1851).
. 46.—Note from the Swiss Federal Council to the Sardinian Chargé d’affaires -
at Berne (Jan. 31st, 1851).

47—The Ministry for Foreign Affairs at Turin to the Sardinian Chargé
d’affaires at Berne (Feb. 2nd, 1851).

48.—The Sardinian Chargé d'affaires at Berne to the Ministry for Foreign
Affairs at Turin (Feb. 7th, 1851).

49.—The Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French Minister at Berne
(April 17th, 1851).

50.—The French Minister at Berne to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
(May goth, 1851).

51.—M. de Barral to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at Turin (May 16th,
1851). :

52.—The French Minister at Berne to the President of the Swiss Con-
federation (April 3oth, 1851). .

53.—Treaty of commerce. of June 8th, 1851, between) Switzerland and
Sardinia.

54.—The Torelli report on the Treaty of commerce of June 8th, 1851,
submitted to the Sardinian Parliament on June 23rd, 1851.

55.—Speech of the Deputy Montgellaz in the Parliament at Turin
(June 23rd, 1851). .

‘ 134
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 227

56.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1851.

-57-—-M. de Barral to the Ministry for Foreign ‘Affairs at Turin
(Aug. 19th, 1851).

58.—Minutes of the proceedings of the Divisional Council of the Adminis-
trative Division of Annecy (Oct. 22nd, 1851).

59.—The Sardinian Consul at Geneva to the President of the Council
and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Dec. 3rd, 1851).

60.—The Director of the Customs Administration to the Minister of Agri-
culture and Commerce (Dec. 15th, 1851).

61.—Statements of Cavour in the Sardinian Parliament (Jan. 8th, 1852).

62,—-Extract from the report of the Sub-Prefect to the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1852.

63.— Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1852.

64—The Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French Minister at Berne
(Sept. 1oth, 1852).

65.—The French Minister at Berne to the Minister for Foreign Affairs at
Paris (Sept. 24th, 1852).

66.—The French Minister at Berne to the President of the Swiss Confedera-
tion (Sept. 24th, 1852).

67.—The French Minister at Berne to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
at Paris (Sept. 28th, 1852).

68.—The French Minister at Berne to the Federal Councillor Frei-Hérosé
(Sept. 29th, 1852). ;

69.—Schedule of the products of the Cantons of Geneva and Vaud imported
into the District of Gex in the years 1845 to 1852 inclusive.

70.—Schedule of the products of the District of Gex exported into the
Cantons of Geneva and Vaud in the years 1845 to 1852 inclusive.

71.—Note from the President of the Swiss Confederation to the French

Minister at Berne (July 29th, 1853).

72.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex (Aug. ist, 1853).

73-—Note from the French Minister at Berne.to the President of the
Swiss Confederation (Aug. 11th, 1853). ;

74.—-Extract from the report of the Sub-Prefect to the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex for the first part of the session of 1854.

75.—The French Minister at Berne to the Vice-President of the Con-
federation (Jan. 15th, 1856).

76.—Extract from a letter of the French Minister at Berne to the Minister
for Foreign Affairs at Paris (Feb. 29th, 1856).

77.—Extract from the report of the Sub-Prefect to the Council of the
arrondissement of Gex (first part of the session of 1858).

78.—Record of proceedings of the Council of the arrondissement of Gex
for the first part of the session of 1858.

79.—Petition’ addressed to the Emperor of the French by M. Crétin,
maker of packing-cases, at Divonne (Dec. 25th, 1858).

135
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 228
80.—Summary of the request sent to Napoleon III by all the Mayors of
the District of Gex (April 7th, 1859).
81.— General Council of Upper Savoy (meeting of Aug. 29th, 1862).

82.—The Prefect of the Ain to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Aug. 1st,
1863).

83.—General Council of Upper Savoy (meeting of Aug. 26th, 1863).

84.—Settlement regarding the District. of Gex, annexed to the Treaty of
commerce of June 3oth, 1864. .

85.—General Council of Upper Savoy (meeting of Aug. 28th, 1866).

86.—Customs Arrangement between France and the Canton of Geneva,
November 24th, 1869.

87.—The Prefect of the Ain to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (April 8th,
1875).

88.—The Council of the arrondissement of Gex to the Prefect of the Ain
(April 5th, 1875).

89.—The free zone of the District of Gex and the establishment of the
Federal Customs, and the Franco-Swiss Treaty of 1864.—Dr. Gros-Gurin,
. Deputy, to the Minister of Agriculture and Commerce (June 27th, 1879).

90.—The League for the protection of the interests of Gex.—Enquiry
into the Franco-Swiss Treaty of commerce of 1864 (Sept. ist, 1879).

91.—Convention of June 14th, 1881.

92.—Treaty of commerce between France and Switzerland of February 23rd,
1882.

93.—Settlement concerning the District of Gex annexed to the Franco-
Swiss Commercial Arrangement of July 23rd, 1892.

94.—Decree of the Federal Council of December 27th, 1892.

95.—The privileges of the District of /Gex and the rupture of the Franco-
Swiss Treaty, by Léon Modas (Jan. 1893). .

96.—Petition circulated in the zone of Gex at the beginning of 1893.

97.—The Minister for Foreign Affairs to the French Ambassador at Berne
(April 18th, 1893).

98.—The delegates of the commune of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville to the Prefect
of the Ain (July 16th, 1893).

99.—Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Municipal Council
of Prévessin (July 2oth, 1893).

100.—M. Bizot, Deputy, to the Minister for Foreign Affairs} (July 29th,
1893).

IoI to 110,—Protests annexed to this letter.

111.—The watch-makers of Scionzier to the Minister for Foreign Affairs
(March 14th, 1894).

112.— Address of Members of Parliament for Upper Savoy to the inhab-
itants of the zone (Dec. 23rd, 1894).

113.—Decree of the Federal Council of February 23rd, 1895.

114.—Resolution of the General Council of the Ain of February 28th, 1895.

115.—The Prefect of the Ain to the Minister of the Interior (March 1895).
136
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 229

116..-Extract from the record of the proceedings of the Municipal Council
of Thoiry (March 24th, 1895).

117.—Extract from the record of the proceedings | of the Municipal Council
of Collonges (March 27th, 1895).

118.—The Members of Parliament for Upper Savoy to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs (March 18th, 1895).

119.—Extract from the record of the Proceedings of the Municipal Council
of Peron (May roth, 1895).

120.—The Prefect of the Ain to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (July 4th,
1895.)

121.—Memorial of the Members of Parliament for Upper Savoy regarding
the extension of the Franco-Swiss Convention of June 14th, 1881 (Sept. 16th,
1905). ‘

122.—Settiement regarding the District of Gex, annexed to the Commercial
Convention of October 2oth, 1906.

123.—Federal Decree of June 19th, 1908, regarding imports from the free
zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex.

124.—Decree of the Minister of Finance, July 25th, 1860.
125.—Settlement of May 31st, 1863.
126.—Opinion of the Council of State, May 27th, 1891.

127.—Notification of the ministerial decision of January 25th, 1893 (opening
of the internal customs cordon in respect of certain agricultural products).

128.— Notification of the ministerial decision of April ist, 1893 (opening of
the internal customs cordon to all agricultural products).

129.—The Bill of March 29th, 1914.
130.—Report of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce (Oct. 1923).

131.—Exports from the zones into Switzerland in 1913 free of duty, at
reduced rates and at the ordinary rate.

132.—Goods exported from Switzerland to the zones.
133.—Population of the Canton of Geneva.

134.—Number of manufactories in the Canton of Geneva.
135.—Number of new buildings in the Canton of Geneva.
136.—Number of vacant residences. in the Canton of Geneva.
.137-—Number of bankruptcies in the Canton of. Geneva.
138.—Number of workmen employed in the Canton of Geneva.
139.—Yield of the cantonal tax on income.

140.—Population (census of 1926).

141.—List of farmers (Jan. Ist, 1930).

142.—Recapitulatory table of agricultural production, showing the propor-
tion consumed locally and that exported to France and Switzerland in 1929.

143.—Percentage of exports to Switzerland as compared with total. pro-
duction (1929).

144.—Geographical distribution of the exports to France and Switzerland
of the quantities available in 1929.

145.—Map showing agricultural exports of the District of Gex.
137
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 230
146.—Report on the question of the milk of the District of Gex.

147.—Production of cereals in the District of Gex.
148.—Report on the question of the wines of the zones.
149.—Production of honey in the District of. Gex.

150.—The Mayor of Sauverny to the Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville
(Feb. 7th, 1930).

151.—List of the industries of the District of Gex at the beginning of 1930.

152.—Consequences of the encircling of the District of Gex in so far as
concerns the commune of Ferney-Voltaire. :

153.—M. Donnet to the Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville (Jan. 25th, 1930).
154.—M. Jules Gros to the Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville (Feb. 5th, 1930).
155.—M. Lehmann to the Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville (Feb. 11th, 1930).

156.—M. Monnier, Mayor of Thoiry, to the Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville
(Feb. 12th, 1930).

157.—The Mayor of Gex to the Mayor of Saint-Jean-de-Gonville (Feb. rath,
1930). .
158.—Note of the “L’Energie électrique Rhône et Jura” (April 29th, 1930).

159.—Statement of the ‘Établissements Schutz’? (Feb. roth, 1930).
160.—Statement of the firm ‘‘Les fils de J. Philippe” (Feb. 3rd, 1930).
161.—Distribution of tourists according to country of origin.

162.—Yield of the residence tax (taxe de séjour) in the commune of
Divonne-les-Bains.

163.—Report on “tourist traffic (Feb. 1xith, 1930).

164.—Census of commercial establishments.

165.—Statement by M. Jean Rive, banker at Bourg (Feb. rath, 1930).
166.—The Savings-Bank at Gex.

167.—Statement by the builders of the District of Gex (Feb. 15th, 1930).

168.—Table comparing the population of the communes of the small
‘ Sardinian zone in 1815, 1913 and 1926.

169.—Population of Annemasse and its surrounding district.

170.—The outlets for agricultural produce showing distribution of produce.

171.—Geographical distribution of outlets for agricultural produce.

172.—The assistant of the Mayor of Cruseilles to M. Paul Roden (Feb. 7th,
1930).

173.—Statistics of industries.

174.—List of industrial undertakings according to the census.

x75.—List of industrial undertakings established in the old Sardinian
zone since 1923. ‘ .

176.—Data furnished by certain industrial undertakings from the point
of view of their exports to Switzerland and France.

177.—List of undertakings the establishment of which has been abandoned
in view of the possible re-establishment of the Sardinian zone.

138
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 231
178.—Statistics regarding artisans.
179.—List of artisans established since 1923.

180.—Data furnished by certain artisans from the point of view of their
exports to France and Switzerland.

181.—Tourist traffic.

182.—Commercial statistics.

183.—List of merchants established since 1923.

184.—New building in Annemasse and the surrounding district.
185.—Traffic in the railway station of Annemasse.

186.—-The Minister of Posts to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (April 29th,
1930), regarding the operations of savings-banks in the Sardinian zone.

187.—Works undertaken since 1923 or to be undertaken in the small zones.

188.—The electrification of the small zones.
189.—Manifesto of the Royal Chamber of Accounts of January 23rd, 1830.

190.—Comparative. enumeration of internal taxes in force in 1815 and those
existing at the present time.

191.—Amounts collected by the French customs on behalf of other services.

192.—Epizootie diseases of foreign origin noted before the war in the zone
of Upper Savoy.

193.—Determination of the present average incidence of the French customs
duty in respect of Swiss products exported to the zones in 1913.

194.—Determination of the value of products of the small zones which,
whilst legally liable to duty on entry into Switzerland, were admitted free
of duty in 1913 (other than the products of agriculture and forestry).

195.—Determination of the incidence of the present Swiss customs duties
in relation to the value of the products of the small zones and the large
zone which, whilst legally liable to duty on entry into Switzerland, were
admitted free of duty in 1913 (other than the products of agriculture and
forestry).

196.—The Sardinian Minister at Berne to the Minister for Foreign Affairs.
at Turin (April 19th, 1849). |

197.—Record of the proceedings of the Municipal Council of Saint-Julien
(Jan. 24th, 1860).

198.—Meeting of the Swiss Chamber of Commerce at Geneva on November 7th,
1877).

199.—The Geneva Chamber of Commerce and the plan for. making Geneva
a free port (March 17th, 1930). ‘

200.—In the free zone of Fiume.
201.—In the free zone of Zara.

202.—The small free zones of Upper Savoy and the District of Gex (1850-
1923).

18 139
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 232

Il.—By the Agent of the Swiss Government:

I.—Swiss proposal for the settlement of the régime of the territories
mentioned in Article 435, paragraph 2, of the Treaty of Versailles.

Il.—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations in December. 1929.

IJI.—Note addressed on March 7th, 1930, to the French Ambassador at
Berne by the Head of the Federal Political Department. .

IV.— Note addressed’ on March 12th, 1930, to the Head of the Federal
Political Department by the French Ambassador at Berne.

V.—Publications of the Swiss Committees in favour of the. maintenance
of the free zones of 1815 and 1816: .

i. Bulletin of the Nouvelle Société Helvétique :: Que faut-il penser de la
Convention franco-suisse sur les zones? by Paul Pictet (Sept. 7th, 1921).

2.—La question des zones franches, by Edmond Boissier (speech made
before the Grand Council of Geneva, Oct. ist, 1921).

3.—Petition addressed by the Association patriotique Philibert Berthelier
of Geneva to the National Council and Council of States of the
Swiss Confederation (Oct. ioth, 1921).

4.—Une capitulation du Conseil fédéral: L’abandon des zones franches, by
Lucien Cramer (pamphlet—Oct. 1921). .

5.—Les zones franches à la Chambre de commerce de Genève (Nov. 29th,
1921).

6.—List of pamphlets regarding the Franco-Swiss Convention of August 7th,
1921, abolishing the free zones.

7.—Petition of the League of retail traders (?) to the Federal Chambers
(Nov. 1921).

8.—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: Six tracts distributed at Geneva in favour of the petition
calling on the Federal Chambers not to ratify the Convention of
August 7th, 1921.

:9.—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: La question des zones et la Société des Nations (letter accom-
panying the petition to the Federal Chambers, Jan. 1922).

10.—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and

1816: Pourquoi nous combattons la Convention du 7 août 1921 (1922).
No. 1.—Notre bon droit.

11..—Tdem. No. 2.—Les négociations de 1921 d’après les documents officiels.

12.—Idem. No. 3.—Le plat de lentilles.
13.—Idem. No. 4.—L’encerclement.

14,—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: Pression officielle (tract—March 8th, 1922).

15.—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: Referendum ! (tract—March 31st, 1922).

16.—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: Circular (1922). :

17 and 18.—Form for signature and list of depôts for the collection of
signatures in favour of a referendum (1922). -

140
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 233
19.—Rejerendumshomitee Zürich : Aufruf zum Referendum gegen das Zonen-
abkommen (May 1922).
20.—Baselstädtische Referéendumskomitee: Aufruf für das Referendum gegen
das Zonenabkommen (1922).

21.—La thèse de M. Albert Picot sur la Convention des zones, by Paul
Pictet (separate edition of the Journal de Genève, June 27th, 1922).

22.—Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: A letter refused by the Courrier de Genève (tract—June 3oth, :
1922).

23.—Les zones: La question de Saint-Gingolph, by Lucien Cramer (extract
from the Journal de Genéve, July 6th, 1922).

24.—La question des zones et une falsification du journal La Suisse, by
Charles Henneberg (tract—July 1922).

25.—Warum muss man das Zonenabkommen verwerfen? by Paul Pictet
(separate edition of articles published in the Schweizer Demokrat,
Aug. 3oth—Sept. 2oth, 1922).

26.—Circular for the distribution of this pamphiet.

27.—Genevese Association for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: Circular (Oct. 1922).

28.—Genevese Association for the maintenance of the Zones of. 1815 and
1816 : Card of convocation to a meeting.

29.—Central Swiss Committee for the rejection of the Convention of the
zones and Genevese Committee for the maintenance of the Zones of
1815 and 1816: Pour Genève (circular to obtain funds, Jan. 1st, 1923).

30.—Avant le vote populaire sur la Convention supprimant les zones avoisinant
Genève, by Alfred Georg (pamphlet—Jan. 1923).

31.—Genevese Association for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: La promesse du capitaine Jeanneret (tract).

32.—Genevese Association for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: La Défense des Zones de 1815 ei 1816 (special newspaper).
—No. 1 (Jan. 2oth, 1923).

33.—Idem.—No. 2 (Jan. 31st, 1923).
34.—Idem.—No. 3 (Feb. 12th, 1923).

35.—Nouvelle Société Helvétique: Déclaration relative à la Convention des
zones (1923).

36.—Contre la Convention des zones, by Me Sidney Schopfer (pamphlet—
Feb. 1923).

37.—Central Swiss Committee for the rejection of the Zones Convention :
Appel au peuple suisse (Feb. 12th, 1923).

38.—Idem.— German text.

39.—Referendumshomitee Zürich : Ein Nein dem Zonenabkommen (appeal—
Feb. 1923).

40.—Voting paper for Geneva (Feb. 1923).

{1.—Genevese Association for the maintenance of the Zones of 1815 and
1816: Le moment est venu de parley net! (tract—Feb. 28th, 1923).

42.— Edgar Junod n'est pas content! by Albert Trachsel (tract—1923).

43-—Sur le chemin de l'arbitrage, by Paul Pictet (pamphlet—Jan. 16th,
1924).
141
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 234

44.—La ligne droite, by Paul Pictet (pamphlet—Sept. 26th, 1924).

.45.—L'infiuence d'un Genevois au Congrès de Paris de 1815, by Henri
Bartholdi (pamphlet—Sept. 1924).

46.— Réponse & une suggestion inopportune, by Paul Pictet (extract from
the Bulletin commercial et industriel. suisse, July 15th, 1925).

47-—L’ explication d'une erreur historique, by. Paul Pictet (extract ‘from
Journal de Genève, March zoth, 1927).

48.—Le différend des zones franches : son importance grandit, by Paul Pictet
(extract from the Bulletin commercial et industriel suisse, Nos...7-8,
April 15th, 1927).

49.—M. Fernand David et Genève, by Tacite (extract from Le Citoyen,
Sept. 15th, 1927). ; . ‘ .

VI.—Annexes to. the Reply of the Swiss Government:

1.—Letter of the President of the Council of State of the Republic and
Canton of Geneva to the Federal Political Department (May 13th,

1930).
Appendix to Annex 1: Table attached to the said letter (incomes
and fortunes in Geneva, 1923-1929).

2.—Letter of the Council of State of the Republic and Canton of Geneva
to M. Motta, Head of the Federal Political Department (May 23rd,

1930).
3.—Trade between Switzerland and the zones.

4.—Letter of the General Administration of the Customs to the Trade
Division of the Federal Department of Public Economy (Aug. 21st,

1930).
5.—Letter of the General Administration of the Customs to the Foreign
Affairs Division of the Federal Political Department (July 2nd, 1930).

6.—Population of the Canton of Geneva.

7— » ', Switzerland without the Canton of Geneva.
8.— Average populations (1913, 1922 to 1929).
g.—-Authorizations to build at ‘Geneva.

Io.—Buildings completed in Switzerland.

11.— Number of habitations to be built (authorizations given) and of
habitations built in large Swiss towns (1926 to 1929).

12.—Number of habitations built at Geneva (town) and Lausanne
(1913 to 1929).

13.—Statistics of factories and factory workers—Number of undertakings
subject to the law relating to factories.

14.—Number of factory workers. |
15.—Yield of the income tax in the Canton of Geneva.

16.—Total amount liable to the income tax at Geneva.

17.—Table showing the rates of the income tax at Geneva.

18.—Movement of travellers (number of persons) stopping at. hotels in
Geneva.

19.—Passenger and goods traffic in the port of Geneva.
142
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 235

20.—Federal supervision of watch cases.—Geneva office.

21.—Volume of traffic of the State bonded warehouses (the free ports of
Rive and Cornavin).

22.—Volume of traffic at the Vollandes station.
23.—The Geneva Electric Tramway Company.
24.—The Geneva-Veyrier Railway Company.

25.—Index figure of the cost of living at Paris.

26.—Report of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce on the economic value
of the small zones of 1815-1816 as an outlet for the industry and
commerce of Geneva (Aug. roth, 1930).

27—Extract from a confidential circular attached to Considérations sur
la question des zones, published in 1894 by the Geneva Chamber of
Commerce.

28.—Observations regarding certain documents adduced in the French
Observations in connection with the ‘‘present’’ economic situation
of the small zones.

29.—Letter of the General Administration of the Customs to the Federal
Political Department (Aug. 26th, 1930).

30.—Statistics prepared by the Federal Department of Public Economy.

31.—Statistics of the exportation of certain agricultural products of the
zones into Switzerland and from Switzerland into the zones.

32.—Note on international servitudes (doctrine and precedents).

B.—DocuMENTS FILED DURING THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS OR FILED ON REQUEST.

I— By the Agent of the French Government :

1.—Extract from the proceedings of the General Council of the Ain (May
28th, 1930).

2.—Draft resolution adopted by the General Council of Upper Savoy at
its session in May 1930. ,

3.—Resolutions of municipal councils of the Gex zone (extracts from the
records. of proceedings of the municipal councils).

4.—Resolutions of municipal councils of the Sardinian zone (extracts
from the records of proceedings of the municipal councils).

5.—List of persons convened to the meeting of August 24th [1930] at
Annemasse.

6.—List of persons present at the meeting of August 24th [1930] at Gex.

7--List of the petitions of 1929.
8.—Petition of the Chamber of Commerce of Bourg and the economic
units approving it. | .
9.—Application of the inhabitants of the District of Gex:
A. Letter to M. Bernier (Saint-Genis-Fouilly, June 17th, 1929).
B. Text of the application.

to—Resolutions of the municipal councils of the Gex zone (extracts from
the records of proceedings of the municipal councils).

143
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX . 236

r1.—Various resolutions :
| I. The Syndicat départemental des  Boulangers de l'Ain...
II. Ligue des Droits de l'Homme (Sections de Gex-Ferney et de
Divonne-les- Bains).
12.—Resolutions of municipal councils of the Sardinian zone :
I. Letter to the Prefect of Upper Savoy (Annemasse, Oct. 22nd,
1929). -
II. The Council of the arrondissement of Thonon-les-Bains (second
part of the session of 1929).
ITI-XVIII. Extracts from. the records of proceedings of municipal
councils.

13.—Petitions of inhabitants of the Sardinian zone.

14.—The Foreign Minister to M. Victor Bérard, Rapporteur to the Senate
(March 1st, 1928).

15.—Opinion submitted on behalf of the Commission ior Customs and
Commercial Conventions by M. Haudos, Senator.

Il. Bv the Agent ot the Swiss Government :

French customs’ receipts.

C.—PETITIONS AND APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED TO THE COURT.
1.—Application of the inhabitants of the District of Gex:

I. M. H. Roupt to the President of the Court (June 17th, 1929).
Il. Idem (July 5th, 1929).
IIT. Application.
IV. Total number of signatories.
V. M. Berthod, of Péron, to M. Roupf (June 18th, 1929).
VI. Application by Senator A. Fouilloux (Nov. 2oth, 1930).

2.— I. The Savoyan Committee for the maintenance of the Zones to
the President of the Court (undated).
II. Claim of the inhabitants of the free zones.

3.—M. Antonelli, Deputy of Upper Savoy, to the President of the Court
(Nov. 6th, 1930).

4.—Petition regarding the situation of the village of Saint-Gingolph :
I. M. A. Bonnaz to the Registrar (April 29th, 1930).
II. Text of the petition (Dec. 3rd, 1929).

5.—Petition in the name of a number of inhabitants of the communes
of Douvaine. Veigy-Foncenex. Ballaison, Massongy, Chens and Messery :
I. Petition sent by M. Rossier (received at the Registry on April 30*h,
1930). -
II. Total number ot signatories of the petition.
6.—Petition of the ‘Comité de Renaissance régionale” at Geneva (April 25th,

1930).
D.—-Maps FILED “HORS TEXTE’.
| By the Agent of the Swiss Government :

1.— Genève (extract from the topographical map of Switzerland, scale
1 : 100.000—Federal Topographical Service, Berne) (annex to the Documents,
Proposal and Observations of the Swiss Government).

144
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX 237

2.—Pays de Genève (1: 90.000), with limits of the petites zones franches
(drawn by André Chaix, Dr. sc.) (annex to the Documents, Proposal and
Observations of the Swiss Government). ;

3.—In 1931-1932.

A.-—DOCUMENTS FILED DURING THE WRITTEN PROCEEDINGS.

I.—By the Agent of the French Government :

| 1.—French proposals of April 15th, 1931.
2.—Swiss draft settlement of expediency.

3.—Draft submitted by M. Stucki, Swiss delegate, ‘‘taking account of
the strict law’’.

4.—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations of April 1931: meetings of
April 13th, 14th and 15th. ;

5.—Reply of the Federal Council to the French proposals of April 15th,
1931.

6.—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations of June 1931: meetings of
June -13th (morning) and 15th (morning and afternoon).

7-—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations of July 1931: meetings of
July 2nd and 3rd.

8.—Note from the Federal Council dated July 2oth, 1931.
9.—Note from the French Ambassador dated July 28th, 1931.

II.—By the Agent of the Swiss. Government :

1 to 8.—Minutes of the Franco-Swiss negotiations of April, June and
July, 1931: meetings of April 13th, 14th, 15th, June 13th, 15th (morning and
afternoon), July 2nd and 3rd. ©

9-—French Note of April 15th, 1931.

a

10.—Swiss 5 » May t4th, ,,
Il 5, » » July 2oth, ,
12.—French ,, verbale of July 28th, 1931.

13.—Report of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce (Aug. 1931).

B.—DocuMENTS FILED DURING THE ORAL PROCEEDINGS OR FURNISHED ON
REQUEST.

I.—By the Agent of the French Government :
I) Texts of legislative or administrative acts:

1.—The law of April 7th, 1932, concerning the tax on mineral oils.

2.—The decree of March 31st, 1932, concerning the tax on imports.

3.—Article 32 of the financial law of March 31st, 1932, concerning the
rate of the tax on imports.

4.—The decree of December 28th, 1926, codifying legislation regarding the
turnover tax. |

5.—Extracts from the financial law of December 27th, 1927.

6.—Extracts from the law of March ioth, 1928, opening and cancelling
credits for the financial year 1927.

145
FREE ZONES OF UPPER SAVOY AND DISTRICT OF GEX — 238
4.—Extracts from the law of July 31st, 1929, providing for reductions
in taxes. ‘

8.—Extracts from the law of December 29th, 1929, providing for reduc-
tions in taxes.

9.—Extracts from the law of April 16th, 1930, establishing the general
budget for the financial year 1930-1931.

10.—Extracts from the law of April 26th, 1930, providing for reductions
in taxes. . .

11.—The law of July 17th, 1930, establishing a single tax instead of the
turnover and the import tax on resinous products.

12.—The law of March 31st, 1931, establishing the general budget for the
financial year 1931-1932. ,

13.—Decrees codifying the legislation concerning indirect taxation.

IT) Supplementary written note of May 13th, 1932.

IIl.—By the Agent of the Swiss Government :
1.—Written note of May 5th, 1932.

Annexes:

I. Federal Law on Alcohol (June 29th, 1900).

II. Decree of the Federal Council on the collection of monopoly
duties on alcoholic products (July 1st, 1936).

III. Opinion of. the Directorate General of Customs, dated May 5th,
1930, concerning monopoly duties on spirits, etc.

IV. Extract from the Swiss Customs Tariff which came into force on
July ist, 19217 (pp. 23-24; see statement on p. 24).

2.—Request dated February 1932, addressed to the Swiss Federal Council
on behalf of the Chambres syndicales agricoles of Bas-Chablais.

C.—PETITIONS AND REQUESTS TRANSMITTED TO THE COURT.

1.—Statement of the Syndicat des Agriculteurs of the Sardinian zones
(April 1932).

2.—Documents transmitted by the Mayor of Saint-Gingolph (three extracts
from the record of proceedings of the Municipal Council, a recommendation
from the Group of Manufacturers and Merchants, and a petition).

D.—Map FILED “HORS TEXTE”.
By the Agent of the Swiss Government :
Railway map.
E.—DocuMENTS COLLECTED BY THE REGISTRY.
Treaties concluded in Paris on May 30th, 1814, between France on the

one hand, and on the other hand Austria, Great Britain, Prussia and Russia
respectively. . ;

146