500.C114/1933: Telegram
The Chargé in the United Kingdom (Matthews) to the Secretary of State
[Received March 6—12:40 a.m.]
1051. Embassy’s telegram 4884, October 13, 10 p.m., and Department’s telegram 4952, November 4, 7 p.m. At the request of Sir Alexander Cadogan I discussed with him and Sir William Malkin, Legal Adviser to the Foreign Office, the question of British plans, relative to the reorganization of the Permanent Court of International Justice. As to the points the Department raised, they said that the Foreign Office studies of the question were merely in a very preliminary stage; that the feeling is that whatever problems the postwar political situation may present, some tribunal of international justice will be necessary and that the question appears to be one which offers some useful ground for study at the present time. The Department is correct they said in assuming that the proposed study will be merely advisory in character.
Malkin went on to say that the ideas of the Foreign Office have in no sense become crystallized and what is sought is merely an exchange of views.
He had prepared what he called a “catechism” of some 20 questions to give us some idea of the problems which the Foreign Office feels; could usefully be studied now. He said that in communicating this to the Department he hoped the Embassy would make it clear that the Foreign Office itself had no set views as to the answers to the questions included therein. He hoped that we would find it possible to participate in such informal discussions on the subject as may take place and name some qualified representative for the purpose. While other [Page 41] Allied Governments may likewise be requested to participate, some of them might find it embarrassing to do so. The question of whether Russia would be represented he said had not been carefully considered though it was doubtful whether it would accept an invitation to join in the talks in view of “its attitude towards international tribunals”. Malkin’s “catechism” follows:
“Permanent Court of International Justice.
- 1.
- Is it desirable that the court should be connected with some international organization, such as the League or any other organization (possibly on a more restricted geographical basis) which may be established? Or should it be completely independent?
- Composition.
- 2.
- What is the most suitable number of judges?
- 3.
- Should the present system, under which membership of the court is a whole time job, be continued?
- 4.
- Are any special measures desirable to ensure the permanent representation of (a) particular powers, (b) the main systems of law?
- Nomination of candidates.
- 5.
- Is the present system of nomination by ‘national groups’ satisfactory? If not, what should replace it? (They did express the hope that some improvement in the calibre of the judges might be brought about.)
- 6.
- Should the right to nominate be confined to countries which are parties to the instrument establishing the court?
- 7.
- Should that instrument be open to all civilized countries?
- 8.
- Should it be permissible to nominate candidates who are not nationals of a country party to the instrument establishing the court?
- Qualifications of judges.
- 9.
- Generally, what should we aim at as the qualifications for membership?
- 10.
- Is it desirable or possible either to encourage or
discourage (and if so, how) the election of any of the
following:—
- (a)
- Career judges,
- (b)
- Professors,
- (c)
- Officials,
- (d)
- Politicians and diplomats?
- Election.
- 11.
- If the League machinery or something like it is still available, should it be employed for the purposes of the election? In particular, is the present system of a double election by the Council and the Assembly satisfactory?
- 12.
- If not, what system should be adopted?
- 13.
- It is notorious that recent elections have been largely the result of canvassing, on the basis of the representation of particular countries or groups of countries. Is this (a) desirable? (b) inevitable? If the answer is no, what can be done to avoid it?
- Independence of judges.
- 14.
- Are the present arrangements for securing this satisfactory? If not, how can they be improved?
- Procedure.
- 15.
- Are any substantial changes in the present procedure desirable?
- 16.
- In particular, what should be the system as regards the language or languages of the court?
- Judgments.
- 17.
- Is the present system by which the judgment of the court is produced satisfactory? In particular, should the system of permitting dissenting judgments be continued?
- Law.
- 18.
- One result of the war may be to produce considerable changes in international life as it has been known for the last century or so. If so, a good deal of international law as found in the books may become obsolete. What steps, if any, are possible and desirable to ensure that the court recognizes this fact?
- 19.
- Is it or is it not desirable that the court should become to a much greater extent than at present a law making body?
- 20.
- If it is possible to answer these questions, are there any steps which it is practicable to take to ensure the desired result.”