892.014/7–2246: Telegram
The Ambassador in the United Kingdom (Harriman) to the Secretary of State
[Received July 22—4:10 p.m.]
6904. We discussed with Allen, SEA Dept, FonOff, this afternoon Dept’s question regarding submission to International Court of Franco-Siamese dispute as contained Dept’s 5523, July 19, repeated Paris as 3556. Allen said he could not give offhand answer to question regarding terms of reference of case before International Court, and in turn inquired whether or not it is Dept’s view that it is incumbent upon Britain and America to designate manner in which case should be submitted to Court. We said that while we had no definite info on this point it occurred to us that if US and UK Govts felt called upon to advise submission of case to Court it would seem logical they should also advise regarding manner of such submission. Allen said he would consult his legal advisers and give us reply later.
We were told that as result of Ashley Clarke’s30 conference with [Page 1038] Baudet as reported in Paris 3537 to Dept,31 British were again approaching French and stating submission of dispute to Court would not of necessity mean a year’s delay in rendering verdict. British are pointing out that statutes of Court provide for disputes to be treated as matter of urgency if both parties agree and also that as Court is new organization it does not have full docket already before it so that unless there is arbitrary delay by one of parties to dispute British see no reason why matter could not be considered at once. British also pointing out to French that article 41 of Court Statute provides that if necessary Court has power to require provisional measures “which ought to be taken to preserve the respective rights of either party”. Allen feels that under this article Court might appoint neutral observers who would be present in disputed territory and who could report any action in territory which might be to disadvantage of one or other party to the dispute. He said British were willing to appoint such observer if it should be desired by both parties and inquired whether or not US would be willing to do likewise. British Embassy, Washington, being instructed to give Dept full details32 this latest British approach to French.
Sept Dept 6904; repeated Paris 542.
- British Minister in France.↩
- July 18, not printed; it reported that the French were seriously considering submission of the border dispute to the International Court but were concerned because it would probably take the Court over a year to render a verdict. The French were also reported as setting forth a requirement that, should they agree to the proposal, the disputed territories must not be administered by Siam but by a neutral third party or several neutral parties. (892.014/7–1846)↩
- On July 24, Sir George Sansom, the British Minister, advised that the British Foreign Office would be extremely reluctant to see the principle of ex aequo et bono utilized in submitting the dispute to the International Court, believing it should be limited to legal questions regarding the validity of the 1941 Convention (memorandum by Mr. Moffat, filed under 892.014/7–2446).↩