59. Editorial Note
In 1959 and 1960, the Eisenhower administration considered repealing a section of the “Connally amendment” (Senate Resolution 196, enacted August 2, 1946) recognizing compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. The clause in question declared that compulsory jurisdiction did not extend to “disputes with regard to matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States.” For full text of the resolution, see A Decade of American Foreign Policy: Basic Documents, 1941–1949 (revised edition), page 129.
President Eisenhower announced in his State of the Union Message on January 9, 1959:
[Page 93]“It is my purpose to intensify efforts during the coming two years in seeking ways to supplement the procedures of the United Nations and other bodies with similar objectives, to the end that the rule of law may replace the rule of force in the affairs of nations. Measures toward this end will be proposed later, including a reexamination of our own relations to the International Court of Justice.” (Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1959, pages 6–18)
Secretary of State Dulles echoed the President’s comments in a January 31 address before the New York State Bar Association, and added: “we are closely examining the question of our relationship to the International Court of Justice with the view of seeing whether ways and means can be found to assure a greater use of the Court by ourselves and, through our example, by others.” (Department of State Bulletin, February 23, 1959, pages 255–260)
On February 9, however, Eisenhower told Dulles the administration should not initiate revision of the Connally amendment, but might accede to a congressional attempt to change it. (Memorandum from Meeker to Becker, February 16; Department of State, Central Files, 360/2–1659) Thus, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee solicited its opinion, the Department of State supported passage of Senate Resolution 94, which proposed deletion of the U.S. right to determine which matters fell under its domestic jurisdiction. (Letter from Herter to Fulbright, April 30; ibid., L Files: Lot 69 D 306, LCM Chronological, 1959) For text of Senate Resolution 94, introduced and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 24, see Congressional Record, volume 105, part 4, page 5037.
Both Vice President Nixon and Attorney General Rogers spoke in favor of revising the Connally amendment. For text of Nixon’s April 13 address before the Academy of Political Science in New York City, see Department of State Bulletin, May 4, 1959, pages 622–627. The text of Roger’s August 26 address before the American Bar Association in Miami Beach, Florida, is ibid., September 14, 1959, pages 379–383. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee, however, took no action on Resolution 94 that year. Following the adjournment of the first session of the 86th Congress, Senator Hubert Humphrey wrote to Eisenhower expressing his support for the President’s proposal to strengthen the International Court of Justice and for Senate Resolution 94. But, he noted, there was a general feeling that “since you have indicated a desire to speak further on this subject, final action should be held in abeyance pending your message.” Humphrey urged Eisenhower to make a statement defining the measures Congress should pass in order to help establish an international rule of law. In his November 17 response, Eisenhower stated that he would make such a statement on appropriate occasion. The texts of these letters, which Humphrey released on November 27, are ibid., pages 128–130.
[Page 94]Eisenhower reiterated his support for the International Court of Justice and specifically for passage of Senate Resolution 94 in his January 7, 1960, State of the Union message. For full text of Eisenhower’s statement, see Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960–1961, pages 3–17. Secretary of State Herter and Attorney General Rogers testified in favor of Senate Resolution 94 before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 27. Their testimony is printed in Compulsory Jurisdiction [of the] International Court of Justice: Hearings [Before the Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate], 86th Congress, 2d Session, on S. Res. 94, January 27 and February 17, 1960.
On March 29, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee decided in executive session to postpone further consideration of Senate Resolution 94. Further documentation on the resolution and proposals to revise the Connally amendment is in Department of State, Central Files, 360; and L Files: Lot 69 D 306, LCM Chronological, 1959 and 1960.