The Permanent Court of International Justice, often called the World Court, existed from 1922 to 1946. It was an international court attached to the League of Nations. Created in 1920 (although the idea of an international court was several centuries old), the court was initially well-received from states and academics alike, with many cases submitted to it for its first decade of operation.
Between 1922 and 1940 the court heard a total of 29 cases and delivered 27 separate advisory opinions.Permanent Court of International Justice, www.icj-cij.org, accessed 4 March 2021. With the heightened international tension in the 1930s, the court became less used. By a resolution from the League of Nations on 18 April 1946, both the court and the league ceased to exist and were replaced by the International Court of Justice and the United Nations.
The court's mandatory jurisdiction came from three sources: the Optional Clause of the League of Nations, general international conventions and special bipartite international treaties. Cases could also be submitted directly by states, but they were not bound to submit material unless it fell into those three categories. The court could issue either judgments or advisory opinions. Judgments were directly binding but not advisory opinions. In practice, member states of the League of Nations followed advisory opinions anyway for fear of possibly undermining the moral and legal authority of the court and the league.
History
Founding and early years An international court had long been proposed; Pierre Dubois suggested it in 1305 and Émeric Crucé in 1623.Hudson (1922) p.245 An idea of an international court of justice arose in the political world at the First Hague Peace Conference in 1899, where it was declared that arbitration between states was the easiest solution to disputes, providing a temporary panel of judges to arbitrate in such cases, the Permanent Court of Arbitration. At the Second Hague Peace Conference in 1907, a draft convention for a permanent Court of Arbitral Justice was written although disputes and other pressing business at the Conference meant that such a body was never established, owing to difficulties agreeing on a procedure to select the judges.Scott (1920) p.581 The outbreak of the First World War, and, in particular, its conclusion made it clear to many academics that some kind of world court was needed, and it was widely expected that one would be established.Hudson (1922) p.246 Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, created after the Treaty of Versailles, allowed the league to investigate setting up an international court.Hudson (1922) p.247 In June 1920, an Advisory Committee of jurists appointed by the League of Nations finally established a working guideline for the appointment of judges, and the committee was then authorised to draft a constitution for a permanent court not of arbitration but of justice.Scott (1920) p.582 The Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice was accepted in Geneva on 13 December 1920.Text in League of Nations Treaty Series, vol. 6, pp. 380–413.
The court first sat on 30 January 1922, at the Peace Palace, The Hague, covering preliminary business during the first session (such as establishing procedure and appointing officers) Nine judges sat, along with three deputies, since Antonio Sánchez de Bustamante y Sirven, Ruy Barbosa and Wang Ch'ung-hui were unable to attend, the last being at the Washington Naval Conference.Hudson (January 1923) p.15 The court elected Bernard Loder as president and Max Huber as vice-president; Huber was replaced by André Weiss a month later.Hudson (1925) p.49 On 14 February the court was officially opened, and rules of procedure were established on 24 March, when the court ended its first session.Hudson (January 1923) p.16 The court first sat to decide cases on 15 June.Hammarskjold (1923) p.704 During its first year of business, the court issued three advisory opinions, all related to the International Labour Organization created by the Treaty of Versailles.Hudson (January 1923) p.19
The initial reaction to the court was good, from politicians, practising lawyers and academics alike. Ernest Pollock, the former Attorney General for England and Wales said, "May we not as lawyers regard the establishment of an International Court of Justice as an advance in the science that we pursue?" John Henry Wigmore said that the creation of the court "should have given every lawyer a thrill of cosmic vibration", and James Brown Scott wrote that "the one dream of our ages has been realised in our time".Hudson (January 1923) p.27 Much praise was heaped upon the appointment of an American judge despite the fact that the United States had not become a signatory to the court's protocol, and it was thought that it would soon do so.Hudson (January 1923) p.28
Increasing work
The court faced increasing work as it went on, allaying the fears of those commentators who had believed the court would become like the Supreme Court of the United States, which was not presented with a case for its first six terms.Hudson (1924) p.1 The court was given nine cases during 1922, however, with judgments called "cases" and advisory opinions called "questions". Three cases were disposed of during the court's first session, one during an extraordinary sitting between 8 January and 7 February 1923 (the Tunis-Morocco Nationality Question), four during the second ordinary sitting between 15 June 1923 and 15 September 1923 (Eastern Carelia Question, S.S. Wimbledon case, German Settlers Question, Acquisition of Polish Nationality Question) and one during a second extraordinary session from 12 November to 6 December 1923 (Jaworznia Question).Hudson (1924) p.2 A replacement for Ruy Barbosa (who had died on 1 March 1923 without hearing any cases) was also found, with the election of Epitácio Pessoa on 10 September 1923.Hudson (1924) p.33 The workload the following year was reduced, containing two judgments and one advisory opinion; the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case, the Interpretation of the Treaty of Neuilly Case (the first case of the court's Chamber of Summary Procedure)Hudson (1925) p.55 and the Monastery of Saint-Naoum Question.Hudson (1925) p.48 During the same year, a new president and vice-president were elected, since they were mandated to serve for a term of three years. At the elections on 4 September 1924, André Weiss was again elected vice-president and Max Huber became the second president of the court.Hudson (1925) p.57 Judicial pensions were created at the same time, with a judge being given 1/30th of his annual pay for every year he had served once he had both retired and turned 65.Hudson (1925) p.58
1925 was an exceedingly busy year for the court, which sat for 210 days, with four extraordinary sessions as well as the ordinary session, producing 3 judgments and 4 advisory opinions. The first judgment was given in the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations Case, the second (by the Court of Summary Procedure) was on the interpretation of the Interpretation of the Treaty of Neuilly Case, and the third in the Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions Case.Hudson (1926) p.6 The 4 advisory opinions issued by the court were in the Polish Postal Service in Danzig Question, the Expulsion of the Ecumenical Patriarch Question, the Treaty of Lausanne Question and the German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia Question.Hudson (1926) p.19 1926 saw reduced business, with only one ordinary session and one extraordinary session; it was, however, the first year that all 11 judges had been present to hear cases.Hudson (1927) p.26 The court heard two cases, providing one judgment and one advisory opinion; a second question on German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia, this time a judgment rather than an advisory opinion,Hudson (1927) p.27 and an advisory opinion on the International Labour Organization.Hudson (1927) p.30
Despite the reduction of work in 1926, 1927 was another busy year, the court sitting continuously from 15 June to 16 December, handing down 4 orders, 4 judgments and 1 advisory opinion.Hudson (1928) p.1 The judgments were in the Belgium-China Case, the Case Concerning the Factory at Chorzow, the Lotus Case and a continuation of the Mavrommatis Jerusalem Concessions Case.Hudson (1928) p.10 3 of the advisory opinions were on the Competence of the European Commission on the Danube, and the 4th was on the Jurisdiction of Danzig Courts.Hudson (1928) p.21 The 4 orders were on the German Interests in Polish Upper Silesia.Hudson (1928) p.22 This year saw another set of elections; on 6 December, with Dionisio Anzilotti elected president and André Weiss elected vice-president.Hudson (1928) p.26 Weiss died the following year, and John Bassett Moore resigned; Max Huber was elected vice-president on 12 September 1928 to succeed Weiss,Hudson (1929) p.28 while a second death (Lord Finlay) left the court increasingly understaffed.Hudson (Jan 1930) p.38 Replacements for Moore and Finlay were elected on 19 September 1929; Henri Fromageot and Cecil Hurst respectively.Hudson (Jan 1930) p.39
After the second round of elections in September 1930, the court was reorganised. On 16 January 1931 Mineichirō Adachi was appointed president, and Gustavo Guerrero vice-president.Hudson (1932) p.1
Absence of the United States The United States never joined the World Court, primarily because enemies of the League of Nations in the Senate argued that the court was too closely linked to the League of Nations. The leading opponent was Senator William Borah, Republican of Idaho. The United States finally recognised the court's jurisdiction, following a long and drawn out process. President Warren G. Harding had first suggested US involvement in 1923, and on 9 December 1929, three court protocols were signed. The U.S. demanded a veto over cases involving the U.S. but other nations rejected the idea.L. Ethan Ellis, Republican foreign policy, 1921–1933 (1968) pp. 70–75.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt did not risk his political capital and gave only passive support even though a two-thirds vote of approval was needed in the Senate.Gilbert N. Kahn, "Presidential Passivity on a Nonsalient Issue: President Franklin D. Roosevelt and the 1935 World Court Fight". Diplomatic History 4.2 (1980): 137–160. A barrage of telegrams flooded Congress, inspired by attacks made by Charles Coughlin and others. The treaty failed by seven votes on 29 January 1935.
The United States finally accepted the court's jurisdiction on 28 December 1935, but the treaty was never ratified, and the U.S. never joined. Francis Boyle attributes the failure to a strong isolationist element in the US Senate, arguing that the ineffectiveness shown by US nonparticipation in the court and other international institutions could be linked to the start of the Second World War.Boyle (1985) p.54
Growing international tension and dissolution of the court