IO Files: US(P)/A/M(Chr)/15
Minutes of the Fifteenth Meeting of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly, Paris, October 14, 1948
[Here follows list of persons (32) present and discussion of several prior items on the Delegation’s agenda.]
4. Slate for the International Court of Justice1
Mr. Gross explained that this item had been placed on the Delegation agenda, not because immediate plenary action was anticipated, but because it had become necessary to discuss our slate with other delegations. The terms of five judges of the International Court would expire. Two of these were Eastern Europeans. The question was whether the Delegation should support the re-election of all five present incumbents or shift its support to a Middle Eastern candidate for one of the places. The latter was the recommendation in the position paper before the Delegation. This position had been taken because of a feeling that it would be generally desirable to increase the representation of the Near and Middle Eastern states and on the feeling that on political grounds it was appropriate to reduce the representation of the Eastern European countries. The latter point Mr. Gross considered improper, since the capacity of the individual candidate was actually the most important criterion. It was for those reasons, however, that it had been agreed to support Sir B. N. Rau (India) for election in the place of the Polish incumbent.
Mr. Gross said that discussions with members of the British, Belgian, and Dutch Delegations during the past few days had disclosed that these countries felt it would be a great mistake to support another candidate to replace one of the two Eastern European incumbents. It was argued that such action would simply add fuel to the Soviet feeling about the Court, in particular as to its non-representative character. [Page 163] He pointed out, however, that these states did not believe that the re-election of the two Eastern European judges would make the Soviets any more disposed to submit matters to the Court.
Mr. Gross recommended that the Delegation support the five present incumbents for re-election. He pointed out that the Near East was already represented on the Court by an Egyptian judge. In view of the feeling of the Western European states and his own view that the slate in the position paper had been largely motivated by political considerations which were quite inappropriate in dealing with the Court, he recommended again that the five incumbents be supported. He noted that there was one complicating factor—a commitment might have been made in Washington to support Sir B. N. Rau. He would want to know the details on that matter, although he assumed that any commitment was probably only for the first ballot. Miss Brown explained that a firm commitment to support Sir B. N. Rau had, been made to the Indian Ambassador in Washington, although the question whether the US would support Rau beyond the first ballot had not been dealt with specifically.
The Secretary asked that a telegram be sent to Washington asking for precise information as to the views of the Department on this matter.
Mr. Dulles thought there was no point in paying any attention to the Soviet susceptibilities on this matter unless the USSR showed some willingness to use the Court. In his view, if it intended to boycott the Court in any case, there was no point in voting for Eastern European judges. He called attention to the fact that the Soviet position has consistently been against allowing any question to be referred to the Court. Mr. Gross indicated that both Eastern European incumbents were able jurists, and of course were not elected as representatives of states. The British, Belgian, and Dutch Delegations fully understood the point of view which Mr. Dulles had just expressed and were under no illusions as to the Soviet opinion of the Court. Nevertheless, the failure to support the two Eastern European incumbents would give the Soviets an additional argument which would appeal to the public.
Mr. Rusk pointed out that these were the first elections to the Court since 1946. He thought it would be unfortunate to establish a possible precedent that the judges should be automatically re-elected and suggested some rotation was desirable, since otherwise, a judge once elected would be entrenched in office almost indefinitely, and if his removal should become necessary, it would be extremely difficult without raising serious political questions. The Secretary commented that while this was a valid point, re-electing all but one would not really meet [Page 164] the issue, and there was an invidious implication if only one was left off the slate. Mr. Gross said he did not consider that supporting the present incumbents should constitute a precedent, and he believed the Delegation should make it clear, if it adopted his recommendation, that it was not favoring a principle of automatic succession.
No final decision was taken on this matter.