Mr. Root, the Senate and the World Court

Login or Register to leave a comment.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.

IN 1907 the conflicting interests of large and small states, both requiring representation on the bench, prevented the creation of a Permanent Court of Arbitral Justice. In 1920, Mr. Root, a member of a Committee of Jurists appointed by the Council of the League of Nations, suggested a formula which reconciled these conflicting interests. As a result, the Permanent Court of International Justice, now commonly known as the World Court, came into being. In 1926 an apparent conflict of interests between the United States, not a member of the League, and some forty other states, members of the League and parties to the treaty creating the Court, prevented the United States from becoming a party to the Court treaty. The differences in this case turned upon the Court's function in rendering advisory opinions. Once more Mr. Root (serving again as a member of a similar Committee of Jurists) has suggested a formula which reconciles these conflicting interests or shows that no conflict really exists. The way now seems cleared for American participation in the work of this most effective instrument for the judicial settlement of international disputes.

The reservations adopted by the United States Senate on January 27, 1926, though communicated to the other Powers somewhat in the form of an ultimatum, in reality constituted an offer from the United States to lend its support to the Court on certain conditions. The fifth reservation grew out of the fear that the power of the Council and Assembly of the League to request advisory opinions might be exercised in a manner detrimental to American interests. But the other Powers -- usually referred to as the Signatory States -- feared that if they accepted the American offer unconditionally the United States might exercise its power to prevent the rendering of advisory opinions so as to destroy or cripple the functioning of what had proved a highly useful device. Until Mr. Root clarified the issue it was generally believed that the difference was one of substance; in reality it was one of procedure...