Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident Due to planned maintenance there will be periods of time where the website may be unavailable. We apologise for any inconvenience.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 May 2017
In the course of its fifth year, the Permanent Court of International Justice has builded a record of constructive work which may perhaps excite less interest than the records of previous years but which constitutes a substantial addition to the new foundations of international jurisprudence which the court is laying. The judges were at The Hague for two sessions: the tenth (extraordinary) session from February 2, 1926, to May 25, 1926, and the eleventh (ordinary) session from June 15, 1926, to July 31, 1926. It is notable that all of the eleven judges were present at the latter session, for the first time in the history of the court. At the extraordinary session early in the year, the court handed down its seventh judgment, and at the ordinary session during the summer, its thirteenth advisory opinion. In addition, the court undertook the very important task of revising its rules of procedure, and the experience of the past four years has been embodied in the new Rules of Court which became effective as from July 31, 1926. Outside the chambers of the court itself, some questions have arisen which may affect its future; so that on the whole, it has been a significant year in the court's history.
Continuing the series of articles on the work of the court begun in this Journal in January, 1923.
2 For a fuller summary, see Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 2, pp. 109-138.
3 See the comment by the writer in this J ou rn a l , Vol. 20, pp. 15-19 (January, 1926).
4 The decision was formalized in the usual way. See Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 7, pp. 94-96.
5 It was the first time that witnesses have been called before the court. For the method of their examination and cross-examination, see Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 2, p. 11.
6 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 7.
7 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 7, p. 79.
8 Six judges, three deputy-judges, and two national judges participated. A seventh judge, Judge Weiss, was forced by illness to retire from the case.
9 See the writer's comment in this J ou rn a l , Vol. 17, pp. 18-23 (January, 1923).
10 Publications of the Court, Series B, No.
11 It seems that communication with the Hedjaz, which is also mentioned in the Annex to the Covenant, has been discontinued.
12 League of Nations, Official Journal, July, 1926, p. 857.
13 A communication to this effect was made to the Secretary General of the League of Nations, on behalf of the Irish Free State, on August 21, 1926. See League of Nations Monthly Summary, Nov. 15, 1926, p. 244.
14 For the list, see Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 2, pp. 77-81.
15 See League of Nations Document, C. L. 98, 1926, V.
16 The Government of the Netherlands has also instituted procedure for renewing its acceptance.
17 See the list in Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 2, pp. 49-76.
18 Signed, up to October 16, 1926, by the representatives of 56 Powers.
19 See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 2, pp. 73-75.
20 See European Economic and Political Survey (Paris), Feb. 28, 1926, p. 9.
21 Now included in the Publications of the Court, Series D, No. 1, pp. 33-65.
22 22 See Publications of the Court, Series E, No. 2, pp. 201-207.
* For information on the proposed adherence of the United States to the Permanent Court of International Justice, see the preceding article in this J ou rn a l by Quincy Wright.–Managing Editor.
