¹ Malaya, the British West Indies, Nigeria, and the Federation of the Rhodesias and Nyasaland.

² See, for example, the remarks of Sir Cecil Hurst at a meeting of jurists in 1929. Minutes of the Committee of Jurists on the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice, League of Nations Doc. C. 166.M.66.1929.V, pp. 71–72.

³ Cmd. 3452.

⁴ India’s most recent declaration excludes “disputes with the Government of any country which on the date of this Declaration is a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, all of which disputes shall be settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree.”

There is some variation in the language of the declarations by the respective Commonwealth states. Texts in I. C. J. Yearbook, 1955–1956, pp. 184–189, 194.

⁵ On the legal effect of reciprocity in relation to other reservations, see Waldock, C.H.M., “Decline of the Optional Clause,” 32 Brit. Yr. Bk. of Int. Law 244, 254–261 (1955–1956).Google Scholar

⁶ Imperial Conference, 1930: Summary of Proceedings, pp. 22–24; MacKay, Robert A., “The Problem of a Commonwealth Tribunal,” 10 Canadian Bar Review 338, 344 (1932).Google Scholar

⁷ Agreement in the form of an exchange of notes between the United Kingdom and Canada concerning the establishment of air communication between Canada and United Kingdom territories in the West Atlantic and Caribbean areas, signed July 17, 1947, Art. 9 (b), 28 U.N. Treaty Series 3. Compromissory clauses in comparable form occur in at least fifteen agreements. In four of these (Pakistan-India, ibid. 143, Australia-Pakistan, 35 ibid,. 23, India-Australia, ibid. 83, and New Zealand-Canada, 77 ibid. 239) there is provision whereby, as a last resort, disputes may be referred to the International Court of Justice.

⁸ General Assembly, 1st Sess. (Pt. II), Official Records, Joint Committee of the First and Sixth Committees, Nov. 21–30, 1946, pp. 1–50, at p. 29.

⁹ In a letter to The Times (London) of March 5, 1957, Sir Ivor Jennings wrote in part: “The fundamental question is whether the State of Jammu and Kashmir is lawfully included among the territories of the Union of India by section 1 and the First Schedule of the Constitution of India. If the answer is in the negative, Kashmir is an independent state and the troops should be withdrawn. If it is in the affirmative, Pakistan would no doubt argue that the incorporation is temporary and conditional on the decision of the people after troops have been withdrawn. This question also could be decided by the International Court.”

¹⁰ See, especially, Heather J. Harvey, Consultation and Cooperation in the Commonwealth, Ch. VIII (1952); G. P. deT. Glazebrook, A History of Canadian External Relations 150–151 (1950); Canada, Sessional Papers, 1880, No. 105.

¹¹ Heather J. Harvey, op. cit. 181, 184.

¹² Diplomatic Privileges Act, 1951, Statutes of the Union of South. Africa, 1951, p. 1204. This Act did not make specific mention of any other countries, but defined “diplomatic agent” to include high commissioner, ambassador, etc.

¹³ Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries and Republic of Ireland) Act, 1952, Halsbury’s Statutes of England (2nd ed.), Vol. 32, p. 45; An Act to Confer Certain Immunities on the Representatives in New Zealand of Commonwealth Countries and the Republic of Ireland, Statutes of New Zealand, 1952, Vol. II, p. 1207; Diplomatic Immunities Act, 1952, Commonwealth Acts, Australia (1952), Vol. 50, p. 235. The last-mentioned Act did not specifically mention the Republic of Ireland.

¹⁴ Diplomatic Immunities (Commonwealth Countries) Act, Statutes of Canada, 1953–1954, Vol. I, p. 669. This Act does mot lefer specifically to Ireland.

¹⁵ Parl. Deb., Commons, 1951–1952, Vol. 494, cols. 2447–2448 (italics inserted).

¹⁶ Ibid., col. 2454.

¹⁷ Ibid., col. 2453.

¹⁸ Ibid., Vol. 496, col. 1546.

¹⁹ Cmd. 8460. The Committee was to consider: “(1) Whether the law or practice of the United Kingdom affords to the Governments, Government Departments and other state organs of foreign States a wider immunity than is desirable or strictly required by the principles of public international law in regard to property (including ships), transactions, any other act capable of creating legal liabilities, or any other matter. (2) Whether the law or practice of the United Kingdom affords to persons possessing diplomatic immunity an immunity in any respect wider than is desirable or is strictly required by the principles of public international law. (3) What, if any, changes in the law of the United Kingdom the Committee recommends should be made having regard to its answers to questions (1) and (2) and to the question of reciprocity.”

²⁰ Parl. Deb., Australia, Vol. 219, p. 1793.

²¹ H. of Com. Deb., Sess. 1953–1954, Vol. V, p. 5421. Cf. statement in British House of Lords, Parl. Deb., 1951–1952, Vol. 175, col. 581.

²² Acts of the Oireachtas, 1954, p. 67.

²³ See statement on “Australian Representation at Dublin,” in Current Notes on International Affairs (Department of External Affairs, Australia), Vol. 25, No. 1 (Jan., 1954).Google Scholar It was reported that the Minister for External Affairs (Casey):

“… had made every possible effort, on behalf of the Australian Government, to secure agreement. The one point of disagreement was the form of address contained in the Letters of Credence. The Government of the Republic of Ireland had insisted that the letters must be addressed to ‘The President of Ireland.’ Unfortunately, Article 2 of the Irish Constitution states that ‘the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and the territorial seas.’ Letters of Credence of the chief diplomatic representatives of Australia are signed by the Queen. Mr. Casey said that neither the Australian Government nor he himself would consider asking the Queen to do something in her capacity as Queen of Australia which would embarrass her in her capacity as Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. It was impossible for Australia to request her Majesty the Queen to sign Letters of Credence … containing a phrase which would appear to throw doubt upon the validity of Her Majesty’s title as Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.”

The Irish Minister for External Affairs (Aiken) was reported as having said, in January, 1954, that his Government had no intention of withdrawing the Irish Ambassador in Australia, as in the latter’s case constitutional difficulties had not arisen. The Minister was also reported as referring to a compromise with the United Kingdom whereby the credentials of that country’s Ambassador to Ireland were addressed to President O’Kelly personally, and as saying that this compromise (in connection with which he mentioned the partition of Ireland) was “no precedent for two countries which have no quarrel.” Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, March 13–20, 1954, p. 13466.