Connally reservation

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The seat of the International Court of Justice in The Hague

The Connally Reservation , in the English Connally Amendment or Connally Reservation , is part of the declaration of submission valid from 1946 to 1986, with which the United States recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice as compulsory during this time . This section, named after Senator Tom Connally , was part of the reservations included in this statement. The Connally reservation stipulated that the United States would recognize the jurisdiction of the ICJ should not apply to matters which the United States deems to be within the jurisdiction of its national courts.

history

Tom Connally, namesake of the Connally reservation

Tom Connally, then Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, had proposed a corresponding amendment to the US Senate's draft resolution on the declaration of submission that then US President Harry S. Truman on behalf of the United States government on August 14, 1946 recognized the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as compulsory. The restriction formulated in the Connally reservation was in contradiction to the statute of the ICJ, in which, in Article 36, the power to rule on questions of jurisdiction had been transferred to the Court of Justice. In addition, in proceedings in which the United States was a party, other states could, under the principle of reciprocity , also invoke this clause and thus evade the proceedings. This was used by Bulgaria in the case of Aerial Incident of July 27, 1955 (United States of America v. Bulgaria) , in which the USA decided not to continue the proceedings in May 1960. The United States relied on the Connally reservation in the Interhandel (Switzerland v. United States) proceedings against Switzerland .

All following American presidents after Harry S. Truman from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Jimmy Carter as well as almost all professors for international law at American universities and the later American judge at the ICJ Stephen Myron Schwebel supported efforts to repeal the Connally reservation, which were unsuccessful stayed. The effectiveness of the Connally reservation-ended with the withdrawal of the declaration of submission of the United States by one of George P. Shultz , US Secretary of State in the administration of President Ronald Reagan , on 7 October 1985, the UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar sent Declaration which went into effect six months later. The main reasons given by the United States for this decision were unsatisfactory experience with the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the course of the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua ( Nicaragua v. United States of America ) proceedings between Nicaragua and the United States before the ICJ.

Practical relevance

Currently, five other states - Liberia , Malawi , Mexico , the Philippines and Sudan - have included in their declarations of submission a restriction similar to the Connally reservation, while India and Pakistan later withdrew similar reservations from their declarations of submission. The declaration of submission by South Africa , which was withdrawn in 1967, also contained a corresponding passage. In 1959, France waived a corresponding reservation in its declaration of submission from 1949, but also withdrew the declaration of submission in 1974. Previously, Norway had invoked the French reservation in the 1957 Certain Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway) case based on the principle of reciprocity.

The admissibility of the Connally reservation, the justification of which was based on the prohibition of the intervention of the United Nations and its organs in the internal affairs of a state in Article 2, paragraph 7 of the UN Charter , and comparable restrictions, is controversial when measured against established principles of international law . However, the International Court of Justice has not yet issued a decision or opinion on the legality of such reservations and the possible consequences of their ineffectiveness. However, it has been shown that such restrictions are of little importance in practice, in particular because of the ICJ's handling of the Connally reservation in the Interhandel decision and because of the consequences arising from the principle of reciprocity.

Individual evidence

  1. ^ Francis O. Wilcox: The United States Accepts Compulsory Jurisdiction. In: American Journal of International Law . 40 (4) / 1946. American Society of International Law , pp. 699-719, ISSN  0002-9300
  2. ↑ a b In: John Francis Murphy, Cambridge and New York 2004, p. 254 (see literature)
  3. ↑ Leo Gross : Bulgaria Invokes the Connally Amendment. In: American Journal of International Law . 56 (2 )/1962. American Society of International Law , pp. 357-382 ISSN  0002-9300
  4. ↑ Kenneth R. Simmonds: The Interhandel Case. In: International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 10 (3 )/1961. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, pp. 495-547, ISSN  0020-5893
  5. ^ Howard N. Meyer: The World Court in Action: Judging Among the Nations. Rowman & Littlefield, New York 2001, ISBN 0-74-250924-9 , p. 209
  6. ^ Rudolf B. Schlesinger : The Connally Amendment. Amelioration by interpretation? in: Virginia Law Review. 48 (4 )/1962. Virginia Law Review Association, pp. 685-697
  7. ^ Faculty Notes. Schwebel Testifies on Connally Amendment. In: Bulletin of the Harvard International Law Club. 1/1960. Harvard International Law Club, p. 52, ISSN  0888-2576
  8. ↑ a b United States: Department of State Letter and Statement Concerning Termination of Acceptance of ICJ Compulsory Jurisdiction. In: International Legal Materials. 24 (6) / 1985. American Society of International Law , pp. 1742-1745, ISSN  0020-7829
  9. ↑ In Stanimir A. Alexandrov, Dordrecht and Boston 1995, footnote 363 on p. 76 (see literature)
  10. ^ John Dugard , Daniel Bethlehem , Max Du Plessis: International Law: A South African Perspective. Third edition. Juta & Co. Ltd, Lansdowne 2005, ISBN 0-70-217121-2 , pp. 463/464
  11. ^ Couve de Murville: The International Court of Justice: Optional Clause. Withdrawal of Automatic Reservation by France. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 8 (4) / 1959. British Institute of International and Comparative Law, p. 735, ISSN  0020-5893
  12. ↑ In: Stanimir A. Alexandrov, Dordrecht and Boston 1995, p. 15 (see literature)
  13. ↑ Stephan Hobe, Otto Kimminich: Introduction to International Law. Ninth edition. Line; UTB Law. Volume 496. UTB, Tübingen 2004, ISBN 3-82-520469-3 , p. 297
  14. ↑ Article 36 (2). In: Malcolm Shaw : International Law. Sixth edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008, ISBN 978-0-521-72814-0 , pp. 1081-1086 (especially pp. 1083/1084)
  15. ↑ Dirk Ehlers, Friedrich Schoch: Legal protection in public law. Walter de Gruyter, Berlin 2009, ISBN 3-89-949497-0 , p. 15

literature

  • Connally amendment. In: Michael A. Genovese: Encyclopedia of the American Presidency. Second edition. Infobase Publishing, New York 2010, ISBN 0-81-607366-X , p. 113
  • The United States and the Court's Compulsory Jurisdiction. In: John Francis Murphy: The United States and the Rule of Law in International Affairs. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge and New York 2004, ISBN 0-52-152968-9 , pp. 250–283 (especially pp. 253/254)
  • A. Reservation Excluding Disputes Falling under the Domestic Jurisdiction of a State. 2. As Determined by the State Itself. In: Stanimir A. Alexandrov: Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Series: Legal Aspects of International Organization. Volume 19. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Den Haag and Boston 1995, ISBN 0-79-233145-1 , pp. 76-90
  • Domestic Jurisdiction and the Connally Amendment. In: Michla Pomerance: The United States and the World Court as a "Supreme Court of the Nations": Dreams, Illusions, and Disillusion. Series: Legal Aspects of International Organization. Volume 26. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Den Haag and Boston 1996, ISBN 9-04-110204-3 , pp. 222-237