INTERNATIONAL: World Court

The U. S. Senate's five reservations respecting U. S. adherence to the World Court (TIME, Feb. 8) were debated furiously at Geneva last week. The debaters were, of course, the representatives of the World Court Adherent Powers, who had assembled (TIME, Sept. 6) at the invitation of the League of Nations. All present expressed their good will toward the U. S. and passed the first four* reservations without notable demur. On the fifth reservation, however, the conferees became deadlocked, as had been anticipated from the day this reservation was drafted. The fifth reservation is notoriously the "joker" inserted by the Senate to give the U. S. absolute power to prohibit the World Court from handing down "an advisory opinion touching any dispute or question in which the U. S. has or claims an interest."† The resentment of the World Court Adherent Powers at this blanket reservation was pungently expressed last week by the Canadian representative Sir George Eulas Foster, onetime (1888) Canadian Minister of Finance: "The reservation, whereby the U. S. demands 'the right of consent,' is virtually a command to the Court—'Thou shalt not do thus and so. . . .' This demand is mandatory and dictatorial. . . . If it is accepted the World Court must ask the U. S. Senate whether it 'has or claims an interest' in every question brought before the Court. Suppose the U. S. Senate is not in session when such a question is put? The ensuing delay would be lengthy if not interminable. . . . There is also the question of whether the World Court should not be allowed to ask proof of the interest of the U. S. in a given question."

While the conferees rustled uneasily at this apt expression of what was in their minds, Sir Cecil Hurst, the British representative, strove to smooth the path of acceptance for Reservation Five by voicing a series of generalities anent the "good will" of the U.S. in international disputes. For some hours the conference marked time and compliments to the U. S. gushed. Then Dr. Osten Undén, the Swedish representative said bluntly:

"The Americans reserve the right to interpret their reservations. Let us accept, but with the understanding that if the American interpretation proves to be something we cannot accept we will withdraw our acceptance of the United States adhesion to the court."

The conferees, unwilling to accept Reservation Five as it stands, and deeming it unwise to adopt Dr. Undén's scarcely tactful formula, adjourned after announcing that they accepted the U. S. reservations "in principle," i. e., a pleasant way of announcing nothing at all.

Before adjournment, the conferees appointed a committee of 14 of their number to investigate further formulae of acceptance for Reservation Five, and announced their intention of meeting again in a few weeks. The committee, casting about for some loophole through which compromise can be effected, gave ear to an opinion expressed by President Coolidge last week.