NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN.
Oppenheim's International Law, 6th ed. Vol.II, p.55 Hudson, Permanent Court, P.465.
In deciding what procedure should be adopted,
however, it is pertinent to consider whether the
United Kingdom could submit the dispute to the
International Court relying on China's declara-
Would China be able to invoke the con-
dition as to reciprocity in the Chinese declara-
tion and the limitation in the United Kingdom
declaration as providing a good ground for
tion.
opposing the compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court over the dispute?
21. It is pointed out by Lauterpacht and by
Hudson that the reservation as to reciprocity is
really superfluous because paragraph 2 of
Article 36 of the Statute states expressly that
the declaration accepting compulsory jurisdic-
tion is made "in relation to any other Member
or State accepting the same obligation".
means, according to Hudson, that the Court's
jurisdiction applies only to the common ground covered by the applicants and respondents'
declarations.
This
Consequently, an applicant can
only rely upon a declaration made by the other
side within the limitation set by the applicants
Hudson cites obiter dicta
own declaration.
It seems,
from two decisions of the Permanent Court of
International Justice to this effect.
therefore, that the result is that China, for
example, could invoke our reservations against
us.
22. The legal basis of the claim of the
Chinese Government to jurisdiction over the
City of Kowloon is most fully stated in the note
of the 5th February, 1948, from the Chinese
Ambassador to the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs.
It asserts that, under the
Convention/