CO537-3711 — Page 38

*

21.

It is pointed out by auterpacht and by iludson

(uppenheim's international Law, 6th su.Vol.Il, p.55,

juson, Ferzanent ourt, p.465) that the reservation as to

reprocity is really superfluous because paragraph

2 of rticle 56 of the Statute states expressly

that the declaration accepting compulsory

jurisaiction is made "in relation to any other

ber or tate accepting the same obligation." This

means, according to liudson, that the Court's

jurisdiction applies only to the common round

covered by the applicants' and respondents'

declarations.

Jonsequently, an applicant can only

rely upon a declaration made by the other side within

the limitation set by the applicants' own declaration.

Hudson cites obiter dicta from two decisions of

the Per anent Court of Internationa. Justice to thia

effect. It seems, therefore, that the result is

that China, for example, could invoke our

reservations against uR.

The Law officers will

however recall that in the case of :ritish Honduras,

precisely because H. \.C's general acceptance of

the optional clause excluded situations and facts

rior to 1930, H.M.G. deposited a further special

ao epta ce of the optional clause covering all

questions relating to the boundaries of that

territory. If it were deeled expedient, H..G.

could presumably deposit another special acceptance

of the optional clause covering all questions

relating to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1898.

23.

A Semorandum has been prepaɛed by the Foreign

office hes arch

Department regarding the terus of all

the le-ses umde by China in 1898 and 1899 to foreign

Fovers (lapur F). it will be seen that there were

five such Leases in ali, two to Crest Britain and

one to erwany, qu sia and er nce respectively.

it

is submitted, however, that there exists a true paraliei

/in.......