59.4%United States United States
8.7%United Kingdom United Kingdom
5%Canada Canada
4%Australia Australia
3.5%Philippines Philippines
2.6%Netherlands Netherlands
2.4%India India
1.6%Germany Germany
1%France France
0.7%Poland Poland

Today: 198
Yesterday: 251
This Week: 198
Last Week: 2221
This Month: 4786
Last Month: 6796
Total: 129385

Article 48 DISPUTES

User Rating: / 0
PoorBest 
Law - Commentary on the Single Convention

Drug Abuse

Article 48 DISPUTES

1. If there should arise between two or more Parties a dispute relating to the interpretation or application of this Convention, the said Parties shall consult together with a view to the settlement of the dispute by negotiation, investigation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, recourse to regional bodies, judicial process or other peaceful means of their own choice.

2. Any such dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed shall be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision.

Commentary

1. There seems to be some difficulty in determining the exact meaning
of article 48, paragraph 2. The original text of this paragraph as proposed by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics reads as follows:
"2. Any such dispute which cannot be settled in the manner prescribed shall, with the consent in each case of all parties to the dispute, be referred to the International Court of Justice for decision. However, failure to reach agreement on the referral of the dispute to the International Court of Justice shall not release the parties to the dispute from the obligation to continue efforts to settle it by any of the peaceful means prescribed in paragraph 1 of this article." 1

2. This text was criticized because it did not provide for compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The United States representative moved to delete the second sentence of this paragraph, as well as the words "with the consent in each case of all parties to the dispute" in its first sentence, in order to provide for compulsory jurisdiction of the World Court. The Plenipotentiary Conference made these deletions, which were understood by several delegates 2 as having the effect of conferring upon the Court compulsory jurisdiction in this matter.

3. Article 48 is one of the provisions on which Parties are free to make reservations pursuant to article 50, paragraph 2. It can, however, be seen from the reservations made by some Parties, whose opposition to the inclusion in treaties of provisions granting the International Court of Justice compulsory jurisdiction is well known, that they do not consider article 48, paragraph 2 as having this meaning, since they did not include this provision among those on which they made reservations. a Reference may also be made to a statement which the Legal Adviser to the Plenipotentiary Conference for the Adoption of a Protocol on Psychotropic Substances 4 made on the meaning of article 48, paragraph 2 of the Single Convention at a plenary meeting of that Conference. He declared 5 that it was his personal view that there was an obligation on the Parties to a dispute to submit it to the International Court of Justice, but that an application which was not made by all parties to the dispute might not be sucessful in securing the jurisdiction of the Court. It followed therefore that in his view article 48, paragraph 2 did not confer compulsory jurisdiction on the Court. He mentioned that the Court would have to decide whether it has jurisdiction under this paragraph if asked to consider a dispute without the consent of all parties to it.

1 Document E/CONF.34/L.21; Records, vol. 11, pp. 50-51.

2 See the statements made by the delegates of the United States of America, Poland, India and the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic during the discussion of this provision in the Plenary Conference; Records, vol. I, pp. 177 to 178.

3 Document ST/I,EG/SER.D/4, United Nations publication, Sales No. E.71.V.5, pp. 147-149; see also the reservations made at the time of signature as recorded in the certified true copies of the Single Convention.

4 This Conference met in accordance with resolution 1474 (XLVIII) of the Council in Vienna from 11 January to 21 February 1971; see Final Act of the Conference document E/CONF.58/5. The treaty which the Conference adopted on 21 February 1971 is called Convention on Psychotropic Substances; document E/CONF.58/6. The Legal Adviser to this Conference was also the Legal Adviser to the Plenipotentiary Conference which adopted the Single Convention in 1961.

5 Document E/CONF.58/SR.24, p. 13.