League of Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 93, p. 343.

The letter was received by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on December 8th, 1939.  For the text, see  Official Journal of the League of Nations, Nos. 1-3, January, February, March 1940.

The telegram was received by the Secretariat of the League of Nations on September 8th, 1939.  For the text, see  Official Journal of the League of Nations , Nos. 9-10, September-October 1939.

On June 11th, 1929, Norway acceded to Chapters I, II and IV.  On June 11th, 1930, it extended its accession to the whole of the Act.

Spain acceded on September 16th, 1930.

By a letter dated April 1st, 1939, and received by the Secretariat on April 8th, the Spanish National Government denounced the accession of Spain, pursuant to the terms of Article 45 of the General Act.

Under Article 45, this denunciation should have been effected six months before the expiration of the current five-year period, that is to say, in this case, before February 16th, 1939.

In regard to this point, the National Government states in its letter that, as the Secretary-General and almost all the States which are parties to the General Act have "in the past . . . refused to receive any communi cations from the National Government, this Government could not have acted earlier in pursuance of the right which it now exercises in virtue of Article 45 of the Act".

The Secretary-General brought this communication to the knowledge of the Governments concerned.

See note 1 under “Netherlands” regarding Aruba/Netherlands Antilles in the “Historical Information” section in the front matter of this volume.

On 17 March 1975, the Secretary-General received a declaration to the effect that the Government of Australia, in accordance with article 40, of the above-mentioned Act, abandons all the conditions to which its acceptance is subject (instrument of accession deposited with the Secretary-General of the League of Nations on 21 May 1931) with the exception of the condition relating to disputes in regard to which the parties to the dispute have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement.

In a notification received on 24 November 1987, the Government of Dominica declared the following:

"The Government of the Commonwealth of Dominica has now examined the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes signed in Geneva on 26th September l928 and is of the opinion that the provisions of the Act ceased to apply to the Commonwealth of Dominica after 8th February 1974 when the United Kingdom formally denounced it and in any case the Commonwealth of Dominica does not regard itself bound by that Act after its Independence."

In a notification received on 10 January 1974, the Government of France declared the following:

In a case dealt with by the International Court of Justice the Government of the French Republic noted that it was contended that the 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes could, in the present circumstances, justify the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court.

On that occasion the French Government specified the reasons why it considered that view to be unfounded.

While reaffirming that position, and, accordingly, without prejudice to it, the French Government requests you, with a view to avoiding any new controversy, to take cognizance of the fact that, with respect to any State or any institution that might contend that the General Act is still in force, the present letter constitutes denunciation of that Act in conformity with Article 45 thereof.

In a notification received on 18 September 1974, the Minister of External Affairs of India declared the following:

"I have the honour to refer to the General Act of 26th September 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, which was accepted for British India by the then His Majesty's Secretary of State for India by a communication addressed to the Secretariat of the League of Nations dated 21st May 1931, and which was later revised on 15th February 1939.

"The Government of India never regarded themselves as bound by the General Act of 1928 since her Independence in 1947, whether by succession or otherwise.  Accordingly, India has never been and is not a party to the General Act of 1928 ever since her Independence.  I write this to make our position absolutely clear on this point so that there is no doubt in any quarter."

On 30 May 1974, the Secretary-General received from the Government of Pakistan, a notification of succession to the Gneral Act. The notification specified that the Government of Pakistan does not maintain the reservations formulated by British India upon accession to the General Act of Arbitration.

The notification also contains the following declaration:

When Pakistan became a Member of the United Nations in October 1947, the delegation of India communicated to the Secretary-General the text of the Constitutional arrangements made at the time when India and Pakistan became independent (Document A/C.6/161 of 7 October 1947), with reference to the devolution upon them, as successor States of the former British India, of British India's international rights and obligations.

Among the rights and obligations of former British India were those of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes done at Geneva on 26th September 1928, which was acceded to by British India on 21st May 1931.  The Government of Pakistan regards the Act as continuing in force as between parties to the Act as established on 26th September 1928 and all successor States.  Article 17 of the said Act is given efficacy by Article 37 of the Statute of International Court of Justice, as between Members of the United Nations or parties to the Statute of the Court.

As a result of the arrangements mentioned in paragraph 1, Pakistan has been a separate party to the General Act of 1928 from the date of her independence, i.e. the 14th August 1947, since in accordance with Section 4 of the Indian Independence (Interna tional Arrangements), Order, 1947 (Document No. A/C.6/161 of 7October 1946), Pakistan succeeded to the rights and obligations of British India under all multilateral treaties binding upon her before her partition into the two successor States.  By virtue of these arrangements, the Government of Pakistan did not need to take any steps to indicate its consent de novo to acceng to multilateral conventions by which British India had been bound.  Nevertheless, the Secretary-General of the United Nations was made aware of the situation through the communication referred above.

However, in order to dispel all doubts in this connection and without prejudice to Pakistan's rights as a successor State to British India, the Government of Pakistan have decided to notify Your Excellency, in your capacity as depositary of the General Act of 1928, that the Government of Pakistan continues to be bound by the accession of British India of the General Act of 1928.  The Government of Pakistan does not, however, affirm the reservations made by British India.

In this regard, the Secretary-General received on 18 September 1974 a communication from the Minister of External Affairs of India stating inter alia:

. . .

2. In the aforementioned communication, the Prime Minister of Pakistan has stated, inter alia, that as a result of the constitutional arrangements made at the time when India and Pakistan became independent, Pakistan has been a separate party to the General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes from the date of her independence, i.e. 14th August 1947, since in accordance with Section 4 of the Indian Independence (International Arrangements) Order 1947, Pakistan succeeded to the rights and obligations of British India under all multilateral treaties binding upon her before her partition into the two successor States.

The Prime Minister of Pakistan has further stated that accordingly, the Government of Pakistan did not need to take any steps to communicate its consent de novo to acceding to multilateral conventions by which British India had been bound. However, in order to dispel all doubts in this connection, the Government of Pakistan have stated that they continue to be bound by the accession of British India to the General Act of 1928.  The communication further adds that 'the Government of Pakistan does not, however, affirm the reservations made by British India'.

3. In this connection, the Government of India has the follow ing observations to make:

(1) The General Act of 1928 for the Pacific Settlement of Interna tional Disputes was a political agreement and was an integral part of the League of Nations system. Its efficacy was impaired by the fact that the organs of the League of Nations to which it refers have now disappeared. It is for these reasons that the General Assembly of the United Nations on 28 April 1949 adopted the Revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. (2) Whereas British India did accede to the General Act of 1928, by a communication of 21 May 1931, revised on 15 February 1939, neither India nor Pakistan, into which British India was divided in 1947, succeeded to the General Act of 1928, either under general international law or in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Independence (International  Arrange ments) Order, 1947. (3) India and Pakistan have not yet acceded to the Revised General Act of 1949. (4) Neither India nor Pakistan have regarded themselves as being party to or bound by the provisions of the General Act of 1928. This is clear from the following: (a) In 1947, a list of treaties to which the Indian Indepen dence (International Arrangements) Order, 1947 was to apply was prepared by `Expert CommitteeNo. 9 on Foreign Rela tions'.  Their report is contained in Partition Proceedings, Volume III, pages 217-276.  The list comprises 627 treaties in force in 1947.  The 1928 General Act is not included in that list.  The report was signed by the representatives of India and Pakistan.  India should not therefore have been listed in any record as a party to the General Act of 1928 since 15 August 1947. (b) In several differences or disputes since 1947, such as those relating to the uses of river waters or the settlement of the boundary in the Rann of Kutch area, the 1928 General Act was not relied upon orcited either by India or by Pakistan. (c) In a case decided in 1961, the Supreme Court of Pakistan while referring to the Indian Independence (Interna tional Arrangements) Order, 1947 held that this Order `did not and, indeed, could not provide for the devolution of treaty rights and obligations which were not capable of being succeeded to by a part of a country, which is severed from the parent State and established as an independent sovereign power, according to the practice of States'.  Such treaties would include treaties of alliance, arbitration or commerce.  The Court held that `an examination of the provision of the said Order of 1947 also reveals no intention to depart from this principle'. (d) Statements on the existing international law of succession clearly establish that political treaties like the 1928 General Act are not transmissible by succession or by devolution agreements.  Professor O'Connell states as follows: `Clearly not all these treaties are transmissible; no State has yet acknowledged its succession to the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes' (1928).  (State Succession in Municipal Law and International Law, vol. II, 1967, page 213.) See also Sir Humphrey Waldock's Second Report (article 3) and Third Report (articles 6 and 7) on State Succession submitted to the International Law Commission in 1969 and 1970, respectively; Succession of States and Governments, Doc. A/CN.4/149-Add.1 and A/CN.4/150–Memorandums prepared by UN Secretariat on 3 December 1962 and 10 December 1962, respectively; and Oscar Schachter, `The Development of International Law through Legal Opinions of the United Nations Secretariat', British Yearbook of International Law (1948) pages 91, 106-107. (e) The Government of Pakistan had attempted to establish the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice in the Trial of Prisoners of War case in May 1973 and in that connection, as an alternative pleading, for the first time cited the prisions of the General Act of 1928 in support of the Court's jurisdiction to deal with the matter.  Although the Government of India did not appear in these proceedings on the ground that their consent, required under the relevant treaty, had not been obtained before instituting these proceedings, their views regarding the non-application of the General Act of 1928 to India-Pakistan were made clear to the Court by a communica tion dated 4 June 1973 from the Indian Ambassador at TheHague.

4. To sum up the 1928 General Act, being an integral part of the League of Nations system, ceased to be a treaty in force upon the disappearance of the organs of the League of Nations.  Being a political agreement it could not be transmissible under the law of succession.  Neither India nor Pakistan have regarded themselves as bound by the General Act of 1928 since 1947.  The General Act of 1928 was not listed in the list of 627 agreements to which the Indian Independence (International Arrangements) Order, 1947 related and India and Pakistan could therefore not have been listed in any record as parties to the 1928 General Act.  Nor have Pakistan or India yet acceded to the Revised General Act of 1949.

5. The Government of Pakistan, by their communication dated 30 May 1974, have now expressed their intention to be bound by the General Act of 1928, without the reservations made by British India.  This new act of Pakistan may or may not amount to accession to the General Act of 1928 depending upon their wishes as a sovereign State and the position in international law of the treaty in question.  In view of what has been stated above, the Government of India consider that Pakistan cannot, however, become a party to the General Act of 1928 by way of succession under the Indian Independence (International Arrangements) Order, 1947, as stated by Pakistan.

In a notification received on 18 December 1978 the Government of Turkey declared the following:

"In a case being dealt with by the International Court of Justice, it has been alleged that the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 26 September 1928 provides a basis of jurisdiction for the Court to entertain a unilateral application.  In that connection, the Government of Turkey has made clear its position that the General Act is no longer in force.  The Government of Turkey reaffirms this position.

"Nevertheless, without prejudice to that position, and for the removal of any possibility of doubt that might arise as a result of any state or any institution considering that the afore-mentioned General Act continues to have any force or validity, the Government of Turkey hereby gives notice of denunciation of the General Act and requests that this notice be treated as a formal notification of denunciation under Article 45 thereof in so far as the General Act might be regarded as still in force."

"Article 45 of the General Act provides as follows:

" `1. The present General Act shall be concluded for a period of five years, dating from its entry into force.

" `2. It shall remain in force for further successive periods of five years in the case of Contracting Parties which do not denounce it at least six months before the expiration of the current period.

" `3. Denunciation shall be effected by a written notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, who shall inform all the Members of the League and the non-member States referred to in Article 43.

" `4. A denunciation may be partial only, or may consist in notification of reservations not previously made.

" `5. Notwithstanding denunciation by one of the Contracting Parties concerned in a dispute, all proceedings pending at the expiration of the current period of the General Act shall be duly completed.' "

In a notification received on 8 February 1974, the Government of the United Kingdom declared inter alia the following:

"In the light of events since then [the accession of the United Kingdom to the General Act] doubts have been raised as to the continued legal force of the General Act. Without prejudice to the views of the United Kingdom as to the continued force of the General Act,

(i) insofar as the General Act may be regarded as still in force, the United Kingdom hereby gives notice of its denunciation of the General Act in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2 of Article 45 thereof;

(ii) insofar as the General Act may be regarded as no longer in force, this notice serves to place beyond doubt the position of the United Kingdom in this matter."

In a notification received on 1 March 1974, the Government of the United Kingdom subsequently indicated that the notification received on 8 February 1974 was to be treated as a formal notification of denunciation under Article 45 of the General Act in so far as the latter might be regarded as still in force.