Page 10 - td_ctxinter_2_rgmtcharteps_2020-2021

TD - www.lex-publica.com - © M. Coulibaly 10/10

the latter, although in conformity with positive international law, endangers justice. In so far as the rec-
ommendation is considered not to be binding upon the parties, such refusal is possible, but not consistent with
the provision of Article 1, paragraph 1, second part, according to which, as pointed out, the organs of the
United Nations—except the Court—have the choice between justice and positive law when the latter is in
conflict with the former. Besides, under Article 37, paragraph 2, the Security Council is authorised ' to recom-
mend such terms of settlement as it may consider appropriate.' It is not said: as it may consider ' just'; it is said:
' appropriate ' and that may be interpreted as ' politically ' appropriate. No other kind of action of a body
composed of representatives of governments is possible.

Article 2, paragraph 3, obligates the Members not only not to endanger ' justice ' but also 'international peace
and security' in settling their disputes by peaceful means. How can international peace—and that implies
international security—be endangered if the dispute is settled ' by peaceful means ‘? In the Report of the
Rapporteur of Committee I/i of the San Francisco Conference the following commentary was given to this
provision: ' Controversies are to be settled likewise in such a way that international peace and security are not
endangered. Therefore, no condition should be created by which parties endanger the peace of others.' It is not
very likely that the settlement of a dispute between two states if established by peaceful means, will endanger
the peace of a third state. Still such possibility is not excluded. The obligation not to endanger the peace of
another state with which there is not yet a dispute is covered by Article 2, paragraph 4. The provision of Article
2, paragraph 3, refers to the relation between the parties to a dispute; a prohibition to endanger the peace of
others certainly does not belong in the text of this provision.

According to the just-quoted commentary, the words ' in such a manner that international peace and security .
. . are not endangered' have been inserted in Article 2, paragraph 3, with the intention to prevent conditions by
which the parties to the dispute endanger the peace of others. This intention, however, is not expressed. The
wording refers to a danger to the peace of anybody, also to the peace of the parties. Hence, the words may have
a rather undesirable effect. If it is possible that a dispute is settled by peaceful means and, nevertheless, peace
is endangered by the settlement, a party to the dispute may declare not to be bound by the settlement because
it endangers international peace and security and consequently is not in conformity with Article 2, paragraph
3. The fact that the settlement has been brought about by an agreement of the parties does not exclude that one
of them may appeal to the clause in question in contesting the settlement, since the formula of Article 2, para-
graph 3, includes the possibility that any peaceful settlement whatever may endanger international peace and
security. Besides, the party may declare that it has given its consent to the settlement under pressure, or that it
has not foreseen its consequences, and the like.

The settlement of disputes referred to in Article 2, paragraph 3, includes settlement by a decision of the Inter-
national Court of Justice. May a party refuse to comply with the decision of the Court by arguing that it
is obliged to settle its dispute by this means only in so far as the decision of the Court does not endanger
international peace and security, and that the decision concerned does not comply with this condition?
All this is certainly not intended, since in open contradiction to the ' respect for the obligations arising from
treaties,' proclaimed in the Preamble, and with the obligation ' to comply with the decision of the International
Court of Justice,' laid down in Article 94, paragraph 1. But the wording of Article 2, paragraph 3, makes such
interpretation not impossible.

/
*** ***