The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland Case: A Note on its Legal Aspects(東格陵蘭法律地位案)

全文

(1)The Legal Status of Eastern Greenland. Case: a Note on its Legal Aspects. By 1.K. T. Chao". T his d ispute was one between Denm ark and Norway regarding the ;overeignty over territory in Eastern Greenland.! Greenland" inhabited by indigenous Eskimos, was fu'st 'dis covered' by Scandinavian explorers circa 900 A.D. and colonised about one hundred years later by people of apparently Norwegian origin (in cluding the Icelander Eric the Red). T wo settlements (Eystribygd and Vcstribygd) were founded at the outhern end of the western coast and became tributary to Norway during the thirteenth century, only to lapse once more in the 16th century. From 1380 until 1814 the Kingdoms of Denmark and Norway were united under the same crown. After the disappearance of the two colonial ettlements expeditions were made to. vVestern Greenland, but although Norway's claim was maintaineri verbally, DO permanent colonies were supported. These claims seem to have been generally recognised by neighouring states. The first perma nent colony to be established, however, was in 1721, by Hans Egede, a Norwegian, and it was succeeded during the eighteenth century, by other settlements along the West coast. Trading concessions and mono polies were granted and regulations were enacted, in terms which in general refer to 'Greenland' and not simply to the specific settlem ents~. In 1814, under Article 4 of the Treaty of Kid, Denmark was forced, to cede the Kingdom of Norway to Sweden, excluding, illl er alia, Greenland. 3. •. LL.B., LL.M.(NCU), LL.B.(Calltab.), Ph.D.(Edinburgb ) . Vi siting Associate Professor of Inter national Law, National Chengchi University. I) PCIJ Series A/B, No. 53, p.n. For discllssion, see Paul Knaplund, " The Dano-:\'orwegian Olnfliet over Greenland" , 19 AJIL (i925), p.374; Knud Berlin, Denmarks Right To Greenland, English tran s.by P.T. Federspiel (Oxford U. P., 1932), pp.1l·25, 151-60; Lawrence Preuss, "Th~ Dispute between Denmark and Norway oyer th" Sovereignty of East Greenland" , 26 AJIL (1 932), p.469; Charles Cheney Hyde, "The Case concerning the Legal Status of Eastern G reenland", 27 AJIL (1933), p.732; Manley O. Hudson, "The Eleventh Year of the Per manent Court of Interna tional Justice", ibid., p.27; idem, "The Twelfth yea r of th e Permanent Court of International Justice". 28 AJIL (1934), p. 4; idem, W orld Court Reports (Wash in!;· (on: Carnegie Endowm ent for International Peace, 1938), Vol. 3, p.148; Oscar Savarlien, The Eas/em Greenland Case in l-lislorical Pel'speclive, U niv . of fl orida :vlonographs, Social Sc ience No. 21 ( University of Florida Press, 1964). 2) PCIJ Series A / B, :\'0. 53, pp.27-30. 3) Ibid., pp. 30-3 1; se~ also 7 BFSP, p. 114.. -. 195 .

(2) GREENLAND Pr";~l !i'.;C, "I'lA/I;SVfFl<::E \\FRC4T()R TPAI{~Hr l.tNf JOI,",f~C r::-1 1(tHO A fS. T&.(£. 4b ~"'5 "!'" AND J 3~" , .t.,,~.;)~ GSH'E"" \\ ( .... CORf'f.SI'O,",O$ TO '''' [O:.. :"OR Qf HE QAO.NAq" ;:fASIO'i Of 'ERC'>'O.' () £0. ''''f.. H)\~ THE · I.AI~ ~,IlP ~Hf :;)C4lE . 1.0 1\. 0 THIS ':. ° j t l~ T' [~',,,,,,\'<!=" AS 1 nl EO :ro'~;~¥ ;,Si...ALE. uF 1ME ,~""'" ·~"'P. Scale 1'36.000.000. (J,,~. \; OI\k~;'VI'. , ' 1). I. I \. ,/ t. .. ------~~~~----~ --~~~~~~---~ ~----~--~ l.Dll~.luCl£ .. oJ SOURCE:. T he Daily Telegraph Atap of the lVOI·/d (London: Geographia).. It must be noted that the island of G eenland has a total area (J r 2.175,600 square kilometres, five sixths of which IS coverecl by perma nent 'Inland Ice': only the coastal strip IS free of permancnt icc. A small pro-. port iOIl of the western coast had been inhabited at an early date. 4 But the cast coast remained virtually inacces sible by land or sea until the expedi tions of the nineteenth century. It was only in 1900 that it was finally. 4) PCI] Serie5 A/ B, No. 53, p. 26. Sec lsi folgl",l, "Hom e Rule in Greenland 1979", 48 Nordisk Tidsskrift for lnternatiotlal Ret (1979), p.4; cf. The Greellland Home Rule Act, Act No. 577 (29 November 1978). ibi d., p.IO. SO'e [I.'lap abon-o. -. 196-.

(3) known that Greenland was in fact an island and that it was not connected by land to the North American Con tinent. The first landing on the eastern coast had been made by the Scottish whaler Scoresby in 1822, while the first settlement on the same coast was a Danish settlement at ATlgmagsslik (65 0 36'N) in 1894. In 1925 a Danish trading and mission station was established at Scoresby Sound, and Danish hunting compa!1ies were formed from 1919 onwards to hunt between Scoresby Sound and Germanishavn (77 0 North). O n the west coast the most northern ly Danish permanent settlements m ission and trading stations- -were at Thule and Cape York (also about 77 0 North ) . On the Norwegian side, expeditions were made during the summer to the east coast from 1889 onwards. From 1908, expeditions wintered there occasionally and subsequen tly a wire ess station was set up at Mygg-Bukts in 1922. Houses aud cabins were also built in the Norwegian area. 5 From 1915 onwards Denmark began to seek explicit recognition of her potential claims to the Eastern coast of Greenland--first from the United States in the context of the cession of the Danish Antilles, then in 1919 from Norway (in the context of Norwegian claims to Spitzbergen at the Vesailles Peace Conference) , in 1920 from the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Japan, and sub. sequently from Sweden and Norway. In one terminology or another, this recognition was given by all those asked, except Norway, which was primarily concerned with obtaining a ssurances for Norwegian hunting and fishing in terests on the East coast. Denmark was unwilling to g ive such assurances, and decided to rel y on a favourable verbal undertaking given by the Norwegian foreign minister in 1919. 6 O n 10th May 1921 a Denee was issued as follows: ... know all men that Danish T radi ng, M ission and H unting Stations have been est a blished on the East and West coasts of Greenla nd with the result that the whole of that coun tr y is henceforth linked up with D an ish colon ies and stations under the authority of eh Danish Ad m inistration of Grecn land.? Diplom at ic nego tiations between Denmark and Nor way over the suc ceeding years resulted in the signin of a Convention in 1924 to deal wirh the question of hunting and fish ing on the eastern coast of Greenland. Norway continued to pursue the view, however, that those parts of Green land which had not been occupied in such a manner as to bring them effectively under the administration of the Danish Government were in the condition of terrae nullius, and that if they ceased to be terrae !lullillS. 5) PCl] Series A/ B, No. 53, p p. 3 J· 38. 6) Ibid. 7) Tran slation from th e French l eXl supplied by the Dani sh (; r.l\"!"rn ment . ibid., p. 3.3.. - -- 197 .

(4) they. must. pass under orwe Ian It was decid d by Denmark to refer the question to he peI], and on 10th J ul y 1931 Norway issu d a R oyal Proclamat iun stat ing that. sovereignty over E irik Raudes Land'". sovere ignty. ~. The Dani sh assertion that th orwe ian 'oc u ation' wa s in ali rested upo three ases: l~ f. (l .l that D en l ark had enjoyed and. had peacefully nd continuously exercised an uncontested sover eignty over Greenla nd for a I ng time;. [t1he occupation of the country in Eastern Greenlan I between Carlsberg Fj ord on the sout and Bessel Fjord on the north, carried out on J un 27 th,1931 , is officially con lrmed, so far as concerns the t rri ory extend ing from latit ude 71 0 30 1 tll the la titude 75 0 40' T. , an said territory is place uncle; Norwegian sovereignty. (j This proclamation furtherm ore named persons to exercise police powers and the territory was denominated 'Eirik Raudes Land.'JO The question of sovereignty over this area was submitted to the PCI] t he following day. Denmark sought a declaration that this Proclaimation 'add any steps taken in this connection by the Norwegian Government con st itute a violation of the existing legal situation and are accordingly unlawful and invalid'. Norway, in reply, sought a declaration that 'Denmark has no sovereignty over Eirik Raudes Land' and that 'Norway has acquire the. ( 2) that Norway had recognised D anish sovereignty ver the ,hole of Greenland; ( 3) that, in any case, Norway wa estopped by quid pro quo, < promise (the 'Ihlen Declaration'lJ) given by the Norwegian foreign minister in 1919 to desert from occupying any territory in Green land. On the other hand, Norway con tended that Danish sovereignty in Greenland was restricted to the area~ uf its colonies, and that it did not therefore extend to the area thar Norway had occupied since 10th July 1931. 11 Furthermore, the attitude that Denmark had taken between 1915 and 1921 was inconsistent with its claim to pre-existing sovereignty over all Greenland, and consequently, Denmark was estopped from claiming that she possessed such a pre-existing. 8) Ibid., p.39. 9) The Royal Norwegian proclamation was translated by the Registry of tbe PCI] from tbe Freneh translation filed by tbe Nom'cgian Government. ibid., pp. 26, 43. to) Ibid., p. 43.. 1I) Ibid., p, 24, (2 ) Ibid., p. 44. [3) For Iblen D eclaration, ibid., pp. 36 el. seq. [4) Ibid., p. 44.. 198 .

(5) sovereignty.15 T he Court, however, accepted all the Danish Contentions and denied that, by her acti on, Denmark was estopped from claiming a historic sovereignty over all Greenland. Al though it is the 'Ihlen Declaration ' which subsequently aroused most attention, the decision on the first Danish contention was perhaps more controversial within the Court itself. Four out of fourteen judges found it necessary to state their disagreement on this point. T he reasoning behind the j udgment un this point therefore requires some explanation. n 14t h J uly 19 J 9 the Danish Minister to Oslo called on Mr. Ihlen, the Norwegian Foreign Minister, and assured him in conversation that, at a forthcoming conference, Denmark would raise no objections to the sovereignty over Spitzbergen. He hoped that Norway wou ld make no difficulty with regard to the D anish claim to Eastern Greenland. Mr. Ihlen replied that the question would be considered. On 22nd J uly 1919 Mr. Ihlen replied to the Danish M inister. that the Norwegian Government 'would nut make' ( 'ne fera pas') any diffi culties in the settlemen t of this question. Under this gentlemen's agreement, wh ich is known as the "Ihlen Decla ration", the Court concl uded that Norway would bc under an obligation to refra in from contesting Danish sovereignty over Greenland. tti It is extremely difficult to assess the true juridical character of the Ihlen decla ration. The conversation between Ihlen and the Danish Minister resulted in a bargain; the one prom ise was the consideration of qui pro quo for the other. But the Court evidentl y d id not regard the Ihlen declaration as belonging to the category of estoppel, though an English lawyer m ight do so. The Court held that: a reply of this nature given by the Minister for F oreign Affairs on behalf of his government in response to a request by the diplomatic representative of a foreign Power, in regard to a question fa lling within his province, is binding upon the country to which the Min ister. 15 ) Ibid., p. 45. For estoppel, see D. W. Bowett, "Estoppel before In terna tional Tribunals and Its R elation to Acquisition" , 33 BYIL (1957), p. 176; I. C. Ma cG ibbon, "Estoppel in International Law", 7 ICLQ (1958), p. 468; Antoine Martin, L'& toppel en droit international public (Pa ris; Editions A. Pedone, 1979); JJ.;; ~ t -t-:lf). ~ ~MY : r.tbl:.till gU~UllJ$iU~~fld. Cll&ii:i;!;:.rj!9L0etJtmlifi± GiiI;!( ,. 0. 16) Series A/13, No. 53, pp. 69·71.. In de Visscher's view the PCl] has misund erstood the Ihlen. declaration a nd the rea l point of the Dan ish-Norw egia n dec ision is a di stincti on drawn by t.he Court between an uncunditional,. dcfm itivc, prumi se made uui la lerally, which may be. binding, and a vague assurance of bcnevole nt support, wh ich is nOlo. Prablemes d' illterpretation jlldiciaire 1963).. /Ill. ~ec. C ha rles de Vissch e r,. droit illtematjollal public (Par i ~: l~di liollS A. Ped one,. -199 .

(6) belongs. 17 It concluded that a Minisler of Foreign Affa irs, ac ting within the scope of his Country by a declaration or statement made to the representa ti ve of a fore ign State. J udge Anz i lotti, in his disse nti ng opinion, thought it must be recognised that the Minister for Foreign A ffa irs- the direct agent of the chief of the state- wi th a uthority to make statements or current affairs to foreign diplomat ic representat ives, and in particular, to inf rm them as to the attitude which the government, in whose name he speaks, wi ll adopt is a given question can make decla rations of such a kind which are binding upon the state. He further add d that there was 'no rule of inter n tional law req uiring tha t greements of this kind m ust necessarily e in wri ting, in order to be val id'. ls Judge. Anzilotti then argued that what the Court shou ld ha e done was tu decide whether the Danish re uest of 1919 and the subsequent Ihl n declara tion co situted a v, lid agreement betw ell the two Governmcnts. If so, Norway would be debarred from occupying the terri tory in Eastern Greenland. ln Moreover, he d i cussed the question whether the validity of a declaration made by the Norwegian Foreign Minister could have been vitiated by a mistake (judge Anz ilotti fuund that there was no mistake at all ) as to t he consequences of the extension of Danish sovereignty: one can s arcel y bel ieve that a Government coul I be ignorant of the legitimate consequences follo\ ing upon an e tension of sovereignty.20 n the arguments of the Parties,. 17) PCIJ Seri es A l B, No. 53, p. 71. In State of Russia v. National City Balik of New York, th e United St a tes C ircuit Cou rt of App ea ls held thai th e minister for for eign a lfairs of a State has th e right to a li en a te Sta te propcrt y b y th e execution o f an a ssignment in his name. (19 34) 69 F. (2 d ) 44; In t he NIillquiers mzd Eaehos Ca se in which a lett er of li t h September 18 19, from the reneh iniste r of :vrarinc, toge ther w ith" cha rt , was tran smitted t o the French Foreign lVIi n ister on 12 th June 182 0, by th e Frcm:h Arn b asoad or. Th e le tt er CUll [a ined a rdercllce t u the " island of . .. the lVlinquic rs w hi ch a re in t he p ossession of England." Annexes t o U .K. M em orial C o. A25), Ie] P leadings, 1953, Vo!' 1, p. 174; Oll thi s point, Ju d ge Basdevaut ob se r ed : " If it is to b e ta kel literally, this refe rence would res olve th e m a nner in respect of th e M in quicrs. bllt it seems to m e that one cann ol a ttribute such authorit y to it . . . . It emana nted fr om a Milli . ter wit hout authority to m ake decisions pertai ning to questions of territorial sovereignty ." See Ie] Reports, 1953, p. 80. 18) Di ssenting op ini on of J udge . nzilotti, P ClJ Se r ies A l B No. 53, p. 9 1. In t he Islalld of Lamu Arbitration wh ere the G erm a n cl a ims to the island wa s rejected, intel' alia, b y the fact that th e verba l a greem ent by which it was all eged to h a ve bee n granted the island was in an iuadequa tc form . j.n. O\100ft:, Intemational /J.rbitratioil, V ol. 5, p. 4940. 1<) ) PCI] Series A l B, No. 53, p. 76. 20 ) [bid., p. 92. In th e Nllclcar Te,\t s Case,·, the IeJ helll th a t ' d ed<l l'atiulls made by w ay uf unila tera l ac ts, ('DIlLl' l'Ilin g leg-a 1 or fac tu a l s ilu a tions, l11ay have the effec t of crea ting legal ubliga liolls .. w hell il: is th e illte nli 'lll of tlIe S ta te m a king IIII.' d ecl a ra tion that it shuuld [,eco lllc bound according to its te llns'. See IC~r Reports, 1974, pp. 25 3, '+5 7. For di scussion, Se C A lfred P . Rubin, "The I ntern ati on a l Lega l Elrec ts of Unilatera l Dc la ra tions", 71 A]IL 1<)77 ), p. 1.. - 200 .

(7) the date at which the Norwegian occupation took place, 10th JuJ y 1931, was the 'critical date'21 for the estab lishment of Danish sovereignt y. The basis of this claim to sover eignty was not put forward by Denmark, nor by the Court in terms of 'occupation' or 'prescription'. In fluenced by the I,imld of Palmas ilrbitration of 1928/ 2 Denmark's claim was 'founded on the peaceful and continuous display of State authority over the island.' The Court defi ned very broadly the basic requirements for the establishment of such a title: there m ust be the intcntion and will to act as sovercign, and some actual exercise or d isplay of such authority (although vcry little ac tual exercise of author ity was necessary, especia lly in thinly populated or unsettled areas) ; and there must be no competi ng or stronger claim to sovereigntv. It is noteworthy that the Court. seemed to base its reasoning on Savigny's theory of possession. Ac-. cording to Savigny, possession consists in two elements of ph ysical control (corpus) , and intention to possess ( animus j)ossidendi) ; but the latter is not merely an intention to exclude others; it is an intention to hold as owner (anim.us dOlJlilli). 23 T hus tbe Court said: ... a claim to sovereignty based not upon some particular act or tit le such as a trea ty of cession but merely upon con tinued d isplay of a uthority, involves two elemen ts each of which must be shown to exist: the intention and will to act as sovereign, and some actual cJ:c7'cis c. or. display. of. slich. allthor it y. ~.\. In deciding between tWI) compet ing claims to territory, each coun try's claim should be considered as a whole, and the decision should be in favour of the COWl try whose claim is the stronger. 2 5 In accordance with this approach, the Court stated that up. 21) The technical learning about the "critical date" (i.e. , the d a te by reference to which a territorial dispute must be deem ed to have cr)'stailised .) is im port ant in territorial di sputes it has become i ncreasingl y important since th e a rg ument s be fo re the IeJ in the Mitlq1lier~ and Ecrehos Case (IC] R eports, 1953, p.47) made i t inev ita ble t hat in u le Argelltine-Clu/e Boundary A"bitratio1f ( X VI R I AA, p. 11 5) and in the R ami of Kutch A rbitl'ation (50 IL R, p. 2) the respectiv e Par ties endeav oured to raise arguments concerni ng t he cr itical d ate. For discussion, sec L. F.E. Goldie, " The Critical Dat e", 12 ICLQ (1963), p. 1251. 22) Isla1ld of Palmas Arbitration, II RIAA, p. 829. 23) V01l Savigny's Treatise on Possession, 6th ed . Translated from the German, by Sir Erskine Perry ( Loudon: S. Sweet, 1848), pp. 71-73. 24) PClj Series A / B, No. 53, p p. 45-46 [ Ita lics added ). This is t he requirem ent of action animus occupandi; Lut there must be ~ omc physical act coupled with it, i.e. th e allimus. 25) I bid., p. 46. What is of decisive impor tance, in th e upinion of the Ie,} in the Mlllqr4iers and E crelws Ca se, i.< not in d irect presumptiolls deduced from eV(,llts in the l'vliddl c Ages, but the 'v id e nce which relat!:' s d irectl y to the possessi on of the :berchos an d M inq uiers g rou ps. Sec 1('' j R eports, 19,)3, p. 57. Cf. Western Sahara Case, Ie] Reports, 1975, p. 43. para. 93; J. K. T . Cha o, "'fil e Wes ten.! Sa hara (A dvisor)' Opin ion) Casc", IXXI)T1B4'q.t:"\ri3cti-.; ( ~f:\~ I ~j (;i~Jii'i ) J C ~ .l t: ~U1 1131 ;m ~J .%1'1 , r\irn-l.;--j ·...::q-WllU) , pp. 159- 74.. - 201 . •.

(8) to 1931 there waS no claim by any Power other then Denmark to the sovereignt y over reenland. Indeed, up till 1921, no P wer disputed the Danish claim to sovereignty. There fme it is impossible for the Court to read the records of the de isions in cases relating to territorial sovereignty without observing that in many ca es the tribunal has been satisfied with very little in the way of he actual exercise of s v reign rights, prov ided that the other state could not make out a superior claim. Thi is particu larly true in the case of claims to sovereignty over areas in thinly popu lated or unsettled countrie .. 2U It seems that the Court was very much in.flu enced by the two relatively recent awards on sovereignty over islands, the bland of Palmas and the ClijJpertott 1s!alld ~ 7 arbi trations. O ne of the di ffi culties of the Court's decision on this point, and the one \ h ich was learl y felt by four of the judges, was hether concepts dra wn from two awards relating to r lativel y small islands were applicabl e in all aspects to a big island. The Court's discussion of the evidence for the Danish intention and will to act as sovereign, and ... actual exercise or display of such authority' shows a la ck of consideration of the relative sea l of th dispropor tion between the size of the landmass and the e iguous display of authority.. eferring to the claims and rights the K ings of Norway d uring the thirt enth and four teenth centur ies which deriv d from the tributary re ationshi of the settlements of Eystri bygd a nd Vestribygd (in the south west of the island), the Court said:. oj'. So far as it is possible to apply modern terminology to the r ights and pretensions of the ings of Norway in Greenland in the XIII and XIV centuries, the Court holds that at that date these rights amounted to sov r eignty and that they w re not limited to the tw o settlements. 28 T he Court did 110t therefore giv e any indica tion of how r r the settlements should be regarded a ' under Norwegian sovereignty at that clate.. It had been contended on behalf uf Norway that with the disappearance of the two nordic settlements of Eystribygd and Vestribygd during the 14th century, Norwegian sovereignty was lost and the whole of Greenland r C crted to terra llullius. 29 Legal bases suggested for this view were eIther 'conquest' or 'voluntary abandon ment '. he Court's attitude to this question was ambivalent. On one hand, the Court held that sovereignty had been lost neither by conquest nor by voluntary abandonment. There. 26) PClj Series A/ B, No , 53, p. 46. Cf. the dictum ill the Islmllt of Palmas Arbitration where the Arbitra tor hel d t ha t' ovcreignt ' (;;J unul be exercised ill fact at ev c!'), IllOlll Cllt Ull every puint of a terri lor y . .. ' 11 R IAA p. 829. 27 ) Clippertoll Islalld Arbitration (19 31), 11 IUAA, p. 11 U5 . 28) P IJ Seri c.1 A/ B, No. 53, p . 46.. 29 ) Ibid.. - 202.

(9) was no evidence of the latter, nor indeed of the form er; and the Court found it difficult to apply the inter national legal concept of 'conquest' to a possible destruct ion of' the set tle mCII ts of indigenous Eskimos. The word "conquest" is not an appropriate phrase . .. COliqu~st only operates as a cause of loss of' sovereignty when there is a war between two States and by reason of the defeat of one of them sovereignty over terri tory passes from the loser to the victorious State. The princi ple does not apply in a case where settlement has been established in a distant country and its inhabitan ts are massa cred by the abori ginal popu. E ven admitt ing that an a ncient sovereignty is not forfeited by derel iction, unless the animus is abandoned as well as the corpus jJossessiollis, it must be conceded tha t the sovereignty could not be still in being some centuries after the extermination of th,. ancient lonies and the cessa tion of communications. 32. The question reall y is one of termi nology: 'conquest' and 'derelict ion' may seem inappropriate terms to apply to a particular set of facts, but nevertheless the concept of 'sover eignty ' cannot realistically be divorced from some form of administration. When adm inistration ceases, clearly sovereignty must eventually lost. T h recise terminology used to describe lation. ~o this loss is therefore of secondary importance. In this case, the Court Although the term 'conquest' is inap seemed unclear as to whether, in its propriate in such a situation, yet the view, sovereignty had been lost or not. destruction of a settlement cannot fail to have an effect on tide. If With respect to general claims nothing else, where title, is rooted in to 'Greenland' made during the period suzerainty over persons, the disap between the disa ppea rance of the first pearance of those persons is in effect colon ies and the founding of Hans a loss of the subjects over whom Egede's colonies in 1721, the Court sovereignty is exercised and explicit said: "abandonment" is in such a case irrelevant. Tn respect to volul1tray T hat the King's claims amount abandonment, the Court held tha t ed merely to pretensions is clear, there was nothing to show a ny de fin ite for he had no permanent contact renunciation on the part of the King. wit h the country, he was ex of Norway or Denmark. a! As Judge erCIsmg no authority there. ad hoc Vogt observed: T he clai ms, however, were no 30 ) Ibid., p. 47.. 31) Ibid.. 32) Ibid., p. 105.. -203.

(10) disputed, No other Power was putting forward any claim to terri tor ial sover ignty in Green land , and in the absenc of any competing cl im the King's prete nsions to be the sovereign of Greenland subsisted. 33. the extent of th isle nd, a nd even the fact that it w s an island was unkn wn. The Court n vertheless relied 0 legisla ti n in general terms referring Lo 'Gr ' cnla nd' as evidence of an exercise of sovcrcignty beyond the s ttlements:. The Court referred to ' pretension ' to sovereignty 0 er Greeruancl as subsist ing/I and not to 'sov reignty' in so many words. Yet it also emphasised hat these pre tensions were 'not dis puted' and that there was no compet ing claim. T h is appar ntly echoes the earlier observa tion on the slender requirements of exercise of so ereignty over simi lar territories. The necessary implication seems to be that animus without cor/'1Is was regarded as suffi cient to ma intain so vereignty in such special cases.. L gislation is one of the most obvi ous form s of the excrcise of overeign power, and it is clear that the operation of these enactments was not restricted to the limits of the colonies. It therefore follows that the sovereign rights in virtue of which the enactments were issued cannot have been re stricted to the limits of the colonies.:1s. Unti l the period etwcen 172 1 and 1814 the establishment of coloni afforded a clea r 'manifestation and ercise . f sovereign rights' which together with the pre-existing animus made up the corpus and animus of vereignty nee more. However, the problem remained as wheLh r th i meant sovereignty over the whole of Greenland. The situation, as in the earli est peri d , was tha t the actual settlements were in a relatively small part of South-West Greenland. The Eastern coast was still unexplored,. A fu rther aspec t of interest. is to compare th is view wi th that of the IC] in the j\1ill(jlliers and Ecrehos Case where the · Court beld that the legis lative act was a clear manifestation of British sovereignty over the Ecrehos at a time when dispute over such sovereign ty had not yet arisen. 3u The judgment of tbe PCI] throws some light upon the nature of the acts required to show a continuous exercise of soy r.... ignty. But again it offered no explicit conclusion as to how far these 'sovereign rights' did extend merely concluding that. 33) Ibid., p. 48.. 34) The Court also noted that 'as there wert: at this date no oloni es or settlements in Greenland, the King's cla im ('an not have been limited to any particular places in the country'. ibid.,. p p. 47-48. 35) Ibid., p. 48. 36) Te] Reports, 1953, p. 66.. -204 .

(11) beaTing in m ind the absence of any claim to sovereign ty by another Power, and the Arctic and inacessible character of the uncolonised parts of the country, the King of D enmark ilnd Norway disp layed during the period from the founding of the colonies by Hans Eged in 1721 up to 1814 his a uthor ity to an extent suJfi cient to give his count.'y a va lid claim to sovereignty, and his rights over Greenland were not limited to the colonised area. 37 Although the Court rejected the Norwegian contention that legislative act regarding "Greenland" related only to the colonised area, and certain ly not to the East coast, it was careful not to state that Danish /Norwegian sovereignty over the whole of wha t is now known as a "Greenland" was to be implied by them. Here again the Court's approach is a mbivalent. This is not surprising in view of the indeterminate concept of "Greenland" before its coasts had been thoroughly explored. Even if the intentiol1 had been present to exercise sovereignty over the who le of the area, there was an obvious disproportion between C01"jlIlS and animus. Judges Schi.icking and Wang adm itted tha t there were historic Danish cla ims which had been put. forwa rd by Denmark in earlier cen tur ies, and had not been seriousl y disputed by other states. But the exact significance of the documents which should demonstrate the exercise of this sovereignty remains somew hat uncerta in. Because the documents in ques tion arc legislative acts, the effec tive appl ication of which, elsewhere than on the western coast- tbough it would ha ve been an indispensable requirement under the international law even of that period-has no t been sufficiently establ ished. Even if a ll the ciJ"cumstances, taken together, conferred a presumpt ive title upon Den mark, the history of the diplo matic overtmes undertaken by D enmark be tween 1915 and 1921 in order to obtain recog ni tion of her sovereignty over the whole of Green land, proves ... that, at that time, Denmark herself did not maintain towards the other interested P owers the theory of an already existing D anish sovere ignty over the whole coun try. 1b In dealing with the controversy over the question of the interpretation of the term "Greenland", the Court started from the proposition that the. 37) PCU Series A/ B, No. 53, pp. 50-51. 38) J udges Schucking and Wa ng expressed their view that Denm a rk wa s desi rous of extending her sovereignty to the whol e of G r ee nland, with the assen t o f th e Sta tes ch iefl y intererted; and that the N orwegian occupati on is unlawful and invali ed. Observ at ion b y W. Sch uck ing and Chung-Btl i Wang. ibid., p . 96. See inf,.a., n. 54.. - 205.

(12) expression "Greenland" used by th . contracting Parties referred t the geographica l meani ng of the t rm shown in the maps, it added that these facts did not exclude that pos sibility that the expressi n was, how ever, used in some special sense. The Court, n verthcless, observed tha t this is a point concerning the burden of pro f lies on Norway. T he geogra phical, meaning 0 the word " Green land" i.e. the name \ hich is habituall y seen on m aps assigned to the whole island, must be regarded as the ordinary meaning of th lord. If it is a lleged by one of the parties that some unusual or exceptional meaning is to be a ttri buted to it it lies with that party to establish it cont ntion. Norway had not succeeded in e tablishing her con tention. It was not sufficient for her to show the t in many of these legis lative and adm inistrative acts, ac tion was only to be taken in the colonies. Most of them dealt with matters which only arose in the colonies and not in the rest of the country. The fact that most of these acts were concerned with what happened in the colonies and that the col nies were all situat d on the West coast, is not by itself suffici ent ground for holdin that the authority by virtue of whi ch the act was taken, whether legislative or administrative, was also restricted to the coloni sed area. Unless it was so restricted it afforded no ground. for int rprct ing th \ arid " Greenlan " this restricted sense. 3U. In. Norway argued that in th Iegis lativ an administrative act of the eighteenth century on which D enm rk r lied a PI' f of the sovereignty, the wor "Greenland" waS no l used in th geogral hical sense, but meant only th e colonies r the colonised area on the West oast. II It had been argu .d on b hal of Norway t hat "Greenland" a u cd in docum nts of this eriod could not have been intended to include the East coast ecause at the time the East coast was unknown. On this point, the Court was of the opinion that the general fe atures and configu ration of t he East coast were kn wn to cartographers i the sevent eth and eigbteetb centuries, the land was ighted by whalers and it was generally known as "Greenland":1. r. Yet the burden of proof migh t perhaps eq a lly well have fallen the other way. It might, for example, have been said that, by the inter te mp ral pri nc iple, that the term 'Greenland' should be interpreted in the context of the geographical notions of the time that the exploration and settlement of the area bad b en made. Since Greenland was not then known to be an island, it could not be thought of as a defi nit.... unity. The term used in legislation must norma lJ y. 39) Ibid., pp. 49, 52. For "Clear Meanin g", see Yi-ting Chang. The Interpretation of Treatit's by Judicial Tribunals ( New York: Columbia V.P. 1933), Ch. II, pp. 22-60. 40) PCI] Series AjBI No. 53, p. 49.. 41) Ibid., p. 50.. - 206.

(13) be interpreted as referring only to the' explored and settled area and perhaps to a reasonable "hinterland": wrj'lI,l :lnd {[l/illlllS should II)('n he presumed to kcep in step. As for the period from 1814 to 1915, the Court's concl usion wa unambiguous: ... Denmark must be regarded as having displayed during this period ... her authority over the uncolonised part of the country to a degree sufficient to confer a valid title to the sovereignty.42 The Court based this conclusion on a concession granted in 1863 to an Englishman, AJ. Tayler, which gave him exclusive rights to establish stations on the East coast for trading, hunting, mining etc., which contained the provision that any such station was to be placed 'under the sover eignty of the Danish Crown'. No such stations were in fac t established. It had been argued by Norway that this very provision was evidence that the D anish Government did not con sider that Danish sovereignty extended to the East coast of Greenland, and the anxiety publicly expressed by Danish citizens at this time on this account had also been emphasised. As to this, the Court explained: T a yler was an Englishman. T he D anish Government were aware that people in Denmark 42) lbid., p. 54.. 43) lbid., p. 53.. - 207 . ... had been a fraid that foreign Powers would attempt to make settlements 011 the East coast, and Article 2 [of the concession J was intended to make sure that the settlements esta blished by T a yler should not be made the basis of a claim of occu pation and sovereignty by the Ki ng of England. 4B Th is was indeed very likely the cxplanation. Yet it implies the view that previously, at least, occupation by Denmark had been insufficient to support title to the East coast, and that a 'claim of occupation and sover eignty' might well have been made by another Power whose nationals succeeded in found ing settlements there. It is difficul t to see how a 'concession' which existed merely on paper and was never carried out, could affect this position. Moreover, 'manifestations of the exercise of sovereign authority' were concessions which had been granted for the erec tion of telegraph lines. T he conces sions provided for 'a survey for a telegraph-line across Greenland from the eastern to the western coast' and were abortive- a decree of 1905 which fixed the limits of territorial water round Greenland, reserved fishing rights to Danjsh subjects in a three mile zone. Additional support for the Danish claim was fou nd in the legis lation [which] she bad enac ted applicable to Greenland.

(14) g ner< ll y, th umerous trea ti s in wh ic h Denmark, ith the concurrence of the other con tracting Party, provided for the non-application of the treaty to Greenland in general, and the absence of all clai m to sovereignty ver Greenland b any ot her Pow r ... 4 1 The effe ct of all the doc um ents connected wi th he gr t f)f the concession is to show that the K ing of Denmark was in a position to grant a valid monopoly on the East coast because his sovereign rights entitled him to do so, and that the conces sionaires in England regarded the grant of monopoly as essential to the success of their projects and had no doubt as to the validity of the righ ts conferred. 45 In thi connection, one cannot avoid the conclusion that this evidence is of a negative character: a couple of abortive concessions, legislation which never applied outside the South-West coast settlements, provisions for the 'non-application' of bilateral commercial treaties to Green land, and the 'absence' of competing claims. In the p riod 1921 to 1931 th re was greater Danish legislative activity with regard to the East coast, viz.: the Decree of 10th M ay 1921, the Decree of 16th June closi g the seas around Greenland t navigation, the legislation of 1925 on hUI ting and 44) Ibid., p. 54.. 45) Ibid. , p. 53.. 46) Ibid., pp. 2-63.. ·- 208 . fish ing, and a 1< dividing the ad miss ion of French and British na tionals to the position of most-favoured-na tionals in Eastern Greenland. The Court said : These acts, coupled with the acti it ies of the Danish hunting expeditions which were support ed by the Danish overnm nt, the increase in the numb r of scienti fic expeditions engaged in mapping and exploring the country with the authorizati and encouragement of the Gov ernment, even though the ex peditions may have been organ ized by non-official insitutions, the occasions on which the Godthaab. a vessel belonging to the State and place at one time under the command of a naval officer, was sent to the East coast on inspection duty, the issue of permits by the Danish authorities, under regu lations issued in 1930, to persons by the Danish the eastern coast of Greenland, show to a suffi cient extent--even when separ ated from the history of the preceding periods- the two ele ments necessary to establish a valid title to sovereignty, name ly: the intention and will to exercise such sovereignty and the manifestation of State activity.4G.

(15) wegian origin, had founded at the end of the Xth century in South-West Greenland and which, at fi rst independent, did homage to the King of Norway in 1261 and became tributary to tbe Kingdom of Norway. T his species of sllzerainty fitted in witb the notion of an ex clusive dom inion of the Kings f Norway over the seas and lands of the North and offorded the basis for a claim which was nei ther limited to the terr itory occupied by the tribu tary State nor subject to the condition that State should continue to exis t. 4D. Thus, the requisity display of authority was seen in a 'manifestation of state activity' that d iel n0t in fact embrac the exercise of adm in istrative control, hut expressed itself in large part through bare assertions of state interest in an unoccupied area. Whatever doubts the Court had about the pre ceding periods, they were at least satisfied that during the ten years preceding the 'critic'll date', Denmark regarded herself as possessing sover eignty over all Greenland and displayed and exercised her sovereign rights to an extent sufficient to constitute a valid title to sovereignty over all GreenlancL 47 Judge Anzilotti, however, regarded the historic Danish claim to Green land as an example of the extensive claims to land and maritime areas which fell into desuetude, to be replaced by colonisation and 'effective occupation'. This was an ancient claim to sovereignty over the country known as Greenland, a claim uncon nected either with the extent of the colonisation of the country, or even with a more or less accurate geogra phical demarcation thereof. 4B It is agreed that the origin of this claim resides in the authori ty which the ancient kings of Norwa y had acquired over the political organization which inhabitants of' Iceland, of Nor. As a result, Judge Anzilotti regarded the ev idence relating to a continued animus possidendi after the disappearance of these settlements as: at bottom, nothing else than the old elaim on the basis of which, first the Kings of Den mark and Norway and late the Kings of Denmark, did not hesitate to act as sovereigns of Greenland when opportunity ffered itself. 50 But granted the existence of a ela1im, the problem of its exercise still remained. Here Anzi lotti em phasised the disproportion betwecJ the claim to sovereignty over all Greenland and the effective exercise. 47) Ibid., p. 63.. In determining the degree of effectiveness of occu pation necessary to confer sovereignty, regard mu st be considered to the extent of competing claims of other States. 48) Dissenting O pinion of D. Anziio tli, ibid., p. 82.. 49) Ibid., p. 64. 50) Ibid., p. 83.. -209.

(16) o ' th at sover ignty.,·1 Anzilotti on cec ed that Danish legislation had not been passed, nor had it been li mited in its scope to the colonised parts of Greenland, and that treaties with foreign states bore sim ilar ev idence of claims to sovereignt y over the whole of Grcen la n L H I . rvcd, ho wevcr:. it exerci e'. But in Anzi ) tt i's vIew such a title had lapsed before tbe ighteenth century:. Historic claims to dominion over whole regions- claims which had, formerly, played an important part in the allocation of territorial sover ignty- lost weight a nd weI' graduall y a ba ndoned even by the States which had relied upon them. International law established an even closer connection be tween the existence of sover eignty and the effective exercise thereof, and States successfully disputed any claim not accom panied by such exercise.. It is undenia Ie and it has not been denied-and that in my view is the essential point- t hat in this respect there was a profound di fference ,between the colonised regions of Greenland and the remainder thereof; for, whereas in the colonies there was a r gular administration a nd a judicial organisation, in the remainder of Greenland these were perhap la ws in force but no authority to en force them: in fact- and this is a circumstance as exceptional as it is sign ifi cant- no officials had even been appointed com petent to dec ide disputes or to apply and ensure respect for the law. 52. Furthermore, the natural con ditions prevailing in Greenland and their importance changed appreciably as a result of technical improvements in navi gation which opened up to human actIvItIes a part of that country, especially the East coast, which previously, although known, had been practica lly inacessible.;;3. It has been shown that " Green land" is a geographical area as denoted on maps unless proved otherwise by Norway. This disproportion was not of significance so long as 'the title to sovereign ty exist d independently of. Thus, apparently, in Anzilotti's view Greenland in 172J was a terra nullius, and acts of occupation subsequent to that date must be judged according to contemporary requirements of in ternational law. This view was also. 51) Ibid. 52) Ibid. In a fundam enta l sense states enjoy an exclu~i v e authority in th is connection, as Savigny pointed out in the followi ng brief pair of propositions: first, every state is entitled to demand tha t its own Jaws only shall be recogni sed within its bounds; second, no state can require the re og nition of its Jaws beyond its bounds. Friedrich Carl von Sa vigny, Private Internationnl Law, T ra ns. by W. Guth rie (Edinburgh, 1869), p. 26. 53) PCIj cries A/B, No. 53, p. 84. - 2 10 ~.

(17) shared by Judges Schiicking and Wang"4 and Judge ad hoc VogL OO It must be concl uded for. the decision and reasoning, in the case, that the principles of recognition of territorial claims and estoppel in particular, merit further attention. Let us now examine them as follows: 1. R e cogni tion. The pliability of recognition as a general device of international law makes recognition an eminently suita ble means for the purpose of estab lishing the validity of a territorial title in relation to other states. 5'0 The concept of recognition played a part in this case in two ways: first, the effect of recognition of Danish sovereignty over Greenland by third states was considered, both in the form of incidential 'recognition' in treaties dealing with other matters and in the more direct form of responses to the explicit request for recognition made by Denmark between 1915 and 1921; second, the effect of recogn ition by Norway of Denmark's claims to the whol e area of Greenland was also considered. O n reading the judgment of the Court it is d ifficult to escape the conciusion that recognit ion of Danish. sovereignty by the major Powers pIa yed a considerable part in the decision which the Court reached. The majority of the interested States such as France, J apan, Italy, Great Britain and Sweden show that they agreed to recognise that the Danish sovereignty extended to the whole of Greenland. 07 The fact of such recogni tion, together with its concomitant that no other claim to Greenland had been made before that of Norway in 1931, was repeatedly emphasised by the Court. Perhaps because there is no easy category of international law which gives such recognition relevance, the Court rarely explicitly stated the rclevance of this evidence, alld to what extent it was effective against Norway. Logica lly, even if acc umlate recognitions were not regarded as a mode of conferring ti tle by the inter national community and ipso Jacto opposable to even non-recogJ1lsmg states, they still could not be dismissed as wholl y irrelevant to any dispute ovcr sovereignty. If it does Dot confer title, recognition affords at least in direct or circumstantial evidence of a situation of fa ct, i.e. that a parti cular state is, because it is regarded by other states as administering, in fac t administering a certain territory. It is not evidence of' sovereignty, but. 54) Observations by W. Schucking and Chung-Hui W an g, ibid. p. 96. See SUP1'll. n. 38. 55) Dissenting Opinion by B. Vogt, ibid., pp. 104 et.seq. an d p. 123.. <; 6) J udge Hsu Mo's separa te opinion in the Anglo-Norwegian Fisheries Case, IC] Repurts, 1951,. p. 157. Cf. Judge McNa ir'S d issenting opinion, ibid., p. 184. Sec a lso JuJ ge Levi Carneiro's iudivitlual opinion in the Minquier and Ecrehos Case, IC] Rep orts, 1953, pp. 104-5. J I) c .!;" the h'ene}, r eply on 3ist March 1920, th e Japa nese repl y on 24 th J une 1920, th e Italian reply on 29th June 1920, the British reply on 6th December 192 0, a nd the Swed ish reply on 28t h J a nua ry [921. Sec PCIJ Series Al B No, 53, pp. 58-60; see al so Ju dge Am iloUi's dissen ting opinion. ibid. , pp. 68·12.. -211.

(18) evidence of the e:rerClse of saver i rrn rights. On the nagative side, it also no doubt estops, at least in certain circumstance, the recognising state from itself laying claim to the ad ministion of the same territory. Also, it affords evidence that the state which is 'recognised' does claim sovereignty over the area in question. With respect to a series of com mercial conventions concluded by Denmark which contained stipulations to the effect that they should not apply to Greenland, the Court said : The importance of these treaties is that they show willingness on the part of the States with which Denm rk has contracted to admit her r ight to exclude Greenland ... T he importance of these conventions .. . is due to the support which they lend to the Danish arguement that D en mark possesses sovereignty over Greenland as a whole [and] to the extent tha t these treaties constitute evidence of recognition of her sovereignty over Greenland I!1 general Denmark is entitled to rely upon them.58. But the Court did /lot st te what impact such recognition has on the Jegal problem of title. Similarly, in consider ing the Danish requests for recognition of sovereignty over Green land from 1915 to 1921, the Court, although emphasising that such re cognition was granted by all those states of which it was requested ex cept Norway, nevertheless treated these declarations in the context of estoppel only: as evidence, that is, of Denmark's claims and representations. 2. Estoppel. When an estoppel btnds a sta te to an international litiga tion it is prevented from placing reliance on or denying the existence of certa in Although recogni tion and facts. estoppel are technicall y distinct COIl cepts, they inevitably become confused in pract ical usc. In theory either recognition is 'constitutive' or 'decla ratory': 5~ in territorial disputes it may t hen be regarded as constitutive of title or declaratory of a pre-existing title. It may be thought of as un ambiguously constitutive 111 a case, for example, where sovereignty over a certain territory is recognised in a treaty of cession; or as purely decla. 58) PCl] Series AlB No, 53, pp. 51 -52. 59) For detai ls, see Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, Recognition ill International Law (Cambridge U.P., 1947) ; L. Oppenheim International Law, Vol. 1, 8th ed. Edited by H. Lauterpacht (London: Longman, 1961), p. 124; D.P. O'Connell, International Law, Vol. I, 2nd ed. (London: Stevens and Sons, 1970), p. 127; H . Blix, "Contemporary Aspects of Recog nition", 130 Recueil de COIlYS (1970-11), pp. 587-704; L.L. Kato, "Recognition in International Law, Some Thoughts on Traditional Theory, Attitudes of and Practice by African Stat es", 10 Illdian JIL (1970), pp. 299-323; Ian Brownlie, Pri,lcipl.es of Public b,ternatiollal La'w, 2nd cd. (Oxford: C larendon, 19(9), p. 89; D.W. Greig, It/temalional Lmv, 2nd ed. (London; Butterworths, 197(,), p. [20; James Crawford, "The Criteria for Statehood in International Law", 48 BYIL (1976- 1977), p. 93. C.R. Symmons, "United Kingdom Abolition of the Doctrine of Recognition of Govelll ments; A R ose by Another Nam e?", Public Law (1981), p. 249.. -·212 .

(19) ratory where the pre-existing situation, or the situation which might be created by the act of 'recognition', is unlikely to be una mbiguous. In the context of any individual disputes 'recognition' is perhaps best regarded not as having of itself substantive legal consequences but as evidence of a factual situation or as creating an estoppel. In this case, one of the peculiar features was that until 1931 there was no claim by a ny Sta te other than Denmar k to sovere ignty over Green land. Indeed, lip to 1921, no State had ever dispu ted the Danish claim to sovere ignty.6o Moreover, the Court considered the various acts of the Norwegian Government as 'under takings which recogni sed Danish sover eignty o ver all Greenland'. These were, first, the 'Holst D eclara tion' formally made by the M inister for Foreign Affairs of Sweden and Norway shortly after the cession of Norway to Sweden under the Treaty of Kiel, abandoning Norwegian claims to Greenland in favour of Denmark;61 second, a number of bilat eral and multilateral agreements in which Greenland is described as a 'colony'. or a ' part' of Denmark;G2 and third, the 'Ihlen Decl aration' of 22nd July 1919 63 was binding on Norway and barred ~ subsequent Norwegian atti tude contrary to its notified intent. From the Ihlen Declaration, the Court reached the conclusion that Norway had debarred herself ( or was 'under an obligat ion to refra in ') from con testing a historic Danish sovereignty extending over the whole of Green land. G4 In these circums tances, there can be no ground for holding that, by the attitude wh ich the Dan ish G overnment adopt ed, it admitted that it possessed no sovereignty over the un colon ised pa r t of G reenland, nor fo r holding that it is estojJPed from claim ing ... that D enmark possesses an old es ta blished sovereignty over a ll Greenland. 63 The applicatioll of the prin ciple of estoppel, in th is case, is not necessarily conclusive as regards the facts ad mitted. Its force m ay vary accord ing to the circumstance. Similarly in the A uglo -Norwegian Fisheries Case, the ICJ considered that the 'prolonged. 60 ) PCI] Serics A/ B, No. 53, p. 46. 61) Ibid., pp. 64-66. The Convention of 1st September 181 9, signed by the King of Sweden and ~orw ay in hi s capacity as King of Norway and the King of D en m ark, stated that 'ev ery· thing in connection with the T rea ty of K id' of 1814, which i7ller alia reserved Greenland to Denmark, ' wa s to be rega rd ed as settled'. ibid., pp. 66-68. ()~) Ibid., pp. 68-69. For disc uss ion, sec Bowel!, op. C£t., 33 B Y/ L ( 1957), pp. 182, J8 5; l\'1ac (;;bb01l, op. cit., ., /CLQ (1958), p. 468; Martin, lac. cil. (3) PCT] Seri ps A/ B No. 53. p. 36 .. 64) Ibid., pp. 68-69.. 65) Ibid., p. 62 [ I talies added ,.. ·- 213 .

(20) abstention' of the United K ingdom from protesting aga inst the Norwegian system of straight baselines in deli miting territorial waters was one of. the factors which, together with the general toleration of the interna tional com munity, estojJPed the United Kingdom's action. 6G. 66) Anglo-Norwegian Fisherie, Case, IC] Reports, 1951, p. 116, at p. 138. Cf. the lVIinquiers and EcrellOs Case, IC] R eports, 1953, p. 71. Bowett, op. cit., 33 BYIL (1957), pp. 196-97. Temple of Preah ViheaT Case, IC] Reports, 1962, pp. 21-24. See also Bin Cheng, General Principles of Law as applied by International Courts and Tribunal (London: Stevens & Sons, 1953), pp. 146-147.. - 214.

(21)