Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania (Second Phase)
International Court of Justice
1950 I.C.J. Rep. 221 (July 18)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
After World War II, the Allied Powers signed peace treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania. These peace treaties required Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania to secure the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all people under their national jurisdiction and provided clauses for settling disputes. The dispute-settlement clauses provided that if two parties to the treaty could not settle a dispute within two months, the dispute would be referred to a commission composed of one representative from each party and a third member selected by agreement of both parties. The treaties further stated that if the two parties failed to agree to the appointment of the third representative, either party could ask the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint the third representative. The United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania violated these peace treaties and sought to settle the dispute with a commission. The United Nations General Assembly concluded that Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania were obligated to appoint a national representative. Bulgaria, Hungary, and Romania, however, each refused to propose a representative. The General Assembly then sought an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice to consider whether the Secretary-General could appoint a third representative to the commission.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.