1 1958 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 285–288.

2 40 Dept. of State Bulletin 115, at 117–118 (1959).

3 Statement made before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Jan. 14, 1959. Ibid. 151, at 153.

4 Address before the New York State Bar Association, Jan. 31, 1959. Ibid. 255, at 259.

5 Address before the American Academy of Political and Social Science, April 13, 1959. New York Times, April 14, 1959, p. 20.

6 To this group belong the following states: Belgium, China, Colombia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Finland, Haiti, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, The Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey and Uruguay.

7 35 Dept. of State Bulletin 743, at 745 (1956).

8 See, e.g., Art. 25 of the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation between the United States and The Netherlands of March 27, 1956, U. S. Treaties and Other International Acts Series, No. 3942. Such special acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court was expressly approved by the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate in 1948, S. Exec. Rep. No. 8, on the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation with China, p. 8 (80th Congress, 2d Sess., May 26, 1948).

9 Vice President Nixon has suggested that in future agreements with the Soviet Union “provisions be included to the effect: (1) that disputes which may arise as to the interpretation of the agreement should be submitted to the International Court of Justice at The Hague; and (2) that the nations signing the agreement should be bound by the decision of the court in such cases.” New York Times, April 14, 1959, p. 20. While it might be difficult to obtain Soviet consent to such a step, we should take it at least in treaties with more friendly nations.

10 93 League of Nations Treaty Series 345–363; 71 U. N. Treaty Series 101–127; Council of Europe, European Treaty Series, No. 23.

11 Loc. cit. footnote 4 above.

12 Loc. cit. footnote 9 above.