Onderstaande tekst is niet 100% betrouwbaar

— 502 —

Si 1'on réussit a convaincre, non seulement les membres du Comité, mais aussi 1'opinion du grand public, des relations étroites qui peuvent exister entre la Cour Permanente de Justice et la Haute Cour, telle qu'elle a été concue par le Président; si de cette manière, on fait comprendre que la nouvelle organisation contemplée rentre dans le mandat du Comité, ou en est le complément nécessaire, alors la discussion sera plus facile paree qu'on verra la proposition sous un aspect différent, et on ne craindra plus de sortir des limites du mandat en la prenant sérieusement en considération.

M. ADATCI est favorable a la création d'une Haute Cour de Justice préalablement a la perpétration des crimes qu'elle aura a juger. II rappelle que, lors de la Conférence de la Paix a. Paris, on a beaucoup discuté la question d'établir un tribunal compétent pour juger les crimes de guerre. Mais cette idée 1'a choqué paree que ce tribunal aurait eu a connaitre «des crimes ex post facto.

Le problème se pose autrement lorsqu'il s'agit d'établir une Cour avant la perpétration. des actes punissables; c'est pourquoi la proposition du Président plait beaucoup a M. Adatci. Seulement, le Comité est chargé, a son avis, de créer une Cour et non pas deux: il croit done que le Comité dépasserait les limites de son mandat en s'occupant de la proposition soumise par le Président. II pense que cette proposition doit être renvoyée a. une nouvelle Conférence de droit international.

A ces considérations, viennent s'ajouter pour M. Adatci des considérations d'ordre pratique: le Comité n'a devant lui qu'un temps extrêmement limité pour achever les travaux dont il a été chargé.

M. RICCI-BUSATTI aurait préféré que la ques¬

tion ne fut pas discutée a la présente séance; mais la discussion s'étant engagée, il croit devoir déclarer quelle est son attitude vis a vis de cette question.

Tous les membres qui se sont prononcés jusqu'ici ont évoqué le cauchemar du passé, quoique tous désirent écarter ce souvenir des travaux du Comité. Cela démontre que le passé est nécessairement lié a la question et que la discussion ne peut pas éviter le terrain politique. Cette circonstance est pour M. Ricci-Busatti un motif suffisant pour écarter la proposition préjudiciellement.

A la raison qu'il vient d'exposer, viennent s'ajouter des considérations d'ordre juridique. Selon 1'ar-

the P r e s i d e n t's proposal and the work covered by the mandate given to the members must be fully explained. If not only the members of the Committee, but also general public opinion could be convinced of the close ties which might exist between the Permanent Court of Justice and the High Court, as conceived by the President; if in this way it could be made generally understood that the proposed new organisation came within the mandate of the Committee or was its necessary complement, then its discussion would be easter because the proposal would be looked upon in a different light, and there need be no fear of overstepping the limits of the mandate by devoting serious consideration to it.

M. ADATCI was in favour of creating a High Court of Justice before the crimes which it would have to try had been committed. He recalled that, at the time of the Peace Conference at Paris, the question of establishing a tribunal with jurisdiction over crimes against the rules of war had been much discussed. But this notion had shocked him because this tribunal would have had to deal with crimes defined ex post facto.

It was quite a different matter, now that the intention was to establish a Court before the punishable acts had been committed; for this reason the President's proposal pleased M. Adatci very much. In his opinion, however, the Committee was entrusted with the task of creating one Court and not two: he thougt therefore that the Committee would exceed its mandate if it concerned itself with the proposal submitted by the P r e s i d e n t. He thought that this proposal ought to be submitted to a new Conference on international law.

In addition to these considérations, in M. Adatci's opinion, there were some practical reasons to be taken into account: the Committee had only an extremely limited time in which to complete the work with which it had been entrusted.

M. RICCI-BUSATTI would have preferred that the question should not be discussed at the present meeting; but as the discussion had been commenced, he feit that he must make his attitude clear.

All the members who had already spoken on the subject had referred to the nightmare of the past, though they all wished to exclude any remembrance of it from the work of the Committee. This showed that the past was necessarily bound up in the question and that the discussion was bound to have a political bearing. This fact was for M. Ricci-Busatti a sufficiënt reason for ruling the proposal out of order.

To the reason he had just given there were

Sluiten