Purpose and Limits of the Present Study. International litigation is primarily concerned with finding a solution for the conflicting and contradictory claims of the disputant states who have different notions of justice for their acts and omissions at the international level. This problem becomes more acute when one party asserts its right against the other, and, in the absence of any treaty or convention, tries to establish and prove the existence of such right, on the basis of long usage, practice or custom, recognized as such by the civilized nations of the international community. The International Court of Justice, like its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice, had to face those problems in a number of cases brought before it, and it succeeded, to a great extent, in solving those complicated problems, and, by crystallizing those rudimentary rules of customary law, which in the past had been a source of confusion for the international jurists, has made important contributions to the development of international law. It is the purpose of the present study to analyze the jurisprudence of the Court and, to find those principles of customary international law that the Court has applied for arriving at a particular decision. The approach is basically expository, and is confined to scrutinize that volume of authority, which the Court has produced on "international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law."¹ Within this limited range it was thought desirable not to ignore the fundamental questions relating to state sovereignty and "domestic jurisdiction", which present-' various problems in international adjudication. Since the object of the present thesis is to extract, assemble, and evaluate the nature of those principles which the Court enunciated in its Judgments, it was found necessary to draw upon the individual opinions of the dissenting Judges, or, the separate opinions of those who concurred in the operative part of the Judgment, but, gave different reasons for arriving at the same conclusion, because it has been said that: "A dissent in a court of last resort is an appeal to the broadening spirit of the law, to the intelligence of a future day where a later decision may possibly correct the error into which the dissenting judge believes the court to have been betrayed.”¹ 1 Art. 38 (1) (b) of the Statute of the Court. 1 Charles Evans Hughes, U.S. Supreme Court 68 (1928) (quoted by Runz, "The Nottebohm Judgment (second phase)," 514 AJIL (I960), p.. 539; see however, Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court of Justice, Stevens, London, 1958, pp. 66-7). / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

On December 16, 1963, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 1967 (XVIII) recording its belief that provision for impartial fact finding within the framework of international organizations, and in bilateral and multilateral conventions, could make an important contribution to the peaceful settlement of disputes, and to their prevention. The Resolution noted a considerable body of practice in the use of fact finding methods in international relations, which is available to be studied "for the progressive development of such methods" (6th perambular paragraph). In the light of this Resolution, the object of this study was to ascertain the nature and the scope of the fact finding powers possessed by the principal judicial organ of the community of nations, the World Court and their applicability in the various types of proceedings which may be instituted before it. As a background the major problems inherent in, and the nature and function of, the law of evidence in international judicial proceedings are sketched. An attempt is also made to determine the respective rights and duties of the litigants and the World Court in the matter of the adduction of evidence. The provisions of the Statute and Rules of the World Court which expressly confer upon it fact finding powers are then examined. A broad competence is seen to be granted the Court to request the production of evidence, and to undertake investigations and enquiries of various kinds into the facts of the issues submitted to it. The only condition precedent to the exercise of these powers being that the litigant states must have agreed to submit their dispute to the Court for adjudication. Notwithstanding a paucity of authority, it is also found that the world Court also possesses certain implied fact finding powers stemming not from the instruments of its creation, but from its inherent nature as a judicial tribunal. This implied competence to undertake researches, of its own motion, into the facts of an issue submitted to it supplements the Court's express competence, although a duplication of the power to appoint independent experts is evident. It is then ascertained whether the World Court can have recourse to all the fact finding powers conferred upon it in the two categories of proceedings, contentious and advisory proceedings, which may be instituted before it. Some limitations on the Court's powers are found to exist in the case of advisory proceedings, these limitations deriving from the nature of the proceedings. With respect to contentious proceedings no limitations were found. From the preceding examination of the fact finding powers of the World Court it was concluded that it had the potential to discover the absolute truth of any issue submitted to it for decision, with the co-operation of the parties. While some amendments to the Statute and Rules of the Court were suggested, it was felt that any major revisions of the Court's powers would have no substantial effect until the jurisdiction of the Court became compulsory. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate