| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
  |
|
 |
|
  |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
 |
The Opinions of Judge Dionisio Anzilotti at the Permanent Court of International Justice
IV. Final Remarks
Of course, the contribution of a judge to the work of the Court is not limited to his written opinions. Rather, as in the case with any judge, Anzilotti's most valued services were rendered during the deliberations and in connection with his participation in the drafting of judgments and advisory opinions. All of this important and treasured work, however, remains secret, as it should, in accordance with the provisions of Article 54, paragraph 3, of the Court's Statute, which provides: `3. The deliberations of the Court shall take place in private and remain secret'.
We will therefore never know for certain the extent of Anzilotti's contribution to the work of the Court in any particular case in which he participated. Normally, the judges of the Court do not write about their colleagues' participation in the proceedings. However, in the case of Anzilotti, we do have the brief testimony of Judge Charles De Visscher, who sat with him on the bench from May 1937 onwards. De Visscher writes:
Mais ce qui m'a frappé le plus durant ma collaboration avec Anzilotti à la Cour permanente et plus particulièrement au cours des séances privées en chambre du Conseil, ce fut de constater combien ce grand théoricien du droit international, si enclin à la systématisation, approfondissait le dossier de chaque affaire et conservait à travers la discussion la vision directe des particularités de l'espèce. Il n'avait peut-être pas son egal pour situer une affaire, pour dégager, en des termes lapidaires, ses aspects essentiels et les ramener aux critères juridiques.62
This short description of Anzilotti's approach to the Court's deliberations is consistent with the style of his opinions, articles, and other works. Anzilotti was always clear and brief, supporting his arguments with succinct and cogent reasoning that was very difficult to refute. It is perhaps possible to disagree with the point of departure of his logic, but once this point of departure is accepted, Anzilotti's conclusions are inevitable.
After devoting several weeks to a very careful reading of the judgments of the Court and of the opinions of Anzilotti, and having thoroughly appreciated his ideas and methods of reasoning, I am confident that several of the most-often quoted judgments of the Court were penned by Anzilotti himself.
Even more important than his intellectual contribution to the Court's judgments and opinions was Anzilotti's preoccupation with safeguarding the strictly judicial character of the Court. That concern found particular expression in relation to advisory opinions. In the Continental procedural law and tradition, the possibility of rendering an advisory opinion is alien to the functions of a tribunal; it was perhaps for this reason that Anzilotti was always very firm in dealing with requests for advisory opinions. Thus, even in controversies between two states where the jurisdiction of the Court was not accepted, his opinions more nearly resembled judgments than non-binding dicta. The following famous excerpt from the Advisory Opinion on the Status of Eastern Carelia, written as early as 1923, reflects Anzilotti's ideas on the functions of the Court:
The Court, being a Court of Justice, cannot, even in giving advisory opinions, depart from the essential rules guiding their activity as a Court.63
Anzilotti made an outstanding contribution to the jurisprudence of the Permanent Court of Justice from the very first years of its existence, when it was necessary to consolidate its prestige and to create faith and confidence in that new institution, which stood in the vanguard of the emerging idea that disputes and conflicts between states could always find a solution through the fair and just application of the law. But above and beyond the intellectual contribution which a judge might make to the work of the court, it is more important to evaluate his conduct in the performance of his duties, and particularly in connection with his international obligations as a jurist serving on an international court. Independence, impartiality, and objectivity are the most essential and elevated qualities required of an international judge in the performance of his duties; to be true to those qualities, he must set aside all personal feelings, sympathies, and considerations of national interest. Anzilotti is one of those judges who, over the history of two Courts, had the integrity and courage to take stands that were contrary to the positions of their own countries. As Jorge Luis Borges said, `Siempre el coraje es mejor' (`Courage is always better').
62 La Comunità Internazionale, Vol. VI (1951) 252.
© 1990-2004 European Journal of International Law
All comments and suggestions should be sent to webmaster
This site is part
of the Academy of European Law online, a joint partnership of the Jean Monnet Center at NYU School of Law and the Academy of European
Law at the European University
Institute.
This file was last modified:
Monday, August 02, 1999 02:30PM