Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-17T07:17:59.382Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Supra-National Organs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Josef L. Kunz
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Editorial Comment
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 46 , Issue 4 , October 1952 , pp. 690 - 698
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1952

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See this writer’s editorial comment in this Journal, Vol. 42 (1948), pp. 868–871. For a general survey see Schlochauer, in Archiv des Völkerrechts, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1951), pp. 147–190 Google Scholar; Karl Loewenstein in Columbia Law Review, Vol. 52, No. 1 (January, 1952), pp. 55–99, and No. 2 (February, 1952), pp. 209–240; and the books: Philip, Olivier, Le Problème de I’Union Européenne (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar; Bonnefour, Edouard L’idée Européenne et sa réalisation (Paris, 1950)Google Scholar.

2 Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg.

3 Established in 1948. Seat in Paris. Participating states: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, plus Western Germany and Trieste.

4 Agreement concerning the foundation of the EPU, signed in Paris on Sept. 19, 1950. Same members as listed in note 3. Cf. Huet, Pierre, “Aspects juridiques de I’Union Européenne de Paiements,” Journal de Droit International (Clunet), Vol. 78, No. 3 (July-September, 1951), pp. 770–866 Google Scholar; see also the article by Boochever, Louis C. in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 672 (May 12, 1952), pp. 732–736 Google Scholar.

5 Great Britain, France, and the Benelux countries.

6 Established in Spring, 1949; members the same as in the OEEC, minus Austria, Portugal, Switzerland and Trieste; but with Western Germany as a full member, and the Saar Territory as an associate member. See Powell, George L. in The International Law Quarterly, Vol. 3, No. 2 (April, 1950), pp. 164–196 Google Scholar; Schuman, Fred. L. in American Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 3 (September, 1951), pp. 724–740 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Oyarzum, B. in Politica Internacional, No. 5 (March, 1951), pp. 79–95 Google Scholar; Cornides, W. in Europa Archiv, Vol. 6, No. 2Google Scholar; and article in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 667 (April 7, 1952), pp. 523–529.

7 Senate Report, 82nd Cong., 2nd Sess., Doc. No. 90 (Washington, 1952, pp. 44), at p. 13, note 10.

8 Started work in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1947.

9 The Economic Co-operation Act of 1949 stated it to be the policy of the people of the United States “to encourage the unification of Europe.” These words were strengthened in 1950 to read: “to encourage the further unification of Europe.” And in the Mutual Security Act of 1951 the phrase reads: “to further encourage the economic unification and the political federation of Europe.”

10 Apart from the United States and Canada, the following European states are members of NATO: Belgium, Denmark, France, Greeee, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Turkey, United Kingdom.

11 There is a plan for a European Agricultural Union for a united European market in wheat, dairy products, sugar, and wine. The plan was elaborated by French Minister for Agriculture Pflimlin in 1950 and was handled by a special committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. An international conference concerning the organization of this Union will take place at Paris. See Susan Strange, “A European Agricultural Authority,” World Affairs, October, 1951. There is the Bonnefour Plan for the creation of a European Transport Union; and, finally, the Pleven Plan for the creation of a European Defense Community and a European Army as an integral part of NATO is now embodied in treaties signed but not yet ratified.

12 See Oliveira, Julio H. G., “El Plan Schuman,” Revista del Institute de Derecho Internacional (Buenos Aires), Vol. 3, No. 13 (July–December, 1950), pp. 63–80 Google Scholar; special number of the Europa Archiv, Vol. 6, No. 10/11, pp. 3615–4113; Trelles, C. Barcia, El Pacto del Atlántico (Madrid, 1950), pp. 511–569 Google Scholar; F. W. Meyer and A. Zottmann, Der Schuman Plan und seine Problematik (Munich); Serra Enrico, “Un problema europeo: la destinaeione della Euhr,” La Comunità Internazionale, Vol. 6 (1951), pp. 39–53, 278–289, 437–451; G. Gozard, “Le Fool Charbon-Acier,” Revue Politique et Parlementaire, July, 1951; McKesson, John A., “The Schuman Plan,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 68, No. 1 (March, 1952), pp. 18–35 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. There is much interest in the Schuman Plan. Cf. Hans J. Morgenthau’s address, Proceedings, American Society of International Law, 1952, pp. 130–134. At the 1952 session of the Hague Academy of International Law F. Dehousse gave a course on “Juridical Problems Arising from the Supra-National Organization in Europe,” and Max Sørensen lectured on the European Coal and Steel Community.

13 La Documentation Française, June 13, 1950, No. 1339, pp. 651–653.

14 Ibid., No. 1460: Projet de Traité instituant la Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l’Acier (pp. 38); English translation in Department of State Publication 4173 (European and British Commonwealth Ser. 22, April, 1951, pp. 126) ; analysis of the Schuman Plan in Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 24, No. 613 (April 2, 1951), pp. 523–528.

15 The treaty is only in one copy and only authentic in French: Traité instituant la Communauté Européenne du Charbon et de l’Acier, Paris, 1951 Google Scholar. English text in Senate Execs. Q and R, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 255; reprinted in Supplement to this Journal, below, p. 107; official German translation in Archiv des Völkerrechts, Vol. 3, No. 2 (1951), pp. 191–236.

16 For a legal analysis see Schlochauer in Juristiache Zeitung, May 20, 1951, pp. 289–290; Bilflnger, Carl in Zeitschrift fur ausländisches óff entliches Recht und Völkerreoht, Vol. 13, No. 3 (March, 1951), pp. 615–659 Google Scholar; Hermann Mosler, ibid., Vol. XIV, No. 1–2 (Oetober, 1951) pp. 1–45; G. Jaenieke “Die Sicherwig des übernationalen Characters internationaler Organisationen” ibid., pp. 46–117; van Raalte, B., “The Treaty Constituting the European Coal and Steel Community,” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, Vol. 1, No. 7 (January, 1952), pp. 73–85 Google Scholar.

17 See Köver, J. F., “Der Weg zum Neuen Europa,” Friedenswarte, Vol. 50, No. 3 (1951), pp. 193–206 Google Scholar; Spinelli, A., “I movimenti federalist Europei,” La Comunità Internationale, Vol. 3 (1948), pp. 581–593 Google Scholar; Spaak, Paul H., “L’Europa Unita,” ibid., Vol. 6, No. 1 (January, 1951), pp. 3–15 Google Scholar.

18 See Stikker, Dirk U., “The Functional Approach to European Integration,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. 29, No. 3 (April, 1951), pp. 436–444 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 See Kunz, Josef L., “Experience and Technique in International Administration,” Iowa Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 1 (November, 1945), pp. 40–57 Google Scholar.

20 Except pro foro interno of the organization. The rules made pro foro interno can also directly bind individuals, e.g., the functionaries. These norms are also norms of international law, but of a hierarchically lower level, as they are not based, like the basic treaty, on the norm pacta sunt servanda of general international law, but only on the norms of the basic treaty. Such norms show significantly the technique of municipal law: direct validity toward individuals, individual responsibility, punishment and execution as sanctions.

21 See Northrop, F. S. C., “Contemporary Jurisprudence and International Law,” Yale Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 5 (May, 1952), pp, 623–654 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 For a clear analysis of what is supra-national, and what is international, see van Raalte, loc. cit., note 16 above.

23 Van Raalte calls it “a new structure in the marches between internal and international law.”