What did the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) say in1923 in the Wimbledon case about the impact of the states sovereignty in signing an international treaty?
The Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) ruling in 1923 on the Wimbledon case stated that a sovereign state is not violating international law theory by signing an international treaty. Instead, the PCIJ sided with the countries of Britain, Italy, Japan, and France in their determination in the rights of sovereign states verses the validity of international standards. Additionally, an international treaty is a short-term solution to conflicts that are also addressed in international law, a long-term doctrine.
Related Questions
- What did the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) say in1923 in the Wimbledon case about the impact of the states sovereignty in signing an international treaty?
- What is the difference between the PCIJ and the present International Court of Justice?
- Can WTO members take their case to the International Court of Justice in the Hague?
