The United States Congress and the International Court of Justice : a study of American attitudes toward compulsory jurisdiction

One unusual aspect of recent American foreign policy is the Tom Connally Amendment, the eight words appended to provision "b" of Senate Resolution 196 (1946): "as determined by the United States of America." In its final form the complete reservation provides that the International Court of Justice shall not have jurisdiction over anything the United States considers essentially domestic.Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon introduced Senate Resolution 196 (1946). The italicized Amendment to the Resolution was offered by the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Tom Connally from Texas. The so-called Connally Amendment to Senate Resolution 196 (1946), pertaining to Article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, reserved the right of the United States to deny jurisdiction to the International Court of Justice in cases involving the United States' self-interest. The reservation is self judging: a party to a justiciable dispute reserves the right to say whether or not a case exists.Using Senate Resolution 196 (1946), this study attempted to show how governmental policy and public opinion changed from a militant ideological-isolationist position before World War II to one which advocated the United States' taking a leading role in post-war planning for peace and security. This change in public opinion and the leadership of the popular President Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration forced Congress to reassess the traditional American foreign policy of unilateralism.This study of Senate Resolution 196 showed how Congress, and particularly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee under the leadership of Chairman Tom Connally, tried to assert itself and take a leadership role in the Senate in the development of post-war planning. This study also shows the difficulties that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee encountered in taking a leadership role. The Committee and its leadership were under constant pressure. In the end the Committee's leadership role was successfully challenged by its own chairman, who, ironically, worked so hard to build the Committee's leadership role in the Senate of the United States Congress.Thesis (Ph. D.