Gallery

operative part, have no binding force as between the Parties 1
concerned.
It is perfectly true that al1 the parts of a judgment concerning the
points in dispute explain and complete each other and are to be
taken into account in order to determine the precise meaning and
scope of the operative portion. This is clearly stated in the award
of the Permanent Court of Arbitration of October 14th, 1902, concerning the Pious Funds of the Californias, which has been repeatedly
invoked by Danzig. The Court agrees with this statement. But 1
it by no means follows that every reason given in a decision constitutes a decision ; and it must be remembered that the Court of
Arbitration applied the doctrine of. res judicata because not only
the Parties but also the matter in dispute was the same (il y a non
seulement identité des Parties en litige, mais également identité de la
matière).
Now, although it is not quite clear why the High Commissioner,
in paragraph 6 of his decision, expressed his opinion on the scope
of the utilization of the Polish postal service, there can be no
doubt that the said opinion is irrelevant to the point actually
decided by him and therefore has no binding force.
This conclusion, which is drawn from the very nature of judicial
decisions, is not affected by Danzig\'s contention that the decision
of the High Commissioner may be considered to be in the nature
of a declaratory judgment ( Feststellungsuvted) . In the decision of
December 23rd, 1922, as well as in every other decision of the
High Commissioner, the operative portion is clearly distinguished
from the statement of reasons; the Court is unable to see any
ground for extending the binding force attaching to the declaratory judgment on the point decided to reasons which were only
intended to explain the declaration contained in the operative
portion of this judgment and al1 the more so if these reasons ;
relate to points of law on which the High Commissioner was +
not asked to give a decision. i
The opinion expressed by General Haking in paragraph 6 of the
decision of December 23rd, 1922, is relied upon by Danzig also as
an interpretation of the true scope and meaning of the previous
decision of May 25th, 1922. In the observations last submitted
by Danzig and signed by Professor Verzijl, stress is laid on the fact
that General Haking\'s decisions are logically connected one with the