Source: http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1053&chapter=141191&layout=html&Itemid=27
Timestamp: 2013-05-21 15:20:30+00:00

Document:
Online Library of Liberty - I.: Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. - The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War
Front Page Titles (by Subject) I.: Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. - The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War	Return to Title Page for The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of WarThe Online Library of LibertyA project of Liberty Fund, Inc.
Search this Title:Also in the Library:Collection: Primary SourcesSubject Area: LawSubject Area: War and PeaceTopic: The Laws of WarI.: Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes. - A. Pearce Higgins, The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War [1909]Edition used:The Hague Peace Conferences and Other International Conferences concerning the Laws and Usages of War. Texts of Conventions with Commentaries, by A. Pearce Higgins, LL.D. (Cambridge University Press, 1909).
Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
Règlement Pacifique des Conflits Internationaux.
Convention pour le Règlement Pacifique des Conflits Internationaux.
Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges; Sa Majesté le Roi de Danemark; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Espagne, et en son nom Sa Majesté la Reine-Régente du Royaume; le Président des États-Unis d’Amérique; le Président des États-Unis Mexicains; le Président de la République Française; Sa Majesté le Roi des Hellènes; Son Altesse le Prince de Monténégro; Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas; Sa Majesté Impériale le Schah de Perse; Sa Majesté le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves; Sa Majesté le Roi de Roumanie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies; Sa Majesté le Roi de Siam; Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède et de Norvège; et Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie1 :
Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Allemagne, Roi de Prusse; le Président des États-Unis d’Amérique; le Président de la République Argentine; Sa Majesté l’Empereur d’Autriche, Roi de Bohême, &c., et Roi Apostolique de Hongrie; Sa Majesté le Roi des Belges; le Président de la République de Bolivie; le Président de la République des États-Unis du Brésil; Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Bulgarie; le Président de la République de Chili; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Chine; le Président de la République de Colombie; le Gouverneur provisoire de la République de Cuba; Sa Majesté le Roi de Danemark; le Président de la République Dominicaine; le Président de la République de l’Équateur; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Espagne; le Président de la République Française; Sa Majesté le Roi du Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d’Irlande et des Territoires Britanniques au delà des mers, Empereur des Indes; Sa Majesté le Roi des Hellènes; le Président de la République de Guatémala; le Président de la République d’Haïti; Sa Majesté le Roi d’Italie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur du Japon; Son Altesse Royale le Grand-Duc de Luxembourg, Duc de Nassau; le Président des États-Unis Mexicains; Son Altesse Royale le Prince de Monténégro; le Président de la République de Nicaragua; Sa Majesté le Roi de Norvège; le Président de la République de Panama; le Président de la République du Paraguay; Sa Majesté la Reine des Pays-Bas; le Président de la République du Pérou; Sa Majesté Impériale le Schah de Perse; Sa Majesté le Roi de Portugal et des Algarves, &c.; Sa Majesté le Roi de Roumanie; Sa Majesté l’Empereur de Toutes les Russies; le Président de la République du Salvador; Sa Majesté le Roi de Serbie; Sa Majesté le Roi de Siam; Sa Majesté le Roi de Suède; le Conseil Fédéral Suisse; Sa Majesté l’Empereur des Ottomans; le Président de la République orientale de l’Uruguay; le Président des États-Unis de Venezuela:
Voulant étendre l’empire du droit et fortifier le sentiment de la justice internationale;
Convaincus que l’institution permanente d’une juridiction arbitrale accessible à tous, au sein des Puissances indépendantes, peut contribuer efficacement à ce résultat;
Considérant les avantages d’une organisation générale et régulière de la procédure arbitrale;
Estimant avec l’Auguste Initiateur de la Conférence Internationale de la Paix qu’il importe de consacrer dans un accord international les principes d’équité et de droit sur lesquels reposent la sécurité des États et le bien-être des peuples;
Désirant conclure une Convention à cet effet, ont nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir:
Lesquels, après s’être communiqué leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes.
Convaincus que l’institution permanente d’une juridiction arbitrale accessible à tous, an sein des Puissances indépendantes, peut contribuer efficacement à ce résultat;
Désireux, dans ce but, de mieux assurer le fonctionnement pratique des Commissions d’enquéte et des tribunaux d’arbitrage et de faciliter le recours à la justice arbitrale lorsqu’il s’agit de litiges de nature à comporter une procédure sommaire;
Ont jugé nécessaire de reviser sur certains points et de compléter l’œuvre de la Première Conférence de la Paix pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux;
Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus de ce qui suit:—
Du Maintien de la Paix Générale.
En vue de prévenir autant que possible le recours à la force dans les rapports entre les États, les Puissances signataires conviennent d’employer tous leurs efforts pour assurer le règlement pacifique des différends internationaux.
(Aucune modification.)1
Des Bons Offices et de la Médiation.
En cas de dissentiment grave ou de conflit, avant d’en appeler aux armes, les Puissances signataires conviennent d’avoir recours, en tant que les circonstances le permettront, aux bons offices ou à la médiation d’une ou de plusieurs Puissances amies.
Indépendamment de ce recours, les Puissances signataires jugent utile qu’une ou plusieurs Puissances, étrangères au conflit, offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant que les circonstances s’y prêtent, leurs bons offices ou leur médiation aux États en conflit.
Le droit d’offrir les bons offices ou la médiation appartient aux Puissances étrangères au conflit, même pendant le cours des hostilités.
L’exercice de ce droit ne peut jamais être considéré par l’une ou l’autre des Parties en litige comme un acte peu amical.
Indépendamment de ce recours, les Puissances signataires jugent utile et désirable qu’une ou plusieurs Puissances, étrangères au conflit, offrent de leur propre initiative, en tant que les circonstances s’y prêtent, leurs bons offices ou leur médiation aux États en conflit.
Le rôle du médiateur consiste à concilier les prétentions opposées et à apaiser les ressentiments qui peuvent s’être produits entre les États en conflit.
Les fonctions du médiateur cessent du moment où il est constaté, soit par l’une des Parties en litige, soit par le médiateur lui-même, que les moyens de conciliation proposés par lui ne sont pas acceptés.
Les bons offices et la médiation, soit sur le recours des Parties en conflit, soit sur l’initiative des Puissances étrangères au conflit, ont exclusivement le caractère de conseil et n’ont jamais force obligatoire.
L’acceptation de la médiation ne peut avoir pour effet, sauf convention contraire, d’interrompre, de retarder ou d’entraver la mobilisation et autres mesures préparatoires à la guerre.
Si elle intervient après l’ouverture des hostilités, elle n’interrompt pas, sauf convention contraire, les opérations militaires en cours.
Les Puissances signataires sont d’accord pour recommander l’application, dans les circonstances qui le permettent, d’une médiation spéciale sous la forme suivante:—
En cas de différend grave compromettant la paix, les États en conflit choisissent respectivement une Puissance à laquelle ils confient la mission d’entrer en rapport direct avec la Puissance choisie d’autre part, à l’effet de prévenir la rupture des relations pacifiques.
Pendant la durée de ce mandat dont le terme, sauf stipulation contraire, ne peut excéder trente jours, les États en litige cessent tout rapport direct au sujet du conflit, lequel est considéré comme déféré exclusivement aux Puissances médiatrices. Celles-ci doivent appliquer tous leurs efforts à régler le différend.
Des Commissions Internationales d’Enquête.
Dans les litiges d’ordre international n’engageant ni l’honneur ni des intérêts essentiels et provenant d’une divergence d’appréciation sur des points de fait, les Puissances signataires jugent utile que les parties qui n’auraient pu se mettre d’accord par les voies diplomatiques instituent, en tant que les circonstances le permettront, une Commission internationale d’enquête chargée de faciliter la solution de ces litiges en éclaircissant, par un examen impartial et consciencieux, les questions de fait.
Dans les litiges d’ordre international n’engageant ni l’honneur ni des intérêts essentiels et provenant d’une divergence d’appréciation sur des points de fait, les Puissances contractantes jugent utile et désirable que les parties qui n’auraient pu se mettre d’accord par les voies diplomatiques instituent, en tant que les circonstances le permettront, une Commission internationale d’enquête chargée de faciliter la solution de ces litiges en éclaircissant, par un examen impartial et consciencieux, les questions de fait.
Les Commissions internationales d’enquête sont constituées par convention spéciale entre les parties en litige.
La convention d’enquête précise les faits à examiner et l’étendue des pouvoirs des commissaires.
L’enquête a lieu contradictoirement.
La forme et les délais à observer, en tant qu’ils ne sont pas fixés par la convention d’enquête, sont déterminés par la Commission elle-même.
La convention d’enquête précise les faits à examiner; elle détermine le mode et le délai de formation de la Commission et l’étendue des pouvoirs des commissaires.
Elle détermine également, s’il y a lieu, le siège de la Commission et la faculté de se déplacer, la langue dont la Commission fera usage et celles dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant elle, ainsi que la date à laquelle chaque Partie devra déposer son exposé des faits, et généralement toutes les conditions dont les Parties sont convenues.
Si les Parties jugent nécessaire de nommer des assesseurs, la convention d’enquéte détermine le mode de leur désignation et l’étendue de leurs pouvoirs.
Si la convention d’enquête n’a pas désigné le siège de la Commission, celleci siégera à La Haye.
Le siège une fois fixé ne peut être changé par la Commission qu’avec l’assentiment des Parties.
Si la convention d’enquête n’a pas déterminé les langues à employer, il en est décidé par la Commission.
Les Commissions internationales d’enquête sont formées, sauf stipulation contraire, de la manière déterminée par l’article 32 de la présente Convention.
Sauf stipulation contraire, les Commissions d’enquête sont formées de la manière déterminée par les articles 45 et 57 de la présente Convention.
En cas de décès, de démission ou d’empêchement, pour quelque cause que ce soit, de l’un des commissaires, ou éventuellement de l’un des assesseurs, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination.
Les Parties ont le droit de nommer auprès de la Commission d’enquête des agents spéciaux avec la mission de Les représenter et de servir d’intermédiaires entre Elles et la Commission.
Elles sont, en outre, autorisées à charger des conseils ou avocats nommés par Elles, d’exposer et de soutenir leurs intéréts devant la Commission.
Le Bureau International de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage sert de greffe aux Commissions qui siègent à La Haye, et mettra ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition des Puissances contractantes pour le fonctionnement de la Commission d’enquête.
Si la Commission siège ailleurs qu’à La Haye, elle nomme un Secrétaire général dont le Bureau lui sert de greffe.
Le greffe est chargé, sous l’autorité du Président, de l’organisation matérielle des séances de la Commission, de la rédaction des procès-verbaux et, pendant le temps de l’enquête, de la garde des archives, qui seront ensuite versées au Bureau International de La Haye.
En vue de faciliter l’institution et le fonctionnement des Commissions d’enquête, les Puissances contractantes recommandent les règles suivantes qui seront applicables à la procédure d’enquête en tant que les Parties n’adopteront pas d’autres règles.
La Commission réglera les détails de la procédure non prévus dans la convention spéciale d’enquéte ou dans la présente Convention, et procédera à toutes les formalités que comporte l’administration des preuves.
(VoyezArt. 10 (1899).)
Aux dates prévues, chaque Partie communique à la Commission et à l’autre Partie les exposés des faits, s’il y a lieu, et, dans tous les cas, les actes, pièces et documents qu’elle juge utiles à la découverte de la vérité, ainsi que la liste des témoins et des experts qu’Elle désire faire entendre.
La Commission a la faculté, avec l’assentiment des parties, de se transporter momentanément sur les lieux où Elle juge utile de recourir à ce moyen d’information, ou d’y déléguer un ou plusieurs de ses membres. L’autorisation de l’État sur le territoire duquel il doit être procédé à cette information devra être obtenue.
Toutes constatations matérielles, et toutes visites des lieux doivent être faites en présence des agents et conseils des Parties ou eux dûment appelés.
La Commission a le droit de solliciter de l’une ou l’autre Partie telles explications ou informations qu’elle juge utiles.
Les Puissances en litige s’engagent à fournir à la Commission internationale d’enquête, dans la plus large mesure qu’Elles jugeront possible, tous les moyens et toutes les facilités nécessaires pour la connaissance complète et l’appréciation exacte des faits en question.
Les Parties s’engagent à fournir à la Commission d’enquête, dans la plus large mesure qu’Elles jugeront possible, tous les moyens et toutes les facilités nécessaires pour la connaissance complète et l’appréciation exacte des faits en question.
Elles s’engagent à user des moyens dont Elles disposent d’après leur législation intérieure, pour assurer la comparution des témoins ou des experts se trouvant sur leur territoire et cités devant la Commission.
Si ceux-ci ne peuvent comparaitre devant la Commission, Elles feront procéder à leur audition devant leurs autorités compétentes.
Pour toutes les notifications que la Commission aurait à faire sur le territoire d’une tierce Puissance contractante, la Commission s’adressera directement au Gouvernement de cette Puissance. Il en sera de même s’il s’agit de faire procéder sur place à l’établissement de tous moyens de preuce.
Les requêtes adressées à cet effet seront exécutées suivant les moyens dont la Puissance requise dispose d’après sa législation intérieure. Elles ne peuvent être refusées que si cette Puissance les juge de nature à porter atteinte à Sa souveraineté ou à Sa sécurité.
La Commission aura aussi toujours la faculté de recourir à l’intermédiaire de la Puissance sur le territoire de laquelle elle a son siège.
Les témoins et les experts sont appelés à la requête des Parties ou d’office par la Commission, et, dans tous les cas, par l’intermédiaire du Gouvernement de l’État sur le territoire duquel ils se trouvent.
L’interrogatoire des témoins est conduit par le Président.
Les membres de la Commission peuvent néanmoins poser à chaque témoin les questions qu’ils croient convenables pour éclaircir ou compléter sa déposition, ou pour se renseigner sur tout ce qui concerne le témoin dans les limites nécessaires à la manifestation de la vérité.
Les agents et les conseils des Parties ne peuvent interrompre le témoin dans sa déposition, ni lui faire aucune interpellation directe, mais peuvent demander au Président de poser au témoin telles questions complémentaires qu’ils jugent utiles.
Le témoin doit déposer sans qu’il lui soit permis de lire aucun projet écrit. Toutefois, il peut être autorisé par le Président à s’aider de notes ou documents si la nature des faits rapportés en nécessite l’emploi.
Lecture faite au témoin de l’ensemble de sa déposition, le témoin est requis de signer.
Les agents sont autorisés au cours ou à la fin de l’enquête, à présenter par écrit à la Commission et à l’autre Partie tels dires, réquisitions, ou résumés de fait qu’ils jugent utiles à la découverte de la vérité.
Le refus d’un membre de prendre part au vote doit être constaté dans le procès-verbal.
Les séances de la Commission ne sont publiques et les procès-verbaux et documents de l’enquête ne sont rendus publics qu’en vertu d’une décision de la Commission, prise avec l’assentiment des Parties.
Les Parties ayant présenté tous les éclaircissements et preuves, tous les témoins ayant été entendus, le Président prononce la clôture de l’enquête et la Commission s’ajourne pour délibérer et rédiger son rapport.
La Commission internationale d’enquête présente aux Puissances en litige son rapport signé par tous les membres de la Commission.
Le rapport de la Commission est lu en séance publique, les agents et les conseils des parties présents ou dûment appelés.
Le rapport de la Commission internationale d’enquête, limité à la constatation des faits, n’a nullement le caractère d’une sentence arbitrale. Il laisse aux Puissances en litige une entière liberté pour la suite à donner à cette constatation.
Le rapport de la Commission, limité à la constatation des faits, n’a nullement le caractère d’une sentence arbitrale. Il laisse aux Parties une entière liberté pour la suite à donner à cette constatation.
De l’Arbitrage International.
De la Justice Arbitrale.
L’arbitrage international a pour objet le règlement de litiges entre les États par des juges de leur choix et sur la base du respect du droit.
L’arbitrage international a pour objet le règlement de litiges entre les États par les juges de leur choix et sur la base du respect du droit.
Le recours à l’arbitrage implique l’engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi à la sentence.
(Voyez Art. 18 (1899).)
Dans les questions d’ordre juridique, et en premier lieu dans les questions d’interprétation ou d’application des Conventions Internationales, l’arbitrage est reconnu par les Puissances Signataires comme le moyen le plus efficace et en même temps le plus équitable de régler les litiges qui n’ont pas été résolus par les voies diplomatiques.
Dans les questions d’ordre juridique, et en premier lieu dans les questions d’interprétation ou d’application des Conventions internationales, l’arbitrage est reconnu par les Puissances contractantes comme le moyen le plus efficace et en même temps le plus équitable de régler les litiges qui n’ont pas été résolus par les voies diplomatiques.
En conséquence, il serait désirable que, dans les litiges sur les questions susmentionnées, les Puissances contractantes eussent, le cas échéant, recours à l’arbitrage, en tant que les circonstances le permettraient.
La convention d’arbitrage est conclue pour des contestations déjà nées ou pour des contestations éventuelles.
Elle peut concerner tout litige ou seulement les litiges d’une catégorie déterminée.
La convention d’arbitrage implique l’engagement de se soumettre de bonne foi à la sentence arbitrale.
(Voyez Art. 37 (1907).)
Indépendamment des Traités généraux ou particuliers qui stipulent actuellement l’obligation du recours à l’arbitrage pour les Puissances signataires, ces Puissances se réservent de conclure, soit avant la ratification du présent Acte, soit postérieurement, des accords nouveaux, généraux, ou particuliers, en vue d’étendre l’arbitrage obligatoire à tous les cas qu’Elles jugeront possible de lui soumettre.
Indépendamment des Traités généraux ou particuliers qui stipulent actuellement l’obligation du recours à l’arbitrage pour les Puissances contractantes, ces Puissances se réservent de conclure des accords nouveaux, généraux ou particuliers, en vue d’étendre l’arbitrage obligatoire à tous les cas qu’Elles jugeront possible de lui soumettre.
De la Cour permanente d’arbitrage.
Dans le but de faciliter le recours immédiat à l’arbitrage pour les différends internationaux qui n’ont pu être réglés par la voie diplomatique, les Puissances signataires s’engagent à organiser une Cour permanente d’arbitrage, accessible en tout temps et fonctionnant, sauf stipulation contraire des Parties, conformément aux règles de procédure insérées dans la présente Convention.
Dans le but de faciliter le recours immédiat à l’arbitrage pour les différends internationaux qui n’ont pu être réglés par la voie diplomatique, les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à maintenir, telle qu’elle a été établie par la Première Conférence de la Paix, la Cour permanente d’arbitrage, accessible en tout temps et fonctionnant, sauf stipulation contraire des Parties, conformément aux règles de procédure insérées dans la présente Convention.
La Cour permanente sera compétente pour tous les cas d’arbitrage, à moins qu’il n’y ait entente entre les Parties pour l’établissement d’une juridiction spéciale.
La Cour permanente est compétente pour tous les cas d’arbitrage, à moins qu’il n’y ait entente entre les Parties pour l’établissement d’une juridiction spéciale.
Ce Bureau est l’intermédiaire des communications relatives aux réunions de celle-ci.
Les Puissances signataires s’engagent à communiquer au Bureau international de La Haye une copie certifiée conforme de toute stipulation d’arbitrage intervenue entre Elles et de toute sentence arbitrale les concernant et rendue par des juridictions spéciales.
Elles s’engagent à communiquer de même au Bureau les lois, règlements, et documents constatant éventuellement l’exécution des sentences rendues par la Cour.
(Voyez Art. 25 (1899).)
Un Bureau international sert de greffe à la Cour; il est l’intermédiaire des communications relatives aux réunions de celle-ci; il a la garde des archives et la gestion de toutes les affaires administratives.
Les Puissances contractantes s’engagent à communiquer au Bureau, aussitôt que possible, une copie certifiée conforme de toute stipulation d’arbitrage intervenue entre Elles et de toute sentence arbitrale Les concernant et rendue par des juridictions spéciales.
Chaque Puissance Signataire désignera, dans les trois mois qui suivront la ratification par elle du présent Acte, quatre personnes au plus, d’une compétence reconnue dans les questions de droit international, jouissant de la plus haute considération morale et disposées à accepter les fonctions d’arbitres.
Les personnes ainsi désignées seront inscrites, au titre de Membre de la Cour, sur une liste qui sera notifiée à toutes les Puissances signataires par les soins du Bureau.
Deux ou plusieurs Puissances peuvent s’entendre pour la désignation en commun d’un ou de plusieurs Membres.
En cas de décès ou de retraite d’un Membre de la Cour, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination.
Chaque Puissance contractante désigne quatre personnes au plus, d’une compétence reconnue dans les questions de droit international, jouissant de la plus haute considération morale et disposées à accepter les fonctions d’arbitre.
En cas de décès ou de retraite d’un membre de la Cour, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination, et pour une nouvelle période de six ans.
Lorsque les Puissances signataires veulent s’adresser à la Cour permanente pour le règlement d’un différend survenu entre Elles, le choix des arbitres appelés à former le Tribunal compétent pour statuer sur ce différend, doit être fait dans la liste générale des Membres de la Cour.
A défaut de constitution du Tribunal arbitral par l’accord immédiat des Parties, il est procédé de la manière suivante:—
Si l’accord ne s’établit pas à ce sujet, chaque Partie désigne une Puissance différente, et le choix du surarbitre est fait de concert par les Puissances ainsi désignées.
Le Tribunal étant ainsi composé, les Parties notifient au Bureau leur décision de s’adresser à la Cour et les noms des arbitres.
Les Membres de la Cour, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors de leur pays, jouissent des privilèges et immunités diplomatiques.
(Voyez Art. 46 (1907).)
Le Tribunal arbitral siège d’ordinaire à La Haye.
(Voyez Art. 43 (1907).)
Le siège ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, être changé par le Tribunal que de l’assentiment des Parties.
Lorsque les Puissances contractantes veulent s’adresser à la Cour permanente pour le règlement d’un différend survenu entre Elles, le choix des arbitres appelés à former le Tribunal compétent pour statuer sur ce différend, doit être fait dans la liste générale des Membres de la Cour.
A défaut de constitution du Tribunal Arbitral par l’accord des Parties, il est procédé de la manière suivante:
Chaque Partie nomme deux arbitres, dont un seulement peut être son national ou choisi parmi ceux qui ont été désignés par Elle comme Membres de la Cour Permanente. Ces arbitres choisissent ensemble un surarbitre.
Si, dans un délai de deux mois, ces deux Puissances n’ont pu tomber d’accord, chacune d’Elles présente deux candidats pris sur la liste des Membres de la Cour Permanente, en dehors des Membres désignes par les Parties et n’étant les nationaux d’aucune d’Elles. Le sort détermine lequel des candidats ainsi présentés sera le surarbitre.
Dès que le Tribunal est composé, les Parties notifient au Bureau leur décision de s’adresser à la Cour, le texte de leur Compromis, et les noms des arbitres.
Les Membres du Tribunal, dans l’exercice de leurs fonctions et en dehors de leur pays, jouissent des privilèges et immunités diplomatiques.
Le Bureau international de La Haye est autorisé à mettre ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition des Puissances signataires pour le fonctionnement de toute juridiction spéciale d’arbitrage.
La juridiction de la Cour permanente peut être étendue, dans les conditions prescrites par les Règlements, aux litiges existant entre des Puissances non-signataires ou entre des Puissances signataires et des Puissances non-signataires, si les Parties sont convenues de recourir à cette juridiction.
Le Bureau est autorisé à mettre ses locaux et son organisation à la disposition des Puissances contractantes pour le fonctionnement de toute juridiction spéciale d’arbitrage.
La juridiction de la Cour permanente peut être étendue, dans les conditions prescrites par les Règlements, aux litiges existant entre des Puissances non-contractantes, ou entre des Puissances contractantes et des Puissances non-contractantes, si les Parties sont convenues de recourir à cette juridiction.
Les Puissances signataires considèrent comme un devoir, dans le cas où un conflit aigu menacerait d’éclater entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre Elles, de rappeler à celles-ci que la Cour permanente leur est ouverte.
En conséquence, Elles déclarent que le fait de rappeler aux Parties en conflit les dispositions de la présente Convention, et le conseil donné, dans l’intérêt supérieur de la paix, de s’adresser à la Cour permanente ne peuvent être considérés que comme actes de bons offices.
Les Puissances contractantes considèrent comme un devoir, dans le cas où un conflit aigu menacerait d’éclater entre deux ou plusieurs d’entre Elles, de rappeler à celles-ci que la Cour permanente leur est ouverte.
En conséquence, Elles déclarent que le fait de rappeler aux Parties en conflit les dispositions de la présente Convention, et le conseil donné, dans l’intérêt supérieur de la paix, de s’adresser à la Cour permanente, ne peuvent être considérés que comme actes de bons offices.
En cas de conflit entre deux Puissances, l’une d’Elles pourra toujours adresser au Bureau international une note contenant sa déclaration qu’Elle serait disposée à soumettre le différend à un arbitrage.
Le Bureau devra porter aussitôt la déclaration à la connaissance de l’autre Puissance.
Un Conseil administratif permanent composé des Représentants diplomatiques des Puissances signataires accrédités à La Haye et du Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas qui remplira les fonctions de Président, sera constitué dans cette ville le plus tôt possible après la ratification du présente Acte par neuf Puissances au moins.
Ce Conseil sera chargé d’établir et d’organiser le Bureau international, lequel demeurera sous sa direction et sous son contrôle.
Il notifiera aux Puissances la constitution de la Cour et pourvoira à l’installation de celle-ci.
Il arrêtera son règlement d’ordre ainsi que tous autres règlements nécessaires.
Il aura tout pouvoir quant à la nomination, la suspension, ou la révocation des fonctionnaires et employés du Bureau.
Il fixera les traitements et salaires et contrôlera la dépense générale.
Le Conseil administratif permanent, composé des Représentants diplomatiques des Puissances contractantes accrédités à La Haye et du Ministre des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas, qui remplit les fonctions de Président, a la direction et le contrôle du Bureau international.
Le Conseil arrête son règlement d’ordre ainsi que tous autres règlements nécessaires.
Il a tout pouvoir quant à la nomination, la suspension, ou la révocation des fonctionnaires et employés du Bureau.
Il fixe les traitements et salaires, et contrôle la dépense générale.
Le Conseil communique sans délai aux Puissances contractantes les règlements adoptés par lui. Il leur présente chaque année un rapport sur les travaux de la Cour, sur le fonctionnement des services administratifs, et sur les dépenses. Le rapport contient également un résumé du contenu essentiel des documents communiqués au Bureau par les Puissances en vertu de l’article 43, alinéas 3 et 4.
Les frais du Bureau seront supportés par les Puissances signataires dans la proportion établie pour le Bureau international de l’Union postale universelle.
Les frais du Bureau seront supportés par les Puissances contractantes dans la proportion établie pour le Bureau international de l’Union postale universelle.
De la Procédure Arbitrale.
En vue de favoriser le développement de l’arbitrage, les Puissances signataires ont arrêté les règles suivantes qui seront applicables à la procédure arbitrale, en tant que les Parties ne sont pas convenues d’autres règles.
Les Puissances qui recourent à l’arbitrage signent un acte spécial (compromis) dans lequel sont nettement déterminés l’objet du litige ainsi que l’étendue des pouvoirs des arbitres. Cet acte implique l’engagement des Parties de se soumettre de bonne foi à la sentence arbitrale.
(Voyez Art. 37, al. 2 (1907).)
Les Puissances qui recourent à l’arbitrage signent un compromis dans lequel sont déterminés l’objet du litige, le délai de nomination des Arbitres, la forme, l’ordre et les délais dans lesquels la communication visée par l’Article 63 devra être faite, et le montant de la somme que chaque Partie aura à déposer à titre d’avance pour les frais.
Le compromis détermine également, s’il y a lieu, le mode de nomination des arbitres, tous pouvoirs spéciaux éventuels du Tribunal, son siège, la langue dont il fera usage et celles dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant lui, et généralement toutes les conditions dont les Parties sont convenues.
La Cour permanente est compétente pour l’établissement du compromis, si les Parties sont d’accord pour s’en remettre à elle.
Elle est également compétente, même si la demande est faite seulement par l’une des Parties, après qu’un accord par la voie diplomatique a été vainement essayé, quand il s’agit:—
1.D’un différend rentrant dans un Traité d’arbitrage général conclu ou renouvelé après la mise en vigueur de cette Convention et qui prévoit pour chaque différend un compromis et n’exclut pour l’établissement de ce dernier ni explicitement ni implicitement la compétence de la Cour. Toutefois, le recours à la Cour n’a pas lieu si l’autre Partie déclare qu’à son avis le différend n’appartient pas à la catégorie des différends à soumettre à un arbitrage obligatoire, à moins que le Traité d’arbitrage ne confère au Tribunal arbitral le pouvoir de décider cette question préalable;
2.D’un différend provenant de dettes contractuelles réclamées à une Puissance par une autre Puissance comme dues à ses nationaux, et pour la solution duquel l’offre d’arbitrage a été acceptée. Cette disposition n’est pas applicable si l’acceptation a été subordonnée à la condition que le compromis soit établi selon un autre mode.
(Voyez 2 H. C. 1907.)
Dans les cas prévus par l’Article précédent, le compromis sera établi par une Commission composée de cinq membres désignés de la manière prévue à l’Article 45, alinéas 3 à 6.
Les fonctions arbitrales peuvent être conférées à un arbitre unique ou à plusieurs arbitres désignés par les Parties à leur gré, ou choisis par Elles parmi les Membres de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage établie par le présent Acte.
A défaut de constitution du Tribunal par l’accord immédiat des Parties, il est procédé de la manière suivante:
Si l’accord ne s’établit pas à ce sujet, chaque Partie désigne une Puissance différente et le choix du surarbitre est fait de concert par les Puissances ainsi désignées.
Les fonctions arbitrales peuvent être conférées à un arbitre unique ou à plusieurs arbitres désignés par les Parties à leur gré, ou choisis par Elles parmi les Membres de la Cour permanente d’arbitrage établie par la présente Convention.
A défaut de constitution du Tribunal par l’accord des Parties, il est procédé de la manière indiquée à l’Article 45, alinéas 3 à 6.
Lorsqu’un Souverain ou un Chef d’État est choisi pour arbitre, la procédure arbitrale est réglée par lui.
En cas d’établissement du compromis par une Commission, telle qu’elle est visée à l’Article 54, et sauf stipulation contraire, la Commission elle-même formera le Tribunal d’arbitrage.
En cas de décès, de démission ou d’empêchement, pour quelque cause que ce soit, de l’un des arbitres, il est pourvu à son remplacement selon le mode fixé pour sa nomination.
Le siège ainsi fixé ne peut, sauf le cas de force majeure, être changé par le Tribunal que de l’assentiment des Parties.
Le Tribunal ne peut siéger sur le territoire d’une tierce Puissance qu’avec l’assentiment de celle-ci.
Le siège une fois fixé ne peut être changé par le Tribunal qu’avec l’assentiment des Parties.
Si le Compromis n’a pas déterminé les langues à émployer, il en est décidé par le Tribunal.
(Voyez Art. 38 (1899).)
Les Parties ont le droit de nommer auprès du Tribunal des délégués ou agents spéciaux, avec la mission de servir d’intermédiaires entre Elles et le Tribunal.
Le Tribunal décide du choix des langues dont il fera usage et dont l’emploi sera autorisé devant lui.
(Voyez Art. 61 (1907).)
Les Parties ont le droit de nommer auprès du Tribunal desagents spéciaux, avec la mission de servir d’intermédiaires entre Elles et le Tribunal.
Elles sont, en outre, autorisées à charger de la défense de leurs droits et intérêts devant le Tribunal des conseils ou avocats nommés par Elles à cet effet.
Les Membres de la Cour permanente ne peuvent exercer les fonctions d’agents, conseils ou avocats, qu’en faveur de la Puissance qui les a nommés Membres de la Cour.
La procédure arbitrale comprend en règle générale deux phases distinctes: l’instruction et les débats.
L’instruction consiste dans la communication faite par les agents respectifs, aux Membres du Tribunal et à la Partie adverse, de tous actes imprimés ou écrits et de tous documents contenant les moyens invoqués dans la cause. Cette communication aura lieu dans la forme et dans les délais déterminés par le Tribunal en vertu de l’Article 49.
La procédure arbitrale comprend en règle générale deux phases distinctes: l’instruction écrite et les débats.
L’instruction écrite consiste dans la communication faite par les agents respectifs, aux Membres du Tribunal et à la Partie adverse, des mémoires, des contre-mémoires, et, au besoin, des répliques; les Parties y joignent toutes pièces et documents invoqués dans la cause. Cette communication aura lieu, directement ou par l’intermédiaire du Bureau International, dans l’ordre et dans les délais déterminés par le Compromis.
Les délais fixés par le Compromis pourront être prolongés de commun accord par les Parties, ou par le Tribunal quand il le juge nécessaire pour arriver à une décision juste.
Toute pièce produite par l’une des Parties doit être communiquée à l’autre Partie.
Toute pièce produite par l’une des Parties doit être communiquée, en copie certifiée conforme, à l’autre Partie.
A moins de circonstances spéciales, le Tribunal ne se réunit qu’après la clóture de l’instruction.
Ils ne sont publics qu’en vertu d’une décision du Tribunal, prise avec l’assentiment des Parties.
Ils sont consignés dans des procès-verbaux rédigés par des secrétaires que nomme le Président. Ces procès-verbaux sont signés par le Président et par un des secrétaires; ils ont seuls caractère authentique.
L’instruction étant close, le Tribunal a le droit d’écarter du débat tous actes ou documents nouveaux qu’une des Parties voudrait lui soumettre sans le consentement de l’autre.
En ce cas, le Tribunal a le droit de requérir la production de ces actes ou documents, sauf l’obligation d’en donner connaissance à la Partie adverse.
Les agents et les conseils des Parties sont autorisés à présenter oralement au Tribunal tous les moyens qu’ils jugent utiles à la défense de leur cause.
Ni les questions posées, ni les observations faites par les Membres du Tribunal pendant le cours des débats ne peuvent être regardées comme l’expression des opinions du Tribunal en général ou de ses Membres en particulier.
Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre des ordonnances de procédure pour la direction du procès, de déterminer les formes et délais dans lesquels chaque Partie devra prendre ses conclusions et de procéder à toutes les formalités que comporte l’administration des preuves.
Le Tribunal a le droit de rendre des ordonnances de procédure pour la direction du procès, de déterminer les formes, l’ordre et les délais dans lesquels chaque Partie devra prendre ses conclusions finales, et de procéder à toutes les formalités que comporte l’administration des preuves.
Les Parties s’engagent à fournir au Tribunal, dans la plus large mesure qu’elles jugeront possible, tous les moyens nécessaires pour la décision du litige.
Pour toutes les notifications que le Tribunal aurait à faire sur le territoire d’une tierce Puissance Contractante, le Tribunal s’adressera directement au Gouvernement de cette Puissance. Il en sera de même s’il s’agit de faire procéder sur place à l’établissement de tous moyens de preuve.
Les requétes adressées à cet effet seront exécutées suivant les moyens dont la Puissance requise dispose d’après sa législation intérieure. Elles ne peuvent étre refusées que si cette Puissance les juge de nature à porter atteinte à Sa souveraineté ou à Sa sécurité.
Le Tribunal aura aussi toujours la faculté de recourir à l’intermédiaire de la Puissance sur le territoire de laquelle il a son siège.
Les agents et les conseils des Parties ayant présenté tous les éclaircissements et preuves à l’appui de leur cause, le Président prononce la clôture des débats.
La sentence arbitrale, dûment prononcée et notifiée aux agents des Parties en litige, décide définitivement et sans appel la contestation.
Tout différend qui pourrait surgir entre les Parties, concernant l’interprétation et l’exécution de la sentence, sera, sauf stipulation contraire, soumis au jugement du Tribunal qui l’a rendue.
Dans ce cas, et sauf stipulation contraire, la demande doit être adressée au Tribunal qui a rendu la sentence. Elle ne peut être motivée que par la découverte d’un fait nouveau qui eût été de nature à exercer une influence décisive sur la sentence et qui, lors de la clôture des débats, était inconnu du Tribunal lui-même et de la Partie qui a demandé la revision.
La procédure de revision ne peut être ouverte que par une décision du Tribunal constatant expressément l’existence du fait nouveau, lui reconnaissant les caractères prévus par le paragraphe précédent et déclarant à ce titre la demande recevable.
La sentence arbitrale n’est obligatoire que pour les Parties qui ont conclu le compromis.
Lorsqu’il s’agit de l’interprétation d’une Convention à laquelle ont participé d’autres Puissances que les Parties en litige, celles-ci notifient aux premières le Compromis qu’elles ont conclu. Chacune de ces Puissances a le droit d’intervenir au procès. Si une ou plusieurs d’entre elles ont profité de cette faculté, l’interprétation contenue dans la sentence est également obligatoire à leur égard.
La sentence arbitrale n’est obligatoire que pour les Parties en litige.
Lorsqu’il s’agit de l’interprétation d’une Convention à laquelle ont participé d’autres Puissances que les Parties en litige, celles-ci avertissent en temps utile toutes les Puissances Signataires. Chacune de ces Puissances a le droit d’intervenir au procès. Si une ou plusieurs d’entre elles ont profité de cette faculté, l’interprétation contenue dans la sentence est également obligatoire à leur égard.
De la Procédure Sommaire d’Arbitrage.
En vue de faciliter le fonctionnement de la justice arbitrale, lorsqu’il s’agit de litiges de nature à comporter une procédure sommaire, les Puissances contractantes arrêtent les règles ciaprès, qui seront suivies en l’absence de stipulations différentes, et sous réserve, le cas échéant, de l’application des dispositions du Chapitre III, qui ne seraient pas contraires.
Chacune des Parties en litige nomme un arbitre. Les deux arbitres ainsi désignés choisissent un surarbitre. S’ils ne tombent pas d’accord à ce sujet, chacun présente deux candidats pris sur la liste générale des Membres de la Cour permanente en dehors des Membres indiqués par chacune des Parties Elles-mêmes et n’étant les nationaux d’aucune d’Elles; le sort détermine lequel des candidats ainsi présentés sera le surarbitre.
Le surarbitre préside le Tribunal, qui rend ses décisions à la majorité des voix.
A défaut d’accord préalable, le Tribunal fixe, dès qu’il est constitué, le délai dans lequel les deux Parties devront lui soumettre leurs mémoires respectifs.
Chaque Partie est représentée devant le Tribunal par un agent qui sert d’intermédiaire entre le Tribunal et le Gouvernement qui l’a désigné.
La procédure a lieu exclusivement par écrit. Toutefois, chaque Partie a le droit de demander la comparution de témoins et d’experts. Le Tribunal a, de son côté, la faculté de demander des explications orales aux agents des deux Parties, ainsi qu’aux experts et aux témoins dont il juge la comparution utile.
La présente Convention dûment ratifiée remplacera, dans les rapports entre les Puissances contractantes, la Convention pour le règlement pacifique des conflits internationaux du 29 juillet, 1899.
Les dépôts ultérieurs de ratifications se feront au moyen d’une notification écrite adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et accompagnée de l’instrument de ratification.
Copie certifiée conforme du procès-verbal relatif au premier dépôt de ratifications, des notifications mentionnées à l’alinéa précédent, ainsi que des instruments de ratification, sera immédiatement remise, par les soins du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et par la voie diplomatique, aux Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, ainsi qu’aux autres Puissances qui auront adhéré à la Convention. Dans les cas visés par l’alinéa précédent, le dit Gouvernement Leur fera connaître en même temps la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.
Les Puissances non-signataires qui ont été représentées à la Conférence internationale de la Paix pourront adhérer à la présente Convention. Elles auront à cet effet à faire connaître Leur adhésion aux Puissances Contractantes, au moyen d’une notification écrite, adressée au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et communiquée par celui-ci à toutes les autres Puissances contractantes.
Les Puissances non-signataires qui ont été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix pourront adhérer à la présente Convention.
Ce Gouvernement transmettra immédiatement à toutes les autres Puissances conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix copie certifiée conforme de la notification ainsi que de l’acte d’adhésion, en indiquant la date à laquelle il a reçu la notification.
Les conditions auxquelles les Puissances qui n’ont pas été représentées à la Conférence internationale de la Paix, pourront adhérer à la présente Convention, formeront l’objet d’une entente ultérieure entre les Puissances contractantes.
Les conditions auxquelles les Puissances qui n’ont pas été conviées à la Deuxième Conférence de la Paix, pourront adhérer à la présente Convention, formeront l’objet d’une entente ultérieure entre les Puissances contractantes.
S’il arrivait qu’une des Hautes Parties contractantes dénonçât la présente Convention, cette dénonciation ne produirait ses effets qu’un an après la notification faite par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et communiquée immédiatement par celui-ci à toutes les autres Puissances contractantes.
Fait à La Haye, le 29 juillet, 1899, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas et dont des copies, certifiées conformes, seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances contractantes.
S’il arrivait qu’une des Puissances contractantes voulút dénoncer la présente Convention, la dénonciation sera notifiée par écrit au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, qui communiquera immédiatement copie certifiée conforme de la notification à toutes les autres Puissances en leur faisant savoir la date à laquelle il l’a reçue.
La dénonciation ne produira ses effets qu’à l’égard de la Puissance qui l’aura notifiée, et un an après que la notification en sera parvenue au Gouvernement des Pays-Bas.
Un registre tenu par le Ministère des Affaires Étrangères des Pays-Bas indiquera la date du dépôt de ratifications effectué en vertu de l’Article 92, alinéas 3 et 4, ainsi que la date à laquelle auront été reçues les notifications d’adhésion (Article 93, alinéa 2) ou de dénonciation (Article 96, alinéa 1).
Chaque Puissance contractante est admise à prendre connaissance de ce registre, et à en demander des extraits certifiés conformes.
Fait à La Haye, le 18 octobre, 1907, en un seul exemplaire, qui restera déposé dans les archives du Gouvernement des Pays-Bas, et dont des copies certifiées conformes seront remises par la voie diplomatique aux Puissances contractantes.
His Majesty the King of the Belgians; His Majesty the King of Denmark; His Majesty the King of Spain, and in his name Her Majesty the Queen-Regent of the Kingdom; the President of the United States of America; the President of the United States of Mexico; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; His Highness the Prince of Montenegro; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and the Algarves; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden and Norway; and His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria1 ,
His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; the President of the United States of America; the President of the Argentine Republic; His Majesty the Emperor of Austria, King of Bohemia, &c., and Apostolic King of Hungary; His Majesty the King of the Belgians; the President of the Republic of Bolivia; the President of the Republic of the United States of Brazil; His Royal Highness the Prince of Bulgaria; the President of the Republic of Chile; His Majesty the Emperor of China; the President of the Republic of Colombia; the Provisional Governor of the Republic of Cuba; His Majesty the King of Denmark; the President of the Dominican Republic; the President of the Republic of Ecuador; His Majesty the King of Spain; the President of the French Republic; His Majesty the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas, Emperor of India; His Majesty the King of the Hellenes; the President of the Republic of Guatemala; the President of the Republic of Haïti; His Majesty the King of Italy; His Majesty the Emperor of Japan; His Royal Highness the Grand Duke of Luxemburg, Duke of Nassau; the President of the United States of Mexico; His Royal Highness the Prince of Montenegro; the President of the Republic of Nicaragua; His Majesty the King of Norway; the President of the Republic of Panamá; the President of the Republic of Paraguay; Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands; the President of the Republic of Peru; His Imperial Majesty the Shah of Persia; His Majesty the King of Portugal and of the Algarves, &c.; His Majesty the King of Roumania; His Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias; the President of the Republic of Salvador; His Majesty the King of Servia; His Majesty the King of Siam; His Majesty the King of Sweden; the Swiss Federal Council; His Majesty the Emperor of the Ottomans; the President of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay; the President of the United States of Venezuela:
animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of the general peace;
Resolved to promote by their best efforts the friendly settlement of international disputes;
Recognizing the solidarity uniting the members of the society of civilized nations;
Desirous of extending the empire of law, and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;
Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration, accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;
Having regard to the advantages of the general and regular organization of the procedure of arbitration;
Sharing the opinion of the august Initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an international agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples;
Being desirous of concluding a Convention to this effect, have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries,
Who, after communication of their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed on the following provisions:—
Animated by the sincere desire to work for the maintenance of general peace;
Desirous of extending the empire of law and of strengthening the appreciation of international justice;
Convinced that the permanent institution of a Tribunal of Arbitration accessible to all, in the midst of independent Powers, will contribute effectively to this result;
Sharing the opinion of the august Initiator of the International Peace Conference that it is expedient to record in an international agreement the principles of equity and right on which are based the security of States and the welfare of peoples; and
Being desirous, with this object, of insuring the better working in practice of Commissions of Inquiry and Tribunals of Arbitration, and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure;
Have deemed it necessary to revise in certain particulars and to complete the work of the First Peace Conference for the pacific settlement of international disputes;
The High Contracting Parties have resolved to conclude a new Convention for this purpose, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say:
Who, after having deposited their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed upon the following:—
On the Maintenance of the General Peace.
With a view of obviating, as far as possible, recourse to force in the relations between States, the Signatory Powers agree to use their best efforts to insure the pacific settlement of international differences.
On the Maintenance of General Peace.
(No change.)1
On Good Offices and Mediation.
In case of serious disagreement or dispute, before an appeal to arms, the Signatory Powers agree to have recourse, as far as circumstances allow, to the good offices or mediation of one or more friendly Powers.
Independently of this recourse, the Signatory Powers deem it expedient that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.
Powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities.
The exercise of this right can never be regarded by either of the parties at variance as an unfriendly act.
Independently of this recourse, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that one or more Powers, strangers to the dispute, should, on their own initiative and as far as circumstances may allow, offer their good offices or mediation to the States at variance.
The duties of the mediator are at an end when once it is declared, either by one of the contending parties, or by the mediator himself, that the means of reconciliation proposed by him are not accepted.
Good offices and mediation, undertaken either at the request of the contending parties or on the initiative of Powers strangers to the dispute, have exclusively the character of advice, and never have binding force.
The acceptance of mediation cannot, in default of agreement to the contrary, have the effect of interrupting, delaying or hindering mobilization or other measures of preparation for war.
If mediation takes place after the commencement of hostilities, the military operations in progress are not interrupted, in default of agreement to the contrary.
The Signatory Powers are agreed in recommending the application, when circumstances allow, of special mediation in the following form:—
In case of a serious difference endangering peace, the contending States choose respectively a Power, to which they intrust the mission of entering into direct communication with the Power chosen on the other side, with the object of preventing the rupture of pacific relations.
For the period of this mandate, the term of which, in default of agreement to the contrary, cannot exceed thirty days, the States at variance cease from all direct communication on the subject of the dispute, which is regarded as referred exclusively to the mediating Powers. These Powers shall use their best efforts to settle the dispute.
In case of a definite rupture of pacific relations, these Powers remain jointly charged with the task of taking advantage of any opportunity to restore peace.
On International Commissions of Inquiry.
In disputes of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Signatory Powers deem it expedient that the parties, who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.
In disputes of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable that the parties who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these disputes by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation.
International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the contending parties.
The Inquiry Convention defines the facts to be examined and the extent of the powers of the Commissioners.
It settles the procedure.
At the inquiry both sides must be heard.
The form and the periods to be observed, if not stated in the Inquiry Convention, are decided by the Commission itself.
The Inquiry Convention defines the facts to be examined: it determines the manner and period within which the Commission is to be formed and the extent of the powers of the Commissioners.
It also determines, if there is occasion for it, where the Commission is to meet, and whether it may remove to another place, the language the Commission shall use and the languages the use of which shall be authorized before it, as well as the date on which each party must deposit its statement of facts, and, generally speaking, all the conditions upon which the parties have agreed.
If the parties consider it necessary to appoint Assessors, the Inquiry Convention shall determine the mode of their selection and the extent of their powers.
If the Inquiry Convention has not determined where the Commission is to sit, it shall sit at The Hague.
The place of sitting, once fixed, cannot be altered by the Commission except with the assent of the parties.
Unless the Inquiry Convention has specified the languages to be employed, the question shall be decided by the Commission.
International Commissions of Inquiry are formed, unless otherwise stipulated, in the manner determined by Article 32 of the present Convention.
In default of agreement to the contrary, Commissions of Inquiry shall be formed in the manner determined by Articles 45 and 57 of the present Convention.
Should one of the Commissioners or one of the Assessors, if there be any, either die, resign, or be unable for any reason whatever to act, the same procedure is followed in filling his place which was followed in appointing him.
The parties are entitled to appoint special agents to attend the Commission of Inquiry, whose duty it is to represent them and to act as intermediaries between them and the Commission.
They are further authorized to engage counsel or advocates, appointed by themselves, to state their case and uphold their interests before the Commission.
If the Commission sits elsewhere than at The Hague, it appoints a Secretary-General, whose office serves as registry.
It is the function of the registry, under the control of the President, to make the necessary arrangements for the sittings of the Commission, the preparation of the Minutes and, while the inquiry lasts, for the custody of the archives, which shall subsequently be transferred to the International Bureau at The Hague.
On the inquiry both sides must be heard.
(Cp. Art. 10 (1899).)
At the dates fixed, each party communicates to the Commission and to the other party the statements of facts, if any, and, in all cases, the instruments, papers, and documents which it considers useful for ascertaining the truth, as well as the list of witnesses and experts whose evidence it wishes to be heard.
The Commission is entitled, with the assent of the parties, to move temporarily to any place where it considers it may be useful to have recourse to taking evidence by this means, or to send thither one or more of its members. Permission must be obtained from the State on whose territory evidence has to be taken in this way.
The Commission is entitled to ask from either party such explanations and information as it thinks fit.
The Powers at variance undertake to afford to the International Commission of Inquiry, within the widest limits they may think practicable, all means and facilities necessary to enable it to become completely acquainted with, and to accurately understand the facts at issue.
The Parties undertake to afford to the Commission of Inquiry, within the widest limits they may think practicable, all the means and facilities necessary to enable it to become completely acquainted with, and accurately to understand the facts at issue.
They undertake to make use of the means at their disposal under their municipal law, to secure the appearance of the witnesses or experts who are in their territory and have been summoned before the Commission.
If the witnesses or experts are unable to appear before the Commission, the parties shall arrange for their evidence to be taken before the qualified officials of their own country.
For the service of all notices by the Commission in the territory of a third Contracting Power, the Commission shall apply direct to the Government of such Power. The same rule shall apply in the case of steps being taken in order to procure evidence on the spot.
Requests for this purpose are to be executed so far as the means which the Power applied to possesses under municipal law allow. They cannot be rejected unless the Power in question considers they are calculated to impair its sovereign rights or its safety.
The Commission will also be entitled in all cases to have recourse to the intervention of the Power on whose territory it sits.
The witnesses and experts are summoned on the request of the parties or by the Commission of its own motion, and, in every case, through the Government of the State in whose territory they are.
The witnesses are heard in succession and separately, in the presence of the agents and counsel, and in the order fixed by the Commission.
The examination of witnesses is conducted by the President.
The members of the Commission may however put to each witness questions which they consider likely to throw light on and complete his evidence, or elicit information on any point concerning the witness within the limits of what is necessary in order to get at the truth.
The agents and counsel of the parties may not interrupt the witness when he is making his statement, nor put any direct question to him, but they may ask the President to put such additional questions to the witness as they think expedient.
The witness must give his evidence without being allowed to read any written proof. He may, however, be permitted by the President to consult notes or documents if the nature of the facts referred to necessitates their employment.
A Minute of the evidence of the witness is drawn up forthwith and read to the witness. The latter may make such alterations and additions as he thinks necessary, which shall be recorded at the end of his statement.
When the whole of his statement has been read to the witness, he is required to sign it.
The Commission considers its decisions in private and the proceedings remain secret.
All questions are decided by a majority of the members of the Commission.
If a member declines to vote, the fact must be recorded in the Minutes.
The sittings of the Commission are not public, nor are the Minutes and documents connected with the inquiry published, except in virtue of a decision of the Commission taken with the consent of the parties.
The International Commission of Inquiry communicates its Report to the Powers at variance, signed by all the members of the Commission.
The Report is signed by all the members of the Commission.
If one of the members refuses to sign, the fact is mentioned; but the validity of the Report is not affected.
The Report of the Commission is read in open Court, the agents and counsel of the parties being present or duly summoned to attend.
A copy of the Report is furnished to each party.
The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry being limited to a finding of fact, has in no way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves to the Powers at variance entire freedom as to the effect to be given to the finding.
The Report of the Commission, being limited to a finding of fact, has in no way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves to the Parties entire freedom as to the effect to be given to the finding.
Each party pays its own expenses and an equal share of the expenses of the Commission.
On International Arbitration.
On the System of Arbitration.
International arbitration has for its object the settlement of differences between States by judges of their own choice, and on the basis of respect for law.
International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by judges of their own choice and on the basis of respect for law.
Recourse to arbitration implies an engagement to submit loyally to the Award.
(Cp. Art. 18 (1899).)
In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.
In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of International Conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and, at the same time, the most equitable means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.
Consequently, it would be desirable that, in disputes regarding the above-mentioned questions, the Contracting Powers should, if the case arise, have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit.
The Arbitration Convention is concluded for questions already existing or for questions which may arise eventually.
It may embrace any dispute or only disputes of a certain category.
The Arbitration Convention implies the engagement to submit loyally to the Award.
(See Art. 37 (1907).)
Independently of general or private Treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the Signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to themselves the right of concluding, either before the ratification of the present Act or later, new agreements, general or private, with a view to extending obligatory arbitration to all cases which they may consider possible to submit to it.
Independently of general or private Treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the Contracting Powers, the said Powers reserve to themselves the right of concluding new agreements, general or particular, with a view to extending compulsory arbitration to all cases which they may consider possible to submit to it.
On the Permanent Court of Arbitration.
With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences, which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Signatory Powers undertake to organize a permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and acting, in default of agreement to the contrary between the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.
With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences, which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the Contracting Powers undertake to maintain the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as established by the First Peace Conference, accessible at all times, and acting, in default of agreement to the contrary between the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention.
The Permanent Court shall be competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special Tribunal.
An International Bureau, established at the Hague, serves as registry for the Court.
This Bureau is the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the Court.
It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business.
The Signatory Powers undertake to communicate to the International Bureau at the Hague a duly certified copy of any agreement concerning arbitration arrived at between them, and of any award concerning them delivered by a special Tribunal.
They likewise undertake to communicate to the Bureau the laws, regulations, and documents if any, showing the execution of the awards given by the Court.
The seat of the Permanent Court is at the Hague.
(Cp. Art. 25 (1899).)
An International Bureau serves as registry for the Court. It is the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the Court; it has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business.
The Contracting Powers undertake to communicate to the Bureau, as soon as possible, a duly certified copy of any agreement concerning arbitration arrived at between them and of any award concerning them delivered by a special Tribunal.
Within the three months following its ratification of the present Act, each Signatory Power shall select four persons at the most, of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrators.
The persons thus selected shall be inscribed, as Members of the Court, in a list which shall be notified by the Bureau to all the Signatory Powers.
Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the Signatory Powers.
Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in common of one or more Members.
The same person may be selected by different Powers.
The Members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years. Their appointments can be renewed.
Should a Member of the Court die or resign, the same procedure is followed in filling the vacancy as was followed in appointing him.
Each Contracting Power selects four persons at the most, of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of Arbitrator.
The persons thus selected are inscribed, as Members of the Court, in a list which shall be notified to all the Contracting Powers by the Bureau.
Any alteration in the list of Arbitrators is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the Contracting Powers.
Should a Member of the Court die or resign, the same procedure is followed in filling the vacancy as was followed in appointing him. In this case the appointment is made for a fresh period of six years.
When the Signatory Powers wish to have recourse to the Permanent Court for the settlement of a difference which has arisen between them, the Arbitrators called upon to form the Tribunal to decide this difference must be chosen from the general list of Members of the Court.
Failing the composition of the Arbitration Tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:—
Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these together choose an Umpire.
If the votes are equally divided, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by agreement between the parties.
If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.
As soon as the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties notify to the Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court and the names of the Arbitrators.
The Tribunal of Arbitration assembles at the date fixed by the parties.
The Members of the Tribunal, in the performance of their duties and when outside their own country, enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities.
The Tribunal of Arbitration has its ordinary seat at the Hague.
(See Art. 43 (1907).)
Except in cases of necessity, the place of session can only be altered by the Tribunal with the assent of the parties.
When the Contracting Powers wish to have recourse to the Permanent Court for the settlement of a difference which has arisen between them, the Arbitrators called upon to form the Tribunal to decide this difference must be chosen from the general list of Members of the Court.
Failing the composition of the Arbitration Tribunal by agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:—
Each party appoints two Arbitrators, of whom one only can be its national or chosen from among the persons selected by it as Members of the Permanent Court. These Arbitrators together choose an Umpire.
If an agreement is not arrived at on this subject each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.
If, within two months’ time, these two Powers cannot come to an agreement, each of them presents two candidates taken from the list of Members of the Permanent Court, exclusive of the Members selected by the parties and not being nationals of either of them. Which of the candidates thus presented shall be Umpire is determined by lot.
As soon as the Tribunal has been constituted, the parties notify to the Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court, the text of their Compromis1 , and the names of the Arbitrators.
The Bureau communicates without delay to each Arbitrator the Compromis, and the names of the other members of the Tribunal.
The Tribunal assembles at the date fixed by the parties. The Bureau makes the necessary arrangements for its meeting.
The International Bureau at the Hague is authorized to place its offices and its staff at the disposal of the Signatory Powers for the use of any special Board of Arbitration.
The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the Regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Signatory Powers, or between Signatory Powers and non-Signatory Powers, if the parties are agreed to have recourse to the Court.
The Bureau is authorized to place its offices and staff at the disposal of the Contracting Powers for the use of any special Board of Arbitration.
The jurisdiction of the Permanent Court may, within the conditions laid down in the Regulations, be extended to disputes between non-Contracting Powers or between Contracting Powers and non-Contracting Powers, if the parties are agreed to have recourse to the Court.
The Signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them.
Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the parties at variance of the provisions of the present Convention, and the advice given to them, in the highest interests of peace, to have recourse to the Permanent Court, can only be regarded as in the nature of good offices.
The Contracting Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them.
Consequently, they declare that the fact of reminding the parties at variance of the provisions of the present Convention, and the advice given to them, in the highest interests of peace, to have recourse to the Permanent Court, can only be regarded as in the nature of good offices1 .
In case of dispute between two Powers, one of them may always address to the International Bureau a note containing a declaration that it would be ready to submit the dispute to arbitration.
The Bureau must at once inform the other Power of the declaration.
A Permanent Administrative Council composed of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Signatory Powers accredited to the Hague and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs, who will act as President, shall be instituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of the present Act by at least nine Powers.
This Council will be charged with the establishment and organization of the International Bureau, which will be under its direction and control.
It will notify to the Powers the constitution of the Court and will provide for its installation.
It will settle its rules of procedure and all other necessary regulations.
It will decide all questions of administration which may arise with regard to the business of the Court.
It will have entire control over the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the officials and employés of the Bureau.
It will fix the payments and salaries, and control the general expenditure.
At meetings duly summoned the presence of five members is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. The decisions are taken by a majority of votes.
The Council communicates to the Signatory Powers without delay the Regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with an annual Report on the labours of the Court, the working of the staff, and the expenditure.
The Permanent Administrative Council, composed of the Diplomatic Representatives of the Contracting Powers accredited to The Hague and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs, who acts as President, is charged with the direction and control of the International Bureau.
The Council settles its rules of procedure and all other necessary regulations.
It decides all questions of administration which may arise with regard to the business of the Court.
It has entire control over the appointment, suspension, or dismissal of the officials and employés of the Bureau.
It fixes the payments and salaries, and controls the general expenditure.
At meetings duly summoned, the presence of nine members is sufficient to render valid the discussions of the Council. The decisions are taken by a majority of votes.
The Council communicates to the Contracting Powers without delay the regulations adopted by it. It furnishes them with an annual Report on the labours of the Court, the working of the staff, and the expenditure. The Report likewise contains a summary of the more important contents of the documents communicated to the Bureau by the Powers in virtue of Article 43, paragraphs 3 and 4.
The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the Signatory Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.
The expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the Contracting Powers in the proportion fixed for the International Bureau of the Universal Postal Union.
The expenses to be charged to the acceding Powers shall be reckoned from the date on which their accession takes effect.
On Arbitration Procedure.
With a view of encouraging the development of arbitration, the Signatory Powers have agreed on the following Rules, which shall apply to arbitration procedure, except in so far as other Rules shall have been agreed on by the parties.
The Powers which have recourse to arbitration sign a special Act (Compromis), in which the subject of the dispute is clearly defined, as well as the extent of the Arbitrators’ powers. This Act implies the undertaking of the parties to submit loyally to the award.
(See Art. 37, par. 2 (1907).)
The Powers which have recourse to arbitration sign a Compromis, in which the subject of the dispute is clearly defined, the time allowed for appointing Arbitrators, the form, order, and time in which the communication referred to in Article 63 must be made, and the amount of the sum which each party must deposit in advance to defray the expenses.
The Compromis likewise defines, if there is occasion for it, the manner of appointing Arbitrators, the special powers, if any, conferred on the Tribunal, the place of meeting, the language it shall use, and the languages the employment of which shall be authorized before it, and, generally speaking, all the conditions on which the parties are agreed.
The Permanent Court is competent to settle the Compromis, if the parties are agreed to have recourse to it for the purpose.
It is similarly competent, even if the request is only made by one of the parties, when all attempts to reach an understanding through the diplomatic channel have failed, in the case of:—
1.A dispute covered by a general Treaty of Arbitration concluded or renewed after the present Convention has come into force, and providing for a Compromis in all disputes and not either explicitly or implicitly excluding the settlement of the Compromis from the competence of the Court. Recourse cannot, however, be had to the Court if the other party declares that in its opinion the dispute does not belong to the category of disputes which can be submitted to obligatory arbitration, unless the Treaty of Arbitration confers upon the Arbitration Tribunal the power of deciding this preliminary question;
2.A dispute arising from contract debts claimed from one Power by another Power as due to its nationals, and for the settlement of which the offer of arbitration has been accepted. This provision is not applicable if acceptance is subject to the condition that the Compromis should be settled in some other way.
(Cp. 2 H. C. 1907.)
In the cases contemplated in the preceding Article, the Compromis shall be settled by a Commission consisting of five members selected in the manner laid down in Article 45, paragraphs 3 to 6.
The fifth member is ex officio President of the Commission.
The duties of Arbitrator may be conferred on a single Arbitrator or on several Arbitrators selected by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present Act.
Failing the constitution of the Tribunal by direct agreement between the parties, the following course shall be pursued:
Each party appoints two Arbitrators, and these latter together choose an Umpire.
In case of equal voting, the choice of the Umpire is intrusted to a third Power, selected by the parties by common accord.
If no agreement is arrived at on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the choice of the Umpire is made in concert by the Powers thus selected.
The duties of Arbitrator may be conferred on a single Arbitrator or on several Arbitrators selected by the parties as they please, or chosen by them from the Members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration established by the present Convention.
Failing the composition of the Tribunal by agreement between the parties, the course referred to in Article 45, paragraphs 3 to 6, is followed.
The Umpire is ex officio President of the Tribunal.
When the Tribunal does not include an Umpire, it appoints its own President.
When the Compromis is settled by a Commission, as contemplated in Article 54, and in default of agreement to the contrary, the Commission itself shall form the Arbitration Tribunal.
In case of the death, retirement or disability from any cause of one of the Arbitrators, the same procedure is followed in filling the vacancy as was followed in appointing him.
The Tribunal’s place of session is selected by the parties. Failing this selection the Tribunal sits at the Hague.
The place of session thus fixed cannot, except in case of necessity, be altered by the Tribunal, except with the assent of the Parties.
The Tribunal sits at The Hague, unless some other place is selected by the parties.
The Tribunal may only sit in the territory of a third Power with the latter’s consent.
The place of session once fixed cannot be altered by the Tribunal, except with the assent of the Parties.
Unless the Compromis has specified the languages to be employed, the question shall be decided by the Tribunal.
(Cp. Art. 38 (1899).)
The parties are entitled to appoint delegates or special agents to attend the Tribunal, for the purpose of acting as intermediaries between themselves and the Tribunal.
They are further authorized to retain, for the defence of their rights and interests before the Tribunal, counsel or advocates appointed by them for this purpose.
(See Art. 61 (1907).)
The parties are entitled to appoint special agents to attend the Tribunal, for the purpose of acting as intermediaries between themselves and the Tribunal.
They are further authorized to retain for the defence of their rights and interests before the Tribunal counsel or advocates appointed by them for the purpose.
The Members of the Permanent Court may not act as agents, counsel or advocates except on behalf of the Power which has appointed them Members of the Court.
As a general rule arbitration procedure comprises two distinct phases; pleadings and oral discussions.
The pleadings consist in the communication by the respective agents to the members of the Tribunal and the opposing party of all printed or written Acts and of all documents containing the pleas relied on in the case. This communication shall be made in the form and within the time fixed by the Tribunal in accordance with Article 49.
The discussions consist of the oral development of the pleas of the parties before the Tribunal.
As a general rule, arbitration procedure comprises two distinct phases: written pleadings and oral discussions.
The written pleadings consist in the communication by the respective agents to the members of the Tribunal and the opposing party, of cases, countercases, and, if necessary, of replies; the parties annex thereto all papers and documents relied on in the cause. This communication shall be made either directly or through the intermediary of the International Bureau, in the order and within the time fixed by the Compromis.
The time fixed by the Compromis may be extended by mutual agreement between the parties, or by the Tribunal when the latter considers it necessary for the purpose of reaching a just decision.
The discussions consist of the oral developments of the pleas of the parties before the Tribunal.
Every document produced by one party must be communicated to the other party.
A duly certified copy of every document produced by one party must be communicated to the other party.
The discussions are under the direction of the President.
They are not public unless it be so decided by the Tribunal, with the assent of the parties.
They are recorded in minutes drawn up by the Secretaries appointed by the President. These minutes are the only authentic record.
They are recorded in minutes drawn up by the Secretaries appointed by the President. These minutes are signed by the President and by one of the Secretaries and are the only authentic record.
After the close of the pleadings, the Tribunal is entitled to exclude from the discussion all fresh papers or documents which one party may wish to submit to it without the consent of the other.
The Tribunal is free to take into consideration fresh papers or documents to which its attention may be drawn by the agents or counsel of the parties.
In that case, the Tribunal has the right to require the production of such papers or documents, but is obliged to make them known to the opposite party.
The Tribunal may also call upon the agents of the parties to furnish all necessary papers and explanations. In case of refusal the Tribunal takes note of it.
The agents and counsel of the parties are authorised to present orally to the Tribunal all the arguments they may think expedient in support of their case.
They are entitled to raise objections and points.
The decisions of the Tribunal thereon are final, and cannot form the subject of any subsequent discussion.
The members of the Tribunal are entitled to put questions to the agents and counsel of the parties, and to ask them for explanations on doubtful points.
Neither the questions put nor the remarks made by members of the Tribunal in the course of the discussions are to be regarded as an expression of opinion by the Tribunal in general, or by its members in particular.
The Tribunal is authorised to determine its competence by interpreting the Compromis as well as the other Treaties which may be adduced in the matter and by applying the principles of international law.
The Tribunal is authorised to determine its competence by interpreting the Compromis as well as the other papers and documents which may be adduced in the matter and by applying the principles of law.
The Tribunal is entitled to make rules of procedure for the conduct of the case, to decide the forms and time in which each party must conclude its arguments, and to arrange all the formalities required for taking evidence.
The Tribunal is entitled to make rules of procedure for the conduct of the case, to decide the forms, order, and time in which each party must conclude its arguments, and to arrange all the formalities for taking evidence.
The parties undertake to supply the Tribunal, within the widest limits they may think practicable, with all the information required for deciding the dispute.
For the service of all notices by the Tribunal in the territory of a third Contracting Power, the Tribunal shall apply direct to the Government of such Power. The same rule shall apply in the case of steps being taken in order to procure evidence on the spot.
Requests for this purpose are to be executed so far as the means which the Power applied to possesses under its municipal law allow. They cannot be rejected unless the Power in question considers they are calculated to impair its sovereign rights or its safety.
The Tribunal will also be entitled in all cases to act through the Power on whose territory it sits.
When the agents and counsel of the parties have submitted all the explanations and evidence in support of their case, the President shall declare the discussion closed.
The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private
All questions are decided by a majority of members of the Tribunal.
The refusal of a member to vote must be recorded in the procès-verbal.
The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private and the proceedings remain secret.
All questions are decided by a majority of the members of the Tribunal.
The Award, given by a majority of votes, must state the reasons on which it is based. It is drawn up in writing and signed by each member of the Tribunal.
Those members who are in the minority may record their dissent when signing.
The Award must state the reasons on which it is based. It recites the names of the Arbitrators and is signed by the President and by the Registrar or the Secretary acting as Registrar.
The Award is read out at a public sitting of the Tribunal, the agents and counsel of the parties being present, or duly summoned to attend.
The Award is read out at a public sitting, the agents and counsel of the parties being present or duly summoned to attend.
The Award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties at variance, settles the dispute definitely and without appeal.
The Award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties, settles the dispute definitely and without appeal.
Any dispute arising between the parties as to the interpretation and execution of the Award shall, in default of agreement to the contrary, be submitted to the decision of the Tribunal which pronounced it.
The parties may in the Compromis reserve the right to demand the revision of the Award.
In this case, and unless there be an agreement to the contrary, the demand must be addressed to the Tribunal which pronounced the Award. It can only be made on the ground of the discovery of some new fact which is calculated to exercise a decisive influence upon the Award, and which, at the time the discussion was closed, was unknown to the Tribunal and to the party demanding revision.
Proceedings for revision can only be instituted by a decision of the Tribunal expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognizing in it the character described in the preceding paragraph, and declaring the demand admissible on this ground.
The Compromis fixes the period within which the demand for revision must be made.
The Award is only binding on the parties who concluded the Compromis.
When there is a question of interpreting a Convention to which Powers other than those at variance are parties, the latter notify to the former the Compromis they have concluded. Each of these Powers has the right to intervene in the case. If one or more of them avail themselves of this right, the interpretation contained in the Award is equally binding on them.
The Award is only binding on the parties to the proceedings.
When there is a question of interpreting a Convention to which Powers other than those at variance are parties, the latter shall inform all the Signatory Powers in good time. Each of these Powers has the right to intervene in the case. If one or more of them avail themselves of this right, the interpretation contained in the Award is equally binding on them.
Each party pays its own expenses and an equal share of those of the Tribunal.
On Arbitration by Summary Procedure.
With a view of facilitating the working of the system of arbitration in disputes admitting of a summary procedure, the Contracting Powers adopt the following rules, which shall be observed in the absence of other arrangements and with the reservation that the provisions of Chapter III apply so far as they are not inconsistent with these rules.
Each of the parties at variance appoints an Arbitrator. The two Arbitrators thus selected choose an Umpire. If they do not agree on this point, each of them proposes two candidates taken from the general list of the Members of the Permanent Court exclusive of the Members appointed by either of the parties and not being nationals of either of them; which of the candidates thus proposed shall be the Umpire is determined by lot.
The Umpire presides over the Tribunal, which gives its decisions by a majority of votes.
In default of previous agreement, the Tribunal, as soon as it is constituted, settles the time within which the two parties shall submit their respective cases to it.
Each party is represented before the Tribunal by an agent, who serves as intermediary between the Tribunal and the Government which has appointed him.
The proceedings are conducted exclusively in writing. Each party, however, is entitled to ask that witnesses and experts should be called. The Tribunal, on its part, has the right to ask for oral explanations from the agents of the two parties, as well as from the experts and witnesses whose appearance in Court it may consider useful.
The present Convention shall be ratified as speedily as possible.
A procès-verbal shall be drawn up recording the receipt of each ratification, and a copy duly certified shall be sent, through the diplomatic channel, to all the Powers who were represented at the International Peace Conference at The Hague.
The subsequent deposits of ratifications shall be made by means of a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government and accompanied by the instrument of ratification.
A duly certified copy of the procès-verbal relating to the first deposit of ratifications, of the notifications mentioned in the preceding paragraph, and of the instruments of ratification, shall be immediately sent by the Netherland Government, through the diplomaticchannel, to the Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference, as well as to the other Powers which have acceded to the Convention. In the cases contemplated in the preceding paragraph the said Government shall at the same time inform the Powers of the date on which it received the notification.
The non-Signatory Powers which were represented at the International Peace Conference can accede to the present Convention. For this purpose they must make known their accession to the Contracting Powers by a written notification addressed to the Netherland Government, and communicated by it to all the other Contracting Powers.
Non-Signatory Powers which have been invited to the Second Peace Conference may accede to the present Convention.
The said Government shall immediately forward to all the other Powers invited to the Second Peace Conference a duly certified copy of the notification as well as of the act of accession, mentioning the date on which it received the notification.
The conditions on which the Powers not represented at the International Peace Conference may accede to the present Convention shall form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the Contracting Powers.
The conditions on which the Powers not invited to the Second Peace Conference may accede to the present Convention shall form the subject of a subsequent agreement between the Contracting Powers.
The present Convention shall take effect, in the case of the Powers which were parties to the first deposit of ratifications, sixty days after the date of the procès-verbal recording such deposit, and, in the case of the Powers which ratify subsequently or which shall accede, sixty days after the notification of their ratification or of their accession has been received by the Netherland Government.
In the event of one of the High Contracting Parties denouncing the present Convention, this denunciation would not take effect until a year after its notification made in writing to the Netherland Government, and by it communicated at once to all the other Contracting Powers.
In faith whereof the Plenipotentiaries have signed the present Convention and affixed their seals to it.
Done at The Hague, the 29th July, 1899, in a single original, which shall remain in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent through the diplomatic channel to the Contracting Powers.
A register kept by the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs shall record the date of the deposit of ratifications effected in virtue of Article 92, paragraphs 3 and 4, as well as the date on which the notifications of accession (Article 93, paragraph 2) or of denunciation (Article 96, paragraph 1) have been received.
Done at The Hague, the 18th October, 1907, in a single original, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Netherland Government, and of which duly certified copies shall be sent through the diplomatic channel, to the Contracting Powers.
Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes1 .
The work of the First Conference.The most important result of the First Conference in the opinion of Sir Julian Pauncefote, the First British delegate, was the production of a Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes. “It was elaborated by a Committee composed of distinguished jurists and diplomatists and it constitutes a complete code on the subject of good offices, mediation and arbitration. Its most striking and novel feature is the establishment of a Permanent Court of international arbitration, which has so long been the dream of the advocates of peace, destined, apparently, until now never to be realized2 .” This Convention was the work of the Third Committee in 1899, which commenced its labours with an examination of a draft communicated to the Conference by the Russian Delegation. This contained no provision for the establishment of a permanent international tribunal of arbitration. Proposals with this object were submitted to the Conference by the British delegates who worked in collaboration with those of the United States who had received instructions to present a project of an international tribunal not dissimilar to the British in some respects, “though hampered with provisions relating to procedure,” but these proposals were not pressed, and the American delegates supported the British draft. In the course of the examination of the various projects, the British proposals were ultimately taken as a basis. The work of the Committee and its results were summarised in the able report of M. le Chevalier Descamps whose labours in the cause of International Arbitration were acknowledged by the Committee, extracts from his Essay on Arbitration being printed and circulated among the members1 .
The Convention is divided into four Titles: (i) on the maintenance of the general peace (1 article); (ii) on good offices and mediation (7 articles); (iii) International Commission of Inquiry (6 articles); (iv) International Arbitration (42 articles).
This Convention is a noteworthy advance on previous attempts to extend the principle of arbitration as a means of settlement of international disputes, and by far the most important part of it is Chapter ii. of the Fourth Title which creates a Permanent Court of Arbitration, the credit for which is chiefly due to the combined labours of the British and United States delegates. The Russian draft contemplated little more than the framing of Rules of Procedure for international tribunals, which, whatever the merit of those rules, would not materially have advanced the cause of arbitration. The expression “Permanent Court” does not accurately describe the institution created by this Convention under which each of the signatory Powers agreed within three months after its ratification to select four persons at the most of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators (Art. 23). When any of the signatory Powers desire to have recourse to the Permanent Court the arbitrators are to be chosen from the list of members of the Court. The Court is only permanent in the sense that there now came into existence a body of duly qualified arbitrators, ready and willing if called upon to undertake the work of assisting in the peaceful settlement of disputes, and provided with general rules of procedure for the fulfilment of their office. Four times since 1899 has a body constituted under the term of this Convention come into being and delivered judgment1 , and certain defects had become apparent in the working of the Court. A Commission of Inquiry, constituted with somewhat wider powers than those provided by Title iii. of the Convention, settled a most important dispute between Great Britain and Russia, and from its proceedings improvements in the Convention were seen to be advisable.
The object of the Second Conference.The Circular of Count Benckendorff of the 3rd April, 1906, placed as the first item in the proposed Programme for the consideration of the Second Hague Conference: “(1) Improvements to be made in the provisions of the Convention relative to the pacific settlement of international disputes, so far as the Court of Arbitration and the International Commissions of Inquiry are concerned.” These subjects were entrusted to the First Committee under the presidency of M. Léon Bourgeois, and its two Sub-Committees designated as Committee A and C respectively, for which Baron Guillaume acted as Reporter. The Report of the First Committee, containing an account of their discussions and the changes proposed in the Convention of 1899, was presented to the Ninth Plenary Meeting of the Conference on the 16th Oct. 19072 . The result was the adoption of a revised Convention of 97 Articles, which when ratified replaces as between the contracting Powers the Convention of 1899. A comparison of the two Conventions shows how far the original Convention remains unchanged, and the additions which the Conference was able to make.
The preamble points out that the object of the revision is to ensure the better working in practice of commissions of inquiry and tribunals of arbitration, and of facilitating recourse to arbitration in cases which allow of a summary procedure. It is on these matters that the chief changes will be found. Chapter iv. of Part iv. on arbitration by summary procedure is wholly new.
Good offices and mediation.Except for the substitution of the word “contracting” for “signatory” Powers, and the addition of the words “and desirable” in Article 3 which now reads that “the contracting Powers deem it expedient and desirable” that strangers to a dispute shall as far as circumstances allow offer their good offices or mediation to states at variance, there is no alteration in the first 8 Articles of the 1899 Convention. The addition of the words “and desirable” was made on the proposition of the First Delegate of the United States, Mr Choate. The word “contracting” is throughout the Convention substituted for “signatory.”
An endeavour was made by the Haytian delegate to modify Art. 8 in such a way that the two Powers chosen by the states at variance should themselves nominate a third to act as mediator, but it was felt that not only would this increase the difficulty of the situation, but was not in harmony with the scheme of mediation of the Article.
There is according to many writers on international law a theoretical difference between mediation and good offices, but this is not observed in the text of the Convention. The difference is, however, more theoretical than practical, and both consist in a friendly interposition of a third Power to adjust differences and lead to a pacific solution of a dispute between two Powers at variance1 .
International Commissions of Inquiry.The subject of International Commissions of Inquiry was dealt with in 6 Articles in the Convention of 1899, but in that of 1907 it occupies 28 Articles. The institution had proved its value, and the Conference availed itself of the experience which had been gained by the North Sea Commission which sat in 19052 . The occasion of this Commission was an incident which occurred in the progress of the Russian Baltic Fleet to the Far East during the Russo-Japanese War. On the night of October 21-22, 1904, some ships of the Russian Fleet fired on the Hull fishing fleet which was engaged in fishing off the Dogger Bank in the North Sea. Two men were killed, several injured, one boat was sunk and others damaged. The attack had every appearance of a deliberate outrage, and Lord Lansdowne immediately addressed a note to the Russian Minister demanding an apology, compensation and the punishment of the offenders. The tension between Great Britain and Russia was great, and for a short time war appeared to be inevitable. The Russian Government maintained that Japanese torpedo-boats were concealed among the fishing fleet, and that consequently the firing took place as an operation of war. The presence of Japanese boats was denied by Great Britain. Russia professed her readiness to make compensation if the facts were not as she alleged. The dispute turned therefore on a question of fact, and by a Declaration of Nov. 25, 1904, the two Powers “agreed to entrust to an International Commission of Inquiry, assembled in accordance with Articles ix.-xiv. of the Hague Convention of July 29, 1899, for the pacific settlement of international disputes, the care of elucidating by an impartial and conscientious examination the question of fact relating to the incident which took place during the night of Oct. 21-22, 1904, in the North Sea—in the course of which the firing of cannon of the Russian Fleet occasioned the loss of a boat and the death of two persons belonging to a flotilla of British fishermen, and also damages to the boats of the said flotilla, and wounds to the crew of some of these boats.” The Commission was composed of five members: two officers in the British and Russian Navies respectively (Admiral Sir L. A. Beaumont and Admiral Kaznakov); two naval officers chosen by the United States and France (Admirals Davis and Fournier); and a fifth member chosen by the Emperor of Austria (Admiral Baron Spaun). Great Britain and Russia each appointed a jurist as assessor (but without a vote), and agents. By the 52nd Article the terms of the Inquiry were explained to be the following: “The Commission shall make an inquiry into and draw up a report upon all the circumstances relating to the North Sea incident, and particularly upon the question of where the responsibility lies, and upon the degree of the blame affecting the nationals of the two High Contracting Powers, or of other countries, in case their responsibility should be ascertained by the inquiry.” The latter part of this clause referred to the alleged liability of Japan. The terms of the reference are thus wider than those contemplated by Art. 14 of the Convention of 1899 which limits the Report of the Commission “to a statement of facts.” The Commission was entrusted with the fullest powers even to the extent of apportioning the blame for the occurrence, and this in a matter which both Powers might well have contended to be a difference involving “honour” and “vital interests,” which is expressly excluded from the operation of the Convention by the terms of Art. 9.
Details of the procedure were left to the Commission which met in Paris on December 22, 1904, and delivered its award on February 26, 1905.
The Commission was occupied for four days in settling the procedure to be observed, the Convention of 1899 having enacted no such rules.
Both Powers undertook to afford to the Commission all possible means and facilities to enable it to obtain a thorough knowledge and appreciation of the facts, and to bear an equal share of the expenses of the Commission which reported to the two Governments the results of their inquiry.
The Commission reported (the Russian Admiral alone dissenting) that no Japanese torpedo-boats had been present, that the firing was therefore unjustifiable, that the Commander of the Fleet (Admiral Rojdestvensky) was responsible; but these facts were “not of a nature to cast any discredit on the humanity of Admiral Rojdestvensky or the personnel of his squadron.” Russia subsequently paid the sum of £65,000 by way of indemnity.
The rules of procedure adopted by the North Sea Commission were communicated to the Committee of the Conference, of which Sir Edward Fry, who had acted as British legal assessor at the Commission, was a member.
Article 9 (99), though the subject of considerable discussion, remains unchanged save for two verbal alterations similar to those made in Article 3. The discussion chiefly turned on two proposals of M. de Martens, (1) to substitute the words “agree” for “deem it expedient,” and (2) to add to the functions of Commissions of Inquiry the duty of fixing responsibility, as was done in the North Sea Inquiry, though M. de Martens did not insist on the use of the word “responsibility.” The effect of the acceptance would, it was thought by many of the delegates, have been to make the establishment of such Commissions compulsory “as far as circumstances allow,” and M. de Martens could not carry his point. The fact that Great Britain and Russia had been able to agree under the terms of the Article of the Convention of 1899, determined the Committee to leave it intact.
Considerable additions are made to Art. 10, which in the main are similar to the rules adopted in the North Sea Commission, to which are also due a number of the subsequent Articles in this Part. The place of meeting is to be the Hague unless the Inquiry Convention decides otherwise; the Commission settles the question of the language to be used unless the Inquiry Convention determines it (Art. 11). Art. 17 recommends a set of rules for use by Commissions of Inquiry, which are embodied in the subsequent Articles and are based on a draft presented by the British and French delegate. The mode of procedure adopted is that usual in continental courts of justice. The witnesses are examined by the President. Article 35 reproduces Art. 14 (99). The Russian delegate proposed to modify this Article as follows: “The Powers at variance, having obtained knowledge of the facts and responsibilities declared by the International Commission of Inquiry, are free either to conclude a friendly arrangement, or to have recourse to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague.” The object of this proposal was to exclude the possibility of the Powers who had constituted an International Commission of Inquiry which had reported on the facts having recourse to war. It was based on the consideration that, if two Powers had been able to agree to constitute a Commission of Inquiry, they should be able to go farther in the manifestation of their attachment to peace1 . The Committee was unable to accept this proposal which appeared to imply obligatory arbitration as a necessary consequence of recourse to Commissions of Inquiry, and which they feared would have tended to diminish the number of cases of appeal to this method of peaceful settlement of disputes.
The Articles on the subject of International Commissions of Inquiry mark an advance on those of the Convention of 1899, though the non-acceptance of the amendments mentioned shows that the subject was approached in an extremely conservative spirit. The new rules adopted had for the more part stood the test of actual practice, and were therefore accepted as ready for embodiment in an international Act, but any changes of principle in the nature of an approach to compulsion could find no acceptance. If Great Britain and Russia had, at a time when relations between them were strained almost to breaking point, been enabled to terminate the period of tension in a friendly manner, it was thought that other states might on future occasions do the same.
International Arbitration.Part iv. is concerned with International Arbitration and is divided into four chapters, dealing with the system of arbitration, the Permanent Court of Arbitration, arbitration procedure, and arbitration by summary procedure.
Chapter i. The system of arbitration.Article 37 blends Arts. 15 and 18 (99). Article 38 reproduces Art. 16 (99), which recognises that arbitration is the most effective and equitable means of settling disputes in questions of a legal nature and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions. This Article is, in the words of Sir Edward Fry, “the corner-stone of the Convention.” A clause is now added stating that “consequently, it would be desirable that, in disputes regarding the above-mentioned questions, the contracting Powers should in that case have recourse to arbitration, in so far as circumstances permit.” It is hardly possible to frame a clause in a more cautious or non-committal form of words. Its author was M. de Mérey , one of the Austro-Hungarian delegates. As has already been explained it was round this Article that the various propositions for obligatory arbitration grouped themselves1 . They all took the form of suggestions making recourse to arbitration (which the Article recognised as an equitable solution of disputes) under certain conditions obligatory. They all failed of acceptance and no change was made save the addition of the clause just mentioned2 . There are no further changes in Chapter i.
Chapter ii. The Permanent Court.Articles 41 and 42 are re-enactments of Arts. 20 and 21 (99). A slight addition is made in Article 43, where the words “as soon as possible” were added on the proposition of the German delegate in accordance with the recommendation of the arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case, and with a view of adding precision to the terms of the Article.
Article 44 clears up a doubt which existed under Art. 23 (99) as to the length of time for which a member of the Court held office when he had been nominated to fill the place of another who had died or retired3 .
Article 45 contains some slight changes which however were not arrived at without considerable discussion. As a result of these amendments, each party chooses two arbitrators, but only one of them may be a national or chosen from among the persons nominated by it as members of the Permanent Court. This was in the nature of a compromise, as M. Lammasch (Austro-Hungarian delegate) proposed that no national judge should be appointed where the tribunal was composed of only three members.
In connection with the alterations in this Article it may be noticed that under the Protocol of the 7th May, 1903, with reference to the Venezuelan Arbitration, the Tsar was invited to name from among the members of the Permanent Court three arbitrators, none of whom should be subjects of any of the signatory Powers or creditors. It was not without some difficulty that the Tsar was able to comply with the request. He first nominated, in addition to M. Mouravieff, M. Lardy, Swiss Minister at Paris, and Professor Henning Matzen, Judge of the High Court of Denmark, but the two latter declined, as their countrymen were not disinterested in the litigation. MM. Lammasch and de Martens were then nominated and accepted1 .
In all the four cases, except that of the Japanese leases, the arbitrators were not nationals of the parties to the Arbitration. In the “Pious Funds” and “Venezuela” cases nationals were excluded by the terms of the Compromis, and although there was no such exclusion in the “Muscat Dhows” case, nationals of the parties were not included.
Art. 24 (99) provided no solution for the case where in choosing an umpire the different Powers selected by each party failed to agree; consequently a new paragraph is added to Article 45 under which each Power, if they cannot agree within two months, presents two candidates, and the drawing of lots decides which of them shall be umpire.
Article 46 contains the last three paragraphs of Art. 24 (99); the words “without delay” were added for the same reasons as in the case of Article 43.
Article 47 contains no material change.
Article 48 marks an important alteration in Art. 27 (99), an alteration not arrived at without considerable discussion. Two amendments to Art. 27 (99) were moved, one by the Delegation of Peru, the other by the Delegation of Chili2 . It was thought by the Conference of 1899 that the Article would provide a valuable means of assisting in the maintenance of peace, for by it the signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them, to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them. The Article had however practically been a dead letter. The Peruvian delegate therefore proposed that in case of dispute between two Powers, one of them can always, by a note addressed to the International Bureau at the Hague, declare that it is disposed to submit the dispute to arbitration; the note to contain a short statement of the question in dispute from the point of view of the Power sending it, and the Bureau to communicate it to the other Power, and place itself at the disposition of both Powers in order to facilitate an exchange of views between them and a possible conclusion of a Compromis. The Chilian proposition was in the nature of an amendment to the Peruvian, limiting the cases to which it was applicable to disputes subsequent to the present Convention, and allowing the application of the Power to be made by telegraph. It further limited the function of the Bureau to one of administration, whereas the Peruvian proposal seemed to give to it the character of a compulsory mediator, which was going beyond the principle of the Convention of 1899. These proposals received the support of Baron D’Estournelles de Constant on behalf of France, but he suggested that it would be sufficient, and in harmony with the general principles of the Convention, if one Power merely addressed to the Bureau a note announcing its willingness to arbitrate, and the Bureau’s function should consist in communicating this to the other Power. The function of the Bureau would thus in no sense be political, it would be “an international letter box.” He agreed that this provision should not have a retroactive effect. In the discussion, the French view was supported by the United States, British, Russian and Brazilian delegates, the former pointing out that on several occasions the faculty offered by Art. 27 (99) had been successfully exercised by President Roosevelt in the case of South American States. On the other hand, the delegates of Austria-Hungary and Japan spoke against the proposal. The former contending that Art. 27 (99) had not been appealed to, though occasions for it had certainly not been wanting, it was therefore inopportune to extend it. A vote was taken, when 34 states voted for the Article as it now stands. Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Japan, Roumania, Sweden and Turkey voted against it; Greece, Luxemburg and Montenegro were absent. It remains to be seen whether the additional paragraph will render the Article more efficacious than Art. 27 of the former Convention.
Mr J. B. Scott on behalf of the United States renewed the Declaration made in 1899 on the subject of Art. 27, which now becomes Article 48.
“The Delegation of the United States of America in signing the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, such as is proposed by the International Conference of the Peace, makes the following declaration:
“Nothing contained in this Convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or policy or internal administration of any foreign state: nor shall anything contained in the said Convention be construed to imply a relinquishment by the United States of its traditional attitude towards purely American questions1 .”
Article 50 is a modification of Art. 29 (99). The new paragraph was rendered necessary in consequence of the accession to the Convention of 1899 on the 14th June, 1907, of a large number of Powers who had taken no part in the Conference of 1899. The expenses of the Bureau charged to the acceding Powers are to commence from the date of their accession and not from that of the ratification.
Chapter iii. Arbitration procedure.In this Part there are a few changes, some of drafting, others of more importance. Article 53 is new and gives fuller powers to the Permanent Court in the settlement of the Compromis when both parties agree; it also gives it a similar power on the request of one of the parties when attempts to reach an understanding through the diplomatic channel have failed in two classes of disputes. If, however, one of the Powers declares that in its opinion the dispute does not belong to one of the specified classes, this function of the Permanent Court is excluded, a proviso which may have an important limitation on the effectiveness of this Article. (See also Article 73.)
Article 57 re-enacts 34 (99). The judges in the “Pious Funds” case pointed out that in their opinion certain inconveniences existed in reference to Article 32 (99) and the following Articles, under which the arbitrators named by the Powers at variance were obliged to choose an umpire who became by right President of the Tribunal, and they recommended that the arbitrators should be left free to choose the President of the Tribunal from among themselves, and that the nomination of the President should be made at the first sitting of all the members. A proposal in this sense was made by the Russian delegate when Art. 34 (99) was under consideration, but failed to meet with the acceptance of the Committee.
Article 60 makes provision for the case of the Tribunal sitting elsewhere than at the Hague, or on the territory of one of the parties, and adds a clause to 36 (99) providing that the consent of the third Power shall be necessary in such cases.
Article 38 (99) provided that the Tribunal should decide on the choice of language to be used by itself, and to be authorised for use before it. In the arbitration in the “Pious Funds” case and “Venezuela” case, the difficulties in this respect were very apparent, and considerable delay was occasioned by the necessity for translations being made owing to the ignorance of certain of the officials, and in the latter case in consequence of the large number of states with different languages involved in the dispute. The arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case therefore recommended, and the arbitrators in the “Venezuela” case supported the recommendation, that the Compromis should make the question of the languages to be employed clear, and that the choice of agents and counsel before the Tribunal should be made in conformity with the desire of the Powers at variance on the question of the languages to be employed before the Tribunal. The question was discussed by the Committee, and a compromise between the view adopted by Art. 38 (99) which left the decision to the judges, and the view advanced by the German and Russian delegates excluding this matter from the decision of the Tribunal, was reached. Article 61 leaves the decision to the Tribunal where the Compromis has not determined the languages to be employed.
Article 37 (99) left to the parties an absolute freedom in the choice of agents, counsel and advocates. The arbitrators in the “Venezuela” case, in their note of the 22nd Feb. 1904, drew the attention of the Governments to the inconveniences which may arise from allowing members of the Permanent Court to act as agents or advocates. Counsel acting for Venezuela had, during the proceedings, also addressed a note to the members of the Administrative Council and the judges on the same subject. The arbitrators pointed out that the personal relations existing between all the members of the Permanent Court might have an influence on the progress of the proceedings. “The scientific authority of a member of the Permanent Court would create for him a predominating position in the case when he was charged to represent his own Government before it. Moreover a member of the Permanent Court appearing in one case as agent might in another case be acting as arbitrator, and there might be a danger that the impartiality of the agent and the decision to be pronounced might be compromised, as he who was yesterday appearing as counsel and obtained a favourable verdict might to-day be sitting as judge, and the judge of yesterday appearing before him as counsel.” The British Government strongly supported this point of view, and Sir Henry Howard put the question directly to the Secretary-General of the Permanent Court. The British Government lodged a formal protest against the appointment by the French Government of M. Louis Renault, a member of the Permanent Court, as its agent. The French Government equally strongly affirmed their right to appoint M. Renault, and denied that anyone “especially among the other litigants had a right to contest it.”
The arbitrators having no power to settle the point drew the attention of the signatories of the Convention to the question which had been raised and the Conference took it into consideration. Three alternatives were possible, either to leave the Article of 1899 untouched, which was supported by France and Belgium; or in all cases to forbid members of the Permanent Court to appear as agents or counsel, which was the proposition of Great Britain, the United States and Russia; or to limit the occasions when members of the Permanent Court could appear before it as agents, counsel or advocates to cases where they are employed by the Powers which appointed them members of the Court, which was proposed by Germany. The German compromise was accepted by the addition of a paragraph to Article 62 on the understanding that it did not prevent members of the Permanent Court from giving legal advice to the parties at variance.
Article 63 makes certain changes in Art. 39 (99) on the lines suggested by the arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case, the third paragraph embodying an amendment moved by Sir Edward Fry, one of the arbitrators in that case.
Article 73. The object of this Article which re-enacts with a slight change Art. 48 (99) is clearly brought out in the Report by M. le Chevalier Descamps in 1899. It is to enable the Tribunal to decide the limits of its own competence. If the Tribunal were not empowered to decide the extent of its own jurisdiction under the Compromis, it would be rendered impotent whenever one of the parties, even against the weight of evidence, chose to contest the jurisdiction of the Court1 .
Articles 75 and 76 are new and are based on the Franco-British Draft on Commissions of Inquiry (see Articles 23 and 24).
Articles 51 and 52 (99) were considered together by the Committee, and M. Loeff on behalf of the Netherlands moved the suppression of the second paragraph of Art. 52 (99) which enables the dissentient members of the Court to state their dissent, while the first paragraph requires that all the members shall sign the award. He pointed out that the provisions of this Article were in opposition to the fundamental principle of arbitration procedure which requires the sentence to be final omni sensu, so that all discussion on it outside the Tribunal shall cease; the expression of dissent tended to revive discussion on the matter which had been adjudicated upon, and to endanger the acceptance of the decision. The Committee adopted this point of view and further amended the Article so that the signature of a dissenting member of the Tribunal is no longer required. The award under Article 79 is now to be signed only by the President and the Registrar, or the Secretary acting as Registrar. The form thus adopted is that in which decisions of the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council are recorded.
The suppression of Art. 55 (99), which deals with the question of the revision of the award, was moved by M. de Martens who had in 1899 opposed its enactment. The arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” case had expressed the “wish” “that in the Compromis the least possible use should be made of the power given by Article 55.” M. de Martens urged that the prime object of arbitration is the termination of a dispute. The revision of the award is contrary to this idea as it allows the Powers at variance to continue the dispute; he also pointed out that in no one of the four cases heard before the Hague Tribunal had the demand for revision been made. In opposition to this view of M. de Martens it was pointed out that arbitration is not solely for the purpose of terminating a difference, but that it is before all things a means of settling by agreement a dispute which has been left to the judgment of arbitrators freely chosen. Every stage of arbitration depends upon the voluntary action of the parties. Why then should recourse to revision be forbidden them? Further, the Tribunal might have been misled; new facts unknown at the moment when the award was given might come to light, and it would be regrettable if revision under such circumstances were excluded; and even if Art. 55 (99) were suppressed, the parties might provide for revision in the Compromis. M. de Martens’ views failed of acceptance, and Article 83 re-enacts Art. 55 (99).
Chapter iv. Summary arbitration.One of the objections to the Permanent Court was the cost of the proceedings which made it difficult for poorer states to avail themselves of it, and also that as the choice of arbitrators was limited to members of the Permanent Court it might render recourse to it impossible in technical disputes. The French Delegation therefore presented a draft intended to be supplementary to the Convention, and in no way destined to replace it, but to adapt its principles to the settlement of disputes of a technical nature, and others not contemplated by the Conference of 1899. The choice of arbitrators in summary cases is therefore not limited to those on the list of the Permanent Court. The Committee adopted the French draft, and embodied it in the present Convention, making certain necessary changes, accepting in Article 87 the principle in regard to the appointment of umpire which they had rejected in the case of the Permanent Court1 .
The changes made in the Convention are on the whole only in the nature of developments of the principles adopted in 1899. The influence of the recommendations made by the arbitrators in the “Pious Funds” and “Venezuelan” cases is especially noteworthy. Perhaps the most important change is that in Article 48 to which attention has already been directed. A state conscious of the justice of its claims can now appeal to the Hague Tribunal, and leave it to its opponent either to accept arbitration or face public opinion.
A protocol de compromis for the reference to arbitration of the dispute between France and Germany on the Casablanca affair was signed on the 24th Nov. 1908. In matters not specifically regulated by the Compromis the parties agreed to be bound by the terms of the foregoing Convention notwithstanding the fact that it had not at the time been ratified by either state. This will apparently be the first case to be heard before the Permanent Court under the new Convention.
Great Britain and the United States signed a Convention on the 27th January, 1909, for submitting to arbitration disputes which have arisen between them as to the interpretation of a Treaty of 1818 on the subject of fishery rights on the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, etc.1 The Tribunal of Arbitration is to be chosen from the general list of members of the Permanent Court at the Hague in accordance with the provisions of Article 45 of the Convention of 1907. The provisions of this Convention, except Articles 53 and 54, are to govern the proceedings. The Tribunal is to be empowered to recommend for the consideration of the parties rules and a method of procedure under which questions which may arise in the future regarding the exercise of liberties under the Convention of 1818 may be determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the award. If the parties shall not adopt the rules and method of procedure recommended, or if they shall not, subsequent to the award, agree upon such rules and procedure, any differences which may arise between them relating to the interpretation of the Treaty of 1818, or the effect and application of the award of the Tribunal, shall be referred informally to the Permanent Court at the Hague for decision by the summary procedure provided by Chapter iv. of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes2 .
The signatory Powers.None of the states which signed the Convention of 1899 have abstained from signing the new Convention except Nicaragua: the remaining 43 states enumerated in the Preamble have all signed, but eight have made the reservations which follow.
Reservations.The United States signed under reservation of the declaration made by Mr Scott as set out previously1 , a declaration which was renewed by Mr Hill at the Plenary Meeting on the 16th Oct. 1907.
Brazil signed under reserve of paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Article 53 which relate to the powers conferred on the Permanent Court to settle the Compromis on the request of one of the parties in the case where the parties have not been able to agree.
Greece and Switzerland made similar reserves in the case of paragraph 2 of the same Article.
Chili signed subject to a reservation on Art. 39.
Japan signed under reserve of paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 48 and paragraph 2 of Article 53 and Article 54.
Roumania signed under reservation on Arts. 37, 38 and 40.
Turkey signed under reservation of the following declarations: “The Ottoman Delegation declares, in the name of his government, that while it is not unmindful of the beneficent influence which good offices, mediation, commissions of inquiry and arbitration are able to exercise on the maintenance of the pacific relations between states; in giving its adhesion to the whole of the Draft, it does so on the understanding that such methods remain, as before, purely optional; it could in no case recognise them as having an obligatory character rendering them susceptible of leading directly or indirectly to an intervention.
“The Imperial Government proposes to remain the sole judge of the occasions when it shall be necessary to have recourse to the different proceedings or to accept them without its determination on the point being liable to be viewed by the signatory states as an unfriendly act.
“It is unnecessary to add that such methods should never be applied in cases of internal order.”
[1 ]See note 1, p. 97.
[1 ]See note 1, p. 101.
[1 ]V. note, supra, p. 101.
[1 ]The list of Powers is as given in Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), p. 301. All the Powers enumerated in the Convention of 1907 subsequently signed or acceded.
[1 ]For the words “Signatory Powers” in the Convention of 1899 read “Contracting Powers” throughout the Convention of 1907.
[1 ]See Article 52, infra, for definition of the word “Compromis.”
[1 ]See Article 2, supra.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), pp. 302-351; La Deux. Confér. T. i. pp. 399-454; Livre Jaune, pp. 64-68; Weissbuch, pp. 2-3; J. B. Scott, Leading Cases in International Law, p. xlvi. (bibliography); Sir T. Barclay, Problems, etc. pp. 9-45, 191; Idem, The Hague Court and vital interests, L. Q. R. Vol. xxi. p. 109; Le Chevalier Descamps, Rapport sur le Règlement des Conflits internationaux, Rev. de Droit int. (2nd series), Vol. ii. pp. 117, 270, 352, 498; F. Despagnet, Droit int. public, Bk. vii. tit. 1; A. Ernst, L’œuvre de la deuxième Conférence, p. 8; Bonfils-Fauchille, Droit international (5th ed.), Pt. iv. Bk. i. ch. 2; A. S. Hershey, Convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, Am. Journ. of Int. Law, Vol. ii. p. 29; F. W. Holls, The Peace Conference, Chap. v.; T. J. Lawrence, International Problems, etc. Chap. iv.; C. Meurer, Uebersicht über die Arbeiten der Haager Friedenskonferenz; Idem, Die zweite Haager Friedenskonferenz, Teil i.; O. Nippold, Die Fortbildung des Verfahrens in völkerrechtlichen Streitigkeiten; E. Lémonon, La seconde Conférence de la Paix, p. 69; L. Oppenheim, Int. Law, Vol. ii. Pt. i. chap. 1; E. Nys, L’arbitrage, Rev. de Droit int. (2nd series), Vol. viii. p. 5 (and works cited therein); Idem, Le Droit inter. Vol. iii. § 12; J. Westlake, Peace, appendix; F. E. Smith and N. W. Sibley, International Law as interpreted by the Russo-Japanese War, Chap. xiv.; A. Pillet, La cause de la paix et les deux Conférences de la Haye; E. A. Whittuck, International Documents, pp. xv., xxiv.[ ]
[2 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), p. 354.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), pp. 222-248.
[1 ]See ante, pp. 44-50.
[2 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1907), pp. 60, 302; La Deux. Confér. T. i. pp. 399-454.
[1 ]See F. Despagnet, Cours de Droit international, §§ 473-6.
[2 ]Parl. Papers, Russia, No. 2 (1905), No. 3 (1905), Vol. ciii. (1905), pp. 369-445; De Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités (2nd series), Vol. xxxiii. p. 641; A. Mandelstam, Le Commission international d’enquête sur l’incident de la mer du Nord, Rev. gén. de Droit inter. Vol. xii. pp. 161, 351; Sir T. Barclay, Problems, etc. pp. 35-42.
[1 ]Report of Baron Guillaume, Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 315; La Deux. Confér. T. i. p. 415.
[1 ]See ante, p. 82.
[2 ]Baron Guillaume’s Report, Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 318; La Deux. Confér. T. i. p. 416.
[3 ]The following are the Members of the Permanent Court nominated by Great Britain:—The Right Hon. Sir Edward Fry, formerly Judge of the Court of Appeal, Member of the Privy Council; the Right Hon. Viscount Selby, formerly Speaker of the House of Commons, Member of the Privy Council; the Right Hon. Sir E. Satow, formerly Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Pekin, Member of the Privy Council; the Hon. Sir Charles Fitzpatrick, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Dominion of Canada. All appointed on the 30th Nov. 1906.The following are the Members nominated by the United States:—The Hon. Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the United States of America; the Hon. John W. Griggs, Ex-Attorney-General; the Hon. George Gray, Judge of the Circuit Court, formerly a Senator, appointed on the 27th Nov. 1906; and the Hon. Oscar S. Straus, Minister of Commerce and Labour, formerly Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Constantinople, appointed on the 29th Jan. 1908.
[1 ]Rev. gén. de Dr. int. Vol. xiii. pp. 423, 449.
[2 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1908), p. 320; La Deux. Confér. T. i. p. 421.
[1 ]In his annual message to Congress in 1901, Mr Roosevelt treated the acceptance of this Declaration by the Conference of 1899 as an acquiescence of the Powers in the Monroe Doctrine (J. B. Moore, Digest of Int. Law, Vol. vi. p. 594). It is, however, difficult to see why the Declaration of the United States delegate should be considered to have a bilateral effect, and the principle that “silence gives consent” be invoked in so important a matter.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1899), p. 246. The official English translation appears to miss this point. The text and translation given in Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 1 (1908), are inaccurate.
[1 ]See ante, p. 174.
[1 ]Parl. Papers, 1909. [Cd. 4528.]
[2 ]See ante, p. 155.
[1 ]See ante, p. 173.
[P. 112, Art. 19, 1907,]and throughout references in the French text, for “Voyez” read “Voir.”
[P. 164, note 1,]add La Deux. Confér. T. ii. pp. 34, 89, 121-135, 210-369, 377-404, 440-2, 572-589, 711-771.
[P. 170, last line,]for “M. de Mérey” read “M. Mérey de Kapos-Mère.”

References: Art. 18
 Art. 37
 Art. 25
 Art. 46
 Art. 43
 Art. 37
 Art. 38
 Art. 61
 Art. 10
 Art. 18
 Art. 37
 Art. 25
 Art. 43
 Art. 37
 Art. 38
 Art. 61
 Art. 8
 Art. 14
 Art. 9
 Art. 10
 Art. 17
 Art. 14
 Art. 16
 Art. 23

Art. 24
 Art. 24
 Art. 27
 Art. 27
 Art. 27
 Art. 27
 Art. 27
 Art. 27
 Art. 29
 Art. 34
 Art. 38
 Art. 39
 Art. 48
 Art. 52
 Art. 55
 Art. 55
 Art. 55
 Art. 39
 § 12
 Art. 19