Chapter V Remarks of Adoption of arbitration in isolated cases, necessarily implies the idea of making justice just as perfect as possible, and that this idea should be balanced with the desire of terminating the controversy. I have confidence and hope that this Conference will receive and adopt the idea of a rehearing with the necessary precaution, for it is certain that arbitral procedure should admit the possibility of error, if the great number of judgments of arbitration are to develop in the future into one grand system of international justice." M. Asser recalled the words of one of the preceding speakers, to wit: radical measures are the best. This, he said, might be in a parliament where the majority made the law, but in an assembly like this, which might be called an international parliament of man, it was necessary to endeavor to find a point of accommodation. This was the end and object of his proposition. He had taken account of the reasons which had been advanced on both sides. The friends of a rehearing would have the satisfaction of seeing an article which determined the procedure of a rehearing, and which recognized it as a practical method, and recommended it to all States. The opponents of rehearing would also be satisfied by the exclusion of the provision unless there is a special agreement in the arbitration agreement on the subject. If the latter contains nothing on the subject, then the arbitral judgment and award will be irrevocable. M. Asser's proposition was then adopted unanithe proposi- mously, both the United States and Russia acquiescing most cordially. tion. of the debates. This debate has been inserted here not only on Chapter V account of the light which it throws upon the Article, but also as a very fair sample of the kind of debate An example which took place throughout the entire Conference, in the Committee. Most unfortunately, and yet for obvious reasons, a full stenographic report was absolutely impossible. It must be admitted that the decision of the Conference in adopting the Article as it stands was the wisest possible solution of a question which, as the debate showed, was by no means. free from difficulties. in the litiga ARTICLE 56. The award shall be obligatory only Joinder of upon the parties who have concluded the arbitration other Powers agreement. When there is a question of the inter- tion. pretation of an agreement entered into by other Powers besides the parties in litigation, the parties to the dispute shall notify the other Powers which have signed the agreement, of the special agreement which they have concluded. Each one of these Powers shall have the right to take part in the proceedings. If one or more among them avail themselves of this permission, the interpretation in the judgment becomes obligatory upon them also. ARTICLE 57. Each party shall bear its own ex- Expenses. penses and an equal part of the expenses of the tribunal. The term 66 expenses of the tribunal" is here understood to include the pay of the arbitrators themselves. There are other expenses which can only be determined in each case by the tribunal itself. In others again the administrative council at Chapter V Ratification. Adherence by Adherence by The Hague may adopt, if necessary, a tariff and all parties will be bound thereby. ARTICLE 58. The present convention shall be ratified with as little delay as possible. The ratifications shall be deposited at The Hague. An official report of each ratification shall be made, a certified copy of which shall be sent through diplomatic channels to all the Powers re resented in the Peace Conference at The Hague. ARTICLE 59. The Powers which were represented at the International Peace Conference but which have not signed this convention may become parties to it. For this purpose they will make known to the Contracting Powers their adherence by means of a written notification addressed to all the other Contracting Powers. ARTICLE 60. The conditions under which Powers other Powers. not represented in the International Peace Conference may become adherents to the present convention shall be determined hereafter by agreement between the Contracting Powers. Withdrawal. This Article gave rise to serious and at times spirited debate in the Committee on the Final Act, to which reference will be made hereafter. As the Article stands, the unanimous assent of all the signatory Powers is necessary, either to the adhesion of any non-signatory Power or to the making of an agreement regarding all non-signatory Powers and their future adherence. ARTICLE 61. If one of the High Contracting Parties shall give notice of a determination to withdraw from the present convention, this notification shall Chapter V have its effect only after it has been made in writing to the Government of The Netherlands and communicated by it immediately to all the other Contracting Powers. This notification shall have no effect except for the Power which has made it. and ratifica This treaty was signed on July 29 by the repre- Signatures sentatives of sixteen Powers; namely, Belgium, Den- tions. mark, Spain, the United States of America, the United States of Mexico, France, Greece, Montenegro, the Netherlands, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, and Bulgaria. It has since been signed and ratified by all the Powers represented at the Peace Conference. The United States Senate, on February 5, 1900, ratified it unanimously. On September 4, 1900, the solemn deposit of the Deposit of ratifications took place in the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs at The Hague, and the first steps toward the organization of the Court were taken. ratifications. ments to the At that time the Russian members of the Inter- First appointnational Court of Arbitration had been announced, court. comprising M. de Martens, Count Mouravieff, Minister of Justice and brother of the late Minister of Foreign Affairs who signed the call for the Conference, M. Fritsch, President of the Senate, and M. Pobyedonoszeff, Procureur-General of the Holy Synod. It was also announced that President McKinley had appointed Ex-Presidents Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland as two of the American members of the Court; the latter however declined, while the former accepted the appointment. The policy of the United States. CHAPTER VI THE IMMUNITY OF PRIVATE PROPERTY ON THE HIGH SEAS THE Government of the United States of America. has for many years advocated the exemption of all private property, not contraband of war, from capture on the high seas. Considering that the chief reason for the calling of the Peace Conference was the burden and cruel waste of war, which nowhere affects innocent private persons more severely or unjustly than in the damage done to peaceable trade and commerce, especially at sea, the American Government considered that the question of exempting private property from destruction or capture on the high seas was evidently a most proper one for consideration. Accordingly, the American representatives were authorized to propose to the Conference the principle of extending to strictly private property at sea the immunity from destruction or capture by belligerent Powers which such property already enjoys on land, as worthy of being incorporated into the permanent law of civilized nations. A compilation of expressions of opinion on the subject on the part of public men and the press in the United States, edited by Charles Henry Butler, Esq., was printed by the Department of State in pamphlet form, and a copy was sent to each member of the Conference. |