Page images
PDF
EPUB

SECTION 3. The right of evocation in the International Courts shall be exercised in accordance with the provisions of article 8 of the treaty of the 3rd September, 1883.

The right of evocation shall cease to be exercised in all matters coming within the scope of codes or laws regularly promulgated as soon as the text of such codes or laws shall have been communicated to the British legation in Bangkok. There shall be an understanding between the ministry for foreign affairs and the British legation at Bangkok for the disposal of cases pending at the time that the said codes and laws are communicated.

SECTION 4. In all cases, whether in the International Courts or in the ordinary Siamese courts in which a British subject is defendant or accused, a European legal adviser shall sit in the court of first instance.

In cases in which a British born or naturalized subject not of Asiatic descent may be a party, a European adviser shall sit as a judge in the court of first instance, and where such British subject is defendant or accused the opinion of the adviser shall prevail.

A British subject who is in the position of defendant or accused in any case arising in the provinces may apply for a change of venue, and should the court consider such change desirable the trial shall take place either at Bangkok or before the judge in whose court the case would be tried at Bangkok. Notice of any such application shall be given to the British consular officer.

SECTION 5. Article 9 of the treaty of the 3rd September, 1883, is repealed.

Appeals against the decisions of the international courts of first instance shall be adjudged by the Siamese court of appeal at Bangkok. Notice of all such appeals shall be communicated to his Britannic majesty's consul, who shall have the right to give a written opinion upon the case to be annexed to the record.

The judgment on appeal from either the international courts or the ordinary Siamese courts shall bear the signature of two European judges.

SECTION 6. An appeal on a question of law shall lie from the court of appeal at Bangkok to the supreme or Dika court.

SECTION 7. No plea of want of jurisdiction based on the rules prescribed by the present treaty shall be advanced in any court after a defence on the main issue has been offered.

SECTION 8. In order to prevent difficulties which may arise in future from the transfer of jurisdiction contemplated by the present treaty and protocol, it is agreed

(a) All cases in which action shall be taken subsequently to the date of the ratification of this treaty shall be entered and decided in the competent International or Siamese Court, whether the cause of action arose before or after the date of ratification.

(b) All cases pending in his Britannic majesty's courts in Siam on the date of the ratification of this treaty shall take their usual course in such courts and in any appeal court until such cases have been finally disposed of, and the jurisdiction of his Britannic majesty's courts shall remain in full force for this purpose.

The execution of the judgment rendered in any such pending case shall be carried out by the International Courts.

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the present protocol and affixed their seals.

Done at Bangkok, in duplicate, the 10th day of March, 1909.*

[Signed]

RALPH PAGET.

[Signed]

[SEAL]

[SEAL]

4 In connection with the above protocol the following notes, exchanged on the date of its signature, should be read:

DEVAWONGSE VAROPRAKAR.

PRINCE DEVAWONGSE TO MR. PAGET.

Foreign Office, Bangkok, March 10, 1909.

M. LE MINISTRE,

With reference to the provision contained in article 4 of the jurisdiction protocol to the effect that in all cases in which a British subject is defendant or accused a European adviser shall sit in court, I would express the hope, on behalf of his majesty's government, that his Britannic majesty's government will be prepared in due course to consider the question of a modification of or release from this guarantee when it shall be no longer needed; and, moreover, that in any negotiations in connection with such a modification or release the matter may be treated upon its merits alone, and not as a consideration for which some other return should be expected.

The Siamese government appreciates that a treaty like the one signed to-day marks an advance in the administration of justice in the kingdom. The conclusion of such a treaty is in itself a sign of progress. It is the intention of the Siamese government to maintain the high standard in the administration of justice which it has set before it, and towards which it has been working for some time.

In this connection I take pleasure in acknowledging the contribution which Mr. J. Stewart Black has made to this work.

I wish also to say that provision will be made for the treatment of European

ARBITRATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND

COLOMBIA.

Signed at Bogotá, December 30, 1908.

The government of His Britannic Majesty and the government of the Colombia republic, signatories of the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes; concluded at the Hague, on the 29th July, 1899;

Taking into consideration that by article 19 of that convention the high contracting parties have reserved to themselves the right of concluding agreements, with a view to referring to arbitration all questions which they shall consider possible to submit to such treatment,

[Signed]

prisoners according to the standard usual for such prisoners in Burmah and the Straits Settlements.

I avail, etc.,

DEVAWONGSE,

Minister for Foreign Affairs.

MR. PAGET TO PRINCE DEVAWONGSE.

March 10, 1909.

M. LE MINISTRE,

With reference to the guarantee contained in the first paragraph of article 4 of the jurisdiction protocol, I have the honor to state that his majesty's government will be prepared in due course to consider the question of modification of or release from this guarantee when it shall no longer be needed. His majesty's government are also willing that in any negotiations in connection with such a modification or release the matter shall be treated upon its merits alone, and not as a consideration for which some other return shall be expected.

His majesty's government learn with much satisfaction that it is the intention of the Siamese government to maintain the high standard in the administration of justice which it has set before it, and towards which it has been working for some time; and I may assure your royal highness that it will be the aim of his majesty's government in every manner to second the efforts of his Siamese majesty's government in this direction.

I wish also to say that the International Courts referred to in section 1 of the protocol on jurisdiction annexed to the treaty signed to-day need not necessarily be courts especially organized for this purpose. Provincial ("Monthon ") courts or district ("Muang") courts may constitute International Courts, according as British subjects may be established in greater or less number within the jurisdiction of those courts. The fact that an ordinary court is designated as an International Court will have as a consequence the introduction into that ordinary court of all the provisions relating to International Courts secured by the protocol on jurisdiction.

[Signed]

RALPH PAGET.

Have authorized:

The government of His Britannic Majesty, Mr. Francis William Stronge, minister resident; and

The government of the republic of Colombia, Señor Doctor Francisco José Urrutia, minister for foreign affairs,

to conclude the following arrangement:

ARTICLE 1.

Differences which may arise of a legal nature, or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two contracting parties, and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the permanent court of arbitration established at the Hague by the convention of the 29th July, 1899, provided, nevertheless, that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence or the honor of the two contracting states, and do not concern the interests of third parties.

ARTICLE 2.

In each individual case the high contracting parties, before appealing to the permanent court of arbitration, shall conclude a special agreement defining clearly the matter in dispute, the scope of the powers of the arbitrators, and the periods to be fixed for the formation of the arbitral tribunal and the several stages of the procedure.

ARTICLE 3.

The present agreement is concluded for a period of five years, dating from the day of signature.

Done in duplicate at Bogotá, the thirtieth day of December, one thousand nine hundred and eight.

[blocks in formation]

DECLARATION BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND GERMANY REFERRING SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF BRITISH TERRITORY OF WALFISH BAY TO ARBITRATION.

Signed at Berlin, January 30, 1909.

Whereas on the first day of July 1890, an agreement was signed respecting questions affecting the colonial interests of Great Britain and Germany,

And whereas the third article of this agreement dealt with the limits of the sphere in South West Africa in which the exercise of influence was reserved to Germany, and provided inter alia, that "the delimitation of the southern boundary of the British territory of Walfish Bay is reserved for arbitration, unless it shall be settled by the consent of the two powers within two years from the date of the conclusion of this agreement,"

And whereas the period of two years specified in the agreement elapsed without any settlement of the question of the southern boundary having been reached,

And whereas in 1904 the question was referred to two local commissioners, one appointed by the government of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, and the other by the German Government,

And whereas the two commissioners presented a joint report from which it appeared that they were unable to agree in regard to the question in dispute,

Now therefore the government of His Britannic Majesty and the Imperial German Government have accordingly decided in pursuance of the provisions of the said third article of the agreement of the first of July 1890, to have recourse to the arbitration of his majesty the King of Spain in the manner provided in the following articles:

ARTICLE 1.

His Majesty the King of Spain shall be asked to select from among his subjects a jurist of repute to decide as arbitrator in the matter of the delimitation of the southern boundary of the British territory of Walfish Bay.1

ARTICLE 2.

Within a period of ten months from the date of signing of the present declaration each of the two parties shall present to his majesty the King of Spain for communication to the arbitrator, a memorandum on the question at issue between them.

ARTICLE 3.

After the period fixed in article 2 each of the parties shall have a further period of eight months within which to furnish the arbitrator, if it is considered necessary, with a reply to the memorandum presented by the other party.

1 On March 13, 1909, the King of Spain announced the appointment of Don Joaquin Fernandez Prida, professor of history and international law at the Central University, as arbitrator in the above case.

« PreviousContinue »