This was the scheme of Emery de la Croix, in his "Nouveau Cynée"; of Castel de St. Pierre, in his "Projet de la Paix"; and also the Plan of Bentham.

12. But the Tribunal here proposed is not a common-law tribunal, but a statutory one, a tribunal whose jurisdiction should be defined.

I have already considered the impracticability of submitting all questions to an international tribunal for settlement in the present state of international sentiment; and, under a partial, political codification (of international law), such as that here proposed, there is no necessity or propriety for a tribunal having a jurisdiction any more extensive than the extent of the substantive rules.

13. For the purpose, however, of indirectly including the unwritten public international law in the code of judicative law, it may be expedient to establish or recommend an additional tribunal.

14. This additional tribunal might be termed a Tribunal of Arbitration, and have jurisdiction over all questions which the parties in controversy shall agree to submit to it.

15. From this tribunal appeals might lie, in cases involving an interpretation of the code, to the principal tribunal, which might be denominated the High Tribunal of International Judicature, and have not only appellate, but original jurisdiction in matters arising under the code.

16. Thus, let it be provided that there shall be a High Tribunal of public international judicature, having power to hear and determine questions arising under the Code, and having both an appellate and an original jurisdiction in respect to such questions; also that there shall be Tribunal of public International Arbitration, having its constitution or existence in the option of the contending Powers, and its jurisdiction co-extensive with the option of the contending Powers; that from this tribunal appeals shall lie to the High Tribunal in causes involving the construction or interpre

tation of the Code-that in all other cases, or in cases where the parties so agree, the decision of the tribunal of arbitration shall be final.

17. By such a scheme the Code would encourage, though not require, adjudication or arbitration upon the unwritten as well as written law.

ARRANGEMENT OF THE WHOLE SCHEME

The whole scheme of judicative law will then be susceptible of the following arrangement :

1. The High Tribunal of Public International Judicature shall consist of at least as many judges as there are Powers, and, under some conditions of the Association of Powers, of more judges than Powers.

2. If there are fifteen or more Powers, there shall be one judge appointed from each Power; if less than fifteen and more that six Powers, there shall be two judges appointed from each Power; if less than seven Powers, there shall be four judges appointed from each Power.

3. The hearing of a cause or question and its decision shall be by nine judges-four to be chosen from all the judges by each party, and the ninth, by the eight so chosen, from the remaining judges.

4. If at any time, by the accession of new Powers to the Association of Powers, the number of judges shall become too great, one (or more) shall be retired by each of the Powers; or if, at any time, the number of judges shall become too small, by the withdrawal of Powers from the Association, each Power shall appoint an additional number.

5. In the event of the death of a judge, the Power by which he was appointed would, of course, be required to fill the vacancy. 6. The original jurisdiction of the High Tribunal of Public

International Judicature shall be limited to the interpretation of the Code, and the administration of the substantive law embodied therein.

7. Where the settlement of a controverted point, or clairn under the Code is desired by either of the contending Powers, such Power may give notice to the adverse Power that it intends to bring the point or claim before the High Tribunal of Public International Judicature for adjudication; and such notice shall require the adverse Power to join the complaining Power in selecting the judges and preparing the cause for adjudication, according to the rules of the Code.

8. It is recommended that wherever the Powers contending can agree upon the submission of a disputed point or claim, of whatever nature, to arbitration, that they submit their cause to a Tribunal of public International Arbitration, such tribunal to be constituted in any manner in which the contending powers

may agree.

9. The Tribunal of Arbitration shall give its decision upon all questions which may be submitted to it, and shall decide upon principles and rules not inconsistent with the Code.

10. In cases where the interpretation of the Code is involved, the decision of the Tribunal of Arbitration shall not be final, unless the parties so agree beforehand; but an appeal in such cases may be taken to the High Tribunal of Judicature, which shall have power to hear and decide such appeal.

REMARKS ON PRECEDING.

On examining this scheme, it will be seen that it allows the utmost latitude to the Powers, consistent with any kind of permanence and stability. It will be seen also that while all questions may be submitted for settlement to an appropriate public international tribunal under this scheme, yet the Code only requires that questions involving an interpretation and application

of the principles of the codified law shall be submitted for settlement.

This scheme contemplates both adjudication and arbitration; but it must be observed that the adjudication proposed is, essentially, arbitration, the voluntary element in the submission of causes to adjudication being concentrated in the act of adopting the Code.

And while the High Tribunal of Public International Judicature may not be, nominally, a Tribunal of Arbitration, but a Court of Adjudication, it nevertheless differs from the ordinary, or municipal, court of adjudication, in which the involuntary element is predominant, and the voluntary element, in the submission of causes, is remote and obscure.

The similarity of the proposed High Tribunal of Judicature to a Tribunal of Arbitration will be more apparent when we come to consider the method of executing its decrees, and the consequences of a violation of the provisions of the Code. It will only be expedient to state now that any tribunal which has not an accessory physical power sufficient to procure the execution of its decrees, must be, essentially, a Tribunal of Arbitration, no matter what it may be denominated.

CODE OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION.

Approved by the Peace Congress, held at Antwerp, at its sitting of 30th August, 1894.

CHAPTER I.

DEFINITION OF INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION, AND THE Mode OF INSTITUTING IT.

1. International Arbitration is a voluntary and contentious jurisdiction which consists in the investment, by two or more nations, of private individuals, or rulers, with the power of pronouncing on the differences which have arisen, or which may arise between them.

2. All disputes, of whatever kind, are capable of being settled by arbitration, provided that they do not affect the autonomy or the independence of the disputant nations.

3. International Arbitration is occasional or permanent. Occasional Arbitration is that which has for its object to settle a specific dispute in accordance with rules agreed on for this particular dispute. Permanent Arbitration is that which has for its object the settlement, according to certain rules previously agreed on, of all the disputes which shall arise between two or more nations.

4. Occasional Arbitration is governed by the terms of the special convention which establishes it, unless the disputant nations declare that they refer to the rules determined in the following articles.

5. Occasional Arbitration shall nevertheless be considered as invalid, if the convention which establishes it does not specify the points of the dispute, if it does not provide for the appointment of the arbitrators, and if it does not bear the signatures of the plenipotentiaries validly appointed for this purpose by the disputant nations.