option of having recourse to arbitration (n). It has been estimated that from the Jay treaty in 1794 to the end of the nineteenth century there were 228 cases of "formal" arbitration, of which 137 came after the famous Geneva Arbitration of 1872. Great Britain was a party in 81 of these; United States, 62; France, 28; Prussia and Germany, 17; Russia, 8 (o). During the samo period there were also some 250 instances of informal arbitration, namely, by Boards or Commissions. Since the Hague Peace Conference arbitration treaties have multiplied enormously; thus, between 1900 and 1908, there were 67 treaties of this kind (p).

arbitration

Conference.

A few important cases of arbitration that took place before Instances of the Hague Peace Conference may be referred to. A large variety prior to of questions were involved, e.g., the delimitation of boundaries, the Hague territorial waters, the rights and obligations of neutrality, and in particular the responsibility of a neutral Power for hostilities committed within its territory by a belligerent, the right to seize vessels and confiscate cargoes, the effects of declaration of war, the nature of contraband goods, questions relating to slavery, the force of res adjudicata, and many other matters.

The arbitration by mixed Anglo-American commission, under the treaty of 1794, had some influence on later procedure, which tended to become more judicial and less diplomatic. Many points connected with some of the subjects enumerated in the previous paragraph were dealt with. Soon afterwards, the United States endeavoured to apply the principles of the Jay treaty in its relations with other countries, e.g., with Spain (1802), resulting eventually in the cession of Florida (1819); with France (1813), for the cession of Louisiana.

A dispute between Great Britain and the United States as to the interpretation of Article 1 of the Treaty of Ghent (1814), was submitted to Alexander I. of Russia; the question of belligerent occupation was also involved.

William I. of Holland acted as arbitrator in the North-Eastern frontier dispute between Great Britain and the United States. His decision was, however, rejected (1831), because he suggested a line that went beyond the terms of the reference.

A British claim for compensation against France for blockading the coast of Portendic without giving notification to the owners of British vessels trading there in gum, &c., was referred

(n) Cf. Art. viii. of the Treaty of Paris.

(0) Cf. W. E. Darby, International

Tribunals (1904), pp. 769 seq.

(p) Cf. American Journ. of Int. Law, vol. ii. pp. 824 seq.

to the King of Prussia, who decided (1843) in favour of the claimants.

In 1844 Queen Victoria gave a decision in a dispute between France and Mexico, the former claiming indemnity for the expulsion of French subjects from Mexico, the latter for the capture of Mexican warships after the fall of Fort Ulloa. The claims of both parties were dismissed, on the ground that the acts of both were justified by the state of war between them.

In 1845 Great Britain complained that a fortnight's notice given by the Argentine Republic, during the war with Uruguay, as to the closure of its ports, was too short, and demanded compensation in respect of six vessels which were refused admittance to Buenos Ayres. The President of Chile decided that the measures were justified by the exigencies of war.

In 1814, during the war between Great Britain and the United States, an American privateer, the General Armstrong, fired upon British boats in a Portuguese port, but was soon fired at in return and destroyed within the limits of the port. The United States claimed indemnity from Portugal for not intervening as a neutral. The matter was settled in 1851 by Louis Napoleon.

The mixed Commission of London, 1853-1885, adjusted differences between Great Britain and the United States, in reference to various claims and counterclaims arising out of the "Florida Bonds" dispute, the MacLeod case, the Creole case.

Several differences due to arrests and seizures of private property were decided by arbitration; thus the claim of the United States in respect of the American brig Macedonian, that was seized by Chile in her war with Peru (1821), was upheld by the King of the Belgians (1863); the same arbitrator settled the dispute between Great Britain and Brazil, in respect of H.M.S. Forte; the case of the packet Costa Rica (1897), involving a British subject's claim against the Netherlands, was referred to Russia.

Questions of occupation and title arising in the Delagoa Bay case (1875), between Great Britain and Portugal, were referred to the French Government.

The subject of neutrality received elaborate treatment in the famous Alabama case (1872), between Great Britain and the United States, submitted to arbitration under the Treaty of Washington, May, 1871 (q).

Another arbitral award of great importance was given in the Behring Sea case (1893) (r).

The British-Venezuelan boundary dispute, dating from 1841, was settled in 1899, through the intervention of the United States.

ence, 1899.

In the year 1898 the Emperor Nicholas II. of Russia invited The Hague the States of the world to send representatives to a Conference Peace Conferwhich should consider how best to check the progressive increase of military and naval armaments, study any possible means of effecting their eventual reduction, and devise means for averting armed conflicts between States by the employment of pacific methods for settling international disputes (s). The invitation was accepted by twenty-six States, of which twenty were European, four Asiatic, and two American: Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, China, Denmark, Spain, the United States, Mexico, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Holland, Persia, Portugal, Roumania, Russia, Serbia, Siam, Sweden and Norway, Switzerland, Turkey, and Bulgaria. From the 18th of May to the 29th of July the International Peace Conference, as it was designated, held continual session at the Hague, the members being divided for greater convenience into three commissions to deal with the various topics propounded. The labours of the Conference with regard to formulating a scheme for the gradual reduction of existing armaments and for checking any further increase were doomed to failure from the first. But it did not separate until some highly important conventions and declarations dealing with the amelioration of the laws and customs of war had been concluded and executed. These will find their place in the later pages of this book. The most striking success, however, of the Conference was the "Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes" which was agreed to by the delegates of all the Powers represented, and was subsequently ratified by their respective Governments.

Peace Confer

ence, 1907.

In accordance with a wish expressed by the delegates at the The Hague Conference of 1899, a second Conference of the Powers assembled at the Hague on June 15, 1907, and continued its sittings till October 18. On this occasion forty-four States (out of the fiftyseven claiming sovereignty) were represented. The work was divided out among four committees, which considered respectively international arbitration and cognate questions, the law of war on land, the law of naval war, and prize law. The final Act comprised thirteen: Conventions, one declaration, three wishes (vœux), and several recommendations. For the present we are concerned with

(8) Rescript of the Czar, August 24, 1898.

Good offices and media

tion.

International commissions of inquiry.

International arbitration.

the first two Conventions; the first, containing ninety-seven Articles, deals with the pacific settlement of international disputes, and is a revision-with numerous additions-of the Convention of 1899 on the same subject; the second, consisting of seven Articles, deals with the employment of force for the recovery of contract debts. The first Convention, after expressing the engagement of the signatory parties to endeavour to settle international differences by pacific means (Article 1) goes on to deal with good offices and mediation, international commissions of inquiry, and international arbitration.

In case of serious disagreement or dispute, the contracting Powers agree to resort to mediation before appealing to arms (Article 2). Other Powers may offer their good offices, either before or after the outbreak of hostilities; and such offer is not to be considered an unfriendly act (Article 3). Good offices and mediation have the character of advice only, and never have binding force (Article 6). The acceptance of mediation does not necessarily interfere with mobilisation (Article 7). Apart from this a special method of mediation is recommended, whereby each contending State chooses another Power as mediator, and the two mediators then control all negotiations for adjusting the dispute, to the exclusion of the States at variance, for a period of thirty days (Article 8) (t).

In international differences on questions of fact, involving neither the honour nor the vital interests of the parties, the disputants, who have not been able to come to an agreement by diplomatic means, should set up an international commission for examining and reporting on the facts (Article 9). It is to be constituted by special agreement defining the subject-matter and scope of the inquiry and the powers of the commissioners, who will be appointed-if not agreed upon otherwise in the way provided for the appointment of the court of arbitration (Articles 10—12). Rules are suggested for regulating the procedure to be followed in conducting such inquiries (Articles 13-36). The report is limited to a statement of facts, and does not possess the character of an arbitral award; it leaves to the parties entire freedom as to the effect to be given to the statement (Article 35).

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. Recourse to arbitration implies an

(t) This special method of mediation is due to the suggestion of one of the United States delegates, but

it has not yet been tried. Cf. F. W. Holls, The Peace Conference at the Hague (New York, 1900), pp. 187 seq.

engagement to submit in good faith to the award (Article 37). The signatory Powers recognise it to be the most effective and most equitable means of settling disputes, when diplomacy has failed, in questions of a legal nature, especially on the interpretation or application of treaties; and recommend its adoption so far as circumstances permit. The Powers may conclude special agreements for the purpose of extending compulsory arbitration so far as it is possible (Articles 38-40).

nent Court at

For some time the establishment of a permanent arbitral tri- The Permabunal was advocated by jurists and publicists. It was to some the Hague. extent realized at the first Conference, 1899; and in 1907 improvements in its organization and procedure were made. The Convention declares: 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, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention (Article 41). The permanent court is competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special tribunal (Article 42). Its organization comprises an international bureau, serving as the registry of the court, and conducting the administrative business (Article 43); a permanent administrative council (consisting of the diplomatic agents of the signatory Powers accredited to the Hague, with the Dutch Minister for Foreign Affairs as President), which is charged with the direction and control of the bureau. (Article 49); and a court of arbitration. The arbitrators are to be selected thus: each contracting Power selects four persons of known competence, and of the highest moral reputation; such persons are appointed for six years, and are inscribed on a list notified to all the contracting Powers. When recourse to the court is desired, the arbitrators are to be chosen from this list (Article 44). If the parties fail to agree on the composition of the tribunal, each appoints two arbitrators, chosen from the list, who choose an umpire; failing an agreement as to the umpire, he is chosen by a third Power agreed upon by the parties. Should they not agree on this subject, each party selects a different Power, and the umpire is then chosen by the two nominated Powers. If, within two months, these two Powers cannot themselves come to an agreement, each 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, and from