involved no infringement of Turkey's sovereign rights. The Turkish representative had contended that it was for the municipal courts to say whether a person was established or not; but the court thought this would be incompatible with "the rapid fulfilment" of the convention, and such power had been expressly conferred on the mixed commission. Indeed, the mixed commission had already affirmed its exclusive jurisdiction to decide questions of the nationality of persons liable to exchange.

With regard to the second question, the court considered that it was not "called upon to prepare in advance solutions for all the problems which may arise in regard to the application of Article 2 of the convention." It could not determine the degree of stability necessary, in addition to residence; but it was made clear that intention to remain permanently in Constantinople was not necessary.12 For instance, a person might be exempt who had gone to Constantinople with intent to return to his place of origin after making his fortune. Intention to reside for an extended period was all that was required. All cases of hardship to individuals had to be left to the mixed commission, which had the province of finding equitable solution for such problems as those of family unity. Distinctions based on differences in place of origin were excluded by the convention, and a Turkish contention to the contrary was disapproved. It was not the court's province to say how proof of the necessary qualifications should be made before the mixed commission.

After the opinion was read in open court on February 21, a copy was forwarded to the Council of the League of Nations, which on March 11, 1925, took note of the opinion and had it communicated to the president of the mixed commission. Viscount Ishii (Japan), as rapporteur, expressed the hope that the opinion would facilitate the task of the commission, and said that he did not doubt that "the mixed commission would attribute to this opinion the same high value and authority which the Council always gave to the opinions of the Permanent Court of International Justice." 13 Both M. Caclamanos (Greece) and Munir Bey (Turkey) associated themselves with this expression. Viscount Ishii's hope was not in vain, for on June 21, 1925, the Greek and Turkish Governments signed an agreement which disposed of their differences relating to the interpretation of Article 2 of the Lausanne Convention.

INTERPRETATION OF JUDGMENT NO. 3

The third judgment of the court," given by the Chamber of Summary Procedure on September 12, 1924, related to the interpretation of paragraph 13 The legal section of the mixed commission had required an intention to remain permanently. Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-1, pp. 157-160.

18 League of Nations Official Journal, April, 1925, p. 441.

14 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 3. For comment on this judgment, see this JOURNAL, Vol. 19, p. 54; Ténékidès, "Les Réparations de Guerre en Grèce en l'Etat Actuel Des Lois et Des Traités," 13 Bulletin de L'Institut Intermédiaire International, 195.

4 of the Annex following Article 179 of the Treaty of Neuilly between the Allied Powers and Bulgaria. The actual contest was between Greece and Bulgaria, and it related to the jurisdiction of the arbitrator appointed by M. Gustave Ador under the terms of the treaty. After the judgment was given, on November 22, 1924, the agent of the Greek Government took advantage of Article 60 of the court Statute 15 to request an authoritative interpretation of that judgment, more especially with respect to whether under the judgment claims might be paid only from the proceeds of Bulgarian property situated in Greek territory. The court informed the Bulgarian agent of the request, and invited the Greek agent to be more specific. On December 30, 1924, the Greek agent informed the court that an interpretation was desired of the second part of the judgment, with special regard to (a) the possible existence of Bulgarian property in Greece out of the proceeds of which the arbitrator might make awards; (b) the possible liquidation of Bulgarian landed property in Greece for providing such a fund; (c) the right of Greece to apply to the Reparation Commission for a redistribution of the total of reparations paid by Bulgaria. On December 30, 1924, the Bulgarian agent filed a memorandum dealing with the Greek request, without disputing the court's jurisdiction to give an interpretation. No oral proceedings were held. The Chamber of Summary Procedure, consisting of President Huber, former President Loder, and Vice-President Weiss, the same judges who had composed it for giving the judgment of September 12, 1924, gave judgment on March 26, 1925.16

The court took the parties to have agreed on the jurisdiction, and therefore found it unnecessary to determine whether all the conditions for the application of Article 60 of the Statute were present. It found that the Greek request related to a question as to the applicability of that portion of the Treaty of Neuilly which had been interpreted, whereas such applicability had been taken for granted in the original agreement for submission to the court. The previous judgment had, therefore, been confined to the basis and extent of the obligations contained in that part of the Treaty of Neuilly. The Greek request envisaged a wholly different matter; and as the court could not give an interpretation going beyond the judgment itself, it declared that the Greek request could not be granted.

THE MAVROMMATIS JERUSALEM CONCESSIONS

By an application filed with the Registry of the court on May 13, 1924, the Greek Government began a case against His Britannic Majesty's Government "concerning the rights claimed in Jerusalem by M. E. Mavrommatis, a Greek subject, under certain contracts and agreements concluded with the local authorities when the country was under Turkish sovereignty." The

15 Article 60 provides: "In the event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of the judgment, the Court shall construe it upon the request of any party."

16 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 4.

British Government interposed a preliminary plea to the jurisdiction upon which the court delivered judgment on August 30, 1924, holding that it had jurisdiction of this part of the case17 and instructing the President to fix the times for the deposit of further documents of the written proceedings. The Greek case had been presented on May 23, 1924. In January, 1925, the British Government submitted its counter-case, and the Greek Government a reply and the British Government a rejoinder. In the further consideration of the case on its merits, Deputy-Judges Beichmann, Negulesco and Yovanovitch replaced Judges de Bustamante, Moore and Pessôa, all of whom had sat when the court delivered its previous judgment on the plea to the jurisdiction. M. Caloyanni sat as a Greek national judge. M. Kapsambelis represented the Greek Government as agent, and MM. Politis and H. G. Purchase appeared as counsel for Greece, Sir Hamar Greenwood having been unable to appear. Mr. R. V. Vernon, vice Sir Cecil Hurst, acted as agent for the British Government, and Sir Douglas Hogg, K. C., Attorney-General, and Mr. Alexander P. Fachiri, appeared as counsel.

Argument of the case on its merits was begun on February 10, 1925, and continued on February 11, 12, 13 and 14. An interesting point arose when objection was taken to the Greek counsel's quoting from the English Parliamentary Debates (Hansard), copies of which had been communicated; but the court overruled the objection after withdrawing to consider the question. Sir Douglas Hogg asked the court to say that the rules of evidence "which are established in every civilized jurisprudence, ought to be observed not less but more closely by an international court, which ought to set an example to the courts of the world;" but the actual ruling of the court in this instance did not relate to rules of evidence in general.18 Counsel for the British Government also took exception to the inclusion of certain documents in the Greek case and in the annex to the Greek case because they were the result of interviews held and letters written "without prejudice." 19 This led M. Politis to object to the reflections alleged to be contained in the statement of this exception. The final result was that the representatives of the two governments agreed on the suppression of various parts of the documents which had been submitted to the court.20

The Greek contention was that the British Government as mandatory for Palestine was bound to respect the Mavrommatis concessions, to pay compensation for having rendered their realization impossible, and to pay £121,045 with interest at six per cent to acquit its obligation. The British

17 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 2. See the comment in this JOURNAL, Vol. 19, p. 48; Fachiri, The Permanent Court of International Justice (1925), pp. 203-213. The concessions at Jaffa were eliminated from the consideration of the case on the merits.

18 Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-II, p. 33. The Rules of Court (Articles 4755) adopted on March 24, 1922, deal with the court's reception of evidence.

19 On the English law, see La Roche v. Armstrong, [1922] 1 K.B. 485. See also Wigmore, Evidence, § 1061.

20 See Publications of the Court, Series C, No. 7-II, p. 355.

contention was that the concessions were invalid and not entitled to recognition under Protocol XII annexed to the Treaty of Lausanne; 21 that 21 otherwise the British Government had not with respect to these concessions violated its international obligations under Article 11 of the mandate; 22 that the concessionary contracts had not begun to be put into operation and hence did not fall within provisions of the protocol relating to reädaptation; that the concessions were to be maintained without reädaptation unless their dissolution should be requested, in which case Mavrommatis would be entitled to an equitable indemnity; and that the compensation claimed was unreasonable and excessive. In its reply, the Greek Government insisted on the readaptation or alternative compensation.

The judgment was handed down on March 26, 1925.23 The court was first careful to define the issues and the basis of its competence to deal with them. Its jurisdiction was said to be limited "to cases where M. Mavrommatis' concessions have been affected by the acts contemplated by Article 11 of the mandate, in so far as such are contrary to the obligations contracted under Protocol XII." Under Article 26 of the mandate, the court was to deal with a dispute with reference to Article 11 of the mandate. This latter article confers on the mandatory government the power, "subject to any international obligations accepted by the mandatory," to take certain measures with respect to natural resources and public utilities. The only such "international obligation" was contained in Protocol XII, which the court refused to supplement with "principles taken from general international law." The court had to say (1) whether the Mavrommatis concessions were valid, (2) whether the granting of the Rutenberg concessions by the British Government was a violation of an international obligation for which damages should be paid to Mavrommatis, and (3) whether the Mavrommatis concessions fall under Articles 4 and 5 of the Protocol XII relating to reädaptation, or under Article 6 relating to dissolution with compensation. For the last question, the court's competence was derived from the parties' agreement contained in the written proceedings and not from Article 26 of the mandate. The validity of the Mavrommatis concessions was attacked on the ground that M. Mavrommatis was incorrectly described in the concession as an Ottoman subject, that this was essential error, and that the protocol did not apply. But the court found that "the error can only relate to one of the attributes of the concessionaire," 24 and this attribute lost its practical signif

21 For the text, see 28 League of Nations Treaty Series, p. 203; British Treaty Series, No. 16 (1923), Cmd. 1929, p. 203. The protocol is entitled "Protocol Relating to Certain Concessions Granted in the Ottoman Empire," and was signed by the British Empire, France, Italy, Greece, Roumania, the Serb-Croat-Slovene State and Turkey.

"For the text of the mandate, see League of Nations Official Journal, August, 1922, p. 1007.

23 Publications of the Court, Series A, No. 5.

"The American law of contracts would not be different. 3 Williston, Contracts (1924), § 1569.

icance in the provisions for the formation of an Ottoman company and the jurisdiction of the Ottoman courts. Nor did the misdescription prevent the concessions from being recognized as held by a subject of Greece rather than of Turkey, so as to fall within Article 9 of the protocol.

With regard to the relation between the Rutenberg concession granted by British Crown Agents for the Colonies on behalf of the High Commissioner for Palestine on September 21, 1921, and the Mavrommatis concessions, some overlapping had been admitted; but the British contention was that an article in the conditions attached to the Rutenberg contract prevented this from being a violation. In this article (Article 29) it was agreed that on the request of M. Rutenberg's company the High Commissioner would annul any valid preexisting inconsistent concession, paying fair compensation. The court construed this to oblige M. Rutenberg to respect any such concession which he did not request to be annulled, and it found satisfactory evidence that M. Rutenberg and the Palestine Electric Corporation, Ltd., which he had formed, had renounced all right to request annulment of the Mavrommatis concessions and had agreed not to oppose Mavrommatis' proceeding with his concessions. Yet for a period prior to this renunciation there had been a possibility of such annulment. If this was provided for under the defunct Treaty of Sèvres, 25 it was not provided for in Protocol XII which clearly provides (in Article 9) for the subrogation of successor states, effective in Palestine from October 30, 1918. Hence "so long as M. Rutenberg possessed the right to require the expropriation of the Mavrommatis concessions," this part of his contract was contrary to Great Britain's international obligation under Protocol XII.

The violation being clear, it remained for the court to say whether M. Mavrommatis had suffered loss which would entitle him to compensation. It was unable to find that actual expropriation had occurred, as the Greek Government contended; nor was it able to say that execution had been rendered impossible by reason of the Rutenberg contract. M. Mavrommatis may have lost financial support, but this was not a clear result of the violation of the British obligation. Too many other questions had to be faced. Hence the court concluded that no annulment had taken place and that no loss had been suffered for which compensation was to be awarded.

The question remained, on the submission by agreement of the parties, whether M. Mavrommatis was entitled to the benefit of the provisions for reädaptation of his concessions under Article 4 of the Protocol XII, or merely to the benefit of the provisions for equitable compensation, after requesting dissolution, for survey and investigation works under Article 6. This depended on whether at the date of the protocol, July 24, 1923, the concessionary contracts had "begun to be put into operation [reçu un commencement d'application]" within the terms of Article 6. While M. Mavrommatis 25 See Article 311 of the treaty between the Allied Powers and Turkey, signed at Sèvres on August 10, 1920, printed in Supplement to this JOURNAL, Vol. 15, p. 270.