appointed by the parties in the present arbitration. The umpire is chosen by lot from the two candidates thus presented. The drawing of lots will be done by the International Bureau of the Permanent Court at The Hague. ARTICLE 2 The Powers in controversy will be represented before the arbitral tribunal by agents, counsel or advocates, in conformity with the provisions of Article 62 of the Hague Convention of 1907 for the pacific settlement of international disputes. These agents, counsel or advocates will be appointed by the parties in ample time to prevent any delay in the arbitration. ARTICLE 3 The questions in dispute and upon which the parties ask the arbitrai tribunal to render a definitive decision are as follows: I. Whether or not the Imperial Ottoman Government must pay the Russian claimants interest-damages by reason of the dates on which the said Government made payment of the indemnities determined in pursuance of Article 5 of the treaty of January 27/February 8, 1879, as well as of the protocol of the same date? II. In case the first question is decided in the affirmative, what should be the amount of these interest-damages? ARTICLE 4 The arbitral tribunal, as soon as it is constituted, shall meet at The Hague at a date to be determined by the arbitrators and within one month from the appointment of the umpire. After settling, in conformity with the letter and the spirit of the Hague Convention of 1907, all questions of procedure which may arise and which are not provided for in the present compromis, the said tribunal shall determine the date of its next meeting. However, it is agreed that the tribunal can not open the arguments on the questions in dispute, either before the expiration of two months or after the expiration of three months from the filing of the countercase or the counter-reply provided for by Article 6 and, later, by the arrangements set forth in Article 8. ARTICLE 5 The arbitral procedure will include two distinct phases: the written statement of the case; and the arguments which will consist in the oral development of the pleas of the parties before the tribunal. French is the only language which the tribunal will use and which may be used before it. ARTICLE 6 Within eight months at most after the date of the present compromis, the Imperial Russian Government must deliver to each of the members of the arbitral tribunal one complete copy, and to the Imperial Ottoman Government ten complete copies, written or printed, of its case, containing every argument in support of its claim with reference to the two questions mentioned in Article 3. Within eight months at most after this delivery, the Imperial Ottoman Government must deliver to each of the members of the tribunal, as well as to the Imperial Russian Government, the same number, as specified above, of complete copies, written or printed, of its countercase, with all supporting arguments, but confining itself to question 1 of Article 3. Within one month after this delivery the Imperial Russian Government will inform the president of the arbitral tribunal whether it intends to present a reply. In that case, it will have an extension of three months at most from the date of such notification in which to communicate the said reply under the same conditions as the case. The Imperial Ottoman Government will then have an extension of four months from the date of this communication to present its counter-reply, under the same conditions as the counter-case. The extension fixed by the present article may be lengthened if agreed to by both parties, or if the tribunal deems it necessary in order to reach a just decision. But the tribunal will not take into consideration cases, counter-cases or other communications which are presented to it by the parties after the expiration of the last extension which it has granted. ARTICLE 7 If in the cases or other papers exchanged either of the parties has referred or alluded to a document or paper of which it alone is in possession and of which it has not furnished a copy, it must furnish the other party with a copy, if the other party so requests, within thirty days. ARTICLE 8 In case the arbitral tribunal decides question 1 of Article 3 in the affirmative, it must, before taking up question 2 of the same article, grant the parties further extensions, which may not be less than three months each, for the presentation and exchange of their demands and arguments in support of them. ARTICLE 9 The decisions of the tribunal on the first, and contingently on the second question at issue, shall be rendered, in so far as possible, within one month from the closing by the president of the arguments relating to each of these questions. ARTICLE 10 The judgment of the arbitral tribunal shall be final and must be executed strictly and without any delay. ARTICLE 11 Each party bears its own expenses and half of the expenses of the tribunal. ARTICLE 12 Whatever questions arise in this arbitration which are not provided for by the present compromis shall be governed by the stipulations of the Hague Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, except, however, those articles the acceptance of which has been reserved by the Imperial Ottoman Government. Done at Constantinople, July 22/August 4, 1910. (Signed) RIFaat (Signed) N. TCHARYKOW THE CARTHAGE CASE between FRANCE and ITALY Decided May 6, 1913 During the Turko-Italian war in Africa in 1912, the Italians established a strict watch against the possibility of military supplies or reinforcements of any kind reaching the Turks in Tripoli by way of Tunis. As the result, on January 16, 1912, the Carthage, a steamer belonging to the Compagnie Générale Transatlantique, was stopped by an Italian war vessel while on its way from Marseilles to Tunis, on account of having on board an aeroplane and parts of another, destined to a private consignee in Tunis, which the Italians claimed was contraband of war. It being impossible to transfer the aeroplane from one ship to another, the Carthage was conveyed to Cagliari, where it was detained until January 20, 1912. The release of the vessel was demanded by the French Ambassador at Rome. The aeroplane and parts were landed by order of the company and the Carthage was allowed to resume her voyage. Upon assurance to the Italian Government that the aeroplane was intended purely for exhibition purposes and that there was no intention on the part of the owner to offer his services to the Ottoman Government, the aeroplane was released on January 21, 1912. The French Government demanded in addition reparation for the insult to the French flag and for the violation of international law and conventions between the two Governments and damages for the injury to the private parties interested in the vessel and its voyage. The Italian Government made a counter-claim against France for the amount of the expenses caused by the seizure of the Carthage. The controversy was referred for settlement to a tribunal selected from the members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, under a compromis dated March 6, 1912.1 The tribunal was composed of K. Hj. L. Hammarskjöld of Denmark; Louis Renault of France; Guido Fusinato of Italy; J. Kriege of Germany, and Baron Michel de Taube of Russia. Its sessions began March 31, 1913, and ended May 6, 1913, the decision being rendered on the latter date. The tribunal held that, while belligerents have as a general rule the right of visit and search, to determine if contraband is carried by neutral vessels, the legality of acts committed after the search depends upon the presence of contraband or sufficient legal reasons to believe 1Post, p. 336. that it exists; that the information in the possession of the Italian authorities as to the hostile destination of the aeroplane, which was an essential element to establish its contraband nature, was not legally sufficient and that, therefore, the capture of the vessel and its convoy to Cagliari and detention there were illegal. The French Government was awarded the sum of 160,000 francs in satisfaction for the damages suffered by the private parties interested in the vessel and its voyage. The national claims of the respective Governments were, however, disallowed. AWARD OF THE TRIBUNAL Award of the arbitral tribunal in the case of the French mail steamer "Carthage."-The Hague, May 6, 1913.1 Considering that, by an agreement dated January 26, 1912,2 and by a compromis dated the following 6th of March,3 the Government of the French Republic and the Royal Italian Government have agreed to submit to an arbitral tribunal composed of five members the decision of the following questions: 1. Were the Italian naval authorities within their rights in proceeding, as they did, to the capture and temporary detention of the French mail steamer Carthage? 2. What should be the pecuniary or other consequences, following the decision of the preceding question? Considering that, in accordance with this compromis, the two Governments have chosen, by common consent, the following members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to constitute the arbitral tribunal: His Excellency Guido Fusinato, Doctor of Law, Minister of State, former Minister of Public Instruction, honorary professor of international law in the University of Turin, Deputy, Councilor of State; Mr. Knut Hjalmar Leonard Hammarskjöld, Doctor of Law, formerly Minister of Justice, formerly Minister of Public Worship and Instruction, formerly Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary at Copenhagen, formerly President of the Court of Ap 1American Journal of International Law, vol. 7, p. 623. For the original French text, see Appendix, p. 556. 2Post, p. 337. Post, p. 336. |