Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/615

 565 INTERNATIONAL by the delegates to their respective governments to United States and France. This treaty dealt both with mendation adopt arbitration as a principle ot American international law claims and counterclaims, namely—(1) claims by American for the settlement of the differences, disputes, or controversies citizens against the French Government for damages sus- that might arise between two or more ot them. . A treaty tained by them during the last war between France and to this effect was signed by delegates from the United States also from Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, San Salvador, Mexico, or during that of 1870-71 between France and and Venezuela, Ecuador, Brazil, and Bolivia, but was not ratilied by Germany, or during the insurrection of the Commune; the governments named in it within the prescribed time. An (2) counterclaims by French citizens against the United attempt to revive it was made by the smaller states in 1891 but . States Government for damages sustained at the hands of without success. In 1896 an effort was made by the representatives of Great American citizens during the War of Secession of 1861-65. Britain and the United States to provide for the submission to The commission was composed of three persons, one arbitration of “ all questions in difference between those countries named by the French Government, one by the president which might fail to adjust themselves by diplomatic negotiations. of the United States, and the third by the emperor of A treaty to this effect was prepared and signed on 11th January 1897 by the British ambassador (Sir Julian Pauncefote) and Mr Brazil. The losses sustained by French subjects during Secretary Olney. It presented three forms of procedure, one for the war between Chile and Peru were ascertained in the pecuniary claims or groups of pecuniary claims which did not in same manner in pursuance of a treaty of 2nd November the aggregate exceed £100,000 ; a second for pecuniary claims 1862. Examples of similar commissions might be easily beyond that amount, and a third for territorial claims, includrights of navigation and of access to fisheries. For the multiplied, but the practice is too wrell established to make ing settlement of the first set of claims, each of the contracting it worth while to particularize them here. parties was to nominate one arbitrator who was to be a juiist of A large number of international differences, without repute, and the two arbitrators so nominated were to select a third, reckoning those already specially noted or the war-in- who was to be the president of the tribunal. The award of the was to be final. The second set of claims was to be demnity claims just referred to, have been adjusted, or majority referred to a tribunal similarly constituted, but in this case the put in trim for adjustment, either by arbitration or by award was only to be final if the tribunal was unanimous. If not mixed commissions, since the pacification of 1815. The unanimous, either of the contracting parties might demand a majority of these cases are summarized in the preceding review of the award within six months from its date. In such the matter in controversy was to be submitted to a tribunal tables, which have been compiled in part from the volumes case, consisting of five jurists, no one of whom was to be a member of of Professor Moore and in part from Dr Evans Darby’s the original tribunal whose award was to be reviewed. The five revised list, respectively mentioned at the end of this jurists were to be nomincited. as follows —two b eacb ot tlie contracting parties, and one to act as umpire by the four thus article. Up to this point we have only dealt with arbitrations on nominated. The award of the majority of the members was to final. The third set of claims (territorial) was to be submitted what may be termed specific differences. There are, how- be to a tribunal composed of six members, three of whom, subject General ever, in existence several conventions which pro- to a particular exception, were to be judges of the Supreme Court conven- vide for the settlement by international arbitra- of the United States or justices of Circuit Courts to be nominated tions. tjon not merely df specific differences, but of by the president of the United States, the other three being judges of the British Supreme Court of Judicature or members all differences, present and future, which may arise of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council nominated by between the contracting parties as regards certain subjects, the British Crown. The award in this case was to be final if e.g., commerce or navigation. Clauses to this effect {clauses made by a majority of five to one. In the event of its being less compromissoires) have been agreed to since 1862 between than five to one, it was not to be binding if protested against by either party within three months of publication. If so protested Great Britain on the one hand, and Italy, Greece, Portugal, against, or if there was no award by reason ot the numbers being Mexico, Uruguay respectively on the other hand; between equally balanced, there was to be no recourse to hostile measures Belgium on the one hand, and Italy, Greece, Sweden, of any description until the mediation of one or more friendly had been invited by one of the contracting parties. In Norway, and Denmark respectively on the other hand; powers spite of the elaborate care and caution with which this treaty between France and Korea; between Italy and Mon- was drawn, it remains a dead letter for want of ratification by tenegro; between Austria-Hungary and Siam; between the respective governments on whose behalf it was signed. It Spain and Sweden and Norway; between Denmark and may be that its very elaborateness has proved a bar to its success, as a parade of too many safety appliances on the eve of a Venezuela; between the Netherlands and Bumania, just mountaineering expedition is apt to unbrace our nerves and between Japan and Siam. The conventions of the Postal enhance our sense of danger. Union of 1874 and 1891, and of 1890 for the interThe plan of establishing a standing arbitration tribunal national transport of goods by rail, are instances of the advocated by Jeremy Bentham has been already referred same class. There are also in existence conventions for In 1838 the New York Peace Society proposed to settlement by international arbitration of all differences to. establish a Board of International Arbitration, and the without exception. Such are the treaties of Guadelupewas further worked out in 1842 by James Mill. Hidalgo of 1848 between the United States and Mexico; idea Subsequently Mr Dudley Field in America, Dr Goldof Belgium with Hawaii and Siam in 1862 and 1868 re- schmidt in Germany, Sir Edmund Hornby and Mr Leone spectively ; with Venezuela in 1884, and Ecuador in 1887, Levi in England, successively produced draft rules of proof 1888 between Switzerland and San Salvador and cedure by which, unless otherwise agreed, the permanent Ecuador; and of 1894 between Spain on the one hand, court was to be bound. Dr Goldschmidt s rules were and Honduras and Colombia on the other. revised and adopted by the Institute of International Law So much has been actually accomplished. Other schemes for in 1875, and again considered by the Inter-Parliamentary general arbitration have been mooted and carried to a certain Conference held at Brussels in 1895. All these efforts, point, although they have not yet been realized. When, in however, excellent as they were in their generation, have December 1882, President Garfield announced in his annual message his willingness to assist any measure which might tend been thrown into the shade by the work of the Peace Conto secure peace, the Swiss Government responded by ottering to ference initiated in 1898 by the emperor of Hague Conferagree to a general arbitration treaty with the United States. A Russia, and held at the Hague in the following ence draft treaty was accordingly prepared, and submitted to the year. On 24th August 1898 Count Muravietf " Swiss Federal Council, which adopted it on 24th July 1883 ; but handed to all the foreign representatives accredited to owing to the death of Mr Secretary Frelinghuysen, who had been the principal American negotiator, the project fell through. A the court of St. Petersburg a circular informing them similar proposal was brought forward at the Inter-American Con- that the Tsar proposed to their respective governments the gress held at Washington 1889-90, which was attended by holding of a Conference “ which should occupy itself with delegates from the United States and seventeen Republics ot Central and South America. It took the form of a solemn recom- the grave question of the excessive armaments which ARBITRATION,