Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 19.pdf/697

 6S8

THE GREEN BAG

"All decisions shall be by a majority of the judges present. If an even number of judges is sitting and the votes are equally divided, the vote of the last of the judges in the order of precedence (see Sec. i of Art. 12) is not to be counted." (Art. 43.) The verdict of the court must be pronounced in public and be accompanied by a statement of reasons; it must mention the names of the judges who have participated in the decision, and be signed by the president and the clerk of the court. (Arts. 44 and 4S-) Each party defrays the costs of its coun sel. The losing party has also to pay the cost of the proceedings; and, in addition, to turn over one-hundredth of the value of the object of litigation as a contribution to the general expenses of the court. A de posit is required as a guarantee from a private individual. (Art. 46.) The general expenses of the court will be borne by the Signatory Powers in propor tion to their participation in its action as contemplated by Article 15 and the an nexed list (Art. 47.) When the court is not in session its func tions will be exercised by a committee of three judges designated by the Court. (Art. 48.) This project was adopted by the Confer ence on September 12, 1907, by a vote of thirty-seven votes against one, with six abstentions. The only state directly voting in the negative was Brazil who was dissat isfied with her share in the appointment of the judges. The abstaining states were Japan, Russia, Turkey, Siam, San Domingo, and Venezuela. Japan and Russia appear to think that the establishment of an In ternational Prize Court should be preceded by a codification of maritime law — an opinion which seems to be shared by a large and influential section of the British

public.1 Indeed, it is very doubtful whether public opinion in England, which is extremely jealous of belligerent rights and British naval supremacy, will ever permit the ratification of the Convention. Ten Powers — China, Chile, Columbia, Cuba, Equador, Guatamela, Haiti, Persia, San Salvador, and Uruguay — entered res ervations concerning Article 15, which pro vides for the nomination of judges and a scheme of rotation for the smaller states. It will thus be seen that this project lacks that unanimity or even general consensus which is supposed to be necessary (or at least desirable) in support of principles or usages of international law. Two impor tant Powers — Japan and Russia — have withheld their assent, and a considerable number of the smaller states seriously object to the way in which the court is constituted. It is doubtful whether the British House of Lords will consent to en act the legislation which is needed to carry the Convention into effect, or whether the American Senate can be induced to ratify it. Whatever our prepossessions in favor of such a court may be, the fact must be faced that the majority of its members wiH be jurists who have been trained in the continental school of international juris prudence, and that they are not likely to treat Anglo-American views and decisions on maritime law with that respect and veneration which we have been taught to think they deserve. Bloomington, Ind., October, 1907. 1 See, e.g. letter of Professor Holland to the London Times, republished by the Courier de la Conference on Sept. 24, 1907; editorial entitled "Pas de code naval, pas de Cour des Prises in the Courier for Sept. 7, 1907; a very remarkable editorial in the London Times for Sept. 30, 1907, and editorial in the London Spectator for Oct. 5, 1907.