special permission of the Tribunal, and under the condition that they shall communicate them to all the other parties. (4) The next meeting of the Court for the oral discussion shall take place on the 4th of November next. In accordance with Articles II. and IV. of the protocol of May 7, 1903, and Articles XXXIX., XLV., and XLIX. of the Convention of July 20, 1899, the Court, considering it necessary to determine at once the order of the oral discussion which will be held before it after the expiration of the time allowed for the presentation of the written documents, Decides: (1) The delegates of the parties (agents and counsel) shall plead in the alphabetical order of the countries which they represent; (2) All the delegates of the parties may take part in the first arguments; (3) As to the replies, there shall be only one from each party; this reply may be made by any one of the representatives of that party chosen by it. Art. L.-When the agents and counsel of the parties have submitted all explanations and evidence in support of their case, the President pronounces the discussion closed. Art. LI. The deliberations of the Tribunal take place in private. Every decision is taken by a majority of members of the Tribunal. The refusal of a member to vote must be recorded in the procèsverbal. Art. LII.-The award, given by a majority of votes, is accompanied by a statement of reasons. It is drawn up in writing, and signed by each member of the Tribunal. Those members who are in the minority may record their dissent when signing. Art. LIII. The award is read out at a public meeting of the Tribunal, the agents and counsel of the parties being present, or duly summoned to attend. Art. LIV. The award, duly pronounced and notified to the agents of the parties at variance, puts an end to the dispute definitely and without appeal. Art. LV. The parties can reserve in the "Compromis" the right to demand the revision of the award. In this case, and unless there be an agreement to the contrary, the demand must be addressed to the Tribunal which pronounced the award. It can only be made on the ground of the discovery of some new fact calculated to exercise a decisive influence on the award, and which, at the time the discussion was closed, was unknown to the Tribunal and to the party demanding the revision. Proceedings for revision can only be instituted by a decision of the Tribunal expressly recording the existence of the new fact, recognising in it the character described in the foregoing paragraph, and declaring the demand admissible on this ground. The "Compromis " fixes the period within which the demand for revision must be made. The Arbitrators in the Pious Fund case made the following reflections on the right of revision, which they feared might, in practice, be a source of "very grave inconvenience":—If the period, within which the demand for revision was admissible, were very short (as that stipulated in the protocol of Washington of May 22, 1902 1), it would very seldom happen that a new fact, giving rise to a revision, would be discovered in time. If, on the contrary, a rather long period were stipulated, or if the right were granted of demanding revision at any time, the obligatory force of the arbitral verdict would remain for a long time or for ever in suspense. This seemed very undesirable, as the 1 In the Pious Fund protocol of submission the time fixed by Article XIII. for lodging the application for revision was eight days. The new evidence had to be lodged within ten days after the granting of the revision. arising out of the action taken by the Governments of Italy, Germany, and Great Britain in connection with the settlement of their claims, have not proved to be susceptible of settlement by ordinary diplomatic methods; And whereas the Powers interested are resolved to determine these questions by reference to arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the Convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes signed at The Hague on the 29th July 1899; The Governments of Venezuela and . . . with a view to carry out that resolution, authorised their representatives, that is to say, etc. to conclude to the following agreement : Art. I.-The question as to whether or not Italy, Germany, and Great Britain are entitled to preferential or separate treatment in the payment of their claims against Venezuela shall be submitted for final decision to the Tribunal at The Hague. Venezuela having agreed to set aside 30 per cent. of the Customs revenues of La Guayra and Puerto Cabello for the payment of the claims of all nations against Venezuela, the tribunal at The Hague shall decide how the said revenues shall be divided between the blockading Powers on the one hand and the other creditor Powers on the other hand, and its decision shall be final. If preferential or separate treatment is not given to the blockading Powers, the Tribunal shall decide how the said revenues shall be distributed among all the creditor Powers, and the parties hereto agree that the Tribunal in that case shall consider, in connection with the payment of the claims out of 30 per cent., any preference or pledges of revenues enjoyed by any of the creditor Powers, and shall accordingly decide the question of distribution so that no Power shall obtain preferential treatment; and its decision shall be final. NOTE ON PROCEDURE IN INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY The provisions of The Hague Peace Convention relating to International Commissions of Inquiry are as follow: TITLE III.—ON INTERNATIONAL COMMISSIONS OF INQUIRY.1 Art. IX. In differences of an international nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising from a difference of opinion on points of fact, the Signatory Powers recommend that the parties, who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy, should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an International Commission of Inquiry, to facilitate a solution of these differences by elucidating the facts by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation. Art. X.—The International Commissions of Inquiry are constituted by special agreement between the parties in conflict. The Convention for an inquiry defines the facts to be examined and the extent of the Commissioners' powers. It settles the procedure. On the inquiry both sides must be heard. The form and the periods to be observed, if not stated in the Inquiry Convention, are decided by the Commission itself. Art. XI.-The International Commissions of Inquiry are formed, unless otherwise stipulated, in the manner fixed by Art. XXXII.2 of the present Convention. Art. XII.-The Powers in dispute engage to supply the International Commission of Inquiry, as fully as they may think possible, with all means and facilities necessary to enable it to be completely acquainted with and to accurately understand the facts in question. Art. XIII.-The International Commission of Inquiry communicates its Report to the conflicting Powers, signed by all the members of the Commission. Art. XIV. The Report of the International Commission of Inquiry is limited to a statement of facts, and has in no way the character of an Arbitral Award. It leaves the conflicting Powers entire freedom as to the effect to be given to this statement. 1 The text used is that of English official translation given in the British Report. 2 See text of this article, p. 26. 3 In the Declaration in the North Sea Incident Inquiry the scope of the Commission was not so limited. It had the character to some extent of a reference to arbitration, and the report made, in accordance with the Declaration, contained findings which were in the nature of an award. The reference under these articles of the difficulty which arose out of the North Sea Incident, and the appointment of the Commission of Inquiry, were embodied in a Declaration exchanged on November 12-25, 1904, at St. Petersburg, between the British and Russian Governments. It was as follows:-4 The Government of His Britannic Majesty and the Imperial Government of Russia being agreed to entrust to an International Commission of Inquiry, The following text is an unofficial translation. |