Chapter V this feature is the very strength of the title. It may frequently secure recourse to this institution in circumstances where the state of the public mind makes arbitration or even mediation impossible, and one great object, the gaining of time, will certainly be attained. Experience has shown that national outbursts of passion cool down almost as rapidly as they arise the difficulty being only to find some obviously reasonable occasion for delay. This occasion is certainly afforded by this title, the practical working of which will surely be awaited with great interest. Object of arbitration. TITLE IV. INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION Chapter I. On Arbitral Justice ARTICLE 15. International arbitration has for its object the determination of controversies between States, by judges of their own choice, upon the basis of respect for law. International arbitral justice does not attempt to supplant direct negotiations, it is concerned with controversies which cannot be settled by diplomatic means. Reference will be made hereafter to the fact that the establishment of an international court of arbitration is likely to have the effect of elevating rather than lowering the standard of diplomacy, and of creating a demand for an even higher class of men than has hitherto been drawn to the diplomatic profession. Moreover, arbitration does not interfere with Mediation; on the contrary, it leaves the field open Chapter V for the most effective method of Mediation, in that it supplies an end to which, in many instances, the efforts of mediators may well be directed. arbitration. ARTICLE 16. In questions of a judicial character, Character of and especially in questions regarding the interpreta-recognized as tion or application of international treaties or con- suitable for ventions, arbitration is recognized by the Signatory Powers as the most efficacious and at the same time the most equitable method of deciding controversies which have not been settled by diplomatic methods. With reference to this Article the delegation of Roumania made the following declaration: "The Royal Government of Roumania, while entirely acquiescing in the principle of voluntary arbitration, of which it appreciates the high importance in international relations, is nevertheless not ready to make an engagement, by virtue of Article 16, to accept arbitration in all the cases which are therein mentioned, and it believes it to be its duty to formulate these express reservations in this respect. It cannot, therefore, vote for this Article except with this reservation." 1 This Article is of special importance, in that it emphasizes the particular questions which are above 1 No reason was ever given for this and similar declarations made by Roumania and other Balkan countries. A certain exaggerated racial and national sensitiveness is perhaps not unnatural in the states of this storm centre of Europe, where exceptions to the rules formulated in the present treaty may in all probability first become necessary. Chapter V Remarks of all others regarded as suitable for arbitration. They are judicial questions, and such as arise from the interpretation or application of existing treaties. A determination by judges can, properly speaking, only be had regarding a judicial question, or a question arising upon a particular document. Conflicts of interest and political differences are not, strictly speaking, proper subjects for arbitration in the restricted sense of the term. The distinction here made between the two kinds of arbitration, first, judicial, second, general, is by no means unimportant, and a disregard of this difference has frequently led to disappointment, as well as to the casting of a certain amount of discredit upon the entire principle involved. In his final argument before the Arbitration Tribunal upon the Venezuelan boundary question, ex-President Harrison of the United States, emphasizing this point, uses this language (p. 2982): MR. PRESIDENT: It has been to me a matter of special interest that the President of this tribunal, after his designation by these two contending nations. for that high place which assigned to him the duty of participating in practical arbitration between nations, was called by his great Sovereign to take part in a Convention which I believe will be counted to be one of the greatest assemblies of the nations. that the world has yet seen, not only in the personnel of those who are gathered together, but in the wide and widening effect which its resolutions are to have upon the intercourse between nations in the centuries to come. There was nothing, Mr. President, in your Chapter V proceedings at The Hague that so much attracted my approbation and interest, as the proposition to constitute a permanent court of arbitration. It seems to me that if this process of settling international differences is to commend itself to the nations, it can only hope to set up for the trial of such questions an absolutely impartial judicial tribunal. If conventions, if accommodation, and if the rule of 'give and take' are to be used, then let the diplomatists settle the question; but when these have failed in their work, and the question between two great nations is submitted for judgment, it seems to me necessarily to imply the introduction of a judicial element into the controversy." It will readily be seen that almost everything Importance of depends upon the form of the statement of the question to be submitted. If it is stated as a proposition of law, the decision must necessarily be without reference to the interests of either or any party. If, on the other hand, it is stated as a question of conflicting interests-political, territorial, commercial, or otherwise-compromise accommodation, the rule to give and take, as President Harrison puts it, is not only permissible but almost indispensable. The Venezuelan Tribunal, judging from its award, seems to have regarded the question submitted to it as one of the latter class; whereas the Behring Sea Tribunal of 1889 undoubtedly regarded its task as strictly judicial. In both cases. 1 It will be useful to compare the statement of the questions submitted for arbitration as stated in the treaties covering both these the form of statement of the question. Importance Chapter V the decision seems to have followed logically from the method of stating the question, and the lesson statement of of these two recent and very important cases is not likely to be lost upon the diplomatists or arbitrators of the form of the question. instances. With regard to the Behring Sea controversy, the language of the treaty is as follows: ARTICLE VI. In deciding the matters submitted to the Arbitrators, it is agreed that the following five points shall be submitted to them, in order that their award shall embrace a distinct decisiou upon each of said five points, to wit: — 1. What exclusive jurisdiction in the sea now known as Behring's Sea, and what exclusive rights in the seal fisheries therein, did Russia assert and exercise prior and up to the time of the cession of Alaska to the United States? 2. How far were these claims of jurisdiction as to the seal fisheries recognized and conceded by Great Britain? 3. Was the body of water now known as the Behring's Sea included in the phrase "Pacific Ocean," as used in the treaty of 1825 between Great Britain and Russia; and what rights, if any, in the Behring's Sea were held and exclusively exercised by Russia after said Treaty? 4. Did not all the rights of Russia as to jurisdiction, and as to the seal fisheries in Behring's Sea east of the water boundary, in the Treaty between the United States and Russia of March 30, 1867, pass unimpaired to the United States under that Treaty? 5. Has the United States any right, and if so, what right of protection or property in the fur-seals frequenting the islands of the United States in Behring Sea when such seals are found outside the ordinary three-mile limit? With reference to the boundary of Venezuela and British Guiana the treaty of February 2, 1891, provides : · ARTICLE 1. An arbitral tribunal shall be immediately appointed to determine the boundary line between the Colony of British Guiana and the United States of Venezuela; and ARTICLE 4. In deciding all matters submitted the arbitrators shall ascertain all facts by them deemed necessary to a decision of the controversy, and shall be governed by the following rules, which are agreed upon by the Contracting Parties as rules to be taken as applicable to the case and by such principles of international law not inconsistent therewith, as the arbitrators shall determine to be applicable to the case. RULES A. Adverse holding or transcription during a period of fifty years shall make a good title. The arbitrators may deem exclusive politi |