guide not only for the members of the Conference during their discussions, but also for the Governments themselves hereafter, when it is a question of interpreting the text of the Convention. For these reasons Chevalier DESCAMPS is entitled to the gratitude of all, and the PRESIDENT makes himself the interpreter of the Commission's sentiments with an ardent and sincere emotion. (Unanimous applause.) In order to enable the delegates to study the draft Convention and to communicate its text to their respective Governments, the PRESIDENT proposes that the next meeting of the Commission be postponed for a week. Mr. Delyanni requests that the meeting be called for Monday, the 17th, because of the difficulties of communicating by mail with his country. Mr. Beldiman remarks that there is still another reason which leads him to second Mr. DELYANNI's proposal. As a matter of fact, July 14 is the date of the French national holiday, and the Commission would no doubt want to relieve Mr. BOURGEOIS of the necessity of presiding on that day. The President thanks Mr. BELDIMAN for his delicate thoughtfulness. He considers that there would be all the more advantage in fixing July 17 as the date of the next meeting, since it is to be hoped that all will then be in a position to take up the work of examining the postponed project without interruption. The Commission therefore decides that its next meeting will take place on Monday, July 17, at 2 o'clock. The meeting adjourns. FIFTH MEETING JULY 17, 1899 Mr. Léon Bourgeois presiding. The minutes of the fourth meeting are adopted. Mr. Beldiman says that he joins whole-heartedly in the words addressed by the PRESIDENT to Chevalier DESCAMPS in praise of the very lucid exposition that he made at the preceding meeting. Nevertheless, in so far as the official interpretative character of this exposition is concerned, Mr. BELDIMAN, without contesting its absolute faithfulness, says that he must leave his Government entirely free to pass upon this point. The President replies that there can be no doubt as to the character of Mr. DESCAMPS' exposition. In future when any one desires to refer to the preparatory work of the Commission, nothing will be more useful than the reporter's commentary. Before passing to an examination of the articles relative to international commissions of inquiry and arbitration, the text of which has been corrected and distributed, Chevalier Descamps explains the reasons why Article 19 has been transferred to No. 29 bis (Section 3, Arbitration procedure), where it seemed to belong. He adds that the corrected copy is the result of further consideration by the committee of examination, to which various amendments have been submitted and which has led the committee to make certain changes in the original reading. The President recalls that the Commission adopted, on the first reading, Articles 1-8 relative to the maintenance of general peace and good offices and mediation. He opens the discussion on Article 9. Mr. Beldiman states that he is in the midst of an exchange of views with his Government and therefore is unable to take part in the discussion, on the first reading; but he reserves the right to express his opinions on the second reading. [16] Mr. Miyatovitch makes a similar declaration. In order to enable the delegates of Roumania and Serbia to receive their instructions and to take part to advantage in the discussion of Articles 9-13, the President proposes that this discussion be postponed until the next meeting and that the Commission pass immediately to Section 4 on international arbitration. His Excellency Turkhan Pasha speaks as follows: The Ottoman delegation, not having as yet instructions from its Government on the subject presented to the Third Commission by the committee of examination, will abstain from taking part in the discussion thereof. The President informs his Excellency TURKHAN PASHA that his declaration will be put on record. Article 14 is read: International arbitration has for its object the settlement of disputes between States by judges of their own choice, and on the basis of respect for law. This article is adopted. Article 15 is read: In questions of law, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions, arbitration is recognized by the signatory Powers as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle. Mr. Beldiman states that he reserves the right to present an amendment to this article on the second reading. Article 15 is adopted, subject to this declaration. Article 16 is read: The arbitration convention is concluded for questions already existing or for questions which may arise eventually. It may embrace any dispute or only disputes of a certain category. Mr. Beldiman makes the same declaration with regard to this article. Article 17 is read: The arbitration convention implies an engagement to submit in good faith to the arbitral award. This article is adopted. Article 18 is read: Independently of general or private treaties expressly stipulating recourse to arbitration as obligatory on the signatory Powers, these Powers reserve to themselves the right of concluding, either before the ratification of the present act or later, new agreements, general or private, with a view to extending obligatory arbitration to all cases which they may consider it possible to submit to it. Mr. Beldiman makes the same declaration with regard to this article. Mr. Veljkovitch desires to make it clear that Article 18 leaves to the Governments the option of concluding, either before ratification or afterwards, new agreements, but that this provision does not imply an engagement on the part of these Governments to do so. tion. The President replies that there can be no doubt as to this interpreta Article 18 is adopted, subject to the above-mentioned declarations. Article 19 being provisionally transferred to Section 3, the Commission passes to Section 2: The Permanent Court of Arbitration. Article 20 is read: With the object of facilitating an immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which it has not been possible to settle by diplomacy, the signatory Powers undertake to organize a Permanent Court of Arbitration, accessible at all times and operating, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure inserted in the present Convention. Article 20 is adopted. Article 21 is read: The Permanent Court shall be competent for all arbitration cases, unless the parties agree to institute a special tribunal. [17] Count de Macedo says that his instructions enable him to accept the entire project ad referendum but that he desires to submit an amendment to Article 21, which seems to him calculated to give greater force and vitality to the institution of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This amendment reads as follows: Nevertheless, in the event of an understanding simply to have recourse to arbitration, the signatory Powers agree to give the preference to the Permanent Court of Arbitration rather than to a special tribunal, whenever circumstances permit. COUNT DE MACEDO does not ask the Commission to pass upon this amendment immediately, but to refer it to the next meeting of the committee of examination. The President says that this will be done, and Article 21 is adopted, subject to this reservation. Article 22 is read: An International Bureau, established at The Hague, and under the direction of a permanent secretary general, serves as registry for the Court. This Bureau is the channel for communications relative to the meetings of the Court. It has the custody of the archives and conducts all the administrative business. The signatory Powers undertake to communicate to the International Bureau at The Hague a duly certified copy of any conditions of arbitration arrived at between them and of any award concerning them delivered by a special tribunal. They undertake likewise to communicate to the Bureau the laws, regulations, and documents eventually showing the execution of the awards given by the Court. Chevalier Descamps explains that, at Mr. ROLIN's suggestion, the committee of examination has inserted the words "duly certified" before the word copy" " in the original text. He thinks that this formality will give the Bureau's archives greater authority. His Excellency Mr. Eyschen remarks that it would be preferable to leave to the Permanent Council mentioned in Article 28 the question of the title to be given to the head of the International Bureau. He thinks that there are objections to giving him the title of secretary general, inasmuch as he will actually have the duties and responsibilities of a director. He therefore proposes that the words and under the direction of a permanent secretary general" be stricken out. Chevalier Descamps says that this provision goes back to his Excellency Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE's original project. He recognizes the fact that it no longer fits in with the present organization of the International Bureau and, for his part, he can see no objection to leaving it to the Permanent Council to organize the administration of this Bureau as it sees fit. Article 22 is adopted with the omission proposed by his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN. Article 23 is read: Within the three months following its ratification of the present act, each signatory Power shall select four persons at the most, of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrators. The persons thus selected shall be inscribed, as members of the Court, in a list which shall be notified to all the signatory Powers by the Bureau. Any alteration in the list of arbitrators is brought by the Bureau to the knowledge of the signatory Powers. Two or more Powers may agree on the selection in common of one or more members. The same person can be selected by different Powers. The members of the Court are appointed for a term of six years. Their appointments can be renewed. In case of the death or retirement of a member of the Court, his place is filled in the same way as he was appointed. The members of the Court enjoy diplomatic privileges and immunities in the performance of their duties. Count de Grelle Rogier asks for certain explanations with regard to the final paragraph of Article 23. [18] The provision which grants diplomatic immunities to the members of the arbitral court may, in this concise form, give rise to a doubtful or too broad interpretation. It would be well to know the exact meaning to be attached to the expression in the performance of their duties." Did the committee of examination wish to indicate by these words that the members of the Court will enjoy the privileges of diplomatic immunity when they are actually sitting or from the time that they are designated to pass upon a difference up to the date on which the award is rendered? If the latter interpretation were to prevail, it would give rise to rather serious objections, and it would be difficult to understand the advantage of such a privilege, which has never been enjoyed by international arbitrators up to the present time, and the lack of which has caused no inconvenience. Again, even limited diplomatic immunity could only be granted to the extent allowed by the constitutional laws of the several countries. If, for example, the arbitral Court were to sit in Belgium, Count DE GRELLE ROGIER does not believe that the Belgian Constitution admits of granting the diplomatic immunities in question to those of its nationals who are members of that Court. Chevalier Descamps says that the idea was that the immunities should apply to the arbitrators when they are actually sitting. In so far as the situation of arbitrators sitting in their own country is concerned, a reservation might be made, and the committee of examination will endeavor to find a formula to express it. It was desired especially to honor the position of arbitrator by assimilating it in the matter of prerogatives to that of diplomat. Count de Grelle Rogier states that this explanation satisfies him. Jonkheer van Karnebeek thinks that, in order to prevent in future difficulties which may present themselves more especially from the standpoint of his country, it would be well to mention clearly in the minutes, and even to define |