Why has little Holland played so great a part in history? Why have her commerce and her ships spread over all the oceans? It is because the Dutch have not remained behind their dunes; they have climbed to the top of those dunes and breathed in the air of the sea. They perceived a vast horizon and they followed the paths stretched out before them, which have put them in direct communication with all the nations of the globe. That is the explanation of the cosmopolitan spirit which has at all times distinguished the artists, the writers, and the statesmen of this little country. But, gentlemen, Holland has done far more. In her fight against the invasion of the sea she has constructed locks by means of which her land waters and the tides of the sea have been joined and mingled, just as the ideas, the institutions, and the customs of the Dutch nation have, thanks to its international relations, been developed, clarified, and, so to speak, crystallized. Might it not be said, to continue the simile, that when they look out upon the common horizon of humanity national ideas broaden and become harmonized? To reach the results attained by Holland, let us follow that country's example: let us climb to the top of our dunes and direct our gaze upon a broader horizon. Let us open up the locks and show that we did not build them for selfish ends nor with any thought of exclusiveness in mind. The barriers of prejudice must fall, and then we shall see a spirit of understanding and of mutual confidence in dealing with all questions. Concord, gentlemen, should be the watchword and the aim of our labors. Mr. Beldiman replies that Mr. MARTENS has held up the example of Holland to the nations represented at the Conference. Roumania would indeed be happy if she could look back upon a past of several centuries of civilization, of struggle, and of progress. Unfortunately scarcely thirty years have elapsed since she began her career as a modern nation. This is a situation of inferiority which it would be unjust to dwell upon, and Mr. BELDI MAN would have preferred that the example in question had not been pointed to. [43] The President says that if he had considered it possible that the preceding speaker had any such intention in mind, he would not have allowed it to pass. Nothing in Mr. MARTENS' address could have referred to the particular situation of the country which Mr. BELDIMAN represents. Mr. MARTENS merely wished to make an appeal to all the members of the assembly, inviting them to rise above their own frontiers and to contemplate only the frontiers of humanity. (Applause.) Mr. Beldiman reverts to the arguments against his contentions. In saying that international commissions of inquiry might bring into the case Powers foreign to the dispute, he had nothing else in mind than the composition of these commissions as laid down in Article 31. It is provided that an international commission of inquiry operating in a certain territory with the object of settling a dispute between two States might call upon States other than those actually concerned to intervene. Mr. BELDIMAN did not say that the Powers would intervene in the constitution of the commission; he spoke only of the composition of the commission, and he wanted to prove the absolutely essential difference in principle which should exist between the composition of an arbitration tribunal, which passes as a sovereign upon the law, and that of a commission of inquiry, which seeks to ascertain on the spot a question of fact. It has been said that the original Russian project provided for a similar organization, to which no objection was raised. Mr. BELDIMAN recalls that this project. was not subjected to any general discussion. A small committee immediately took charge of it for study and the first delegates had no means of taking part in that study or of communicating the views of their Governments. Furthermore, it is to be noted that in the various phases through which this examination passed, the representatives of the press seem to have enjoyed a genuine privilege in the matter of information. The President interrupts Mr. BELDIMAN with the request that he do not bring a personal matter into a debate in which there is need of good-will and union on the part of all. Mr. Beldiman replies that he must nevertheless persist in stating that up to the present moment no opportunity has been afforded him to express his views before the committee or elsewhere; there should be no surprise therefore that he now presents his objections to a draft which came to his knowledge only a few days ago. Returning to the Russian project, Mr. BELDIMAN points out the important difference between the organization provided for in that project and the organization which is proposed by the committee of examination. Article 16 of the Russian project contemplates the case of a serious disagreement or a dispute, that is to say, a situation which may lead to war. The present draft does not confine itself to such a case. Mr. BELDIMAN feels that he must once more point out this important difference. The President says that the general discussion of the draft on first reading is closed. He asks Mr. BELDIMAN whether he desires a vote, before the Commission passes to a discussion of the articles, on the suppression pure and simple of Section 3 relative to international commissions of inquiry. On Mr. BELDIMAN's objecting to the Commission's passing to a vote after the first reading, which is contrary to the procedure followed up to the present time, the PRESIDENT declares the discussion on Articles 9 to 13 open. Article 9 is read: In disputes of an international nature arising from a difference of opinion regarding facts which may form the object of local determination, and besides involving neither the honor nor vital interests of the interested Powers, these Powers, in case they cannot come to an agreement by the ordinary means of diplomacy, agree to have recourse, so far as circumstances allow, to the institution of international commissions of inquiry, in order to elucidate on the spot, by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation, all the facts. This article is adopted subject to second reading. The international commissions of inquiry are constituted, unless otherwise stipulated, in the manner determined by Article 31 of the present Convention. The President says that he has received from his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN an amendment to this article reading as follows: Where there are special provisions, the procedure for inquiry shall be determined by the principles contained in the rules in Articles 29 bis et seq. relating to arbitration procedure, so far as these principles are applicable to the institution of international commissions of inquiry. [44] His Excellency Mr. Eyschen says that he desires to call attention to an omission in Article 10. This article tells how the commissions of inquiry shall be constituted, but does not contain the rules which shall govern their operation. It is often not an easy thing to pursue the quest of truth, to distinguish the pertinent and relevant facts, and to state the results adequately from a legal point of view. Furthermore the rights of the parties concerned must be guaranteed against prejudice, artifice, and personal feelings. There are rules that it is essential to observe, which will insure the sincerity and efficacy of this means of investigation. Jurists are accustomed to observe these rules; but international investigations will frequently be entrusted to technical men who are not jurists, who will perform their duties in remote countries, who must act quickly in order to get at the truth before all traces of it are lost, and who consequently will not be able to inform themselves as to the legal difficulties. Rules of procedure for international inquiries would therefore be still more necessary in this case than in the matter of arbitration, for which rules are laid down in Articles 29 et seq. It is too late to draw up such rules. Perhaps we might confine ourselves to referring to the general principles underlying arbitration procedure, in so far as those principles are applicable to commissions of inquiry. Mr. EYSCHEN cites as examples among other provisions those prescribing that the compromis must state clearly the matter in dispute and the powers of the arbitrators, that the tribunal shall determine its competence and rules of procedure, that the documents produced must be communicated to all the parties involved. Chevalier Descamps says that the amendment presented by his Excellency Mr. EYSCHEN belongs to the class of guaranties which were referred to at the beginning of the meeting and which might be applied to advantage to the organization of international commissions of inquiry. Chevalier DESCAMPS thinks that it would be well to adopt Mr. EYSCHEN'S proposal, subject to formulation of its text and taking into account the maxim mutatis mutandis. The President says that this amendment will be referred to the committee of examination. Dr. Zorn desires to be assured that this reference does not imply the adoption of the principle, to which, so far as he is concerned, he cannot agree. Mr. Holls says that it is very important not to have any confusion between the operation of arbitration and the operation of commissions of inquiry, which latter is merely of an auxiliary character. Mr. HOLLS would be unable at present to accept the principle of the amendment, and he also desires to have it noted that the Commission has not adopted it. Mr. Lammasch explains the essential difference between the object of commissions of inquiry and that of arbitration. The purpose of the former is to investigate a local dispute; the latter, on the contrary, is required to take cognizance of points of law and of fact. The operation of the commissions is therefore much simpler than that of arbitration, and though the two institutions may have some provisions in common, we must not be misled into supposing that they can be made to coincide absolutely. Mr. Martens states that he concurs in Mr. LAMMASCH's opinion. The President explains that this is simply a reference to the committee, the question being left absolutely open, with no implication as to the adoption of the principle of the amendment. His Excellency Mr. Eyschen replies that his sentiments were similiar to those of the preceding speakers. That is why his amendment does not refer to specific articles, but to their underlying principles, and then only in so far as these principles are applicable to commissions of inquiry. Investigations by the latter are at bottom real cases like those submitted to arbitrators, but they are concerned only with questions of fact. There is a dispute, a controversy. If such investigations are carried on before arbitrators, they will be governed by Articles 29 et seq., so far as applicable. We must confine ourselves to setting forth in Article 10 the rules essential to every investigation. The President says that it is understood that the committee of examination will study the question and that he will be glad to have Mr. EYSCHEN collaborate in this study. With this reservation, Article 10 is adopted. The interested Powers undertake to supply the international commission of inquiry, as fully as they may think possible, with all means and facilities necessary to enable it to become completely acquainted with and to accurately understand the facts in question. This article is adopted. Article 12 is read: The international commission of inquiry communicates its report to the Powers in dispute, signed by all the members of the commission. This article is adopted. [45] The report of the international commission of inquiry has in no way the character of an arbitral award. It leaves to the Powers in dispute the option either of concluding a friendly arrangement on the basis of this report or of having recourse subsequently to mediation or arbitration. Mr. Stancioff recalls that he proposed at the beginning of the meeting an amendment to this article, which might be worded as follows: It leaves to the Powers in controversy entire freedom either to conclude a friendly settlement based upon this report, or to consider the report as never having been made. The President says that this amendment will be referred to the committee of examination and declares Article 13 adopted with this reservation. His Excellency Turkhan Pasha says that he must reiterate, on the first reading of Section 3, the express reservations which he formulated on the first reading of Section 4. His Excellency TURKHAN PASHA is informed that his reservations will be put on record. The President says that the Commission has now completed the first reading of the draft as a whole. Before passing to the second reading, the committee of examination will study, in conjunction with their authors, the amendments which have been presented at to-day's meeting. He continues: All of the objections which have inspired the delegates of Roumania, Serbia, and Greece have repeatedly occurred to most of the members of the committee. If they had believed that the proposals which were adopted contained anything whatever in impairment of the sovereignty or the dignity of any Power, great or small, these proposals would not have received the vote of a single member. It does not seem to me that there can be any real objection on the merits, but it is possible that the form may well be capable of improvement. We are ready to make every effort to come to an agreement with our dissenting colleagues. Appealing to the sentiment which has often animated us in the course of our deliberations, namely, the wish for unanimity in our decisions,- I say to Mr. BELDIMAN and to the delegates of Serbia and of Greece: "Come to the committee of examination, and together we shall weigh in the balance the objections which have been raised to this proposal. We shall endeavor to satisfy you, and, after this interchange of opposing views, we shall be able to say that we have done everything that can be done to obtain unanimity." Mr. Beldiman says that he gladly accepts the PRESIDENT'S invitation, but he repeats that his instructions are formal and that his acceptance does not bind his Government. The President says that the next meeting will take place on Thursday, July 20, at 2 o'clock. The meeting adjourns. |