Mr. Martens believes that the Russian plan has provided for the difficulty. Mr. Asser thinks that these opinions are in fact sufficient in cases where good-will exists, but not in a contrary case.

The President calls attention to the fact that the question of the third arbitrator is not peculiar to the plan for the permanent tribunal. We might therefore return to it when discussing generally the code of arbitration. This suggestion is adopted by the committee.

Mr. Martens requests that the following sentence be omitted: “They shall also have the power to add to their number other arbitrators than those whose names appear on the list, . . ." for this power to add names would take away from the list a great deal of its authority. If recourse may indifferently be had, now to members who are on the list, and again to others, the list would quickly fall into disuse.

Mr. Holls supports this point of view.

Chevalier Descamps states that this omission would be regrettable from a practical point of view and in the adaptation of the tribunal to disputes of various kinds. In certain respects we could consider the supplementary arbitrators as advisers or necessary technical delegates.

Mr. Martens replies that in that case it is useless to talk of them, because the ordinary tribunals may have recourse to technical investigators and to experts without changing their composition for that purpose.

The President is of the opinion that we might also, for the same reasons as stated above, postpone the discussion of the question asked by Mr. MARTENS until the discussion of the code of arbitration.

[25] He puts to vote the two paragraphs of Article 4 which are successively adopted in the following form under the numbers 4 and 4 bis.

ARTICLE 4

The signatory Powers which desire to have recourse to the tribunal for the settlement of differences which have arisen between them, shall notify such desire to the secretary general of the bureau who shall furnish them without delay the list of the members of the tribunal. They will select from this list such number of arbitrators as may be agreed upon in the compromis. In default of provisions upon this point (in the compromis), arbitrators shall be designated from this list according to the rules fixed by Articles . . . of the code of arbitration. The arbitrators thus chosen shall form the tribunal for this arbitration.

They shall meet on the date fixed by the parties in dispute.

ARTICLE 4 bis

The tribunal shall sit ordinarily at The Hague, but it shall have the power to sit elsewhere and to change its meeting place according to circumstances and its convenience or that of the parties in dispute.

Returning to the discussion of Article 4, Mr. Holls proposes the following amendment: "In case the court is composed of but three judges none of them can be a native, subject or citizen of the parties in dispute."

Mr. Asser seconds this proposal.

His Excellency Count Nigra reads Article 3 of the treaty already referred to between Italy and the Argentine Republic; it is drawn up along the lines of Mr. HOLLS' amendment.

Mr. Martens is of the opinion that the amendment deserves the attention of the committee, and that it is proper to reject it expressly: because the plan which the Conference will prepare will have more chances of acceptance by the interested Powers, if each of them finds itself authorized to have a representative on the tribunal.

Mr. Odier replies that, according to Mr. HOLLS, it is only a question of the case where there are but three arbitrators. Now, in that case, if each of the arbitrators is of the nationality of the parties they will act as advocates rather than as judges, and there will in reality be only a single arbitrator.

Mr. Holls supports this view, and adds that such an organization would make impossible all compromise and any spirit of conciliation; neither of the two arbitrators being either willing or able, under certain conditions, to make concessions.

Chevalier Descamps notes the delicacy of the question. Considering the tendencies of States, which do not wish to renounce their sovereignty, and which seek the maximum guaranty possible, it is very probable, as Mr. MARTENS thinks, that each of them will insist absolutely upon having a judge of its own on the tribunal. Chevalier DESCAMPS is therefore of the opinion that in the interest of the very cause which we are here to promote, it would be wise to make this concession, which is also in accordance, in a great measure, with precedents in the matter of the formation of arbitration tribunals. It should not be forgotten that international society is a society of coordination among sovereign States, and we should not model its institutions too closely after the principles adopted in societies of subordination as in the different national organizations.

Mr. Holls admits this point of view in the case of tribunals of more than three members, but not when there are only three, because it results in reality, as Mr. ODIER says, in reducing the tribunal to a single judge.

Mr. Léon Bourgeois remarks that the designation of a judge by each interested party would, in his view, be not only a wise concession but a sort of natural and legitimate transition from diplomatic communication to judicial argument; he proposes therefore that since these considerations are not peculiar to the permanent tribunal, this discussion might be postponed, as in the case of the preceding questions, to the time when the examination of the articles of the code of arbitration is undertaken.

Dr. Zorn asks permission to call attention to the fact that the reservation of Mr. HOLLS seems to him to apply to a civil suit, since no one may be the judge of his own case, but in the case of an international court it is an entirely different thing in his view it is necessary that one of the representatives of the States in dispute be admitted to the tribunal even if there are only three members; the umpire will decide.

Dr. ZORN consequently supports the views of Messrs. MARTENS, LÉON BOURGEOIS and Chevalier DESCAMPS.

It is therefore understood that the question is reserved until the discussion of the code of arbitration.

Mr. Holls is anxious to declare that the principal reason for his proposition is his Government's keen desire that the tribunal of arbitration shall not be too small.

The President reads Article 5.

ARTICLE 5

Mr. Holls asks whether the time is not come to insert the following amend[26] ment, commencing with the words:

Any difference, whatever it may be, between the signatory Powers may, by common agreement, be submitted by the interested nations to the judgment of this international tribunal, and in every case where the tribunal has jurisdiction the interested parties shall bind themselves, in resorting to it, to accept its award.

Chevalier Descamps calls attention to the fact that Article 24 of the code of procedure contemplates this provision. The question is whether there is any reason to leave this provision in the code.

His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote calls attention to the fact that Section 2 of the appendix to Article 13 of the Russian draft also very particularly contemplates this provision.

After these remarks, Mr. HOLLS agrees to reserve the question.
Article 5 is adopted in the following form:

Any State, although not signatory to the present act, may have recourse to the tribunal on the terms prescribed in the regulations.

ARTICLE 6

The President reads Article 6.

His Excellency Count Nigra asks that the amendment of the Russian Government to which he agrees be read.

The President announces the order of business for the next meeting which will take place Friday, June 16, at 2:00 o'clock, Hall of the Truce:

1. Continuation of the discussion of Article 6 of the proposition of Sir of the proposition of Mr. DESCAMPS-and of the Rus

JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE

sian amendments;

2. Article 7.

The meeting adjourns.

EIGHTH MEETING

JUNE 21, 1899 1

Chevalier Descamps presiding.

The order of business calls for the continuation of the discussion of Article 6 of the PAUNCEFOTE plan.

Examination, upon Its First Reading, of the Plan for the "Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration" by His Excellency Sir Julian

Pauncefote (Continued) 2

ARTICLE 6 (Continuation of the discussion)

Sir Julian Pauncefote proposes to substitute for the text which he set forth to the committee the following draft which, it seems to him, should be approved in its general lines:

A permanent council composed of the representatives of the signatory Powers residing at The Hague, and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs shall be instituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of the present Convention. This council shall be commissioned to establish and organize a central bureau which will be under its direction [27] and control. It shall proceed to the installation of the tribunal; it shall examine from time to time the rules necessary for the proper operation of the central bureau. It will also settle all questions which may arise with regard to the operations of the tribunal or it will refer them to the signatory Powers. It will have absolute power over the appointment, suspension, or dismissal of the officers and employees of the central bureau. It will fix their payments and salaries, it will control the general expenditure. At a meeting duly summoned the presence of five members will be sufficient to render valid the discussion, and the decisions will be taken by a majority of votes.

The President opens the discussion of this new draft.

He recalls that the idea of resort to the diplomatic corps of a country, which is the seat of an international institution, has already been suggested at the Conference of Brussels of 1889-1890 regarding the suppression of the African slave trade.

1 Hall of the Truce. Present: His Excellency Mr. STAAL, president of the Conference; Jonkheer VAN KARNEBEEK, vice president of the Conference; their Excellencies Count NIGRA, Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, honorary presidents of the Third Commission; Messrs. AsSER, Baron D'Estournelles DE CONSTANT, HOLLS, LAM MASCH, ODIER, Doctor ZORN, members of the committee of examination. Present at the meeting: Mr. BASILY.

2 Annex 2, B.

Mr. Asser cites another precedent along the same line: the Convention of 1888 concerning the free use of the Suez Canal. As to the principle itself of the proposal of Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, Mr. ASSER does not think he can speak definitely upon the matter without instructions from his Government; however, it is worth being examined with a great deal of interest. Mr. ASSER thinks that instead of saying "representatives. . . representatives . . . residing at The Hague," we should designate them as the "representatives representatives . . . accredited to The Hague."

His Excellency Mr. Staal sees only advantages to be gained in supporting the proposition of Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE.

Dr. Zorn believes that this provision would facilitate acceptance of the Final Act by the Governments. He desires, in any case, that the council be composed exclusively of the diplomatic representatives not only accredited but residing at The Hague.

Mr. d'Estournelles attaches special importance to the word "resident" and the committee shares this view.

Mr. Asser proposes as a preliminary precaution to provide in any case that the permanent council shall begin by drawing up its rules of procedure in order that we shall be very sure that its meetings will be regularly organized and constituted.

Mr. Holls endorses this proposition.

His Excellency Count Nigra and all the members of the committee adhere to the principle of the propositions as contained in the new draft of Article 6 by Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, subject of course to the reservation that there should be a further examination and that the Governments represented in the committee shall express their approval thereof.

The committee passes to the examination of the new draft of Article 6 of the PAUNCEFOTE plan.

The President reads the first sentence of the new Article 6. It is adopted. As to the second sentence, Mr. Asser is of the opinion that it would be necessary to fix a period for the installation of the central bureau.

After discussion the committee declines to specify any period.

The third, fourth, fifth, and sixth sentences of the new Article 6 are adopted in the form given below.

Finally, at the suggestion of Mr. ASSER, it is decided to add a seventh sentence containing the stipulation already provided for in the Russian plan.

The complete text of Article 6 is finally adopted upon the first reading in the following form:

A permanent council composed of the diplomatic representatives of the high contracting Parties residing at The Hague, and of the Netherland Minister for Foreign Affairs who shall be the president thereof, shall be instituted in this town as soon as possible after the ratification of the present

This council will be charged with the establishment and organization of the central bureau which will be under its direction and control. It will notify to the Powers the constitution of the tribunal and will provide for the installation of the latter. It will settle its rules of procedure as well as the rules necessary for the proper operation of the central bureau. It will also settle all questions which may arise with regard to the operations of the tribunal or it will refer them to the contracting Powers. It will have absolute powers over the appointment, suspension or dismissal of the officials and employees of the central bureau.