ture. It will fix their payments and salaries and control the general expendi At a meeting duly summoned the presence of five members will be sufficient to render the discussions valid, and the decisions will be taken by a majority of votes. The council will render annually to the contracting parties an account of its activities as well as of the labors and expenses of the bureau. ARTICLE 7 The President reads Article 7 of Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE's plan. After a general discussion vote on this article is reserved; the members of the committee are to solicit the opinions of their colleagues of the Third Commission upon this subject. [28] The order of business calls for the discussion of Articles 14, 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the Russian plan for “International commissions of inquiry." Examination, upon Its First Reading, of the Russian Plan Relating to "International Commissions of Inquiry "1 ARTICLE 14 The President reads Article 14. Mr. Lammasch does not fail to recognize the value of this institution of international commissions of inquiry; they will certainly be very beneficial, but to declare them obligatory is to go very far indeed. For we are here making an innovation in the law of nations. The duties which this Article 14 imposes upon States are serious, especially if we compare with this Article 14 the obligations formally provided in Article 16 which implies in a way an abnegation of national sovereignty. Mr. LAMMASCH proposes therefore to make the provisions of Article 14 not obligatory but voluntary. The following words could be written in line 5 of Article 14: "the signatory Powers deem it expedient that the interested Governments agree, etc.," and use "for" instead of "in" at the beginning of the article. Mr. Asser observes that the institution of international commissions of inquiry should be extended to all differences relating to questions of fact, and should not therefore be limited to the ascertainment of local circumstances. Mr. Holls is of the same opinion as Mr. LAMMASCH. However, he believes that the Governments should not be contented with providing for these commissions, but they should recommend that the parties have recourse thereto. Dr. Zorn shares the opinion of Messrs. LAMMASCH and HOLLS. The committee having declared itself in favor of this view, the following text is adopted upon the first reading, and subject to the approval of the interested Governments: For cases which may arise between the signatory States where differences of opinion with regard to local circumstances have given rise to a dispute of an international character which cannot be settled through the ordinary diplomatic channels, but wherein neither the honor nor the vital interests of these States is involved, the signatory States have agreed to 1 Annex 1. recommend to the interested Governments the constitution of an international commission of inquiry in order to ascertain the circumstances forming the basis of the disagreement and to elucidate all the facts of the case by means of an impartial and conscientious investigation on the spot. ARTICLE 15 Mr. Holls fears that this provision setting up two members on each side separated by a single president, will run the risk of serious disagreement. He is of the opinion that in general the two commissioners chosen on each side will agree. However that may be a single president will not have sufficient authority to make his opinion accepted in the two opposing camps. This is why he proposes to increase the number of neutral commissioners and to set the number at three at least. The opinion of these three neutrals would be imposed very differently from that of a single man. The vote of the president, dividing the four commissioners, forming two groups, would not have sufficient authority. Three votes cast on the same side would produce more of an impression upon public opinion. Mr. Basily observes that the proposition of Mr. HOLLS tends to form a very important commission for difficulties which will often be of an insignificant character: he cites, for example, those which occur so frequently along the frontier of two countries. His Excellency Sir Julian Pauncefote is of the opinion that it is proper to leave to the parties themselves the duty of settling these details. Dr. Zorn proposes the addition of the words "unless otherwise stipulated." Mr. Lammasch believes that this question will come up again when Articles 4 and 5 of the code of arbitration are discussed. The committee adopts Article 15 with this reservation after having decided however to add to the article these words "unless otherwise stipulated" and to modify the last sentence in accordance with the suggestions of Mr. LAMMASCH. The draft of Article 15 adopted at the first reading therefore is as follows: [29] Unless otherwise stipulated, the international commissions are formed as follows: each interested Government names two members and the four members together choose a fifth member, who is also the president of the commission. In case of equal vote for the selection of the president the procedure contained in Articles 4 and 5 of the code of arbitration will be followed. ARTICLE 16 A general discussion takes place with regard to the form of this article. Messrs. HOLLS, Baron D'ESTOURNELLES and Dr. ZORN point out the dangers of this draft: who indeed will be judge of what shall be the necessary means and facilities? It would seem difficult and dangerous to subscribe to such an obligation because it may reduce a State to the alternative of having to furnish or to refuse information relating to its own security. Chevalier Descamps proposes to add these words to this article: "furnish to the latter as fully as they may think possible." He points out an analogous provision in Article 81 of the General Act of the Conference of Brussels in 1890. This proposal is adopted. The draft of Article 16 then undergoes several modifications in detail and becomes the following: The Governments which have appointed the commissioners furnish to the latter so far as they may think possible all means and facilities necessary for the exact and complete understanding of the facts in question. Article 17 is adopted in the following form: ARTICLE 17 The international commission of inquiry communicates its report to the interested Governments. ARTICLE 18 Mr. Asser considers this article, together with Articles 15, 16, and 17, as valuable when Article 14 provided for an obligation; but the situation is no longer the same since we have just decided that this article should have a voluntary character. Dr. Zorn is also of this opinion when looking at the matter from the juridical view-point, but we must not forget that these articles possess another very important characteristic, i. e., they act as a warning. Bearing that in mind, it is not necessary, as Mr. ASSER points out, to enter too much into details, since all the provisions of this chapter have only a voluntary character and consequently leave to the interested parties entire freedom to modify them at their pleasure. Mr. d'Estournelles proposes in any case until future decisions to the contrary to strike out the last clause of Article 18. It is useless to provide for and to reserve explicitly the right to resort to war in an act of the Peace Conference. The committee shares this view, Article 18 will consequently end with the words "mediation and arbitration." The text adopted therefore becomes the following: The report of the commission of inquiry has in no way the character of an award; it leaves the disputing Governments entire power either to conclude a settlement in a friendly way upon the basis of the above-mentioned report, or to resort to mediation and arbitration. The next session will be held on Friday, June 23, at 2 o'clock. [30] NINTH MEETING JUNE 23, 1899 1 Chevalier Descamps presiding. The minutes of the last meeting are read and approved. Mr. Martens gives to the committee with his respects ten copies of a code drawn up by the British and Venezuelan Governments for the purposes of an arbitration over which he had the honor to preside in Paris. The interesting feature about this document is that it bears a great similarity to the draft which we are to discuss to-day. The committee thanks Mr. MARTENS for this communication. With regard to the last meeting at which he was not present, due to his absence in Paris, Mr. MARTENS desires to make some remarks which may be summarized as follows: Article 14 of the Russian plan: International commissions of inquiry are not an innovation; they have already proved that they may be of service when a controversy breaks out between two States both acting in good faith, for example when a boundary matter arises between them. Opinion is aroused all the more if the question is unexpected and if opinion is uninformed because it is ignorant of the origin and the real cause of the dispute. It is at the mercy of momentary impressions and there are many chances that, favored by this ignorance, minds will be irritated and the dispute will become a bitter one; that is why we desire to provide for the contingency of the commission having for its purpose: first and above all, to seek and make known the truth as to the cause of the affair, and as to the materiality of the facts. Such is the principal rôle of the commission; it is named to make a report, and not to make decisions which may in any way bind the parties. But while it works for the purposes of making a report, time is gained, and that is the second object which we have in view. Spirits will become calmer and the dispute will cease to be so acute. Now this double and important practical result cannot be obtained except on one condition, and that is that the interested Governments will agree to bind themselves reciprocally to name these commissions, with the reservation of course that vital questions and the honor of the States in dispute will not be affected thereby. If we limit ourselves to the mere utterance of a platonic vau, to a recommendation that these commissions be appointed, we shall miss the goal at which we are aiming, we shall have merely expressed our intention once again; the appointments should therefore be obligatory. 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, LAMMASCH, ODIER, MARTENS, Doctor Zorn, members of the committee of examination. Assisted at the meeting: Mr. BASILY. The President believes that before passing to the order of business, the committee should first express itself with regard to the remarks of Mr. MARTENS. It would seem that this might be taken care of by adopting a compromise term, for example by adding to the original text of Article 14 of the Russian plan these words: “if circumstances allow" after the words "agree to form." Mr. Asser is of this opinion and at the last session he expressed an opinion similar to that of Mr. Martens. Mr. Lammasch sees no objection to joining personally in the compromise proposal of Chevalier DESCAMPS but the text of Article 14 regarding "commissions of inquiry" seems too vague to him; this article would gain by borrowing a little more precision, for example from Article 10 of the Russian draft: Could you not point out for instance some of the cases where the formation of commissions would be obligatory? [31] Dr. Zorn accepts the terms proposed by Chevalier DESCAMPS, "so far as circumstances allow," but he asks if we might not reserve the draft of Article 14 until after we have decided upon the form of Article 10, because of the connection existing between the two articles which he too has noted. Chevalier Descamps believes that this is only an apparent connection; these two Articles 10 and 14 contemplate two very different states of facts. After a general discussion the committee reaches an agreement to revise and redraft as follows the text of Article 14, adopted at the last meeting: after the words "agree to form" will be added these " so far as circumstances allow." As to the last sentence of Article 18 and the remark of Baron D'ESTOURNELLES, at the conclusion of which this sentence was stricken out, Mr. Martens does not insist that it be retained, but he desires to call attention to the fact that in the mind of the originator of the plan the subject was not war but simply measures of reprisal or retortion. This remark of Mr. MARTENS is entered upon the minutes of the meeting. The order of business calls for the discussion of the code of arbitration. Before reading its articles, Chevalier Descamps thinks he should review the exact scope of the work which it is the duty of the committee to prepare. There are several series of questions to be studied successively, he says, but these questions form a whole which must be properly arranged. Here is the general scheme of the Convention to be drafted: An initial provision concerning the maintenance of general peace. Then follows a series of provisions relating to good offices and mediation. A group of articles concerning international commissions of inquiry forms at third division of the subject matter. Finally we come to the articles concerning international arbitration which it is convenient to arrange under the following three heads: I. System of arbitration. II. Permanent Court of Arbitration. III. Arbitral procedure. All these provisions have for their purpose the pacific settlement of international disputes, and from this point of view form a first attempt at an organic code of peace. None of these matters can or should be considered independently of the others: the articles which concern them should without distinction appear in their order and in their place, not in an appendix, but in the very body of the act of the Conference. |