Paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are adopted except for the word Court which will be used instead of Tribunal. Paragraph 6 is adopted in the following form following modifications and additions suggested by his Excellency Count Nigra and by Mr. Asser: 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. Any alteration of the list of arbitrators is communicated to the International Bureau and without delay brought by the latter to the knowledge of the signatory Powers. Mr. Holls asks that we write into this article the principle suggested by Chevalier DESCAMPS regarding the immunity of arbitrators. It is decided that this principle will be inserted in Article 4, subject to further revision. [49] The first two paragraphs of Article 4 are combined and adopted in the following form: The signatory Powers which desire to have recourse to the Court for the settlement of their differences select from the general list such number of arbitrators as may have been agreed upon between them. They notify to the Bureau their intention to have recourse to the Court and the name of the arbitrators whom they have designated. Paragraph 3 is modified and redrafted as follows: In the absence of a convention to the contrary, the arbitral tribunal will be formed according to the rules set forth in Article 10 of the present Convention. It is understood that the same formula will be adopted for Article 4 of the code of procedure. The last two paragraphs of Article 4 are adopted without modification. Question of calling attention to arbitration The President observes that the French delegation has proposed to assign to the International Bureau the duty of calling the attention of the parties to the ⚫ existence of a permanent tribunal, in order to encourage recourse thereto. There is good reason to take this precaution so that Powers may not be stopped by any feeling of honor, and that each one of them may not feel obliged to wait for the other to begin. Why not make a provision in connection with the permanent tribunal analogous to the clause presented by Count NIGRA relating to good offices and mediation, and declare that such a reminder under these circumstances shall not be regarded as an unfriendly act? This would be a great service to the cause and operation of international arbitration. Mr. Lammasch says that there is great difference between the offer of mediation and the reminder of the existence of arbitration. Might not this reminder be somewhat offensive to the parties in certain cases? His Excellency Count Nigra was also of the same opinion as Mr. BOURGEOIS when he proposed originally that every Power should have the right to offer mediation or arbitration and that this initiative should not be considered as an unfriendly act. 1 It is understood that the word "retirement" will be taken in its broadest sense (act of withdrawing) - to be noted in the report. 2 See the minutes of the sixth meeting. Baron d'Estournelles supports the opinion of Mr. BOURGEOIS. Some means must be found to put the Permanent Court of Arbitration into operation and, as the PRESIDENT has said, to accustom the Powers to resort to this new organization. To accomplish that it is necessary to help Governments to take the step. It matters little what means are used to start action by them. Considering the susceptibility of public opinion and the reluctance of each Government to decide before the other, it is, so to speak, necessary to have a mechanism which will operate on its own motion, and put Governments in a position to speak. It is necessary to have an automatic process which will oblige them to make a decision in favor of or against arbitration before public opinion and parliaments; if we find this mechanism, and if we designate the person charged with the duty of sending out the letter of invitation then the situation will be entirely changed. It will be as difficult for a Government to decline to resort to arbitration as it was for it to accept it up to that time in serious cases. Mr. Holls endorses this view-point. Mr. Martens would ask nothing better than to be able to support the suggestion of the French delegation himself, but it seems to him difficult to apply it. Who will be the intermediary? The Bureau? It will not have sufficient moral authority. The Council? The diplomatic corps will not be sufficiently independent; each one of its members will be bound by his instructions. The President recognizes the weight of the objections of Mr. MARTENS, but they do not convince him. Doubtless there will be difficulties to be met by the Powers, but that is still another reason to seek some method; if not, we shall have reached only apparent results, nine times out of ten a feeling of honor will prevent States which most desire to resort to arbitration from deciding to do so. Let us therefore seek the form since we are in agreement upon the principle. His Excellency Count Nigra and Mr. Odier recognize the importance of the arguments invoked in favor of Mr. BOURGEOIS' proposition. Dr. Zorn does not deny this importance, but he too believes that it is necessary to seek some form to make the idea practicable. Chevalier Descamps believes that calling attention of the parties to the existence of a permanent court and the advice to resort to this court are essentially of the same character as good offices. A practical formula must be sought in this direction. After a general discussion, the committee decides to introduce a provision, the text of which will be adopted later, with a view to providing that arbi[50] tration may be recommended and that the advice will be considered according to the expression of Chevalier DESCAMPS: "like an offer of good offices." Adopted. The next meeting is set for Monday, July 3, at 2:15. 1. Continuation of the second reading of the plan for the Permanent Court of Arbitration. 2. Articles 7 to 13 "The system of arbitration and disputes dependent thereon." 1 The meeting adjourns. 1 See annex 9. THIRTEENTH MEETING JULY 3, 1899 1 Mr. Léon Bourgeois presiding. The minutes of the last meeting are read and approved. The order of business calls for the continuation of the discussion of the plan for the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Examination, Upon Its Second Reading, of the Plan for the "Permanent Court of Arbitration "- Continued - (Question of the "Duty of Powers ")" The President recalls that the committee at its last meeting decided upon the principle to introduce among the provisions relative to the Court of Arbitration, an additional article intended to facilitate access to the Court. Baron d'Estournelles asks to be heard in order to submit to the committee a proposal which he has drawn up in support of that of Mr. BOURGEOIS. GENTLEMEN: The proposal which I have the honor to submit to you in support of that of Mr. LÉON BOURGEOIS is on my own personal responsibility, as I have not had time to consult our Government, it is therefore binding upon me alone; it is another contribution to the many efforts which for six weeks you have been making with an admirable spirit of harmony and energetic good-will to finish well the great task which is confided to us. We are approaching the end of our labors, we are going to create a court, a code of international arbitration. That is something when we recall that nothing of its kind existed before our meeting at The Hague. It is but little when we think of all that humanity expects from us. At least we must see that the little accomplished shall be real. The Conference has already caused great misconception among the masses, notably by refusing to put a limit upon the increase of armaments and upon existing armies; what will be the situation if our Court of Arbitration shall exist only on paper, and if instead of fulfilling our duty which is to avoid war, we limit ourselves to formulating declarations without effect? Now we know that a permanent court is in danger of not being a living organism. Mr. BOURGEOIS pointed out in the last meeting that nine out of ten 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, MARTENS, HOLLS, LAMMASCH, ODIER, ZORN, members of the committee of examination. 2 See annex 9. times, at the moment when a serious dispute arises, the interested Powers [51] would not dare to resort to the Court and that the greater number of them, especially the weaker Powers, would be stopped by national scruples, by a feeling of honor, by the moral impossibility of taking the first step. We therefore find ourselves face to face with a truly ludicrous situation: we are creating institutions to prevent war and the Court to which States may resort on any occasion except when war is threatened! How will we avoid attaining a result so contrary to our intentions? Gentlemen, I see only one practical method, one which is really efficacious. Let us have the courage to go to the bottom of things and expressly call attention in our general act to the fact that States have not only common interests and rights but duties. Among the first of these duties all the Governments have more and more the duty of listening to public opinion. Think of the reception which awaits us when each of us returns to his country next October and has to explain not his intentions but the material results of the Conference, if we are obliged to say that these results are illusory, and if the radical parties taking advantage of our admission of powerlessness go about everywhere proclaiming with their habitual violence that the labors of our assembly have been only a shadow, a cruel hoax! I admire, but alas! I cannot share, the optimistic belief developed by Colonel GROSS VON SCHWARZHOFF in his recently published speech. I even question whether it is prudent to affirm this optimism too much. We cannot, alas, disguise from ourselves the fact that in all civilized countries the laboring population suffers from the same evil, the imposition upon their shoulders of three new and excessive burdens: 1. The weight of a competition unknown in the past which the increase in the means of transportation has produced in all parts of the world. 2. The increase in the development of machinery. 3. The obligations of an armed peace. Can we without danger declare that these burdens are not too heavy? Perhaps the people will not reply. Still, I am not certain of this point, because you know the general state of mind in Europe, and the demonstrations which break out simultaneously in so many points should put us on our guard. In any case, when their discontent is translated into action, we shall not only see selfdeluded Governments threatened, but we shall see all civilized nations menaced precisely because the same interests, the same duties, and a joint liability unite them. It is because of this liability that I beg you, gentlemen, to perform a work truly alive and beneficent, to show yourselves an example to the Governments of that initiative which the world is so impatiently waiting for us to exhibit; I propose to you the method, not to oblige States in dispute to resort to arbitration, but what amounts to the same thing-by safeguarding their independence and their dignity, the means to put them in a position to choose between arbitration and war, to formally declare or accept in the face of opinion the final expedient of a pacific settlement. You will obtain this invaluable result by changing only one word in our text, by substituting for the ideal of right the superior ideal of duty. Yes, the word "duty" will give to the general act of The Hague all its moral effect, all its strength; it responds to the call of our consciences, and the generous intentions of the Czar, to the hopes of humanity which has its eyes fixed upon us. Baron D'ESTOURNELLES proposes therefore to add the following article: The signatory Powers consider it their duty, if a serious dispute threatens to break out between two or more of them to remind these latter that the Permanent Court is open to them, and authorize the secretary general of the Bureau to place himself when the event occurs, at the disposal of the interested parties, by addressing a letter to their representatives in the Netherlands. act. The exercise of this authority shall not be considered as an unfriendly Baron D'ESTOURNELLES then reads a draft of the letter which the secretary general would address to the representatives of the Powers in controversy at The Hague: YOUR EXCELLENCY: The signatory Powers of the general act of The Hague having expressly bound themselves to neglect no means of promoting the pacific settlement of disputes which might threaten to break out between two or more of them and these Powers having, by Article 10 of the same act, authorized the secretary general of the International Bureau at the proper time to recall this obligation to the interested parties, I have the honor to advise you that I am at your disposal for the purpose of convoking the Permanent Court of Arbitration in case the Government of . . . should feel itself under an obligation to notify me of its intention in this regard as well as of the names of the arbitrators designated. [52] A general discussion takes place regarding the proposal of Mr. D'ESTOUR NELLES. Mr. Holls considers that the idea expressed therein is very important. If it can be made practical he will be sincerely gratified, but he would like to have time to think about it in order to be sure that Governments might not be embarrassed by the suggestion of arbitration. So far as the United States of America itself is concerned, the proposition will have to be examined with care to see whether it might not affect the distinction established by the traditional policy of this country between questions which are purely European and purely American. Mr. Odier has listened with a great deal of interest to the exposition of Mr. D'ESTOURNELLES. He asks whether it would not be in line with the idea of the latter to provide for the Powers not represented at The Hague. Baron d'Estournelles replies in the affirmative. The secretary general should write directly to their Ministers of Foreign Affairs. His Excellency Count Nigra thinks that it is perhaps difficult to write into the very body of the convention the article proposed by Mr. D'ESTOURNELLES, but could not an analogous idea be expressed in the final protocol? Dr. Zorn: The desire of Mr. D'ESTOURNELLES is a desire common to all of us, we cannot express it better than he has done. I support it with all my heart, but a serious difficulty stands in the way of its realization: that is the choice of the secretary general of the Bureau; can we require States to accept the advice of this secretary? He will not have the necessary moral authority. He therefore will not have a chance to succeed. Finally, I appreciate the desire of Mr. D'ESTOURNELLES, but I ask that it be modified, so as not to specially contemplate the secretary general. Mr. Asser makes reservations, because the Netherland Minister, being presi |