is, however, a unit, an authority; the so-called " Permanent Court of Arbitration " does not have this character; it furnishes only the elements from which, when the time arrives, several may be called to form an arbitral tribunal. In any case, Dr. ZORN requests that these objections by the German Government be set forth in the minutes in order to reserve to his Government the power to apply the terminology which may seem most correct to it when making the German translation of the text of the Convention. Mr. Martens calls attention to the fact that the words Permanent Court and Arbitral Tribunal conform to the practice followed in France, England and the United States. ARTICLE 23 Regarding Article 23 Mr. Asser asks whether we could not point out that the appointment of the judges may always be revoked, even before the expiration of the term of six years. Chevalier Descamps replies that it is dangerous to point out this right. And it is better not to insist upon it. If there is a serious and obvious case for the exercise of revocation we shall know how to consider it. We should not in this provision threaten the principle of continuous tenure. ARTICLE 24 Mr. Rolin proposes an amendment which has a three-fold object: 1. to make clear that the arbitrators who are intended to form a tribunal in actual operation, can only be selected from the general list; 2. to point out the transition from the idea of "permanent court" to that of “ arbitration tribunal" and thus avoid ambiguity; 3. to prevent notification being given to the Bureau before all of the arbitrators have been selected. After an exchange of views and as a result thereof, the committee adopts the following draft, subject to future examination should there be any reason therefor: The signatory Powers which wish to have recourse to the Court for the settlement of a difference that has arisen between them, choose from the general list of members of the Court the arbitrators to be named. In default of an agreement to the contrary the arbitrators are named in accordance with the rules fixed by Article 31 of the present Convention. The Parties notify to the Bureau their determination to have recourse to the Court and the names of the arbitrators. The tribunal of arbitration assembles on the date fixed by the Parties. ARTICLE 25 Baron Bildt requests that this article be omitted. There is, it is true, a certain conflict between this article and Article 35. The latter provides that as a general rule the meeting place of the tribunal is designated by the parties and that as an exception it will meet at The Hague. He proposes not to speak of the meeting place of the tribunal except in Article 35 and consequently to omit Article 25. Mr. Asser replies that the situations contemplated by these two articles are entirely different: in Article 25 we are talking of the Permanent Court, while in Article 35 it is a question of a special arbitration. In the latter case the rule is naturally that the meeting place should be selected by the parties. On the con trary in case of the Permanent Court and in Article 25 it is very natural that The Hague should be the ordinary meeting place of the arbitral tribunal. The committee decides to make the following simple modification to Article 25: "The tribunal of arbitration" in place of "The Court." ARTICLE 27 With regard to the draft of this article, Mr. Rolin observes that if we recognize a new duty of nations, we cannot presuppose that one or more [63] of them will fail to perform it. That, however, is just what would occur if we retained the present text of paragraph 2 of Article 27. He therefore proposes to omit the words "by one or more of them." Adopted. Mr. Stancioff asks whether it would not be necessary to provide in advance a practical means for reminding Powers that a permanent court exists. He is heartily in accord with those who wish to impose this new duty upon GovernHe believes with them that Article 27 happily expresses the sense of the entire work, that is, that a new era is beginning wherein the idea of the interresponsibility of nations will become clearer and clearer. But in order to hasten this development, he thinks it would be necessary to indicate a practical method, a mechanical arrangement, which would permit States to fulfill their duty with security and rapidity. If we do not wish to entangle diplomacy with this question, what plan should we follow? If we employ the Bureau, the procedure to be followed might perhaps be too long the countries which desired to call the attention of the disputing parties to the existence of a court of arbitration must first address the Bureau. The latter must deliberate over the matter and then confer with the two litigants. That will require time and the conflict might break out before the reminder had been transmitted. Therefore we must find a more effective and more rapid means to enable States to fulfill the duty proclaimed in Article 27. The committee thanks Mr. STANCIOFF for his observations, the subject of which has already been discussed.1 ARTICLE 28 Baron Bildt observes that if the Permanent Council is composed of the diplomatic representatives of the signatory Powers residing at The Hague, as provided in Article 28, certain Powers will not be represented in this Council, for example, Sweden and Norway the representative of which accredited to The Hague resides in Brussels. He therefore asks that the word "accredited" be substituted for the word "residing." Mr. d'Estournelles opposes this proposal. The President puts it to vote. The vote is: Ayes: His Excellency Count NIGRA, His Excellency Mr. STAAL, Chevalier DESCAMPS, Mr. ASSER, Mr. HOLLS. Nays: Mr. LAMMASCH, DR. ZORN, Sir HENRY HOWARD, Baron D'ESTOUR NELLES. Consequently the substitution proposed by Baron BILDT is adopted. It is 1 See minutes of the thirteenth meeting. also agreed that the diplomatists should select a domicile at The Hague where all communications - especially notices of meetings should be addressed to them. This observation should be mentioned in the minutes. The committee decides that the president reporter shall examine Articles 29 to 56, in the presence of the interested parties who have proposed amendments thereto and that he shall submit the proposed modifications to the Third Commission, the plenary session of which will occur next Monday, July 17, at 10 o'clock. The meeting adjourns. [64] SIXTEENTH MEETING (Second Special Meeting) JULY 18, 1899 1 Mr. Léon Bourgeois presiding. The President reminds the committee that it has to examine the questions raised yesterday in the Third Commission in order to decide upon the compromise proposals for to-morrow. General Discussion Concerning "International Commissions of Inquiry": Jonkheer van Karnebeek makes reservations: he declares that he has not yet received instructions from his Government regarding inquiries, but that these instructions cannot be favorable. Mr. Rolin would agree to vote for the chapter regarding inquiries, but he considers these commissions as a preparatory measure to arbitration. He asks that this declaration be noted in the minutes. Mr. Martens replies that these commissions of inquiry are not necessarily a prelude to arbitration. We should note that the procedure is voluntary, and consequently there is no disadvantage in the interpretation given by the delegate from Siam. Mr. Odier makes the same reservations as Mr. VAN KARNEBEEK So far as final instructions from his Government are concerned. Mr. Holls is of the opinion that it would be better to be content with recommending commissions of inquiry; that would be simpler. His Excellency Count Nigra: Would it not be better to make a separate convention? Mr. Lammasch recalls that he has already asked that we limit ourselves to recommending commissions of inquiry. He has given consideration to the arguments of Mr. MARTENS, but since then the principle of obligation seems to have met with serious obstacles. A discussion in the commission is to be feared. They will ask for the omission of Article 9 entirely, and thus imperil the whole institution. Would it not be 1 Hall of the Truce. Present: His Excellency Mr. STAAL, president of the Conference; Mr. Jonkheer VAN KARNEBEEK, vice president of the Conference; their Excellencies Count NIGRA, Sir JULIAN PAUNCEFOTE, honorary presidents of the Third Commission; Chevalier DESCAMPS, president and reporter; Messrs. ASSER, Baron D'ESTOURNELLES DE CONSTANT, HOLLS, LAMMASCH, MARTENS, ODIER, Dr. ZORN, members of the committee of examination Present at the meeting: Messrs. Baron BILDT, Count DE MACEDO, RENAULT, ROLIN. 2 See eighth and thirteenth meetings. better to make the sacrifice and omit the word obligation in the only article in the Convention where it still exists? Mr. Martens objects that this is not the only article which provides for an obligation. Articles 1, 21 and others imply also a binding agreement. However, if there is no possibility of having the text as it exists adopted, then he will accept the sacrifice and renounce the obligation. Up to the present time he has simply heard fears expressed, but nothing more. So that perhaps there is only a misunderstanding. These words, "if circumstances allow" furnish every guaranty. Mr. Holls states that his Government has approved Article 9 as it is, and that he can sign it, but he desires that in the report it be explained that a commission of inquiry is not a form of arbitration. There is nothing in its operations which might be called "judicial." The parties are not represented by lawyers and members of the commission are not judges but simply investigators. [65] Jonkheer van Karnebeek says these inquiries may be dangerous and embarrassing under certain circumstances, notably in the case of colonies. In replying to a question by the PRESIDENT, Chevalier Descamps says that the words "vital interests and national honor" are no longer found in Article 9 after having appeared originally in several parts of the Convention. This phrase is therefore "evidence of a former state" as the geologists say. Chevalier DESCAMPS adds that in case of facts which have been wrongly interpreted there is ground for ascertaining their materiality. This is what commissions of inquiry are for. They do not consider the matter in dispute. They elucidate points of fact. Now if we are seeking a weaker phraseology it would not seem difficult to find it. Mr. d'Estournelles says that he has received statements of the impressions of every one during the interval of ten days which has elapsed before to-day's session, and, whether rightly or wrongly, commissions of inquiry are raising lively opposition. It is a question of fact. Delegates who are apprehensive of inquiries in the case of their countries in reality produce not arguments but fears, and it is that which prevents us from convincing them. Their fears are both moral and material. They fear first that the amour propre of their country will be offended; commissions of inquiry will reveal defects of administration, and humiliation for them will follow, and they fear it. Furthermore they fear that following these revelations pressure of public opinion will be brought to bear upon them (the delegates). There is therefore a sort of international coalition formed among States which are more or less badly administered; it is again a battle of darkness against light, but that is why we shall experience difficulty in defeating the opposition to us; we must reach our decision and make concessions to attain our purpose. Mr. Martens: I conceive that the States to which Mr. D'ESTOURNELLES has alluded fear that their defects of administration may be revealed, but they cannot delude themselves and we must know that whatever we write into our act these inquiries will always take place. Mr. d'Estournelles: They do not desire to have them become customary. Mr. Odier: Here is still an objection. They fear that this first act will be the forerunner of a series of acts which will bind the signatories to a greater or lesser extent. They fear that obligatory international commissions of inquiry will be taken |