There is another phase of the matter which deserves consideration. The federation of the world is often regarded as a mere vision of poets or a dream of philosophers. But it may be observed that in the Hague Tribunal, or Court of Arbitration, we actually have, albeit in rudimentary form, a world judiciary; in the system of periodical Hague conferences, we have at least the rude beginnings of a world legislature; and in the International Bureau at The Hague, we may in time discover the germ of a world executive.31

Article 49 relates to the duties of the permanent Administrative Council, which is composed of the diplomatic representatives of the contracting powers accredited to The Hague. This Council is charged with the establishment and organization of the International Bureau, which remains under its direction and control. This articlereplaces article 28 of the convention of 1899, of which it is almost an exact copy. But it provides that nine instead of five members shall constitute a quorum. The duties of this Council and Bureau relate principally to the operation of the Hague Tribunal, for which it serves as a medium of communicating with the contracting powers.

Article 29 of the convention of 1899 provided that "the expenses of the Bureau shall be borne by the signatory powers in the propor tion established for the International Bureau of the InternationalPostal Union." In view of the large number of new adhering powers, it was deemed equitable to add to article 50 of the convention of 1907, the following paragraph:

The expenses charged to the adhering powers shall be counted from the date of their adhesion.

Chapter III on "Arbitral Procedure" consists of articles 51 to 86 and need not be considered in great detail. They correspond to

31 In an article entitled "The Coming Peace Conference at The Hague," published in the New York Independent for September 13, 1906, the writer called attention to the importance of appointing a permanent committee to sit during the interim [i. e., between successive conferences] in order to watch over international interests, to use its influence in behalf of peace and the enforcement of law, and report upon desirable changes, or improvements in international law at the meeting of the following congress or conference." This suggestion was scarcely noticed at the time.

articles 30 to 58 of the convention of 1899 and, like these, are purely optional.

Article 31 of the convention of 1899 provided that "The powers which resort to arbitration shall sign a special act (compromis) in which the subject of the difference shall be precisely defined, as well as the extent of the powers of the arbitrators. This act implies an agreement by each party to submit in good faith to the award.” This article was entirely recast in article 52 of the convention of 1907 and two new articles (articles 53 and 54) added. Article 52 contains very specific directions as to what matters shall be included in the special agreement (compromis). Article 53 declares that the Permanent Court is competent to conclude such an agreement if the parties are in accord upon this point. It is equally competent, even if the request be made by only one of them (after a failure to come to an agreement by diplomatic methods) in certain cases.

The question of the choice of languages gave rise to some discussion in committee. Article 38 of the convention of 1899 authorized the Hague Tribunal to decide upon the choice of languages, but Germany and Russia were of the opinion that the parties themselves should decide this matter. Article 61 was finally edited to read:

If the agreement has not determined the languages to be employed, the tribunal shall decide.

Article 37 of the convention of 1899 left it to the absolute discretion of the parties to employ such agents and counsel as they wished. This freedom seems to have been abused by some of the parties in employing as counsel members of the Hague Tribunal itself, thus inviting severe criticism in some quarters. In view of this danger, the German amendment to article 62 was adopted:

Members of the Permanent Court can only exercise the function of agents, counsel, or advocates, in behalf of the power which has named them members of the court.32

32 A Russian amendment proposed to prohibit the practice altogether. It had the support of Great Britain and the United States. See Baron Guillaume's Report, p. 36.

The question of the publicity of discussions does not seem to have given rise to any debate. In 1907 as in 1899 it was provided that "they shall be public only in case it shall be so decided by the Tribunal, with the assent of the parties" (art. 66). Of course it is expected that publicity will be the rule. To the declaration of article 51 of the convention of 1899 that "the deliberations of the tribunal shall take place with closed doors," article 78 of the convention of 1907 adds, "and remain secret." Every decision is to be by a majority vote. The provision (in article 51) that "the refusal of a member to vote shall be noted in the official minutes" was suppressed in article 78.

The requirement of article 52 that "the arbitral award must be drawn up in writing and signed by each member of the tribunal,” as also the permission granted to those voting in the minority to state, in unity, the grounds of their dissent, were also suppressed in article 79; but the provision that "the arbitral award shall be made by a majority of votes, and accompanied by a statement of the reasons upon which it is based," was retained.

Articles 53 and 54 of the convention of 1899 remain unchanged. in that of 1907. Articles 80 and 81 prescribe that the award which is to settle the dispute finally and without appeal shall be read in public in the presence of the agents and counsel of the litigants. Article 82 is altogether new. It declares that "Every difference, which may arise between the parties concerning the interpretation and execution of the award, in so far as not forbidden by special agreement, shall be submitted to the tribunal that made it."

The Russian delegation asked for the total suppression of article 55 of the convention of 1899, which lays down the conditions under which the parties may reserve the right to demand a rehearing of the case. These are the "discovery of new facts, of such a character as to exercise a decisive influence upon the judgment, and which at the time of the judgment were unknown to the tribunal itself and to the parties demanding the rehearing." This condition must be established by a decision of the tribunal itself.

In 1907, as in 1899, M. de Martens argued strongly against the retention of article 55 on the ground that an arbitral award should

terminate, finally and forever, the conflict between litigants. He maintained that a rehearing must necessarily provoke new discussions, again inflame public passion, and once more menace the peace of the world.

On the other hand it was urged that the right to revision is essential to liberty; that the sole end of arbitration is not the termination of the dispute; and that "nothing is settled until it is settled. right." 33 The result of the discussion was an overwhelming vote in favor of the retention of article 55 as article 83 of the convention of 1907.

Article 84 reproduces with slight variations article 56 of the convention of 1899. Its first paragraph provides that "the arbitral award is merely obligatory for the litigant parties." Article 85 (article 57 of the convention of 1899) prescribes that "each party shall bear its own expenses and an equal part of the expenses of the tribunal."

Chapter IV on "Summary Procedure of Arbitration" is wholly new and consists of five articles (86-90). These were based upon a project presented by the French delegation which was designed to aid in the solution of disputes of a special or technical character by furnishing the parties with tribunals and a mode of procedure more simple, rapid, and less expensive than that elaborated in the previous chapter. They are as follows:

ART. 86. With a view of facilitating the operation of arbitral justice in differences that permit of a summary procedure, the contracting powers agree upon the following rules which shall be observed in the absence of different stipulations, and under reserve, should the case arise, of the application of the provisions of Chapter III which are not contrary to them.

ART. 87. Each of the parties at variance shall name an arbitrator. The two arbitrators thus designated shall choose an umpire. If they are unable to come to an agreement upon this subject, each shall present two candidates taken from the general list of members of the Permanent Court (none of them being nationals of any of the states selecting them) beyond the members indicated by each of the parties themselves. shall be determined by lot which of the candidates thus presented shall be the umpire.

It

33 For the arguments pro and con, see the Report by Baron Guillaume, p. 42; Le Courrier de la Conférence for August 25, 1907; and Holls, op. cit., pp. 286-303.

The umpire shall preside over the tribunal, which shall render its decisions by a majority of votes.

ART. 88. In default of previous agreement, the tribunal, as soon as it is constituted, shall fix the period within which the two parties must submit to it their respective memoires.

ART. 89. Each party shall be represented before the tribunal by an agent who shall serve as intermediary between the tribunal and the government that has selected him.

ART. 90. The procedure shall be exclusively in writing. Each party shall have, however, the right to demand the presence of witnesses and experts. The tribunal, on its side, shall have the power of requiring oral explanations from the agents of the two parties, as also from the experts and the witnesses whose presence it considers useful.

re

Seven articles (91 to 97, inclusive) of "Final Provisions" place the four articles (58 to 61) of "General Provisions" of the convention of 1899. They include the customary provisions relating to the date, place, and mode of ratification; the means by which nonsignatory or nonadhering powers may become parties to the convention; and the conditions under which withdrawals may take place.

The convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences, accompanied by a voluminous report drawn up by Baron Guillaume of Belgium, was submitted to the conference at its ninth. plenary session on October 17, 1907, and adopted unanimously. There were, however, more or less important reserves on the part of Brazil, Greece, Japan, Switzerland, Turkey, and the United States.34

The reserve of the United States related to the Monroe Doctrine and was made with reference to article 48:

Nothing contained in this convention shall be so construed as to require the United States of America to depart from its traditional policy of not entering upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or internal administration of any foreign State. It is equally understood that nothing contained in the said convention shall be so construed as to imply the relinquishment, by the United States of America, of its traditional attitude toward purely American questions.

On the whole, the convention of 1907 must be pronounced somewhat disappointing even to many advocates of peace and arbitration 34 Le Courrier de la Conférence for October 17, 1907.