was taken by the conference in providing that " this committee should further be intrusted with the task of providing a system of organization and procedure for the conference itself," the obvious meaning of which is that the committee is to propose a system of organization and procedure for the conference which will meet the approval of the invited and participating powers, so that the future conferences will no longer be officered and dominated by any one power. The conference of 1899 was due to the enlightened statesmanship of Nicholas II; and it was in no uncertain degree his conference, for the first delegate of Russia was president and the presidents of the various commissions were chosen directly or indirectly by Russia. The Second Conference was not so directly the work of the Czar, for it was, as stated in the very first lines of the final act, "proposed in the first instance by the President of the United States of America," but the president of the conference was the first delegate of Russia, and the officers of the second, like the officers of the first, were chosen by Russia and notified to the Second Conference for approval. The Third Conference is, however, to have its "organization and procedure" designated in advance by a committee, which shall represent not merely one power but the community of nations. The conference, therefore, is to be international not merely in name but in fact, and its organization and procedure are to be the result of the wit and wisdom of the many, not of an individual power, whether it be the august initiator of the conference itself or of the individual who happens to propose its calling. In becoming an institution the child has outgrown tutelage. Is the conference the first step to a confederation that is to say, a political union of the states with legislative and executive powers — or is it an institution composed of the diplomatic representatives of the various countries with the power to legislate ad referendum? In other words, is it based upon the idea of amalgamation with a representative parliament, or is it a diplomatic assembly with powers to recommend legislation to states which upon adoption by the states becomes binding upon them and thus international law? The dreamers have proposed confederation; the man of affairs, on the contrary, may well regard a federation as a sacrifice of local inde pendence, much in the way that our thirteen States were unwilling to merge their individuality completely in a union. The outcome would seem to be an assembly of states composed of diplomatic representatives in which the nations remain equal and independent but consent on behalf of the community at large to renounce certain extreme national prerogatives. It may be, however, that this diplomatic assembly is in no small measure a legislature ad referendum, that the prize court and the proposed court of arbitral justice are the beginnings of an international judiciary, and that a committee, whether nominated at the conclusion of the conference or in advance of a conference, may be regarded as the germ of an executive.2 JAMES BROWN SCOTT. 2 For the various projects of federation, see Kamarowsky's "Tribunal International," French translation, by Westman (Paris, 1887), pp. 233-263. BOARD OF EDITORS OF THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHARLES NOBLE GREGORY, State University of Iowa. ROBERT LANSING, Watertown, N. Y. JOHN BASSETT MOORE, Columbia University. LEO S. ROWE, University of Pennsylvania. Managing Editor, JAMES BROWN SCOTT, George Washington University. EDITORIAL COMMENT TREATIES OF ARBITRATION SINCE THE FIRST HAGUE CONFERENCE Readers of Mr. Holl's excellent volume on the Peace Conference at The Hague will recall that the First Conference attempted to frame and secure the adoption of a treaty of arbitration by which the nations bound themselves to arbitrate a carefully selected list of subjects. It is well known that this attempt failed, owing to the opposition of Germany. As a compromise article 19 of the convention for the peaceful adjustment of international differences was adopted: Independently of existing general or special treaties imposing the obligation to have recourse to arbitration on the part of any of the signatory powers, these powers reserve to themselves the right to conclude, either before the ratification of the present convention or subsequent to that date, new agreements, general or special, with a view of extending the obligation to submit controversies to arbitration to all cases which they consider suitable for such submission. [Reenacted in 1907 as article 40.] The article did not seem at the time to be of any special importance. and it was generally looked upon as useless because independent and sovereign states possess the right without special reservation to conclude. arbitration agreements, general or special, without being specifically empowered to do so. The fact is, however, that this article, insignificant and useless as it may seem, marks, one may almost say, an era in the history of arbitration. The existence of the article has called attention to the subject of arbitration and by reference to it many states have negotiated arbitration treaties. It is true that there is no legal obligation created by the article and it is difficult to find a moral one, for it is not declared to be the duty of any state to conclude arbitration treaties. The moral effect of the article has, however, been great and salutary, and the existence of numerous arbitration treaties based upon the reservation contained in the article show the attention and respect which nations pay to the various provisions of the Hague Conference. The following enumeration of the treaties concluded since the First Hague Conference and an analysis of the compromis clauses will therefore be of no little interest—perhaps of considerable value: Argentine-Bolivia, February 3, 1902. Argentine-Paraguay, November 6, 1899. Austria-Hungary-Great Britain, January 11, 1905. Austria-Hungary-Switzerland, December 3, 1904. Belgium-Denmark, April 26, 1905. Belgium-Greece, May 2, 1905. (3) (3) (1) (1) (1) (1) Belgium-Roumania, May 27, 1905. Belgium-Norway and Sweden, November 30, 1904. (1) Belgium-Spain, January 23, 1905. (1) Belgium-Switzerland, November 15, 1904. Bolivia-Peru, November 21, 1901. (5) Bolivia-Spain, February 17, 1902. Colombia-Peru, September 12, 1905. Colombia-Spain, December 17, 1902. Denmark-France, September 15, 1905. (3) Denmark-Great Britain, October 25, 1905. (5) (3) 1 The figures in parentheses refer to the numbered paragraphs following the list of treaties. These paragraphs describe briefly the nature of the reference clauses. (3) (3) (3) (3) (3) France-Sweden and Norway, July 9, 1904. (3) Great Britain-Netherlands, February 15, 1905. (3) Great Britain-Norway and Sweden, August 11, 1904. (3) Great Britain-Portugal, November 16, 1904. (3) Great Britain-Spain, February 27, 1904. Great Britain-Switzerland, November 16, 1904. Honduras-Spain, May 13, 1905. (3) (3) (8) (6) (1) (4) (3) Norway and Sweden-Switzerland, December 17, 1904. Portugal-Austria-Hungary, February 13, 1906. (10) Portugal-Denmark, March 20, 1907. |