Court, and have thus given it "the most effective sort of practical recognition."

In other respects The Hague Convention has been justified. The provisions for International Commissions of Inquiry were brought into application in the case of the North Sea incident, between Great Britain and Russia, and that, too, proved itself to be a most admirable and effective instrument for the purposes for which it was devised. It takes some time, and possibly readjustment, to get new machinery into operation. But in The Hague Pacific Convention we have the commencement of that international juridical order for which we are working, and the results have hitherto been most important and permanent beyond all that might have been expected.

Nor has the past year been wholly barren of result, even as regards the outcome of the first Hague Conference, which was at the time the highest water-mark of the rising tide. New cases are on their way to the Court. A second Conference is arranged, avowedly to carry further the work of the first, and the preparation for it, in which the Interparliamentary Conference in London and the Pan-American Conference Conference in Rio de Janeiro have been engaged, is such as to inspire the sure hope and expectation that, even as regards Arbitration, the defects of the first Conference will be repaired by the second, and that some definite provision will be made for an appeal to the Court, at any rate to the extent already embodied in the forty odd treaties of permanent and obligatory Arbitration which have been concluded within the last two years and a half. The representations of two such great influential bodies cannot fail to have weight with the Delegates to the new Hague Conference and their accrediting Governments. There is, too, the further fact that the area of representation of the coming Conference will be larger than that of the first, for it will include the Latin American States, which were not invited to the former Conference-and that of itself marks substantial advance.

THE SECOND HAGUE CONFERENCE.

I ventured the hope, which I will repeat with emphasis, that some provision for permanent and obligatory Arbitration—that is, for fulfilling the moral obligation involved in

the very creation of The Hague Court-will be made by the next Conference, at least to the extent already involved in the numerous special treaties of Arbitration that have been concluded and are now in force. By the way, the conclusion of these treaties is the reply to all the objections that were successfully urged in the last Conference against such Arbitration, and their multiplication would be rendered wholly unnecessary by a simple provision, which might be made by a mere stroke of the pen or by a single clause, and which would bind all the signatories.

UNLIMITED REFERENCE.

But I would go further, and urge that the model of the new agreement, if it be made, should be rather the unlimited form of treaty, such as that between Denmark and Italy, or Norway and Sweden, than those which provide only the merest modicum of reference-though even that would be a gain.

66

And here let me fortify my appeal by falling back on the authority already quoted, who says: Now, the most marked characteristic of early Arbitration was the elasticity, perhaps I may almost say the absence, of procedure and of definition. Except in regard to land, where transfers not made under due legal forms and livery would have endangered the feudal system and the military authority of the Crown, disputes of almost any kind might be settled by Arbitration. This is the first lesson which the International Lawyer (who has hitherto paid scarcely any serious attention to the history of Arbitration) may learn from the study of Arbitration in England. It is absurd to say to two nations who are disputing: This is a political question, or a question of honour, or of vital interests: you must not dream of appointing Arbitrators to settle such a controversy.

"The common sense of private Arbitration is this. If you have a quarrel with somebody, you can refer it to somebody else, and so avoid the unpleasantness of coming to blows or going to law."

6

"And in the nature of the case there is no essential difference between private and public practice in this respect. For, as he says later, To return to one at least of the lessons which we may derive, I think, from a general and particular study of Arbitration, and especially from its history as a substitute for private litigation. Let

International Arbitration be given full freedom of development.' To argue from the individual to the State is to draw a conclusion favourable to the most unrestricted use of it as between States; and I would place no limitation upon the competence of an international tribunal. If two nations quarrel and wish to submit their controversy to an Arbitrator, why in the world should anybody, least of all an international jurist, cavil? Soldiers never complain that a cause is too trivial for war; barristers never complain that a grievance is too trivial for a lawsuit; why should a modern Grotius object that some controversies are not too trivial, but too important, for The Hague Tribunal? Does he really mean to suggest that a juster result can be gained by war? Is it to be said that vital interests can only be settled by battle, murder, and sudden death? One would suppose that the more important the dispute, the more important would it be to get it settled by the fairest tribunal."* I plead, therefore, that in any agreement of the forthcoming Conference, which may supersede the wearisome and interminable task of covering the world with Treaties of permanent Arbitration, the scope of reference to the Court be made as wide as possible, and that “International Arbitration," as administered by it, "be given full freedom of development.

OTHER INSTANCES OF PROGRESS.

It must not, however, be imagined that because the number of Arbitrations—in the strictly scientific and technical use of the term-may not have been during the past year as numerous, or as striking, as usual, the actual adoption of the principle has suffered any check or diminution.

Employing the term, in its more popular usage, as covering those cases of international settlement which involve the principle of international arbitral reference, that is, reference to the decision and settlement of a third party or parties appointed by international agreement, the following cases have to be recorded:

I. CASES COMPLETED.

The following, reported to the Conference in Christiania, as then pending, have since been completed:

The Arbiter in Council, pp. 405, 406.

1. AFGHANISTAN AND PERSIA, in 1903.-The Seistan Arbitration. This was reported, correctly, as completed. But the arbitration consisted of two questions-(1) The settlement of the boundary dependent on the changing courses of the Helmund; (2) disputes about the right to the waters of the Helmund. Both were settled, apparently to the satisfaction of both parties, by Sir Henry McMahon, who was sent to arbitrate in 1903. The first award was accepted by both; as regards the water question, the Government accepted the award, but up to the present no intimation has reached London that the Persian Government has done so.

"Modern

2. CHINA AND GREAT BRITAIN, in 1903.-(No. 56, p. 149, Pacific Settlements.") The Tibet-Sikkim Boundary. Referred to a JOINT BOUNDARY COMMISSION, whose members were appointed April 16 and May 7, 1903. This Commission was practically superseded by the British "Peaceful Mission," or armed invasion, of Tibet, and the Treaty of September 7, 1904, which followed. This Treaty was superseded by the Convention of April 27, 1906, which stipulates, Article 1: “The Government of Tibet engages to respect the Anglo-Chinese Convention of 1890, and to recognise the frontier between Sikkim and Tibet, as defined in Article 1 of the said Convention, and to erect boundary pillars accordingly."

3. GERMANY AND GREAT BRITAIN, in 1903.-Northern Boundary, German East Africa. A JOINT BOUNDARY COMMISSION, after three years and a half's labours, returned to Europe at the beginning of the present year, and an Agreement based on their labours was concluded between British and German COMMISSIONERS in Berlin, July 19, 1906.

4. GREAT BRITAIN AND THE UNITED STATES, in 1903.-Alaska Delimitation. The boundary was determined by the award of the Boundary Commission, October 20, 1903. A Joint Boundary Commission was appointed to fix the boundary according to the award. The completion of part of the survey was reported in December, 1904. The Commission proceeded with the remainder, formed by 141° W., in May, 1905. "The line has since been delimited and agreed to."

5. FRANCE AND SIAM, in 1904.-The delimitation of the frontiers between Siam and Cambodia was, by Treaty of February 13, 1904, entrusted to a Mixed Commission. The Matin announced, March 30th, that the question had been satisfactorily settled.

6. FRANCE AND GREAT BRITAIN, in 1904.-The New Hebrides.

(a) Under the Anglo-French Convention, April 8, 1904, a Joint Commission, consisting of M. Marcel St. Germain (French) and three Assistants, and Sir Eldon Gorst and three Assistants, was appointed to settle disputes between French and British subjects respecting landed property. On Saturday, February 24, 1906, Senator St. Germain was presented at Buckingham Palace to the King, who congratulated the Commissioner upon the successful completion of his mission.

(b) The Islands are under a Mixed Commission of British and French naval officers on the Pacific station.

7. LIPPE-DETMOLD AND SCHAUMBURG-LIPPE, in 1904.-This dispute about the succession to the princely throne of Lippe-Detmold was settled by the Supreme Court of the German Empire at Leipzig, acting as a COURT OF ARBITRATION, which gave its Award on October 25, 1905, in favour of Count Leopold, the Regent.

8. STRAITS SETTLEMENTS AND TANJONG PAGAR DOCK Co., LTD., in 1905.-The Award of Viscount St. Aldwyn, who was appointed Arbitrator in this case of expropriation, was given on July 6, 1906, in favour of the Company, which was awarded £2,834,811.

CASES STILL PENDING.

The following cases, which have been reported to the previous Conferences as having commenced, are still in progress of settlement:

1. BOLIVIA AND PERU, in 1903.-By a Treaty signed January 2, 1903, the Argentine Government was appointed Arbitrator in the Boundary dispute, and in the autumn of 1904 President Roca consented to act. In April, 1906, Senor Villazon left for Buenos Ayres, he having been "appointed to represent Bolivia in the Arbitration case in connection with the boundary dispute with Brazil." The case is therefore now proceeding.

2. BOLIVIA AND BRAZIL, in 1903.-Claims and Indemnities. By the Acre Treaty, signed at Petropolis, November 21, 1903, these, as already reported, were referred to a COURT OF ARBITRATION, which was instituted under the Presidency of the Papal Nuncio, began its labours at Rio de Janeiro on May 20, 1905, and is still sitting.

3. BOLIVIA AND BRAZIL, in 1903.-Boundary Delimitation. By the above Treaty of Petropolis, signed, according to another account, on November 17, 1903, the delimitation of the frontier, which had been variously modified by it, was entrusted to the usual DELIMITATION COMMISSION, with the stipulation that if any disagreements arose they should be referred to the Arbitration of the Royal Geographical Society of London. In April last, Major P. H. Fawcett and Mr. A. J. Chivers were appointed Commissioners for the work of delimitation, which is now proceeding.

4. ECUADOR AND PERU, in 1894 and 1904.-The ancient disputed frontier between Ecuador and Peru, the subject of so many agreements from 1829 onwards, is still unsettled. In March, 1904, it was announced that the Ministers of the two countries at Quito had signed in that city a Treaty, submitting the Napo boundary dispute to the ARBITRATION of the King of Spain. This submission is according to the Convention of December 15, 1894.

5. GREAT BRITAIN AND PORTUGAL, in 1904.—The JOINT COMMISSION sent out by the British and Portuguese to delimit the boundaries between Rhodesia and Portuguese East Africa, in March, 1904, has not yet reported the fulfilment of its task. The work was expected to occupy about two years.

6. BULGARIA AND TURKEY, in 1904.-On the Turco-Bulgarian MIXED COMMISSION, appointed by Article 5 of the Agreement, signed at Sofia, April 8, 1904, for the settlement of pending questions, the Bulgarian Government have appointed Prof. Boef M. Tchakalof, of the Ministry of Finance, and M. Germanof, Director of Statistics.

7. COLOMBIA AND PERU, in 1904.—In June, 1904, a Treaty was signed submitting the frontier question to the ARBITRATION of the King of Spain. In March, 1906, a new modus vivendi was established, providing for the maintenance of the status quo pending the decision of the controversy under the Treaty of Arbitration. The Osservatore Romana has just announced that the Pope has accepted the post of ARBITRATOR, on con dition that the troops on both sides be first withdrawn from the disputed districts.

8. FRANCE AND GUATEMALA, in 1904.—Bézault Claim.—This case was announced by M. Delcasse in March, 1902 (see Modern Pacific Settle. ments, No. 9, p. 137), as having been agreed upon for reference to The