THE HAGUE CONVENTION.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 12027, 31 October 1904, Page 7

THE HAGUE CONVENTION.

ITS HISTORY AND WORK.-* Oα August 24th, 1898, Count Muravieff, the Russian Foreign Minister, handed to all the Foreign Ambassadors in St. Petersburg a circular informing them that the Gear proposed to their respective Governments the- holding of a Conference "which should occupy itself with the grave question of the excessive armaments which weighed upon all nations, with a. view of putting an end to their progressive development." This circular wav shortly followed by another, setting forth a preliminary draft programme for the Conference, which embraced not only the reduction of armaments, and the more humane conduct of warfare, but also "the employment of good offices_ of mediation- and arbitration in cases lending themselves thereto." The Conference- met on May 18th, 1899, at the Hague, and was attended by delegates from nineteen States under the Presidency of Baron de Staal, the Russian Ambassador at London. Britain wan represented by Sir Julian Paunoefot* (afterwards Lord Pauncef<?te), General Sir John Ardagh (Director of Military Intelligence), and Admiral' Sir John Fisher (now First' Lord of the Admiralty). « The Conference was divided into two section*. The province of the first was to deal with the limitation of armaments; of the second, with the laws of warfare: of the third, with mediation and arbitration. At one of the early mttmgs of the third section, Baron de Staal produced a draft convention for rendering arbitration compulsory in certain cases and optional in others. Under the compulsory class were ranged disputes relating to pecuniary damages sustained by a State owing to the illegal or negligent action of another State, disputes relating to th,e. interpretation. of postal, telegraph, and railway conventions, of conventions relating to the navigation of international rivers, and divers other, matters. Sir Julian Paonoofote • took a bolder course, and urged the importance of organising a. permanent international, tribunal, the services of which might be.called into requisition at will, and produced to the Committee a. short sketch of the mode in such a tribunal might be set up.

CABLE NEWS.

This proposition met with general accept- i enoe, and the Committee then proceeded to settle the necessary details for carrying it out, adopting in the main toe code of procedure which had been ajaggested by Russia. The result was embodied in twenty-seven articles. Article 9, under which the present dispute between England and Russia- has been referred to arbitration reads as follows:—"That in difference* of ah-interna-tional nature involving neither honour nor vital interests, and arising, from difference of opinion on points of fact, the signatory Powers recommend that the parties who have not been able to come to an agreement by means of diplomacy should, as far as circumstances allow, institute an* international commission of inquiry to facilitate the eolation of these differences by elucidating the facts by mean* of an impartial and conscientious investigation." Under Article 23' each of the signatory Powers was to designate within 'three months from the ratification of the Convention four persona at the most, of recognised competence in international law, enjoying the highest moral consideration, and willing to accept the duties of arbitrators. Members of th Court w> to be appointed for six yean, and may be re-nominated. Under Article 25, the signatory Powers desiring to apply to. the Tribunal for the settlement of a difference between them are to notify the same to the arbttmtors. The arbitrators who axe to determine this difference are, unless specially agreed, to *» chosen from the general list of members in the following manner:—Each party is to name two arbitrators, and these are to choose a chief arbitrator or umpire. If the votes are equally divided, the selection of the chief arbitrator is to be entrusted to a third Power, to be named by the parties. The Tribunal is to *it at the Hague when practicable, unless the parties otherwise agree. . • . The procedure of the Court is proposed to bo regulated by 27 Articles, in which the following points are the most important:—The agent of each party ia flr>t to. communicate to the Court, and to the opposite party, all deeds and documents on which it proposes to rely, one' copy at least being in the language which the Court authorises to be used before it. After the docomentaiy evidence has been lodged, the oral argument is to be begun. This is to be token down in writing, but it is only to be made public with the consent of th©'parties. , The Tribunal Iβ to be the Hole judge of the extent of its own jurisdiction and of the rules of international law, if any, which are applicable to the case. The deliberations are to take place with closed doors. The decision is to bo that of-the majority, and is to set forth the reasons on which it is based., There is to be no appeal, but if a. new" fact is discovered, which was unknown at the time both to the Tribunal and to the party alleging it, and the fact be such that had it been then known, H might have exercised a decided influence on the' decision, that decision may be revised. Before, however, revision can be had, the must recogniw the existence of the new fact or facts, and admit them to have the characteristics jtwt mentioned. The Hague Arbitration Convention was signed by Great; Britain and sixteen other Powers. Several of the Powers nomir nated membere of the Permanent Arbitration Court., those nominated by Great Britain being Lord Pauncefote (since deceased), Sir Edward Malet, Sir Edward Fry, and Professor WeeUake. . The first case decided by. the Hague Arbitration Court was' the dispute between the United States and 'Mexico church funds, and was decided in favour of the United fitatas. The second case wae connected with the Venezuelan trouble and was a dispute e» to whether Great Britain, Germany, end ItaJy, who took action against Venezuela, should receive preferential treatment for their claims; as atcainst those of .other Power* to whom Venezuela owed irioney,'hut who, did not use force egainefc her, and, if so, what the treatment should be.