in behalf of disinterested states, by conferring upon them the duty of tendering their good offices to the contending parties at any time, either before or after the outbreak of hostilities. The convention of 1899 declared it to be "expedient" that a tender of good offices should be made; the new undertaking provides that such a tender is not only "expedient" but "desirable." It also provides, in express terms, that such mediatory endeavors shall never be considered, by the litigant powers, as an unfriendly act. A method of procedure is embodied in the convention by which, in the event of a dispute, seriously compromising international peace, the duty of mediation is intrusted to powers chosen by the parties in litigation, who are required, pending such mediatory endeavors, to refrain from all direct communication with each other in respect to the subject of the controversy, leaving the matter of amicable adjustment to the powers who have been invited to use their good offices in reaching a satisfactory basis of settlement. With a view to secure a prompt adjustment of the difference, the time so consumed by the mediating powers is not to exceed thirty days. In the event of a complete rupture of friendly relations, the mediatory states continue to be charged with the duty of tendering their good offices whenever the opportunity for such action presents itself, under circumstances leading to the belief that the mediatory interposition of a disinterested power will prove acceptable to the belligerent states.

The International Commission of Inquiry. It is the purpose of this tribunal, as its name implies, to investigate such controverted questions of fact as are susceptible of judicial ascertainment or verification. With a view to the prosecution of such an inquiry, the conventions of 1899 and

p. 126; Ibid. 1878, p. 160; see also, in this connection, the article by Professor Lorimer in vol. ix. of the Revue de Droit International, pp. 161-206; Professor

Sheldon Amos, Political and Legal Remedies for War, vol. iii.; Calvo, §1803; and vol. ii. Ferguson, § 160.

'Art. iii. Treaty of October 18, 1907. Appendix F, Convention No. 1.

1907 provide for the appointment of an International Commission.

The usefulness of this agency was signally illustrated in the work of the commission convened by agreement between England and Russia to inquire into the circumstances attending the attack upon the North Sea fishing fleet by the ships of Admiral Rojestvensky's squadron while en route to the East in the summer of 1904.1

The Tribunal of Arbitration. With a view to secure a resort to international arbitration for the settlement of disputes between states "by judges of their own choice and upon a basis of respect for law," the convention provides for the creation of a Permanent Court of Arbitration. The court is to be composed of persons chosen by the litigant parties from a permanent list of judges, nominated by the signatory powers, from among their respective citizens or subjects who are fitted by character, capacity, and training for the performance of the duties which may be assigned them in connection with the arbitration of international disputes. The persons so named hold office for the term of six years, and their appointments may be renewed for successive terms.

The compromis, or preliminary agreement, sets forth the precise question which is to be referred to the tribunal for determination, and defines the character and extent of the powers conferred upon the arbitral tribunal; the execution of this agreement implies an undertaking on the part of the signatory powers to be bound by the judgment of the court thus constituted.

Procedure. If the subject of procedure is not regulated in the preliminary agreement, the convention itself prescribes suitable rules of procedure. These rules are calculated to secure a complete and orderly presentation of

1 For text of the convention of 1907, which contains a number of important modifications in the

agreement of 1899, see Appendix F, Convention No. 1.

the cases of the interested parties, a fair trial of the issue involved, and a final decision on the strict merits of the case, as determined by the evidence submitted in support of the claims of the parties at issue. The court is authorized to decide questions arising, from time to time, during the progress of the trial, and is expressly authorized, by the terms of the convention, to interpret the arbitral agreement and, similarly, to place an authoritative interpretation upon clauses of treaties which are cited or appealed to by counsel, and to apply the rules of international law. The decisions of the tribunal on such points are final and cannot be made the subject of subsequent discussion.

Decision. When the case on both sides has been fully presented, and the court has obtained from the parties such information germane to the inquiry as it may deem necessary to a full understanding of the controversy, the president declares the case closed, and the court, in closed session, deliberates upon its findings of fact, reaches a decision upon the merits of the case, and prepares and enters its judgment. The arbitral judgment, which is reached by a majority of votes, and is signed by all the members of the tribunal, fully sets forth the reasons actuating the decision; but members of the minority may assign the reasons for their dissent in attaching their signatures to the arbitral decision.

Review of the Judgment. A review of the judgment of an arbitral tribunal may be provided for in the preliminary agreement, and, if so provided for, may be granted, on the demand of either party, within a certain period of time after the decision of the tribunal shall have been rendered.

Reservations of the United States. The arbitral agreements of 1899 and 1907 were accepted by the United States subject to the following important reservation: "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 intruding upon, interfering with, or entangling itself in the political questions or internal administration of any foreign state; nor shall anything contained in the said Convention be construed to imply a relinquishment, by the United States of America, of its traditional attitude towards purely American questions."

The Collection of Contract Debts. The agreement on this subject, which was reached by the Second Peace Conference at The Hague, although it is, in form, an undertaking to refrain from using force in the collection of contractual debts claimed to be due from one state to the citizens or subjects of another, is, in fact, the first agreement in support of obligatory arbitration which has received the consent of the states of the civilized world. Its importance consists in the fact that, before a resort to force can be lawfully made, an opportunity for arbitration must have been tendered to the debtor state and formally rejected. The justice of the debt, its amount, and the terms and conditions of payment are required by the treaty to be made the subject of adjustment by an arbitral tribunal; and it is only when such an offer of arbitration has been rejected, or the requirements of the arbitral judgment have not been executed in good faith, that a resort to force becomes justifiable.'

At the opening

The Permanent Court of Arbitration. of the Second Peace Conference, a proposal looking to the establishment of a permanent court of arbitral justice, having its seat at The Hague, was advanced by the United States, and was favorably received by the Conference. After an exhaustive discussion of the subject from all points of view, the composition and procedure of the tribunal was agreed to in the form of a recommendation to the Signatory Powers. The selection of the judges, a question as to which it was impossible to reach a basis of understanding, remains to be accomplished by agreement and correspondence between the states which are parties 1 For text of this Convention, see Appendix F, post.

to the Convention, in order to bring the new tribunal into practical operation.

The court so proposed is, in the truest sense, a court of justice, before which international causes of action may be brought with a view to their judicial decision, in strict conformity to the principles of international law and equity. It goes a step beyond the general arbitral tribunal, which is elsewhere provided for in the treaty, not only in its permanent structure, but in its judicial composition, and in the breath and character of the decisions which it is expected to reach in the determination of controversies which may be submitted to it for adjudication.

MEASURES OF REDRESS, INVOLVING THE USE OF FORCE, BUT FALLING SHORT OF WAR

When Resorted to. Between the peaceable methods of adjusting international disputes, which have already been described, and an actual resort to force, lie certain measures of redress of a more serious character. These methods presume the existence of a cause of difference between two states justifying a departure from the normal relations existing between the nations in time of peace, and the measures adopted at times involve the use of violence or force; but, even when exercised to an extreme degree, they fall far short of open or public war. They are only resorted to when redress has been asked for and denied, and are justifiable only when the offending nation acts with full knowledge, and persists in doing injustice even after its attention has been repeatedly drawn to its wrongful acts.'

The measures of redress involving the use of forcible or hostile methods are susceptible of classification under one of two heads-retorsion and reprisals.

1 Lawrence, Int. Law, § 156; Woolsey, 118; III Phillimore, §§ 7-12; Dana's Wheaton, § 290; Snow, p. 78; II Twiss, § 10; Heff

ter, § 110; III F. De Martens, § 105; III Calvo, § 1807; IV Ibid, SS 2041, 2042.