OCR Text |
Show 232 233 fleet was unjustifiable. Upon the report of the commission the Russian government promptly paid the British claim for damages Professor john Bassett Moore. whose conclusions are eiiti- tled to great weight, ' 's of this case: "Thus ended one of the most agitating and difficult controversies to which the process of arbitration was ever applied. I venture to say that in this North Sea incident there were involved both questions of national honor and questions of vital interest. Surely nothingr can more affect the honor or the interests of a government than the wrongful taking of the lives of its people. especially where they are assailed at the hands of the officials of a foreign power. Not only is the arbitral settlement of the North Sea incident a proof of the growth in the world of a magnaninious and enlightened spirit. btit it is to he placed anion;r the great cases in which that mode of settlement has brought pvace with honor, to the lasting benefit of the pow ers immediately concerned. and to the great advantage of the whole world."* lirom the experience of our own country certain conclusions of fact can he drawn. \\'e have found that territorial ..,putes with our llritish neighbor. however grave and of whatever mag- nitude. have proven capable of adjustment by judicial process, either thrr'ntg'h the medium of a court of arbitration or that of a joint commission. \Ve have found that even where the contro- versy has involved the ozixtcnce of a particular principle of inter- national law, it has ytt been possible, by means of a comprehen< <iw- preliminary agreement. to secure complete adjustment by neutral arhitrators, \Ye have found that where an adverse claim has ht en asserted in defiance of what was believed to be an estab‘ ll‘llttl rivvht long enjovt'd by the l'nited States. we were neverthe» our country has entered into no general treaty of arbitration which does not specifically reserve questions affecting its inde- pendence or honor or vital interests, we find the United States not ttlnvilling in particular cases to submit to an arbitration tribunal differences of such a character. And in this present year of grace we witness the fact that recourse is had to arbitration before The llague Tribunal for the adjustment of a controversy which has battled the diplomacy of the United States and Great Britain for Ill!lCl)'AOllC years. When we look beyond our own concerns and observe the action of European states, we find within the present century instances of agreements stipulating that the permanent court of arbitration shall decide whether or not the vital interests of one of the C(‘mtraetingr parties are involved. Sweden and Norway, Denmark, Rust. and Spain have all been parties to such eon- ventions. Denmark, the Netherlands and Italy have become parties to certain treaties providing for obligatory arbitration of all (llllt‘l'CIICtS. without exception. 'l‘urning to our own hemisphere, we note a remarkable con- vention for the establishment of a Central American Court of Justice concluded at \Vashington on December 20, 1907, by the less safe in entrustintz' the Controversy to a tribunal composed in part of haters reprew mint: the state which made such assertion. ln ltllti. thc <‘,‘Z])t‘l'ltl.t‘t‘ oi the l‘nited States affords abundant tvidcnt‘e of the fact that if an international controver'w' is of a local cliaiactt i'. it is capablt of adju~tment by arbitration whether the claims in\t lved are national or private; whether the issue is one of fact or of law: whether the difference is one concerning the on in iwltip of land. or the control of water; whether the honor of tht ~tzttt- i~ invitlml, t<t' even ll> most vital interests. Although " l‘iw t‘ttlll p l.:.ltt Mnhtmk ('unt't-renee, 1907;, p. 1:30. governments of the Republics of Costa Rica. Guatemala, llondw ras, Nicaragua and Salvador. lly that agreement the contract- ingr states bind themselves to submit, when diplomatic adjustment fails, all questions which may arise among them, of whatsoever nature, and of whatsoever origin, to the Central American Court of justice. Finally, it will be remembered that the Second Hague Cow ference was unanimous "in declaring;r that certain differences, and notably those relating to the interpretation and application of international conventional stipulations, are susceptible of being submitted to obligatory arbitration without any restriction." llowever widely statesmen may differ as to the best means of preserving peace; however cautions they may be in broadening;r the scope of general treaties of arbitration, the time is past when it can be seriously maintained that international controversies of a legal character are incapable of adjustment by judicial means. This is true. not merely because the enlightened public sentiment of civilized states is intolerant of the use of force to secure ends equally |