OCR Text |
Show 230 237 questions presented to the conference but may formulate pro- posals or otherwise determine their attitude in advance of the meeting at The Hague. The various subjects contained in the recommendations of the Iiirst Conference, were considered in the nature of untinished husine by means of which the two confi‘rences were brought into v close connection. The several reconunendations of the Second Conference may likewise be considered as unfinished busi- insistent public opinion is forcing nations not merely to confess their faith in arbitration but also to evidence it through international agreement. It was the desire of an overwhelming majority to adopt a general treaty of arbitration, reserving from the obligation of arbitration questions affecting the independence, vital interests and honor of the contracting nations, and to include in the treaty various specified subjects in which the reservation of independence, vital interests and honor were renounced. Thirty-two states voted for the draft convention prepared by the Committee of Examination, nine voted against it (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro, Roumania, Switzerland and Turkey), and three abstained from voting (Italy, Japan and Luxemburg). Germany, which led the opposition to the treaty of compulsory arbitration in 1899, confessed its mistake at the Second Conference by accepting the principle, and it is to be expected that the experience of the interval between the Second and Third Conference will cause that enlightened country not only to con- fess but also to accept, if it does not actually propose, a project of compulsory arbitration at the Third Conference. Should it do so, the faithful allies, Austria~IIungary and Italy, would declare themselves in favor of compulsory arbitration, because Austrial'Iungary is not unmindful of the desires of Germany, and Italy is an outspoken partisan of compulsory arbitration, even without ness. and the subjects discussed l (without, however, reachingr \ minus uprn them) may also he considered in the saute wav. and are thircfore likely to figure in the program of a Third Coti- ference, \Vithout attemptingr to usurp the functions of the preparatory committee charged with the preparation of a program for a Third Conicrence. it may be a. ,crtetl with some conlidence that certain subjects will undoubtedly be discussed at the Third Con- lt ruice and, it is hoped. Conclusions reached upon them. For example. compulsory arbitration. defeated at the First ("unit'renco recognized in principle at the Second Conference and lllCUl'pUl'fliUl in the convention for the limitation of force in the culltction of contract debts. will, in all probability, make its zippzaranc‘ and triumph at the Third Conference. iIn 1899 the prineip‘m rvt' compulsory arbitration was rejected: in 1907 the 'nit- um unanimously accepted. for the final act declared that tht t i Lit'l't we is unanimrrrh-i (titit‘ the reservation of independence, vital interests and honor. in admitting the principle oi cmnpulsory arbitra- tion. in declaring that certain disputes. in particular those relating to the interpretation and appli- cation of the pro‘ ‘-itr'lF of international agree- ments. may he Lul :iitted to compulsory arbi- tratinn without any restrictions." , lll( i.(:-,t stt p is the negotiation or a treatv which will give rilert to the principle of compulsory arbitration unanimou sly adopted. Jtlltl thi- negotiation. since the close of the conferenc e of some ~i\.tv ift:tllt‘\ of compulsory arbitration. of which twentv: ltilif hm: lrttll concluded by the United States. shows that an The Triple Alliance is, however, still in existence, and Germany is. the Triple Alliance. The negotiation of a general treaty of arbitration, as well as the individual treaties between the various states and the univer- sal acceptance of the Hague conventions, makes an international court for the determination of disputes arising out of these various international instruments almost a necessity. It is a familiar doctrine that a judgment merely binds the litigatingr parties, but the interpretation of a treaty to which all civilized nations are parties. is of scarcely less interest to the signatories than it is to the parties litigant. The decision of a tribunal constituted by two contending nations binds only the nations constituting the tribunal and participating in the trial, |