the vacancy shall be filled in conformity with the
nature of his appointment.
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. IO5
ARTICLE XXXVI.
The place where the Tribunal shall sit is to be
designated by the parties. In default of such
designation the Tribunal shall sit at the Hague.
The place of session thus fixed upon cannot
be changed, except in case of force majeure, by
the Tribunal without the consent of the parties.
ARTICLE XXXVII.
The parties have the right to name to the
Tribunal delegates or special agents to act as
intermediaries between them and the Tribunal.
They are, moreover, authorised to entrust
the defence of their rights and interests before
the Tribunal to counsel or advocates named by
them for that purpose.
ARTICLE XXXVIII.
The Tribunal decides upon the choice of
languages of which it will make use, and which
it shall authorise to be employed before it.
ARTICLE XXXIX.
The arbitral procedure comprises as a general
rule two distinct phases ā the examination of
evidence and the hearing.
The examination of evidence consists in the
presentation made by the respective agents to
the members of the Tribunal and to the opposing
I06 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
party of all printed or written instruments and
of all documents containing the matters pleaded
in the case.
This communication shall take place in the
form and at the times fixed by the Tribunal by
virtue of Article XLIX.
The hearing shall consist in the oral discussion
of the matters presented by the parties before the
Tribunal.
ARTICLE XL.
Every document produced by one of the
parties must be communicated to the other party.
ARTICLE XLI.
The oral discussion shall be under the direction
of the President.
The proceedings shall be published only in
accordance with a decision of the Tribunal made
with the consent of the parties.
They shall be recorded in minutes written
out by secretaries appointed by the President.
These minutes alone are to be regarded as authentic.
ARTICLE XLII.
The examination of evidence being closed, the
Tribunal has the right to refuse to admit all
new acts or documents which the representatives
of one of the parties wish to submit to it without
the consent of the other.
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. IO7
ARTICLE XLIII.
The Tribunal, however, shall be free to take
into consideration any new acts or documents
to which the agents or counsel of the parties shall
draw its attention.
In this case the Tribunal has the right to require
the production of these acts or documents under
the obligation of making them known to the
opposite party.
ARTICLE XLIV.
The Tribunal may, moreover, require from the
agents of the parties the production of all deeds,
and demand all necessary explanations. In case
of refusal the Tribunal may have the fact put
on record.
ARTICLE XLV.
The agents and counsel of the parties are
authorised to present orally to the Tribunal all
the arguments they consider useful for the defence
of their cause.
ARTICLE XLVI.
They have the right to raise objections or
take exception.
The decisions of the Tribunal upon these points
shall be final, and shall not give rise to any further
discussion.
I08 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
ARTICLE XLVII.
The members of the Tribmial have the right
to put questions to the agents and counsel of
the parties, and to demand from them explanations
of doubtful points. Neither questions put nor
observations made by the members of the Tribunal
in the course of the hearing shall be regarded
as expressions of the opinion of the Tribunal
in general, or of its members in particular.
ARTICLE XLVIII.
The Tribunal is authorised to maintain its
competence to interpret the agreement to arbitrate
(compromis) as well as any other treaties which
may be invoked in the matter, and also to apply
the principles of International Law.
ARTICLE XLIX.
The Tribunal has the right to make rules of
procedure for the direction of the trial, to settle
the forms and periods within which each party
must submit its motions, and prescribe all the
formalities regulating the taking of evidence.
ARTICLE L.
The agents and counsel of the parties having
presented all the explanations and evidence in
support of their cause, the President of the
Tribunal shall announce the hearing closed.
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. lOQ
ARTICLE LI.
The deliberations of the Tribunal shall take
place with closed doors.
Every decision shall be taken by a majority
of the members of the Tribunal.
The refusal of any member to vote shall be
formally recorded in the minutes.
ARTICLE LII.
The arbitral award reached by a majority of
votes shall be accompanied by the reasons on
which it is based. This shall be reduced to
writing and signed by each member of the Tribunal.
Those of the members who are in a minority
ma\', when signing, record their dissent.
ARTICLE LIII.
The arbitral award shall be read out at a public
session of the Tribunal, the agents and counsel
of the parties being present, or duly summoned.
ARTICLE LIV.
The arbitral award, duly pronounced and
notified to the agents of the disputing parties,
shall decide the question at issue finally and
without appeal.
ARTICLE LV.
The parties may, however, in the agreement to
arbitrate, reserve to themselves the right to
demand a revision of the arbitral award.
no SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
In this case, and in the absence of an agreement
to the contrary, the request should be addressed
to the Tribunal which has given the award. It
can be based only on the discovery of new evidence
of such a nature that it might have exercised a
decisive influence on the award, which evidence,
at the time the hearing was closed, was unknown
to the Tribunal itself and to the party which has
asked for the revision.
The revision can be granted only by a decision
of the Tribunal expressly stating the existence
of the new evidence possessing the character
set forth in the preceding paragraph, and
declaring that on this ground the demand is
admissible.
The agreement {compromis) shall determine
the period of time within which the demand
for revision must be made.
ARTICLE LVI.
The Arbitral award is obligatory only for the
parties who concluded the agreement.
When it consists in the interpretation of a
Convention to which other Powers than those
in litigation have been parties, these shall notify
to the other Powers the agreement which they
have made. Each of these other Powers has the
right to intervene in the proceedings. If one
or more of them shall avail themselves of this
right, the interpretation embodied in the award
shall be equally binding on them also.
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. Ill
ARTICLE LVII.
Each party shall bear its own expenses and
an equal share of the expenses of the tribunal.
General Provisions.
ARTICLE LVIII.
The present Convention shall be ratified with
the least delay possible.
The ratification shall be deposited at the
Hague. A minute shall be drawn up notifying
the deposit of each ratification, of which minute
a copy, certified correct, will be transmitted
through diplomatic channels to all the Powers
who have been represented at the International
Peace Conference at the Hague.
ARTICLE LIX.
Non-signatory Powers who have been repre-
sented at the International Peace Conference,
may give their adhesion to the present Con-
vention. For this purpose they will have to
make known their adhesion to the contracting
Powers by means of a written notification addressed
to the Government of the Netherlands, and
communicated by it to all the other contracting
Powers.
ARTICLE LX.
The conditions on which tiic Powers which
have not been represented at the International
112 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
Peace Conference may give their adhesion to the
present Convention will form the object of a later
agreement between the contracting Powers.
ARTICLE LXI.
If it should happen that one of the high con-
tracting parties renounce the present Convention,
this renunciation would only take effect one year
after the notification made by writing to the
Government of the Netherlands and communicated
by it immediately to all the other contracting
Powers. This renunciation will take effect only
with regard to the Power which has given noti-
fication of it.
The following extracts show that the friends of those who
are killed or taken prisoners in war have reason to be grateful
to the Hague Conference.
" At the afternoon sederunt M. de Martens, St. Peters-
burg, made a statement with reference to President
Roosevelt's proposal for the assembling of a second
Peace Congress at the Hague. He recalled that on the
27th of February, 1904, the Russian Government
published a Ukase defining the conditions to be observed
during the war, specially declaring that commerce with
foreign countries should go on as usual. In the Ukase
there were embodied various declarations which were
made at the Hague Conference, and these thus became
obligatory for Russia. But some of these conventions
which were agreed upon at the Hague were only concluded
for a period of five years. These consequently expired
in July of this year, and during the war they had not
been renewed. M. de Martens alluded to the position
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. II3
with regard to prisoners of war. The Russian Govern-
ment, in conformity with certain resolutions passed at the
Hague Conference, made arrangements so that the names
of prisoners should be sent to the Government of the
country to which they belonged. This was done at first
in an indirect fashion, but the procedure had now been
simphfied. There was a bureau of the Red Cross Society
in St. Petersburg, of wliich M. de Martens was president,
which could now communicate directly with a similar
bureau in Tokio. He also stated that at the Hague
Conference it was decided that certain instructions should
be prepared by Governments for the use of their armies in
accordance with the conventions agreed upon. The
Russian Government had carried out that resolution by
issuing two books. One was a copy of the conventions
in question for the use of the officers, and the other took
the form of a little catechism for the soldiers, telling them
that their quarrel was not with the common people, and
that they were to respect the churches and religious
institutions. M. de Martens said he thought these facts
would be useful for a further conference at the Hague,
if it took place." ā Report of Edinburgh Meeting of the
Institute of International Law.
The Japanese side of the question is given in the following
letter to the Times : ā
" Sir, ā The telegram from St. Petersburg dated
October 12, and published by you yesterday under the
heading ' Russian Tribute to the Japanese,' comprises
matter which attracts the special attention of the inter-
national lawyer. It states that the Russian General
Staff now regularly receives through the intermediary of
the French Embassy large numbers of packets, forwarded
by the Japanese military authorities, containing money
and other valuables of a personal kind found by the
Japanese on the bodies of the Russian dead buried by
them on the battle-field,
" I should like to draw the attention of your readers
to the fact that the Japanese in so acting need not be
J
114 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE
regarded as showing a special consideration to the
Russians, for they only comply with the legal duty
imposed upon them by the Convention concerning the laws
and customs of war on land concluded at the Hague
Peace Conference of 1899. Article 14 of this important
Convention makes it the duty of belligerents to institute
immediately upon the outbreak of war a bureau of
information concerning their prisoners of war. And
the last part of this Article 14 runs as follows : ā
" 'The bureau of information is likewise charged to
receive, collect, and transmit to those interested all objects
of personal use, valuables, letters, and the like which
shall be found on the battlefield or left by prisoners who
have died in hospitals and ambulances.'
" It is a pleasure to find that Japan, one of the
youngest members of the family of nations, is so faith-
fully carrying out to the letter a stipulation of the Hague
Peace Conference, the fulfilment of which depends so much
upon individual integrity. And the example of Japan
must certainly be followed not only by the Russians in
this deadly struggle, but by all future belhgerents.
" I am. Sir, your obedient servant,
" L. Oppenheim."
CHAPTER VIII.
THE HAGUE CONFERENCE PROPOSED BY
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT.
The optimistic programme embodied in the Tsar's
invitation to the Hague Conference, 1899, seriously discounted
in advance public appreciation of the excellent results
actually achieved.
The Russian Government proposed " an inquiry, by
means of international discussion, as to the most effectual
means of securing to all peoples the benefits of a real and
durable Peace, and, before all, of putting an end to the
progressive development of the present armaments." The
italics are ordinary type in the original version. Yet all that
was accomplished with respect to this paramount subject of
inquiry was to recommend its discussion in the future.
The Daily News, November 11, 1904, drew attention to
this point : ā
"The 'Final Protocol' of the Hague Conference
contains, after the list of the three Conventions and three
' declarations ' which were adoi)ted, the following
entry : ā
J2
Il6 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
" ' Obedient to the same inspiration, the Conference
has also unanimously adopted the following resolution :
"'The Conference considers that the limitation of
military charges at the present time weighing upon the
world is greatly to be desired, for the increase of the
material and moral welfare of humanity.'
" It has also expressed the following opinions :
" ' IV. The Conference is of opinion that the Govern-
ments, taking into account the proposals made in the
Conference, should make a study of the possibility of an
agreement concerning the limitation of armed forces, on
land and sea, and of naval budgets.'
" Here lies by far the most important part of the
task left unaccomplished by the Hague Conference."
These clauses taken in connection with the diplomatic
phraseology of the Conventions have given some critics the
impression that the Conference did not get far beyond " pious
wishes." Events have abundantly proved such disparage-
ment to be unwarrantable, and the Press has not failed
to recognise its good services. The Daily Graphic,
November 12, 1904, writes : ā
" If the Hague Conference did not reach the millennial
skies, it hit the tops of trees with much advantage to the
cause it was designed to serve. It failed to find an antidote
to war, and even to frame a scheme of disarmament ; but
it adopted a series of Conventions by which war was
deprived of some of its horrors, and the nations were
supplied with some very useful excuses for not shedding
their blood and wasting their treasure in efforts of mutual
destruction. The great practical value of the work it
performed in these directions has been strikingly illus-
trated to us during the last few days. It is exceedingly
probable that, but for the stipulations in the Convention
for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, by
which the expedient of a Commission of Inquiry was
invented, the recent North Sea outrage would have
precipitated Great Britain and Russia into a disastrous
war. The existence of these stipulations strengthened
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. II7
the hands of pacific statesmanship, and, as the late
Lord Sahsbury foresaw, provided sober men with a good
excuse for not being carried away by the Jingoes.
Work of this kind cannot be repeated too frequently
or extended too widely. The experience of two wars,
so far from discrediting Hague Conferences, has
rendered them a permanent necessity to the inter-
national life. Problems of international law and
belligerent practice, undreamt of in 1899, have been
posed by the present war, and some of them are so serious
that they call for the earliest possible solution in
the interests of that limitation of the horrors of
war which is the nearest we can get to the Ideal of
Humanity."
The number of arbitrations and arbitration treaties
satisfactorily concluded between the close of the Hague
Conference and the end of September, 1904, seems to have
inspired President Roosevelt with the idea that the time
for a further advance in the direction of general pacification
had arrived. But in his invitation to the Powers to take part
in a second Peace Conference the ruler of the United States
carefully avoided the injudicious optimism which characterised
the Russian proposals of 1898. The President, in his address
to Congress, expressly separated the question of general peace
from the question of reduction of armaments. The specific
subjects mentioned in Mr. Hay's invitatory despatch were of
secondary importance, while the general statement of the
objects of the proposed meeting of the new Conference does
not exclude the most idealistic propositions from discussion.
They are " to })ush forward toward completion the work
already begun at the Hague by considering the questions
which the first Conference had left unsettled with the express
provision that there should be a second conference." The
elasticity of this sentence is admirably aj^propriate to the
occasion. It can be stretched to cover the establishment
of an international executive or international prohibition of
war, it might shrink to the admission of Abyssinia as
a Signatory Power, without being stigmatised as futile.
Il8 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
Mr. Hay's despatch, dated October 31, 1904, contains the
following passages : ā
" The fact of an existing war is no reason why the
nations should relax the efforts they have so successfully
made hitherto toward the adoption of rules of conduct
which may make more remote the chances of future
wars between them. In 1899 the Conference of the
Hague dealt solely with the larger general problems
which confront all nations, and assumed no function
of intervention or suggestion in the settlement of the
terms of peace between the United States and Spain.
It might be the same with a reassembled Conference
at the present time. Its efforts would naturally lie in
the direction of further codification of the universal
ideas of right and justice, which we call International law ;
its mission would be to give them future effect. . . .
At this time it would seem premature to couple the
tentative invitation thus extended with a categorical
programme of subjects of discussion. It is only by
comparison of views that a general accord can be reached
as to the matters to be considered by the new Conference.
It is desirable that in the formulation of a programme
the distinction should be kept clear between the matters
which belong to the province of International Law
and those which are conventional between individual
Governments. The final act of the Hague Conference,
dated July 29, 1899, kept this distinction clearly in
sight. Among the broader general questions affecting
the right and justice of the relation of Sovereign States,
which were then relegated to a future Conference, were : ā
The rights and duties of neutrals ; the inviolability of
private property in Naval warfare ; and the bombardment
of ports, towns, and villages by a Naval force. The
other matters mentioned in the Final Act take the
form of suggestions for consideration by interested
Governments.
" The three points mentioned cover a large field.
The first, especially, touching the rights and duties of
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. IIQ
neutrals, is of universal importance. Its rightful dis-
position affects the interests and well-being of all the world.
The neutral is something more than an onlooker. His
acts of omission or commission may have an influence ā
indirect, but tangible ā on a war actually in progress,
whilst, on the other hand, he may suffer from the
exigencies of the belligerents. It is this phase of warfare
which deeply concerns the world at large. Efforts have
been made, time and again, to formulate rules of
action applicable to its more material aspects, as in the
Declarations of Paris. As recently as April 28 of this
year the Congress of the United States adopted a
resolution, reading thus : ā
' ' ' Resolved by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled : That it is the sense of the Congress of the
United States that it is desirable, in the interest of
uniformity of action by the Maritime States of the world
in the time of war, that the President endeavour to
bring about an understanding among the principal
Maritime Powers with a view of incorporating into the
permanent law of civilised nations the principle of the
exemption of all private property at sea, not contraband
of war, from capture or destruction by belligerents.
" 'Approved, April 28, 1904.'
" Other matters closely affecting the rights of neutrals
are : The distinction to be made between absolute and
conditional contraband of war, and the inviolabihty
of the oiificial and private correspondence of neutrals. As
for the duties of neutrals towards the belligerent, the
field is scarcely less broad. One aspect deserves mention
from the prominence it has acquired during recent times,
namely, the treatment due to refugee belligerent ships in
neutral ports. It may also be desirable to consider
and adojit a ]:)rocedure by which States non-signatory
to the original acts of the Hague Conference may become
adhering parties."
120 SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE.
Of course some journals profess to regard the project as
an electioneering move, while others made merry over the
simultaneous advocacy of peace and an increase of the navy,
ignoring the fact that President Roosevelt held strong forces
to be an excellent guarantee of peace.* But on the whole
the proposal was well received by the Press.
The Daily News, November ii, 1904, wrote : ā
" Lord Lansdowne said it is even more important
to take note of the fact that we have also within the
last few days been invited by President Roosevelt to
take part in a second International Peace Conference
to continue the work of the Conference held at the
Hague in 1899, and that we did not hesitate for a moment
to inform the American Government that we were ready
to take part in the inquiry, and to wish the President
God-speed in the useful work which he had undertaken.
Thus strongly supported, there is httle doubt that such
a second session of the World's Parliament will be held.
The hearty sympathy of France, Italy, and the smaller
European States may be considered as assured ; and
Germany ā the only Power which gave serious trouble
on the earlier occasion ā is not hkely to stand out in
solitary dudgeon. There may have to be some delay
to meet the convenience (if you please !) of Russia and
Japan, but it is pretty certain that, at no very distant
* From the Morning Post, December 5th, 1904 : ā
" St. Petersburg, December i.
" The Herald, in commenting on the projected Peace Conference
observes : ā
" ' In spite of the wilUngness of the Powers to take part in the
second Hague Conference the arming for war will in a short time be
further advanced ; and this is not to be wondered at if one considers
that the summoner of this conference, concurrently with his summons,
has declared that America must have the finest and strongest Fleet
in the world. The German Government likewise has elaborated a new
ordinance for raising the peace-effective of the Army. This augmenta-
tion is to be successive, and in the course of the year 1909 the peace-
effective will have been raised to a strength of more than half a million.
These are the preludes to the second Hague Peace Conference.' "
SAFEGUARDS FOR PEACE. 121
date, the envoys of between twenty-five and tliirty
countries will meet in the beautiful Httle capital whose
very name has come to be a synonym for the best ten-
dencies in international hfe. Two great wars and many
little ones have not scourged the world in vain."
The Spectator, December 3, 1904, though convinced that
peace cannot be secured by conferences, seems to regard the
organisation of a National Executive as practicable : ā
" The only real value of Peace Conferences lies in
the restatement and exposition of some point or other
of international law, in which they usually result. They
may begin with ambitions towards a new heaven and a