acter; no matter whether their own Government supports said claim or not; and provided that the remedies which the laws of the respective country provide against such violation shall have been exhausted or that denial of Justice shall have been shown.170

The Court is declared to represent the national conscience of Central America. It formulates its rules of procedure, determines its own jurisdiction, executes its orders through

the contracting governments or by special commissioners, decrees the preservation of the status quo pending a decision, and renders judgments by default. The contracting governments formally bind themselves to obey and enforce the court's orders, and to lend all the moral support necessary to secure the execution of its judgments. The practical importance of limitations arising out of the creation of an institution like that described above is suggested in two of the Court's recent decisions with regard to the BryanChamorro Treaty between Nicaragua and the United States.

171

170

p. 231.

Arts. 1, 2, in A.J.I.L. Suppl. (1908), Vol. II,'

171 Costa Rica y. Nicaragua (1916), in A.J.I.L. (1917), Vol. XI, pp. 181-229; Salvador v. Nicaragua (1916), in ibid., PP. 674-730. See note of Nov. 9, 1916, in regard to Nicaragua's protest, in A.J.I.L. Suppí. (1917), Vol. XI, p. 3.

CHAPTER VIII. LIMITATIONS UPON THE POLITICAL "QUALITY OF

STATES

T

INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES

The limitations upon equality considered in the two preceding chapters have to do with the legal capacity or status of the state as an international person. The political capacity of the state presents a problem that is fundamentally different in its essential nature. Legal rights and transactions constitute the principal subject-matter of legal capacity, while political capacity is concerned with such matters as representation, voting, and contributions in international conferences and congresses, administrative unions, and arbitral or judicial tribunals. Laws in regard to legal capacity affect the relations between states as individual entities, while laws in regard to political capacity affect their participation in the privileges and responsibilities of collective international activity. A good deal of the confusion in the books on the subject of equality is the consequence of failure to observe this fundamental distinc

tion.

The international congress or conference is the earliest manifestation of a collective international interest and

authority.

Wherever such a congress or conference is truly international, political equality is assured by recognizing the right of every interested state to participate on an equal footing, by conceding to the delegations of every state an equality of voting strength whenever votes are taken and requiring unanimity for all important decisions, and by limiting the assembly to decisions ad referendum, that is to say, by giving it no authority to bind participating states unless they choose to ratify what it does.

The great war congresses have usually been constituted on the basis of equal representation, although occasionally the principle has been arbitrarily denied. The assemblies at Westphalia, Utrecht, and Vienna were called in each instance to settle the terms of peace at the conclusion of long periods of European war. All the interested states sent delegates. Every part of Europe, except England, Poland, Muscovy, and the Ottoman Empire, was represented at Minster and Osnabrück. Great states and small states sent delegates to Utrecht, where a series of separate treaties were negotiated embodying the terms of a general peace. All the European states except Turkey sent envoys to Vienna, but in this case only the delegates of Portugal, Spain, and Swe

1 The purpose, composition, procedure, and accomplishments of the principal conferences and congresses are conveniently summarized in Satow, Guide to Diplomatic Practice, Vol. II, chaps. 25, 26. For a list of international conferences and congresses, see Baldwin, in A.J.T.L. (1907), Vol. I, pp. 565-578, 808-829.