« ПретходнаНастави »
which he is to receive, and places at his disposal the honorarium for the four weeks which he is presumed to spend in the preparation of the case before he proceeds to pass upon it as a judge of the tribunal at The Hague.
The litigating nations did not need to resort to Article 87 of the Hague Convention for the appointment of the judges, as they agreed in advance upon the members of the tribunal, all of whom are strangers to the controversy. Its members are Jonkheer Savornin Lohman of Holland and Mr. Lardy of Switzerland, both tried and experienced arbitrators, and it is a very great satisfaction to the people of the United States and especially to the American Society of International Law to note that its honored president, Mr. Elihu Root, has been chosen by the nations in controversy as president of the tribunal. The text of the compromis is printed in the Supplement, p. 165.
Tonkheer and experiene United
ARBITRATION AND PEACE TREATIES
In an editorial comment in this Journal for October last a comparison was made of the form of treaties, a series of which are being negotiated by Mr. Bryan and which have come to be commonly known as the Bryan peace treaties, with the unratified arbitration treaties of 1911 and the series of general arbitration treaties negotiated by Secretary Root in 1908.
Since that time, the efforts of Secretary Bryan to negotiate this form of treaties have been attended with considerable success. At the date of the present writing, no less than thirty-four governments have accepted it in principle, namely, Italy, Great Britain, France, Brazil, Sweden, Norway, Russia, Peru, Austria, Netherlands, Bolivia, Germany, Argentina, China, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Haiti, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Denmark, Chile, Cuba, Costa Rica, Salvador, Switzerland, Paraguay, Panama, Honduras, Nicaragua, Japan, Persia, Ecuador and Venezuela. Of the governments which have accepted the form of treaty in principle, fourteen have already attached their signatures to treaties, as follows: Salvador, August 7, 1913; Guatemala, September 20, 1913; Panama, September 20, 1913; Honduras, November 3, 1913; Nicaragua, December 17, 1913; Netherlands, December 18, 1913; Bolivia, January 22, 1914; Portugal, February 4, 1914; Persia, February 4, 1914; Costa Rica, February 13, 1914; Switzerland, February 15, 1914; Dominican Republic, February 17, 1914; Venezuela, March 21, 1914; and Denmark, April 17, 1914. The texts of all these treaties have not yet been published, but it is assumed that they follow the text of the treaty with Salvador which was published last summer and which appears in the October 1913 number of the Journal at pages 824-825.
As was explained in the editorial referred to, the new treaties are not intended as substitutes for the general arbitration treaties negotiated by Secretary Root, as was the case with the Knox treaties of 1911, but are intended to accompany and complement them. Secretary Bryan has accordingly negotiated renewals of the general arbitration treaties of 1908 which terminated at the expiration of five years. The renewals negotiated to date are as follows: With France, February 13, 1913, extending the treaty of February 10, 1908, which expired February 27, 1913; with Spain, May 29, 1913, extending the treaty of April 20, 1908, which expired June 2, 1913; with Great Britain, May 31, 1913, extending the treaty of April 4, 1908, which expired June 4, 1913; with Norway, June 16, 1913, extending the treaty of April 4, 1908, which expired June 24, 1913; with Sweden, June 28, 1913, extending the treaty of May 2, 1908, which expired August 18, 1913; with Japan, June 28, 1913, extending the treaty of May 5, 1908, which expired August 24, 1913; with Portugal, June 28, 1913, extending the treaty of April 6, 1908, which expired November 14, 1913; with Switzerland, November 3, 1913, extending the treaty of February 29, 1908, which expired December 23, 1913; with Italy, May 28, 1913, extending the treaty of March 28, 1908, which expired January 22, 1914; with Costa Rica, March 16, 1914, extending the treaty of January 13, 1909, which expires July 20, 1914; with Paraguay, March 2, 1914, extending the treaty of March 13, 1909, which expires October 2, 1914.
The renewals uniformly cover another period of five years.
The treaty negotiated with the Dominican Republic on February 17, 1914, contains not only the provisions of the Bryan treaties, but also of the provisions of general arbitration treaties of 1908, Secretary Root not having negotiated a general arbitration treaty with the Dominican Republic.
The United States Senate has consented to the ratification of the renewal of the general arbitration treaties, and ratifications have already been exchanged with France, Spain, Great Britain, Norway, Sweden and Italy.
Secretary Bryan had not at the date of this writing submitted to the Senate for ratification any of the treaties negotiated by him but, as said
in the former editorial referred to, it is understood that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations approved the draft of these treaties and it is not expected, therefore, that any objection will be raised by the Senate to their ratification.
The renewal of the general arbitration treaties and the success attending the negotiation of the Bryan peace treaties will go far toward restoring the United States to the position of leadership in the cause of international arbitration and peace which it occupied prior to the unfavorable action of the Senate upon the arbitration treaties of 1911.
The year 1913 has been one full of regret and of sorrow to workers in the field of international law, public and private, for they have lost colleagues and friends in international law properly so called and in the conflict of laws, in the deaths of John Westlake, T. M. C. Asser, Ludwig von Bar, Frederick Meili, and Emanuel von Ullmann. An appreciation of Professor Westlake has already appeared in the Journal. The present comment chronicles, briefly and inadequately, the careers and services of Messrs. Asser, von Ullmann, von Bar, and Meili.
T. M. C. ASSER Mr. T. M. C. Asser, an honorary member of the Institute of International Law, of which he was one of the founders, was born in Holland on April 28, 1838. A lawyer by training, a professor for years at the University of Amsterdam and Councilor of State of his native country, he was the author of an admirable treatise on international private law, written in Dutch and translated into French by his friend, Alphonse Rivier, as well as of various contributions to international law, public and private. He initiated the Hague Conferences on International Private Law, which have rendered such services to the conflict of laws, and was the delegate of his country to the First and Second Hague Peace Conferences, in each of which he rendered distinguished and devoted service. Lastly, but not least, he took in hand the establishment of an Academy of International Law to be installed in the Peace Palace at The Hague, and it is a matter of profound regret to his many friends and admirers that he did not live to see its foundation, a hope which he
expressed on more than one occasion by word of mouth and in writing to the author of this brief note. At the time of his death, on July 29, 1913, he was the choice of the Institute of International Law for honorary president to succeed Professor Westlake, his lifelong friend and colleague in creating the Revue de droit international et de législation comparée—the first journal of international law—and the Institute of International Law, organized in 1873.
Mr. Asser was also well known as an arbiter of international disputes, and as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration he took part in the decision of the first case, the Pius Fund Dispute between the United States and Mexico, submitted to and decided by a special tribunal of the Permanent Court, which he had as delegate to the First Hague Conference helped to create. Mr. Asser was an admirable linguist, speaking German with ease and grace, French with the accent, fluency and precision of a native, and English with little or no trace of a foreign accent. Leaving out of consideration the value of his contributions to international law, public and private, he created or was associated in the creation of agencies both calculated to develop and to popularize his favorite studies. The Revue de droit international et de législation comparée, of which he was one of the founders, supplied both branches of international law with an organ for their scientific treatment and exposition. As initiator of the Conferences on Private International Law, which have been held from time to time at The Hague, he created an instrument for its development and codification. As one of the founders of the Institute of International Law he called into being an instrument for the scientific development of both branches of the subject, and by his activity in the establishment of the Academy of International Law at The Hague, he provided an institution for their scientific exposition. It is not given to many men to take part in such important creations, and the evidences of his constructive imagination and his well directed zeal will long survive him and make his name one to conjure with in the international world.
EMANUEL VON ULLMANN
Emanuel von Ullmann, professor of international law at the University of Munich, was born in Pertowitz, Bohemia, on February 28, 1841, and died at Vienna on April 14, 1913. For many years his interest lay in constitutional and in criminal law rather than in the law of nations, and it was only from 1889, when he succeeded von Holtzendorff at Munich, that he turned his chief attention to international law, in which subject he became a specialist and a recognized authority. It was natural that a man born in Austria or in an Austrian possession, and still a young man when the compromise was reached with Hungary, should have devoted himself primarily to constitutional law, for the situation of the dual monarchy opened up many and inviting questions of theory as well as practice. The training thus had in constitutional law was later to be of great service to him in international law. At the same time he devoted much thought and attention to criminal law and before he became an internationalist his reputation was that of an authority on criminal law, and he has to his credit not only a treatise on Austrian criminal procedure (1874–1879, second edition 1882) but also a treatise on German criminal procedure published in 1893, but four years after his transfer from Vienna, where he was professor, to the University of Munich. It is, however, as a teacher and writer on international law that he was chiefly known in his later years. It was to be expected that von Holtzendorff's successor would feel obliged to lecture on international law, and von Ullmann not only complied with the obligation but welcomed it. His interest in the subject was of long standing, for early in his academic career he had lectured on international law at Innspruck. He devoted five hours a week to international law in each semester, and often gave additional lectures in the university on various phases of the law of nations. In 1898 he made his formal appearance as a writer on international law considered as a system by the publication of his “Völkerrecht” as a part of the Handbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart. This work gave him an assured position among internationalists, although it was far from easy reading. A second edition, thoroughly revised and in part rewritten so as to become practically a new work, appeared in 1909. The second edition is especially remarkable for its warm appreciation of the Hague Conferences at a time when they were looked upon in Germany as somewhat Utopian and their vast importance in the development of international law overlooked, and it is understood that he contemplated and had in preparation a third edition of this work.
Without neglecting any part of the international field, von Ullmann was especially interested in neutrality, particularly that part of the subject dealing with maritime warfare, as shown by his rector's address entitled Der deutsche Seehandel und das Seekriegs- und Neutralitätsrecht (1900), and his recent monograph entitled Die Fortbildung des Seekriegs