No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Final Settlement of the Pious Fund Case
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Notes and Comments
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1969
References
1 57 Dept. of State Bulletin 261 (1967).
2 15 Stat. 679; Scott, The Hague Court Reports 12 (1916).
3 Scott, op. cit.note 2, at 17 and 22, for the opinions of the American Commissioner (Wadsworth) and the Mexican Commissioner (Zamacona), respectively.
4 Ibid.at 48.
5 Ibidat 7; 2 A.J.I.L. 893 (1908); 32 Stat. 1916.
6 32 Stat. 1779. The Pious Fund Arbitration was the first instance in which two nations had recourse to the provisions of this new convention. Penfield, “The Attitude of American Countries Toward Arbitration,” 1915 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 40, 47-48.
7 2 A.J.I.L. 898 (1908); Scott, op. cit.note 2, at 3.
8 18 U. S. Treaties 3266; T.I.A.S., No. 6420.
9 15 U. 8. Treaties 21; T.I.A.S., No. 5515.
10 Opinion of the Tribunal, 2 A.J.I.L. 898, 901 (1908); Scott, op. cit.note 2, at 6. Remarks of Willard B. Cowles, 1936 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 52 and 53.
11 Opinion of the Tribunal, 2 A.J.I.L. 898, 901 (1908); Scott, op. tit.note 2, at 5-6; Ralston, “Prescription,” 4 A.J.I.L. 133 (1910). As Ralston points out, this determination had a rather short life. See Italy (Gentini) v.Venezuela, Ralston, Venezuela Arbitrations of 1903, at 720 (1904).
12 “Note from the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Pious Fund Case,” 5 A.J.I.L. Supp. 73 (1911); Dennis, “The Necessity for an International Code of Arbitral Procedure,” 7 AJ.I.L. 285, 295 (1913).