Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-24T23:35:05.502Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fifty Years of Arbitration in the Union of International Transport by Rail

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2017

Manley O. Hudson  and
Louis B. Sohn
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Too little attention has been given to the remarkable development of international arbitration in the Union of International Transport by Rail. Within the limited field of this Union arbitration has been organized on a solid and continuing basis, and a permanent tribunal for the settlement of disputes has been maintained for half a century.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 1943 , pp. 597 - 610
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1943

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 For the text see 19 Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités (2d ser.), p. 289.

2 For the texts see 2 Hudson, International Legislation, pp. 1393, 1468.

3 For the texts see 6 idem, pp. 527, 568. See also 7 idem, p. 896.

4 Spain’s position in the Union continued to be regulated by the 1924 Conventions.

5 13 Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités (2d ser.), pp. 60, 282–4, Cf., de Seigneux, G., Commentaire du projet de convention rédigé” par la conférence internationale réunie á Berne (1882), pp. 64–70 Google Scholar.

6 Swiss Bundesblatt, 1892, V, pp. 554–5.

7 48 Bulletin des transports internationaux par chemins de fer (1940), pp. 362–4. The text is reproduced in an appendix to this article.

8 1 Bulletin (1893), p. 216. Cf., 18 idem (1910), pp. 380–2.

9 Proposals to give jurisdiction to the Central Office over disputes between administrations and individuals were repeatedly rejected. Cf., 4 Bulletin (1896), pp. 206–7; Procés-verbaux de la deuxiéme conference pour la révision de la convention internationale du 14 Octobre 1890 (Bern, 1905), pp. 76–80; Travaux préliminaires de l’Office Central . . . en vue de la révision de la C.I.M. et de la C.I.V. (1932), p. 96.

10 1 Bulletin (1893), pp. 215–17.

11 3 Bulletin (1895), pp. 244–5.

12 5 Bulletin (1897), pp. 220–3.

13 5 Bulletin (1897), pp. 893–934.

14 7 Bulletin (1899), pp. 17–21.

15 8 Bulletin (1900), pp. 83–7.

16 9 Bulletin (1901), pp. 2–10.

17 9 Bulletin (1901), pp. 41–8.

18 11 Bulletin (1903), pp. 38–46.

19 Ibid., pp. 46–54.

20 Ibid., pp. 107–16.

21 12 Bulletin (1904), pp. 150–60.

22 13 Bulletin (1905), pp. 332–44.

23 15 Bulletin (1907), pp. 85–100.

24 15 Bulletin (1907), pp. 135–45.

25 18 Bulletin (1910), pp. 4–17.

26 Ibid., pp. 375–87.

27 19 Bulletin (1911), pp. 221–9.

28 21 Bulletin (1913), pp. 376–81.

29 31 Bulletin (1923), pp. 1–7.

30 33 Bulletin (1925), pp. 30–7.

31 39 Bulletin (1931), pp. 49–56. This case is summarized in Annual Digest of Public International Law Cases, 1931–1932, pp. 417–20.

32 Volumes 1–4 (1893–6), and 15–17 (1907–11).

33 This led some writers to cite the answers as “decisions” or “arbitral decisions” of the Office. Cf. 5 Travers, Le droit commercial international (1932), I, pp. 190, 525; III, pp. 745, 753; 10 Eger, Eisenbahnrechtliche Entscheidungen (1894), pp. 76–7, 90–3, 158, 191–2, 379, 382.

34 Similar views had been expressed at the 1881 Conference. Cf. 13 Martens, Nouveau recueil général de traités (2d ser.), pp. 203, 282–4.

35 Cf. 27 Bulletin (1919), pp. 100–3.

36 The question might be raised whether the tribunal would not have been even more useful if its jurisdiction had been obligatory. Cf. a Bavarian proposal of 1898. 6 Bulletin (1898), pp. 536, 542.

The non-official International Railway Wagon Union (R.I.V.), an organization of railway administrations created in 1921, gave power to its permanent Committee “to decide, upon demand of one of the adhering administrations, and after hearing the interested parties, all disputes relating to the interpretation and application” of the Union’s règlement (§ 5 d of the 1921 règlement). The 1925 règlement limited the Committee’s competence to questions of “interpretation” and added that the administrations parties to the dispute which were members of the Committee should not participate in the vote upon the dispute; it provided, on the other hand, that the Committee should “give arbitral decisions (jugements á litre arbitral), upon request of an adhering administration and after hearing the parties, in all disputes arising out of reciprocal use of wagons.” The administrations agreed not to resort to any other jurisdiction. (§ 6, No. 3, c and d.) Cf. 30 Bulletin des transports internationaux par chemins de fer (1922), Annexe, pp. 2–3; 32 idem (1924), Annexe, pp. 196–7. A number of disputes have been submitted to the Committee for decision, 49 idem (1941), pp. 173–4. Cf. League of Nations Quarterly Bulletin of Information on the Work of International Organizations, No. 8 (1924), pp. 277–8.

In the non-official Union for the use of passenger and luggage wagons in international transport (R.I.C.) the arbitration procedure prescribed by § 13 of the 1928 Statutes resembles that of the Universal Postal Union: the administrations parties to a dispute choose two other administrations as arbiters; if these cannot agree on the choice, the umpire-administration is to be selected by the directing administration (Swiss). The administrations agreed not to resort to any other jurisdiction. Cf. 36 Bulletin des transports internationaux par chemins defer (1928), Annexe, p. 185.

37 French version from 48 Bulletin (1940), pp. 363–4; the German version is also authoritative.