Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-29T21:38:16.001Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Proposed Court of Arbitral Justice1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

James Brown Scott
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Before undertaking a systematic and analytical exposition of the project relating to the establishment of an arbitral court of justice as approved by the Committee of Examination B and referred to the First Subcommission of the First Commission, it may be useful to devote a few lines, by way of introduction, to the Permanent Tribunal of Arbitration created in 1899 by the First Conference and alongside which it is proposed to establish an arbitral court of justice.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , October 1908 , pp. 772 - 810
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1908 

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.)

Footnotes

1

The introduction to this article (pp. 772–783), concerning the proceedings in commission, is a translation of the report which the writer of the present article had the honor to present to the conference, and which will form a chapter in a forthcoming book on the Hague Conferences.— J . B. S.

References

2 Missouri v. Illinois (1905), 200 U. S. 496, 518.

3 Mr. Scott thereupon explained technically and in detail the principles which might serve as a basis for the establishment of an international permanent court.

4 Those voting in favor of the motion were Germany, United States, Argentina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, China, Colombia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Prance, Great Britain, Haiti, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Mexico, Montenegro, Panama, Paraguay, Netherlands, Peru, Persia, Portugal, Russia, Salvador, Uruguay, Venezuela. Those refraining were Austria-Hungary, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Greece, Norway, Roumania, Servia, Siam, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey.

5 “The only question presented was whether as between the States of the Union the court was competent to deal with a situation which, if it arose between independent sovereignties, might lead to war. Whatever differences of opinion there might be upon matters of detail, the jurisdiction and authority of this court to deal with such a case as this is not open to doubt.” — Per Mr. Justice Holmes, in Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 518.

For full information on the subject of judicial proceedings under the Articles of Confederation, see J. C. Bancroft Davis, in 131 U. S., pp. 1–lxii; Carson’s History of the Supreme Court of the United States, I, 66–79; and a brief note in Professor Jamieson’s Essays on the Constitutional History of the United States, p. 3.