Pax mundi

Article III. – Arbitration shall be equally obligatory in all cases other than those mentioned in the foregoing article, whatever may be their origin, nature, or occasion; with the single exception mentioned in the next following article.

Article IV. – The sole questions excepted from the provisions of the preceding article are those which, in the judgment of any one of the nations involved in the controversy, may imperil its independence. In which case, for such nation, arbitration shall be optional; but it shall be obligatory upon the adversary power.

Article V. – All controversies or differences, with the exception stated in Article IV., whether pending or hereafter arising, shall be submitted to arbitration, even though they may have originated in occurrences ante-dating the present treaty.

Article VI. – No question shall be revived by virtue of this treaty concerning which a definite agreement shall already have been reached. In such cases arbitration shall be resorted to only for the settlement of questions concerning the validity, interpretation, or enforcement of such agreements.

Article VII. – Any Government may serve in the capacity of arbitrator which maintains friendly relations with the nation opposed to the one selecting it. The office of arbitrator may also be entrusted to tribunals of justice, to scientific bodies, to public officials, or to private individuals, whether citizens or not of the States selecting them.

Article VIII. – The court of arbitration may consist of one or more persons. If of one person, he shall be selected jointly by the nations concerned. If of several persons, their selection may be jointly made by the nations concerned. Should no choice be made, each nation claiming a distinct interest in the question at issue shall have the right to appoint one arbitrator on its own behalf.

Article IX. – When the court shall consist of an even number of arbitrators, the nations concerned shall appoint an umpire, who shall decide all questions upon which the arbitrators may disagree. If the nations interested fail to agree in the selection of an umpire, such umpire shall be selected by the arbitrators already appointed.

Article X. – The appointment of an umpire, and his acceptance, shall take place before the arbitrators enter upon the hearing of the question in dispute.

Article XI. – The umpire shall not act as a member of the court, but his duties and powers shall be limited to the decision of questions upon which the arbitrators shall be unable to agree.

Article XII. – Should any arbitrator, or an umpire, be prevented from serving by reason of death, resignation, or other cause, such arbitrator or umpire shall be replaced by a substitute to be selected in the same manner in which the original arbitrator or umpire shall have been chosen.

Article XIII. – The court shall hold its sessions at such place as the parties in interest may agree upon, and in case of disagreement or failure to name a place the court itself may determine the location.

Article XIV. – When the court shall consist of several arbitrators, a majority of the whole number may act notwithstanding the absence or withdrawal of the minority. In such case the majority shall continue in the performance of their duties, until they shall have reached a final determination of the questions submitted for their consideration.

Article XV. – The decision of a majority of the whole number of arbitrators shall be final both on the main and incidental issues, unless in the agreement to arbitrate it shall have been expressly provided that unanimity is essential.

Article XVI. – The general expenses of arbitration proceedings shall be paid in equal proportions by the governments that are parties thereto; but expenses incurred by either party in the preparation and prosecution of its case shall be defrayed by it individually.

Article XVII. – Whenever disputes arise the nations involved shall appoint courts of arbitration in accordance with the provisions of the preceding articles. Only by the mutual and free consent of all of such nations may those provisions be disregarded, and courts of arbitration appointed under different arrangements.

Article XVIII. – This treaty shall remain in force for twenty years from the date of the exchange of ratifications. After the expiration of that period, it shall continue in operation until one of the contracting parties shall have notified all the others of its desire to terminate it. In the event of such notice the treaty shall continue obligatory upon the party giving it for at least one year thereafter, but the withdrawal of one or more nations shall not invalidate the treaty with respect to the other nations concerned.

Article XIX. – This treaty shall be ratified by all the nations approving it, according to their respective constitutional methods; and the ratifications shall be exchanged in the city of Washington on or before the first day of May, A.D. 1891. Any other nation may accept this treaty and become a party thereto, by signing a copy thereof and depositing the same with the Government of the United States; whereupon the said Government shall communicate this fact to the other contracting parties.

Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.

1

Mazzoleni, in his "L'Italia nel movimento per la Pace," gives twenty instances. See pp. 58, 59. trans.

2

On a motion by Ruggiero Bonghi, supported by Crispi in a speech in which he said that the future depended upon a European tribunal of arbitration.

3

See Martens' "Nouveau recueil général," xiv. p. 32 (art xxi.), and Calvo, "Droit International," II., § 1499.

4

According to a Manuscript by President Louis Ruchonnet, addressed to F. Bajer.

5

See "Svensk förfaltningssamling," 1869, No. 74, page 26, and "Lois Beiges," 1869, No. 36, § 24. In the Swedish-Siamese treaty, art. 25, it is stated: "Should any disagreement arise between the contracting parties which cannot be arranged by friendly diplomatic negotiation or correspondence, the question shall be referred for solution to a friendly neutral power, mutually chosen, whose decision the contracting powers shall accept as final." Similar agreements are to be concluded between Italy and Switzerland, Spain and Uruguay, Spain and Hawaii, and between France and Ecuador.

6

The Treaty is given word for word in the Herald of Peace, July, 1883.

7

In this treaty, which was concluded at Stockholm, Nov. 21st, 1855, the King of Norway and Sweden bound himself not to resign to Russia, or to barter with her, or otherwise allow her to possess, any portion of the territory of the united kingdoms, nor to grant to Russia right of pasture or fishery, or any similar rights, either on the coast of Norway or Sweden. Any Russian proposal which might be made under this head must be made directly to France or England, who then by sea and land must support us by their military power. A glorious contrast to the declaration of neutrality, Dec. 15th, 1853!

8

Conquered Russia had to bind herself, at the conclusion of peace, not to keep war ships in the Black Sea, not to have any haven for war ships on her coasts. Stipulations which were perceived by all thinking men at the time to be untenable in the long run.

9

£3,196,874 were received by Sec. Fish, Sept. 9th, 1873. See Haydn's "Dictionary of Dates."

10

The Arbitrator, 1890, April.

11

The Japanese Government demanded redress, which was at first refused by China. This led to a stormy correspondence, which at last became so bitter that both sides prepared for war. The Japanese troops had already taken possession of Formosa. During this dangerous juncture, the British minister in Pekin, Sir Thomas Wade, offered to mediate as an arbiter. The offer was accepted, and led to an agreement between the Chinese Government and the Japanese ambassador in Pekin, by which China was to pay Japan 50,000 taels, and the Japanese troops were to evacuate Formosa. When Lord Derby, who was at that time Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, received a telegram from Sir Thomas Wade respecting this happy result, he answered him: "It is a great pleasure to me to present to you the expression of the high esteem with which her Majesty's Government regards you for the service you have rendered in thus peaceably adjusting a dispute which otherwise might have had unhappy consequences, especially to the two countries concerned, but also for the interests of Great Britain and other parties to treaties." Sir Harry Parkes, the English minister in Japan, wrote to Lord Derby, that the Mikado, the Emperor of that land, had invited him to an interview for the purpose of expressing his satisfaction at the result, and through him to present his warm thanks for his brave and efficient service. The Japanese minister in London also called upon Lord Derby and expressed the thanks of his Government to Mr. Wade. "He could assure me," said Lord Derby, when he repeated the words of his excellency, "that the service which has thus been rendered will remain in grateful remembrance among his countrymen."

12

This dispute had assumed quite a serious and menacing character when the ex-president Grant, on his journey round the world, came to China. When his arrival became known, the Chinese prince, Kung, submitted to him that he should use his great influence in mediating between the two countries. A specially interesting conversation followed: "We have," said Prince Kung, "studied international law as it is set forth by English and American authors, whose works are translated into Chinese. If any value is to be set upon principles of international right, as set forth by the authors of your nation, the doing away with the independence of the Liu Kiu Islands is an injustice." Grant reminded him that he was there only as a private individual, but added, "It would be a true joy to me if my advice or efforts could be the means of preserving peace, especially between two nations for whom I cherish such interest as for China and Japan." Immediately afterwards he returned to Tokio, the capital of Japan, called upon the Emperor and his Minister, and advocated a peaceable settlement of the dispute. He wrote to Prince Kung the result of his mediation, and produced a scheme for a Court of Arbitration.

13

At the Peace of Utrecht, 1713, it was decided that the course of the river Maronis was the boundary. But that river divides itself into two branches which embrace a large tract of land, almost a fifth part of French Guiana. Neither France nor Holland had claimed that land until gold beds were discovered there, and it had to be decided which of the two arms of the river was to be considered as the Maronis, and which as a tributary.

14

This and the following regulations are taken from Bluntschli's "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilizirten Staatens," Nordlingen, 1872. Some of the treaty provisions and questions are grounded upon "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., par Ch. de Martens and F de Cussy, Leipzig, 1846, and "Archives diplomatiques:"

– Since practical abstaining from war is the natural assumption of neutrality, a neutral State is bound not to assist any belligerent power in warlike purposes.

– A neutral State may not supply a belligerent power with weapons or other war material.

– If private persons furnish belligerent powers with war material as articles of commerce, they assuredly run the risk of confiscation by the contending parties of such articles, as contraband of war; but the neutral State is not to be regarded as having violated its neutrality by tolerating trade in contraband of war.

– Permission freely to purchase food even upon account of a belligerent power is not regarded as a serious concession towards that State, provided that the permission is general, applying alike to both parties.

– A neutral State may not permit the war-ships of a belligerent power to run into its ports or (with any other object than to procure provisions, water, coal, etc.) to traverse its sounds, rivers and canals.

– Belligerent powers are bound fully to respect the right of peace of the neutral States, and to abstain from any invasion of their territories.

– Where a violation of neutral territory has taken place from ignorance of the boundary and not from evil intent, the neutral State shall immediately claim redress, compensation, and the adoption of measures necessary to prevent a similar mistake in future.

15

See in respect of this act, "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, Part iii. p. 243 Leipzig, 1846.

16

See Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, in the above-named collection, Part iv. p. 575.

17

Respecting the correspondence on this question, see the remainder of "Archives diplomatiques," 1871-72.

18

Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97.

Since the European States have settled into their present grouping, the material preponderance of the great powers over the smaller countries has more and more diminished the possibility of these defending their external liberty and independence by military power only.

There are States whose whole male population cannot equal or barely exceed the number, which a great power can command for its fully equipped army.

In olden time, a small high-spirited people might with success fight against a greater and more powerful neighbour. In consequence of the weak organization, the feeble spirit of cohesion and the slightly developed art of war, it was then possible.

Now this condition is changed. As a rule we find that the military strength of a State is in direct proportion to its population and material wealth.

The consequence is that the smaller States have virtually ceased to be belligerent powers. Such examples as Germany's proceeding against Denmark in 1864, and England's against Egypt in 1882, or in general, when the stronger State only needs to consider how large a portion of its forces must be employed to accomplish its object, are not to be considered as wars, but as military executions.

As to our own country (Sweden), it certainly has, together with Norway, an advantage in its situation above other small powers. But it concerns us that we utilize this advantage with wisdom and at the right time. This is not to be done by turning Sweden into a military State, because even if we did so to the greatest possible extent, we should, if left to ourselves, not even so be in a condition to defend ourselves against our powerful neighbours.

In proportion as a nation exhausts its resources by military preparations, its ability lessens to cope with an over-powering enemy.

In our day, not only are great and well-disciplined hosts required for carrying on war, but great material riches are equally indispensable. The relation between a nation of four or five millions, and one of forty or fifty millions, is like that between the dwarfs and the giants.

It is easily understood that patriotic feelings may bewilder the judgment, and that our nation, with its brilliant war memories, can only with difficulty perceive this simple truth, and with reluctance accommodate itself to the changed condition which modern times have created.

Let us, however, realize that we are standing at the parting of the ways; that we have before us the alternative, on the one hand, of a barren and ruinous militarism; on the other, the seeking of our defence in a neutrality guaranteed by the united powers; making it possible for us to get our defence adjusted, without any very great difficulty, and settled upon a footing so satisfactory.

The first-named alternative would, in our naturally poor land, excessively depress our natural vitality, and in a great degree prevent our progress as a cultured people keeping pace with greater and wealthier nations. The second would put us into a position to confine our military burdens within reasonable limits, and to expend the powers and resources of prosperity thus relieved, in means of promoting business, trade, science, and well-being of all kinds.

The clear-sighted friend of his country, who sees the population in ever-swelling numbers leaving their homes for a foreign shore, seeking a new fatherland, will surely not hesitate in his choice.

It will perhaps be said that such a choice does not now lie before us. There are two opinions about that. But in one thing we may all unite, namely, that a settled neutrality for Sweden is a thing to be aimed at. Here almost every interest of the fatherland converges.

But if such a neutralization is considered by many not a sufficient peace-protection under all circumstances, yet no one with reason can deny that it does form a security for our country against foreign powers.

Accepting this conclusion as correct, it follows that we should find some practicable means of realizing it; and if hindrances do meet us, we shall, on nearer inspection, find that they are not great, but with hearty goodwill and perseverance may be overcome.

This is my conviction.

In drawing attention to the subjoined, I would further bring to mind that the seat of war in Europe is limited in the proportion in which the number of neutralized States grows, a condition of things which may little by little in an essential degree impede or prevent the outbreak of war; that the peculiar situation of Sweden (greatly superior, for example, to Belgium or Switzerland) must naturally facilitate its neutralization; that, lastly, the neutrality proposed does not stand in the way of arranging our own defence, but that rather, in case Parliament rejects his Majesty's army bill, adapts itself powerfully to contribute to a right solution of the Defence question; and so much the more, as all suspicion that that old vexed question aims perhaps at something more and other than defence of the country would thereby disappear.

For this reason – and since we cannot expect that other powers should take the first step and offer us what we do not ask for – I respectfully propose: —

That Parliament shall in writing express to the king its desire that it might please his Majesty to initiate, amongst the states with which Sweden has diplomatic relations, negotiations for bringing about a permanent guaranteed 42 neutrality of Sweden, in harmony with the principles of modern international law.

K.P. Arnoldson.

Stockholm, February, 1883.

This motion was supported by —

S.A. Hedlund,

Will. Farup,

J. Andersson, Tenhuset,

J.E. Ericsson, Alberta,

Per Persson,

F.F. Borg,

J. Jonassen, Gullahs,

C.J. Sven's,

A. Th. Waylen's,

P.M. Larson, LA,

P.G. Peterson,

Arvid Gumœlius,

J. Jonassen,

Eric Olsson,

J.A. Ericsson,

Lars Nilsson,

C.G. Otterborg.

19

Taken from the following communication:

At a meeting, March 31st, 1883, of the Association of members of the Storting, a document was presented, being a motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, respecting the Neutralization of Sweden; which document was sent to the president of the meeting by a Swedish M.P.

In consequence of this the following declaration and resolution was voted unanimously: Recognising that the neutralization of a single country is in the interest of universal peace; that being secured from foreign attack by stronger nations, gives ability to use its own resources and develop its institutions, including its defence, according to its special requirements; that the condition and situation of our country give equal opportunity for working for this object, and facilities for its attainment; and that the action taken in the Swedish Rigsdag upon the question, seriously calls our attention to it on the ground of the constitutional relation between the kingdoms and their union in war and in peace; a committee is requested to take into consideration, how the question may be subjected to further attention.

A. QUAM, Secretary of the Association.

20

Protocol of the Second Chamber, № 33, April 28th, 1883.

21

See on the dealing with the question in Parliament, "Riksdagstrycket" 1883. Motion in the Second Chamber, No. 97, pp. 1-8; First Chamber, protocol No. 33, pp. 3-4, etc., etc.

22

Mr. Arnoldson's speech ran thus: —

"The second speaker on the Right propounded certain difficulties, amongst others, one referring to Sweden's union with Norway. Since Sweden and Norway have the same foreign policy, and the initiative in this question comes from Sweden, the Union King ought certainly to be able to act freely in the common interest of the two kingdoms. In any case, it is probable, as Mr. Hedlund remarked, that if the Riksdag takes the first step it will not be long before the Storting comes to meet us. It was chiefly on the ground of courtesy that I did not undertake to speak for Norway too in the Riksdag. We know that the Norse – and it does them honour – are tenacious of their right of deciding for themselves. I do not think it would be seemly for the mover of such a resolution as this to make himself their spokesman in the Swedish Riksdag – not to mention the positive incorrectness of the proceeding. This is why I limited the matter to Sweden in my proposition."

23

"Revue de droit international et de Legislation comparée," 1888, 2.

24

The most important provisions of the treaty are the following: —

Article 1. The Suez Canal shall always be free and open whether in time of war or peace, for both merchant and war-ships, whatever flag they carry. The treaty-powers therefore decide that the use of this canal shall not be limited either in time of peace or war. The canal can never be blockaded.

Article 4. No fortifications which can be used for military operations against the Suez Canal, may be erected at any point which would command or menace it. No points which command or menace its entrance or course may be occupied in a military sense.

Article 5 provides that, although the Suez Canal shall be open in war-time, no belligerent action shall take place in its vicinity or in its harbours, or within a distance from its area which shall be determined by the international committee that watches over the canal.

Article 6 is a continuation of the foregoing and runs thus: In time of war none of the belligerent powers are permitted to land, or to take on board, ammunition or other war material, either in the canal or in its harbours.

Article 8. The powers are not allowed to keep any warship in the waters of the canal. But they may lay up war-ships in the harbours of Port Said and Suez to a number not exceeding two of any nation.

Article 9. The representatives in Egypt of the powers who signed the treaty shall be charged with seeing to its fulfilment. In all cases where free passage through the canal may be menaced, they shall meet upon the summons of the senior member to investigate the facts. They shall acquaint the Khedive's Government with the danger anticipated, that it may take the measures needful to secure the safety and unimpeded use of the canal. They shall meet regularly once a year to ascertain that the treaty is properly observed. They shall most especially require the deposition of all works and dispersion of all collections of troops which on any part of the area of the canal might either design or cause a menace to the free passage or to the security thereof.

Article 10 treats of the obligations of the Egyptian Government and runs thus: —

The Egyptian Government shall, so far as its power by firman goes, take the measures necessary for enforcing the treaty. In case the Egyptian Government has not adequate means it shall apply to the Sublime Porte, which will then consult with the other signatories of the London treaty of March 17, and with them make provision in response to that application.

Article 14 sets forth: Beyond the duties expressed and stipulated for in the paragraphs of this treaty, the sovereign rights of his Imperial Majesty the Sultan are in no way curtailed, nor are the privileges and rights of his Highness the Khedive as defined by the firman.