Constitution al difficulties regarding the There are however constitutional difficulties in some states, notably the United States of America, which stand in the way of the ratification of a Convention to submit the judgment of a establishment National Final Court of Appeal to an International Tribunal. The question was raised at the Naval Conference held in London, Dec. 1908-Feb. 1909, and with a view of solving the problem, the delegates included in the Protocole de Clôture signed on the 26th February, 1909, the following Vou: of the Court. "The delegates of the Powers represented at the Naval Conference, which have signed or have expressed the intention of signing the Hague Convention of the 18th October, 1907, for the establishment of an International Prize Court, taking into consideration the difficulties of a constitutional nature which, as regards certain states, stand in the way of the ratification of that Convention in its present form, agree to call the attention of their respective Governments to the advantage of concluding an arrangement under which the said states would, at the time of the deposit of their ratifications, have the power to add thereto a reservation to the effect that the right of recourse to the International Prize Court in connection with the decisions of their National Courts, shall take the form of a direct claim for compensation, provided, however, that the effect of this reservation shall not be such as to impair the rights guaranteed by the said Convention either to individuals or to their Governments, and that the terms of the reservation shall form the subject of a subsequent understanding between the signatory Powers of the same Convention1.” The explanation of the situation by M. Renault at the meeting of the Conference on the 25th February, 1909, which was confirmed by RearAdmiral Stockton, one of the United States delegates, was the following. The working of the International Prize Court is not reconcilable with the constitutions of some states; the decisions of National Prize Courts cannot be annulled by foreign decision in certain countries, such as the United States of America. Recourse to the International Prize Court might have the effect of annulling a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, a conclusion which is incompatible with their constitution. The United States Delegation has therefore endeavoured to find a way out of the difficulty. When there is a complaint with reference to a decision of a Prize Court of their country, application shall be made to the International Prize Court to obtain compensation on account of an alleged illegal capture. The Court would decide the case 1 Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 4 (1909), p. 71; Ibid. Misc. No. 5 (1909), pp. 222, 379. de novo, and if it came to the conclusion that the prize was illegal it would award compensation to the party injured. In this way national decisions will be respected. But the essential object of the establishment of the International Prize Court would be attained, by allowing a party interested to be protected against unjust decisions of a national tribunal. According to the Vou, the delegates are to point out to their Governments the advantage there will be in arriving at an agreement of a kind to dispel the difficulties of a constitutional nature which face some of them. It is a question of attaining the same end under another form; instead of annulling a decision, the International Court will award compensation. The result however remains the same: the individual affected will be able to obtain a new trial which will in the end do him justice. The method is different, that is all. In order to attain the object desired by the United States, it will be necessary to modify the Prize Court Convention in this sense that the signatory states can, on ratifying, reserve to themselves the right of recourse to a procedure different from that which is provided for by this Convention; only the 31 signatory Powers1 will be able to decide on these modifications if they all agree. The United States Government will be able, after the Conference, to make a proposal in accordance with the spirit of the Vou, and this proposal must be accepted by the whole of the signatory states2. 1 There are now 33 signatory Powers; Great Britain and Japan signed the Prize Court Convention after the conclusion of the International Naval Conference. 2 Parl. Papers, Misc. No. 5 (1909), pp. 222–3. XIII. NEUTRAL RIGHTS AND DUTIES IN MARITIME WAR. XIII. Convention concernant les Droits et les Devoirs des Sa Majesté l'Empereur d'Allemagne, Roi de Prusse ; &c.1 1 En vue de diminuer les divergences d'opinion qui, en cas de guerre maritime, existent encore au sujet des rapports entre les Puissances neutres et les Puissances belligérantes, et de prévenir les difficultés auxquelles ces divergences pourraient donner lieu; Considérant que, si l'on ne peut concerter dès maintenant des stipulations s'étendant à toutes les circonstances qui peuvent se présenter dans la pratique, il y a néanmoins une utilité incontestable à établir, dans la mesure du possible, des règles communes pour le cas où malheureusement la guerre viendrait à éclater; Considérant que, pour les cas non prévus par la présente Convention, il y a lieu de tenir compte des principes généraux du droit des gens; Considérant qu'il est désirable que les Puissances édictent des prescriptions précises pour régler les conséquences de l'état de neutralité qu'elles auraient adopté ; XIII. Convention respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral His Majesty the German Emperor, King of Prussia; &c.1 With the view of harmonizing the divergent views which, in the event of naval war, still exist as to the relations. between neutral Powers and belligerent Powers, and of providing for the difficulties to which such divergence of views might give rise; Seeing that even if it is not possible at present to concert measures applicable to all circumstances which may arise in practice, there is nevertheless an undeniable advantage in framing, as far as may be possible, rules of general application to meet the case where war has unfortunately broken out; Seeing that in cases not covered by the present Convention, account must be taken of the general principles of the law of nations; Seeing that it is desirable that the Powers should issue specific enactments regulating the consequences of the status of neutrality whenever adopted by them; 1 List of States as in Final Act, 1907. Considérant que c'est, pour les Puissances neutres, un devoir reconnu d'appliquer impartialement aux divers belligérants les règles adoptées par elles ; Considérant que, dans cet ordre d'idées, ces règles ne devraient pas, en principe, être changées, au cours de la guerre, par une Puissance neutre, sauf dans le cas où l'expérience acquise en démontrerait la nécessité pour la sauvegarde de ses droits; Sont convenus d'observer les règles communes suivantes qui ne sauraient, d'ailleurs, porter aucune atteinte aux stipulations des des traités traités généraux existants, et ont nommé pour Leurs Plénipotentiaires, savoir: [Dénomination des Plénipotentiaires.] Lesquels, après avoir déposé leurs pleins pouvoirs, trouvés en bonne et due forme, sont convenus des dispositions suivantes : ART. 1. Les belligérants sont tenus de respecter les droits souverains des Puissances neutres et de s'abstenir, dans le territoire ou les eaux neutres, de tous actes qui constitueraient de la part des Puissances qui les toléreraient un manquement à leur neutralité. ART. 2. Tous actes d'hostilité, y compris la capture et l'exercice du droit de visite, commis par des vaisseaux de guerre belligérants dans les eaux territoriales d'une Puissance neutre, constituent une violation de la neutralité et sont strictement interdits. Seeing that there is a recognized obligation on neutral Powers to apply to the several belligerents impartially the rules adopted by them; and Seeing that it is in conformity with these ideas that these rules should not, in principle, be altered, in the course of the war, by a neutral Power, except in a case where experience has shown. the necessity for such change for the protection of the rights of that Power; Have agreed to observe the following common rules, which cannot, however, modify provisions of existing general Treaties, and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries, that is to say: [Names of Plenipotentiaries.] Who, after having deposited their full powers, found to be in good and due form, have agreed upon the following provisions :-- ART. 1. Belligerents are bound to respect the sovereign rights of neutral Powers and to abstain, in neutral territory or neutral waters, from any act which would, if knowingly permitted by any Power, constitute a violation of neutrality. (Cp. 5 H. C. 1907, Art. 1.) ART. 2. Any act of hostility, including therein capture and the exercise of the right of search, committed by belligerent war-ships in the territorial waters of a neutral Power, constitutes a violation of neutrality and is strictly forbidden. |