No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The United States-Panama General Claims Commission
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 April 2017
Extract
Since the reasoned decisions of international arbitral tribunals are tending constantly to influence, in larger degree, the development of a sound body of international law, a broad interest naturally attaches to the decisions resulting from any such general claims arbitration as that of the Governments of the United States and Panama which was concluded on June 30, last.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 1934
References
1 This arbitration was conducted in pursuance of the General Claims Convention which was concluded between the two governments on July 28, 1926, ratifications of which were exchanged on Oct. 3,1931 (U. S. Treaty Series No. 842; this journal, Supplement, Vol. 27, p. 38), and a supplemental convention of Dec. 17,1932, ratifications of which were exchanged on March 25, 1933 (U. S. Treaty Series No. 860). The Commission met, for organization purposes, on Oct. 3, 1932, with the following personnel: Presiding Commissioner, Dr. Miguel Cruchaga Tocornal, Chilean Ambassador to the United States; American Commissioner, Joseph R. Baker, Assistant Legal Adviser of the Department of State; Panamanian Commissioner, Horacio F. Alfaro, Minister of Panama. Dr. Cruchaga retired in October, 1932, to become Minister for Foreign Affairs of Chile. The Commission rendered no decisions during his presidency, but re-convened in March, 1933, with the following personnel: Presiding Commissioner, Baron Daniel Wigbold van Heeckeren, of Holland; American Commissioner, Elihu Root, Jr.; Panamanian Commissioner, Dr. Horacio F. Alfaro.
2 See, in this connection, article by Prof. Jesse S. Reeves, this journal, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 486.
3 Docket Registry No. 26.
4 Publication of League of Nations, No. C. 74. M. 39. 1929, V, p. 78 el seq.
5 Docket Registry No. 11.
6 There were two Denham cases; reference is to Docket Registry No. 3.
7 Docket Registry No. 16.
8 Docket Registry No. 17.
9 (a) See the Sir William Peel and other cases, Moore's Arbitrations, p. 3935 et seq.; The Peterhoff case, ibid., p. 3838; The Georgia, ibid., p. 3957; The Hiawatha, ibid., p. 3902; The Circassion, ibid., p. 3911; The Springbok, ibid., p. 3928; Hale's Report of American- British Arbitration of 1871-73, pp. 93, 100, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115, 117, 128, 136, 139, 141; and this journal, Vol. 3 (1909), p. 535. (b) See The Brigantine Betsy, Moore's International Adjudications (Modern Series), Vol. 4, p. 179; The Sally, ibid., pp. 306, 443, 459; The Farmer, ibid., p. 348; The Nancy, ibid., p. 483; and British Parliamentary Paper, Misc. No. 1. (1912), Cd. 6011, p. 19. (c) General Claims Convention of Sept. 8, 1923, between the Governments of the United States and Mexico (U. S. Treaty Series No. 678; this journal, Supplement, Vol. 18, p. 147), Art. I. (d) General Claims Convention of July 28, 1926, between the Governments of the United States and Panama, loc. (At., Art. I. (e) Protocol of Jan. 20, 1931, between the Governments of the United States and Egypt, providing for the arbitration of the Salem claim; Dept. of State, Arbitration Series, No. 4 (1), p. 29.
10 The Banks case, Docket Registry No. 4; the Noyes case, Docket Registry No. 5; the Denham case, Docket Registry No. 6; the Richeson case, Docket Registry No. 7; the Gust Adams case, Docket Registry No. 8; and the Baldwin case, Docket Registry No. 9.
11 For discussions of international liability in this class of cases, see: The Janes Case, Opinions of the Commissioners, American-Mexican Claims Commission (1927), p. 108; this Jottbnal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 516; Vol. 22 (1928), p. 140; Eagleton, The Responsibility of States in International Law, pp. 194-197; Dunn, The Protection of Nationals, pp. 175-182; British Year Book of International Law, 1928, pp. 42-49.
12 See Ralston, The Law and Procedure of Arbitral Tribunals, rev. ed., Sec. 473; the Janes case, loc. cit.; the Moses Moke case, Moore's Arb., p. 3411; the De Brissol case, ibid., pp. 2949, 2971; the Jean Maninat case, Ralston's Reports (1906), p. 44; the Martha Ann Austin case, Opinions of the Commissioners, United States-Mexican Claims Arbitrations (1931), p. 108; Eagleton, op. cit., p. 190; Dunn, op. cit, p. 182.
13 One of those involved in the Richeson case, supra.
14 Docket Registry No. 19.
15 Docket Registry No. 18.
16 Opinions, 1931, p. 53; this journal, Vol. 25 (1931), p. 380.
17 Opinions, 1927, p. 158, this journal, Vol. 21 (1927), p. 571.
18 Moore's Arbitrations, pp. 2995-2996 at seq.
19 Pages 193-194.
20 Docket Registry No.
21 Docket Registry No. 20.
22 Docket Registry No. 1.
23 Docket Registry No. 10.
24 For other discussions touching the subject of the application of the principle of equitable estoppel in international law, see Decision of the Arbitrator in the claim of the United States on behalf of P. W. Shufeldt v. The Republic of Guatemala, Dept. of State, Arbitration Series, No. 3, pp. 57-69 and 869-870, this journal, Vol. 24 (1930), p. 799; the Hemming case, Nielsen's Report of American-British Claims Arbitration, p. 620, this journal, Vol. 15 (1921), p. 292; the Trumbull case, Moore, Arb., 3569; Norwegian-Swedish Arbitration, this journal, Vol. 4 (1910), p. 233; Case of Serbian Loans, Publication of P. C. I. J., Series A, No. 20, pp. 38, 39; Norwegian-Danish Arbitration, ibid., series A/B, No. 52, pp. 68-69; Fachiri, Permanent Court of International Justice, 2d ed., pp. 103, 293; Lauterpacht, Private Law Sources and Analogies of Int. Law, pp. 203-206, 224, 232-233, 253, 254, 259,260, 267-269, 280, 292; Witenberg, “vestoppel, Un aspect juridique du probltme des criances amiricaines,” Journal du Droit International, May-June, 1933, p. 529.
25 Docket Registry No. 24.
26 The Banks, Noyes, Richeson and Baldwin cases, supra.
27 The Casselli and Monteverde cases, supra.
28 The Noyes case, Docket Registry No. 5, and the Mariposa case, Docket Registry No.15.