Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2016
The Hague Conference of 1899 was the first to address the need for a permanent body for the settlement of differences between states. The ensuing Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes entered into force in 1900. At the second Hague Conference in 1907 the provisions of the 1899 Convention were expanded in a new convention of the same title which entered into force in 1910. These conventions established the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which in reality is neither “permanent” nor a “court” but rather a panel of persons, up to four being named by each participating state, from which arbitrators can be selected.
1 For a description of the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conferences, see Cory, , Compulsory Arbitration of International Disputes 41 and 69–80 (Columbia University Press, 1932)Google Scholar; Ralston, , International Arbitration from Athens to Locarno 253–63 (Stanford University Press, 1929)Google Scholar ; Rosenne, , The World Court: What It is and How It Works 14–19 (3d ed. Oceana, 1973)Google Scholar, “International Disputes: The Legal Aspects,” 103–5 (Europa Publications, 1972); Scott, , The Hague Court Reports (Oxford University Press, 1916)Google Scholar, introduction and comparison of texts ; for the Conference proceedings and documents, see Scott, , The Hague Conventions and Declarations of 1899 and 1907 (3d ed. Oxford University Press, 1918)Google Scholar, and The Proceedings of the Hague Conferences (4 volumes) (Oxford University Press, 1921).
2 Text appears in British State Papers 91/970, British Treaty Series 1901/9, United States Treaty Series 392 and Treaties and Agreements Affecting Canada in Force between His Majesty and the United States of America (Ottawa: Department of External Affairs, 1927).
3 Text appears in British Treaty Series 1971/6 and British State Papers 100/298.
4 For a study of the Court, see François, “La Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage, son origine, sa jurisprudence, son avenir,” 87 Recueil des Cours 461 (1955) ; also, “International Disputes: The Legal Aspects,” op. cit. supra note 1, at 108–13; for a list of the current members of the Court, see the annual Rapport du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage.
5 Canada’s willingness to be bound by this Convention was confirmed by its inclusion in the official publication Treaties and Agreements Affecting Canada in Force between His Majesty and the United States of America (1927).
6 It is true that a number of states, including Canada, continue at law at least to be bound by the 1899 Convention and that the two conventions are thus in force for differing groups of states. In practice, however, according to Hudson, “the provisions of the 1907 Convention are usually applied by interested States, whether they are parties to the earlier or to the later convention”: see International Tribunals Past and Present 158 (Carnegie Endowment and Brookings, 1944). This was certainly the case on the part of the United Kingdom and Canada. The 1909 Anglo–American Boundary Waters Treaty contains a provision that in the case of equal division among the commissioners, the matter in dispute is to be referred to an umpire chosen in accordance with the procedure set out in Article 45 of the 1907 Hague Convention. The 1909 Anglo–American North Atlantic Fisheries Arbitration Agreement provided that the members of the tribunal were to be chosen from the general list of members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in accordance with Article 45 of the 1907 Convention and that, subject to certain conditions, the proceedings of the tribunal were to be governed by the Convention. The 1910 Anglo–American Pecuniary Claims Agreement also provided for the appointment of the tribunal in accordance with the 1907 Convention, this time with Articles 59 and 87.
7 Statement by the Hon. Howard Green before the Standing Committee on External Affairs, March 31, 1960, published in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 1 and reprinted in 12 External Affairs 598 (1960); see also, “International Justice: Permanent Court of Arbitration and International Court of Justice,” ibid., 774.
8 Department of External Affairs Press Release No. 40 of April 17, 1978; Canada’s first members, appointed with effect from July 21, 1960, were the Hon. R. A. Ritchie of the Supreme Court of Canada; Professor J.–Y. Morin of the University of Montreal; Mr. Marcel Cadieux, Deputy Under Secretary and Legal Adviser, Department of External Affairs; and Mr. A. H. Ray, Q.C., a practitioner of Vancouver. Its second appointments, from October 1, 1967, were the Hon. D. C. Abbott of the Supreme Court of Canada; Professor P. A. Crépeau of McGill University; Mr. Marcel Cadieux, Q.C, Under Secretary of State for External Affairs; and Mr. A. H. Jeffrey, Q.C., a practitioner of London, Ontario.
9 For a tabular summary of these matters, see the annual Rapport du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente d’Arbitrage. Although there is no express provision in the Hague Conventions for commissions of conciliation, the Secretary General of the Permanent Court of Arbitration was asked in 1937 to put the facilities of the Bureau at the disposal of such a commission which, after seeking the approval of the contracting parties, he did: see François, supra note 4, at 535–38. For an account of the Court’s jurisprudence, see François, ibid., 479–537, and of the cases up to 1925, see Ralston, op. cit. supra note 1, at 263–98. According to Hudson, of the 500 members appointed up to World War II, only 28 had been called upon to serve as arbitrators, op. cit. supra note 6, at 159.
10 Cory, op. cit. supra note 1, at 69–81.
11 There was in fact some renewed interest in the Parmanent Court of Arbitration after World War II and a United States proposal in 1953, in the interests of economy, to amalgamate the secretariats of the International Court and Permanent Court was successfully resisted on the grounds that it would lead sooner or later to the abandonment of the Permanent Court, a prospect that was unwelcome to several European states. As indicated earlied, there were several initiatives in those years to breathe new life into the Court, one of these being a study dated March 3, 1960 by the Bureau focussing on the characteristics that made the Permanent Court distinctive from the International Court of Justice and on possible modifications to its procedures. For a comparative study of contemporary arbitration and judicial settlement, see Sohn, “The Function of International Arbitration Today,” 108 Recueil des Cours 1 (1963). More generally, see “International Disputes: The Legal Aspects,” op cit. supra note 1, at 101–27.
12 Although the term “national groups” is not to be found in the Hague Conventions, the Statutes of both the Permanent Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice have provided for the nomination of candidates “by the national groups of the Permanent Court of Arbitration.” Prior to the appointment of the first Canadian members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in 1960, ad hoc national groups had been appointed in 1945, 1948, and 1954 for this purpose as provided in Article 4 of the Statute. The 1954 group was composed of the Hon. Mr. Justice Ivan C. Rand of the Supreme Court of Canada, Dean Cecil A. Wright, Q.C., of the University of Toronto School of Law, Mr. M. W. Wershof, Q.C., Legal Adviser of the Department of External Affairs, and Mr. F. Philippe Brais, Q.C., a practitioner of Montreal.
13 In conjunction with G. A. Res. 1991 A (XVIII) of December 17, 1963, providing for the enlargement of the Security Council to 15 members, agreement was reached on a geographic pattern of representation which constitutes the current interpretation of the concept of “equitable geographic distribution,” provided for in Article 23 of the Charter: see Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 1, at 44–49.
14 Fitzmaurice, , “Enlargement of the Contentious Jurisdiction of the Court,” in Gross (ed.), The Future of the International Court of Justice 461, 467 (Oceana, 1976).Google Scholar
15 Anand, “The Role of International Adjudication,” in ibid., 1, 9–10; Rosenne, “The Composition of the Court” in ibid., 377; Gross, “The International Court of Justice: Consideration of Requirements for Enhancing Its Role in the International Legal Order,” 65 Am. J. Int’l L. 253 (1971), reprinted in Gross (ed.), The Future of the International Court of Justice 48 (Oceana, 1976) ; for a tabular survey of judges by geographic region and by qualification, see annexes to the article by Gross.
16 Rosenne, “The World Court,” op. cit. supra note 1, at 49–53; Anand, , Studies in International Adjudication 84–94 (Oceana, 1969)Google Scholar; Gross, “The International Court of Justice” in Gross (ed.), The Future of the International Court of Justice 53 (Oceana, 1976).
17 For a description of the procedures followed by the United States national group, see Baxter, “Procedures Employed in Connection with the United States Nominations by the International Court in 1960,” 55 Am. J. Int’l L. 445 (1961) ; for an account of the Australian process, see “Rules and Procedures Governing Elections of Judges of the International Court of Justice,” 52 Aust. L.J. 230 (1978).
18 For a description of the election procedures, see the Memorandum by the Secretary General, A/33/221 S 12828 of September 1, 1978; also Rosenne, op. cit. supra note 1, at 51–55.
19 United Nations Press Release GA/5868, October 31, 1978.
