Toutefois, les Soussignés émettent l'opinion: Que les Puissances Signataires de la Convention de La Haye du 29 Juillet, 1899, prennent en sérieuse considération la question ci-dessus traitée, en tenant compte de la grande différence existant entre le cas où les fonctions d'Agent, Conseil, ou Avocat se cumulent avec les fonctions de membre de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage au bénéfice de l'État qui l'a nommé, et l'autre cas où ces fonctions d'Agent, de Conseil, ou d'Avocat sont acceptées par un membre de la Cour Permanente au profit d'un État étranger. ARTICLE 3. En vertu de l'Article 29 de la Convention de La Haye, "les frais du Bureau International de La Haye seront supportés par les Puissances Signataires dans la proportion établie pour le Bureau International de l'Union Postale." Les ressources qui, conformément à cet Article, sont mises à la disposition du Bureau International suffisent strictement pour couvrir les dépenses ordinaires du Bureau et de son personnel. Mais il n'a aucun fonds de réserve pour faire face aux dépenses extraordinaires et non prévues dans son Budget annuel. Cependant chaque recours des Puissances à la Cour Permanente, afin de constituer un Tribunal d'Arbitrage, occasionne des dépenses imprévues. L'Article 57 de la Convention de La Haye impose à chacune des Parties en litige de supporter ses propres frais et une part égale des frais du Tribunal. Ces frais de l'arbitrage sont réglés à la fin de la procédure arbitrale conformément à l'Article ci-dessus ou bien en exécution de la sentence arbitrale prononcée. Cependant il y a des dépenses-quelquefois même très considérables--qui s'imposent tant avant que pendant le procès, et pour lesquelles le Bureau International qui, d'après l'Article 22 de la Convention, sert de greffe au Tribunal d'Arbitrage, ne dispose d'aucunes ressources. Ainsi, la question de l'opportunité de publier régulièrement des compte rendus sténographiés des plaidoiries s'est-elle présentée cette fois avec insistance, et les Soussignés sont d'avis qu'il aurait été très désirable que les débats eussent été sténographiés en Anglais et en Français. Certaines parties avaient, à la vérité, engagé des sténographes pour leur compte, et elles ont bien voulu faire part de ces rapports aux membres du Tribunal, mais ces communications ont été forcément incomplètes et irrégulières. Il est évident que cet état de choses est peu digne du Tribunal d'Arbitrage et très peu convenable pour les Arbitres et même les parties intéressées. En vue de ces considérations, les Soussignés émettent le vœu : Qu'avant la signature du Compromis, par lequel le litige est référé au jugement du Tribunal d'Arbitrage, les Puissances en litige fixent une certaine somme, qui sera immédiatement mise à la disposition du Bureau International, pour couvrir les dépenses nécessitées par la marche de l'arbitrage. Il est évident que cette somme devrait être incluse dans les frais du Tribunal d'Arbitrage, dont la répartition aura lieu en vertu du Compromis ou de la Convention de La Haye du 29 Juillet, 1899. Tels sont, M. le Ministre, les quelques vœux et observations que nous avons l'honneur de soumettre à votre haute appréciation, avec la respectueuse demande de les faire parvenir à toutes les Puissances Signataires de la Convention de La Haye pour le Règlement Pacifique des Conflits Internationaux. Veuillez agréer, M. le Ministre, l'assurance de notre très haute considération. A son Excellence M. le Baron Melvil de Lynden, (Signé) M. MOURAWIEFF. MARTENS. Sub-Annexe 1. Gentlemen, The Hague, September 3, 1903. Our great anxiety to render any service in our power to the continued usefulness of the High Tribunal whose administrative business has been confided to your hands, and our conviction that such usefulness is in great danger of being inadvertently imperilled, is our excuse for addressing to you this communication. As Venezuela has no diplomatic Representative at the Court of Her Majesty the Queen of the Netherlands, we are obliged to address this communication directly to you. If Venezuela were so represented, we should, of course, address you through the usual diplomatic channel. Your Excellencies are well aware, without any representations from us, of the very great interest taken by all the American Republics in the Court for whose successful administration you have become responsible. While the South American Republics were not invited to attend the Conference, they have acted with great promptness in availing themselves of the privilege the Powers afforded to them; and in pursuance of their uniform political history since they attained their independence, they are, we feel very sure, extremely anxious that this Court should fulfil the high expectations entertained of it as a great International Court of Arbitration and of Peace. To succeed in attaining that most desirable end, we beg to submit, with the greatest respect and deference, to your Excellencies that it will be necessary to preserve unimpaired the right of all independent nations, wishing to invoke the good offices of this High Court, to declare for themselves in what manner they are willing to avail themselves of such offices. It follows, therefore, that the stipulations into which they enter as between themselves, and which they make obligatory as to adhering parties, must be regarded as final and conclusive, and must consequently be duly respected. It is not necessary that we should point out to your Excellencies how fatal it would be to the future usefulness of this Tribunal if, after the parties proposing to invoke its good offices have themselves defined the conditions upon which those offices are invoked, they find on arriving at The Hague that their stipulations have been disregarded. In saying this we, of course, disclaim the slightest intention to impute any want of good faith to anybody, and our only desire is to guard against such misadventure as might result from an insufficient attention to the provisions of Protocols submitting the cause for arbitration. You will permit us the liberty of saying that, entertaining these views, we have been disappointed in not finding a strict observance of both the letter and the spirit of the provisions of the Protocols dated the 7th May, regulating the arbitration between Great Britain, Germany, and Italy and Venezuela. These Protocols contain certain stipulations, without which it is due to frankness to declare the cause would not have been submitted to this Court. The first of these which it is at present necessary to consider is the one offering to any creditor nation of Venezuela the privilege of joining in the arbitration. It is only necessary to read the language of the provision itself to see that no doubt whatever can arise as to the obligation of any creditor nation availing itself of that privilege to do so subject to the provisions of the Protocols themselves. It seems to us the orderly procedure would have been for the Secretary-General to have recorded the names of the Representatives of the parties to the Protocols, and then have stated what other nations had adhered to the Protocols in accordance with their provisions in the order of time of such adherence-recording only the names of any Representatives of any nation which had so adhered. The other provision in the Protocols, respect for which is equally indispensable, is that which declares "the proceedings shall be carried on in the English language." There is not the slightest ambiguity about these words; but to our surprise the first step in the proceedings was the issuance of a formal notice to counsel in the French language. No doubt this was a mere inadvertence, and we have no desire to lay any stress upon it, and what followed were probably also inadvertences, but they were none the less violations of this provision of the Protocols. care. In requesting that respect be paid to this provision of the Protocols, we think we are asking what is unquestionably in the interest of the Tribunal committed to your The English language is prescribed in the Protocols as the official language of the proceedings; and surely, therefore, it becomes the duty of the International Bureau of the Tribunal, when such Protocols are filed with it, to respect their provisions in that regard. In saying this we are well aware that the 38th Article of the First Convention of The Hague Conference provided: "The Tribunal shall decide upon the choice of the language used by itself or to be authorized for use before it"; but that provision is a part of the third chapter on arbitral procedure, and is subject to the preceding 30th Article, which provides that, "With a view to encouraging the development of arbitration, the Signatory Powers have agreed upon the following rules, which shall be applicable to the arbitral procedure, unless the parties have agreed upon different Regulations"; and the whole chapter on arbitral procedure is subject to the preceding 20th Article, providing for the organization of the Court, which declares that, "with the object of facilitating immediate recourse to arbitration for international differences which could not be settled by diplomatic methods, the Signatory Powers undertake to organize a Permanent Court of Arbitration accessible at all times, and acting, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties, in accordance with the rules of procedure included in the present Convention." It will, therefore, be seen that the members of the Conference, in their anxiety to induce parties to submit their disputes to this Court, not only once, but twice, emphatically, and in unmistakeable terms, invited the parties to such arbitration to regulate the procedure themselves. It happened, however, that, notwithstanding this anxiety on the part of the members of the Conference, the parties to the first arbitration here did not avail themselves of their right to designate the language to be used in their Protocol, and all five of the distinguished Arbitrators in that cause united in earnestly advising that all future Protocols should determine the language to be used. They said: "The Undersigned deem it necessary to bring the attention of the Governments in litigation to the necessity of arriving at an agreement beforehand with regard to the language they may desire the discussions before the Court to take place iu. It is absolutely necessary that the point be made clear prior to the commencement of the labour of the Tribunal, in order that the selection of the Agent and Counsel may be made with a view to their knowledge of the language in which the pleadings before the Arbitrators are to be made. The necessity of translating for the use of the Counsel the speeches made before the Tribunal inevitably provokes a great loss of time. In view of these observa tions it is desirable That the choice of Agent and Counsel before the Arbitral Tribunal be made in conformity with the wishes of the Powers in litigation as to the language to be used before the Tribunal; and That future Compromises shall state the desire or decision of the Contracting Powers in this regard. When the present Protocols were being prepared the parties were confronted with that earnest recommendation, which had the unanimous concurrence of the eminent international Jurists then composing the Arbitral Tribunal: Mr. Henning Matzen, Sir Edward Fry, M. de Martens, M. Asser, and M. de Savornin Lohman. In conformity with that unanimous recommendation on the part of those distinguished members of the Permanent Court, the Protocols now on file with the Secretary-General were framed; and the Protocols clearly contemplated the appointment of Arbitrators whom the Counsel should address in the language that had been agreed upon by the parties, and Venezuela was governed by this consideration in the selection of her Counsel. Your Excellencies will therefore appreciate that it is not in any narrow or exclusive spirit or with a desire to make the slightest technical objection that we feel constrained to invoke respect for that provision of the Protocols not only as our undoubted right, but also as a condition precedent to our usefulness as Counsel for Venezuela. There is another grave matter of administration, which, as friends of the Permanent Court, and deeply interested in its future usefulness and success, we feel obliged to bring to your serious attention. It relates to the objections which inevitably arise to the appearance of members of the Permanent Court as Counsel at its Bar. Those objections seem to us so obvious as to require mere mention, and we content ourselves. with alluding to only two of them. Such persons, owing to their presumed acquaintance with other members of the Tribunal in advance of its meeting and of their presumed fitness to express weighty opinions upon questions of international law, as attested by their appointment upon the Permanent Court might be supposed to possess certain advantages over Counsel not so situated, and this conviction might lead litigants to suppose that a proper protection of their interests required them to retain some member of the Court as Counsel in a given case. The second objection is even more seriousthat suspicion might attach itself to the proceedings before the Court, and that a decision in favour of a member of the Court acting as Counsel in one instance might exert some weight when the gentleman who was Counsel yesterday and received a favourable decision is himself a Judge to-day, and the Judge of yesterday is appearing as Counsel before him. While we are aware that it is not within your competence to decide this question, yet having in view the unmeasured importance of the subject to the prestige and high reputation of the Court, and the growing esteem for it among all civilized nations, we feel that you will agree with us that we are perfectly justified in entering this our solemn protest against permitting a practice which would assuredly impair the reputation of the Permanent Court for disinterestedness and impartiality. We beg to repeat that we proffer these suggestions to your Excellencies in absolute loyalty to the spirit which prompted His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of Russia to request the assembling of The Hague Conference, and with an earnest desire to contribute whatever influence we may possess to the continued growth in usefulness in the world of the principle of international arbitration. Respectfully yours, (Signed) WAYNE MACVEAGH, To their Excellencies the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Counsel for Venezuela. M. le Secrétaire-Général, Sub-Annexe 2. The Hague, September 30, 1903. With reference to your Excellency's letter of the 7th instant, communicating a list of the documents received by the International Bureau of the Court of Arbitration in regard to the Tribunal instituted by virtue of the Agreements signed at Washington on the 7th May last by the Representatives of Great Britain, Germany, Italy, and Venezuela, I have the honour to acquaint you that the attention of His Majesty's Government has been drawn to the fact that M. Renault, who is one of the members of the Permanent Court, has been appointed to act as leading Counsel for the French Government in the arbitration now before the Court. The question whether the members of the Court should be permitted to appear as Advocates before the Tribunal is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, one of great and general importance. They concur in the opinion, which has already been expressed by the leading Venezuelan Counsel, Mr. MacVeagh, in his letter to the Administrative Council of the 3rd instant, that the practice is open to very great objection. It appears to them of the utmost importance that the impartiality of the members of the Court, who may be called upon to act as Judges, should remain beyond all possibility of suspicion, and the force of the objections to their acting as Advocates is greatly increased by the fact that the number of possible litigants is limited, while the questions to be decided will constantly affect the interests of a large number or even of all these litigants. It follows that, unless precautions are taken to guard against such a contingency, members of the Court will continually find themselves called upon to deal as Judges with the interests of those who have been their clients in the not remote past, or may become their clients in the not remote future. It will be remembered that this point was discussed at the Peace Conference, and that similar views were then expressed, but it was not thought advisable, at that time, to lay down a rule on the subject. In the very first case, however, which came before The Hague Tribunal, namely, "the Pious Fund of the Californias," the Mexican Government appointed as their Advocate one of the members of the Permanent Court, and the Government of the United States subsequently adopted a similar course in the same case. The precedent thus created and the fact that M. Renault proposes to act as Counsel on the present occasion make it, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, desirable that the matter should now be reconsidered, and that formal objection to such a practice should be recorded on their part. In accordance with the instructions of His Majesty's Government, I have therefore to make a formal protest against the appointment of a member of the Permanent Court to act as Counsel in the present arbitration. I am at the same time instructed to state explicitly that this protest is recorded on purely general grounds, and that His Majesty's Government entertain the most implicit belief and confidence in M. Renault's personal fairness and impartiality, which indeed permits them with less hesitation to call attention to the matter at the present time. I need hardly add how fully I desire to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by my Government in this regard. While asking you to be kind enough to bring this communication to the knowledge of the Administrative Council and also of the Tribunal at the earliest opportunity, I avail myself of this opportunity to renew to your Excellency the assurance of my highest consideration. (Signed) Son Excellence M. Ruyssenaers, Secrétaire-Général de la Cour Permanente d'Arbitrage. HENRY HOWARD. Sub-Annexe 3. M. le Secrétaire-Général, La Haye, le 3 Novembre, 1903. Je n'ai pas manqué de transmettre à mon Gouvernement la lettre qui a été adressée, le 30 Septembre dernier, à votre Excellence par Sir Henry Howard, pour être communiquée aux membres du Conseil Administratif de la Cour Permanente, ainsi qu'aux membres du Tribunal Arbitral qui siège actuellement à La Haye. Dans cette lettre, M. le Ministre de la Grande-Bretagne déclare que, conformément aux instructions de son Gouvernement, il proteste contre la désignation d'un membre de la Cour d'Arbitrage pour agir comme Conseil dans le présent arbitrage. Cette protestation a paru au Gouvernement de la République comporter dès maintenant d'expresses réserves de sa part. C'est après un examen attentif de la question que le Gouvernement de la République a désigné M. Louis Renault pour le représenter devant le Tribunal Arbitral chargé de statuer sur le litige né à propos des réclamations contre le Vénézuéla. Il a estimé, et il estime encore, que cette désignation est conforme à son droit et que personne, surtout parmi les autres plaideurs, n'a qualité pour la contester. D'après l'Article 37 de la Convention du 29 Juillet, 1899, "les parties ont le droit de nommer auprès du Tribunal des Délégués ou Agents spéciaux avec la mission de servir d'intermédiaire entre elles et le Tribunal. . . . Elles sont, en outre, autorisées à charger de la défense de leurs droits et intérêts devant le Tribunal des Avocats ou Conseils nommés par elles à cet effet." Ce texte laisse aux parties la plus entière liberté quant au choix de Délégués ou Agents spéciaux, Conseils ou Avocats. Il n'établit aucune incompatibilité et, par suite, il y a lieu de se demander à quel titre une partie serait fondée à faire des observations sur la façon dont une autre partie a pourvu à la représentation de ses intérêts. Il convient de remarquer aussi qu'une question d'incompatibilité avait été soulevée dans les discussions qui ont préparé la Convention de 1899, et il n'est pas indifférent de connaître les vues qui avaient été émises à ce sujet. D'après le Rapport fait au nom du Comité d'Examen par le Chevalier Descamps, Sir Julian Pauncefote, M. Lammasch, et Mr. Holls ont estimé qu'il était important d'établir une incompatibilité générale entre les fonctions de membre de la Cour Permanente et celles d'Agent spécial ou d'Avocat près cette Cour, "en faisant exception seulement pour le cas où il s'agit, pour un membre de la Cour, de représenter comme Avocat ou Agent spécial le pays qui l'a nommé." ("Recueil des Actes de la Conférence de la Paix," I, p. 133.) Ainsi, les membres du Comité d'Examen qui allaient le plus loin dans le sens de l'incompatibilité, et parmi lesquels figurait le Premier Délégué de la Grande-Bretagne, faisaient exception pour le cas où un membre de la Cour représenterait le pays même qui l'a nommé, ce qui est le cas de M. Louis Renault. Dans le litige des "Fonds Pieux des Californies," jugé l'année dernière à La Haye, les deux parties, les États-Unis et le Mexique, ont pris comme Conseils deux membres de la Cour d'Arbitrage, MM. Beernaert et Descamps, qui n'étaient pas leurs nationaux. Aucune observation n'a été soulevée à ce sujet. |