4 See 2 Supplement this Journal, 28; Scott’s Texts of Hague Conferences, pp. 139–140.

3 See 4 Journal, 1012; Annuaire de la Vie Internationale, 1908–0, 1910–11, and La Vie internationale, 1912.

4 See 5 Journal, 210 and 448, and Yearbooks of the Endowment.

5 See 4 Proceedings, 27 and 193; 5 ibid., 19, 312, 320.

6 See H. Doc. 1343, 62d Cong., 3rd Sess.; La Revue juridique intemationale de la Locomotion aerienne and 4 Journal, 696.

7 The table subjoined deals only with official organizations. The writer has aimed to make a careful distinction between those organizations which owe their existence to the initiative or the support of the nations themselves and those which are purely private in character, or mixed in membership. Government supported organizations are called official; those containing representatives of private societies and which are also given official standing are called mixed; and those which are entirely the result of private initiative are called private. Mixed organizations have generally been excluded unless their character was preponderantly official.

The following is a summary of the analysis made:

VOTING POWER

State Unit. Hague Conference, 1899 and 1907; Pan American Conference 1889–90, 1902, 1906 and 1910; Universal Postal Union, 1869, with colonies separate; International Radiotelegraphic Conferences, 1906 and 1912, with colonies up to five; Universal Telegraphic Conference, 1875 on, with colonies and proxy allowed; International Weights and Measures Conference, 1875 on, with colonies separate; Central American Conference, 1907; Red Cross Central Committee, 1864; Geneva Conference, 1906; International Conference on Literary and Artistic Property, 1884 and 1885; Kongo régime, 1885; International Geodetic Association, 1864 (rules 1897); International Association of Seismology, 1903, proxy allowed; International Exploration of the Sea, 1899, each state two delegates; International Sugar Union Convention, 1902; International Sugar Union Commission; International American Conference, 1826; International Conference on Expositions, 1912, with colonies separate. Total, 18.

Representatives. Brazilian proposal for Court of Arbitral Justice, 1907; Central American Bureau, 1907; International Sanitary Convention, 1903; Cape Spartel Lighthouse Commission, 1866; International Sugar Union Commission, 1902, with reduction for non-exporters. Total, 5.

Flexible Panel. Court of Arbitral Justice proposal (final majority vote), 1907; International Prize Court, 1907; Latin Monetary Union, 1885, based on population; International Geodetic Association, 1864 (rules 1897), based on population; International Association of Seismology, 1903, based on population. Total, 5.

Majority of Delegates. Red Cross Conference (rules of 1892, for meetings of Red Cross workers, official and private). Total, 1.

EXPENSE BASIS

Voluntary Expense Units. Permanent Court of Arbitration, 1899 and 1907; Chinese proposal for Court of Arbitral Justice, 1907; Permanent Bureau of Hague Court, 1899; Universal Postal Union, 1869, with colonies separate; International Telegraphic Bureau, 1868, with colonies separate; International Institute of Agriculture, 1905, with colonies separate; International Sanitary Office, 1907; International Literary and Artistic Property Bureau, 1884–5; International Industrial Property Bureau, 1887. Total, 10.

Equality of Expenses. Brazilian proposal for Court of Arbitral Justice, 1907; Central American Bureau, 1907; Riverain Commission of the Rhine, 1814, 1831, 1868; Zanzibar Bureau for Repression of Slave Trade, 1895. Total, 4.

Expense Units Based on Size. Bureau of Pan American Union, 1902, 1906 and 1910, population; International Bureau of Weights and Measures, 1875, population times coefficients varying for obligatory and optional members; Bureau for Publication of Customs Tariffs, 1890, commerce; International Sanitary Supervisory Board, 1907, based on voluntary quota paid for maintaining Sanitary Office; Central Office of International Transports, 1892, kilometers of railroad; Pan American Bureau of Literary and Artistic Property, 1906, population; Toll Regime on River Scheldt, capitalization on extent of use. Total, 7.

8 The following is the discussion upon this rule of the conference (Actes et Documents, I, 56; cf. Foreign Relations, 1907, 1147):

Art. 8. When a vote is taken each delegation shall have only one vote.

The vote shall be taken by roll call, in the alphabetical order of the Powers represented.

The delegation of one Power may have itself represented by the delegation of another Power.

Sir Edward Fry said that the British delegation was opposed to the third paragraph of Art. 8. He thought that the conference is a deliberative assembly and that consequently a delegation which has not taken part in the deliberations ought not to take part in the voting.

Baron Marschall von Bieberstein (Germany) declared his full acceptance of the British view; he was of the opinion that a delegation which desired to vote ought to be present.

Léon Bourgeois (France) observed that, if he understood correctly the idea of the bureau, this paragraph was designed to give material facilities to the work. But he thought that an interest should be manifested in the sittings of the conference in that respect, and that the paragraph should disappear.

The President consulted the conference upon the suppression of Par. 3, Art. 8. Art. 8, Pars. 1 and 2 were adopted, and Par. 3 suppressed.

9 Regulations of April 26, 1906, printed in Minutes, Resolutions, Documents, Third International American Conference, 1906, Rio de Janeiro, 1907, pp. 11–21.

10 See “Fourth International Conference American Republics,” by Paul S. Reinsch, 4 Journal, 778, 782, and his Public International Unions, pp. 102–105; S. Doc. 744, 61st Cong., 3rd Session, 32ff.

11 See title “equality” in any manual on international law. Inequalities in ceremonial matters, weight of influence, interference in political matters, etc., are numerous. The Near East is frequently subject to dictation from the “great Powers,” although Turkey, Greece and the Balkan states are nominally sovereign. The United States frequently enforces its will on Central and South American states, despite their alleged equality. See Wilson & Tucker, 5th edition, 97; Bonfils, 5th edition,. §§ 272–8; 1 Moore, Digest of International Law, §§ 62–3; etc.

12 The states to which the principle of rotation was acceptable were: Germany, United States, Argentina, Bulgaria, Chile, Cuba, Spain, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan, Luxemburg, Montenegro, Norway, Paraguay, Netherlands, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Servia, Siam, Sweden and Turkey. The states which either abstained or reserved as to the principle of equal representation were: Belgium, Bolivia, Brazil, China, Colombia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Greece, Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Persia, Roumania, Salvador, Switzerland, Uruguay, Venezuela.

13 In the final vote on the International Prize Court Convention, Ruy Barbosa made this statement: “The Brazilian delegation, which has applauded the principle and organization of the International Court of Prize, will vote against the project of this court because of the reasons of evident and incontestable injustice against our country which we explained on many occasions without refutation in any part in the comité d’examen and in the First Commission.”

14 Supplement, 3:330, Foreign Relations, 1906, 1519, and Annvaire de la Vie Internationale, 1908–1909, 275.

15 Rapport de Gestion, 1909, 2.

16 5 Journal, 482; 6 ibid, 216, 739, 990; 7 ibid, 612

17 La Vie internationale, II, 293–306, passim, and 7 Supplement, 229. Signatories and adherents to the 1912 convention are noted in 7 Journal, 869. See also S. Doc, 63d Cong., 1st Sess. Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kongo, Egypt, French West Africa, French Equatorial Africa, Indo-China, Madagascar, Tunis, the Union of South Africa, the Australian Federation, Canada, British India, New Zealand, Morocco, the Dutch Indies and Curacao were separately represented, the other non-sovereigns being represented by delegations jointly with their métropoles.

The conference in that year was a preliminary one, and perhaps for that reason colonial participation in it was significant.

19 See “Non-Sovereign Representation in Public International Organs” by Denys P. Myers, Deuxiéme Congrés mondial des Associations internaiionales, 753–802.

20 Forty separate colonies or combinations of colonies are members of the Universal Postal Union, according to the last available annual report. This would indicate considerable change in the list, though another and probable explanation is furnished by Art. 18 of the réglement which provides for dependencies which are considered as forming part of their métropoles.

21 Annuaire de la Vie Internationale, 1908–1909, 320.

22 British Treaty Series, No. 8, 1899, page 41.

23 This is, to my knowledge, the first instance of such differentiation in respect to an international convention. Separate colonial adherences to British, French, German and American bipartite treaties are now customary and are very numerous in the case of multipartite conventions. This custom gives color to the argument advanced here that multiple representation is likely to hinge on giving non-sovereign entities separate representation.

24 It may be recalled that the same distinction was made in the official reports of the First Hague Conference in the case of Bulgaria.