Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:56:22.564Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Restrictive Clauses in International Arbitration Treaties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2017

Amaro Cavalcanti
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The above is the title of a very instructive article in this Journal for April, 1913, by Dr. Hans Wehberg, who points out and analyzes the special grounds for the different reservations contained in several arbitration treaties concluded up to the present time, with the suggestion that such reservations might henceforth be restricted merely to two, that is to say, the exceptions of “vital interests” and “national honor.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , October 1914 , pp. 723 - 737
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1914

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Vol. 7, page 301.

2 The same classification as adopted by Dr. H. Wehberg.

3 This Journal, April, 1913, p. 306.

4 This Journal, Vol. 7, p. 307.

5 Beside the convention for the peaceful settlement of international differences through the practice of arbitration, of mediation and good offices, the First Hague Conference also voted unanimously the following Declaration: “The Conference is of the opinion that the restriction of military charges, which are at present a heavy burden on the world, is extremely desirable for the increase of the material and moral welfare of mankind.”

The Second Hague Conference not only adopted a new convention for the peaceful settlement of international differences, but also another declaration recognizing the principle of obligatory arbitration, and further, that certain differences, namely, those concerning the interpretation and the application of treaty stipulations, are, without reservation, referable to obligatory arbitration. Also a new Declaration relating to the reduction of military charges, as voted by the First Conference, was reaffirmed by the Second Hague Conference.

6 These views concur with those expressed in the Review of Reviews for February, 1914, on the same subject. On this side of the Atlantic, Chile, since the First International American Conference, has steadily dissented from any proposition respecting compulsory arbitration, because, it is said, of her occupation of Tacna and Arica.

7 See Review of Reviews for February, 1914, p. 106.

8 In this Journal, January, 1913, p. 163 et seq.

9 Ibid., p. 165.

10 During the meeting of the Third International American Conference at Rio de Janeiro, 1906, which I had the honor of attending as a delegate of Brazil, I had occasion to suggest a clause on this subject as follow:

“Arbitration is the ordinary way of settling international differences, which it might not have been possible to settle by diplomacy; consequently, no state can declare war or carry on any act of hostility without previously offering to settle the difference by arbitration and the offer has been refused.

“A state which proceeds to the contrary will have no right to require a third state to keep entirely neutral regarding the said contention.”

Amaro Cavalcanti, Terceira Conferencia International Americana, Trabalhos, p. 86.