Suchergebnisse

The General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed at Geneva, September 26, 1928, is intended to provide for the final settlement of every dispute, of whatever nature it may be. Chapter II is evoted to legal disputes, while Chapter III, Articles 21-28, lays down rules concerning the settlement of non-legal disputes. This idea of a recourse to arbitration for the settlement of purely political conflicts, which Chapter III puts forward, may appear to be inconsistent with a long evolution which has tended to emphasize the judicial character of arbitration. It is true that occasionally states have submitted such conflicts to an arbitral tribunal, but it is for the first time that a provision to this effect has been inserted in a multipartitetreaty. A treaty of this kind has a legislative character and exercises a great influence upon the development of international law. The importance of the General Act is all the greater since some twenty states, including three great Powers, have already ratified it. This treaty, which may be compared only to the Hague Convention,could largely contribute to a revision of the common conception of arbitration. Does it attempt to do so, or is it rather intended to leave this conception unchanged and to create a new method of pacific settlement? In either case, how should the new conception of arbitration be defined? Since purely political disputes cannot be settled by the application of a rule of law, are the powers of the tribunal unlimited? These questions deserve closer consideration, especially since the relevant provisions of Chapter III of the General Act have already inspired certain opinions which, it is believed, are not only contrary to the true meaning of this treaty, but also,if generally adopted, would destroy the very foundations of international arbitration. Now, one of the essential ideas underlying the General Act is not to impair in the least what has already proved useful, but to develop the existing means for the pacific settlement of disputes. Chapter III constitutes an important step forward. Its evolutionary character and its exact meaning can best be realized in the light of the practice of statesand of the jurisprudence of arbitral tribunals.

On August 6, 1924, nearly six years after the Armistice of Mudros, the state of war which had existed in the Near East since 1914 was terminated as between Turkey, on the one hand, and the British Empire, Italy and Japan, on the other hand, by the drawing up of the first procès-verbal of the deposit at Paris of the ratifications of the settlement concluded at Lausanne on July 24,1923. The state of war between Greece and Turkey had already been terminated a year ago, pursuant to the settlement of Lausanne, and under the terms of the same settlement the Allied forces of occupation had been withdrawn from Turkish territory; the prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey, respectively, had been mutually restored; the compulsory exchange of certain portions of the Greek and Turkish populations had been effected; and a general amnesty for political offenders had been declared. The portions of the settlement brought into force by the recent ratifications are the Treaty of Peace, the Straits Convention,the Commercial Convention and the Convention respecting Jurisdiction and the Conditions of Residence and Business. Certain instruments which did not require ratification, including the Declarations relating to Sanitary Matters and to the Administration of Justice and the Protocol and Declaration relating to Concessions, may now also be expected to be given practical effect.