American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


<ul><li><p>American and British Claims Arbitration TribunalAuthor(s): Chandler P. AndersonSource: The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 1921), pp. 266-268Published by: American Society of International LawStable URL: .Accessed: 19/05/2014 00:04</p><p>Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms &amp; Conditions of Use, available at .</p><p> .JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact</p><p> .</p><p>American Society of International Law is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toThe American Journal of International Law.</p><p> </p><p>This content downloaded from on Mon, 19 May 2014 00:04:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p></p></li><li><p>266 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW </p><p>of Continental over British practice. It was apparently in keeping with arbitral procedure, in which awards bind only the parties and are limited to the case. It was the natural consequence of making a resort to the court depend upon a special agreement of the parties defining the issue to be submitted to the court. It is out of place, it is believed, in a court with a jurisdiction, however limited, and it is a final indication on the part of the great Powers that, after all, only the things possible in 1907 stood a chance of being accepted in 1920. The large Powers had the choice between judicial procedure in the project drafted by the Advisory Com- mittee, and arbitral procedure in the draft convention of 1907 for the Court of Arbitral Justice. They preferred the latter. They have given to the Court of Arbitral Justice a permanent personnel, so that it does not need to be constituted anew for each case. They have allowed, however, the States which prefer a court of justice to a court of arbitration to ex- press their preference by adopting alternative procedure. In so doing, they have no doubt safeguarded their own interests, for they were appar- ently thinking of themselves. They have, however, and in this they are to be commended, allowed the experiment to be tried by those who wish to do so. The future will decide which method is to prevail.* </p><p>JAMES BROWN SCOTT. </p><p>* A composite showing the project as originally drafted by the Advisory Committee of Jurists and as modified by the Council and by the Assembly of the League of Nations is printed as an appendix to the Proceedings of the Executive Council of the Society for 1920. </p><p>AMERICAN AND BRITISH CLAIMS ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL </p><p>The Governments of the United States and Great Britain being desirous that certain pecuniary claims outstanding between them should be referred to arbitration, in accordance with the provisions of the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, signed the Pecuniary Claims Agreement at Washington on August 18, 1910.1 This agreement provided for the appointment of an arbitral tribunal to hear and decide the cases submitted, which cases were to be included in schedules agreed to by the two governments. </p><p>The first schedule2 of claims to be submitted to the Tribunal was signed July 6, 1911. It contained about four hundred claims. These claims were divided into four classes, as follows: </p><p>Class I. Claims based on alleged denial in whole or in part of real property rights. </p><p>Class II. Claims based on the acts of the authorities of either Govern- ment in regard to the vessels of the nationals of the other Government, </p><p>'Printed in this JOURNAL, Supplement, Vol. 5 (1911), p. 257. 2 Ibid., p. 261. </p><p>This content downloaded from on Mon, 19 May 2014 00:04:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p></p></li><li><p>EDITORIAL COMMENT 267 </p><p>or for the alleged wrongful collection or receipt of customs duties or other charges by the authorities of either Government. </p><p>Class III. Claims based on damages to the property of either Govern- ment or its nationals, or on personal wrongs of such nationals alleged to be due to the operations of the military or naval forces of the other Govern- ment or to the acts or negligence of the civil authorities of the other Government. </p><p>Class IV. Claims based on contracts between the authorities of either Government and the nationals of the other Government. </p><p>The agreement and schedule of claims were ratified by an exchange of notes between the two Governments on April 26, 1912. </p><p>Sir Charles Fitzpatrick was appointed arbitrator on the part of Great Britain, and Mr. Chandler P. Anderson, arbitrator on the part of the United States. These two national arbitrators chose M. Henri Fromageot of France, as umpire. </p><p>The Arbitral Tribunal, so constituted, held its first meeting in Wash- ington in May, 1913, and an adjourned meeting in Ottawa, Canada, in June, 1913. At this session the following cases were argued: Lindisfarne and Canadienne (claims of Class II); Union Bridge Company and Hard- man (claims of Class III); and King Robert and Yukon Lumber (claims of Class IV). On June 18, 1913, the Tribunal announced its awards3 in the cases of Lindisfarne, Hardman, Yukon Lumber and King Robert. </p><p>The tribunal held its next session in Washington, March-May, 1914, when the following cases were argued: Studor (claim of Class I); Coquit- lam, Favourite, Wanderer, Kate, Lord Nelson, Eastry, Newchwang, Sidra, Thomas F. Bayard, Jessie, Pescawha, Frederick Gerring, David J. Adams, Tattler, Argonaut and Jonas H. French (claims of Class II); Home Mis- sionary Society, Great Northwestern Telegraph Co. and Cadenhead (claims of Class III); and Hemming (claim of Class IV). On May 1, 1914, the Tribunal announced its awards4 in the cases of Canadienne, Cadenhead, Frederick Gerring, Great Northwestern Telegraph Co., Eastry, and Lord Nelson. </p><p>The Tribunal then adjourned to meet abroad in July, 1914, for the discussion and preparation of the awards in the remaining cases argued and submitted at the previous sessions of the Tribunal, with the exception of the case of Union Bridge Companiy in which a reargument had been ordered. Owing to the outbreak of war while the Tribunal was at work on these cases, it was prevented from completing these awards, and during the war it was found impossible for the Tribunal to meet and continue this work. </p><p>It was subsequently arranged, however, between the two Governments that without a formal meeting of the Tribunal, awards should be rendered </p><p>3Printed in this JOURNAL, Vol. 7 (1913), p. 875. 41bid., Vol. 8 (1914), p. 650. </p><p>This content downloaded from on Mon, 19 May 2014 00:04:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p></p></li><li><p>268 THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW </p><p>in all cases awaiting decision, in which the awards had been drafted and discussed by the Tribunal prior to the outbreak of the war, and pursuant to this arrangemenit the awards 5 of the Tribunal in the cases of Coquitltam, Home Missionary Society, Tattler and Hemming were announced by M. Fromageot at Paris oni December 18, 1920. It is expected that awards in several of the other cases which were under discussion by the Tribunal in 1914 will shortly be announced under this same arrangement. </p><p>Arrangements are in contemplation between the two Governments for a meeting of the Tribunal for the purpose of preparing the awards in the other cases already argued and for hearing the remaining cases included in the above-mentioned schedule of claims. </p><p>The resumption of the work of the American-British Claims Arbitra- tioI1 Tribunal is a welcome indication of the progress toward normalcy in the settlement of international controversies by the rule of law and jus- tice in place of force and politics. </p><p>CHANDLER P. ANDERSON. </p><p>5 Printed at page 292. </p><p>THE A ALAND ISLANDS QIJESTION </p><p>The submission to the League of Nations of the Aaland Islanlds dispute between Sweden and Finland, has been given considerable publicity for purposes of propaganda, but the interestinig problems involved in the dispute have been given but slight attention. </p><p>The main uncontested facts in the case are as follows: The Aaland Islands are situated at the entrance of the Gulf of Bothnia, and are sepa- rated from Sweden by about 50 kilometers, and from Finland by about 70. They are about 300 in number, with an area of approximately 1,442 square kilometers, and a population of 25,000 inhabitants, almost entirely Swe- dish. The islands eonitain many excellent harbors for big ships. </p><p>Until the year 1809, except for a short period of Russian domination at the beginning of the Eighteenth Century, the Aaland Islands were part of the Kingdom of Sweden. They were then conquered by Russia and incorporated, with Finiland, into the Russian Empire. By the Treaty of Paris in 1856 the islands were "demilitarized," that is to say, in the inter- ests of Sweden and otlher niations of Europe, it was forbidden to fortify these strategic is]ands. Russia saw fit, however, during the recent war to fortify them without protest from either her allies or adversaries. </p><p>Finland declared its indepenldence as a niation on the 15th of Novem- ber, 1917; was formally recognized by the Soviet Government of Russia on the 4th of January, 1918, and by the Swedish Government on the same date. It appears that as early as the 20th of August, 1917, delegates of the cominunes of the Aaland Islands assembled at Finstrom and decided </p><p>This content downloaded from on Mon, 19 May 2014 00:04:55 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions</p><p></p><p>Article Contentsp. 266p. 267p. 268</p><p>Issue Table of ContentsThe American Journal of International Law, Vol. 15, No. 2 (Apr., 1921), pp. 149-348The Administration of Justice in the Swiss Federal Court in Intercantonal Disputes [pp. 149-188]The Nature of American Territorial Expansion [pp. 189-197]Enemy Goods and House of Trade [pp. 198-231]Editorial CommentThe Foreign Policy of the United States [pp. 232-234]Charles Evans Hughes--The New Secretary of State [pp. 234-235]The Costa Rica-Panama Boundary Dispute [pp. 236-240]The First Assembly of the League of Nations [pp. 240-252]The Treaty of Rapallo [pp. 252-255]The Federation of Central America [pp. 255-259]The Permanent Court of International Justice [pp. 260-266]American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal [pp. 266-268]The Aaland Islands Question [pp. 268-272]Sakuyei Takahashi [pp. 272]</p><p>Chronicle of International Events [pp. 273-288]Public Documents Relating to International Law [pp. 289-291]Judicial DecisionsAmerican and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal: In the Matter of H. J. Randolph Hemming [pp. 292-294]American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal: In the Matter of the Home Missionary Society [pp. 294-297]American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal: In the Matter of the Tattler [pp. 297-301]American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal; In the Matter of the Coquitlam [pp. 301-304]</p><p>Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 305-306]Review: untitled [pp. 306-307]Review: untitled [pp. 308-309]Review: untitled [pp. 309-312]Review: untitled [pp. 312]Review: untitled [pp. 312-316]Review: untitled [pp. 316-322]Review: untitled [pp. 323-325]</p><p>Book ReviewwReview: untitled [pp. 325-328]Review: untitled [pp. 328-331]Review: untitled [pp. 331-333]</p><p>Book ReviewsReview: untitled [pp. 333-335]Review: untitled [pp. 336-337]Review: untitled [pp. 337-340]</p><p>Periodical Literature of International Law [pp. 341-348]</p></li></ul>


View more >