Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:20:43.544Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Codification of International Arbitral Procedure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 April 2017

Kenneth S. Carlston
Kenneth S. Carlston*
Affiliation:
University of Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Some years ago the author took occasion to review the role of international arbitration in the postwar world, concluding with the suggestion that the work of refining its technique and usefulness should continue to be pressed.Specific tasks to which such work might be directed were earlier suggested in the author's study, The Process of International Arbitration, including the task of preparation of “draft arbitration conventions and procedural rules which, with such further refinements in each individual arbitration as may be required, could serve as a basis for future arbitration proceedings.” It was further pointed out that: “The voluminous body of decisions of international tribunals must be brought together in an ordered system which will enable them to be later readily found by tribunals and advocates.”

Type
Research Article
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 47 , Issue 2 , April 1953 , pp. 203 - 250
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1953

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 K. S. Carlston, “International Arbitration in the Postwar World,” Missouri Law Review, Vol. 13 (1948), p. 133 at p. 142.

2 K. S.Carlston, The Process of International Arbitration (New York, 1946), p. 261 (hereinafter cited as “Carlston”).

3 Id., p. 264.

4 U. N. Pub. Sales No. 1949.V. 3. The exhaustive compilation of A. M. Stuyt, Survey of International Arbitrations 1794–1938 (The Hague, 1939, hereinafter cited as “Stuyt”), must of course be remembered in this connection.

5 U. N. Pub. Sales Nos. 1948.V. 2.; 1949. V. 1; 1949.V. 2; and 1951. V. 1.

6 U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/6, March 7, 1949.

7 U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/18, March 21, 1950.

8 Report of the International Law Commission covering its Second Session 5 June–29 July 1950, General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 12 (A/1316), pp. 18–21; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 44 (1950), pp. 140–145.

9 U. N. Doc. A/CN.4/46, May 28, 1951.

10 Report of the International Law Commission covering the Work of its Fourth Session 4 June-8 August 1952 (A/2163); this Journal, Supp., Vol. 47 (1953), pp. 1-28. Messrs. Hudson (United States), Kozhevnikov (U.S.S.R.), and Zourek (Czechoslovakia) voted against the draft as a whole.

11 M.Domke, “Arbitration in Inter-Governmental Economic Relations,” Arbitration Journal (New Series, 1952), Vol. 7, p. 73.

12 Senate Execs. Q & R, 82d Cong., 2d Sess.; Department of State Bulletin, Vol. 26, No. 676 (June 9, 1952), pp. 889–890.

13 64 Stat. 12, 22 U.S.C.A.Secs. 1621–1627; this Journal, Supp., Vol. 45 (1951), p. 58.

14 15 Fed. Reg. 8675–8678 (1950).

15 Projet de règlement pour la procédure arbitrale Internationale, Arts. 12 and 15, Annuaire de l’Institut de Droit International (1877), Vol. 1, p. 126 at pp. 129, 130 (hereinafter cited as “Projet, 1875”).

16 Arts. 49, 74, respectively, J. B. Scott, Reports to the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (Oxford, 1917), pp. 40 and 304 (hereinafter the Hague Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes of 1907 and its source will be cited as “Hague Convention of 1907”).

17 League of Nations Treaty Series, Vol. 93, p. 343.

18 U. N. Treaty Series, Vol. 71, p. 102.

19 Pan American Union, Law and Treaty Series, No. 24.

20 Op. cit. (supra, note 2) at pp. 4–5, particularly note 3; see generally in this connection id., at pp. 29–30.

21 Op. cit. (supra, note 2); see also Carlston, “Procedural Problems in International Arbitration,” this Journal, Vol. 39 (1945), p. 426.

22 Id., Sec. 2.

23 Infra, Rules of Procedure, Art. 39.

24 Revised General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Apr. 28, 1949, Art. 22, U. N. Treaty Series, Vol. 71, p. 102 (hereinafter cited as “Revised General Act”).

25 United Nations, Systematic Survey of Treaties for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 1928–1948 (U. N. Pub. No. 1949. V. 3), p. 89 (hereinafter cited as “Systematic Survey”).

26 E.g., Art. 26, Treaty with Bulgaria, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 42 (1948), p. 193.

27 A. H. Feller, The Mexican Claims Commissions 1923–1934 (New York, 1935), p. 317 (hereinafter cited as “Feller”).

28 Art. 2, Statute of the I. C. J., Series D, No. 1 (2nd ed., 1947) p. 37: “persons of high moral character, who possess the qualifications required in their respective countries for appointment to the highest judicial offices, or are jurisconsults of recognized competence in international law”; Art. 44, Hague Convention of 1907, p. 300: “persons … of known competency in questions of international law, of the highest moral reputation, and disposed to accept the duties of arbitrator”; Art. 40 (1), Pact of Bogotá, April 30, 1948, op. cit. (supra, note 19): “arbiter of recognized competence in questions of international law and of the highest integrity.”

29 The phrase “jurist of repute” is taken from the compromis in the Trail Smelter Arbitration, Convention of April 15, 1935, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 893. It is felt to be sufficiently broad to permit the greatest flexibility in making appointments, while sufficiently precise to ensure that an arbitrator of recognized competence is appointed.

30 A. Acremant, La Procédure dans les Arbitrages Internationaux (Paris, 1905), pp. 74 –75 (hereinafter cited as “Acremant”).

31 J. H. Ralston, The Law and Procedure of International Arbitral Tribunals (Stanford, 1926), p. 35 (hereinafter cited as “Ralston”); see Rules of Procedure, International Central American Tribunal, Ch. XII, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 17 (1923), pp. 96, 105.

32 See Projet, 1875, p. 129; Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 59, p. 303.

33 Report of the Agent for the United States, Department of State, Arbitration Series, No. 6 (Washington, D. C., 1934), p. 28.

34 Acremant, p. 119; O. Hoijer, La Solution Pacifique des Litiges Internationaux (Paris, 1925), p. 257; cf. Carlston, p. 170.

35 Projet, 1875, Art. 14, pp. 129–130.

36 A. Mérignhae, Traité Théorique et Pratique de l’Arbitrage International (Paris, 1895), pp. 252–254 (hereinafter cited as “Mérignhac”); see Acremant, pp. 119–120.

37 See Carlston, “Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Rumania, Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice,” this Journal, Vol. 44 (1950), p. 728.

38 E.g., Treaty of Trianon of June 4, 1920, Art. 239 (a), British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 113, pp. 599–600, involved in the Hungarian Optants case, Carlston, Secs. 37 and 56.

39 Revised General Act, Art. 23; Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 45, p. 300.

40 Pact of Bogotá, April 30, 1948, Art. 40, op. cit. (supra, note 19).

41 Projet, 1875, p. 128.

42 Statute, Art. 20, Rules of Court, Art. 5, Series D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), pp. 41, 56.

43 Acremant, pp. 105–106; but see Art. 2, Convention between the U. S. and Mexico of Sept. 8, 1923, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 678.

44 Supra, note 28.

45 Supra, note 29.

46 Supra, note 33.

47 Carlston, pp. 33–34.

48 J. B. Moore, History and Digest of the International Arbitrations to Which the United States Has Been a Party (Washington, D. C, 1898), Vol. 1, pp. 226–236.

49 Projet, 1875, Art. 18, p. 131; Mérignhac, p. 296; Carlston, p. 80.

50 Carlston, p. 159.

51 Id. at p. 158, and Sees. 46–50, for a discussion of the meaning of the terms “equity” and “ex aequo et bono”; see also M. O.Hudson, The Permanent Court of International Justice 1920–1942 (New York, 1943), pp. 615 –621.

52 H. Lauterpacht, The Function of Law in the International Community (Oxford, 1933).

53 Carlston, Sec. 41.

54 Id., Sec. 46.

55 Id., Sec. 6.

56 Ralaton, pp. 109–110, citing the St. Croix River case under the Jay Treaty and the Reserved Fisheries Claims with Great Britain; see Projet, 1875, Art. 21, p. 132; Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 78, p. 306.

57 Carlston, Secs. 13, 14.

58 Id. at Sec. 11; see Carlston, supra, note 37, as well as discussion in Report of the International Law Commission covering its Second Session 5 June-29 July 1950, General Assembly, 5th Sess., Official Records, Supp. No. 12, pp. 20–21 at par. 180 (U. N. Doc. A/1316); this Journal, Supp., Vol. 44 (1950), p. 145.

59 Such bodies are more properly known as “joint commissions.” See C. C.Hyde, International Law Chiefly as Interpreted and Applied by the United States (2d rev. ed., Boston, 1945), Vol. 2, p. 1644.

60 Supra, p. 204.

61 U. N. Charter, Art. 33, par. 1.

62 Carlston, pp. 25–26.

63 Op. cit. (supra, note 33), at p. 18.

64 See generally in this connection Witenberg, pp. 284–288.

65 Op. cit. (supra, note 33), at p. 25.

66 Carlston, Ch. 5.

67 Id., Sec. 80.

68 Carlston, Secs. 75, 76.

69 E.g., Art. 48, Pact of Bogotá, April 30, 1948, op. cit. (supra, note 19), at p. 23.

70 See D. V. Sandifer, Evidence before International Tribunals (Chicago, 1939), p. 297.

71 See generally in connection with the foregoing id,, Ch. 9, and Carlston, Secs. 75–79.

72 Carlston, Ch. 7.

73 Id., Secs. 85–87.

74 Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 77.

75 S. Rundstein, “La Cour Permanente de Justice Internationale comme instance de recours,” Académie de Droit International, Recueil des Cours (1943), Vol. 43, p. 109.

76 Projet, 1875, Art. 13, p. 129; Mérignhac, p. 144.

77 Ralston, p. 194.

78 Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 62, p. 303.

79 M. O. Hudson, International Tribunals Past and Future (Washington, D. C, 1944), p. 88.

80 I. C. J., Statute, Art. 42, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 48.

81 Ralston, p. 194.

82 M. O. Hudson, op. cit. (supra, note 79), at p. 87; of. Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 62: “The members of the Permanent Court may not act as agents, counsel, or advocates except on behalf of the Power which appointed them members of the Court.”

83 Carlston, p. 5, note 4.

84 Systematic Survey, pp. 115–116.

85 See M. O. Hudson, op. cit. (supra, note 51), at p. 9, note 44, for a statement of sums paid to arbitrators as compensation in various cases.

86 Agreement of Jan. 23, 1925, between the U. S. and The Netherlands, Art. 6, U. S. Treaty Series, No. 711.

87 J. B. Moore, A Digest of International Law (Washington, D. C., 1906), Vol. 7, p. 50.

88 Acremant, p. 81; Mérignhac, p. 241.

89 Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 60, p. 298.

90 Projet, 1875, Art. 8; Witenberg, p. 86.

91 E.g., Convention of Sept. 8, 1923, between the U. S. and Mexico (General Claims Commission), Art. 2, op. cit. (supra, note 43).

92 See Witenberg, p. 87; Convention of Sept. 8, 1923, between the U. S. and Mexico, Art. 2, op. cit. (supra, note 43).

93 Mérignhac, p. 243.

94 Witenberg, p. 91, citing remarks of M. Fromageot.

95 Mérignhae, p. 243.

96 Art. 46 of the Statute of the I. C. J. is believed to set forth the principles generally applicable in this connection: “The hearing in Court shall be public, unless the Court shall decide otherwise, or unless the parties demand that the public be not admitted.” Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 48.

97 Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 31, p. 298.

98 Cf. Art. 45, Eules of the British-Mexican Claims Commission under the Convention of Nov. 19, 1926, and Art. 41, Rules of the French-Mexican Claims Commission under the Convention of Sept. 25, 1924, Feller, pp. 497, 439, respectively.

99 Art. 59 (1) : “The minutes mentioned in Article 47 of the Statute shall include: the names of the judges present; the names of the agents, counsel or advocates present; the surnames, first names, description and residence of witnesses and experts heard; a brief record of the evidence produced at the hearing; declarations made on behalf of the parties; a brief record of questions put to the parties by the President or by the judges; any decisions delivered or announced by the Court during the hearing”; Art. 60 (1): “At each hearing held by the Court, a shorthand note shall be made under the supervision of the Registrar of the oral proceedings, including the evidence taken, and shall be appended to the minutes referred to in Article 59 of the present Rules.” Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 73; see Witenberg, pp. 97–99.

100 E.g., German-American Mixed Claims Commission under the Agreement of Aug. 10, 1922, Art. VII, this Journal, Supp., Vol. 17 (1923), pp. 133, 135–136; British-Mexican Claims Commission under Convention of Nov. 19, 1926, Rules of Procedure, Art. 53, French-Mexican Claims Commission under Convention of Sept. 25, 1924, Eules of Procedure, Art. 51, Feller, pp. 499, 440, respectively; U. S.-Panama General Claims Commission under the Convention of July 28, 1926, Eules of Procedure, Arts. 3, 5 and 6, op. cit. (supra, note 33), at p. 844.

101 Art. VII (f), loc. cit. (supra, note 100), at p. 136.

102 Feller, pp. 482, 499–500.

103 E.g., U. S.-Mexican General Claims Commission under the Convention of Sept. 8, 1923, Rules of Procedure, Art. II (2), Feller, pp. 351, 353; U. S.-Panama General Claims Commission under the Convention of July 28, 1926, Rules of Procedure, Arts. 9 and 10, op. cit. (supra, note 33), at pp. 844, 845.

104 Carlston, p. 20.

105 Lister et al. (Great Britain) v. Germany (1926), Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes (Paris, 1927), Vol. 6, pp. 34, 37.

106 Carlston, p. 7.

107 Ralaton, pp. 198–199. The terms “case,” “counter-case,” and “reply” are adopted in the Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 63, p. 304.

108 See generally in this connection Carlston, Secs. 3, 4.

109 Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 74, p. 305.

110 See Rules of the General Claims Commission, U. S. and Panama, under the Convention of July 28, 1926, Art. 21, op. cit. (supra, note 33), at p. 848.

111 Projet, 1875, Art. 17, p. 131; Acremant, p. 127.

112 Witenberg, p. 193; Méignhac, p. 264.

113 Rules of Court, Art. 63, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 75.

114 Supra, at note 63.

115 Carlston, p. 23.

116 Witenberg, pp. 128–130; Stroobant (Belgium) v. Wanner-Brandt (Germany) (1921), Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes (Paris, 1922), Vol. 1, p. 296.

117 See Witenberg, p. 179.

118 Projet, 1875, Art. 9, p. 129; Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 61, p. 303.

119 Art. 39, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 46.

120 Op. cit. (supra, note 33), at p. 24.

121 Acremant, pp. 82–83.

122 Carlston, p. 8.

123 Rules of Court, Art. 42, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 68.

124 See ibid.

125 See comment, Art. 13, infra.

126 Carlston, p. 8 et seq.

127 Rules of Court, Art. 72, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 79. Summary proceedings under the Hague rules “are conducted exclusively in writing.” Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 90, p. 307.

128 Carlston, p. 8.

129 Art. 13, supra; see also Carlston, pp. 20–21.

130 Id. at p. 20.

131 Id. at p. 19.

132 Id. at p. 17.

133 Witenberg, p. 343; I.C.J., Rules of Court, Art. 68, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 77; C. E. McFadden (Great Britain) v. Mexico (1930), Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners in Accordance with the Convention of November 19, 1926, between Great Britain and the United Mexican States, October 5, 1929, to February 15, 1930 (London, 1931), p. 155.

134 Carlston, pp. 17–18.

135 Georges Pinson (France) v. Mexico (1928), La réparation des dommages causés aux étrangers par des mouvements révolutionnaires—Jurisprudence de la commission franco-mexicaine de réclamations 1924–1932 (Paris, 1933), p. 1.

136 Carlston, pp. 22–23.

137 Id. at p. 25.

138 El Emporio del Café, S. A. (Mexico) v. U. S. (1926), Opinions of Commissioners under the Convention concluded September 8, 1923, between the United States and Mexico, February 4, 1926, to July 23, 1927 (Washington, D. C, 1927), p. 7.

139 David Gonzalez (Mexico) v. U. S. (1926), id. at p. 9.

140 Fabian Rios (Mexico) v. U. S. (1926), id. at p. 59.

141 Veracruz Telephone Construction Syndicate (Great Britain) v. Mexico (1929), Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners in Accordance with the Convention of November 19, 1926, between Great Britain and the United Mexican States, October 5, 1929, to February 15, 1930 (London, 1931), p. 74.

142 Fabian Rios (Mexico) v. U. S. (1926), op. cit. (supra, note 138), at p. 70; North American Dredging Company of Texas (U. S.) v. Mexico (1926), id. at p. 21.

148 Judgment of June 7, 1932, P. C. I. J., Ser. A./B., No. 46, p. 96 at p. 155.

144 Witenberg, p. 211. The tribunal has the inherent power to reject a defective pleading. Acremant, p. 116.

145 Fonderies et Distributions d’eau à Ciney (Belgium) v. Société Ardeltewerke (German) (1922), Recueil des Décisions des Tribunaux Arbitraux Mixtes (Paris, 1922), Vol. 1, p. 893.

146 Corderies d’Ans (Belgium) v. Germany (1921), id. at p. 559.

147 Sandifer, op. cit. (supra, note 70).

148 Carlston, pp. 26–27; Projet, 1875, Art. 15, pp. 130–131; Hague Convention of 1907, Arts. 69 and 75, pp. 304, 305; Statute of the I.C.J., Art. 49, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 48; Mérignhae, pp. 269–270.

149 Carlston, pp. 25–26. See also Art. 27 infra.

150 William A. Parker (U. S.) v. Mexico (1926), op. cit. (supra, note 138), at p. 35; Mexico City Bombardment Claims (Great Britain) v. Mexico (1930), op. cit. (supra, note 141), at p. 100.

151 Pomeroy’s El Paso Transfer Company (U. S.) v. Mexico (1939), Opinions of Commissioners under the Convention concluded September 8, 1923, as extended by Subsequent Conventions, between the United States and Mexico, October, 1930, to July, 1931 (Washington, B. C., 1931), p. 1.

152 Lillie S. Kling (U. S.) v. Mexico (1930), id. at p. 36.

153 Rules of the General Claims Commission, U. S. and Panama, Arts. 25 and 26, op. cit. (supra, note 33), at p. 849.

154 Witenberg notes that in some arbitrations oral proceedings are altogether excluded, while in others their use is subject either to the control of the tribunal or of the agents. Witenberg, pp. 219–221.

155 Carlston, pp. 11–14.

156 Supra, Arts. 10 and 11.

157 Supra, Arts. 10A and 10B.

158 Witenberg, p. 215.

159 Gertrude Parker Massey (U. S.) v. Mexico (1927), op. cit. (supra, note 138), at p. 228.

160 Supra, Art. 27.

161 Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 66, p. 304; Acremant, pp. 86–87.

162 Cf. Mérignhac, p. 243.

163 William T. Way (U. S.) v. Mexico (1928), Opinions of Commissioners under the Convention concluded September 8, 1923, as extended by the Convention signed August 16, 1927, between the United States and Mexico, September 16, 1928, to May 17, 1929 (Washington, D. C, 1929), p. 94.

164 Witenberg, pp. 259–260.

165 The Santa Isabel Claims (Great Britain) v. Mexico (1932), Further Decisions and Opinions of the Commissioners in Accordance with the Conventions of November 19, 1926, and December 5, 1930, between Great Britain and the United Mexican States, Subsequent to February 15, 1930 (London, 1933), p. 353.

166 Carlston, p. 50 et seq.

167 Id. at pp. 42–50. As to the effect upon the award of an arbitrator’s failure to participate therein see id. at pp. 43–44 and supra, note 37.

168 Witenberg, pp. 277–280; Statute of the I. C. J., Art. 57, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 49; but see Acremant, pp. 136–137.

169 In the event of a bilingual arbitration, substitute in place and stead of “two certified copies” the words “four certified copies, two in —— and two in ——”.

170 Mérignhac, p. 280.

171 See I. C. J., Rules of Procedure, Art. 76, Ser. D, No. 1 (2d ed., 1947), p. 80.

172 Witenberg, p. 283.

173 Carlston, p. 263; op. cit. (supra, note 6).

174 Carlston, pp. 224–225; Sandifer, op. cit. (supra, note 70), at p. 299.

175 Carlston, Sec. 74.

176 Id. at p. 232; cf. Art. VIII of draft compromis (supra).

177 Carlston, Sec. 72.

178 Id. at Sec. 80.

179 Carlston, p. 33.

180 Projet, 1875, Arts. 12 and 15, pp. 129, 130; Hague Convention of 1907, Art. 74, p. 305; Ralston, p. 204; Sandifer, op. cit. (supra, note 70), at pp. 28–29; Acremant, p. 107.