The Permanent Court of International Justice

Abstract

A Permanent Court of International Justice?what does that mean? Not the creation of a new international court. We have one such court already and two more courts proposed. The first of these, called the Permanent Court of Arbitration, established at The Hague in 1899, has nine decisions to its credit. The second, the Court of Arbitral Justice, the draft for which was accepted by the nations at The Hague in 1907, would be in service today, as an alternative to the first, if an agreement could have been reached as to a method of appointing its judges. The third, the International Court of Prize, also a measure of 1907, will be utilized when its judges are appointed, and when a naval war makes its services necessary. The projects of all three courts are monuments to a century of the steady progress of the na tions in substituting law for war in the settlement of their disputes. These courts should remain substantially as they are, but should be properly related to one another in their respective jurisdictions, each being so organized as best to serve the purpose for which it is intended. The Permanent Court of Arbitration should be for the voluntary set tlement of semi-political disputes, or for any controversies that na tions are unwilling to submit to the Court of Arbitral Justice. The Court of Arbitral Justice, better say the Court of International Jus tice, like the International Prize Court, should have an obligatory jurisdiction and be strictly judicial in its procedure; but, for the sake of prompt and economical administration, both courts should be com bined in one institution with two functions. Some changes should be made in the procedure of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. A system of orderly pleading is recommended by Mr. Dennis, the agent of the United States in the Orinoco Steam ship Company case, and would seem to be needed. Case and counter case should be separated from argument. There should be a fixed order of arguments; evidence, instead of being introduced into them for the first time, should be included in the case and counter case, or otherwise formally presented to both sides. It is suggested that pro vision should be made for interlocutory motions and for discovery.