« AnteriorContinuar »
M. Lyon Caen was elected president and Professor Thomas Erskine Holland vice-president. The following members and associates were likewise elected :
Members (with date of election as associate in parentheses). Messrs. Beauchet (1892), Corsi (1898), Fauchille (1897), Lawrence (1885), de Liszt (1900), J. B. Moore (1891), Olivi (1891), and Strisower (1891).
Associates. Messrs. Anzilotti, professor at Bologna; Diena, professor at Siena; Fedozzi, professor at Palermo; Fromageot, technical delegate for France at the Second Hague Conference; Huber, professor at Basel; Mercier, professor at Lausanne; Oppenheim, professor at Cambridge; J. B. Scott, technical delegate for the United States at the Second Hague Conference and solicitor for the Department of State; Takahashi, professor at Tokio; Triepel, professor at Tübin m; Zeballos, professor at Buenos Ayres.
THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION
The International Law Association held its twenty-fifth session at Budapesth in the last week of September. This very influential association was founded in 1873, the year of the foundation of the Institute of International Law, and year by year has justified its creation. Many and valuable papers have been read before it and the public reports of its proceedings are of value to jurists as well as to students of international law.
The twenty-fifth meeting of the association was no exception to the rule. For example, among the subjects discussed were the following: The question of blockade, by Lord Justice Kennedy, forming the third of a series contributed by him to these conferences; a paper on the international prize court by Sir Thomas Barclay, in which that learned authority characterized the court as revolutionary, and criticized Great Britain for being a party to it; political offenses in extradition treaties ; bills of exchange; the enforcement of foreign judgments; the question of divorce jurisdiction; the legal position of shipmasters and mariners; the strike clause in relation to demurrage; workmen's compensation; double taxation; the claims of competing fisci to lapsed personalty; and foreign companies in Egypt.
Of these important subjects three are selected for special comment: Lord Justice Kennedy's paper on blockade, extradition of political offenders, and bills of exchange.
1 See editorial, this JOURNAL, 1, 135.
Lord Justice Kennedy briefly described the three essential conditions of a blockade — namely, effectiveness; notice, actual or constructive; and impartial exercise. He next called attention to the doctrine of continuous voyages as applicable in the matter of contraband and the extension of the doctrine of continuous voyages to blockade. The learned justice approved the doctrine of continuous voyages in the matter of contraband and justified the capture by a belligerent of a neutral vessel proceeding to a neutral port of final destination carrying a cargo consisting wholly or in part of contraband destined by the shipper for the use of the belligerent, and intended to be forwarded to the enemy from the vessel's port of discharge. He, however, disapproved the extension of the doctrine of continuous voyage to a cargo not of a contraband Dature but consigned by its shipper to agents at the vessel's port of destination, even although it was the shipper's intention that the cargo be transshipped at a neutral port with the intent to run a blockade. The Anglo-American jurisprudence permits capture from the moment the vessel leaves territorial waters. The French or continental view permits capture and confiscation only within the immediate presence of the blockading squadron and port. The learned justice suggested a compromise between these doctrines by providing that the belligerent's notification of the blockade shall specify a zone within which the blockading force could operate and entry into which would subject all vessels to capture and condemnation unless it be clearly proved that they were not attempting to enter the blockaded port.
Mr. J. A. Barratt, in his interesting paper on extradition, insisted that some limitation is required to the clause which at present exists in most extradition treaties whereby political offenses are excluded; that the growth of anarchism demanded a modification of the existing practice, and he suggested that the modification of the clause be accompanied by provisions insuring that the prisoner after surrender be tried in a uniform and proper manner. The importance of the question led to the passage of the resolution that “it be referred to the executive council of the association to appoint a committee to consider and report upon the subject of extradition with special reference to the matters discussed in the papers presented tɔ this conference, such report to be presented to a future conference.”
The most important matter discussed was the question of bills of exchange, and the conclusions of the conference known as the “Budapesth rules” follow:
1. The capacity to contract by means of a bill of exchange shall be determined by general capacity to enter into a contract, but a person, although incapable of binding himself by such a contract in his own country, shall also be bound if he is capable of so binding himself under the law of the country in which be contracts.
2. To constitute a bill of exchange it shall be necessary to insert on the face of the instrument the words, “ Bill of exchange,” or their equivalent.
3. It shall not be obligatory to insert on the face of the instrument or on any endorsement the words, “ Value received," nor to state a consideration.
4. Usances shall be abolished.
5. It is desirable that the validity of a bill of exchange should not be affected by the absence or insufficiency of a stamp.
6. A bill of exchange shall be deemed negotiable to order unless restricted in express words on the face of the instrument or on an endorsement.
7. The making of a bill of exchange to bearer shall be allowed. 8. A bill of exchange shall be negotiable by blank endorsement.
9. The bill of exchange shall not be invalid by reason that it is not dated or does not specify the place where it is drawn or the place where it is payable.
10. The rule of law of distantia loci shall not apply to bills of exchange.
11. The mere fact that the bill of exchange was overdue at the time of an endorsement shall not affect the character of the endorsement as such.
12. The acceptance of a bill of exchange must be in writing on the bill itself. The signature of the drawee (without additional words) shall constitute acceptance, if written on the face of the bill.
13. The drawee may accept for a less sum than the amount of the bill. Any other restriction shall be equivalent to refusal.
14. In case of dishonor for nonacceptance or for conditional acceptance, the holder shall have an immediate right of action against the drawer, the endorsers, and any other parties liable for payment of the amount of the bill and expenses, less discount.
15. Where an acceptance is written on a bill and the drawee has parted with the possession of it or has given written notice to or according to the directions of the person entitled to the bill, that he has accepted it, the cancellation of the acceptance shall be of no effect.
16. Where the acceptor shall have committed an act of bankruptcy before due date, the holder shall have an immediate right of action against the drawer, the endorsers, and any other parties liable, for payment of the amount of the bill and expenses, less discount.
17. No days of grace shall be allowed.
18. Protest, or noting for protest according to the law of the country, shall be necessary to preserve the right of recourse upon a bill of exchange dishonored for nonacceptance or for nonpayment.
19. Immediate rotice of dishonor must be given; if it be not so given, the party sued shall be discharged to the extent of the loss or damage caused by the want of such notice.
20. The time within which protest must be made shall be extended in the case of vis major during the time of the cause of interruption.
21. There shall be no obligation to give a set or a duplicate without an agreement between the parties thereto. But where a bill has been lost before it is overdue, the person who was the holder of it shall be entitled to require of the drawer another bill of the same tenor, giving security to the drawer if required to indemnify him against all persons whatever, in case the bill alleged to have been lost shall be found again. No annulling clause need be inserted in duplicates if marked as such.
22. The holder of a bill of exchange shall not be bound in seeking recourse by the order of succession of the endorsements, nor by any prior election.
23. A simultaneous right of action on a bill of exchange shall be allowed against all or some or any one of the parties to the bill.
24. The donneur d'aval (surety upon a bill of exchange) shall be equally liable with the person whose surety he is.
25. The owner of a lost or destroyed bill of exchange has, upon giving security, a right to payment of the bill by the acceptor, and the same right against the drawer as he would have had if the bill had not been lost or destroyed.
26. The limitation of actions upon bills of exchange against all the parties shall be 18 months from due date.
27. In the foregoing articles the term bill of exchange shall include promissory notes, where such interpretation is applicable, but shall not apply to cheques.
It was decided that the executive council should communicate the rules to the various governments, especially the Dutch Government, which intends to invite — and actually has invited — the other governments to an international conference on the subject.
THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE SOCIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
The third annual meeting of the American Society of International Law will be held at the New Willard Hotel, Washington, D. C., Friday and Saturday, April 23 and 24, 1909. There will be three sessions on Friday, the 23d, beginning, respectively, at ten in the morning, half-past two, and eight in the evening. There will be but one session on Saturday, beginning at ten in the morning. In the afternoon it is expected that the President will receive the members of the Society at the White House, and in the evening at half-past seven the annual banquet will be held.
The program of the meeting, together with the names of those who take part in the proceedings and the speakers at the banquet, will be shortly sent to every member of the Society in the hope that a notice 80 far in advance will enable the members to attend more largely than formerly. The tentative program follows:
FBIDAY, APRIL 23, 1909
Ten o'clock Presidential address. Topic: Arbitration as a judicial remedy: an examination of concrete cases
actually submitted and decided by arbitration; how far they are of a judicial character and how far they have been governed by diplomatic convenience.
Half-past two o'clock Topic: The nature and definition of political offense in international extradition.
SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1909
Topic: The constitution and powers which an international court of arbitral
justice should possess. Topic: The equality of nations.
Half-past two o'clock
Society at the White House.
Half-past seven o'clock
The committee in charge of the program has aimed to give continuity to its proceedings and make the published volume containing them of permanent value. It is a commonplace that international disputes should be arbitrated rather than settled by force, but to be effective arbitration should be a judicial method. Negotiation and compromise belong to diplomacy, not to the law court. The committee therefore has decided to submit arbitral decisions to a careful and seaching examination in order to ascertain in how far arbitration has been judicial and in how far, judged by concrete cases, nations have submitted and therefore are willing to submit international controversies to judicial settlement. Having thus shown that international disputes are constantly settled by