be disseminated more and more among the civilized nations, so that they may be naturally led to look upon the solution of international conflicts through the peaceful adjustments of reason and justice, in preference to the violent methods of war. In other words, what the cause of peace needs, most is to create an international atmosphere, wherein good will and justice will be felt and desired everywhere and increase and develop until all governments and all peoples are enveloped in them.

Of all the means of attaining this end one exists which, although its progress is slow, is surely effective in leading nations to a safer policy respecting international peace. I mean the increase of associations and societies especially devoted not only to the propaganda of the benefits of peace, but also to the dissemination of the general and common principles of international law throughout the several countries, in order that their peoples may acquire a common conscience, that there may always or almost always be for the settlement of controversies arising between nations some peaceful means, which may be substituted for a violent resort to arms which above all is prejudicial to the well-being of the peoples themselves. If the peoples were convinced of this truth, they would be only too ready to support a movement which would rid them of such an enormous misfortune. In Europe there have long since been established numerous associations of this kind which work in that direction. In America peace associations are unfortunately not yet so numerous as might have been hoped and expected, but they are surely increasing every day.

Recently there has been founded at Washington "The American Institute of International Law" which, in co-operation with similar societies existing or expected to be created in all the American countries, proposes to provide in the best possible way for the development and dissemination of a knowledge of the rules of international law in the American continent.

As declared by its statutes, the object of The American Institute of International Law is the following:

(a) To contribute toward the development of international law and to bring about the acceptance of its general principles by the nations of the American Continent;

(b) To encourage the scientific and methodic study of international

law, to make known its principles, and to encourage its knowledge and its application in the conduct of international relations;

(c) To contribute to a clearer conception of international rights and duties, and to the creation of a common feeling of international justice among the people of the American Continent;

(d) To strive for universal acceptance of the principle of peaceful settlement of international disputes among American nations.

The above and what has been already sketched in a previous note giving the aims and purposes of the proposed Institute, if thoroughly and properly accomplished, is, to my mind, all that need be done in this direction. By endeavoring to establish the principles and to determine the rules of international law, which are today vague or ill-defined and even non-existent, the Institute will aim to meet the exigences of the life of nations and the idea of justice and solidarity.9

Now, with more particular reference to arbitration and other means of preserving peace, if it is really impossible to think at this time of a general treaty of obligatory arbitration among the states of the world, it would seem to be, nevertheless, possible for the Third Hague Conference to adopt a few measures which appear to be of the greatest benefit to the progress of peaceful settlement among the nations as, for example:

(1) The Powers might declare, if they really so desired, that no declaration of war shall henceforth be made without a previous attempt to settle the difference by arbitration;

(2) They might agree to a list of cases, as numerous as possible, which should hereafter be referred to obligatory arbitration;

(3) The International Court of Arbitral Justice could be definitively organized and placed in operation.

(4) An agreement might be signed by the Powers for the limitation of armaments.

Undoubtedly a sure step would have been taken in favor of world peace, if the Powers would consent to agree that no declaration of war shall be made without a previous attempt to arbitrate. A provision with this end in view is already contained in the constitutional laws of some American states. I quote from that part of the Brazilian Constitution which deals with the powers of the National Congress: "To authorize In this JOURNAL, January, 1913, p. 163 et seq. Ibid., p. 165.

the government, to declare war when arbitration has failed, or cannot take place." 10

It is not intended by this means to suppress war, but merely to create a means of hindering or preventing it.

The suggestion contained in the second proposition above, has, as is known, already been considered by the Second Hague Conference and is included among the declarations which it voted. It would indeed be a great advantage if the conflicting nations should become accustomed to resort to compulsory arbitration, even if only for the few cases expressly mentioned in the list agreed to by the Hague Conference.

As to the third of the foregoing suggestions, it is strongly hoped and greatly expected that the recommendation of the Second Hague Conference on this point will be converted into a fact by the next Hague Conference. In the present state of every day relations between civilized nations, the usefulness of an International Court of Arbitral Justice is self-evident and clearly justified. It is not necessary to add to what has been already said in support of the proposed court during its consideration by the Second Hague Conference. The mere existence of such a court will furnish the opportunity and a motive for the increase of cases to be referred to arbitral settlement. It cannot be believed or admitted that the states which have formally recognized the need of such a court, are, nevertheless, not willing or able to arrive at a satisfactory agreement regarding the selection, the qualifications, and the number of the judges who shall compose it.

As to the fourth and last measure proposed, I dare express my own feeling in regard to it. The present growth of armaments is not only an enormous burden which is hindering the development of nations and the

10 During the meeting of the Third International American Conference at Rio de Janeiro, 1906, which I had the honor of attending as a delegate of Brazil, I had occasion to suggest a clause on this subject as follows:

"Arbitration is the ordinary way of settling international differences, which it might not have been possible to settle by diplomacy; consequently, no state can declare war or carry on any act of hostility without previously offering to settle the difference by arbitration and the offer has been refused.

"A state which proceeds to the contrary will have no right to require a third state to keep entirely neutral regarding the said contention."

Amaro Cavalcanti, Terceira Conferencia Internacional Americana, Trabalhos, p. 86.

welfare of individuals, but it constitutes at the same time, an increasing difficulty to the maintenance of peace.

If it is true, as has so often been written, that no single nation can take the initiative in reducing its armament because in the present state of the world such a step might jeopardize its existence, it is equally true that this difficulty would disappear if the so-called great Powers would make up their minds to enter into an agreement for the reduction or limitation of armaments. But, if they are not yet willing to go so far, they could, at least, stop in their mad race for armaments by not increasing so rapidly these ruinously expensive preparations for war. It is a great mistake to imagine that such huge instruments of war are not a serious obstacle to the peace of nations.

In closing this article, I shall only add that, for my part, and as a friend of general peace, should the small measures of progress above suggested be accomplished by the next Hague Conference, I would feel entirely satisfied and be most happy for the advance made by the great Powers of the world.

AMARO CAVALCANTI.

THE WORK OF THE JOINT INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON PANAMA CLAIMS

The questions presented to the Joint International Commission appointed under the terms of Articles VI and XV of the treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Panama, ratified February 26, 1904, were of so unusual a character that a brief statement of the principles formulated by the Commission will probably be of interest to students of international law.

The provisions of the treaty under which the work of the Commission was organized read as follows:

ARTICLE VI

The grants herein contained shall in no manner invalidate the titles or rights of private land holders or owners of private property in the said zone or in or to any of the lands or waters granted to the United States by the provisions of any article of this treaty, nor shall they interfere with the rights of way over the public roads passing through the said zone or over any of the said lands or waters unless said rights of way or private rights shall conflict with rights herein granted to the United States in which case the rights of the United States shall be superior. All damages caused to the owners of private lands or private property of any kind by reason of the grants contained in this treaty or by reason of the operations of the United States, its agents or employees, or by reason of the construction, maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of the said Canal or of the works of sanitation and protection herein provided for, shall be appraised and settled by a joint Commission appointed by the Governments of the United States and the Republic of Panama, whose decisions as to such damages shall be final, and whose awards as to such damages shall be paid solely by the United States. No part of the work on said Canal or the Panama Railroad or on any auxiliary works relating thereto and authorized by the terms of this treaty shall be prevented, delayed or impeded by or pending such proceedings to ascertain such damages. The appraisal of said private lands and private property and the assessment of damages to them shall be based upon their value before the date of this convention.