6 4 INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PEACE 



Eleven cases 1 have now been tried by the Hague Court since its creation in 1899: 



1. U. S. A. v. Mexico (Pious Funds of the Californias). Award: October 14, 1902. 



2. Germany, Britain, Italy v. Venezuela (Claims). Award: Feb. 22, 1904. 



3. Germany, France, Britain v. Japan (Jap. House Tax). Award: May 22, 1905. 



4. France v. Great Britain (Muscat Dhows). Award: August 8, 1905. 



5. France and Germany (Deserters at Casablanca). Award: May 22, 1909. 



6. Norway and Sweden (Maritime Frontier). Award: October 23, 1909. 



7. Great Britain v. U. S. A. (Atlantic Fisheries). Award: Sept. 7, 1910. 



8. U. S. A. P. Venezuela (Orinoco S. S. Co.'s Claim). Award: October 25, 1910. 



9. France v. Great Britain (Arrest of Savarkar). Award: February 24, 1911. 



10. Italy v. Peru (Canevaro Claim). Award: May 3, 1912. 



11. Russia v. Turkey (Claim for Unpaid Interest). Award: November II, 1912. 



The case of the deserters of Casablanca was one which, had the relations between 

 Germany and France been good, would probably never have arisen at all. In the French 

 army there is a " foreign legion " used for colonial service. Six privates belonging to it 

 deserted and obtained passports from the German Consulate at Casablanca. All six 

 were supposed to be German subjects, but it turned out eventually that only two were 

 Germans. The deserters were arrested, in spite of some resistance on the part of persons 

 in the service of the Consulate. Hot words passed in the newspapers, but the two Gov- 

 ernments agreed to refer the matter to the Hague, which gave its decision in favour of 

 France on grounds too obvious to require examination. 



The case between Sweden and Norway turned on a frontier question which arose out 

 of the separation of these two states. It was decided in favour of Sweden without a 

 murmur on the part of the Norwegians. 



The case of the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries 2 was the most important of the 

 matters which have as yet been dealt with by the Hague Court, not only on account of 

 the gravity of the issue generally, but also on account of the different delicate questions 

 dealt with in the award. The case related to the respective British and American rights 

 in Newfoundland waters under Art. i of the Anglo-American Convention of October 

 20, 1818. This article provided that the inhabitants of the United States should for 

 ever, in common with British subjects, have liberty to take fish of every kind on certain 

 specified coasts of Newfoundland, and that they should also for ever have liberty to dry 

 and cure fish in any of the unsettled bays, harbours and creeks, on the specified parts of 

 the southern shores of Newfoundland and of the coast of Labrador, but that, so soon 

 as any portion thereof became settled, it would not be lawful for these American fisher- 

 men to dry or cure fish thereat without previous agreement for such purpose with the 

 inhabitants, proprietors or possessors of the ground. The United States, on the other 

 hand, renounced liberty to take, dry or cure fish on or within three marine miles of any 

 of the British American coasts, bays, creeks or harbours not included within the specified 

 limits. American fishermen, however, had the right to enter such bays and harbours 

 for the purpose of shelter or repairs, the purchase of wood, and the obtaining of water, 

 but they were to be under restrictions to prevent any abuse of their privileges. 



Differences arose as to the scope and meaning of these provisions. The United 

 States authorities protested against the British claim to deal in their regulations with 

 the hours, days and seasons when fish may be taken, with the methods, means and imple- 

 ments used in fishing operations etc. There was also a difference of opinion as to the 

 mode of measuring the three marine miles off any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours 

 referred to in this article. There were also a number of subsidiary points. 



The award confirmed the British claim to make such regulations as were appropriate 

 or necessary for the protection and preservation of the fisheries or desirable or necessary 

 on grounds of public order and morals, provided they did not unnecessarily interfere 

 with the fishery itself and were not so framed as to give an advantage to local over Ameri- 

 can fishermen; any question as to the reasonableness of any regulation was to be referred 



1 The first four of these cases are dealt with in E. B. ii, 328, 329. 



2 The arbitrators were Prof, l.ammasch of Vienna (President), Dr. Savornin Lohman, 

 Dutch Minister of State, Judge George Gray, Sir Ch. Fitzpatrick and Dr. Drago, ex-Minister 

 of Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Republic. 



