1714 NOETH ATLANTIC COAST FISHERIES ARBITRATION. 



been considering how one is to enforce them against the other, then, 

 of course, the business of the Court is simplified to a large extent, 

 and it will give such a constmction to the contract as is necessary to 

 give effect to the intention of the parties with regard, not merely to 

 their obligations, but to their remedy. 



No question, of course, of that kind arises here. The construction 

 of the contract, according to the argument which I have already put 

 before the Tribunal, in no way justifies this Tribunal going beyond 

 the question of defining the obligation of the parties, and saying 

 we are going to construe the contract in a particular way not in- 

 tended apparently by the parties, certainly not expressed by the 

 parties, in order to give to one of the parties a remedy which is 

 altogether outside the contract. So that looking at the question of 

 remedy, we say that is to be left to the law in this case, to interna- 

 tional law, just as in the ordinary courts the judges would decide the 

 meaning of a contract and say, we leave the remedy to the law, we 

 tell you what the obligation was, when we have told you the obliga- 

 tion by our judgment, then there are further steps which it may 

 never be necessary for you to take, but with which we have nothing 

 to do. If, having given our judgment in favour of the plaintiff, the 

 defendant will not obey, then the plaintiff must go and enforce his 

 remedy a totally different proceeding from his coming and asking, 

 not merely for judgment, but for what we in England call execution. 



1 do not know what the parallel term may be in other systems of law. 

 Therefore, the difficulty of the remedy affords here no kind of 



ground for interfering with the strict principle of interpretation. 

 That is the proposition to which I have been directing these observa- 

 tions, and I think, as a matter of law. it can scarcely be contested. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : But independently of the general prin- 

 ciples of international law, surely there is the law of the parties as 

 contained in the treaty under which this reference comes before us. 



SIR W. ROBSON : Yes, Sir. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : We have to apply that law. 



SIR W. ROBSON : The law of the parties, as Sir Charles says, is to 

 be found in the document. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK: Not only in the treaty of 1818, but 



under the treaty under which this reference is made. 

 1037 SIR W. ROBSON : Certainly. 



SIR CHARLES FITZPATRICK : And we have to consider sections 



2 and 4, especially section 4. 



SIR W. ROBSON : I think I am putting my case a little lower than I 

 need. Reminded by your observation, I did not put my case quite 

 as high as I might, because here the parties, as Sir Charles has said. 

 have made a law for themselves, not only in the treat}', but also in the 

 contract which brings us all here, not only under the treaty under 

 consideration, but also under the treaty of arbitration. They have 



