lii INTRODUCTION 



The controversies just referred to deal with the past, but Great 

 Britain and the United States, however anxious to justify their past 

 contentions, looked anxiously to the future, and in Article IV provided 

 a method of settling future controversies without threatening the peace- 

 able relations of the two countries. The award was to determine the 

 exact questions submitted, and it was believed that the principles laid 

 down in the award would furnish a safe guide for the interpretation of 

 future questions connected with the fisheries. Therefore the tribunal 

 was empowered to recommend "rules and a method of procedure" for 

 the determination of such questions as they should arise. But it might 

 happen that the recommendation of the tribunal would not commend 

 itself to the parties in controversy. In such a case it was essential that 

 the parties themselves should agree upon rules and methods in order 

 to eliminate from the foreign relations of the two countries embarrassing 

 situations. It was foreseen, however, that the two countries might fail 

 to agree upon rules, and in order that the fishermen of both countries 

 might know their rights without being compelled or permitted to pass 

 upon them themselves, Great Britain and the United States agreed to 

 avail themselves of the summary procedure devised by the Second Hague 

 Conference,' and to submit informally future differences concerning the 

 interpretation of the Convention of 1818 or concerning "the effect and 

 application of the award of the tribunal" to the Permanent Court at 

 The Hague. 



The importance of this provision can hardly be overestimated, 

 because it provides a method for determining future differences when 

 and as they arise, and however informal in terms, this simple article 

 constitutes in itself a permanent treaty between the two countries. It 

 is none the less a treaty because embodied in a special agreement, and 

 the approval of the Senate bound the United States to its adherence. 

 Indeed, it is not too much to say that Article IV is as important as the 

 submission to arbitration, and the obligation to submit future differences 

 to arbitration will probably lead the countries to determine by diplo- 

 matic negotiations questions as they arise without consulting The Hague 

 Tribxmal. The knowledge that a failure to agree involves an obligation 

 to submit to arbitration is almost equivalent to an agreement. 



Having agreed upon the questions to be submitted to arbitration, 

 and having provided the machinery for the determination of future 

 questions when and as they arise, it was necessary to reach a present 



communication to the Tribunal, ibid., pp. 1429-1430, and the Tribunal's letter to Mr. Anderson, 

 ibid., pp. 1430-1432. 



' Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, Articles 86-90. 



