VIII. Conference of Berlin, 1884-5 IX. First Hague Peace Conference, 1899 SECT. PAGE International Naval Conference, London, 1908-9 XIII. Conferences of London, 1912-13 XIV. Conference of Bucarest, 1913. 112 I. 12. ACCESSION (Adhésion and Accession) Treaty of Vienna, 1815 112 II. Treaties of 1839 respecting Belgium 115 III. Treaty of London, May 8, 1852 116 IV. Treaty of Paris, 1856 117 V, VI, VII. Conferences of London, 1867, 1871; Con XI. Second Hague Peace Conference, 1907 XII. International Naval Conference, London, 1908–9 XIII, XIV. Conferences of London, 1912-13; Conference of Bucarest, 1913 119 120 121 APPENDIX I. Armistice of April 23, 1814 II. Negotiations for an armistice between Japan and III. Full-Powers. British IV. V. Règlement' of the International Peace Conference 'Règlement' of the International Naval Conference, X. XI. Collective Guarantee Act of Accession on the part of the Germanic Confederation to Articles I-VII of the Annexe to the Treaties of 1839 respecting Belgium XII. Conference of Madrid, 1880 XIII. (A) Treaty of Zürich, 1859 Congresses CONGRESSES AND CONFERENCES INTRODUCTION THERE is no essential difference between a Congress and a Conference, but the former term is more frequently applied to assemblies of plenipotentiaries for the purpose of concluding peace, and is regarded as implying a specially important occasion. But the gathering at Bucarest in the autumn of 1913 to conclude peace between Bulgaria on the one hand, and Greece, Montenegro, Rumania, and Serbia on the other, was termed a Conference. Other distinctions sometimes made are that at a Congress a larger number of Powers takes part than at a Conference; or that at a Congress (e.g. at those of Vienna, Paris, and Berlin) the representatives of the Powers are men of unusual political importance in their own countries, whereas at a Conference (e. g. those on Greece, 1827-32, and Belgium, 1830-33) some at least of the plenipotentiaries are the resident diplomatic representatives of their respective countries. The Congress of Paris, 1856, was at first designated a Conference, but subsequently, during the course of the negotiations, came, by an unperceived transition, to be styled Congress. On the essential character of a Congress, the Duke of Argyll remarks: 'It [a Congress] is not a Court of Justice, nor is it even a Court of Arbitration. It is not a Court with any coercive jurisdiction, or a Court in which any matter can be conclusively settled by vote or by majority. It is essentially a Court of Conciliation-an assembly in which an endeavour is made to settle high matters in dispute by discussion and mutual concession.' B And again: 'It was reasonable, too, as it always must be, not to go into Congress without some previous understanding with the Powers to be there assembled. Every man conversant with the conduct of affairs knows very well that public and formal discussions cannot be conducted with any hope of a successful issue unless such preliminary understandings have been arrived at.'1 The principle stated in the first of these two quotations is based upon the theory of the political equality of independent States, which is a recognized doctrine of International Law. It is not derived from equality of extent, population, wealth, military or naval power, or any other feature in which States differ among themselves. It is a consequence of their independent sovereign character. Luxemburg or Panama has the same right to a vote as Russia or the United States. But in actual practice a distinction cannot but exist between Great Powers and secondary or minor Powers, as regards the weight to be attached to their expression of will; consequently international assemblies have frequently been limited to representatives of the former class of States. Protocol No. 1 of the Congress of Berlin records that Prince Bismarck (president of that Congress) considère comme un principe incontestable que la minorité ne pourra pas être tenue de se soumettre à un vote de majorité. Mais il abandonne à l'appréciation de MM. ses collègues de décider s'il ne serait pas utile dans l'intérêt des travaux que les résolutions de la majorité concernant la procédure, sans toucher au fond, pussent être regardées comme décisions du Congrès toutes les fois que la minorité ne croirait pas devoir faire enregistrer une protestation formelle. . . . Le Congrès donne unanimement son adhésion à cette procédure.' 2 Where, in the protocols of that Congress, it is stated that a vote was taken, this is to be regarded merely as a 1 Duke of Argyll, The Eastern Question from 1856, ii. 97, 128, 2 British and Foreign State Papers, lxix. 892, Congresses formality which had for its purpose to ascertain whether a particular proposal was unanimously approved by the Congress. Whenever a difference of opinion presented itself which could not be disposed of at once, the president left it to the principal advocates of the conflicting views to discuss the point privately; and these consultations. always resulted in agreement. On one occasion, with reference to the boundary line between Serbia and Bulgaria, as to which the Boundary Committee differed, it was resolved by the Congress that the details should be decided by a majority of the committee.1 At Algeciras it had become necessary for the French Delegation to obtain a decision in their favour, by which the organization of the police at the open ports of Morocco would be left to France and Spain, and for this purpose to get a vote in Conference. Count Goluchowski had said: 'Dans une conférence on ne vote pas: et ce pour une raison bien simple, c'est que l'unanimité est requise. A quoi bon compter les voix pour et contre, du moment qu'une seule voix contre suffit à écarter les mesures proposées?' This was the doctrine enunciated by Prince Bismarck at Berlin. On this M. Tardieu observes: 2 Cette argumentation captieuse jouait visiblement sur les mots. Pour savoir si l'unanimité est acquise, il n'y a qu'un moyen : c'est de voter. Aussi bien, s'il est vrai que, dans les conférences, on ne procède pas d'ordinaire par scrutins proprement dits, on prend toujours les avis des plénipotentiaires; et cette consultation équivaut pratiquement à un scrutin. Si l'on se reporte d'ailleurs aux précédents, on constate que, dans certains cas, les présidents de conférences ne se sont pas contentés de cette consultation. Au congrès de Berlin, par exemple, M. de Bismarck n'hésita pas à provoquer des votes sur des points discutés, et la majorité, qui se forma dans ces conditions, fut un acheminement à l'unanimité qui s'établit ensuite. Il est fréquent du reste que les délégués 1 B. and F. S. P. lxix. 1040. 2 A. Tardieu, La Conférence d'Algésiras, Paris, 1907, p. 268. |