This provision for commissions of inquiry, was elaborated in 1907, that it might, if occa sion arose, become even more serviceable.
Another Convention of 1899 prohibited the discharge of projectiles or explosives from balloons for a period of five years. While this' period expired during the Russo-Japanese War,: both Russia and• Japan continued to observe the' spirit of the prohibition.
The rules for war on land were also tested. and further changes were Mond- necessary in 1907.
Not merely was there made' in 1899 provision; for a commission of 'inquiry but also for..a• court of arbitration. It was thought for a' time: that this court would never perform any futicp, tion. It remained for two American teptiblics' to first test the court of arbitration, for which provision had been made in the Convention .of 1899. In 1902 the United States and Mexico took before the court its first case. • This was the case of the Pious Fund of the' Californias, which had been in dispute • from the annexation of Upper California in •1848' by the United States. An arbitral' award in 1875 had gtanted to the United States claim-' ants 21 yeaq' interest on one-half the Fund which had originally been given to the cries for their work in the Californias.' The, interest for subsequent years had not been paid and it was claimed by the Catholic Church of California. The contention of the United' States was upheld 'by the court and the pro tracted Idistnite was at an end: - • ••' .
Othet cases 'caihe tot The Hxglte rater this first award and it soon became cu'stomary) for states to request that in case of dispute) the matter be referred to •The • '• • ; The next case related to. the preferential' treatment for the powers which had blockaded' Venezuelan ports in order to enforce the pay ment of debts due theii' citizens. Here not two but' ten states were involved, representing. Europe, North America and -South America.; This case was quickly followed by one in which Germany, Great Britain' and France appeared against Japan in the matter of the perpetual! leases in that country, thus introducing Asia. also before the court. Another case involving Asiatic interests was the case of the right-of, the Muscat Dhows to fly the French flag, which ma, a stiTijLct or difference between Great Britain and France.
These four cases were before the court at The Hague between 1902' and 1905. In 1907,' at the Second Hague Conference, the conven tion relating to the Court was' amended extended to meet the needs which experience had demonstrated.' ; . — • The first case under the revised convention) was settled in 1909, the Casabianca case, which had bmught France and Germany to the verge' of war. The same year the :controversy the maritime boundary between. Norway 'and Sweden was adjusted. ' In 1910 the court attempted' to settle the dis pute between the United. States and •Gritan. Britain over the North Atlantic Fisheries. This dispute had continued' in' varying faring) .fori about 100 years. Diplomatic negotiations' had failed many times. Within a few weeks' a; decision accepted by both parties was :reached. by the' court.
Questions of national honor and funda-; mental rights were considered in such cases: as the case of Savarkar in 1910, the case of the Manouba and of the Corthapein.1913, and' vari-f ous aspects of financial claims. in those of the: Orinoco Steamship Company in 1910 and the interest on Russian indemnities' in 1912., Jai June .1914 The Hagun.Court. made • an award settling •the land boundaries in the. island -oft Timor..
The range of cases settled' by the court is accordingly very wide.. 1The frequency' of re-. sort to the' court was rapidly increasing. terests involving the Americas, Europe, .Asia,. Africa and the area near Australia had been considered. Seventeen of the 44 'states repre-, seated at the Second' Hague Conference had appeared at least once and • some six times before the' court at The Hague. The awards of the court had in every instance been- accepted} in good faith and observed.
Such progress .in the' substitution of law•f or other means of settling disputes was'a marked evidence of the advance of the early 20th cen-r titry. While other methods may for a time be. tried; the decision in the case of the before the judicial committee of the English. Privy Council on 7 April 1916, seems to show. that the only sound basis for international rela tions' is in respect for international law: See