Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:20:47.620Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Final Settlement of the Pious Fund Case

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2017

Howard S. Levie
Howard S. Levie*
Affiliation:
Saint Louis University Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Notes and Comments
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , October 1969 , pp. 791 - 793
Copyright
Copyright © The American Society of International Law 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 57 Dept. of State Bulletin 261 (1967).

2 15 Stat. 679; Scott, The Hague Court Reports 12 (1916).

3 Scott, op. cit.note 2, at 17 and 22, for the opinions of the American Commissioner (Wadsworth) and the Mexican Commissioner (Zamacona), respectively.

4 Ibid.at 48.

5 Ibidat 7; 2 A.J.I.L. 893 (1908); 32 Stat. 1916.

6 32 Stat. 1779. The Pious Fund Arbitration was the first instance in which two nations had recourse to the provisions of this new convention. Penfield, “The Attitude of American Countries Toward Arbitration,” 1915 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 40, 47-48.

7 2 A.J.I.L. 898 (1908); Scott, op. cit.note 2, at 3.

8 18 U. S. Treaties 3266; T.I.A.S., No. 6420.

9 15 U. 8. Treaties 21; T.I.A.S., No. 5515.

10 Opinion of the Tribunal, 2 A.J.I.L. 898, 901 (1908); Scott, op. cit.note 2, at 6. Remarks of Willard B. Cowles, 1936 Proceedings, American Society of International Law 52 and 53.

11 Opinion of the Tribunal, 2 A.J.I.L. 898, 901 (1908); Scott, op. tit.note 2, at 5-6; Ralston, “Prescription,” 4 A.J.I.L. 133 (1910). As Ralston points out, this determination had a rather short life. See Italy (Gentini) v.Venezuela, Ralston, Venezuela Arbitrations of 1903, at 720 (1904).

12 “Note from the Members of the Arbitral Tribunal in the Pious Fund Case,” 5 A.J.I.L. Supp. 73 (1911); Dennis, “The Necessity for an International Code of Arbitral Procedure,” 7 AJ.I.L. 285, 295 (1913).