1903 this question was agreed to be submitted to the Hague court, three members of which were to be named as arbitrators by the tsar of Russia, but no arbitrator was to be a subject or citizen of any of the signatory or creditor powers. The arbitrators named by the tsar were M. Muraviev, minister of justice and attorney-general of the Russian empire; Professor Lammasch, member of the Upper House of the Austrian parliament; and M. de Martens, then member of the council of the ministry of foreign affairs at St Petersburg. The arbitrators by their award in February 1904 decided unanimously in favour of the blockading powers and ordered payment of their claims out of the 30% of the receipts at the two Venezuelan ports which had been set apart to meet them.
| Dates of agreements to refer. | Parties. | Arbitrating Authority. | Subject-Matter. | Date of award. |
Table I. Territorial Disputes (Ownership). |
| 1857 | Holland and Venezuela | Queen of Spain | Island of Aves in Venezuela | 1865 |
| 1869 | Great Britain and Portugal | President of United States | Island of Bulama on West Coast of Africa | 1870 |
| 1872 | Great Britain and Portugal | President of French Republic | Bay (part of), Inyack and Elephant Is., S.E. Africa | 1875 |
| 1876 | Argentine Republic and Paraguay | President of United States | Territory between the Verde and Pilcomayo river of Paraguay | 1878 |
| 1885 | Great Britain and Germany | Mixed Commission | Islets and guano deposits on S.W. Coast of Africa | 1886 |
| 1886 | Bulgaria and Servia | Mixed Commission | Territory near the village of Bergovo | 1887 |
| 1902 | Austria and Hungary | Mixed Commission (with President of Swiss Federal tribunal as umpire) | Territory in the district of Upper Tatra | 1902 |
Table II. Delimitation of Frontiers. |
| 1869 | Great Britain and the Transvaal | Lieutenant Governor of Natal | The southern boundary of the S. African Republic | 1870 |
| 1871 | Great Britain and the United States | The German Emperor | The San Juan water boundary | 1872 |
| 1873 | Italy and Switzerland | Mixed Commission (with U.S. Minister at Rome as umpire) | The Canton of Ticino | 1874 |
| 1885 | Great Britain and Russia | Mixed Commission | North-western Afganistan | 1887 |
| 1890 | France and Holland | Tsar of Russia | French Guiana and Dutch Guiana | 1891 |
| 1895 | Great Britain and Portugal | President of the Italian Court of Appeal | Manicaland | 1897 |
| 1897 | France and Brazil | President of the Swiss Confederation | River Yapoe named in the Treaty of Utrecht 1813 | 1900 |
| 1901 | Great Britain and Brazil | King of Italy | British Guiana | 1904 |
| 1903 | Great Britain and Portugal | King of Italy | Barotseland | 1905 |
Table III. Pecuniary Claims in respect of Seizures and Arrests. |
| 1851 | United States and Portugal | President of French Republic | Seizure of the American privateer “General Armstrong” | 1852 |
| 1863 | Great Britain and Brazil | King of the Belgians | Arrest of three British officers of the ship “La Forte” | 1863 |
| 1863 | Great Britain and Peru | Senate of Hamburg | Arrest at Callao of Capt. Melville White, a British subject | 1864 |
| 1870 | United States and Spain | Mixed Commission | The American S.S. “Col. Lloyd Aspinwall” | 1870 |
| 1873 | Japan and Peru | Tsar of Russia | The Peruvian barque “Maria Luz” | 1875 |
| 1874 | United States and Colombia | Mixed Commission | The American S.S. “Montijo” | 1875 |
| 1879 | France and Nicaragua | French Court of Cassation | The French ship “La Phare” | 1880 |
| 1885 | United States an Spain | Italian Minister at Madrid | The American S.S. “The Masonic” | 1885 |
| 1888 | The United States and Denmark | British Minister at Athens | The S.S. “Benjamin Franklin” and the barque “Catherine Augusta” | 1890 |
| 1895 | Great Britain and Netherlands | Tsar of Russia, who delegated his duties to Professor F. de Martens | Arrest of the master of the “Costa Rica” packet (a British subject) | 1897 |
(3) The third case before the Hague court was heard in 1904–1905. A controversy not amenable to ordinary diplomatic methods arose between Great Britain, France and Germany on the one hand and Japan on the other hand as to the legality of a house-tax imposed by Japan on Britain, Great France and Germany versus Japan. certain subjects of those powers who held leases in perpetuity. The question turned upon the true construction of certain treaties between the European powers and Japan which had been made a few years previously. By three protocols signed at Tokyo in August 1902 this question was agreed to be submitted to arbitrators, members of the court at the Hague, one to be chosen by each party with power to name an umpire. The arbitrators chosen were M. Renault, professor of the law faculty in Paris, and M. Montono, the Japanese envoy to the French capital. They named as their umpire and president M. Gram, ex-minister of the state of Norway. In May 1905, an award was pronounced by the majority (M. Gram and M. Renault) in favour of the European contention, M. Montono dissenting both from the conclusion of his colleagues and from the reasons on which it was based.
(4) Barely two months had elapsed since the date of the last award when the Hague court was again called into requisition. The scene of dispute this time was on the S.E. coast of Arabia. Muscat, the capital of the kingdom of Oman on that coast, is ruled by a sultan, whose independence Great Britain and the French flag at Muscatboth Great Britain and France had, in March 1862, “reciprocally engaged to respect.” Notwithstanding this, the French republic had issued to certain native dhows, owned by subjects of the sultan, papers authorizing them to fly the French flag, not only on the Oman littoral but in the Red Sea. A question thereupon arose as to the manner in which the privileges thereby purported to be conferred affected the jurisdiction of the sultan over such dhows, the masters of which, as was alleged, used their immunity from search for the purpose of carrying on contraband trade in slaves, arms and ammunition. In October 1904 the two governments agreed to refer this question to the Hague court. Chief Justice Melville W. Fuller, of the Supreme Court of the United States, was named as arbitrator on the part of Great Britain, M. de Savornin Lohman, who had acted in the case of the Californias (No. 1), as arbitrator on the part of France. The choice of an umpire was entrusted to the king of Italy. He named Professor Lammasch, who, as we have seen, had acted in the arbitration with Venezuela in 1903.
A unanimous award was made in August 1905. It was held that although generally speaking every sovereign may decide to whom he will accord the right to fly his flag, yet in this case such right was limited by the general act of the Brussels conference of July 1890 relative to the African slave trade, an act which was ratified by France on the 2nd of June 1892; that accordingly the owners and master of dhows who had been authorized by France to fly the French flag before the last-named date retained this authorization
