ecures the settlement of judicial international
disputes by giving judgments on the basis of law. I think this demand
can be satisfied by a scheme which would meet both the claim of each
State to nominate one judge and the necessity not to overcrowd the Bench
which decides each dispute.

VI. The scheme which I should like to recommend is one which
distinguishes between the Court as a whole and the several Benches which
would be called upon to decide the several cases. It is as follows:

The Court as a whole to consist of as many judges as there are members
of the League, each member to appoint one judge and one deputy judge who
would take the place of the judge in case of illness or death or other
cause of absence. The President, the Vice-President, and, say, twelve or
fourteen members to constitute the Permanent Bench of the Court and
therefore to be resident the whole year round at the Hague. Half of the
members of this Permanent Bench of the Court to be appointed by the
Great Powers--each Great Power to appoint one--and the other half of the
members to be appointed by the minor Powers. Perhaps the Scandinavian
Powers might agree upon the nomination of one member; Holland and Spain
and Portugal upon another; Belgium, Switzerland, and Luxemburg upon a
third; the Balkan States upon a fourth; Argentina, Brazil, and Chile
upon a fifth; and so on. Anyhow, some arrangement would have to be made
according to which the minor Powers unite upon the appointment of half
the number of the Permanent Bench.

If a judicial dispute arises between two States, the case to go in the
first instance before a Bench comprising the two judges appointed by the
two States in dispute and a President who, as each case arises, is to be
selected by the Permanent Bench of the Court from the members of this
Bench. This Court of First Instance having given its judgment, each
party to have a right of appeal. The appeal to go before the Permanent
Bench at the Hague, which is to give judgment with a quorum of six
judges with the addition of those judges who served as the Bench of
First Instance. The right of appeal to exist only on questions of law
and not on questions of fact.

Decisions of the Appeal Court to be binding precedents for itself and
for any Courts of First Instance. But should the Appeal Court desire to
go back on a former decision of law, this to be possible only at a
meeting of the Court comprising at least twelve members of the Perma