nent
Bench.

VII. The proposal which I have just sketched, and which will need to be
worked out in detail if it is to be realised, offers the following
advantages:

Every case would in the first instance be decided by a small Bench which
would enjoy the confidence of both parties because they would have their
own judge in the Court. This point is of particular importance with
regard to the mode of taking evidence and making clear the facts; but is
likewise of importance on account of the divergence of fundamental legal
views and the like.

Since the Court of Appeal would only decide points of law, the facts as
elucidated by the Bench of First Instance would remain settled. But the
existence of the Court of Appeal would enable the parties to re-argue
questions of law with all details. The fact that six of the Bench which
serves as a Court of Appeal are members of the Permanent Bench would
guarantee a thorough reconsideration of the points of law concerned, and
likewise the maintenance and sequence of tradition in International
Administration of Justice.

Again, the fact that the Court of Appeal is to comprise, besides six
members of the Permanent Bench, those three judges who sat as the Bench
of First Instance would guarantee that the judges appointed by the
States in dispute could again bring into play any particular views of
law they may hold.

VIII. This is the outline of my scheme for the establishment and manning
of the International Court of Justice. But before I leave the subject, I
must say a few words concerning two important points which almost all
other schemes for the establishment of an International Court overlook.
Firstly, the necessity to make provision for what I should like to call
complex cases of dispute; namely, cases which are justiciable but in
which, besides the question of law, there is at the same time involved a
vital political principle or claim. Take the case of a South American
State entering into an agreement with a non-American State to lease to
it a coaling station: this case is justiciable, but besides the question
of law there is a political claim involved in it, namely, the Monroe
doctrine of the United States. Unless provision be made for the
settlement of such complex cases, the League of Nations will not be a
success, for it might well happen that a case touches vital political
interests in such a way as not to permit a State to have it settled by a
mere juristic decision.