The Geneva Protocol, by David Hunter Miller

CHAPTER XX. 109
(a) Compulsory arbitration at the request of one of the parties;
(b) A unanimous decision by the Council;
(c) Compulsory arbitration enjoined by the Council.
Appropriate methods are laid down for all three cases.
Article 4, paragraph 2.
First case of Compulsory Arbitration.--If the parties, being called upon by the Council to submit their dispute
to a judicial or arbitral settlement, do not succeed in coming to an agreement on the subject, there is no
question of optional arbitration, but if a single party desires arbitration, arbitration immediately becomes
compulsory.
The dispute is then ipso facto referred to a Committee of Arbitrators, which must be constituted within such
time limit as the Council shall fix.
{176}
Full liberty is left to the parties themselves to constitute this Committee of Arbitrators. They may agree
between themselves in regard to the number, names and powers of the arbitrators and the procedure. It is to be
understood that the word "powers" is to be taken in the widest sense, including, inter alia, the questions to be
put.
It was not considered desirable to develop this idea further. It appeared to be sufficient to state that any result
which could be obtained by means of an agreement between the parties was preferable to any other solution.
It also appeared inexpedient to define precisely the powers which should be conferred upon the arbitrators.
This is a matter which depends upon the circumstances of each particular case. According to the case, the
arbitrators, as is said above, may fill the rôle of judges giving decisions of pure law or may have the function
of arranging an amicable settlement with power to take account of considerations of equity.
It has not been thought necessary to lay this down in the form of a rule. It has appeared preferable to leave it
in each case to the parties to agree between themselves to decide the matter according to the circumstances of
the case.
Nevertheless, consideration has been given to the possibility that the arbitrators need not necessarily be jurists.
It has therefore been decided that, when called upon to deal with points of law, they shall, if one of the parties
so desires, request, through the medium of the Council, the advisory opinion of the Permanent Court of
International Justice, which must, in such a case, meet with the utmost possible despatch. The opinion of the
Court is obtained for the assistance of the arbitrators; it is not legally binding upon them, although its
scientific authority must, in all cases, exercise a strong influence upon their judgment. With a view to
preventing abusively frequent consultations of this kind, it is understood that the opinion of the Court in
regard to disputed points of law can only be asked on a single occasion in the course of each case.
{177}
The extension which, in the new system of pacific settlement of disputes, has been given to the advisory
procedure of the Court has suggested the idea that it might be desirable to examine whether, even in such
cases, it might not be well to adopt the system of adding national judges which at present only obtains in
litigious proceedings, and also that of applying to the advisory procedure the provisions of Article 24 of the