Il designera en outre trois etats neutres, qui choisiront chacun un des trois autres membres." In the abstract, and supposing that a tribunal perfectly satisfactory both to belligerents and neutrals could be constituted, whether antecedently or _ad hoc_, there might be much to be said for the proposal; subject, however, to one condition--viz.

that an agreement had been previously arrived at as to the law which the Court is to apply.

At the present time there exists, on many vital questions of prize law, no such agreement.

It will be sufficient to mention those relating to the list of contraband, the distinction between "absolute" and "conditional" contraband, the doctrine of "continuous voyages," the right of sinking a neutral prize, the moment from which a vessel becomes liable for breach of blockade.
Just as the _Alabama_ arbitration would have been impossible had not an agreement been arrived at upon the principles in accordance with which neutral duties as to the exit of ships of war were to be construed, so, also, before an international Court can be empowered to decide questions of prize, whether in the first instance or on appeal, it is indispensable that the law to be applied on the points above mentioned, and many others, should have been clearly defined and accepted, if not generally, at least by all parties concerned.

The moral which I would venture to draw is, therefore, that although questions of fact, arising out of capture of a prize, might sometimes be submitted to a tribunal of arbitration, no case, involving rules of law as to which nations take different views, could possibly be so submitted.