In Greece. during the lifetime of Darius, a dispute arose between his sons Ariamenes and Xerxes as to the succession, and that Darius settled it in favour of the latter. But after the death of the king, the conflict between the claimants arose again on account of the different views of the people, and owing to the alleged absence of positiveness and finality in the previous settlement. Hence it was agreed to submit their claims to their uncle Artaphernes, who pronounced in favour of Xerxes.1 This is obviously not an instance of international arbitration, but merely a family arrangement. Again, in the case of a dispute between Cyrus and the king of Assyria, an Indian sovereign is reported to have been called in as arbitrator. Further, it appears that after the defeat of the Ionians, Artaphernes, the satrap of Sardis, summoned the deputies of the towns, and induced them to enter into a convention engaging to settle any conflicts that might arise amongst themselves by the peaceful means of an arbitral tribunal rather than by violent measures.2 When we come to Greece, we find that the conception of arbitration was much more developed than it was elsewhere, and that arbitral procedure was there more extensively applied than it had been heretofore or in any other contemporary State. Decrees were often passed in honour of arbitration. Indeed, it may be 1 Cf. Barbeyrac, op. cit. i. no. 107, p. 86, who gives the text of Justin, ii. 10. 9 : "Hoc certamen ad patruum suum Artaphernem, veluti ad domesticum iudicem deferunt; qui domi cognita causa, Xerxem praeposuit.' 2 Herodot. vi. 42: τούτου τοῦ ἔτεος ̓Αρταφέρνης ὁ Σαρδίων ὕπαρχος, μεταπεμψάμενος ἀγγέλους ἐκ τῶν πολίων, συνθήκας σφίσι αὐτοῖσι τοὺς Ιωνας ἠνάγκασε ποιέεσθαι, ἵνα δωσίδικοι εἶεν, καὶ μὴ ἀλλήλους φέροιέν τε καὶ ἄγοιεν. 3 On arbitration in Greece, see M. H. E. Meier, Die Privatschiedsrichter und die öffentlichen Diäteten Athens, so wie die Austragalgerichte in den griechischen Staaten des Alterthums (Halle, 1846); E. Sonne, De arbitris externis quos Graeci adhibuerunt ad lites intestinas et peregrinas componendas quaestiones epigraphicae (Göttingen, 1888); V. Bérard, De arbitrio inter liberas Graecorum civitates (Paris, 1894); B. Hubert, De arbitris atticis et privatis et publicis (Leipzig, 1885). reasonably claimed that international arbitration, in the heroic age. Already in the Greek mythological and heroic ages Arbitration in we find examples of private and interstatal arbitration, the Greek and even various cases arising amongst the gods themselves. Thus, there were frequent disputes between the gods respecting the possession of a country or portion of territory, and as to the predominance of this or that worship therein; and such controversies were often submitted to and settled by chosen gods or heroes. Pausanias relates, for instance, that there was a difference between Poseidon (the Latin Neptune, god of the sea) and Helios (the sun-god) with regard to the possession of the Corinthian territory, and that the hundred-handed giant, Briareus (known also as Aegaeon) acted as mediator, diaλλakтns, awarding to Poseidon the isthmus and its neighbourhood, and to Helios the height which dominates the city. So that from that time, the Corinthians considered that the isthmus belonged to Poseidon. The same writer states that there was a legend to the effect that Inachus (the mythical king of Argos) arbitrated in the dispute between Poseidon and Hera 1 E. de Ruggiero, L'arbitrato pubblico in relazione col privato presso i Romani.-Studio di epigrafia giuridica (Roma, 1893), p. 52. 2 Cf. Meier, op. cit. p. 8, note I. 8 Pausan ii. 1. 6: λέγουσι δὲ καὶ οἱ Κορίνθιοι Ποσειδῶνα ἐλθεῖν Ηλίῳ περὶ τῆς γῆς ἐς ἀμφισβήτησιν, Βριάρεων δὲ διαλλακτὴν γενέσθαι σφίσιν, Ἰσθμὸν μὲν καὶ ὅσα ταύτῃ δικάσαντα είναι Ποσειδῶνος, τὴν δὲ ἄκραν Ἡλίῳ δόντα τὴν ὑπὲρ τῆς πόλεως. ἀπὸ μὲν τούτου λέγουσιν εἶναι τὸν Ἰσθμὸν Ποσειδώνος. (the Latin Juno, queen of the gods) as to Argolis, and that he was assisted by Cephisus and Asterion (two river-gods). Poseidon, however, did not acquiesce in their decision, which was delivered in favour of Hera, and in retaliation caused their water to disappear.1 Again, in the case of the conflicting claims of Athena (the tutelary goddess of Athens, called Minerva by the Romans) and Poseidon as to the possession of Aegina, Zeus was the arbitrator, and he decided that they should hold it in common.2 We read also of other examples of arbitration, such as that between Adrastus (king of Argos) and Amphiaraus (a famous Greek seer) in reference to the Argive kingdom, when Eriphyle, the sister of Adrastus, and the wife of Amphiaraus, decided in favour of her brother; and that between the sons of Erechtheus (a fabled king of Athens) as to sovereignty in Attica, when Xuthus (the mythical king of Peloponnesus) pronounced in favour of Cecrops, the eldest: the other sons, however, refused to accept the award, and drove the successful claimant from the country.* It must be here emphasized that the above examples, mythical or heroic, are referred to, not with a view to insist on literal facts and details, but merely to point to the existence of the conception of arbitration, other than private, in the earliest epochs; such instances show, at all events, that in the traditions current amongst the Greeks of the historical period, arbitral 1 Pausan. ii. 15. 5: τοῦτον δὲ Ποσειδῶνι καὶ Ηρᾳ δικάσαι περὶ τῆς χώρας, σὺν δὲ αὐτῷ Κηφισόν τε καὶ ̓Αστερίωνα· κρινάντων δὲ Ηρας εἶναι τὴν γῆν, οὕτω σφίσιν ἀφανίσαι τὸ ὕδωρ Ποσειδώνα. 2 Ibid. ii. 30. 6. 3 Diodor. iv. 65 : καθ ̓ ὃν δὴ χρόνον 'Αμφιαράου πρὸς ̓́Αδραστον στασιάζοντας περὶ τῆς βασιλείας, ὁμολογίας θέσθαι πρὸς ἀλλήλους, καθ ̓ ἃς ἐπέτρεπον κρῖναι περὶ τῶν ἀμφισβητουμένων Εριφύλην, γυναῖκα μὲν οὖσαν ̓Αμφιαράου, ἀδελφὴν δὲ 'Αδράστου. 4 Pausan. vii. 1. 2: ἀποθανόντος δὲ Ερεχθέως τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ δικαστὴς Ξούθος ἐγένετο ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀρχῆς, καὶ ἔγνω γὰρ τὸν πρεσβύτατον Κέκροπα βασιλέα εἶναι, οἱ λοιποὶ τοῦ Ερεχθέως παῖδες ἐξελαύνουσιν ἐκ τῆς χώρας αὐτόν. procedure was clearly recognized as having already been a long-established institution in their country. Coming to more historical times in Greece, we find a In the large variety of disputes submitted to arbitrators, and historical age a frequent adoption of the arbitral procedure. These comprised matters of religion, questions relating to the occupation and possession of territory, especially in respect of the numerous isles scattered in the Grecian seas, disputes arising out of the delimitation of boundaries, commercial differences, violation of port privileges, rupture of federal pacts and other alliances, and, in general, offences against the sovereignty or autonomy of the contending parties. in favour of In comparison with other ancient nations, the Greeks The Greeks ever manifested a ready disposition to submit their arbitration. disputes to arbitral tribunals, and in many other respects showed unmistakably general pacific tendencies. Thus in 432 B.C., at the assembly of the Peloponnesian allies at Sparta, many complaints were brought against Athens by the various confederates, and the majority of the Lacedaemonians, at their subsequent conference in private, thought there was a clear case against the accused city, and were anxious for war. But their king, Archidamus, who was esteemed as an able and prudent man,—ἀνὴρ καὶ ξυνετὸς δοκῶν εἶναι καὶ σώφρων, as Thucydides says observed in the course of his speech: "At my age, Lacedaemonians, I have had experience of many wars, and I see several of you who are as old as I am, and who will not, as men too often do, desire war because they have never known it, or in the belief that it is either a good or a safe thing." Then condemning precipitation, and counselling a temporizing policy, he suggested a reference to arbitrators of the complaint of the Corinthians, of the 1i. 79. 2 2 Thuc. i. 8ο: καὶ αὐτὸς πολλῶν ἤδη πολέμων ἔμπειρός εἰμι, ὦ Λακεδαιμόνιοι, καὶ ὑμῶν τοὺς ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἡλικίᾳ ὁρῶ, ὥστε μήτε ἀπειρίᾳ ἐπιθυμῆσαί τινα τοῦ ἔργου, ὅπερ ἂν οἱ πολλοὶ πάθοιεν, μήτε ἀγαθὸν καὶ ἀσφαλὲς νομίσαντα. question of the Athenian blockade of Potidaea, and of the grievances of the other allies. "Send to the Athenians," he urged them, "and remonstrate with them, both about Potidaea, and about the other wrongs of which your allies complain. They say they are willing to have the matter tried; and against one who offers to submit to justice, you must not proceed as against a criminal until his cause has been heard."1 This was a reference to the rejoinder of Athenian ambassadors, who happened to be present in Sparta on other affairs, defending their country against the numerous accusations, exhorting the assembly not to make war in violation of their oaths, and suggesting that their differences should be determined by arbitration, according to the previous treaty,-σTovdas un Xúew μηδὲ παραβαίνειν τοὺς ὅρκους, τὰ δὲ διάφορα δίκῃ λύεσθαι κατὰ τὴν ξυνθήκην. In 420 B.C., in the negotiations between Argos and Lacedaemon respecting the conclusion of peace, the Argives demanded that the old difference about the border-land of Cynuria, a district occupied by the Lacedaemonians, should be submitted to the arbitration of some State or person.3 Aeschines, in a eulogy of arbitral procedure for the settling of conflicts, praises Philip of Macedon for offering to submit his quarrels with Athens to the judgment of an impartial State. Demosthenes, however, having regard especially to Philip's palpably unjustifiable claim as to Halonnesus, characterized his offer as an insult to the Athenians.5 1 Thuc. i. 85 : καὶ πρὸς τοὺς ̓Αθηναίους πέμπετε μὲν περὶ τῆς Ποτιδαίας, πέμπετε δὲ περὶ ὧν οἱ ξύμμαχοί φασιν ἀδικεῖσθαι, ἄλλως τε καὶ ἑτοίμων ὄντων αὐτῶν δίκας δοῦναι. ἐπὶ δὲ τὸν διδόντα οὐ πρότερον νόμιμον ὡς ἐπ ̓ ἀδικοῦντα ἰέναι. 2 Ibid. i. 78. 8 Ibid. v. 41: καὶ τὸ μὲν πρῶτον οἱ Ἀργεῖοι ἠξίουν δίκης ἐπιτροπὴν σφίσι γενέσθαι ἢ ἐς πόλιν τινὰ ἢ ἰδιώτην, περὶ τῆς Κυνοσουρίας γῆς, ἧς ἀεὶ πέρι διαφέρονται μεθορίας οὔσης.... |