<2 
RESPONSIBILITY OF STATES 
played by the large number of treaties on arbitration and conciliation recently 
made! All of these treaties provide that in matters within the jurisdiction 
of the national courts, the international proceedings will be subject to the 
exhaustion of the local remedies available to the injured person for the 
purpose of securing redress. This is also, more or less, the conclusion 
adopted by the Preparatory Committee. The majority of the governments 
have adhered to this doctrine without hesitation. Only in isolated cases have 
certain reservations been made. Denmark affirms the principle, especially as 
regards injuries caused through the action of the courts: 
“In the case of the acts,” she adds, “of an administrative authority, 
the above principle cannot, however, be applied unconditionally. In the 
domain of the administration, it is possible to conceive of cases in which 
the act of a subaltern authority may give rise to diplomatic action, even 
though the person concerned has the right of recourse to a higher in- 
stance. Here the decision must depend on the nature of each case; no 
definite limits can be set. In the collection of taxes, Customs or other 
duties, contrary to the provisions of commercial treaties, the claim may 
doubtless be brought immediately against the State, even though the 
foreign private individual were entitled to complain to a higher Customs 
or fiscal authority. When, however, the matter is rather one of technical 
or arbitrary judgment—as for instance the classification of certain goods 
under a certain tariff heading—the State in question may insist that the 
foreigner shall first of all submit the matter fo a higher expert authority 
before making anv claim against the State.” 
Hungary avers, on her part, that 
“This principle may, of course, be modified on behalf of foreigners 
as a result of an obligation assumed by the State in an international con- 
vention, or when the settlement of a dispute falls in virtue of an inter- 
national agreement. within the jurisdiction of an international organ.” 
Japan restricts the application of the principle to cases involving court de- 
cisions, Finally, Norway states that 
“If damage has been caused to a foreigner as a result of an act con- 
trary to the various laws of the State, the foreigner in question must 
first exhaust all remedies open to him under the laws of that State before 
international responsibility can be invoked against the State. The only 
exception to this rule would be in extreme cases of denial of justice or 
other flagrant injustice. 
Hay Duties, British American Claims Commission, March 10, 1925, American Journal 
of International Law, vol. 19 pages 797, 799; The R. T. Roy, ibid. 802; Adolph G. 
Studer, ibid. 794. . 
*Traités Généraux d’Arbitrage cornmuniqués au Bureau International de la Cour 
Permanente d’Arbitrage.