25 
position and rights of its subjects, is introduced in the parliament of 
the country where these bills have originated, they shall be submitted to 
the advisory body for consideration, unless this involves serious diffi- 
culties. The advisory body shall propose amendments to such clauses 
in the bills as may be thought to conflict with the interests of the other 
country or those of its subjects. This committee shall also frame bills 
aiming at cooperation between both countries and at conformity in their 
respective legislation and to take part in inter-Scandinavian coopera- 
tion in the sphere of legislation. The committee at present comprises 
8 members and has ‘up to now assembled once a year, alternately 
in Iceland and Denmark. — As regards the court of arbitration 
the act provides that if differences of opinion arise concerning the 
provisions of this act, which cannot be adjusted by the governments, 
the matter shall be laid before a court of arbitration consisting of 
four members, two to be appointed by thé supreme court of each 
country. This court of arbitration shall settle the differences by majori- 
ty of votes. But in case of a tie, the matter shall be submitted to an arbi- 
trator appointed alternately by the Swedish and Norwegian governments. 
Finally there are in this act provisions concerning the abrogation of 
the act; according to which either Althingi or the Rigsdag may, 
after the 31st of Dec. 1940 demand a revision of this act of union, 
and if negotiations do not result in a new treaty within three years 
from the submission of such a demand, either parliament may pass a 
resolution to the effect that the treaty contained in the act be abolished. 
But in order to make this resolution valid a two-thirds vote of either 
house of the Rigsdag and the same number of votes in the united 
Althingi is required. This resolution must subsequently be submitted to 
a referendum in which at least three-fourths of the parliamentary 
electorate exercise their vote, and three-fourths of the votes cast must 
be in favour of the abrogation of the treaty. . 
The union of Iceland and Denmark, according to the act of union, 
belongs to the domain of international, not constitutional, law. Both 
countries are sovereign states. Neither is superior to the other in the 
union, and there is no State superior to them. Whether the union is 
to be termed a personal union or a real union, depends on what con- 
ceptions these terms are intended to imply. If it is called a real union, 
it must be observed that it is an unusually loose one, as the two countries 
have no supreme authority of State in common except the king. The 
advisory committee is indeed common for both countries, but being only 
advisorv. it cannot be looked upon as invested with constitutional power.