§ 16. An arbitral verdict is final if the arbitration treaty does not stipulate the contrary, and the verdict given by the arbitrators is binding upon the parties. As, however, no such central authority exists above the States as could execute the verdict against a State refusing to submit, it is in such a case the right of the other party to enforce the arbitral decision by compulsion. Yet it is obvious that an arbitral verdict is binding only under the condition[16] that the arbitrators have in every way fulfilled their duty as umpires and have been able to find their verdict in perfect independence. Should they have been bribed or not followed their instructions, should their verdict have been given under the influence of coercion of any kind, or should one of the parties have intentionally and maliciously led the arbitrators into an essential material error, the arbitral verdict would have no binding force whatever. Thus the award given in 1831 by the King of Holland in the North-Eastern Boundary Dispute between Great Britain and the United States of America was not considered binding by the parties because the arbitrator had transgressed his powers.[17] For the same reason, Bolivia refused in 1910 to submit to the award of the President of Argentina in her boundary dispute with Peru.[18] And in October 1910, the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, deciding the case of the United States of America against the United States of Venezuela concerning the claims of the Orinoco Steamship Company, annulled,[19] with regard to certain points, a previous arbitration award given by Mr. Barge. [Footnote 16: See Donker Curtius and Nys in _R.I._ 2nd Ser. XII. (1910), pp. 5-34 and 595-641.] [Footnote 17: See Moore, VII. § 1082, and Moore, _Arbitrations_, I. pp. 81-161.] [Footnote 18: See Fiore in _R.G._ XVII. (1910), pp. 225-256.] [Footnote 19: See Martens, _N.R.G._ 3rd Ser. IV. (1911), p. 79.] [Sidenote: What differences can be decided by Arbitration.]