PEACEFUL SETTLEMENT OF

INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES

THE fundamental covenant made by members of the League is to permit delay for arbitration or inquiry prior to the outbreak of hostilities. To understand how this delay is to be introduced in every case is to understand the heart and crux of the Covenant.

The importance of such delay is illustrated by the experience of the Irishman who found that the resolution to count ten before striking the first blow kept him out of trouble. Possibly it can't be said that the ordinary Irishman would keep this resolution, but if he kept the resolution he would keep out of trouble. The practice between nations at present, as between certain select individuals of pugilistic lore, is to strike the blow and count ten afterward. It doesn't take an

expert in the psychology of violence or a veteran of the great war to point out the importance of delay. Those who have had only domestic encounters know how important it is in preventing the outbreak of hostilities.

And delay has the same pacific tendency in international relations that it has in personal relations. In 1906 a serious situation arose in Morocco from the Kaiser's declaration of policy. A battleship landed off the coast of Agadir and war seemed imminent. Through the influence of Mr. Roosevelt, who was then President of the United States, the Algeciras Conference was called. The machinery was set up after the dispute had arisen, after tempers had become quickened, after peoples had become angered, after statesmen had become embittered; afterward and not before, as would be the case under the League. As a result of the Algeciras Conference, delay was introduced; the whole subject was discussed; public opinion was focussed upon the issues; French claims were established

in Morocco; the Kaiser had to back down, and war was averted.

Again, in 1912, a serious situation in the Balkans led the great nations to the brink of war. Once more, fortunately, they were successful in setting up machinery. The Conference of London was called. Discussion was had. The force of public opinion was felt and war was prevented.

We now recall those dark days during the latter part of July, 1914, and remember the cry that went up from every foreign minister of Europe; the cry that went up from the people of the entire civilized world. They were asking for delay, for conference, for discussion. But the Kaiser answered, "There can be no delay!" And why no delay? Because he knew, as we must know, that delay is fatal to the cause of the aggressor.

If the Covenant of Paris contained one provision, and one provision alone, and that a provision introducing the element of delay prior to the outbreak of hostilities, it would represent a great step in

advance; it would be worthy of acceptance by the American people; worthy of adoption by the United States Senate.

When the ordinary processes of diplomacy fail to-day, the next step is war. Under the League of Nations, the next step after diplomacy fails will be arbitration or inquiry. The machinery will be in existence by which such arbitration or inquiry can be had. Under the covenants of the League the necessary delay will be enforced.

It should be understood just how this element of delay is going to be introduced in every case after diplomacy fails. The nations agree, when a dispute arises, to go either to arbitration or to inquiry. If they agree to arbitration, they agree to abide by the finding of the arbitrators. There can be no hostility during a reasonable time allowed for arbitration, and not until three months after the finding, and not even then as against a nation that fulfils the award. The reasonable time allowed for arbitration, plus the three months, gives time for conference and dis

cussion and the operation of public opinion.

If the nations do not agree to arbitration, the case goes to inquiry, ordinarily before the Council. In order that the report here given should be effective, it is necessary that it should be unanimously agreed to by all members of the Council, parties to the dispute of course excepted. There can be no hostility during six months allowed for the report and not until three months thereafter, and not even then as against a nation that complies with the report. Of course if the required unanimity is not had in the Council, the parties are free to take such action as may be necessary for the protection of their rights, but whether the required unanimity is had or not, there has been a delay of many months during which the forces of public opinion can operate.

The Council may transfer the inquiry to the Assembly, and it may be so transferred by either party to the dispute merely by giving notice within fourteen. days after the dispute has been filed. For