fication, and others—because they have expected to be able to dispense with conferences except in abnormal times. The great value of the Hague Conferences was that they inaugurated what was by implication to be a continuous and permanent series of such conferences. The interruption of 1914 would constitute a tremendous catastrophe indeed if it had not led to a resumption of the process of conference in a fashion and on a scale more significant even than the activities of the nineteenth century and the Hague Conferences themselves. To this matter we shall presently return.1 CHAPTER XXI PEACE CONFERENCES; THE CONFERENCE OF PARIS THE HE origin of international conferences in time of peace was found to lie in deliberate efforts to take thought for the morrow and to preserve the peace in the future by international arrangements made in advance of the actual need for them. Conferences for the termination of war are quite different. Such conferences, called "peace conferences" by reason of the object directly in view, namely, the restoration of peace, are actually held in time of war and originate in the practical necessity for clearing up the problems at issue between or among two or more states whose interests have clashed and whose peaceful relations have actually been interrupted by the outbreak of war.1 It would be possible, of course, for belligerents merely to stop fighting, and to go on into the future without concluding a formal treaty of peace, and this has happened several times in the modern history of international relations. Such a method of terminating war, known as "simple cessation of hostilities," is, however, very unsatisfactory to all concerned. The belligerents themselves are left in doubt regarding each other's intentions. Hostilities may be resumed without warning. A constant attitude of defense and suspicion is rendered inevitable. Neutrals, again, or states which would be neutral if war really ex 1 On peace conferences see literature cited, below, Appendix B, § 21. 'Phillipson, Termination of War, 3-8. isted, are left uncertain regarding their rights and duties toward the belligerents. Finally, the status of occupied territory is ambiguous. The termination of war by the conquest or complete subjugation of one party by the other might leave no room for doubt. Even here, however, both logic and convenience require some formal notice to the world by the conquering power declaring its intention respecting the conquered territory. And where merely a portion of the territory of an opposing belligerent has been occupied it is doubly desirable for the status of that territory to be defined and made known to all the members of the society of nations. Where hostilities have long ceased and positive acts of peaceful intercourse have been performed by the recent enemies, third states must conclude that the war is over and, according to the rule of uti possidetis, that the occupied territory has passed under the sovereignty of the state whose forces are in possession at the termination of hostilities. Obviously, however, it would be better for all concerned if the belligerents would clear up all questions outstanding between them in a formal and explicit agreement or treaty of peace. The superior convenience of such a settlement has led to the practice of conference for the termination of war. As has been pointed out, such conferences are far older than conferences in time of peace. Indeed, they are as old as international relations themselves, since war and the termination of war are equally as old. From the immemorial dawn of tribal and interstate conflict belligerents have met together, quite naturally and simply at first, deliber ately and ceremoniously later, to patch up the broken fabric of their normal relations one with another.2 And in spite of the knowledge that the peace to be made will not, in 'Phillipson, Termination of War, 9-19. * See treatment of jus fetiale in Phillipson, II, Chap. XXVI, and 320-321; also Bouché-Leclercq, 541-543. all probability, be permanent, in spite of the memories and feelings of war which still dominate men's minds, such meetings have never failed to appeal mightily to the peoples suffering from the hostilities, and in some degree even to the cynical professional diplomat who could but suspect that this was only one of the many pacifications hailed as complete and definitive at the time, only to be proved hollow and transitory in the event. The outburst of feeling throughout Western Europe and the United States on 11 November, 1918, may be recalled in this connection. Certain notable changes have, however, come over the typical peace conference in the past century. Of these, three deserve notice here. First, there has occurred what might be described as a generalization of the peace conference in respect to the parties who are concerned and who are therefore invited to participate. Originally the peace conference included only the belligerents, and in the great majority of cases only two belligerents. This form of peace conference still persists, of course, and is illustrated best by a case where the belligerents come in contact and conduct their conference to a successful conclusion without aid from any third state, as happened at the end of the war between France and Germany in 1871.1 In later times, however, there has appeared a tendency to expand the peace conference to include several, and indeed many, powers. This has been due partially to a second tendency, discernible still farther beneath the surface of events, whereby wars have changed from "special" wars between two parties to "general" wars involving several parties. This has resulted, in the main, from the increased degree to which the interests of all nations are interwoven in modern times, and, more especially, from the practice of forming alliances for the furtherance of these interests. So long as all of the participants in the peace conference are belligerents, there is 1 Phillipson, Termination, 60. 1 no sharp break with the traditional theory. Very early in modern international relations, however, it was felt to be advisable to call in states which had been neutral in the war, in view of the extent to which their interests were involved in the general settlement. This happened at Westphalia in 1648, at Vienna in 1815, and again at Paris in 1856, to name only three famous general peace conferences, and it marks a new stage in international constitutional development.1 In like manner the questions treated in peace conferences have been generalized. Originally the questions at issue between the belligerents in the war were, alone, put in discussion. With the expansion of the area of conflict, however, the necessity for keeping in view many collateral questions affecting the belligerents, and also states with whom the belligerents were in mutual relationships, became evident. Inasmuch as the object of peace conferences soon came to be that of making a permanent peace, and not merely patching up the current dispute, this necessity grew greater. In the end what was involved was a general review and settlement of all outstanding international disputes, a general pacification. The peace conference thus approached more nearly the nature of the conference in time of peace, that is, an international constituent assembly of general jurisdiction.2 The traditional rule to the effect that only questions at issue between the belligerents come within the jurisdiction of the conference is still put forward by neutrals desiring to block consideration of questions affecting them and by belligerents desiring to avoid certain embarrassing problems. None the less the tendency described is unmistakable in practice, and in view Westphalia: Satow, II, § 441, especially 7-8; Vienna: same, 77 (§ 461); Paris: Phillipson, 120. 'See Satow's distinction between "Congresses" and "Conferences'' in Chaps. XXV and XXVI; see also the anxiety of the Powers in 1818 to prevent other states from thinking that the forthcoming meeting at Aix-la-Chapelle was to be a Congress and thus prevent "the intervention of other princes and cabinets" (Satow, § 462). |