If it is true that self-help in the form of pacific blockade or forcible recovery of contract debts is inconsistent with equality, and there seems to be no escape from that conclusion, then war is inconsistent with equality a fortiori. So long as self-help remains a recognized and important remedial process of the law of nations, it will be necessary to take account of important limitations upon equality of legal capacity. The society of nations fortunate, indeed, if it secures unqualified support for the basic principle of equality before the law.

XII

LIMITATIONS INCIDENT TO SUPERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION

The creation of true supernational authority, capable of enforcing its decisions on participating states, is obviously a limitation upon the capacity of participating states, As between the states which are members of such an organization, however, the limitation may apply equally and therefore equality of capacity may be unimpaired.

Indeed,

not only may equality be preserved, but the legal capacity of each may become much more significant through the subordination of individual freedom of action to the common interest. and the substitution of orderly procedure for self-help. Where a limited number of states constitute such an organization an inequality of capacity arises between those states and others outside the organization. Attendant advantages

may more than compensate for the inequality in relation to other states, but the inequality arises, nevertheless, in a form which the law cannot overlook.

The development of this type of limitation has been almost negligible in the past.' It is worthy of mention chiefly because of its possible importance in the future. It has present significance in connection with the Central American Court of Justice. The Treaty of Washington, December 20, 1907, negotiated under the friendly offices of the United States and Mexico provides:

The Republics of Central America consider as one of their first duties, in their mutual relations, the maintenance of peace; and they bind themselves to always observe the most complete harmony, and decide every difference or difficulty that may arise amongst them, of whatsoever nature it may be, by means of the Central American Court of Justice, created by the Convention which they have concluded for that purpose on this date.169

The Convention for the establishment of the Court begins,

The High Contracting Parties agree by the present Convention to constitute and maintain a permanent tribunal which shall be called the "Central American Court of Justice," to which they bind themselves to submit all controversies or questions which may arise among them, of whatsoever nature and no matter what their origin may be, in case the respective Departments of Foreign Affairs should not have been able to reach an understanding.

This Court shall also take cognizance of the questions which individuals of one Central American country may raise against any of the other contracting Governments, because of the violation of treaties or conventions, and other cases of an international char

169 Art. 1, in A.J.I.5. Suppl. (1908), Vol. II, p. 220. See the Protocol of Sept. 17, 1907, in ibid., (1907), Vol. I, p. 406. Read the remarks of the Court in Costa Rica v. Nicaragua (1916), in A.J.I.L. (1917), Vol. XI, pp. 181-229, at p. 211. See Anderson, in A.J.I.L. (1908), Vol. II, pp. 144-151; Scott, in ibid., pp. 121-143.