§§329-330]

METHODS OF SECURING PEACE

371

National

the nature of the dispute, if justice is to prevail. courts invariably determine their own jurisdiction, and since the date of the Jay Treaty, which brought arbitration again into repute between nations, mixed commissions and international tribunals have defined their jurisdiction, and properly so, because the power is inherent in a court. The court which we would install at The Hague is to be permanent, in the sense that it is to be definitely composed in advance of litigation. The judges are to be lawyers by profession, who from experience will act under a sense of judicial as distinct from diplomatic responsibility. Its jurisdiction is to be limited to disputes of a justiciable nature; that is to say, cases involving law and equity. It is to interpret the convention creating it, and thus determine its own jurisdiction, and, in the language of the preamble to the Pacific Settlement Convention, it is to be accessible to all in the midst of independent powers.

(c) [$330] Platform of the World's Court League.

BY THE LEAGUE.

We believe it to be desirable that a League among Nations should be organized for the following purposes:

1. A World Court, in general similar to the Court of Arbitral Justice already agreed upon at the Second Hague Conference, should be, as soon as possible, established as an International Court of Justice, representing the nations of the world, and, subject to the limitations of treaties, empowered to assume jurisdiction over international questions in dispute that are justiciable in character and that are not settled by negotiation.

2. All other international controversies not settled by negotiation should be referred to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague, or submitted to an International Council of Conciliation, or Commissions of Inquiry, for hearing, consideration and recommendation.

3. Soon after peace is declared, there should be held either "a conference of all great Governments," as described in the United States Naval Appropriation Act of 1916, or a similar assembly, formally designated as the Third Hague Conference, and the sessions of such international conferences should become permanently periodic, at shorter intervals than formerly. Such conference or conferences should (a) formulate and adopt plans for the establishment of a World Court and an International Council of Conciliation, and (b) from time to time formulate and codify rules of international law to govern in the decisions of the World Court in all cases, except those involving any constituent State which has within the fixed period signified its dissent.

4. In connection with the establishment of automatically periodic sessions of an International Conference, the constituent Governments should establish a Permanent Continuation Committee of the conference, with such administrative powers as may be delegated to it by the conference.

(d) [§331] A League to Enforce Peace.

BY PRESIDENT A. LAWRENCE LOWELL.

ANTEDATES THIS WAR.

In spite of its ominous sound, the suggestion of a league of nations to enforce peace has no connection with any effort to stop the present war. It is aimed solely at preventing future conflicts after the terrific struggle now raging has come to an end; and yet this is not a bad time for people in private life to bring forward proposals of such a nature. Owing to the vast number of soldiers under arms, to the proportion of men and women in the warring countries who suffer acutely, to the extent of the devastation and misery, it is probable that, whatever the result may be, the people of all nations will be more anxious to prevent the outbreak of another war than ever before in the history of the world. The time is not yet ripe for governments to take action, but it is ripe for public discussion of practicable means to reduce the danger of future breaches of international peace.

ARBITRATION.

Treaties for the arbitration of international disputes are good. They have proved an effective method of settling questions that would otherwise have bred ill-feeling without directly causing war; but when passion runs high, and deeprooted interests or sentiments are at stake, there is need of the sheriff with his posse to enforce the obligation. There are, no doubt, differences in the conception of justice and right, divergencies of civilization, so profound that people will fight over them, and face even the prospect of disaster in war rather than submit. Yet even in such cases it is worth while to postpone the conflict to have a public discussion of the question at issue before an impartial tribunal, and thus give to the people of the countries involved a chance to consider, before hostilities begin, whether the risk and suffering of war is really worth while. No sensible man expects to abolish wars altogether, but we ought to seek to reduce the probability of war as much as possible. It is on these grounds that the suggestion has been put forth of a league of nations to enforce peace.

FOUR POINTS OF THE PLAN.

Without attempting to cover details of operation, which are, indeed, of vital importance and will require careful study by experts in international law and diplomacy, the proposal contains four points stated as general objects. The first is that before resorting to arms the members of the league shall submit disputes with one another, if justiciable, to an international tribunal; second, that in like manner they shall submit non-justiciable questions (that is such as cannot be decided on the basis of strict international law) to an international council of conciliation, which shall recommend

8331]

ENFORCEMENT OF PEACE

373

a fair and amicable solution; third, that if any member of the league wages war against another before submitting the question in dispute to the tribunal or council, all the other members shall jointly use forthwith both their economic and military forces against the state that so breaks the peace; and, fourth, that the signatory powers shall endeavor to codify and improve the rules of international law.

The kernel of the proposal, the feature in which it differs from other plans, lies in the third point, obliging all the members of the league to declare war on any member violating the pact of peace. This is the provision that provokes both adherence and opposition; and at first it certainly gives one a shock that a people should be asked to pledge itself to go to war over a quarrel which is not of its making, in which it has no interest, and in which it may believe that substantial justice lies on the other side. If, indeed, the nations of the earth could maintain complete isolation, could pursue each its own destiny without regard to the rest, if they were not affected by a war between two others or liable to be drawn into it; if, in short, there were no overwhelming common interest in securing universal peace, the provision would be intolerable. It would be as bad as the liability of an individual to take part in the posse comitatus of a community with which he had nothing in common. But in every civilized country the public force is employed to prevent any man, however just his claim, from vindicating his own right with his own hand instead of going to law; and every citizen is bound, when needed, to assist in preventing him, because that is the only way to restrain private war, and the maintenance of order is of paramount importance for every one. Surely the family of nations has a like interest in restraining war between states.

ENFORCEMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE DECISIONS.

It will be observed that the members of the league are not to bind themselves to enforce the decision of the tribunal or the award of the council of conciliation. That may come in the remote future, but it is no part of this proposal. It would be imposing obligations far greater than the nations can reasonably be expected to assume at the present day; for the conceptions of international morality and fair play are still so vague and divergent that a nation can hardly bind itself to wage war on another, with which it has no quarrel, to enforce a decision or a recommendation of whose justice or wisdom it may not be itself heartily convinced. The proposal goes no farther than obliging all the members to prevent by threat of armed intervention a breach of the public peace before the matter in dispute has been submitted to arbitration, and this is neither unreasonable nor impracticable. There are many questions, especially of a non-justiciable nature, on which we should not be willing to bind ourselves to accept the decision of an arbitration, and where we should regard compulsion by armed intervention of the rest of the world as outrageous.

DIMINISHING EFFECT.

No one will claim that a league to enforce peace, such as is proposed, would wholly prevent war, but it would greatly reduce the probability of hostilities. It would take away the advantage of surprise, of catching the enemy unprepared for a sudden attack. It would give a chance for public opinion on the nature of the controversy to be formed throughout the world and in the militant country. The latter is of great importance, for the moment war is declared argument about its merits is at once stifled. Passion runs too high for calm debate, and patriotism forces people to support their government. But a trial before an international tribunal would give time for discussion while emotion is not yet highly inflamed. Men opposed to war would be able to urge its injustice, to ask whether, after all, the object is worth the sacrifice, and they would get a hearing from their fellow citizens which they cannot get after war begins. The mere delay, the interval for consideration, would be an immense gain for the prospect of a peaceful settlement.

(Atlantic Monthly, vol. 116, pp. 392-400; Sept., 1916.)

(e) [8332] We Cannot Dispense With Force.

By PRESIDENT EMERITUS CHARLES WILLIAM ELIOT.

A few philanthropists believe that the world would get on better if there were no armies and navies and no use of force to resist wrong-doers; but non-resistance seems to almost everybody an impracticable international policy at mankind's actual state of progress. The nations have not yet come into Emerson's "region of holiness" where passion passes from them. On the contrary, never before was outrageous violence so rife in the world, and resistance to it by force so indispensable. The policy of non-resistance is nowhere applied to burglars, murderers, or maniacs. No more can it be applied to Europe, in full view of invasions of Belgium and Serbia, Armenian massacres, and the sudden sinking of passenger steamers, merchantmen, and fishermen. Non-resistance is an admirable moral goal; but reaching it seems at the present day as far off as when Buddha taught, twenty-five hundred years ago, that the use of force was never justifiable or even expedient.

MAINTENANCE OF PEACE.

Since peaceful international relations will need for decades the firm support of a trustworthy protective international force, the United States ought to be in a position to supply part of that force. It is America's clear duty to her inheritance of liberty and to civilization itself to take an effective part in the maintenance of peace and of the freedom of the seas when the present war is over. For the discharge of this duty, and for her own security, America needs a strong navy and a strong potential army, both kept always ready. She can secure neither without adopting the principle of

$332]

PREPAREDNESS AND PEACE

375

universal service. Such are the lessons of German's outbreak in 1914, and of the fifty-year-long Prussian preparation for that outbreak in such secrecy, and with such protestations of innocency, that the other European nations were taken by surprise when the German armies rushed over Belgium bound for Paris.

After peace had been maintained by force for some years, and the world sees that the alliance of a few strong nations to prevent war is effective, and can be trusted, it will be possible to take steps toward a general reduction of armaments, and so to lift a crushing burden from the productive workers of the world. The formation of such an alliance within the next few months would contribute effectively to the arrest of the present horrible destructions, and to the arrangement by conference and negotiation of satisfactory terms for a durable peace. Should not the United States of America be a member of that beneficent alliance? Its past history, its present needs, and its future hopes answer— Yes!

To insure the country against invasion, to help on democratic government in the world, and to give greater security to humanity for its progress in arts, letters, science, and ethics, free from such terrific crumblings and crashes as the last two years have witnessed, would cost the United States much money, much labor over new legislation, and much patience and self-control on the part of the masses of the people. But are not the results to be attained worth to America and the human race all they would cost?

FITTING MEN TO THEIR TASKS.

The present war has demonstrated that the actual fighting force in any campaign has to be supported, equipped, and served by the incessant labor of men and women who greatly exceed in number the actual fighting men, and represent a great variety of civil employments. The principle of universal service skilfully applied will utilize in war time many sorts of special capacities in the individual men. Thus, many young mechanics will be sent to munition factories instead of into the field. Teamsters and chauffeurs will be put into the transportation corps; clerks into the quartermaster's department; medical students and practitioners into the first-aid stations and the hospitals. The Navy will have first choice each year of the young engineers and electricians. The airplanes will be manned by men whose age and previous training qualify them for that work. The selection of the individual for any one of these special functions will be made by his first military teachers; but the personal choice of the individual will naturally be regarded by the selecting authority, if supported by evidence concerning his previous training.

FOUR PREPAREDNESS PROPOSITIONS.

The following propositions, in my judgment, represent an accurate analysis of the present situation with reference to the preparedness movement and the duty of the United States toward the problem of more permanent world peace.