صور الصفحة

is that of the practical neutralization of the Great Lakes in America. In 1817, at the instance of John Quincy Adams, the United States and Great Britain entered into a compact whereby the Great Lakes, and the waterways from them to the ocean by the St Lawrence river, which divide the United States from the Dominion of Canada, were practically excluded from any possible hostilities. Through a simple agreement, “ conditions which make for peace and prosperity, and the absence of those which so often lead to disastrous war, have for nearly a century reigned over these great inland waters, whose commerce, conducted for the benefit of the states and nations of Europe and America,'rivals that which passes through the Suez Canal or over the Mediterranean Sea, and with a result foreshadowed in these words of President Monroe in his communication to the Senate commending the proposed agreement: ‘ In order to avoid collision and save expense.’ Forts which had been erected at salient points on either side of the lakes and rivers dividing the United States from Canada, which but for this agreement would, in the natural course of events, have been enlarged, increasingly garrisoned, and provided with modern implements of destruction, at large expense, have remained substantially as when the agreement was made, or now constitute but interesting or picturesque ruins; and the great cost of constructing and maintaining, through a long series of years, naval armaments of ever-increasing power has been avoided.’"

As we have already said, the Monroe doctrine is a means of excluding European warfare from the American continent and therefore is in the nature of a form of neutralization. A sort of Monroe doctrine is growing into popular favour also throughout the Australian Commonwealth, where it is felt that a continent so far removed from European rivalries ought not to be exposed to complications on account of them.

From time to time questions of adding to existing neutralized areas are raised. When it was announced in 1905 that a British fleet was about to manotuvre in the Baltic Sea, several German newspapers suggested that Germany should combine with other Baltic powers to assure its neutralization.I No official observation on the subject, however, was made on the part of any Baltic power. The Baltic is still an open sea for the whole world, without restriction of any kind; and even hostilities between any two non-Baltic powers could be carried on in the Baltic, as elsewhere on the high sea, under the existing practice.

When the Dogger Bank incident occurred, the possibility of operations of war being carried on within a few miles of British home ports, and amid the busy trafiic of the North Sea, was brought vividly home to British minds.

A movement set on foot at the instance of Edward Atkinson, the well-known Boston economist, and warmly supported by the Massachusetts State Board of Trade, seeks to establish by treaty neutral zones from the ports of North America to the ports of Great Britain and Ireland and the continent of Europe, within which zones steamship and sailing vessels in the conduct of lawful commerce should be free to pass without seizure or interruption in time of war. There is however no precedent of neutralization of any such area of the high sea, and international rivers, ocean canals and neutralized states are obviously no criterion in discussing a proposal to neutralize a strip of the ocean, which may be defined accurately enough on the map and which skilful navigators could approximately determine, but which might be violated without any practical means of detection by a belligerent commander whenever he misread, or it suited him to misread, his bearings.

Connected with the principle of neutralization is that of guaranteeing the integrity of states. Several such guarantees have been given in quite recent times. In November 1907 a treaty was concluded between France, Germany, Great Britain and Russia on the one part and Norway on the other, for the maintenance of the integrity of Norway. This treaty difi'ered

1 Memoir of Massachusetts State Board of Trade (Feb. 13, 1905).

2This was merely reviving an idea which had come and gone many times before. See Barclay, Problem of International Practice and Diplomacy (1907).


from the older one of 18 5 5 in which France and Great Britain guaranteed the integrity of Norway and Sweden, in the fact that whereas the older treaty was for the protection of these two states against Russia, the new treaty is intended, if it is to serve at all as a protection against invasion, to protect Norway against Sweden.

Another such guarantee of a vaguer character is that which the North Sea powers recently entered into for the maintenance of the .rtatus quo of their respective North Sea territories; and the similar one entered into by the Mediterranean powers for the same objects in the Mediterranean. Lastly in the same order of ideas Austria-Hungary and Russia are said to have concluded an arrangement between them for the maintenance of the status quo in the Balkans.

The future has no doubt still other extensions of the principle of neutralization in store for us. Not the least interesting of existing possibilities is the limitation of the area of visit and search in time of war itself, as a restriction of belligerent right. It seems contrary to common sense that neutral ships should be exposed to being detained, taken out of their course, and overhauled on mere suspicion of carrying contraband, when they are so far from the seat of war that there can be no presumption as to their destination. Neutrals have a right to carry on. their ordinary business unmolested in so far as they do nothing to assist either belligerent. When they are beyond a certain distance from the seat of war it seems reasonable that the presumption that they are merely carrying on their legitimate business should be considered absolute. Such a limitation of the area of hostilities is not only feasible, but it was actually put in practice by the British government during the Boer War."

In the course of the Russo-Japanese War the question came up again, being raised this time by Great Britain. Lord Lansdowne called the attention of the Russian foreign office to the extreme inconvenience to neutral commerce of the Russian search for contraband not only in the proximity of the scene of war, but over all the world, and especially at places at which neutral commerce could be most effectually intercepted. H.M. Government had become aware that a large addition was likely to be made to the number of Russian cruisers employed in this manner, and they had, therefore, to contemplate the possibility that such vessels would shortly be found patrolling the narrow seas which lie on the route from Great Britain to Japan in such a manner as to render it virtually impossible for any neutral vessel to escape their attention. The effect of such interference with neutral trade, he said, would be disastrous to legitimate commerce passing from a British port in the United Kingdom to a British port in the Far East. The British government had no desire to place obstacles in the way of a belligerent desiring to take reasonable precautions in order to prevent the enemy from receiving supplies, but they insisted that the right of taking such precautions did not imply a “ consequential right to intercept at any distance from the scene of operations and without proof that the supplies in question were really destined for use of the enemy’s forces, any articles which that belligerent might determine to regard as contraband of war.”

' In January 1900 it was reported that the British government had issued instructions to British naval commanders not to stop or search German merchant vessels at any places not in the vicinit of the seat of war. There is no proper statement of the Briti position on this subject, the only official information having been given by the German chancellor in a speech to the Reichstag. According to this information, the area was ultimately limited as north of Aden, and afterwards it was agreed that the immunity from search should be extended to all places beyond a distance from the seat of war equal to the distance from it of Aden. This was substantially correct, though the telegrams sent by the Admiralty can hardly be said to have fixed any precise area. As a fact, the commanders-in-chief on the East Indies and Cape of Good Hope stations were instructed that in consequence of the great practical difiiculty of proving—at parts :0 remote from the scene of war operations as Aden and Perim—the real destination of contraband of war carried by vessels visiting those parts, directions were to be given to the officers concerned to cease to search such vessels, and to merely report to the commander-in-chief at the Cape the names of ships suspected of carrying contraband, and the date of clearance.

The position thus assumed is not clear. On the one hand the British claim did not, it is seen, go the length of the restriction Great Britain consented to place on her own right of search during the Boer War, seeming to apply only to the case of ships carrying conditional contraband. On the other, the complaint is based on the “interference” with neutral trade, which means the stoppage and search of vessels to ascertain whether they have contraband of any kind on board 01 not.

It must not be forgotten in this connexion that restriction of the rights of the belligerent necessarily entails extension of the duties of the neutral. The belligerent has an unquestioned right to “ interfere ” with all neutral vessels navigating in the direction of the seat of war, for the purpose of ascertaining whether they are carryng any kind of contraband or not. Under the Declaration of London of the 26th of February 1909 it is provided under arts. 32 and 35 that a ship’s papers are conclusive proof as to the voyage on which she is engaged unless She is clearly out of the course indicated by her papers and is unable to give adequate reasons to justify her deviation. Thus the interference, if the declaration is ratified, will be confined to an examination of the ship’s papers where the ship is not bound for a belligerent port (cf. art. 30 of the same convention). ,

Standing Peace Agreements.—Foremost among standing peace agreements are, of course, the International Hague Conventions relating directly to peace, agreements which have not only created a special peace jurisdiction for the settlement of international difficulties by judicial methods but also a. written law to apply within the scope of this jurisdiction.

Alongside the Hague Peace Conventions and more or less connected with them are standing treaties of arbitration which have been entered into by different nations for terms of years separately. The first of what may be called a new series was that between Great Britain and France. It has now been followed by over a hundred others forming a network of international relationships which shows that, at any rate, the wish for peace is universal among mankind.1 1

1The following list of standing arbitration treaties concluded after the signing of the Anglo-French treaty of October 14th 1903 is as complete as possible down to June 1910:—

Argentina—Brazil, September 7, 1905.

,, Portugal, August 27, 1909. Austria-Hungary—Switzerland, December 3, 1904. Belgium—Denmark, April 26, 1905.

,, Greece, Ma 2, 1905.

,, Norway an Sweden, November 30, 1904.

,, Rumania. May 27, 1905.

,, Russia, October 30, 1904.

,, Spain, January 23, 1905.

,, Switzerland, November 15, 1904. Brazil-Portugal, March 25, 1909.

,, S ain, April 8, 1909.

,, h exico, April 11, 1909.

,, Honduras, April 26, 1909.

,, Venezuela, April 30, 1909.

,, Panama, May 1, 1909.

,, Ecuador, May 13, 1909.

,, Costa Rica, May 18, 1909.

,, Cuba, June 19, 1909.

,, Bolivia, June 25, 1909.

,, Nicaragua, june 28, 1909.

,, Norway, Ju y 13, 1909.

,, China, Au ust 3, 1909.

,, Salvador, ptember 3, 1909.

,, Peru, December 7, 1909.

,, Sweden, December 14, 1909. Colombia~Peru, Se tember 12, 1905.

,, France, ecember 16, 1908. Denmark-France, September 15, 1905.

,, Ital , December 16, 1905.

n . Netherlands, February 12, 1904.

,, . Russia, March 1, 1905.

,, S ain, December 1, 1905.

,, orway, October 8, 1908. France—Ital , December 26, 1903.

,, Netherlands, April 6, 1904.

,, Norway and Sweden, July 9, 1904,.

,, Spain, February 26, 1904.


There are, however, a large number of conventi0ns which, although not concluded with the direct object of assuring peace where difficulties have arisen, tend in a. very practical manner to contract the area of possible difficulties. These are conventions for the regulation of intercourse between the subjects and citizens of different states. Such conventions obviously remove occasions for friction and are therefore among the most effective agencies contributing to the preservation of peace among civilized peoples. In most cases such conventions have created international unions of states for all matters which lend themselves to international co-operation. The first in order of date was the postal union. The system it inaugurated has now extended its scope to telegraphs, copyright, industrial property, railway traffic, the publication of customs tariffs, metric measures, monetary systems and agriculture. Berne, being the capital of the most central of the neutral European states, is the administrative centre of most of these unions. Customs tarifls and the monetary unions, however, are centralized at Brussels,

France—Sweden and Norway, July 9, 1904.

,,' Switzerland, December 14, 1904.

,, Brazil, April 7, 1909.
Great Britain—France, October 14, 1903.
Germany, July 12, 1904.
Italy, February 1, 1907.
Austria-Hungary, January 11, 1905.
Netherlands, February 15, 1905.
Colombia, December 30, 1908.
Sweden and Norway, August 11, 1904.
Denmark, October 25, 1904.
Portugal, November 16, 1904.
Spain, February 27, 1904.
Switzerland, November 16, 1904.
United States, April 4, 1908.
,, ,, Brazil, June 18, 1909.,
Honduras—Spain, May 1 , 1905.
Italy—Argentine, Septem r 18, 1907.

,, Mexico, October 1, 1907.

,, Peru, A ril 18, 1907.

,, Portuga , May 11, 1 05.

,, Switzerland, Novem er 23, 1904.

,, Netherlands, November 21, 1909. Netherlands—Portugal, October 26, 1905. Norway—Sweden, October 26, 1905.

Norway and Sweden—Russia, December 9, 1904. .
Spain, Januaig' 23, 1905.

,, ,, Switzer and, ecember 17, 1904. Portugal—Spain, May 31, 1904.

,, Austria-Hun ary, February 13, 1906.

Denmark, arch 20, 1907.

,, France, une 29, 1906.

,, Italy, A! ay 11, 1905.

,, Netherlands. October 1, 1904.

,, Norway and Sweden, May 6, 1 05. (Suspended for Norway by a new one dated ecember 8, 1908.)

,, Spain, May 31, 1904.

,, Switzerland, August 18, 1905.

,, Nicaragua, July 17, 1909.

Russia—Norway and Sweden, November 26, 1904.
Spain—Greece, December 3—16, 1909.
,, Switzerland, May 14, 1907.
United States—Spain, April 20, 1908.
Denmark, May 18, 1908.
Italy, March 28, 1908.
,, ,, Lapan, May 5, 1908.
etherlands, May 2, 1908.
Portugal, April 6, 1908.
Sweden, May 2, 1908.
Switzerland, February 29, 1908.
Argentina, December 23, 1908.
Peru, December 3, 1908.
Salvador, December 21, 190iI
Norway, April 4, 1908.
Mexico, March 24, 1908.
France, February 2, 1908.
Ecuador, January 7, 1909.
Bolivia, January 7, 1909.
Haiti, January 7, 1909.
Uruguay, January 9, 1909.
Chile, January 13, 1909.
Costa Rica, January 13, 1 .
Austria-Hungary, January 1 , 1’19
Brazil, January 23, 1909.
Paraguay, March 13, 1909.
China, October 8, 1908.

[ocr errors]

the weights and measures union in Paris and the agricultural institute at Rome.

The general postal union was created by a convention signed at Berne in r874. A convention for a similar union for telegraphs was signed in Paris in 187 5 (revisedat St Petersburg and replaced by another the same year). Both unions issue monthly bulletins and other publications giving useful information about these two services.1

The international bureau of weights and measures at Paris was created by a convention signed there in 187 5, for the purpose of comparing and verifying weights and measures on the metric system, and preserving their identity for the contracting states.

The double-standard Latin union monetary system was founded by a convention of 1865, between Belgium, France, Italy and Switzerland. In 1868 it was joined by Greece. A single standard union exists between Sweden, Norway and Denmark under a convention of r873.

The copyright union was created by an international convention signed in 1874. The ofiicial bureau of the union is at Berne. It issues a periodical publication called Le Droil d’auteur giving information respecting the laws of diflerent states relating to published matter of all kinds.

The term “ industrial property ” covers patents, trade marks, merchandise marks, trade names, designs and models. The convention dealing with them signed in 1883 created a union with its central office at Berne. It, too, issues a bulletin and other publications which help to prevent misunderstandings.

The railway traffic union was formed by a convention of 1890. The central bureau at Berne issues a monthly bulletin. A subsequent convention was signed at Berne in 1886 relating to matters of technical unification.

1A subsidiary convention not uite falling within the scope of the above convention is the _su marine telegraphs convention, which was signed in I884. It applies outside territorial waters to all legally established submarine cables landed on the territories, colonies or possessions of one or more of the high contracting parties. Under its provisions it is a punishable ofl'ence “ to break or injure a submarine cable wilfully or by culpable negligence in such manner as might interrupt or obstruct telegraphic communication either wholly or partially, such punishment being without prejudice to any civil action for damages. It also provides that :—

" Vessels engaged in laying or repairing submarine cables shall conform to the regulations as to signals which have been, or may be, adopted by mutual agreement among the high contracting parties with the view of preventing collisions at sea. When a ship engaged in repairing a cable exhibits the said signals, other vessels which see them or are able to see them shall withdraw to or keep beyond a distance of one nautical mile at least from the ship in question so as not to interfere with her operations " (art. 5). “ Owners of ships or vessels who can prove that they have sacrificed an anchor, a net or other fishing-gear in order to avoid injuring a submarine cable shall receive compensation from the owner of the cable," and “in order to establish a claim to such compensation a statement supported by the evidence of the crew should whenever possible be drawn up immediately after the occurrence and the master must within twenty-four hours after his return to or next puttin into port make a declaration to the proper authorities" (art. 7 . “ The tribunals competent to take cognizancle infractions of the present convention are those of the country to which the vessel on board of which the offence was committed belongs" (art. 8). By art. 15 it is provided that the stipulations of the convention do not in any way restrict the action of belligerents. It may be remarked that the British representative at the time of signing the convention declared that his government understood that in the time of war a belligerent would be free to act in re ard to submarine cables as though the convention did not exist. he act to carry into effect the above convention is the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c. 49) which was slightly modified by 50 Vict. c. 3. Section 3 of the earlier act provides that a person who injures the cable either wilfully or by culpable negligence is “ uilty of a misdemeanour and on conviction: (a) if he acted wilfully, shall be liable to penal servitude for a term not exceeding five years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for a term not exceeding two years, and to a fine either in lieu of or in addition to such penal servitude or imprisonment; and (b) if he acted by culpable negligence shall be liable to imrisonment for a term not exceeding three months without hard abour, and to a fine not exceeding {100 either in lieu of or in addition to such imprisonment."

See Board of Trade Corres ondence on Protection of Submarine Cables, printed on the 24th ofiluly 1882; and Parliamentary Paper C. 59m: 1890.


Under the convention creating the customs tariffs union, signed in 1890, thirty states, including Great Britain and most British colonies, are associated for the purpose of prompt publication of custom tarifls and their modifications.

The agricultural institute, created by a convention of 1905 with its seat at Rome, as the latest in date is perhaps the most interesting of the series. It shows how deep and widespread the sense of the utility of international state co-operation has become. The convention sets out the scope and objects of the institute, which a recent British official publication states has been joined by 38 states, including Great Britain and all other great powers, as follows:

Whilst limiting its action to international questions, it shall be the duty of the institute: (a) To collect, elaborate and publish, with as little dela as ossible, statistical, technical, or economic information regar ing t e cultivation of the soil, its productions, whether animal or ve etable, the trade in agricultural products, and the prices obtaine on the various markets. (b) To communicate to interested parties, also without delay, full information of the nature above mentioned. (0) To indicate the wages of rural labour. (d) To notify all new diseases of plants which may appear in any part of the world, indicating the districts affected, the spread of the disease, and, if possible, the efficacious means of resistance. (e) To consider iiestions relatin to agricultural co-operation, insurance and cre it, in all their orms, collecting and publishing information which may be useful in the various countries for the organization of undertakings relating to agricultural co-operation, insurance and credit. ( ) To present, if expedient, to the governments, for their approva , measures for the protection of the common interests of agriculturists and for the improvement of their condition, after having previously taken every means of obtaining the necessary information, e.g. resolutions passed by international con resses or other congresses relating to agriculture or to sciences app ied to agriculture, agricultural societies, academies, learned societies, &c.

All questions relating to the economic interests, the legislation and administration of any particular state, must be excluded from the sphere of the institute. (Art. 9).

Lastly, there is a class of difficulties which might arise from preferential treatment of trade from different countries. To obviate them statesmen have been led to adopt the principle of the “ most-favoured-nation-clause ”—that is to say, a clause providing that if any reductions of tarifl or other advantages are granted by either contracting state to any third state, the others shall have the benefit of it. In Europe this clause has been uniformly treated as applying to all reductions of tariff without distinction. The United States interpretation, on the other hand, distinguishes between reductions of a general character and reductions made specifically in return for reductions by some other state. The latter do not come within'the operation of the clause, and a co-contracting state is only entitled to obtain extension of them to itself on granting similar concessions. In other words, concessions to any co-contracting state are only allowed gratuitously to a third co—contracting state when nothing has been given for them, the clause not covering advantages granted in return for advantages. It is to be hoped that this special view of the meaning of the clause will be met in the future, as in some recent treaties, by specifically dealing with the exceptions.2 '

The U tilin of Popular Efl'ort.——Until quite recentlyit had been a distinctive mark of practical wisdom to treat private efiorts for the improvement of international relations for the preservation of peace, with the patronizing tolerance courteous people of the world extend to half-crazy idealists. Since the opening of the century, an immense change has taken place in the attitude of the leaders of popular opinion towards the advocacy of peace. This new attitude has been contemporary with the greater interest displayed by the mercantile classes of England and'the United States in the improvement of their political relations with their neighbours. It may be said to have begun with the visit of the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to Paris in 1900, at a time when France was still smarting from the humiliation of the Fashoda aflair, and the Boer War was exciting hostile demonstrations against Great Britain throughout the continent of Europe. That some four hundred British manufacturers

2See Barclay, Problems of International Practice and Diplomacy (1907). p- 137 seq

and merchants, representing about eighty chambers of commerce of the United Kingdom, should have swept aside all political objections and have boldly trusted to the efficacy of friendly advances as between man and man, appealed to the French people. It seems to have been the first great popular effort ever made deliberately by a representative body of the middle class of a nation for the promotion of international friendship without the aid of diplomacy and without official assistance or even countenance of any kind.

Otherwise, private agencies of a standing character which contribute towards the promotion of peace may be divided into four classes, viz. (1) those which, without having peace for their direct object, promote friendship among men of diflerent races and nationalities; (2) those which directly address themselves to the promoting of friendship and goodwill among peoples; (3) those which regarding peace as the immediate object of their efiorts, endeavour to educate democracy in this sense; (4) those which endeavour to remove the causes of international friction by the codification of international law and the promotion of the international regulation of common interests. Lastly, there are two agencies which cannot be classed among the foregoing; one is the International Parliamentary Union and the other the Nobel Prize Committee.

I. Agencies which are indirectly making for peace arevof many kinds. Science and medicine now bring men of all nations together in periodical congresses. Technology, electricity, mining, railways, navigation and many other subjects are now dealt with in international congresses. International exhibitions are always used as an occasion for holding many such meetings.

2. One of the most notable efforts directed to the deliberate cementing of friendship has been the interchange of ofiicial visits by municipal bodies. In the course of the Anglo-French agitation which culminated in March 1903 with the visit of King Edward to Paris, the French municipal councils passed many resolutions in favour of the entente. After the conclusion of the Anglo-French standing treaty of arbitration (Oct. 14, 1903) and the arrangements for the general settlement of outstanding difficulties with France (April 8, 1904), the municipal bodies in France were prepared to go a step farther, and in 1906 the Municipal Council of Paris was invited by the London County Council to .pay an official visit to England. This visit was followed by a return visit to Paris and a similar exchange of visits between the London City Corporation and the Paris Municipal Council, exchange visits of the city corporations of Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh and Lyons, and a visit of the Manchester Corporation to Dusseldorf, Barmen and Cologne. A society, numbering many thousands of working men among its members, which has set itself the more special task of promoting the interchange of visits between working men of different nations, is called the “ International Brotherhood Alliance,”or, after the initials of its motto, Fraternitas inter gentcs, the FIG. Another agency, called the “ American Association for International Conciliation,” seeks by the publication of essays on the different aspects of international friendship to promote the same cause.

3. The “ peace societies,” which are scattered over the whole world, number several hundreds.l Their first International Congress was held in London at the-suggestion of Joseph Sturge in 1843. In 1848 a second congress was held at Brussels. The third in 1849 took place in Paris, and was presided over by Victor Hugo. Other congresses were held at Frankfurt, again in London, and in 1853 at Manchester, where Richard Cobden and John Bright took part in the discussions. - Then followed an interval of wars during which the Pacifists were unable to raise their voices. At length in 1878 a congress was held at the Paris International Exhibition of that year, but it was not till the next Paris International Exhibition of 1889 that these international peace congresses became periodical. Since then numerous congresses have been held, the seventeenth having sat in London in 1908, and the eighteenth at Stockholm in 1910. These congresses have been supplemented by national congresses in

1 See Annuaire du mouvement Paci sic Pour l'année 1910, published by the Bureau International de la aix, at Bern.


both Great Britain and France. Such congresses are doing admirable work in the popularizing of thought upon the numerous questions which are discussed at the meetings, such as compulsory arbitration, the restriction of armaments, private property at sea in time of war, the position of subject races, airships in war, &C.2

4. First among the bodies which try to remove the causes of international friction is the Institute of International Law. This is a body of international lawyers, consisting of sixty members and sixty associates recruited by election—the members from those who “ have rendered services to international law in the domain of theory or practice,” and associates from those " whose knowledge may be useful to the Institute.” It was formed in 1873, chiefly through the efl'orts of M. Rolin-Jaequemyns. The official language of the Institute is French, and its annual meetings are held wherever the members at the previous meeting decide to assemble. Its mode of operation is to work out tht matters it deals with during the intervals between the sessions, in permanent commissions, among which the whole domain of international law is divided up. The commissions, under the direction of their rapjwrleurs or conveners, prepare reports and proposals, which are printed and distributed among the members some time before the plenary sittings at which they are to be discussed. If the members are not agreed, the subject is adjourned to another session, and still another, until they do agree. Thus the resolutions of the Institute have the authority attaching to a mature expression of the views of the leading international jurists of Europe. Another body having a more or less similar purpose is the International Law Association, which was founded in 1873 as the “ Association for the Reform and Codification of the Law of Nations,” with practically the same objects as those which led to the constitution of the Institute of International Law. It also meets in different countries, but it differs from the Institute in the number of its members being unlimited and in all respectable persons being eligible for membership. A report is published aftereach meeting. There are now numerous volumes of such reports, many of them containing most valuable materials for international jurists. In 1895 the name was changed to International Law Association.

A new society was recently (1906) formed in America called the American Society of International Law, “ to foster the study of international law and promote the establishment of international relations oh the basis of law and justice.” “ Membership in the society is not restricted to lawyers, and any man of good moral character interested in the objects of the society may be admitted to membership.” The publications of this society have already taken an important place among the literature of international law.

Still more recently yet another society came into being in Switzerland with objects which seem to be similar to those of the Institute of International Law.

The Inter-Parliamentary Union, which dates back to 1887, owes its origin to the initiative of the late Sir W. R. Cremer. It is composed of groups of the different parliaments of the world, who meet periodically to “ bring about the acceptance in their respective countries, by votes in parliament and by means of arbitration treaties, of the principle that differences between nations should be submitted to arbitration and to consider other questions of international importance.”8 The sixteenth conference was held at Brussels in August—September, 1910.

’ At the third congress of the new series, held at Rome in 1891, was created the Bureau International de la Paix. This most useful institution, which has its office at Bern, serves as a means of bringing and. keeping together all the known peace societies. Its Conespondance bimensualle and Ammaire du mouvment pacifisle are well known, and its obliging hon. secretary, Dr A. Gobat, is always ready to supply information from the now considerable archives of the Bureau. In this connexion we ma mention that the secretary of the London Peace Society, Dr vans Darby, has edited an exhaustive collection of materials called International Tribunals. His statements every two years on the progress of arbitration at the International Law Association meetings also form an excellent source of materials for reference.

' Art. 1 of Statutes revised Sept. 1908.

The Nobel Committee owes its existence to the will of the late Alfred B. Nobel (1833-1896), the inventor of dynamite, who left a considerable fortune for the encouragement of men who work for the benefit of humanity. vThe interest of this money was to be divided into five equal parts, to be distributed every year as rewards to the persons who had deserved best of mankind in five departments of human activity. The clauses of the will governing the distribution of these prizes are as follows:—

“ The entire sum shall be divided into five equal parts, one to go to the man who shall have made the most important discovery or invention in the domain of physical science; another to the man who shall have made the most important discove or introduced the greatest improvement in chemistry; the thir to the author of the most im rtant discovery in the domain of physiolo y or medicine; the ourth to the man who shall have produce the most remarkable work of an idealistic nature; and, finall , the fifth to the man who shall have done the most or best work or the fraternity of nations, the sup ression or reduction of standing armies, and the formation an ropagation of peace congresses. The prizes shall be awarded as allows: For physical science and chemistry, by the Swedish Academy of Seiences; for physiological or medical work, by the Caroline Institution at Stockholm; for literature, by the Stockholm Academy, and for peace work, b a committee of five members elected by the Norwegian Stort ing. It is my express desire that, in awarding the prizes, no account shall be taken of nationality, in order that the prize may fall to the lot of the most deserving, whether he be Scandinavian or not."

Peace v. Wan—Peace is the ultimate object of all statecraft ——peace in the development of the domestic activities of the nation administered, and peace in the relations of states with one another. For the purpose of ensuring peace an expensive diplomacy is maintained by all states, and to perpetuate it treaties are entered into by states with one another. Even war has no other avowed purpose than that of placing specific international relations on a definite footing. Ultimate peace is uniformly proclaimed by every dictator at home, by every conqueror abroad, as the goal to which he is directing his efforts. And yet dissentient voices are sometimes heard defending war as if it were an end in itself. Without going back to the wellknown reply of Count Moltke to Professor Bluntschli respecting the Manual of the Laws of War drawn up by the Institute of International Law in r880,1 we need only quote that highly up-to-date philosopher, Nietzsche: " It is mere illusion and pretty sentiment,” he observes, “to expect much (even anything at all) from mankind if it forgets how to make war. As yet no means are known which call so much into action as agreat war, that rough energy born of the camp, that deep impersonality born of hatred, that conscience born of murder and cold-bloodedness, that fervour born of efiort in the annihilation of the enemy, that proud indifference to loss, to one’s own existence, to that of one’s fellows, to that earthquake-like soul-shaking which a people needs when it is losing its vitality.” *

It is pleasant to contrast this neurotic joy of one onlooker with the matter-of-fact reflexions of another, the late W. E. H. Lecky. “War ” he says “is not, and never can be a mere passionless discharge of a painful duty. It is in its essence, and it is a main condition of its success, to kindle into fierce exercise among great masses of men the destructive and combative passions—passions as fierce and as malevolent as that with which the hound hunts the fox to its death or the tiger springs upon its prey. Destruction is one of its chief ends. Deception is one of its chief means, and one of the great arts of skilful generalship is to deceive in order to destroy. Whatever other elements may mingle with and dignify war, this at least is never absent; and however reluctantly men may enter into war, however conscientiously they may endeavour to avoid it, they must know that when the scene of carnage has once opened, these things must be not only accepted and condoned, but stimulated, encouraged and applauded. It would be difficult to conceive a disposition more remote from the morals of ordinary life, not to speak of Christian ideals, than that with

[merged small][ocr errors]

which the soldiers most animated with the fire and passion that lead to victory rush forward to bayonet the foe. . . . It is allowable to deceive an enemy by fabricated despatches purporting to come from his own side; by tampering with telegraph messages; by spreading false intelligence in newspapers; by sending 'pretended spies and deserters to give him untrue reports of the numbers or movements of the troops; by employing false signals to lure him into an ambuscade. On the use of the flag and uniform of an enemy for purposes of deception there has been some controversy, but it is supported by high military authority.

Hardly any one will be so confident of the virtue of his rulers as to believe that every war which his country wages in every part of its dominions with uncivilized as well as civilized populations, is just and necessary, and it is certainly prima facie not in accordance with an ideal morality that men should bind themselves absolutely for life or for a term of years to kill without question, at the command of their superiors, those who have personally done them no wrong.”8

Surely with all the existing activity in the removal of causes of war, in the reduction to precise expression of the rules of law governing the relations of states with one another, in the creation of international judicatures for the application of these rules, in the concluding of treaties specifically framed to facilitate the pacific settlement of difficulties diplomacy may have failed to adjust, in the promotion of democratic civilian armies with eVerything to lose by war,and all the other agencies which have been described above, the hope seems warranted that, in no distant future, life among nations will become still more closely assimilated to life among citizens of the same nation, with legislation, administration, reform all tending to the one great object of law, order and peace among men. (T. BA.)

PEACE, BREACH OF THE. Theoretically all criminal offences cognizable by English law involve a breach of the king’s peace, and all indictments whether for offences against the common law or by statute conclude “ against the peace of our lord the king, his crown and dignity." Historically this phrase, now legally superfluous, represents the last trace of the process by which the royal courts assume jurisdiction over all offences, and gradually extruded the jurisdiction of the sheriff and of lords of manors and franchises, making crime a matter of national concern as distinguished from civil wrongs or infractions of the rights of local magnates, or of the rights of the tribal chiefs of the Teutonic conquerors of Britain. The peace of the king was sworn on his accession or full recognition, and the jurisdiction of his courts to punish all violations of that peace was gradually asserted. The completion of this process is marked by the institution of the office of justice of the peace.

In modern times the expression“ breach of the peace” is usually limited to offences involving actual tumult, disturbances or disorder. As regards such offences, although they do not fall into the class of grave crimes described as felonies, officers of police and even private persons have ,larger powers and duties, as to immediate arrest without waiting for judicial warrant, than they possess as to other minor offences (see ARREST). Justices of the peace have under early statutes and the commission of the peace power to take sureties of the peace from persons who are threatening to commit a breach of the peace, and it is within the power of any court on conviction of any misdemeanour and of many felonies to require the offender to enter into a recognizance (q.v.) to keep the peace.

PEACE CONFERENCES, the official title of the two inter— national conferences held at the Hague in 1899 and 1907. Both were organized at the instance of the emperor Nicholas II. of Russia. The chief object of the first conference, as set out in the note of Count Mouraviev, the Russian minister of foreign aflairs (Jan. 11, 1899), was to arrive at an “ understanding not to increase for a fixed period the present effectives of the armed military and naval forces, and at the same time not to increase the budgets pertaining thereto; and a preliminary examination of the means by which even a reduction might be eflected in future in the forces and budgets above

[ocr errors]
« السابقةمتابعة »