It has sometimes been argued that the making of treaties for the preservation of peace is an idle task, because, in spite of all agreements to the contrary, wars will occur. This argument is obviously fallacious. Remedies for ills are not discarded merely because they do not always prove to be efficacious. Circumstances no doubt may arise in which international agreements for the employment of pacific methods may, either by reason of defects in their terms or by reason of conditions, fail to be useful. But of the practical value of such agreements, we have frequent illustrations. On two notable and recent occasions the existence of The Hague Convention for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, which I do not hesitate to pronounce one of the wisest treaties ever made, has served to facilitate the prevention or the arrest of hostilities. The first occasion was that of the Dogger Bank incident, when the organization of a court of inquiry under the convention, with the addition of a limited arbitral power, relieved a dangerous tension between Great Britain and Russia and resulted in a final and satisfactory settlement. The other illustration is now before us. Prior to The Hague convention, the tender of good offices or mediation without prior solicitation or consultation was usually regarded as an intrusive act, savoring of unjustifiable interference. By that convention (Art. 3) it was declared that "powers, strangers to the dispute, have the right to offer good offices or mediation, even during the course of hostilities," and that the exercise of this right could never be regarded by the parties to the conflict "as an unfriendly act." This stipulation paved the way for the tender of good offices or mediation made a month ago by the diplofollowing countries: Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, France, Guatemala, Great Britain, Greece, Honduras, Italy, The Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Persia, Peru, Portugal, Russia, Salvador, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, and Venezuela.

matic representatives of Brazil, Argentina and Chile, at Washington, after hostilities were begun at Vera Cruz. The offer was accepted by the immediate parties to the conflict, with the result that an armistice between them was brought about. The pending mediation of the socalled A B C powers is a remarkable event in the history of international relations in the Western Hemisphere. It has been hailed as the beginning of a new Pan-American diplomacy; and it may at any rate be regarded as the most striking development yet witnessed of the PanAmerican movement which was formally inaugurated by the first International American Conference, at Washington, in 1889-1890.

The present survey would be incomplete without a further reference to the Peace Conferences at The Hague. From present indications it is not probable that the Third Conference will meet before 1916. The time that elapsed between the first and the second conference was eight years, and it was recommended by the second conference that the third should be convened after a similar interval; but the conditions growing out of the war over Tripoli and the wars in the Balkan Peninsula, to say nothing of the Moroccan and other international complications, caused delays in the taking of the necessary preparatory steps. In this situation, the government of the United States, on the 31st of January last, sent out a circular in which it was proposed that, with a view to the holding of the conference in 1915, the work of preparation should be committed to the Administrative Council of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague a body composed of the diplomatic representatives of the treaty powers at The Hague and therefore already in existence. Although this proposal was favorably entertained by a number of governments, the prevalent opinion of the larger powers, so far as it has been

disclosed, indicates that the holding of the Third Conference before 1916 is not thought to be practicable."

After twenty years of fruitful aid and encouragement to the cause of peace and good-will, the Lake Mohonk Conference on International Arbitration today faces the future with confidence and with hope. Mindful of the fact that injustice, whether real or fancied, produces discontent, and that the causes and effects of injustice are often exaggerated by popular excitement, we may not be justified in expecting the immediate and final ushering in of the reign of universal peace. Perhaps it may be unreasonable to expect that international wars will cease before civil wars end. In the one case as in the other, the maintenance of continuously peaceful conditions will depend upon the general improvement of political and social relations. And to the accomplishment of this end all well-disposed men and women may work together in the inspiring belief that in the affairs of the world enlightened public opinion plays a constantly larger and more decisive part.

It may be superfluous to mention the fact that the Third Conference has not been held.

IV

THE PERMANENT COURT OF INTER

NATIONAL JUSTICE1

In order to estimate the precise significance of the addition of the Permanent Court of International Justice to the previously existing agencies for the peaceful settlement of international differences, it is necessary to know something not only of its constitution, rules and personnel, but also of its antecedents.

The amicable methods of settling international disputes are negotiation, good offices, mediation, and arbitration, Negotiation, which represents the ordinary process of diplomacy, we have always with us. Good offices and mediation, although essentially diplomatic, involve the interposition of a common friend and adviser, who, if he only uses "good offices," may even serve merely as a channel of communication, but who, if he acts as a "mediator," is supposed to give his counsel to the parties and to propose terms of settlement. On the other hand, arbitration is and always has been considered in international law as a judicial process, While the mediator recommends, it is the function of the arbitrator to decide. The term arbitration has been applied to the judicial process in international relations because, in the absence of a tribunal with a fixed personnel, it remained for the parties in each case to choose the judges who were to decide the dispute.

'This chapter incorporates, with revision and supplemental matter, an address delivered before the Law Alumni of Columbia University, New York, in May, 1922. The address was printed in the Columbia Law Review, Vol. 22, No. 6, June, 1922.

The determination of international controversies by arbitration runs back to a very early time. It was extensively practiced among the Greeks, with much definiteness and precision, and with an intelligent understanding of its essentially judicial character Its employment naturally increased with the continuance of a state of peace. With the recurrence of wars and the incidental suspension of peaceful processes, the practice of arbitration would temporarily disappear. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, because of the warlike conditions which so persistently prevailed, we find only slight traces of it. Its effective resuscitation in comparatively recent times may be said to have begun with the treaty between Great Britain and the United States of November 19, 1794, called in the United States the Jay Treaty, which provided for three distinct arbitrations, one of which may be rated among the most important ever held/ During the nineteenth century the resort to international arbitration became more frequent. Especially was this the case after the settlement of the grave controversy between the United States and Great Britain, growing out of the so-called Alabama Claims, by the tribunal at Geneva in 1872. An indication of the progress of this general movement may be seen in the adoption, by the Congress of the United States, in 1890, of a concurrent resolution requesting the President to invite, as fit occasions might arise, negotiations with any government with which the United States had diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes between the two governments which could not be adjusted by diplomacy might be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by that means./

The increase in the practice of arbitrating individual differences naturally gave rise to efforts to bring about the conclusion of general treaties of arbitration between particular countries, and from this it was only a natural