« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
propositions that had been made, should study the possibility of an agreement concerning the limitation of armed forces on land and sea and of war budgets. The American delegates voted for this resolution, but a few powers abstained from voting.
For. Rel. 1899, 513, 520.
(4) SECOND INTERNATIONAL AMERICAN CONFERENCE, 1902.
In the Second International Conference of American States, which was held at the City of Mexico from October 22, 1901, to January 31, 1902, the subject of arbitration was much discussed. There appeared to be a unanimous sentiment in favor of “ arbitrations as a principle," but a great contrariety of opinion as to the extent to which the principle should be carried. On this question three views were supported in the conference:
“1. Obligatory arbitration, covering all questions pending or future when they did not affect either the independence or the national honor of a country;
“ 2. Obligatory arbitration, covering future questions only and defining what questions shall constitute those to be excepted from arbitration; and
“3. Facultative or voluntary arbitration, as best expressed by The Hague convention."
The delegation of the United States advocated the signing of a protocol affirming the convention for the pacific settlement of international disputes, signed at The Hague, July 29, 1899, as the best practicable plan for securing unanimity of action and beneficial results.
A plan was finally adopted in the nature of a compromise. A protocol looking to adhesion to The Hague convention was signed by all the delegations except those of Chile and Ecuador, who are said, however, afterwards to have accepted it in open conference. By this protocol authority was conferred on the Governments of the United States and Mexico, the only American signatories of The Hague convention, to negotiate with the other signatory powers for the adherence thereto of other American nations so requesting. Besides, the President of Mexico was requested to ascertain the views of the different governments represented in the conference regarding the most advanced form in which a general arbitration convention could be drawn up that would meet the approval and secure the ratification of all the countries in the conference, and afterwards to prepare a plan for such a general treaty and if possible to arrange for a series of protocols to carry it into effect; or, if this should be found to be impracticable, then to present the correspondence with a report to the next conference.
A project of a treaty of compulsory arbitration was signed by the delegations of the Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Santo Domingo, Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela.
Besides the protocol and the project of treaty above mentioned, a project of treaty was adopted covering the arbitration of pecuniary claims. This project was signed by the delegations of all the countries then represented in the conference, viz: Argentine Republic, Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Hayti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, Salvador, the United States, and Uruguay. By this project the signatories obligated themselves for a term of five years to submit to arbitration, preferably to the permanent court at The Hague, all claims for pecuniary loss or damage which might be presented by their respective citizens, and which could not be amicably adjusted through diplomatic channels, when such claims were of sufficient importance to warrant the expense of arbitration. It is provided that the treaty shall be binding on the states ratifying it, from the date on which five of the signatory governments shall have ratified it.
It was ratified by Guatemala April 25, 1902; by Salvador May 19, 1902; by Peru October 29, 1903; by Honduras July 6, 1904; and by the United States January 28, 1905. It was therefore proclaimed by the President of the United States March 24, 1905, as binding on the five ratifying states above specified.
(5) SUBSEQUENT MEASURES.
“There seems good ground for the belief that there has been a real growth among the civilized nations of a sentiment which will perinit a gradual substitution of other methods than the method of war in the settlement of disputes. It is not pretended that as yet we are near a position in which it will be possible wholly to prevent war, or that a just regard for national interest and honor will in all cases permit of the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; but by a mixture of prudence and firmness with wisdom we think it is possible to do away with much of the provocation and excuse for war, and at least in many cases to substitute some other and more rational method for the settlement of disputes. The Hague court offers so good an example of what can be done in the direction of such settlement that it should be encouraged in every way.
"Last year the Interparliamentary Union for International Arbitration met at Vienna, six hundred members of the different legislatures of civilized countries attending. It was provided that the next meeting should be in 1904 at St. Louis, subject to our Congress extending an invitation. Like The Hague Tribunal, this Interparliamentary Union is one of the forces tending towards peace among the nations of the earth, and it is entitled to our support. I trust the invitation can be extended."
President Roosevelt, annual message, Dec. 7, 1903, For. Rel. 1903, XIX.
“ The Peace Conference which assembled at The Hague on May 18, 1899, marked an epoch in the history of nations. Called by His Majesty the Emperor of Russia to discuss the problems of the maintenance of general peace, the regulation of the operations of war, and the lessening of the burdens which preparedness for eventual war entails upon modern peoples, its labors resulted in the acceptance by the signatory powers of conventions for the peaceful adjustment of international difficulties by arbitration, and for certain humane amendments to the laws and customs of war by land and sea. A great work was thus accomplished by the conference, while other phases of the general subject were left to discussion by another conference in the near future, such as questions affecting the rights and duties of neutrals, the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, and the bombardment of ports. towns, and villages by a naval force.
“Among the movements which prepared the minds of governments for an accord in the direction of assured peace among men, a high place may fittingly be given to that set on foot by the Interparliamentary Union. From its origin in the suggestions of a member of the British Ilouse of Commons, in 1888, it developed until its membership included large numbers of delegates from the parliaments of the principal nations, pledged to exert their influence toward the conclusion of treaties of arbitration between nations and towarıl the accomplishment of peace. Its annual conferences have notably advanced the high purposes it sought to realize. Not only have many international treaties of arbitration been concluded, but, in the conference held in Holland in 1894, the memorable declaration in favor of a permanent court of arbitration was a forerunner of the most important achievement of the Peace Conference of The Hague in 1899.
“ The annual conference of the Interparliamentary Union was held this year at St. Louis, in appropriate connection with the World's Fair. Its deliberations were marked by the same noble devotion to the cause of peace and to the welfare of humanity which had inspired its former meetings. By unanimous vote of delegates, active or retired members of the American Congress, and of every parliament in Europe with two exceptions, the following resolution was adopted:
“* Whereas, enlightened public opinion and modern civilization alike demand that differences between nations should be adjudicated and settled in the same manner as disputes between individuals are adjudicated, namely, by the arbitrament of courts in accordance with recognized principles of law, this conference requests the several governments of the world to send delegates to an international conference to be held at a time and place to be agreed upon by them for the purpose of considering:
6 • 1. The questions for the consideration of which the conference at the Hague expressed a wish that a future conference be called.
42. The negotiation of arbitration treaties between the nations represented at the conference to be convened.
** 3. The advisability of establishing an international congress to convene periodically for the discussion of international questions.
***And this conference respectfully and cordially requests the President of the United States to invite all the nations to send representatives to such a conference.'
“On the 24th of September, ultimo, these resolutions were presented to the President by a numerous deputation of the Interparliamentary Union. The President accepted the charge offered to him, feeling it to be most appropriate that the Executive of the nation which had welcomed the conference to its hospitality should give voice to its impressive utterances in a cause which the American Government and people hold dear. He announced that he would at an early day invite the other nations, parties to The Hague conventions, to reassemble with a view to pushing forward toward completion the work already begun at The Hague by considering the questions which the first conference had left unsettled with the express provision that there should be a second conference.
“In accepting this trust the President was not unmindful of the fact, so vividly brought home to all the world, that a great war is now in progress. He recalled the circumstance that at the time when, on August 24, 1898, His Majesty the Emperor of Russia sent forth his invitation to the nations to meet in the interests of peace the United States and Spain had merely halted in their struggle to devise terms of peace. While at the present moment no armistice between the parties now contending is in sight, the fact of an existing war is no reason why the nations should relax the efforts they have so successfully made hitherto toward the adoption of rules of conduct which may make more remote the chances of future wars between them. In 1899 the conference of The Hague dealt solely with the larger general problems which confront all nations, and assumed no function of intervention or suggestion in the settlement of the terms of peace between the United States and Spain. It might be the same with a
reassembled conference at the present time. Its efforts would naturally lie in the direction of further codification of the universal ideas of right and justice which we call international law; its mission would be to give them future effect.
“ The President directs that you will bring the foregoing considerations to the attention of the minister for foreign affairs of the Government to which you are accredited and, in discreet conference with him, ascertain to what extent that Government is disposed to act in the matter.
“Should his excellency invite suggestions as to the character of the questions to be brought before the proposed second peace conference, you may say to him that, at this time, it would seem premature to couple the tentative invitation thus extended with a categorical programme of subjects of discussion. It is only by comparison of views that a general accord can be reached as to the matters to be considered by the new conference. It is desirable that in the formulation of a programme the distinction should be kept clear between the matters which belong to the province of international law and those which are conventional as between individual governments. The final act of the Hague Conference, dated July 29, 1899, kept this distinction clearly in sight. Among the broader general questions affecting the right and justice of the relation of sovereign states which were then relegated to a future conference were, the rights and duties of neutrals, the inviolability of private property in naval warfare, and the bombardment of ports, towns, and villages by a naval force. The other matters mentioned in the final act take the form of suggestions for consideration by interested governments.
“ The three points mentioned cover a large field. The first, especially, touching the rights and duties of neutrals, is of universal importance. Its rightful disposition affects the interests and wellbeing of all the world. The neutral is something more than an on-looker. His acts of omission or commission may have an influence_indirect, but tangible--on a war actually in progress; whilst on the other hand he may suffer from the exigencies of the belligerents. It is this phase of warfare which deeply concerns the world at large. Efforts have been made, time and again, to formulate rules of action applicable to its more material aspects, as in the declarations of Paris. As recently as the 28th of April of this year the Congress of the United States adopted a resolution reading thus:
“ “ Resolved by the Senate and Ilouse of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it is the sense of the Congress of the United States that it is desirable, in the interest of uniformity of action by the maritime states of the world in time of war, that the President endeavor to bring about an under