§ 8. THE PRESENT WORLD PROBLEM IN THE LIGHT OF HISTORY

But the world is again looking forward to a condition of universal peace-but with concern as to how it may be reached. The present world-problem is, no doubt, as serious as it has ever been, and equally as difficult of solution. It cannot, of course, be expected that a state of perfect peace can be reached by a sudden regeneration of human nature, or by an abrupt reconstruction of the whole international system. It must be evident that a higher condition of peace can be attained, or at least approached, only by conforming to the laws of human progress-by utilizing the wise lessons taught by experience-by advancing along the historic pathway that had hitherto led to larger and larger areas of peace-in short, by conserving the pacific results already attained, and making these the basis for further development.

It must not be supposed that the present effort is a new and hitherto untried experiment. Nearly all the great European wars have, in fact, been followed by laudable attempts to solve the problem of peace. The Peace of Westphalia, which closed the Thirty Years' War, sought to secure the peace of Europe by readjusting the frontiers of the different states and adopting the principle of the "balance of power," as well as by recognizing the right of "intervention." The Peace of Utrecht, which terminated the War of the Spanish Succession, was intended to maintain the general peace by carrying out more fully the provisions made at Westphalia, by fixing more securely the frontiers of nations, and by guaranteeing the previous equilibrium by treaty stipulations. The Con

gress of Vienna, which followed the Napoleonic Wars, was professedly designed to effect the pacification of Europe by "dividing the spoils of the vanquished among the victors," and by an attempt to secure the domination of the Great Powers through the so-called "European Concert." The Congress of Berlin, which was the sequel of the Russo-Turkish War, had for its purpose the final settlement of the Eastern Question by the delimitation and pacification of the Balkan

states.

In looking over these most conspicuous efforts to secure the peace of Europe, it will be seen that they have been based chiefly upon the attempt to readjust and stabilize the frontiers of the old and the new states, and to prevent mutual encroachments by temporary agreements. Such territorial aggressions have been due largely to dynastic rivalries, which will doubtless disappear with the growth of democratic institutions. But the removal of dynastic rivalries will not, it is safe to say, remove the causes of war, or reduce the agencies by which wars may still be carried on.

It must be evident to the most indifferent person that we can never hope to reach a condition of universal peace by a single effort or stroke of the pen. The history of human society affords no substantial basis for such an illusion. We may, however, hope to approach much nearer that desired goal by progressive steps, guided by wisdom and experience. By tracing the course of social development, we have been able to mark out, in general, certain stages of progress through which a condition of relative peace has been attained, both in the national society and, to a certain extent, in the wider sphere of international relations. The difficulties of the present world-problem suggest

the importance of first conserving the valuable results that have already been secured. The steps that have already proved beneficial in the past may indicate the lines of progress that may prove successful in the future. The evolution of peace has thus far, as we have seen, been marked by the following features: (1) by the restraints imposed upon the undue exercise of physical force in the conduct of war; (2) by the substitution of pacific, in place of hostile, means of settling disputes, in the form of arbitration and judicial procedure; (3) by the definition of rights, and the development of a recognized system of law; and (4) by the progressive organization of society, and the growth of a common authority capable, more or less, of enforcing obedience.

(1) Without doubt, the most imperative need of the present is the restoration and security of the restraints which were recognized before the recent conflict upon the undue exercise of force in the conduct of war. When one recalls the restrictions that already existed in the accepted "Law of Nations," for the protection of the prisoners of war, of the sick and wounded, of non-combatants, of the rights of neutrals, of charitable and scientific institutions, of non-hostile property, etc.-he may realize the immediate need of restoring and maintaining these pacific rules of war. When one also considers the new implements of destruction brought into use during the recent hostilities -for example, poisonous gases, hostile submarines, and bomb-throwing aeroplanes and dirigibles-he must reach the conclusion that new restraints must be placed upon warlike equipments. As long as men have in their hands unnecessary weapons of war they will be inclined to use such weapons for illegitimate purposes.

The possession of superfluous arms is an inducement to the unrestrained use of such arms.

The most successful recent effort to impose restraints upon the undue exercise of force in war—an effort that was undertaken at the Conference of The Hague is seen in the policy adopted at the Washington Conference for the Limitation of Armaments. This is one of the most notable examples in recent times of conforming to what we have conceived to be one of the historical laws of social evolution, in the effort to advance the cause of peace by continuing to restrain the exercise of force. These restrictions have thus far been chiefly directed only to stabilizing the fortifications in the Pacific and the limitation of naval armaments in respect to the tonnage of capital ships and the calibre of the heavier class of ordnance. How far these restraints might be continued, for example, in the direction of the reduction of land forces, the restriction of the manufacture of superfluous military equipments, and the prohibition of the newly developed instruments of war remains a part of the present world-problem.

(2) Of the attempts made since the war to advance the cause of peace and to solve one of the factors of the world-problem, the most promising has doubtless been in the direction of substituting pacific in place of hostile means for the settlement of international disputes. Voluntary arbitration had been already employed, to a considerable extent, by the more civilized states; and even what was called "obligatory arbitration" was professedly accepted by certain individual states as the result of special treaties. But no general system had been adopted which possessed the character of a regularly constituted judicature. The attempt of The

Hague Conference to organize a "Court of Arbitral Justice" had proved unsuccessful. It was reserved for the League of Nations to provide for "the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice," which "shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it." In accordance with this provision such a Court has been definitely organized, with a fixed body of select judges having "jurisdiction to hear and determine suits between States." (See The Covenant of the League of Nations, Arts. 12-17; also Draft of the Permanent Court of International Justice-both published by the "World Peace Foundation.")

Notwithstanding the high character of this permanent tribunal and the high hopes it has inspired, it may be a question whether it has yet attained all that is desirable. Its establishment was certainly in accord with what we have regarded as the normal law of progressive development. But there are still certain criticisms or objections, which may, or may not, prove to be well-founded.

In the first place, it is objected that it is not properly a World Court, being established by the League of Nations, and inaccessible to those nations not members of the League. By referring to the "Covenant" (Art. 14) it will be seen that the Court was planned, or proposed, by the League. Its actual organization, and establishment, it is true, were effected by a supplementary statute, or "Protocol," which specially provided that "the Court shall be open to the members of the League, and also to states mentioned in the Annex of the 'Covenant'" (Art. 85.) Among the three names mentioned in the Annex is that of the