Pax mundi

Not to be tedious, I pass over here many other remarkable instances in which war and lesser misfortunes have been averted by arbitration; and will now name further only some of the latest date.

In 1887 a lengthened dispute about boundaries between Chili and the Argentine Republic was adjusted by arbitration, through the mediation of the United States Ministers in the two countries. After a complete and precise fixing of the boundary line, an agreement was added: That the Straits of Magellan shall for ever be neutralized; free passage shall be secured to ships of all nations, and the erection of forts or other military works on either of its shores shall be forbidden.

Fresh in the memory is the passionate quarrel between Spain and Germany about the Caroline Islands. That was submitted, on Prince Bismarck's proposal, to Pope Leo XIII. for settlement, and was adjusted by him.

Most people now living remember the Afghanistan boundary question, which was happily solved by the friendliness on both sides of the Russian and English Governments. The whole world followed for a while that dispute with anxiety and disquietude. The press unhappily, as usual, employed its influence in stirring up the national passions in both countries. But before it had gone too far, fortunately the feelings were quieted by the public being reminded that both England and Russia had taken part in the resolution of the Paris Congress, which declared that when any serious dispute arose between any of the contracting powers, it should be referred to the mediation of a friendly power. Upon this ground the English Government proposed to the Russian that the "dispute should be referred to the ruler of a friendly State, to be adjusted in a manner consistent with the dignity of both lands." This proposal was accepted, but did not come into practice. It was not needed. The Afghanistan boundary commission itself carried out its duties to a successful issue.

Still later many smaller international disputes have been solved by arbitration; for instance: —

Between Italy and Colombia in South America, respecting Italian subjects who had suffered loss through the last revolution in Colombia, in which Spain as arbitrator decided in favour of Italy.

Between Brazil and Argentina respecting their boundaries, a dispute in which both parties appealed for a settlement to the President of the United States of America, and which was adjusted by him.

Between the United States of North America and Denmark, in which the latter was, by the chosen arbitrator, the English Ambassador at Athens, Sir Edward Monson, after long delay freed from the obligation to pay compensation to the Americans, because the Danish authorities had fired at an American ship which in 1854 was escaping out of the harbour of St. Thomas, and which was suspected of carrying supplies to Venezuela, at that time in insurrection.

In conclusion it can be urged, —

That France and Holland agreed to have the boundary between their possessions in Guiana determined by arbitration.[13 - At the Peace of Utrecht, 1713, it was decided that the course of the river Maronis was the boundary. But that river divides itself into two branches which embrace a large tract of land, almost a fifth part of French Guiana. Neither France nor Holland had claimed that land until gold beds were discovered there, and it had to be decided which of the two arms of the river was to be considered as the Maronis, and which as a tributary.]

That the international committee which met in Washington to arrange the impending fishery question between Great Britain, Canada and the United States, decided to recommend the creation of a permanent tribunal of arbitration for adjusting future disputes respecting these relations; also:

That the council of the Swiss Confederation, at the combined request of Portugal and of the Congo State Government has undertaken to arbitrate the possible disputes which may arise respecting the regulation of boundaries amongst their African territories.

Besides these and other instances which I am acquainted with, many others have certainly taken place, though attracting less attention.

The idea of arbitration goes peacefully and quietly forward, and the world therefore takes little notice of it.

It is quite otherwise with the crash of war, whose external show of greatness and glory, and whose inward hatred and crime, are desolating the happiness of the nations and are accompanied by distress and gloom.

The one is a fearful hurricane which rends the mountains and breaks in pieces the rocks.

The other is the still small voice, mightier than the devastating storm, since it speaks to us in the name of everlasting righteousness, because it is the voice of God.

NEUTRALITY

Side by side with the idea of arbitration, another pacific idea, already powerful, is pressing forward, and growing into an International Law, namely, the Law of Neutrality.

He is neutral, who neither takes part for, nor against, in a dispute. Neutrality is the impartial position which is not associated with either party. The State is called neutral which neither takes part in a war itself, nor in time of war sides with any of the warring parties.

In ancient times neutrality was not understood as a national right. Neither the Greek nor the Latin language has any word to express the idea. In the days when Roman policy was seeking to drag all the nations of the earth into its net, the Romans saw in other peoples only tributaries who had been subdued by their armies, subject nations who had submitted to the Roman yoke, allies who were compelled to join in their policy of conquest, or lastly enemies, who sooner or later would have to bow before their victorious legions. Neutral States there were none.

The centuries immediately following the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire were filled with constant strife. This continued long before the refining power which exists in the heart of Christianity began to show itself in the foreign relations of States.

The foundations of modern Europe were laid in war.

During the Crusades the whole of our continent was under arms. The struggle against the "infidel" was not simply a contest between one State and another, it was also a contest between Christian Europe and Mohammedan Asia. To be neutral in such a struggle would, according to the judgment of the time, have been equivalent to denying the faith. Within the European States, feudalism exerted no less a hindrance to the embodiment of the principle of neutrality. It would have been thought the gravest crime to loosen the bond of military service which compelled vassals to support with arms the cause of their feudal lords. It was only with the close of the age of feudalism, when Europe began to separate into three or four great monarchies, that neutrality in politics became a means of preserving the balance.

In later times increasing communication and trade have above all contributed to the development of neutral laws. Without the sanction of these, a naval war between two great nations would have made any maritime trade all but impossible. Down to the close of the last century, however, neutral rights were dependent either on national statutes or on special treaties concluded between one State and another. The law only gained certain international importance towards the close of the eighteenth century through the neutral alliances which from time to time were contracted between States.

In the period between 1780 and 1856 the subject gained an entrance by degrees among all maritime nations except England, who, independent of it, and always relying on her own strength, continuously sought to maintain unlimited domination at sea.

In 1854-56 begins, so far as neutrality is concerned, a new era of international law.

From this time the opposition which England raised to the practical application of neutrality in naval war may be regarded as having broken down. On the 30th of March, 1854, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, Drouyn de Lhuys, published a communication, including, amongst other things, that the neutral flag during the then begun (Crimean) war, should be regarded as a protection for all neutral and hostile private property, except contraband of war. The same day the English Government gave forth in the London Gazette a similar declaration, and on April 19th of the same year the Russian Government notified in the Official Gazette of St. Petersburg that Russia would, during that war, act upon the same rules as the Allied powers.

The provisions, which thus the Western powers on one side, and Russia on the other, believed themselves bound to observe towards neutral states, were at the Peace of Paris, 1856, solemnly ratified as International Law in force for all time. The principles which the plenipotentiary signatories of the Peace Treaty of Paris agreed upon in a proclamation of April 16th, 1856, are as follows: —

1. Privateering is and shall be abolished. 2. The neutral flag shall protect property belonging to the enemy, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, except contraband of war, may not be seized under the enemy's flag. 4. Blockades in order to be obligatory must be fully effectual; that is, shall be maintained with a strength really sufficient to prevent approach to the enemy's coast.

The Governments which signed the treaty bound themselves also, in this proclamation, to communicate the resolutions to the States which were not called to take part in the Paris Conference, and to invite them to agree in these decisions. All the European States except Spain, and a number of powers outside Europe, declared themselves ready to carry out in practice the entire resolutions of the proclamation.

Many wars since then have shaken Europe; but under all these misfortunes the warring States have not only conscientiously observed the principles laid down in 1856, but they have gone further, in certain points, in applying them, than they by it were bound to do. Thus the Austrian Government issued an order, during the war with France and Sardinia, with respect to maritime national law, in many points far beyond what hostile or neutral powers had any ground for requesting. The Imperial decree not only charged its military and civil officers to follow strictly the injunctions of the proclamation, but Sardinian and French vessels, which lay moored in Austrian waters, were also to be permitted to load freight and proceed to foreign seas, on condition that they took on board no contraband of war or prohibited goods of any description. Immediately on the outbreak of war, the same principles were adopted by France and Sardinia. These States, however, went a step further than Austria, inasmuch as they unreservedly declared that they would not regard coal as a contraband of war.

During the Dano-German War, in 1864, and the war between Austria and Prussia and Italy, in 1866, the international principles of maritime law received a similarly wide interpretation.

During the North American Civil War important questions came up, which more or less affected the principle of neutrality. The question, which became one of the greatest importance, arose in respect of the injury which the commerce and navigation of the Union suffered during the war from various privateers which were built in England on the Southerners' account.

The Alabama Question took its name from the privateer which went out from Liverpool and occasioned the greatest devastation while the war lasted. Although the executive of the Union at Washington duly directed the attention of the English Government to the fact that allowing the pirate to leave the English port would be equivalent to a breach of the peace, yet the Government took no measures to prevent the vessel leaving. The American Government, who with reason regarded this omission as a violation of the laws of neutrality, claimed from England full compensation for the property which had been destroyed in the course of the civil war by the Southern privateer which came from an English port. I have previously given more particularly the constitution and functions of the Court of Arbitration appointed to settle the threatening dispute which arose on this occasion. The arbitration award had to be adjudicated in accordance with the three following fundamental principles of international law: —

A neutral Government is bound: —

1. To guard assiduously against any vessel being armed or equipped in its ports, which there is reason to believe would be employed for warlike purposes against a peaceful power, and with equal assiduity to prevent any vessel designed for privateering, or other hostility, from leaving the domain of the neutral State:

2. Not to allow any belligerent power to make use of its ports or harbours as the basis of its operations, or for strengthening or repairing its military strength, or for enlisting:

3. To use every care within its ports and harbours and over all persons within its domain, to prevent any violation of the obligations named.

The contracting parties to this treaty agreed to hold themselves responsible for the future, and to bring them before the notice of other Maritime powers, with the recommendation that they also should enter into them.

The historical facts here produced show that the mutual interest nations have in the inviolability of the seas has effectually contributed to the development of an accepted international law.

When the necessity of making the principles of neutrality binding at sea was once understood, it was not long before the value of adopting them on land became apparent.

In the documents, for instance, by which Belgium, Switzerland and Luxemburg are neutralized, it is distinctly stated that the permanent neutrality of these States is in full accord with the true interests of European policy.

According to the actual modern law of nations, there is a permanent neutrality guaranteed by international deeds of law and treaties, and one occasionally resting upon free decisions.[14 - This and the following regulations are taken from Bluntschli's "Das moderne Völkerrecht der civilizirten Staatens," Nordlingen, 1872. Some of the treaty provisions and questions are grounded upon "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., par Ch. de Martens and F de Cussy, Leipzig, 1846, and "Archives diplomatiques:"– Since practical abstaining from war is the natural assumption of neutrality, a neutral State is bound not to assist any belligerent power in warlike purposes.– A neutral State may not supply a belligerent power with weapons or other war material.– If private persons furnish belligerent powers with war material as articles of commerce, they assuredly run the risk of confiscation by the contending parties of such articles, as contraband of war; but the neutral State is not to be regarded as having violated its neutrality by tolerating trade in contraband of war.– Permission freely to purchase food even upon account of a belligerent power is not regarded as a serious concession towards that State, provided that the permission is general, applying alike to both parties.– A neutral State may not permit the war-ships of a belligerent power to run into its ports or (with any other object than to procure provisions, water, coal, etc.) to traverse its sounds, rivers and canals.– Belligerent powers are bound fully to respect the right of peace of the neutral States, and to abstain from any invasion of their territories.– Where a violation of neutral territory has taken place from ignorance of the boundary and not from evil intent, the neutral State shall immediately claim redress, compensation, and the adoption of measures necessary to prevent a similar mistake in future.]

As instances of permanent and guaranteed neutrality, we have: The Neutralization of Switzerland. Ever since the unhappy Italian war in the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Swiss Confederation has endeavoured to assure to the country the security which neutrality gives.

This neutrality was recognised and guaranteed by the great European powers at the Congress of Vienna in 1815 (art. 84 and 92), and later was further solemnly confirmed by a special act of the powers at Paris, Nov. 20th of the same year, in which it was stated:

"The powers declare … by a permanent act that the permanent neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland, as well as its independence of foreign influence, accords with the true interests of European policy."[15 - See in respect of this act, "Recueil des traités, conventions," etc., Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, Part iii. p. 243 Leipzig, 1846.]

The Neutralization of Belgium. In virtue of the Treaty of London, Nov. 15th, 1831 (art. vii.), further confirmed by the powers April 19th, 1839, a permanent neutrality was awarded to Belgium.

This country, which for centuries had served as a battle-ground for foreign powers, especially for France and Germany, was hereby secured against such dangers, and at the same time the field for European warfare was materially narrowed.

Article vii. of the London protocol runs thus: "Belgium shall, within the boundaries established in art. i. and iv., form an independent State. The kingdom is bound to observe the same neutrality towards all States."[16 - See Ch. de Martens and F. de Cussy, in the above-named collection, Part iv. p. 575.]