Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-dwq4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T00:01:28.396Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Washington Meeting of the American Society for the Judicial Settlement of International Disputes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Theodore Marburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Although the peace movement is still a movement of intellectuals it is no longer confined to idealists. That fact is amply illustrated by the personnel of the congress held at Washington, December 15–17, 1910, under the auspices of the American Society for Judicial Settlement of International Disputes.

The various groups of practical men in close touch with affairs—legislators, statesmen, educators and business men—who addressed the congress were likewise liberally represented in the crowded and interested audiences of the congress.

The explanation of this change in the personnel of the peace workers lies partly in the fact that the growing waste of armaments has projected this question into the arena of practical politics; partly in the actual results accomplished by certain existing institutions, notably those set up at The Hague; together with the manifest need of additional institutions of a simple nature which it is folly to continue without. Among the latter that which in the minds of many men will do more to make war difficult than any institution thus far existing or suggested is a true international court of justice.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , May 1911 , pp. 181 - 193
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1911

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Among the speakers at the congress will be found the President of the United States, two ex-Secretaries of State, the presidents of three of our leading universities and the president-emeritus of another, an ex-governor of Virginia, the governor-elect of Connecticut, former members of our own diplomatie service, the heads of three important foreign legations at Washington, present and former members of Congress, and several men foremost in American industry and commerce.

2 J. B. Scott.

3 J. H. Ralston.

4 H. B. Brown.

5 Idem.

6 Idem.

7 F. N. Judson.

8 H. B. Brown.

9 Idem.

10 H. B. F. Macfarland.

11 A. H. Snow.

12 A. H. Snow.

“The judges arrived at the unanimous conclusion that Scots born after the accession of James to the throne of England (the postnati), were entitled in England to full civil rights of person and property, but had no political rights; and that Scots born before the Union were aliens in England.”

13 One of the important cases submitted and decided in this way was a boundary dispute between Maryland and Pennsylvania (1750).

14 A. H. Snow.

15 Eugene Wambaugh.

16 The justice of this criticism is realized when we recall the displeasure with which the Geneva Award is still regarded by many impartial minds because of its tendency to burden the neutral in time of war with duties more or less difficult to discharge, instead of placing the burdens of war where they belong, i.e., on the belligerent. Sir Henry Maine felt that the principle laid down in the Geneva Award must some day be discarded.

17 C. W. Eliot.

18 Idem.

19 Elihu Root.

20 J. W. Foster.

21 J. H. Ralston.

22 F. D. McKenny.

23 J. H. Ralston.

24 H. P. Judson.

25 A. H. Snow.

26 H. B. F. Macfarland.

27 Idem.

28 Francisco Leon de la Barra.

29 W. R. Riddell.

30 T. N. Page.

31 O. T. Crosby.

32 Quoted by F. N. Judson.

33 F. W. Hirst.

34 Idem.

35 Richard Bartholdt.

36 H. B. Brown.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.