It is inherent hi the nature of a closer relation of states that an organ be created for the decision of disputes between the individual members of a confederation. The Swiss Confederation has at all times applied itself to this task.

Resolved, That the committee adopts as the basis for consideration of the subject referred to it, the Acts and Resolutions of the Second Peace Conference at The Hague in the year 1907.

That the provisions of the several plans for an International Court of Justice already elaborated by representative jurists of Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, be laid before the committee and considered as the subjects to which they respectively relate, are taken up for consideration.

Not the least among the many problems of reconstruction facing civilization at the present moment is the establishment upon a secure basis of the principles of international law as a system of world conduct and protection. Of actually restraining principles, indeed, the late war has exhibited few; nor have these, so far as successfully asserted, prevented violations of neutral rights upon a vast scale, together with a similar disregard of privileges heretofore universally conceded to occupied territory; while still more appalling has been the exploitation of diplomatic immunity in the interest of treacherous propaganda, and the wholesale assassination of noncombatants on the high seas. To such action, the words in which Germanicus is represented by Tacitus as addressing his licentious soldiery may well be applied: “Ye have violated even rights accorded to enemies, as also the sanctity of embassy and the consecrated obligations of usage between peoples.”

A conference of a group of Powers heretofore known as the Principal Allied and Associated Powers (the British Empire, France, Italy, Japan and the United States), to discuss the limitation of armament, and of these Powers, and Belgium, China, the Netherlands and Portugal, to consider Pacific and Far Eastern problems, will open in the City of Washington on November 11, 1921.

America has been commonly portrayed by American statesmen and politicians, even in fervid Independence Day orations, as a nation whose policy is ever for peace, and as a nation harboring no imperialistic aims. A certain group of thinkers—or feelers—have boasted of the extreme pacifism and righteousness of America in this way in order to intensify and reenforce and promote those policies for the future. These good people have hoped to see America lead the way to a repudiation of militaristic methods and the gospel of conquest. Such are the pacifists, the church people, the reformers. A second group of people have firmly believed that, in actual fact, the record compelled and imposed on them such an interpretation of American policy.

Having reviewed in the preceding Notes the characteristics and qualities of the sovereignty which finds expression in a state, it is proposed to consider now the more extensive type of sovereignty which affects politically the entire human race and territorially the whole earth, and to which reference was made in the Introductory Note. The reason for considering the lesser form first has been stated, and the soundness of that reason will become more apparent in the course of the succeeding argument.

The idea of a league of nations is one with which the United States has been familiar since the very beginning of its history. The form in which it first appeared to this country was in the Armed Neutrality of 1780. The purpose of this league, which has sometimes been called the League of Neutrals, was the protection of neutral trade. Having its origin at the court of Catherine II, Empress of Russia, the Armed Neutrality set forth a body of rules respecting the freedom of commerce in time of war which must prove highly favorable to the United States when that country, in a future conflict, should change its status from that of a belligerent to that of a neutral. It is not surprising, therefore, that the inclusion of the United States among the membership of the league which the Tsarina was forming to enforce these principles was not without its advocates.

In a reeent work entitled The Psychology of Nations we are told that “International Law must be made intelligible to very young minds, and now that we are to have an international seat of congresses and courts, the interest must be made in its existence to give reality to the idea of internationalism.” This admonition by a psychologist is illustrative of a widespread attitude toward international law; that it is a matter readily understood, for which there need be no specialized training, everyone being competent to pass judgment upon any subject about which international law is supposed to be concerned.

International arbitration is the oldest and most favored method of settling disputes between nations when diplomacy fails. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 for the Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes both declare that “In questions of a legal nature, and especially in the interpretation or application of international conventions, arbitration is recognized by the Contracting Powers as the most effective, and at the same time the most equitable, means of settling disputes which diplomacy has failed to settle.”.