Recent statements by leading American statesmen, including the President himself, in support of a ‘Peace through Law’ campaign, coupled with the proposal presented at the N.A.T.O. congress in London that the N.A.T.O. countries should establish a Court of Justice to solve their mutual differences, lead one to suppose that the cause of judicial settlement of international disputes is once again coming into favour. This cause is one which has been successively in and out of favour ever since the first and second Peace Conferences were held at The Hague in 1899 and 1907. It is proposed in this article to set out, in a manner as free from technicalities as possible, the present situation in regard to the judicial settlement of international disputes; to consider, from a practical point of view, the advantages and disadvantages of this means of settling disputes as compared with other means; and finally to consider the matter in its moral aspect.

In article 2(3) of the Charter of the United Nations one of the principles of the Organization is stated as follows: ‘All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered’. On being construed carefully, however, it appears that this principle does not impose a positive obligation to settle all international disputes so much as a duty not to settle them in a certain way. The reason for this is the feeling that international law cannot compel its subjects never to be in dispute with one another; its primary concern is rather to prevent them from taking the law into their own hands and disturbing the peace.