« AnteriorContinuar »
He is a jurist by education and instinct. The same may be said of Mr. Hammarskjold, who has held high judicial position in Sweden, and was one time minister of justice in the cabinet.
If the tribunal be regarded as an international commission of inquiry it is to be noted that the contracting Powers agree to have the facts in controversy found as well as the question of responsibility, thereby following the example of Russia and Great Britain in the Dogger Bank incident. Attempts were made in 1899 to make a resort to a commission of inquiry obligatory, but the opposition of the Balkan States frustrated the attempt. At the Second Conference of 1907 Russia proposed that the commission of inquiry be invested with the power to determine responsibility as well as to ascertain the facts in controversy. The Russian proposal met with opposition and was not adopted. It is to be observed, however, that Great Britain and Russia empowered the commission to find responsibility, and we now have France and Germany conferring like powers upon a commission of inquiry. It is to be hoped that the smaller states will follow the example of the great powers and find it possible to submit the question of responsibility without violating the principle of sovereignty to which they attach an almost incomprehensible reverence.
If, on the other hand, the tribunal is to be regarded as a court in the proper sense of the word, it is to be noted that article 5 permits the tribunal to transport itself to the scene of the controversy or to delegate one or several of its members as provided by article 20 of the convention of October 18, 1907, concerning commissions of inquiry. The opposition of Germany in 1899 to the permanent court seems to be a thing of the past, for Germany has already been a party to two international arbitrations at The Hague, namely, with Venezuela in the case of Germany, Great Britain, and Italy v. Venezuela et al.,' and with Japan in the case of Great Britain, France, and Germany v. Japan. It now arbitrates with France, supposed to be its inveterate enemy. The forthcoming arbitration is therefore no ordinary event.
The Moroccan question in its larger aspects, resulting from the change of government, is reserved for a future comment, in order that the necessary documents may be printed in the Supplement and referrd to in the editorial.
1 See this JOURNAL, 2, 902. 2 Idem, 2, 911.
THE NOBEL PRIZE
The Swedish scientist, Alfred B. Nobel, inventor of dynamite, died December 10, 1896, and established by his will a fund of approximately nine million dollars, the interest of which should every year be distributed to those who had contributed most to “the good of humanity.” The interest thus provided for was to be divided into five equal shares and distributed “one to the person who in the domain of physics has made the most important discovery or invention, one to the person who has made the most important chemical discovery or invention, one to the person who has made the most important discovery in the domain of medicine or physiology, one to the person who in literature has provided the most excellent work of an idealistic tendency, and one to the person who has worked most or best for the fraternization of nations, and the abolition or reduction of standing armies, and the calling in and propagating of peace congresses."
The fund become available in the year 1901, and the individual prize, amounting to $40,000, is awarded annually on December 10, the anniversary of Mr. Nobel's death, sometimes to a single individual, at other times divided between two laureates, and in one notable instance to an institution (the Institute of International Law, 1904).'
On December 10, 1908, the peace prize was divided between K. P. Arnoldson, of Sweden, and M. F. Bajer, of Denmark. The life work of Messrs. Arnoldson and Bajer brings them within the letter as well as the spirit of the prize, for they have devoted themselves with singleness of purpose to the establishment of peace societies, calculated not only to bring the nations into closer touch, but to eliminate the artificial barriers unfortunately separating them.
Klaus Pontus Arnoldson was born in 1844 and as politician and writer he has espoused the cause of peace. In 1883 he established the Swedish Peace and Arbitration Union, and in numerous writings he has expounded the necessity, the advantages, and the possibility of international peace. Among these may be mentioned “The Peace Movement” (1883); “Is International Peace Possible? ” (1890); "Law, not War” (1890); “ Cain, the Hero of the Day” (1891); “Pax Mundi,” in English (1892); “The Hope of the Centuries” (1901).
Frederik Bajer was born in 1837, and has had a distinguished and varied career.
He is president of the International Peace Bureau at Berne, member of the International Peace Union in Monaco, member of the Interparliamentary Council, president of the Danish Interparliamentary Group. He knows the advantages of peace, because from 1856 to 1864 he served as an officer in the army and in the war of 1864 took part in the campaign at Schleswig, Veile, and Horsens. Leaving the army he entered public life, and from 1872 to 1895 was a member of the Danish Parliament. At the present moment he holds a distinguished and important position in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of his country. In 1882 he established the Danish Peace Society, and was likewise founder of the International Peace Bureau at Berne (1891). In Parliament he not only espoused the peace idea in general, but insisted upon the negotiation of arbitration treaties. He has been an indefatigable worker for the peace congresses due to private initiative, and has attended regularly the meetings of the Interparliamentary Union. As a writer he has contributed many articles in Danish, Swedish, French, and German to the cause of peace.
1 For recipients of prize, see editorial in this JOURNAL, 2, 152.
The mere statement of the activity of these distinguished gentlemen not only demonstrates their fitness, but justifies the committee in dividing the prize between them.
THE FIFTEENTH CONFERENCE OF THE INTERPARLIAMENTARY UNION
There are current in the world two opposite opinions regarding the nature and purpose of the state. One of these is that the state is founded upon force, exists only by its might, and that its highest interest lies in the domination of the largest possible number of human beings and the widest possible extent of territory. The other is that the state is founded upon the inherent right of men to life, property, and the free exercise of their faculties, for whose protection alone the state exists, and that it is, therefore, an ethical organism for whose defense force may, if necessary, be employed, but whose essential aim is the further development rather than the subjection of mankind.
According as men accept one or the other of these two conceptions of the state will be their judgment upon the wisdom or folly of that fraternity of the legislators of different countries known as the Interparliamentary Union. If it be true that might is right, that the state knows no law but its own interests, and that its own indefinite expansion and triumph in the struggle for supremacy are its chief motives, it is difficult to see that the deliberations of this and other international
assemblies having for their purpose common action toward the realization of higher civic ideals contain much promise of utility. If, on the other hand, the state is a judicial entity, with reciprocal rights and duties, in a society composed of equals, nothing can be more promising than the union of those who make the laws of civilized countries in the endeavor so to shape the attitude and conduct of all toward one another as to extend to their relations the great principles of jurisprudence which they are accustomed to apply within the sphere of their own jurisdiction.
One may, therefore, regard the amount of public interest in the deliberations of such a body as a just measure of the degree of civilization - as civilization is conceived by the jurist — to which civil societies have thus far attained. Judged by this test, the Fifteenth Conference of the Interparliamentary Union, assembled in Berlin from September 17 to September 19, offers to the world a new proof of the vitality and growth of the juristic idea and marks a manifest advance towards its realization in international affairs.
On August 30, in his notable speech at Strassburg, His Majesty the German Emperor sounded a note of encouragement to all who hope for the pacific development of international intercourse when he emphasized the guaranty of peace to be found " in the consciences of the princes and statesmen of Europe, who know and feel that they are responsible to God for the lives and prosperity of the peoples intrusted to their leadership.” It does not diminish but rather increases the significance of this utterance that it was addressed mainly to soldiers, of whose "manly discipline and love of honor” the Emperor spoke with pride as “ without menace to others.”
Closely following this tribute of strength to the principles of peace, justice and humanity by the German Emperor came the opening address to the Interparliamentary Conference by the Imperial Chancellor, Prince von Bülow. Choosing the French language, of which he is a graceful master, as his medium of expression, the Chancellor cordially welcomed the representatives of the foreign parliaments, who filled the hall of the Reichstag, to the hospitality of the Empire and its capital with the assurance that Germany, with the rest of the civilized world, appreciates the services which the Union is rendering to a noble cause. As the climax to his graceful tribute to M. Frédéric Passy, the venerable dean of that body, the Chancellor defined this cause to be that of “obtaining guaranties for peace and concord among the nations.” Difficult as the task of the Union has been recognized to be, the speaker offered his con
gratulations upon the progress that has been already made, and gave assurance that not only the peoples but the governments were in accord with its high aim. Only with respect to the means to be employed were there any divergences of opinion; and as regards the principle of international arbitration, voluntary or obligatory, Germany had given evidence by treaties already signed of accord and cooperation in the adoption of "all propositions compatible with the interests of legitimate defense as well as with the imprescriptible laws of humanity.” As further proof of the interest of Germany in this cause was the ever-increasing number of German deputies who desire to form a part of the Interparliamentary Union. Between the love of peace and the duties of patriotism there is no conflict, for true patriots endeavor to prevent strife by combatting ignorance, revenge, blind hatred, and “ambitions sometimes deceptive.” As for Germany, taught by the cruel lessons of the past, she wishes to be strong enough to defend her soil, her dignity and her independence; she does not, she will not, misuse her force.”
Supported by the words addressed by the King of England to the last conference of the Interparliamentary Union — "a ruler can set before himself no higher aim than the promotion of good understanding and most hearty friendship between the nations” – quoted by Prince Heinrich zu Schönlaich-Carolath in his presidential address in opening the conference, the spirit of concord expressed in the Chancellor's utterance became the key-note of all the sessions. Of the public and private hospitality manifested by the city of Berlin and the members of the German Reichstag it is only necessary to say that the guests were received and entertained with generous cordiality, and that no one of the previous conferences was more thoroughly enjoyed by those who participated in it.
The extent and character of the notice accorded to this assembly by the Berlin press was an agreeable surprise to all the foreigners present, and the interest of the general public seemed to grow from day to day. About fifteen hundred persons were present at the reception offered by the Imperial Chancellor in the garden of his palace, including most of the chief officers of the Empire then present in Berlin.
With regard to the program and decisions of the conference, it is impossible within the limits of this article to speak in detail. The work of the Second Hague Conference received unqualified approbation and its results were esteemed to offer great encouragement for the future. The proposed plan for a permanent international court was warmly commended, a general treaty for obligatory arbitration was urged, and the